Remembering the future: The Topheth as dystopia in Jeremiah 7 and 19

Abstract

After investigating biblical and external evidence of the Topheth in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, this article argues that the vision of the Topheth’s future is a dystopia for Jerusalem in the rhetoric of Jeremiah 7 and 19. The memories of transgressions at the location are projected into the future to generate a vision of judgement, and these are paralleled with the transgressions and judgement of Jerusalem and Judah. This dystopia is remembered through its connections to the landscape and the future renaming of the place as the ‘valley of Slaughter’.

Keywords

Dystopia Jeremiah memory Topheth Valley of the Son of Hinnom

The Topheth in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, later to become Gehenna in Jewish tradition, is associated in biblical memory with a litany of abhorrent activities, most prominently child sacrifice. This article examines the use of the memories of the Topheth in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom in dystopian visions of the future in Jeremiah 7 and 19. It will be demonstrated that, in their current forms, these two texts are not concerned primarily with announcing judgement upon Jerusalem or Judah for transgressions at the Topheth, nor are they necessarily a response to particular historical circumstances at the Topheth. Instead, the Topheth features in the texts because of the framework of memories of transgression associated with its landscape.

A dystopia is a vision of a terrible future projected as the consequence of events and activities in the present. Memories of the Topheth are projected into the future to create a dystopia for the judgement that will come upon Jerusalem and Judah. In this way, not only the past, but also the future, is remembered in the landscape of the Topheth. The attestation of this dystopia in a doublet in Jer 7.31-32 and Jer 19.5-6 will provide helpful evidence for determining its function and highlighting the malleability of memories of the Topheth for different contexts.

Part A: memories of the Topheth

The investigation of the dynamic between landscape, memory, and prophecies in the text of Jeremiah is particularly apt because of the oral-literary culture underlying the production of prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible. Prophetic oracles are increasingly understood as oral performance that is distinct from the literary interpretation in the text,¹ while a sharp distinction between orality and literacy in Ancient Israel has been challenged.² Although only the literary interpretations can now be accessed, the prophetic performance presumes shared memories and understanding of the Topheth for its effect on the audience.³ In turn, Jeremianic traditions and text rehearse and become part of these shared memories.

Furthermore, a number of studies have shown how places and landscapes can be imbued with the memories of a group that are drawn upon in prophetic performances and their interpretations in the text.⁴ A location cannot itself ‘remember’ but rather the location becomes part of the mnemonic framework for the group, shaping and reinforcing its memories. In other words, the physical location helps to rehearse, retain, and promote a memory in the group; but the group’s memories, embedded for example in texts, oral traditions, and so forth, also interact with the location. The physical landscape has an important effect on memory, particularly as it is seen and experienced by members of the community. Even when the physical location is no longer available, for example, Jerusalem for the exilic community, a landscape can remain part of a community’s imaginary and retain associations reinforced through texts and traditions.

Diverse memories of the Topheth

We begin an investigation into the Topheth by looking at its representation in biblical texts and discovering the diverse memories associated with this place and landscape. Regular associations with the site include passing a son or a daughter through fire (2 Kgs 23.10; 2 Chr 28.3), burning sons and daughters in the fire (Jer 7.31; Jer 19.5), molech⁵ (2 Kgs 23.10; Jer 32.35), Manasseh (2 Chr 28.3; 2 Chr 33.6), and sacrifices to Baal (Jer 32.35; Jer 2.23;⁶ Jer 19.5). In 2 Kgs 23.10 Josiah ‘defiles’ the Topheth, suggesting that the Topheth was not initially a place of defilement, but still a location where illicit activities took place. Finally, it is probable that sacrifices to Yahweh were remembered there. Jeremiah 7.31, 19.5, and 32.35 state that Yahweh did not command the sacrifice of children, a protestation which implies these very claims were made.⁷

There is considerable debate regarding the exact nature of the practices denoted by the term ‘to burn’ לשרף‎ in Jer 7.31 and 19.5, and similarly ‘pass through fire’ באש‎...להעביר‎ used in other texts. Contrary to the assumption that they indicate child sacrifice, the latter phrase may represent a consecration or divination practice that does not result in the death of the children.⁸ In addition, the terms may have changed through time, further complicating any attempt to reconstruct their meaning. Jeremiah 19.5 states explicitly that children were given as ‘burnt offerings’ עלות‎⁹ but this could also be a cremation.¹⁰ Nevertheless, texts such as Gen 22.1-19 and Judg 11.29-40 demonstrate that the concept of child sacrifice was known in the ancient Israelite milieu. There is extensive evidence of child sacrifice from Phoenician, Punic, and earlier Canaanite cultures, most especially texts found at Tell Deir Alla, and so it is plausible that the phrases ‘to burn’ and ‘to pass through fire’ imply in the text that child sacrifice took place.¹¹

The most compelling evidence that child sacrifice was the implied meaning in these texts is the context of the oracles and narratives themselves. For example, in Jer 19.5, child sacrifice is the climax to the transgressions of v. 4, which included sacrifices to other gods and shedding innocent blood. Rhetorically, child sacrifice is an appropriate crescendo to the list.

Furthermore, child sacrifice does not need to have actually taken place at the Topheth in order for it to be associated with the site. If there were child sacrifices there at some stage in its history, this would explain the persistent association, particularly in view of the features of its landscape we will examine shortly. In light of such a strong association, some historical reality of child sacrifice is the most likely scenario. However, it is also possible that the practice was associated with the site because of a polemic against other cultic practices there, for example, an opposition to any sacrifice, even to Yahweh, outside of the Jerusalem temple. The nature of the abomination may have been exaggerated for polemical effect and may have been associated with the Topheth without historical reality lying at its foundation.

Thus, there are diverse memories associated with the Topheth. Taking these memories as a whole, the Topheth is remembered as a site of the worst possible abominations, regardless of whether they took place there. To some degree, the transgressions associated with the Topheth ‘stand in’ for wider or more general disobedience, a feature we will see in the texts when the location is used in different contexts in Jeremiah 7 and 19. These diverse memories are presumed, reinforced, and even created in oral prophetic performances and its literary interpretations.

Malleable memories of the Topheth

The malleability of these memories in relating to a dystopic vision of Jerusalem is illustrated by the reuse of a specific memory of building the high places in the Topheth attested in Jer 7.31-32 and Jer 19.5-6. This doublet is proof that at least one of these texts is influenced by a prior tradition in another context; although, as we will now briefly overview, it is likely that both texts have drawn upon an earlier tradition.

Jeremiah 7.1-8:3 is thought to be either a prose composition or to contain original material, possibly oral traditions from Jeremiah, which was expanded and ordered into a collection.¹² Thus, it is possible that Jer 7.31-32 came from an original tradition that indicted particular activities taking place at the Topheth, but was later incorporated into a structure of two sermons in 7.1-12 and 7.13-8:3 that reflect the style and content of material associated with Deuteronomistic circles.¹³

Similarly, the oracle in Jer 19.1-15 is also thought to have arisen in connection with Deuteronomistic circles or by drawing on other material associated with Deuteronomistic circles. The material concerning the Topheth in vv. 2b-9, 11b-13 is considered by many to be secondary to a prior sign act narrative,¹⁴ and Deuteronomistic-style language is found in these sections. Using a model of a rolling corpus in Jeremiah, W. McKane suggests further that expansion took place in a number of stages. The first expansion to the original sign act was in Jer 19.2b-4, 7-9, before the Topheth and Valley of the Son of Hinnom were introduced, initially in vv. 2a*,¹⁵ 12-13, followed in vv. 5-6.¹⁶ In this case, it may also be possible that the additions were taken from a number of other contexts, which might include Jer 7.31-32.

The reconstructed composition history, which should be understood within the context of an oral-literary culture,¹⁷ suggests that the Topheth does not feature in the current form of these two texts necessarily as a response to, or polemic against, particular activities taking place at the Topheth throughout the time of the texts’ composition. While it is possible that the practice of child sacrifice was continuous at the site and remained an object of condemnation, it is more likely that the site is drawn upon in service of broader rhetoric against Jerusalem and Judah. The malleability of the memories of the Topheth for new contexts is significant because the development of the text extended beyond the pre-exilic period, where judgement in the future is foretold, to exilic and post-exilic periods where judgement in the past is explained.

The landscape and name of the Topheth

The memories of the Topheth were rehearsed by aspects of the landscape and by the names given to the location. The names of the Topheth (התופת‎) and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom (גיא בן הנום‎) themselves are suggestive of burning children. The word ‘Topheth’ is thought to mean ‘cooking pot’ or ‘fire place’ (Aramaic/Syriac תפיא‎),¹⁸ which is highly appropriate for the site of a ritual involving fire and burning children.

The word ‘Topheth’ appears almost exclusively with the definite article in Jeremiah 7 and 19. There are three exceptions in 7.32, 19.11 and 19.12 but in each of these cases, the word is prefaced by a preposition, and so the omission could easily be accounted for by the Masoretic pointing. W. Holladay suggests that the definite article indicates the word should be translated as ‘the fire pit’ rather than a proper noun ‘Topheth’. In this case, the term would explicitly allude to the activity of burning at the site and be overtly suggestive of burning children. In support of Holladay’s argument, a similar phenomenon is found in the LXX in Jer 19.6 which does not transliterate the word ‘Topheth’ but translates it as Διάπτωσις ‘fall, ruin’.¹⁹ However, the definite article was used in other proper nouns²⁰ and therefore Topheth is best left untranslated, as it is in the other instances of the word in the LXX. With only limited linguistic evidence for the usage of this term in ancient Israelite communities, both possibilities of a proper noun or improper noun therefore need to be taken into account. A cognate term to התפת‎ ‘Topheth’ is used in Isa 30.33, תפתה‎ ‘funeral pyre’. This suggests that members of an ancient Israelite community would have recognised the etymology of ‘fire pit’ in the name ‘Topheth’, even if this particular form of the word were not a common part of the vocabulary. Both the proper noun ‘Topheth’ or a definite, common noun ‘the fire pit’ would have been reminiscent of child burning with differing degrees of directness.

The meaning of Hinnom has been even more widely disputed by scholars and so it is difficult to determine if the name Valley of the Son of Hinnom would have rehearsed memories associated with the location. Some suggestions for the word Hinnom include an etymology from hanna (now found in Arabic) meaning ‘whisper’,²¹ נום‎ ‘sleep’,²² or חן‎ ‘grace’.²³ Pope suggests that Hinnom is a variant name of Ugaritic hrnm, the netherworld, and that the Valley of the Son of Hinnom was an entrance into it,²⁴ although this meaning has not gained widespread acceptance.²⁵ Scholars have focused upon the meaning of Hinnom, but the element ‘son’ more clearly demonstrates the association of memories with the place name, that there were practices involving sons and daughters at the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.

The physical landscape of the Topheth also promoted the memories associated with it. Most scholars agree that the location of the Valley of the Son of Hinnom is the Wadi ar-rababi,²⁶ although it has also been suggested that it is better identified as the Tyropoean Valley (also known as modern El-Wad).²⁷ Excavations at Ketef Hinnom on the hill above Wadi ar-rababi have uncovered graves from the period of the end of the Judean monarchy (Iron Age II-III),²⁸ and there is evidence of extensive cemeteries on the hills of the Kidron Valley and the hills south of where the Kidron and Hinnom valleys meet.²⁹ Indeed, the LXX for Jer 19.6 translates the name ‘Valley of the Son of Hinnom’ as ‘Graveyard of Ben-Hinnom’.³⁰ Regardless of whether there were active child sacrifices taking place at the Topheth, the landscape of the valley would be strongly associated with death and the visual impact of the graves would be a reminder of the abominations either taking place there or supposed to have taken place there.

Other features of the landscape remain a matter of speculation. The biblical attestations mention ‘high places’ present at the Topheth. Based on the Punic evidence, J. A. Dearman argues that there were circumscribed areas for the burning of children and that the high places did not necessarily imply structures.³¹ Similarly W. Holladay points to the dearth of evidence concerning structures at the high places, both in archaeology and in the meagre descriptions in the Hebrew Bible.³² The name of the ‘Potsherd Gate’ from Jeremiah 19 is suggestive that there was broken pottery there. This may have been the result of destruction of the high place, but it could also be the refuse or even ‘decommissioned’ cultic vessels while the site was still in use.³³ This scene resembling destruction rehearses Josiah’s defiling of the site but it will also become important in the dystopia for the destruction of Jerusalem in Jeremiah 19.

In conclusion, reference to the Topheth in Jeremiah 7 and 19 draws on a location associated closely with memories of burning children, death, and apostasy, regardless of whether these events were still taking place there. The memories could be moulded over time, when material about the Topheth was incorporated into existing oracles, and the text developed in new contexts.

Part B: the Topheth as dystopia

We now examine the future visions of the Topheth as they now stand in the literary contexts of Jeremiah 7 and 19. It will be shown that the features of the Topheth analysed in part A are used in these texts so that an oracle of future judgement might be remembered in association with the site. The concept of dystopia is a useful framework for analysing these visions because it connects the memories of the Topheth to an understanding of the visions of the future. This in turn will show how a dystopic vision of the future can be ‘remembered’. Furthermore, analysis of dystopia will highlight the importance of the Topheth as ‘standing in’ for Jerusalem, a parallel to the judgement that will take place there.

In dystopian literature, the past, present, and future are very closely linked.³⁴ In the introduction to a series of studies on utopia and dystopia since the Renaissance (when the term and consciousness of the topic arose), M. Gordin et al. explain that utopia and dystopia are about the experiences and needs of the present. They write, ‘whereas utopia takes us into a future and serves to indict the present, dystopia places us directly in a dark and depressing reality, conjuring up a terrifying future if we do not recognise and treat its symptoms’.³⁵ We will argue that the experience and needs of Jerusalem and Judah’s future are captured in the presentation of the Valley of the Son of Hinnom’s present and future. It is used as a dystopian vision of Jerusalem and Judah, a dystopia which is inscribed on the landscape through the physical location and associated memories,³⁶ and which is adapted for new audiences as the text developed, before, during, and after the catastrophe it describes.

The Topheth was suitable for a dystopic vision of Jerusalem because it provided memories that could be projected into the future. Gordin et al. explain that a dystopia/utopia is usually not referring to an imagined place but is part of, and exploring, the specificity of the time and place in which it was written. Indeed, ‘Utopian visions are never arbitrary. They always draw on the resources present in the ambient culture and develop them with specific ends in mind that are heavily structured by the present’.³⁷ Thus, the associations of the Topheth with death and cultic violations are appropriate material for a dystopia. Furthermore, the Topheth’s location is very important. It is immediately outside Jerusalem so that it can be seen from the city gates, and yet it is not the city itself. Indeed, its graves are graves for the people of Jerusalem and so it occupies a liminal space, both a part of Jerusalem and outside of it. The Topheth was part of the ‘ambient culture’ of Jerusalem and could be used to structure the dystopic vision of its future.

One of the main subjects for utopia identified in studies on the prophets and other biblical literature, including Jeremiah, is the city of Jerusalem.³⁸ According to Gordin, ‘Every utopia comes with its implied dystopia’.³⁹ The renaming of the Valley of the Son of Hinnom creates an interesting parallel with the repeated utopian renaming of Jerusalem. For example, in Jer 3.17, Jerusalem will be renamed ‘The Throne of the Lord’ and, in Jer 33.16, Jerusalem is renamed ‘The Lord is our Righteousness’. The counterpoint to the more dominant image of a utopian Jerusalem renamed after its god is the occurrence of the dystopia that stands alongside in the peripheral valley.

Finally, dystopia can explain past and present events and so, as the texts of Jeremiah were developed for new audiences in the exilic and post-exilic periods, the dystopia could continue to perform an important function for coming to terms with trauma and explaining past destruction.⁴⁰

Memories of the future

Our investigation for the oracles in Jeremiah 7 and 19 will begin with an analysis of continuities between the memories of the Topheth, examined in part A, and the future visions, to demonstrate how they conform to the concept of dystopia. The diversity of available memories of the Topheth results in correspondingly diverse visions of the future. The malleability of past memories allows the meaning of the future vision also to be shaped by the needs of the context.

Jeremiah 7

A dystopia offers a vision of a terrible future that is in continuity with the present. Reading Jer 7.31-32 as an independent oracle within the structure of Jer 7.1-8.3,⁴¹ the activities at the Topheth are the offence that brings about the punishment there. The Israelites are accused of building high places in order to burn their children at the Topheth. In this context, there is not clear evidence that ‘to burn with fire’ implies child sacrifice and so an earlier association with divination or cremation may be implied here. Nevertheless, as judgement for this transgression, ‘therefore’ (לכן‎) there will be slaughter at the Topheth in v. 32. They will bury their dead there until there is no room (מאין מקום‎).⁴² A dystopian future is established which is propelled by the current situation.

The direct correspondence between present and future is embedded in the text using a series of symmetries. The most palpable symmetry is based upon the location of the Topheth itself. This is emphasised by a balance between v. 31a ובנו במות התפת‎ (‘and they go on building the high place of Topheth’) and v. 32b וקברו בתפת‎ (‘And they will bury in Topheth’) framing the two verses. As well as the repetition of ‘Topheth’, there is a sound play between the initial bet in במות‎ (‘high places’) and the bet as the preposition in בתפת‎ (‘in Topheth’). Furthermore, the same weqatal verb form is used despite ובנו‎ (‘and they go on building’) referring to continuing actions in the past and present⁴³ and וקברו‎ (‘and they will bury’) referring to the future, presumably also with a continuing sense. These symmetries show the cause and effect of present activity and dystopian future. The activity of building will become the activity of burying.

The shift from building to burying would also be recalled by the features of the landscape. There were either high places remaining at the Topheth, or the ruins or refuse from a high place, which connect to this memory of building the high places in Jer 7.31. The vision of burying the dead in the future in 7.32 would have drawn upon the physical landscape of graves in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom. Thus, the present landscape is linked not only to the transgressions of the present but also to the dystopic future.

Another aspect of the dystopia in Jer 7.31-32 is the change of name, an act which brings continuity between present and future. Occurrences of the renaming of locations in the Hebrew Bible suggest that they embed past memories in a location, offering an etymology, often false, to attach memories to the location.⁴⁴ The future renaming in these oracles follows the formula for past renaming closely,⁴⁵ using the yiqtol to place the renaming into the future.

The change in name creates a wordplay that remembers the link between transgression and dystopia on the landscape. As explained earlier, the word ‘Topheth’ is thought to mean ‘cooking pot’ or ‘fire place’, a name already appropriate for a site associated with fire, whether it is for divination, cremation, or sacrifice.⁴⁶ The name change from the ‘Valley of the Son of Hinnom’ (גיא בן הנם‎) to the ‘Valley of Slaughter’ (גיא ההרגה‎), however, has baffled scholars on account of the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of the word ‘Hinnom’ (הנם‎). Rather than focusing on the ‘Hinnom’ element in the name (which may also contain a wordplay if we were more certain what it meant), the ‘son’ (בן‎) element creates a symmetry between the transgression and the punishment. The transgression involves ‘sons and daughters’ (v. 31; את בניהם ואת בנתיהם‎) and at that stage the valley is called the ‘Valley of the Son of Hinnom’.⁴⁷ Then, at the time of punishment, there will be slaughter, and so then it will be called the ‘Valley of Slaughter’. The importance of a wordplay on the word בן‎ ‘son’ is reinforced by the similarity in sound of ובנו‎ ‘and they went on building’ in v. 31. The oracle exploits the association of the Topheth as a place of cultic practices involving children, possibly their slaughter, and the direct line from transgression to dystopia is remembered in the name change.

When we examine Jer 7.31-32 in its final form, nestled within the context of Jeremiah 7 as a whole, the dystopia functions as a response to cultic concerns in Jerusalem rather than activities taking place at the Topheth. In the independent oracle in 7.30-34,⁴⁸ there is a chiastic structure: a. transgression in the temple in Jerusalem (v. 30); b. transgression at the Topheth (v. 31); b’. punishment at the Topheth (vv. 32-33); a’. punishment in Jerusalem, the location of the temple (v. 34). Sandwiching the Topheth material between descriptions of Jerusalem creates a parallel between them. The cultic transgression at the Topheth mirrors the cultic transgression of the temple and therefore the future of Jerusalem mirrors the future of the Topheth. In this way, the immensity of the transgression remembered at the Topheth is attached by association to the transgression at Jerusalem.

The parallel of the Topheth to Jerusalem becomes more palpable within the context of the prose sermon in 7.21-8.3. The image of corpses in v. 33 in the Topheth is juxtaposed with 8.1-3, which describes the bones of the kings of Judah, officials, priests, prophets, and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Significantly, these very graves of the people of Jerusalem would have been located in the valleys surrounding Israel, including the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and so 7.33 and 8.1-3 effectively describe one and the same location, a burial ground for Jerusalem.

Furthermore, as discussed earlier, one of the diverse memories associated with the Topheth was that sacrifices were made to Yahweh there, albeit sacrifices that he did not decree. The allusion to this memory in 7.32 enhances the effectiveness of the Topheth in parallel with Yahweh’s temple throughout chapter 7. Rather than drawing on the abomination of worshipping Baal or Molek, Yahweh worship creates a closer link between the present in Jerusalem and the future at the Topheth. Verbal connections of ‘commanding’ highlight the common disobedience to Yahweh with respect to burnt offerings in Jerusalem in 7.22-23 (כי לא דברתי‎ ‘for I did not decree’; כי אם את הדבר הזה צויתי אותם‎ ‘for this command I gave them’) and at the Topheth in 7.31 (אשר לא צויתי‎ ‘which I did not command’).

The sermon in 7.1-20, particularly its first oracle in vv. 1-15, confirms the suggestion that a violation in the Topheth was not the central concern as the text developed, but rather it stands in the text as a parallel for cultic concerns connected to Jerusalem. The first prose sermon is located at the gate to the temple (v. 2) bringing cultic concerns to the forefront. At the same time, it de-centres the importance of Jerusalem because the people are exhorted not to trust in the temple of the Lord (v. 4) without truly amending their ways.⁴⁹ In this section, Shiloh too is a significant location with its associated memories, because the people are exhorted to see the destruction there and consider that this destruction will also fall upon the people at the temple in Jerusalem (v. 14). Thus, Shiloh and Topheth parallel one another in the two prose sermons of the chapter, with Shiloh a memory of the past destruction and Topheth a memory of future destruction.

There are several verbal links between the first prose sermon and the oracle about the Topheth that link the Topheth to more general cultic concerns at Jerusalem. The first verbal link is מקום‎ ‘place’ in v. 32 in the difficult to translate phrase מאין מקום‎ describing that there will be no room to bury in the Topheth. The word מקום‎ ‘place’ is repeated throughout 7.1-20 in vv. 3, 6, 7, 12, 14 and 20, referring to the temple at first, but then broadened to imply Jerusalem, Shiloh, and even Judah as a whole.⁵⁰ The punishment at the Topheth, that there will be no more ‘place’ to bury, is tied to a larger violation of ‘place’.

The link between Jerusalem and the Topheth is further supported by v. 6, which exhorts the people not to oppress the vulnerable. ‘Sons and daughters’ (v. 31) are not mentioned in v. 6, (indeed, only the antonym ‘orphans’), but the phrase ודם נקי אל תשפכו במקום הזה‎ ‘do not shed the innocent blood in this place’ is used in v. 6. The phrase is associated elsewhere concerning Manasseh in 2 Kgs 21.16 and 2 Kgs 24.4. Manasseh, as mentioned earlier, is associated with making ‘his son pass through fire’ in 2 Kgs 21.6⁵¹ and also the Valley of the Son of Hinnom in 2 Chr 28.3 and 2 Chr 33.6.⁵² Thus, v. 6 draws on a memory associated with the Topheth.

Therefore, in the final form of Jeremiah 7, there is a parallel between the two prose sermons: the future punishment at the Topheth is a dystopic vision of the people’s punishment for violations of the temple and the ‘place’ in Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 19

In the final form of Jeremiah 19, the Topheth and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom are mentioned repeatedly throughout the oracle, and the site is integral to its rhetoric. The Potsherd Gate at the Valley of the Son of Hinnom is the location for the oracle in Jer 19.2, and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom is repeated in the name change in 19.6. The Topheth is mentioned alongside the Valley of the Son of Hinnom in v. 6, it is used as a comparison for Jerusalem in v. 13, and finally it is mentioned in v. 14, bridging to the next oracle in 20.1-6. Despite the interweaving of the Topheth throughout the oracle, we will see that it is again a dystopia for Jerusalem and Judah, being used to describe judgement beyond the Topheth.

First, we examine the link made between the present and the future of the Topheth. Jeremiah 19.5-6 is a doublet of 7.31-32⁵³ and once again the dystopia of the Topheth pivots on the renaming of the Valley of the Son of Hinnom. In 7.31-32, we observed that there was a symmetry between building and burying at the Topheth, but the phrase ‘they will bury in Topheth until there is no more room’ is relocated from the renaming in 19.6 to 19.11, removing this particular symmetry.⁵⁴ Now in Jer 19.5-6, the symmetry and the wordplay focus more directly on death and slaughter. In 19.4, the claim that the people have ‘filled this place with innocent blood’ makes explicit that slaughter was part of their transgression. The text also specifies in v. 5 that the intention was to make עלות‎ (‘burnt offerings’) to Baal, a detail emphasised in the same verse by the play on עלתה‎ in the phrase ‘nor did it enter my mind’. The mention of ‘burnt offerings’ could imply cremation rather than child sacrifice, but certainly it is associated with death not divination. Therefore, the new name ‘Valley of Slaughter’ refers not only to the future vision of punishment but also to the past memories of the death of children. Slaughter in the present will lead to slaughter in the future.

Furthermore, the physical landscape of a graveyard finds continuity in the future vision of 19.7 and 11. Verse 7 describes the exposure of corpses, ‘I will give their dead bodies for food to the birds of the air and to the wild animals of the earth’, and verse 11 makes the continuity more explicit, ‘in Topheth they shall bury until there is no more room to bury’. The landscape of a graveyard will be exaggerated to a state where bodies are no longer buried but left exposed. This continuity is highlighted in the LXX, which translates ‘the Valley of the Son of Hinnom’ in 19.6 as ‘the Graveyard of Ben [son of] Hinnom’, embedding both the present and the future in the name of the valley.

The dystopic vision of the Topheth is once again bound up with the future of Jerusalem, rather than existing only as a judgement for activities in this location. The comparison between the Topheth and Jerusalem is stated explicitly in v. 12 where the future of Jerusalem and Judah will be made like the future state of the Topheth: ‘Thus will I do to this place, says the LORD, and to its inhabitants, making this city like Topheth’. Yet, the preceding material also intertwines the two locations.

Throughout the oracle, there is ongoing ambiguity regarding the term המקום הזה‎ ‘this place’ and whether it refers to the Topheth, or to Jerusalem, or to Jerusalem and Judah. In v. 3, God says he is bringing disaster upon ‘this place’, and in this first use of the term, it could refer to either Jerusalem or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom because of Jeremiah’s reported physical location in v. 2. It is also possible that it refers to all of Judah as that would include both locations. However, in v. 6, it is explicit that ‘this place’ is the Topheth, ‘this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter’. Yet, ‘this place’ does not consistently refer to the Topheth in the chapter, because in v. 12, ‘this place’ will become like the Topheth: Therefore, the location of the transgressions in ‘this place’ in vv. 4-5 of the final form of the text is ambiguous.⁵⁵ The rhetoric exploits the location of Jeremiah at the threshold of both Topheth and Jerusalem to imply that the transgressions are associated with both locations.

Furthermore, the location of the judgement in vv. 6-9 shifts between the Topheth and Jerusalem. Verse 6 describes slaughter at the Topheth but v. 7 explains that the destruction there will make void the plans of all of Jerusalem and Judah, not simply a judgement on the Topheth. Verses 8-9 also describe a people trapped inside a city in siege, pointing to Jerusalem. In this way, the memories associated with the Topheth are generalised on all Jerusalem as the two locations are merged in the rhetoric of the oracle.

When we examine the whole oracle of vv. 3-9 concerning ‘this place’, not just the specific references to the Topheth, the symmetry between present and dystopic future is further developed. Verse 4 describes how the people have ‘made foreign’ (וינכרו‎) this place, and they have made offerings to ‘other gods’ (לאלהים אחרים‎). In a reversal, in v. 9, the people will be forced to eat the flesh of their own neighbour (בשר רעהו‎), thus turning their pursuit of foreign worship into an assault on those closest to them. The people have shed innocent blood (v. 4) leading in vv. 6-8 to the dystopic vision of mass slaughter. In v. 5, the people burn their sons (בניהם‎), and then in v. 9, the people will be forced to eat the flesh of both their sons and their daughters (את בשר בניהם ואת בשר בנתיהם‎). In each case, the current transgressions are magnified and ironically reversed upon the people themselves.

Another link between the Topheth and Jerusalem is that the oracle draws upon the memory of sacrifice to Baal at the Topheth in v. 5. Unlike Jeremiah 7 where the disobedience took place at Yahweh’s temple, now the concern is that offerings have been made to other gods (v. 4) on the roofs of the houses of Jerusalem (v. 13). The association of a generic baal with the Topheth, rather than Molek or Yahweh, continues this theme of apostasy and makes the dystopia of the Topheth more appropriate for the transgressions in Jerusalem.

The ambiguity of ‘this place’ blurs the line between the Topheth and Jerusalem in the lead up to their explicit comparison in v. 12. The similes are convoluted: the city and the people will be broken like the jug (v. 11); the city will be broken like the Topheth (v. 12); but the Topheth is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the Potsherd Gate (v. 2), already a place of broken jugs. This cyclical analogy associates the memory of destruction now with the Potsherd Gate as well as the Topheth. The broken pottery at the gate will be a reminder of the dystopic vision of the Topheth nearby.

Conclusion

This study investigates the paradoxical concept of memories of the future in Jeremiah 7 and 19. These texts generate a dystopian vision of the Topheth that is rehearsed through its connection to the landscape and the name change to the Valley of Slaughter. The visions in the text of Jeremiah’s oracles draw upon memories associated with the Topheth: child sacrifice or burning, death, apostasy, and worship of Baal and Yahweh, and project these elements into the future. In this way, the people’s experience of the landscape reminds them of both their transgressions and the results of their transgressions in the future.

Just as the Topheth is remembered in the book of Jeremiah through these oracles, the prophet Jeremiah is remembered in association with the Topheth. The dystopia of the Topheth connects with the wider concerns of the book of Jeremiah, ‘to pluck up and pull down, to destroy and to overthrow’ (1.10). As A. Kalmonfsky argues, horror (in Jeremiah) illicits a response in the audience,⁵⁶ and the horror of the dystopic vision of the Topheth for Jerusalem is effective for this purpose. However, as demonstrated by K. O’Connor, the message of the book of Jeremiah is also concerned ‘to build and to plant’ (1.10) and these two parts of the book work together.⁵⁷ So also, the dystopia of the Topheth has a corresponding utopia in the future Jerusalem, together in the landscape as a reminder of the wider message attributed to Jeremiah.

Footnotes

1.

Martti Nissinen, ‘What is Prophecy? An Ancient Near Eastern Perspective’, in J. Kaltner and L. Stulman (eds.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 2004), pp. 17-37; Karel van der Toorn, ‘From the Mouth of the Prophet: The Literary Fixation of Jeremiah’s Prophecies in the Context of the Ancient Near East’, in J. Kaltner and L. Stulman (eds.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 2004), pp. 191-202. See also Mark Leuchter, The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity (2017), pp. 193-96, on Jeremiah’s possible involvement in the textualisation of oracles.

2.

Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (1996). On the role of orality and memory in textuality, see David M. Carr, ‘Orality, Textuality, and Memory: The State of Biblical Studies’, in Brian B. Schmidt (ed.), Contextualising Israel’s Sacred Writing: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production (2015), pp. 161-73.

3.

On Jeremiah’s sign-acts, see Johanna Erzberger, ‘Prophetic Sign-Acts as Performances’, in Elise K. Holt and Carolyn J. Sharp (eds.), Jeremiah Invented: Constructions and Deconstructions of Jeremiah (LHBOTS 595, 2015), pp. 104-16.

4.

In Biblical studies, see especially the work of Mary E. Mills who uses the language of the ‘imaginary’ to examine deathscapes and the city in prophecy, and how texts can construct landscapes (Urban Imagination in Biblical Prophecy (LHBOTS 560, 2012); ‘Deathscape and Lament in Jeremiah and Lamentations’, in Else K. Holt and Carolyn J. Sharp (eds.), Jeremiah Invented: Constructions and Deconstructions of Jeremiah (LHBOTS 595, 2015), pp. 74-86). Mills uses the work of Karen Till, The New Berlin: Memory, Politics, Place (2005) and Marita Sturken, Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the Politics of Remembering (1997). See also Rachelle Gilmour, ‘The Function of Place Naming in 2 Samuel 5-6: A Study in Collective Memory’, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 39 (2015), pp. 405-31, citing references on the interaction between landscape and memory in collective memory studies.

5.

There is some debate as to whether the term molech denotes a type of sacrifice (often referred to as a molk sacrifice) or the name of a god. The former position was held first by Otto Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch (1935), followed by Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, pp. 126-37; Klaas A.D. Smelik, ‘Moloch, Molech or Molk-Sacrifice? A Reassessment of the Evidence Concerning the Hebrew Term Molekh’, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 9 (1995), pp. 133-42; Francesca Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (2004), pp. 207-61; Bennie H. Reynolds, ‘Molek: Dead or Alive? The Meaning and Derivation of mlk and מלך‎’, in Karin Finsterbusch et al. (eds.), Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (2007), pp. 133-50. The latter position that Molech is the name of a god is argued by George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment (JSOTSup 43, 1985), pp. 115-28; John Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (1989). The term does not appear in Jeremiah 7 or 19 and so the debate will not be discussed here.

6.

On the identification of the valley in Jer 2.23 with Hinnom, see, Heider, The Cult of Molek, p. 354. Cf. McKane argues that the sexual imagery in this verse makes the reference to the rites in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom unlikely (William McKane, Jeremiah 1-25 (ICC, 1986), p. 45).

7.

Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (1993), p. 4; Francesca Stavrakopoulou, ‘The Jerusalem Tophet: Ideological Dispute and Religious Transformation’, SEL, 29-30 (2012-2013), p. 148.

8.

Weinfeld proposes a pre-Assyrian period tradition that involved a Canaanite practice of child sacrifice described by the phrase ‘to pass through fire’ and suggests that this was different from the Assyrian-imported Molek cult that dedicated rather than sacrificed children (Moshe Weinfeld, ‘The Worship of Moloch and the Queen of Heaven and Its Background’, UF, 4 (1972), pp. 133-54; also Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol 1 (trans. John Bowden, 1994), pp. 190-93). Ackerman rejects this pre- and post-Assyrian distinction based on the free interchange of language in biblical texts ‘to pass through fire’ and ‘to burn’ (Susan Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM46, 1992), pp. 129-30). Cf. Barrick suggests that the reference was originally to a divinatory practice, based on Deut 18.10 and other references in Kings where it is grouped with similar activities (W. Boyd Barrick, The King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding of Josiah’s Reform (VTSupp 88, 2002), pp. 215-16).

9.

Although note ‘burnt offerings to Baal’ in Jer 19.5 is omitted in the LXX.

10.

See J. Andrew Dearman, ‘The Tophet in Jerusalem: Archaeology and Cultural Profile’, JNES, 22 (1996), pp. 62-63, 66; Note Dearman maintains that there were probably child sacrifices at this location.

11.

See Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh, pp. 207-99; Armin Lange, ‘“They Burn Their Sons and Daughters—That Was No Command of Mine” (Jer 7:31): Child Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible and in the Deuteronomistic Jeremiah Redaction’, in Karin Finsterbusch et al. (eds.), Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (2007), pp. 116-20; Morton Smith, ‘A Note on Burning Babies’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 95 (1975), pp. 477-79; Dearman, ‘Tophet in Jerusalem’, pp. 61-68; Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, pp. 128-30; Lawrence E. Stager, ‘The Rite of Child Sacrifice at Carthage’, in John Griffiths Pedley (ed.), New Light on Ancient Carthage (1980), pp. 1-11.

12.

McKane, Jeremiah 1-25, pp. 164-65; Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25 (WMZANT 41, 1973), pp. 128-30; Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia (HZAT 12, 1968), pp. 52-54.

13.

See Thiel, Jeremia, for an example of arguments in favour of considering parts of Jeremiah as Deuteronomistic. The whole concept of deuteronomistic Jeremiah has been disputed by Helga Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiasbuches (BZAW 132, 1973).

14.

E.W. Nicholson, Jeremiah 1-25 (CBC, 1973), pp. 162-63; Thiel, Jeremia, p. 221; Artur Weiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jeremia (1960), p. 160; Rudolph also mentions that v. 11b is a tertiary insertion and includes vv. 14-15 in the original act (Jeremia, pp. 125-27). More recently, Allen and Stulman also consider vv. 3-9 secondary (Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL, 2008), p. 225; Louis Stulman, The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah (SBLDS 83, 1986), pp. 76-79). Verses 14-15 are included by some in the original sign-act account but they may also be a linking device between 19.1-13 and 20.1-6 (attributed along with the rest of the sign act to Baruch by Rudolph, Jeremia, pp. 125-27 and Weiser, Jeremia, p. 161; seen as linking to 20.1-6 by Thiel, Jeremia, p. 226). Cf. Holladay and Lundbom argue for unity based upon the wordplay between בקבק‎ ‘bottle’ in v. 1 and ובקתי‎ ‘I will make void’ in v. 7, which both commentators are hesitant to attribute to a redactor (Holladay, Jeremiah 1, p. 265; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20 (AB 21a, 1999), p. 836).

15.

The addition in v. 2a* is the phrase ‘Valley of the Son of Hinnom’. See McKane, Jeremiah 1-25, p. 444. Also proposed in B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (KHZAT 11, 1901), p. 160; Rudolph, Jeremia, pp. 125-26, and Thiel, Jeremia, p. 221, n. 8.

16.

McKane, Jeremiah 1-25, pp. 451-56.

17.

See Raymond F. Person, Jr, ‘A Rolling Corpus and Oral tradition: A Not-So-Literate Solution to a Highly Literate Problem’, in A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah (LHBOTS, 1997), pp. 263-71.

18.

On the occurrence in Jeremiah, see J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT, 1980), p. 294; Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley and Joel F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC 26, 1991), p. 262; see also Day (Molech, pp. 26-28) who argues that it is cognate to the Aramaic word but is not a loan word as the practice was Canaanite not Aramean. He also argues against the connection with the Hebrew word אשפת‎ usually translated ‘ash heap’ because the meaning of this word is more likely ‘dung’ or ‘dung hill’. He suggests that the root for Topheth is more likely אפה‎ ‘to bake’. Note the LXX has Ταφεθ, ‘Tapheth’, suggesting the original vocalisation was perhaps תְפָת‎ (Holladay, Jeremiah 1, p. 264).

19.

The LXX translation suggests that the Topheth was understood as ruins. This may reflect a changing landscape, from an active high place to the ruins of a high place. It is noteworthy that the name continues to be appropriate to the oracles of destruction.

20.

E.g. החוילה‎ ‘Havilah’, הירדן‎ ‘Jordan’, and המכפלה‎ ‘Machpelah’.

21.

Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (1994), p. 252.

22.

Holladay suggests that it is prefixed by the definite article by analogy to ההרגה‎ ‘the Slaughter’ (Jeremiah 1, p. 269).

23.

Jerome, cited in McKane, Jeremiah 1-25, p. 179. The play in meaning with ‘Valley of Slaughter’ in Jer 7.32 and Jer 19.6 would then be that slaughter is the antithesis of grace.

24.

Marvin Pope, ‘Notes on the Rephaim Texts from Ugarit’, in M. Ellis (ed.), Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of J. J. Finkelstein (1977), p. 169. See also Stavrakopoulou, ‘Jerusalem Tophet’, p. 142.

25.

Cf. Accepted by Heider, who concludes that the whole complex of valleys was associated with the netherworld (Heider, The Cult of Molek, p. 364).

26.

See Lewis Bayles Paton for a discussion of this identification, as well as a map (‘Jerusalem in Bible Times: II. The Valleys of Ancient Jerusalem’, The Biblical World, 29 (1907), p. 93); Also, Heider, The Cult of Molek, p. 352; Dearman, ‘Tophet in Jerusalem’, pp. 59-71, 64-65; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, p. 496.

27.

Holladay, Jeremiah 1, p. 268, based on Denis Baly and A. Douglas Tushingham, Atlas of the Biblical World (1971), p. 158.

28.

Gabriel Barkay, ‘Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem’, in Hillel Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, 2nd ed. (2000), pp. 85-106, especially pp. 93-95.

29.

Dearman, ‘Tophet in Jerusalem’, p. 65, cites D. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan: The Necropolis from the period of the Judean Kingdom [Hebrew] (1986), and J. Ritmeyer and K. Ritmeyer, ‘Akeldama. Potter’s Field or Priestly Cemetery?’ BAR, 20 (1994), pp. 22-35. See also Philip J. King, Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion (1993), pp. 130-34; See also L.Y. Rahmani ‘Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs: Part Two’, Biblical Archaeologist, 44 (1981), pp. 229-35.

30.

Πολυανδρεῖον υἱοῦ Εννομ. See McKane, Jeremiah 1-25, pp. 444-45.

31.

Dearman, ‘Tophet in Jerusalem’, p. 65. He notes that the LXX for Jer 7.31 and Jer 19.5 has the singular high place, although this might incorporate multiple areas for sacrifice.

32.

Holladay, Jeremiah 1, p. 267.

33.

Stavrakopoulou, ‘Jerusalem Tophet’, p. 143.

34.

Michael Gordin, Helen Tilley and Gyan Prakash, Utopia/Dystopia: Conditions of Historical Possibility (2010). In biblical studies, see the collection of essays in Ehud Ben Zvi, ed., Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature (2006).

35.

Gordin, Utopia/Dystopia, p. 2.

36.

Cf. Mary E. Mills, Urban Imagination in Biblical Prophecy (LHBOTS 560, 2012), pp. 167-90, on deathscapes in the minor prophets.

37.

Gordin, Utopia/Dystopia, p. 4.

38.

See, for example, Carla Sulzbach, ‘Building Castles on the Shifting Sands of Memory: From Dystopian to Utopian Views of Jerusalem in the Persian Period’, in Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), Memory and the City in Ancient Israel (2014), pp. 309-20.

39.

Gordin, Utopia/Dystopia, p. 2.

40.

On dystopia in Jeremiah, see especially Kathleen M. O’Connor, ‘Jeremiah’s Two Visions of the Future’, in Ehud Ben Zvi (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature (2006), pp. 86-104. This study explores the connection to memory and looks at dystopia in the context of the exile where (p. 95) ‘by presenting war and destruction of land and people in symbolic worlds these texts make it possible for survivors to re-experience trauma, and loss symbolically and begin to come to terms with it’. The pre-exilic origins and later implied readers in exile of Jeremiah 1-20 are also taken into account (p. 102).

41.

Verse 29 is connected with v. 30ff by Holladay Jeremiah 1, p. 259, and Weiser, Jeremia, p. 68. Against, Thiel, Jeremia, p. 125 n. 57; McKane, Jeremiah 1-25, p. 177. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, pp. 492-94, divides the oracle into 7.30-31 and 7.32-34.

42.

Although this phrase is not found in Jer 19.6, it seems it has been relocated from there to Jer 19.11b. This may be because it was a marginal gloss, based on 7.31. Based on the Targum, it is translated in NRSV as ‘until there is no more room’, followed by McKane, Jeremiah 1-25, p. 178. Robert P. Carroll translates the phrase as ‘because there is no room elsewhere’, a translation also found in LXX (Jeremiah (1986), pp. 220-21). While some interpreters take this to mean everywhere else is already full of corpses (e.g. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, pp. 498-99), he considers this unlikely and that there is no more room left in the Topheth.

43.

Several commentators have observed that this is an unusual form and one would expect the wayyiqtol. Rudolph compares it to Jer 32.35 and suggests it reflects an Aramaic use of tense, or that it is corrupted from the wayyiqtol, in which case it would compare to Jer 32.35 (Jeremia, p. 56). Holladay prefers a frequentative usage ‘they keep building’ (cf. NRSV) which necessarily implies that there is more than one high place (cf. LXX) (Jeremiah 1, p. 264); Lundbom uses a past tense, ‘they have built’ but does not emend the text because the same verb form appears in Jer 19.5 (Jeremiah 1-20, p. 495).

44.

Gilmour, ‘The Function of Place Naming’, pp. 405-31.

45.

On the formulae for past renamings, see Long, The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament (BZAW 108, 1968).

46.

The LXX ‘ruin, fall’ in Jer 19.6 is even more appropriate.

47.

A play observed by Holladay although not associated with the meaning of the name change (Jeremiah 1, p. 267).

48.

Verse 29 is connected with v. 30ff by Holladay Jeremiah 1, p. 259, and Weiser, Jeremia, p. 68. Against, Thiel, Jeremia, p. 125, n. 57; McKane, Jeremiah 1-25, p. 177. Even if v. 29 is included in the oracle, there remains a chiastic structure in vv. 30-34 and so its inclusion does not affect our argument. Cf. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, pp. 492-94, divides the oracle into 7.30-31 and 7.32-34.

49.

On the reinterpretation of Deuteronomistic ideas to shift the emphasis from centralized worship in this chapter, see Mark Leuchter, ‘The Temple Sermon and the term mqwm in the Jeremianic Corpus’, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 30 (2005), pp. 93-109.

50.

Leuchter, ‘The Temple Sermon’, pp. 93-109.

51.

Note that this reference probably implies divination as it is followed by further transgressions of that nature, ‘he practiced soothsaying and augury, and dealt with mediums and with wizards’ (2 Kgs 21.6).

52.

Although the texts in 2 Chr 28.3 and 2 Chr 33.6 probably do not pre-date the oracle in Jeremiah, they are evidence for memories associated with the site that are evidently also presupposed in Jeremiah 7.

53.

Cf. Holladay considers the variations ‘trivial’ (Jeremiah 1, p. 540); however, we will see a number of minor variations that affect or at least reflect a different interpretation.

54.

Note that this phrase is not represented in the Septuagint manuscripts except LXX^L where they are inserted at the end of v. 13. Thus, it is probable that the words were added as a gloss after v. 6 and later relocated in MT to v. 11 (e.g. McKane, Jeremiah 1-25, p. 446).

55.

The variation most likely reflects the development of the text (see Rachelle Gilmour, ‘Reading Jeremiah 19.1-13: Integrating Diachronic and Synchronic Methodologies’, JHS, 17 (2017), p. 28). It is possible that the Topheth was inserted later into the oracle, transforming the meaning of ‘this place’ from Jerusalem to the Topheth in vv. 5-6.

56.

Amy Kalmanofsky, Terror All Around: The Rhetoric of Horror in the Book of Jeremiah (LHBOTS 390, 2008), p. 10.

57.

Kathleen M. O’Connor, Jeremiah: Pain and Promise (2011), especially p. 35.