On the origin and etymology of the word much has l)een written that is doubtful, not to say purely fanciful. Some have attempted to connect it with the Greek OdirTciv in the phrase irupi diirTav (Ges. ), or with the Greek riJ^eiK and the Hebrew .n?i< = cook, D'yiPi = cooked pieces for oll'erings (cf. Lv 6"). Jerome, deriving it probably from nn^, interpreted it As = laiituclo. Some of the great Rabbis {e.g. Rashi and D. Kiraclii) understood it to come from ''iS^ = stri/ce, beat, with reference to the supposed beating of dnims and other instruments to drown the cries of the sacrilicial victims in the cruel rites of the Molecli worship — a practice the alleged existence of which is not borne out by any sullicient evidence in ancient writers. Others nave had recourse to peculiar foreign forms, to Assyro-l'ersian roots, to the Egyptian Quvd or 6u$, etc. (Andr. Miillcr). Some, again, have taken the original idea to have been that of beauty, with reference to Jerome's description of the place. With this in view, Rosenmiiller, e.g., was bold enough to connect it with n:-=to be fair, as if the primitive form had been ncia With a somewhat similar idea, others, pointin" to the mention in succession of tabrcts (o-yp) and Tophctli in Is 30^* ^, look again to the verb '\ZF.=strike (a timbrel or the like), and attach to tlie word Topheth the sense of ' Music-grove,' as if it had been originally part of the royaJ garden, deliled at a later period by idol- worship and abominable, idolatrous sacrifice (II. Bonar in Smith's DJS).
iJismissing these fanciful conjectures, we have to choose between two explanations which alone have much reason in them. One of these seeks the
origin of the term in a root lin, Arabic i»_£ij = to .ij>it out, and so to regard with contempt or loathing. In this case the idea will be that of 'place of abliorrence,' ' place of abomination ' (liottcher, Riehm, Pressel, etc.). This is favoured ty the fact that there does exist a descriptive noun njii, which appears to have this meaning, in Job 17'. The other explanation looks to a root ex- pressing the notion of burning, which is sujinoscd Ly some to show itself in a I'ersian toften (Ges.), in the Greek riippa, the Latin tepidus (Streanc). In this case the idea would be that of ' place of burning.' This, again, is understood by some to refer to the disposal of the dead, by others to the ollcring of sacrilices, in particular to the burning of human sacrilices, as in the worship of Molech. The dilliculty in the way of the hrst of tlie.se
suppositions is that, except in special cases (e.g. tliat of Saul, 1 S 31'- ; that of the victims of plague. Am G'° etc.), the Hebrew dead were not burned, but buried. With regard to the seconii supposition, the question is whether, as it is ordin- arily put, it will suit the various passages. In the case of Is 3U^, e.g., Dillmann is of opinion that it is a vast human holocaust that is in view ; while Robertson Smith thinks that the imagery of the passage would be rendered discordant if the notion of the s,acrilice3 in the valley of Hinnom were introduced. The latter scholar, therefore, gives the question another ajiplicatiou. lie seeks an Aramaic origin for the word, and he connects its use witii such sacrilices as the llarranian. He points to the fact that at the time when the term ' first appears in Hebrew, the chief foreign in- fluence in J udaran rehjjion was that of Daiiia.scus' (2 K 16). This, he tiiinks, makes the theory of an Aramaic origin not improbable. He notices, further, that me Arabic word othfiyd and the Syriac tj'uyd are names for ' the stones on which a pot is set, and then for any stanil or tripod set upon a tire.' He supposes that a variant form tjath might have existed which would be quite according to analogy, and takes nsn to be an Aramaic term for ' a lireplace, or for the framework set on the tire to support the victim.' He points out further, that among the Semites human sacri- fices were disposed of ordinarily by burning, and that the victims generally were not burned on the altar or within the sanctuary, but outside the city. His view, therefore, is that the passage in Isaiah refers to 'a rite, well known to Semitic religion, which was practised at Tarsus down to the time of Dio Chrysostom, and the memory of wliich survives in the (Jreek legend of Heracles-Melkarth, in the .story of Sardanai)alus, and in the myth of queen Dido ' — the annual rite commemorating the death of the local god in lire. Thus ' the Topheth ' is taken to be the ' lireplace,' or pyre, the deep pit dug in the valley of Hinnom for the purpose of the most di>tinctive act in the performance of these horrid rites — the burning of the victims. It may be added that Ewald, who places the deep valley of Ben-llinnom on the south of the ' long, broad ridge ' to which ' the ancient name of Zion origin- ally belonged,' takes Topheth to be a "lowing furnace in the valley, and regards cverytliing as pointing to the conclusion that it was Manasseh who first built it.