The Deity in the Definite Article: laššāwʼ and related terms for Baʻal in Jeremiah

The general consensus is that the abstract noun šāwʼ ( אושׁ) in the HB/OT, with the basic meaning of worthlessness, inefficacy, deceit, emptiness, falsehood, lie, could refer either to these qualities in general (typically translated in the English as “in vain”), or could refer to anti-Yahweh idolatry. The choice has been rather arbitrary and inconsistent, relying on the reader’s view of what the text would want to convey. This study builds on the assumption that the definiteness of the noun determines its semantic value, and should be a major factor in determining the general versus polemic meaning of šāwʼ ( אושׁ), although this grammatico-semantic distinction is unaccounted for in standard lexicons and most commentaries. The study limits itself to the book of Jeremiah, where šāwʼ only appears in its definite form, as laššāwʼ. Remarkably three other similarly defined nouns are located in the same text blocks in Jeremiah, namely haššeqer, habbošet and hahebel (mostly with prefixed prepositions). The fact that they all have indefinite counterparts in Jeremiah, strengthens the argument that the presence or absence of the definite article is not arbitrary, but noteworthy and meaningful. The fact that these four determined nouns (haššāwʼ, haššeqer, habbošet and hahebel) all function in the same broader text in Jeremiah, with the deity Baʻal also mentioned consistently and exclusively in the definite form (mostly singular habbaʻal, rarely plural habbeʻalîm) leads to the hypothesis that the defined nouns under discussion are all references to Baʻal, with a suggested rhetorical function of disparagement of the deity. The plausibility of the hypothesis is tested in this particular study by means of an exegetical exercise which zooms in on the interface of the nouns under discussion in a selected range of texts. The exegetical approach is obviously launched from the mentioned theoretical stance, seeking to discover features of the text that support interpretation in line with the hypothesis.

while it is literally a prohibition to "lift up (the name of yhwh) to the vanity", laššāwʼ (the definite article merged with the preposition ‫ל-‬ preceding šāwʼ), consequently begging the question what or whom "the vanity" might be. The second curiosity following from this observation is the fourfold appearance of laššāwʼ in Jeremiah, once (18:15) for sure in the form of an idol, maybe Baʻal himself. The reading of laššāwʼ in the Jeremiah text with the consideration that the Masoretic orthographic signs transformed šāwʼ into the definite form by design, is confirmed by the discovery of three similar nouns in the surrounding text, namely haššeqer, habbošet, and hahebel (mostly with prefixed prepositions) who are all intentionally written in their definite forms, as is evident from the fact that all of them happen to have indefinite counterparts in MT Jeremiah.
The grammatical possibility that nouns in the definite form can be classified as proper nouns 1 (names), the insight that ‫א‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ַשָּׁ‬ ‫ל‬ 2 in at least Jeremiah 18:5 refers to an idol 3 , and the multiple occurrences of the name of the deity Baʻal in the definite form habbaʼal ‫ַל(‬ ‫ע‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫)הַ‬ 4 in MT Jeremiah, beg the question whether all these references or allusions are not pointing to the same subject, namely Baʻal. In the light of the shared semantic fields of these nouns, the rhetorical function of these allusions seems to be 'naming and shaming,' disparaging the named candidate (and by implication his associates), typically in the vernacular of our day a 'disgraced fake' 5 . 1 Christo H. J. Van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, Second Edition (Reprint. London: T&T Clark / Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018), 219; Bill T. Arnold & John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (8th print. Cambridge University Press, 2009), 30. 2 In Jeremiah 2: 30, 4:30, 6:29, 18:15 and 46:11. 3 Modern commentators are generally in agreement with this, for example John A. Thompson, Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 2:8,7:9,11:13,17,12:16,19:5 (twice),23:13,27;32:29,35. See Gerhard Lisowsky,Konkordanz,271. 5 The semantic fields of šāwʼ, šeqer and heḇel are overlapping in the notion of fallacy/deceit. See Friedrich V. Reiterer, ‫א"‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫שָׁ‬ šāwʼ," in volume 14 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 447. J. Shepherd, ‫א"‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫שָׁ‬ šāwʼ (#8736)," in volume 4 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (edited by Willem VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 53. Horst Seebass, Stefan Beyerle & Klaus Grünwaldt, ‫שקר"‬ šqr; ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ šeqer." in volume 15 of In this regard a quick glance at different translations and commentaries shows signs of recognition to unspecified deities. One example should suffice: Traditionally translations rendered ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָׁ‬ ‫ל‬ with "in vain" or words to that effect in all five occurrences of the word in Jeremiah (2:30,4:30,6:29,18:15 and 46:11). Its occurrence in Jeremiah 18:15, however, opened up the insight that it may refer to idols. Although most translations of this verse, up to the beginning of the 20 th century, maintained forms of "in vain," 6 for ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָׁ‬ ‫ל‬ , since the end of the 19 th century it became apparent that translators have been working with the premise that the proposition ‫ל‬ in ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָׁ‬ ‫ל‬ in the combination ‫ל-‬ ‫קטר‬ indicates the object of worship to which the incense offerings are offered, with the implication that ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָׁ‬ ‫ל‬ cannot simply be describing the futility of the religious ceremony. In other words, ‫א‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫שָׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ is acknowledged to be the recipient of sacrifices, therefore a deity other than yhwh. In other words, a vain, worthless, idol 7 . It should be noted that long before the modern era, already by 1534, the translators of the Lutheran Bible showed this insight 8 . Although some interpreters of Jeremiah 18:15 connect the idol(s) to Baʻal 9 , it does not seem to be grounded in the rhetorical implications of the grammatical definiteness of the noun 10 . Even in recent translations the noun is still rendered as indefinite 11 .
As for the other occurrences of ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָׁ‬ ‫ל‬ in Jeremiah (2:30,4:30,6:29,46:11), only a few commentators 12 , but no translations, have considered the possibility that they might be of the same order as Jeremiah 18:15. The obvious rationale is that some form of "in vain" makes translational sense in all the texts apart from 18:15. The latent semantic difference between the definite and indefinite forms of the word is apparently not considered, or the assumption is that the definiteness of the word bears no real semantic value. All or at least most of the lexicons and semantic and theological dictionaries reflect this stance by not distinguishing the indefinite from the definite forms of these nouns. The dictionary entry in Koehler and Baumgartner (KAHAL) of 13 ‫שוא‬ contains examples of the lexeme with the definite article haphazardly inserted in between the indefinite form 14 . The possibility that there may be a (collective) variation of meaning of the same noun in the definite form, is not perceived. The same applies Statenvertaling 2010 "Zij brengen reukoffers aan nutteloze afgoden"; Asv 1901 "For my people have forgotten me, they have burned incense to false [gods]". Esv 2001 "they make offerings to false gods". Modern commentators are generally in agreement with this, for example John A. Thompson, Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) For example, John A. Thompson,Jeremiah,438;William L. Holladay,Jeremiah 1,524. 10 Curiously, Jack Lundbom, with a keen eye for what he calls "a disparaging name for Baʻal", translates Jeremiah 18:15 with "they burn incense in vain", with the note that the reference here would be to the idols. See Jack Lundbom,822. 11 For example, The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh 1985 "They sacrifice to a delusion". 12 John A. Thompson,Jeremiah,and Jack R. Lundbom, Ludwig Koehler and Theologischer Verlag, 1978), 269-272, and its English translation by Mark E. Biddle: "bôš to be ashamed," in volume 1 of Theological Lexicon of The Old Testament (Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 204-207. Philip J. Nel ‫בוש"(‬ bôš #1017," in NIDOTTE volume I, 626) notes that "bōšet is also substituted as a name for Baʻal (Jer 3:24, 11:13)." Horst Seebass (TDOT vol 2) in his discussion on Jeremiah (p 54-56) ignores the determined form of these terms. Fritz Stolz (according to the English translation "bôš to be ashamed," in volume 1 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 206-7) draws a logical line to this specific name-giving of the deities, but gives no attention to the definite form of the word in the naming of the god (in Jeremiah).

B BAʻAL AS CANDIDATE FOR NAMING AND SHAMING
Within the book of Jeremiah, the proper name Baʻal (in the singular) occurs eleven times 22 , plus twice in the plural 23 . In all instances, as with the other occurrences of the name for the deity, it is written in the definite form, either as ‫ַל‬ ‫ע‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫הַ‬ or in the construct form, as a combination name 24 . Remarkably ‫שוא‬ likewise it occurs in Jeremiah only in the preposition-prefixed definite form ‫א‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ַשָׁ‬ ‫ל‬ (Jeremiah 2:30,4:30,6:29,18:15 and 46:11).

Diagram of determined nouns versus undetermined counterparts in
2. The deity in opposition to yhwh mostly referred to in Jeremiah, is ַ ‫ע‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫הַ‬ ‫ל‬ habbaʻal (twice in the plural ‫ים‬ ‫ַלִׁ‬ ‫ע‬ ‫בְ‬ ‫הַ‬ habb e ʻalîm). The name of this deity is always written in MT Jeremiah with the article, formally on par with the definite nouns under discussion ‫ת(‬ ‫ׁשֶׁ‬ ‫בֹּ‬ , ‫ל‬ ‫בֶׁ‬ ‫הֶׁ‬ , ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫ׁשֶׁ‬ , ‫א‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ׁשָּׁ‬ ). Quantitively the occurrence of ‫ַל‬ ‫ע‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫הַ‬ together with multiple occurrences of one or more of the aforementioned terms (or the certainty that the term refers to an idol, e.g. habbošet in Jeremiah 11:13) in the co-text is a good indication thatapart from the formal similaritiesthese terms, understood as proper nouns, are references to the deity.
3. The shared rhetorical value of these nouns in terms of their overlapping semantic fields resorts to the category of denigration. If understood as proper nouns referring or alluding to the deity, they could serve the function of demeaning, derogatory, disparaging names for Baʻal, emphasizing the deity's lack of status, integrity, power, and reliability.
4. A small number of abstract nouns in this group is not grammatically determined by the definite article but by a pronominal suffix or in status constructus bound to a definite noun 32 . Formally they are not classified as proper nouns and can strictly speaking not function as pejorative nicknames (of the deity). If, however, they appear in tandem with their article defined counterparts, two possible functions could be ascribed to them: (1) referring or alluding to a deity or deities; (2) signifying the generally accepted lexical meaning of the noun. This assumption is based on the phenomenon within MT Jeremiah that šeqer, bošet and hebel occur in both their definite and indefinite forms. These two referential functions do not necessarily exclude each other. Bošet ‫ת‬ ‫ׁשֶׁ‬ ‫בֹּ‬ in ‫נּו‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫ׁשְ‬ ‫]בָּׁ‬ ‫]בְ‬ in Jeremiah 3:25 comes to mind as an example 33 . 32 Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé & Jan Kroeze, Reference Grammar, 215-216; Bill T. Arnold & John H. Choi, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 28. 33 See exegetical discussion on Jeremiah 3:21-25.

C TESTING AND DEMONSTRATING THE PLAUSIBILITY OF THE HYPOTHESIS EXEGETICALLY
The plausibility of the hypothesis is to be tested by means of an exegetical exercise which zooms in on the interface of the nouns under discussion, while at the same time demonstrating new interpretational possibilities of the text. The semantic connectivity of the relevant terms is to be established in text blocks where the interface of these terms is significant. For practical reasons this study has to be limited to a brief discussion of Jeremiah 2:4-13, 3:21-25, 5:30-31, 7:4-9, 11:9-13 and 18:13-17. The demarcations are partly determined by the logic of literary context. If perceived historical background, origin and use of the text is mentioned, it is simply meant as background information. The discussion starts out with Jeremiah 1:16 as basis, followed by the first part (v 4-9) of the temple sermon in Jeremiah 7, and then the rest of the passages in chapter order.

Introduction
The reason for God's judgement by word of Jeremiah (1:16)  "Other gods", ‫אחרים‬ ‫אלהים‬ , is a key term in Jeremiah occurring throughout the book 34 as object of Israel's idolatrous worship 35 , and noteworthy for our study, as it appears to be one of many allusions to the (non-Israelite) deities. The introduction of this term in 1:16 is explicated in the so-called temple sermon in Jeremiah 7 (in verses 6 and 9).
‫ים‬ ִ ‫ר‬ ‫ֲחֵ‬ ‫א‬ 36 -and then feel safe in the house of yhwh! The reason and source for the self-deception is already repudiated in Jeremiah 7:4 ‫ר(‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ ‫י‬ ‫רֵ‬ ‫בְ‬ ‫ל-דִ‬ ‫אֶׁ‬ ‫ֶׁם‬ ‫ָׁכ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫חּו‬ ‫טְ‬ ‫בְ‬ ‫ל-תִ‬ ‫,)אַ‬ now stated in verse 8 37 as follows: The standard translation of this phrase is: "Look, you trusted in deceptive words which are of no avail" However, grammatically ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ does not qualify as an attributive adjective to ‫י‬ ‫רֵ‬ ‫בְ‬ ‫.דִ‬ Deceptive words = ‫שקרים‬ ‫דברים‬ 38 , while ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ is a definite noun, one of the nouns possibly understood by the MT as a derogatory ֹ or disparaging name for Baʻal. In fact, the people's unwarranted trust is in "the words of ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫,הַ‬ The Deceptive One". Instead of listening to and trusting in the Word(s) of Yahweh, they put their trust "in the words of The Lie" 39, as John A. Thompson renders the expression, with the following remark: "One wonders whether Jeremiah may not have been making use here of the expression The Lie to describe some pagan deity like Baʻal... " 40.
It is noteworthy that ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ is repeated in the fourth of six charges against Israel, as the guarantor and (divine) witness of an oath ‫ר(‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫ַשֶׁ‬ ‫ל‬ ַ ‫ע‬ ‫בֵ‬ ‫שָׁ‬ ‫.)הִ‬ If this charge is understood as swearing by "The Deceptive One" (instead of by Yahweh), and 36 The phrase ‫אחרים‬ ‫אלהים‬ ‫אחרי‬ ‫הלך‬ in different forms of the verb, occurs in Jeremiah 7:9, 11:10, 13:10, 16:11, 25:6, 35:15. The combination ‫י[‬ ‫ְרֵ‬ ‫חַ‬ ‫אַ‬ ‫ְַֹּך‬ ‫ל‬ ‫הָׁ‬ + object=idol/s)] also occurs in Jeremiah 2:5 ‫ל(‬ ‫בֶׁ‬ ‫הֶׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ ‫אחרי‬ ‫.)וילכו‬ It appears to be an identification marker for the subject under discussion. John A. Thompson, Jeremiah, 167 makes the remark "that in the secular treaties of the day a rebel vassal who 'went after' some other ruler was understood to have renounced allegiance to his overlord. Indeed, the expression 'go after' meant 'serve as a vassal'." (with reference to W. L. Moran, "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy," CBQ 25 (1963) Thompson,Jeremiah,277,280. 40 John A. Thompson,Jeremiah,277. In footnote 21: for possible parallels see 5:31, 13:25. not as perjury per se 41 , it appears that the legal charges consist of two categories of three charges each: In the first category three sins against fellow-human beings are mentioned, namely stealing, murder and adultery. The second category is that of idolatrous practices, of whom three are mentioned: swearing by "The Deceptive One" (instead of by Yahweh), in the second instance ‫ַל‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ַבַ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ר‬ ‫טֵ‬ ‫קַ‬ (offering incense to Baʻal) and finally ‫ים‬ ִ ‫ר‬ ‫ֲחֵ‬ ‫א‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ֱֹלהִ‬ ‫א‬ ‫י‬ ‫ֲרֵ‬ ‫ח‬ ‫אַ‬ ‫ֹלְך‬ ‫הָׁ‬ (following other gods, cf. 1:16).

42
Jeremiah 2:1-3 connects the introductory speeches in chapter 1 with this collection, while 4:3-4 serves the same function. The division is therefore made from 2:1 or 2:3 to 4:2 or 4:4. As Jeremiah 2:4-4:2 e.g. Joel S. Burnett, "Changing Gods: an Exposition of Jeremiah 2," Review and Expositor 101/2 (2004), 290. As Jeremiah 2:1-4:4 e.g. William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 47ff. and Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 221ffwith the heading "People of a forgotten covenant", taking into account that thematically this collection stands in tension with the promise of "the new covenant" (Jeremiah 31:31-34) within the so-called Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30-31). See Joel S. Burnett,"Changing Gods",289. 43 The elusiveness of "Israel" in the rhetoric of Jeremiah, directly links up with the question of text application later in Jeremiah's own life and the Jeremiah tradition after his time. The origin of at least this chapter is built on the assumption that Assyria refers to the former empire which conquered the Northern Kingdom, Israel. See Mary E.
(synchronically based) research on metaphors in the Jeremiah text, however, convincingly demarcates this passage as the second section of a unit that spans the whole of chapter two 44 . Israel, portrayed in the double images of family relationships (yhwh's faithful bride) and horticulture (yhwh's choicest fruit) 45 , is rebuked for her religious disloyalty, trusting foreign deities. This triggers yhwh's lawsuit (rîb) against his covenant breaching people who are turning from a symbol of blessing into a symbol of curse, by metaphorically returning to the Egypt they were taken from (2:6, 36) 46 . Within this symbolically charged passage the divine name (The) Baʻal ‫ַל‬ ‫ע‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫הַ‬ occurs for the first time in Jeremiah (2:8) in the phrase ‫ַל‬ ‫ע‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫אּו‬ ‫נִבְ‬ ‫ים‬ ‫יאִ‬ ‫בִ‬ ‫נְ‬ ‫.הַ‬ Baʻal is the divine inspiration of the prophetic visions or words of the (false) prophets. The latter are mentioned in the same grouping as "the priests" and "shepherds" (kings, leaders) who broke their allegiance to yhwh by "going after" a new overlord that is of no avail, ‫י‬ ‫ֲרֵ‬ ‫ח‬ ‫אַ‬ ‫ָּׁכּו‬ ‫ל‬ ‫הָּׁ‬ ‫לּו‬ ‫ועִׁ‬ ‫ֹּא-יֹּ‬ ‫.ל‬ Actually "the fathers" (ancestors, v 5-6) are early examples of those that "went after 'the vanity' ‫ל(‬ ‫בֶׁ‬ ‫הֶׁ‬ ‫")הַ‬ resulting in becoming a copy of the same ‫לּו(‬ ‫בָּׁ‬ ‫ֶׁהְ‬ ‫ַי‬ ‫.)ו‬ The semantic affinity between ‫ל‬ ‫בֶׁ‬ ‫הֶׁ‬ / ‫הבל‬ and ‫לּו‬ ‫ועִׁ‬ ‫ֹּא-יֹּ‬ ‫ל‬ is of significance: both denote a state or action that result in failure 47 . Both subjects are pursuing (hlk ‫)הלך‬ this object that is bound to fail them. ‫ל‬ ‫בֶׁ‬ ‫הֶׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ (in the definite form) is literally "The worthless One" and refers to an idol (singular of ‫הבלים‬ "false gods", in Deuteronomy 32:21 // ‫ל‬ ‫ֹּא-אֵ‬ ‫)ל‬ 48 . The expectation that lōʼ-yôʽīlû ‫לּו‬ ‫ועִׁ‬ ‫ֹּא-יֹּ‬ ‫ל‬ and ‫ל‬ ‫בֶׁ‬ ‫הֶׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ are referring to the same object of futile invocation is not unrealistic. Lundbom renders the phrase lōʼ-yôʽīlû ‫לּו‬ ‫ועִׁ‬ ‫ֹּא-יֹּ‬ ‫ל‬ rather literally with "After No Profits they went" 49, with the following remark relevant to this study 50: lōʼ-yôʽīlû, lit. "they do not profit," is a common summary judgement of idols (16:19; 1 Sam 12:21; in Isa 44:9 bal-yôʻîlû). For the singular, see v 11. The term here is a disparagement of Baʻal or the Baʻals, repeating "The Nothing" of v 5 (cf. T). It also plays on the name baʻal (ʻayin and lamed).
Note that ‫לּו‬ ‫ועִ‬ ‫ֹּא-יֹּ‬ ‫ל‬ (plural) is followed up in v 11 in the singular, 51 ‫יועל‬ ‫לוא‬ It is clear that these are allusions to the Baʻal/Baʻalim, assumedly another form of derogatory name for the deity. It is explicitly mentioned in the plural in Jeremiah 2:23 and 9:13, most probably defining "the other gods" .52 ‫אחרים‬ ‫אלהים‬ The formula ‫הלְך‬ ‫אחרי‬ / ‫אחרי‬ ‫הלְך‬ + object (of new allegiance) 53 , remains the same, with a nominal but not substantive change of object of allegiance.

Jeremiah 3:21-25
In Jeremiah 3:24 ‫ת‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫בֹּ‬ ‫הַ‬ occurs as the next definite noun that may form part of the name and shame arsenal against Baʻal. According to Jeremiah 3:24 "The Shame" 61 ‫ת(‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫בֹּ‬ ‫,)הַ‬ readily recognised as a name for Baʻal 62 , is devouring "the product of the labour of your fathers from our youth, their flocks and their cattle, together with ‫ת(‬ ‫)אֶׁ‬ their sons and their daughters" 63 . In verse 25a the same noun, ‫ת‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫,בֹּ‬ resumes with a pronominal suffix (first person plural), which likewise marks it as definite 64 . Therefore it could be argued that if not naming the deity due to its definiteness, ‫נּו‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫שְ‬ ‫בָׁ‬ at least indicates the reality of ‫ת‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫בֹּ‬ ‫,הַ‬ and thus indirectly refers to the deity. The cohortative ‫ה‬ ‫בָׁ‬ ‫כְ‬ ‫שְ‬ ‫נִ‬ "Let us lie down" probably carries a sexual connotation in parallel with its (only other) occurrence in Genesis 19:32 65 . While the preposition beth before ‫נּו‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫שְ‬ ‫בָׁ‬ is usually assumed to be a beth locale, "Let us lie down in our shame" (as an admission of guilt), the preposition could (also?) be a beth comitantiae 66 63 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 322 mentions two interpretation possibilities: if the verse is taken from 5:17 it could mean that Baʻal worship is punished by YHWH by an enemy that has now consumed the labour of many generations. Otherwise it could refer to both animal and child sacrifices, the latter practised by Ahaz and Manasseh, and after them flourishing in the Ben Hinnom Valley (7:31, 9:5). The second possibility is preferred, since no agents of YHWH's wrath are involved, as in Jeremiah 5:17. then further be argued that ‫ה‬ ‫מָׁ‬ ‫ּלִ‬ ‫כְ‬ in the next colon ‫נּו(‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫מָׁ‬ ‫לִ‬ ‫כְ‬ ‫נּו‬ ‫ַסֵ‬ ‫כ‬ ‫ּותְ‬ "and let our scandal cover us") in its textual format is grammatically determined in the very same way as ‫נּו‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫שְ‬ ‫בָׁ‬ and thus qualifies as another derogatory name for Baʻal, functioning as a metaphor of overt adultery. This, however, might not be the case, for on the surface level ‫נּו‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫שְ‬ ‫בָׁ‬ and ‫נּו‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫מָׁ‬ ‫לִ‬ ‫כְ‬ do not look like determined nouns, and the meaning would then be that of shame and scandal in the general sense of the word. In other words this line would be Israel's sincere, unadultared confession of their religious adultery 67 . Surely, does the subsequent admission of guilt not strongly support a penitential reading of verse 24a' as part and parcel of at least Jeremiah 3:21-25? 68 For against Yahweh our God we have sinned, we and our fathers, from our youth unto this day. We have not obeyed the voice of Yahweh our God.
On the other hand, not even deliberated by traditional interpreters, the rhetoric of allusion to Baʻal worship is constantly at work in Jeremiah. The nameterm ‫ת‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫בֹּ‬ ‫הַ‬ is not to be separated from ‫נּו‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫שְ‬ ‫בָׁ‬ and ‫נּו‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫מָׁ‬ ‫לִ‬ ‫.כְ‬ In either case, whether the latter two are understood as determined or undetermined nouns, colon 1 and 2 of verse 25a are read as synonymous or complementary parallelisms. This means that in the reading of all these terms as determined nouns (alluding to Baʻal), the first colon

Let us lie down in the company of Our Shame (i.e. Baʻal)
is complemented by the second colon Let Our Scandal (i.e. Baʻal) cover us.
A tentative conclusion seems in order at this point: What is on surface level assumed as a genuine confession of guilt verbalised through undetermined nouns denoting inherent and public shame, is actually a cover for a refusal to confess persistent idolatry, strategically marked as such by references to the scandalous Baʻal and an ongoing relationship with him, and that from the mouth of the adulteress-idolatress.
A brief exposition of the surrounding text, however, is necessary for a more nuanced understanding: This verse (25) is situated within the passage Jeremiah 3:21-25, where, according to our reading, another derogatory term for 67 This confession, apparently of sin, is verbalised in Psalm 109:29, where the Psalmist prays that his accusers "be clothed in public shame / dishonour / scandal ‫ה(‬ ‫מָׁ‬ ‫לִ‬ ‫,)כְ‬ wrapped in their shame ‫ם(‬ ‫תָׁ‬ ‫שְ‬ ‫בָׁ‬ ) like a robe." 68 Cf. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 320: "Gunkel (1967:14) identified the 'we' portion as a community lament, which he said Jeremiah was imitating in anticipation of the day when Israel would see her waywardness and repent (similarly Rashi; Gordis 1949:176; Blank 1970:2-3; and others)." Baʻal occurs, namely ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ in the first colon of the previous verse (23a): ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫ַשֶׁ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ֵן‬ ‫כ‬ ‫אָׁ‬ ‫ים‬ ִ ‫ר‬ ‫הָׁ‬ ‫ון‬ ‫מֹּ‬ ‫הָׁ‬ ‫ות‬ ‫עֹּ‬ ‫בָׁ‬ ‫ּגְ‬ ‫.מִ‬ The interpretation of these words has been problematic, for three reasons: (1) ‫ֵן‬ ‫כ‬ ‫אָׁ‬ is "surely" when occurring once in a clause. But here the term already occurred in verse 20 69 , and is repeated in verse 23, with the function of overruling and correcting the previous statement 70 . When functioning in a repetitive sequence it could be translated as "however" 71 , or even better "no" 72 , rather than "surely" 73 or "truly" 74 .
The first two problem areas are correctly handled by Holladay 75 who translates the initial words of each phrase as "no", and realises that the preposition ‫)ל-(‬ before ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ is the very same preposition in the previous line: "Look, we are coming to you" ‫ְָׁך(‬ ‫,)ל‬ for you are yhwh our God". The response is therefore a retort from (the mouth of) yhwh: "No, to the Lie (you are coming)...".
Contrary to the vocalisation of ‫המון‬ in the MT, multiple manuscripts take ‫המון‬ ‫הרים‬ to be a genitive construct, so that the logical literal translation would be "from the hills is the noise of the mountains" 76. Therefore, on the surface this 69 whole passage looks like Israel's confession of guilt, but there are enough indications that yhwh is still in dispute with his people who are actually refusing heartfelt penitence, using subversive language to convey their addiction to Baʻal.
Jeremiah 3:21-25 has been identified by Claus Westermann as a liturgy of penitence, on the form critical ground that verse 21, 22b-25 represents the people's voice, as "a confession of sins and an expression of trust," prompted by the call to repentance in verse 22a (God's response is in 4:1-2/4) 77 . The liturgical setting is an acceptable theory, but to label the entire passage as a liturgy of penitence does not do justice to the intention of the passage. Verse 22-25 rather seems to be an alternating dispute between yhwh and his people, a rîb within a liturgical setting. The call to repentance in 22a is not the last word from yhwh: verse 23a is his retort, taken up by a counter-retort from his people (v 23b), who are now reflecting on their dismal state, with an apparent willingness to finally repent (in terms of the theme: to turn to Yahweh, not Baʻal) and confess their sins (v 24-25) [as reflected on the surface level of the text]. On a sublime level, however, the confession is that of religious apostasy, a love for Baʻalover against the facts that he has taken his high toll, "the fruit (product) of our fathers, from our youth, their sheep and their cattle, their sons and their daughters" (v 24).
My translation proposal of verses 22-25 takes the dialogue and poetic terseness into account, by its layout and slight paraphrasing of the text: The theme of the dispute-cum-penitence is the return/turning of Israel either to yhwh or ‫ת‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫בֹּ‬ ‫הַ‬ / ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫.הַ‬ Israel is turning this way and that, circling around, without reaching a decision. From verse 23b-25 reality starts dawning: in yhwh is salvation, while habbošet (=Baʻal) has claimed their livestock and children (by means of animal and child sacrifice). The gruesome reality is that generations have sinned against yhwh. At this point in the text confession of sin seems to be apparent on the surface. Language specifics prompt a deeper level reading, however, revealing Israel's ambiguity, her ongoing, subversive turning to Baʻal when pretending in liturgically correct language of penitence to turn to yhwh. The confession of sin against yhwh and realisation of harm done by Baʻal, is subverted by a confession of addicted adherence to Baʻal. What is obvious, is that the allusions to and derogatory naming of the baʻal / b e ʻalîm is most ironically placed in the mouth of the confessor, who confirms as truthful witness that Baʻal is "Our Shame" and "Our (Public) Scandal". Although this constitutes experiential truth, it does not constitute true repentance to Yahweh. Therefore, the subsequent response of Yahweh (Jeremiah 4:1ff) is not a word of forgiveness or promise, but a conditional sentence: "If you return, O Israel … return to Me".

5
Jeremiah 5 Depending on whether these forms of definite nouns (without explicit article) should be identified as names for Baʻal. This argument must still be settled. The ambiguity might be intentional. 80 De Blois and Mueller, "Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew," n.p. Cited 21 April 2020. Online: http://www.sdbh.org/vocabula/index.html ‫ֲרּור‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ׁשַ‬ adj ‫ׁשער‬ Wrong = state in which an event is so unacceptable that it inspires horror and outrage and calls for punishment --horrible thing; outrage (also in Jeremiah 23:14). The second meaning of ‫ה‬ ‫מָּׁ‬ ‫ׁשַ‬ in HELOT (p 1031) "appalment, horror" suits best in combination with ‫ֲרּור‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ׁשַ‬ as translated.
The prophets prophesy by The Lie, and the priests reject their consecration 81 and my people love it that way. But what will you do when she 82 comes to her end? 83 Our study has to focus on the event of ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫אּו-בַ‬ ‫נִבְ‬ ‫ים‬ ‫יאִ‬ ‫נְבִ‬ ‫הַ‬ (line 2a above). This event with its sequel is identified as, and takes place within the setting of ‫ץ‬ ‫רֶׁ‬ ‫אָׁ‬ ‫בָׁ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫תָׁ‬ ‫יְ‬ ‫הְ‬ ‫נִ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ֲרּורָׁ‬ ‫ע‬ ‫שַ‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫מָׁ‬ ‫.שַ‬ The ultimate (added?) question at the end of the prophetic utterance, "What will you do ‫לְ‬ ‫ה‬ ִֽ ‫יתָׁ‬ ִ ‫ֲר‬ ‫ח‬ ‫אַ‬ ?" (v 31), is linked to the introduction, in that it refers to a single feminine entity or person. Both ‫ׁשמה‬ and ‫ׁשערורה‬ as well as the pronominal suffix of ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֲר‬ ‫ח‬ ‫אַ‬ are in the feminine forms. All of them seem to refer to the same entity. In the HB/OT the habitat, the land and cities, are feminine forms and metaphorically expressed in feminine persona. It seems evident that two metaphors are here at play, and that ‫ׁשערורה‬ and ‫,ׁשמה‬ and probably also ‫,אחריתּה‬ are describing a state of curse of both the people and land of Israel 84 . The effects of the curse have their origin in the wrongful actions of the prophets and priests.
Most translators render ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫אּו-בַ‬ ‫נִׁבְ‬ ‫ים‬ ‫יאִׁ‬ ‫נְבִׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ in Jeremiah 5:31a as "the prophets prophesy falsely" 85 or "... falsehood" 86 or "... lies" 87 or ".... by a lie" 88 . Some commentators believe to detect an allusion to Baʻal in ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫בַ‬ "by The Lie" 89 . The same sentiment is reflected in a cautious way by some translations, for example "Prophets give their messages in the name of a false god" (Cev). The notion that haššeqer refers to an idol, another deity contrary to yhwh, is confirmed by a similar phrase earlier on: ‫ַל‬ ‫ע‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫אּו‬ ‫נִׁבְ‬ ‫ים‬ ‫יאִׁ‬ ‫נְבִׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ (Jeremiah 2:8c). In 81 Taking the second meaning of ‫רדה‬ = scrape, and following the argument of Holladay,Jeremiah I,201. 82 Jeremiah 5:30 ‫ַל‬ ‫ע‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫בַ‬ (babbaʿal) is simply replaced by ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫בַ‬ (baššeqer). Both nouns are in the definite form. The text gives no indications that two different deities are intended; to the contrary. It can therefore be concluded that in the lectio continua of the MT, ‫ר‬ ‫קֶׁ‬ ‫שֶׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ is indeed ‫ַל‬ ‫ע‬ ‫בַ‬ ‫הַ‬here most probably a derogatory name for the deity.

Conclusions
1. The inter-textual exegesis as a test of the semantic connectivity of the relevant terms from a network of texts where these terms occur, confirms that the working hypothesis is plausible. Numerous cross-references to Baʻal by means of the defined nouns šawʼ (laššawʼ), šeqer (haššeqer, laššeqer, baššeqer), bošet (habbošet) and hebel (hahebel) could be detected throughout the text in the chosen text blocks. The reading of the text from this perspective revealed text-immanent support in some cases, previously overlooked.
3. The case of nouns of which the definiteness is grammatically formed by pronominal suffixes or construct states bound to a definite noun, was practically illustrated in the discussion of Jeremiah 3:21-25. It seems that ‫נּו‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫שְ‬ ‫בָׁ‬ and ‫נּו‬ ‫תֵ‬ ‫מָׁ‬ ‫לִ‬ ‫כְ‬ in verse 25, as grammatically typified definites, but formally not recognised as such (without definite articles), can be read on two levels: either as a non-coded reference to shame in general (in the passage a sign of Israel's repentance), or as coded language, alluding to (Israel's ongoing worship of) Baʻal. In this particular instance the rhetorical function of this double reading supports Israel's ethical ambiguity regarding repentance, the main theme in Jeremiah 2-3.

9
Suggested further studies in MT Jeremiah 1. The sampled texts, good indicators as they are, need to be supplemented by further exegetical study. The remaining texts where laššawʼ and 97 laššeqer/baššeqer appear as well as excerpts from Jeremiah 23:9-40 should either strengthen the hypothesis, or show up its problematic side.
2. Of interest would be the discovery of additional examples of allusions or references to the deities/deity in the plural, as well as examples of nouns defined through pronominal suffixes or construct states bound to definite nouns, enabling references to idols apart from their general meaning.
3. The assumption that the terms under discussion that appear in Jeremiah in their indefinite forms (namely bošet, hebel and particularly šeqer) always denote shame/nothingness/deceit in general, should be revisited. If they (also) have a connotation of idolatry, i.e. alluding to the anti-YHWH deities, the perceived rhetorical function of their definite counterparts as disparagement in particular may have to be adjusted.