in that case, be the public flaying-ground. It is in itself probable,
and it is generally held[8] that, after the defilement by Josiah (2
Kings xxiii. 10), it received this designation. But there are not
wanting evident traces that, [Pg 456] even in former times, the valley
served this purpose. In Is. xxx. 33, it is said in reference to the
Assyrians: "For Tophet (_Gesenius_ arbitrarily changes the _nomen
proprium_ into an _appellativum_, and translates: the place for
burning) is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared, made
deep and large; the pile thereof has fire and wood in abundance." This
passage supposes that, even at that time, the valley of Hinnom, or
Tophet (which properly is only a part of it, but is sometimes, however,
used for the whole), had that destination; that piles were constantly
burning in it, on which the carcasses of animals were burned. Such a
place of execution and burial is already prepared for the carcasses of
the Assyrians rebelling against God. Even the existence of the name
Tophet, _i.e._, _horror_, _abomination_, bears witness to the impure
destination. The second passage is Is. lxvi. 24. Outside the Holy City,
the place where formerly the carcasses of the beasts were lying, there
now lie the dead bodies of the transgressors. As the former were, in
times past, food both for the worms and fire, so they are now. It is
true, that _Vitringa's_ objection, that it can scarcely be imagined
that the idolators should have chosen a place so unclean, is very
plausible. But how plausible soever such an argument may appear, it
cannot invalidate distinct historical testimonies; and it might very
well be set aside, although it would lead us too far away from our
purpose, to do so here. But it may also be supposed that the Prophet
looks back to his own declarations, chap. vii. 31, and xix. 4 ff.; and
that by [Hebrew: pgriM] here the corpses of transgressors are to be
understood, who are destined to destruction, and therefore are to be
buried in the flaying-ground. But this reference is, after all, too
far-fetched; and it is more natural to say, that the nature of Tophet,
as the flaying-ground, forms the foundation, which is common to those
passages and that before us.--But, besides the arguments already
advanced, there is still a grammatical reason, which shows that it is
really the valley of Hinnom which is meant. The article in [Hebrew:
hemq] forbids us to view it as being in the _Stat. constr