Deuteronomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority in Jeremiah (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161544019, 9783161544026, 3161544013

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

87

Nathan Mastnjak

Deuteronomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority in Jeremiah

Mohr Siebeck

Nathan Mastnjak, born 1983; 2015 PhD, with honors, University of Chicago; currently Postdoctoral Fellow in Indiana University’s Borns Jewish Studies Program.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-154402-6 ISBN 978-3-16-154401-9 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2016 by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen, printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

To Jen, Adele, and Elsa, with gratitude

Acknowledgements The work that came to fruition here has benefited from the support and input of numerous teachers, friends, and colleagues. This book, which is a revision of my dissertation, had its origins in my time as a graduate student at the University of Chicago. I am thankful to all of my teachers, but I owe a particular debt to my committee members, Ronnie Goldstein, David Schloen, Jeffrey Stackert, and especially my advisor Dennis Pardee. Dennis Pardee’s superlative commitment to his students is justly legendary, and I aspire to emulate his example of an advisor, teacher, and scholar. Jeffrey Stackert has also been an immense support throughout my studies at the University of Chicago and is responsible for cultivating my interest in the Pentateuch and inner-biblical interpretation. David Schloen has helped me read texts in relation to material culture, and Ronnie Goldstein has given valuable guidance in my navigating the minefield of Jeremiah Studies. This project would never have seen completion without financial and institutional support. Many thanks are especially due to the University of Chicago’s Center for Jewish Studies, whose generous dissertation year fellowship made it possible for me to bring this project to its initial completion, and to Indiana University’s Borns Jewish Studies Program, whose Postdoctoral Fellowship and supplementary funding enabled me to finalize the project and prepare it for publication. As the principle work for this book was completed at the University of Chicago, it is only right to acknowledge how much my time there was immeasurably enriched by fellow-students and friends. Thanks go to Jessie DeGrado, Charles Huff, Hannah Marcuson, Jordan Skornik, Jody Otte, Nick Polk, and Jacqueline Vayntrub. I feel truly lucky to have been surrounded by such intelligent and friendly people during graduate school. I would like to extend special thanks to Charles Huff. He has been a friend literally since the day I moved to Chicago and he helped me move into my apartment. Since then we have spent countless hours in classes and hashing out and writing our dissertations. Many of the ideas put in writing here came to life first in conversation with him. Thanks also to my parents, Raymond and Deborah Mastnjak. Without their encouragement and support throughout my life, I would never have been emboldened to pursue graduate study.

VIII

Acknowledgements

Finally, a huge amount of gratitude is due to those who had to actually live with me during this process. Thank you, Jen, Adele, and Elsa. This book is dedicated to you.

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

Chapter One: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. History of Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. Allusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 III. The Composition of Jeremiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1. Deuteronomistic Redaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Pre-Deuteronomistic Poetry and Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3. Deuteronomistic Language vs. Allusion to Deuteronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 IV. The Composition of the D Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 V. Authority and Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 VI. Allusion and Authority in Jeremiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 I. Prophecy in D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 II. Jeremiah as a Prophet like Moses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 1. Jer 7:23 and Deut 5:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2. Jer 11:1–5, Deut 27:15–26, and Exod 23:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3. Jer 1:7–9 and Deut 18:18, 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4. Jer 21:8–10 and Deut 30:15, 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5. Jer 26:2 and Deut 13:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6. Jer 28:8–9 and Deut 18:21–22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 7. Jer 36:28 and Deut 10:1–2 or Exod 34:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 IV. False Prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 1. Jer 5:14 and Deut 18:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2. Jer 29:15 and Deut 18:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 3. Jer 29:23 and Deut 18:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4. Jer 28:16/29:32 and Deut 13:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 1. Jer 15:3–4 and Deut 28:25–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 2. Jer 34:17, 20 and Deut 28:25–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 3. Jer 7:33 and Deut 28:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4. Jer 16:4 and Deut 28:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

X

Table of Contents

5. Jer 29:18 and Deut 28:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 6. Jer 19:7, 9 and Deut 28:26, 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 7. Jer 24:9 and Deut 28:25, 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 II. Jer 9:15, 16:13 and Deut 28:64 (36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 III. Jer 32:41 and Deut 28:63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 IV. Jer 42:16 and Deut 28:60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 V. Allusions to Deut 28 in non-DtrJ Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 1. Jer 5:15–17 and Deut 28:49–52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 2. Jer 28:14 and Deut 28:48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 3. Jer 29:5–7 and Deut 28:30–32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 VI. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 I. Law as Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 1. Jer 8:2 and Deut 17:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 2. Jer 17:19–27 and Deut 5:12–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 3. Jer 32:35 and Deut 18:9–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 4. Jer 34:14 and Deut 15:1, 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 5. The Authority of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 II. Further Allusions to Law by DtrJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 1. Jer 13:11 and Deut 26:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 2. Jer 32:21–22 and Deut 26:3, 8–9, 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 3. Jer 31:29–30 and Deut 24:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 4. Jer 32:18–19 and Deut 5:9–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 III. Law as Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 1. Metaphorical allusions to non-D law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 2. Jer 3:1–4, 8 and Deut 24:1–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 3. Jer 5:21–24 and Deut 21:18–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 4. Jer 11:19 and Deut 20:19–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 5. Jer 34:17 and Deut 15:1, 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 IV. Spurious Claims of Allusions to D’s Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 V. Jeremiah and D’s Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 I. Obedience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 1. Jer 4:4 and Deut 10:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 2. Jer 5:24 and Deut 11:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 3. Jer 29:13–14aα and Deut 4:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 4. Jer 32:39–40 and Deut 5:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 5. Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Obedience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 II. Other Allusions to Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 1. Jer 21:5 and a Deuteronomic Cliché . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 2. Jer 22:8–9 and Deut 29:23–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 3. Jer 33:5 and Deut 31:17–18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 III. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Table of Contents

XI

Excursus: Allusions to Jeremiah in Deuteronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 I. Parallels to Deut 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 1. Deut 29:3 and Jer 5:21, 24:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 2. Deut 29:17–18 and Jer 23:15, 17 (4:10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 3. Deut 29:27 and Jer 21:5, 32:37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 II. Parallels to Deut 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 III. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Chapter Six: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Chapter One

Introduction Modern readers of Jeremiah face a number of significant challenges. Not least are the difficulties prompted by its composite authorship, complex organization, and textual history. The book itself apparently addresses some of these phenomena in Jer 36’s narrative of the writing and rewriting of a Jeremianic scroll. After the destruction of the first scroll, the story indicates that “Baruch took another scroll and wrote on it from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book that Jehoiakim had burned. And many words like these were added to it” (36:32 LXX).1 Perhaps more clearly than any other passage in the Hebrew Bible, this passage addresses and justifies the redactional growth of a prophetic text.2 The nature of the relationship between Jeremiah and the book of Deuteronomy represents another puzzle. As scholars have long noted, certain passages from Jeremiah share with Deuteronomy a striking similarity in style and a significant number of thematic and linguistic parallels. These parallels represent an opportunity to observe early modes of textual interpretation and reception, and this possibility gives rise to a number of questions. First, what is the nature of the relationship between these books? If literary dependence can be traced, in which direction does it move? Second, given the multiple authorship of Jeremiah, does the relationship to Deuteronomy belong to a single layer of composition, or is it a phenomenon shared across compositional strata? If the phenomenon is shared, how does the relationship to Deuteronomy differ from one layer of tradition to the next? To begin to answer such questions requires an adequately theorized approach to the analysis of literary dependence, an understanding of the compositional history of each book, and a detailed analysis of every instance of literary dependence on Deuteronomy. The present study will set out to answer these questions.

1 The MT, apparently uncomfortable with this passage’s implications about authorship, inserted Jeremianic agency into the sequence: “Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch, son of Neriah, the scribe, and he wrote upon it ….” Cf. Janzen, Studies (1973) 72; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 253. 2  Cf. Stipp, Beiträge zu Prophetie und Poesie (2002) 166; Otto, Pentateuch as Torah (2007) 176; Allen, Jeremiah (2008) 400; Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur (2011) 226. Lundbom, in contrast, sees this verse as a reference to the prose narratives that he attributes to Baruch (Jeremiah 21–36 [2004] 611).

2

Chapter One: Introduction

I. History of Scholarship Though addressing these questions in a variety of ways, the modern study of the book of Jeremiah has been led away from addressing them in a fully satisfying manner. The question of the relationship to Deuteronomy has been dominated by questions of compositional history. While such investigations remain important and useful, they aim primarily at unraveling the compositional histories of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy and give inadequate attention to the analysis of the interpretive processes at work in the connections between the books. The result is an insufficiently nuanced view of the ways various parts of Jeremiah interact with Deuteronomy. Much of the agenda for the modern study of Jeremiah was set by Bernard Duhm in his now classic commentary.3 According to Duhm, the composition of the book can be divided into poetic oracles, which alone represent the words of Jeremiah, biographical narratives attributed to Baruch, and later redactional additions, which themselves account for the greatest amount of material in the book.4 Within this analysis, Duhm drew attention to the relationship between the redactional additions and other biblical texts, namely, Deuteronomy, Second and Third Isaiah, and Ezekiel.5 Addressing the relationship to Deuteronomy, Duhm understood the redactional additions to present Jeremiah as little more than a teacher of torah.6 The poetic oracles, though knowing an early form of Deuteronomy, expressed ambivalence about it.7 According to Duhm, therefore, Deuteronomy was influential only on the redactional expansions; the poetic oracles were neither influenced by it nor particularly interested in it. Although Duhm did not emphasize the connection to Deuteronomy to the same extent as his successors, he nevertheless identified its influence on the redactional expansions to the book and, as such, set in motion an important trend. Building on Duhm’s insights, Sigmund Mowinckel proposed a source-theory for the composition of Jeremiah. In place of Duhm’s theory, which involved two sources and extensive supplemental additions, Mowinckel proposed four originally independent documents with fewer supplemental additions.8 Of these sources, which he labelled A, B, C, and D, source C corresponded to much of what Duhm had previously identified as redactional expansions. To a greater ex Duhm, Jeremia (1901).  Ibid., xii–xvi. 5 Ibid., xx. 6  Ibid., xviii. Though he does not clarify what he means by “Torah” in his introduction, subsequent comments in his commentary indicate that this term refers to the law of Deuteronomy. Cf. ibid., 95, 107. 7  Cf. especially Duhm’s treatment of Jer 8:8 (Jeremia [1901] 88–89). 8  Mowinckel, Komposition (1914). At a later time, Mowinckel replaced his idea of “sources” with that of “tradition complexes” (The Spirit and the Word [2002] 56–57, 127 n. 5). 3 4

I. History of Scholarship

3

tent than Duhm, Mowinckel emphasized the close connection between source C and Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH). C is marked with distinctive language similar to that of Deuteronomy and the redactional portions of DtrH. It also shares key themes with Deuteronomy and DtrH, including the idea that both contemporaries and ancestors have sinned against Yahweh, that the chief sin is idolatry, and that the central requirement of the covenant is to not serve foreign gods.9 Like Duhm, Mowinckel contrasted the perspectives on Deuteronomy between the A and C sources with reference to Jer 8:8. While C considered divine law to be codified in the written law of Deuteronomy, A opposed the idea of a written law.10 As a result of Mowinckel’s theory, parallels to Deuteronomy became important for identifying a particular compositional stratum in Jeremiah. Philip Hyatt, Winfried Thiel, and Alexander Rofé modified Mowinckel’s C-source into a comprehensive supplemental redaction of the book.11 The work of these scholars continues to be helpful for questions of compositional history, but their work does not address the relationship between the Deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah (DtrJ12) and the book of Deuteronomy beyond the conclusions already supplied by Duhm and Mowinckel. For these scholars, DtrJ considered Deuteronomy to reflect and codify the will of Yahweh.13 Hyatt explicitly contrasted DtrJ’s perspective on Deuteronomy with that of the supposed authentic Jeremiah discoverable in the poetic oracles. According to Hyatt, [Authentic Jeremiah] was acquainted with the original edition of Deuteronomy but never expressed approval either of the principles or of the methods of the Deuteronomic reforms. Indeed, his outlook was on many important questions diametrically opposed to that of the writers of Deuteronomy. The Book of Jeremiah as we now have it, however, has received expansion and redaction at the hands of ‘Deuteronomic’ editors, whose purpose in part was to claim for Deuteronomy the sanction of the great prophet.14

Hyatt found evidence for the anti-Deuteronomic nature of the authentic Jeremiah first in a contrast between the “whole religious outlook” of authentic Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, and specifically the rejection of cult in chs. 7 and 26 as well as in 11:15 and 6:20, and second in passages that he believed register opposition to Deuteronomy itself: 2:8, 8:8–9, 13.15 Though Hyatt recognized that Jeremiah  Ibid., (1914) 33–35.  Ibid., 36–38. 11 Hyatt, JNES 1 (1942) 156–73; idem, VSH 1 (1956) 71–95; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973); idem, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981); Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 1–29 [Hebrew]. 12 This designation will be used henceforth for Deuteronomistic Jeremiah. 13  Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 109. 14  JNES 1 (1942) 158. Cf. also idem, VSH 1 (1956) 91–92. 15 JBL 60 (1941) 382–87; idem, JNES 1 (1942) 158.  9

10

4

Chapter One: Introduction

alluded to Deuteronomy in 3:1 and 28:9,16 he did not explore these allusions or indicate their implications for the presumed anti-Deuteronomic stance of Jeremiah. Helga Weippert addressed and discounted the connections in linguistic style between the prose sermons of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy from two directions: 1) the supposed connections show too many differences in nuance to be real, and 2) the similarities that exist simply represent the prose style of the day.17 She combined these points with the observation that certain unique lexical locutions appear in both the poetry and the prose, and she concluded that Jeremiah was the author of both the poetic oracles and prose sermons. While Weippert’s discovery of differences in nuance are often cogent, they are unable to sustain her conclusions.18 As McKane points out, proving distinct linguistic nuances in Jeremianic prose suggests only that the authors responsible were influenced by the Jeremianic corpus and had their own unique style.19 More importantly for the present investigation, her study does not directly address the question of the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. She mentions only one actual allusion (Jer 34:14 / ​Deut 15:12), which she concludes stems from the prophet himself.20 Thus, though acknowledging a relationship between the books, she does not explore its import. William Holladay followed Weippert in viewing much of the prose as “authentic,” but, unlike Weippert, devoted considerable attention to the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. For Holladay, the connections between the books moved in both directions: Jeremiah himself was influenced by Deuteronomy, and late portions of Deuteronomy in turn drew on Jeremiah.21 On the one hand, this led Holladay to discuss a number of allusions in the poetic oracles that other interpreters had ignored, and his list of sources for the book of Jeremiah remains the most complete catalogue of the parallels between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. His view of the prose and poetry as authentic witnesses to the historical Jeremiah, however, led him to read the poetic texts together with later additions as reflecting a single perspective on Deuteronomy. Thus, drawing on passages that other scholars would term “Deuteronomistic,” he characterized the proclamation of Jeremiah as a whole as centered around the “covenant.”22 Holladay’s analysis was also wed to his assumption of the historicity of the septennial reading of Deuteronomy mandated in Deut 31:9–13. He hypothesized that Jeremiah’s prose sermons represented responses to these public readings. 16  JNES 1 (1942) 164. Both of these allusions will be discussed in the course of this study, though, contra Hyatt, I will follow Thiel and others in assigning Jer 28:9 to DtrJ. 17  Prosareden (1973), cf. especially 228–34. 18  See the criticism by McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) xliii–xlvii. 19 Ibid., xlvi. 20  Weippert, Prosareden (1973) 90–106. 21  Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 53–63; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 55–77. 22 Jeremiah 2 (1989) 78.

I. History of Scholarship

5

For Holladay, the Deuteronomistic style of the sermons were thus explainable as deliberate mimicry of Deuteronomy prompted by its septennial public reading.23 In terms of the perspective on Deuteronomy, Holladay saw Jeremiah as favorably influenced by Deuteronomy but opposed to the “pretension of the scribes who recited the Deuteronomic law (8:4–10a, 13).”24 Thus, for Holladay, Jeremiah was a supporter of Deuteronomy and enlisted the book in support of his own proclamation. The prophet opposed rather the hypocritical use of Deuteronomy and an overconfidence in divine protection.25 Holladay dealt with differences in ideology in the book of Jeremiah by appealing to the biography of the prophet, for whom particular events prompted changes of perspective.26 While Holladay’s catalogue of the sources for Jeremiah remains useful – and his exegesis of individual passages highly insightful – his views on composition render it unable to address the possibility of there being differing perspectives on Deuteronomy in the various strands of Jeremiah. Since the arguments for a DtrJ redaction remain compelling (see below), Holladay’s leveling of multiple strands of redaction into a single authentic Jeremiah is unable to bring to light potential differences in perspective or method among the various layers of tradition. His attempt to account for differences in genre and ideology by way of the reconstructed biography of the prophet and the septennial reading of Deuteronomy are too speculative to be convincing. Moreover, since he is interested primarily in what the prophet himself had to say, Holladay leaves out of his catalogue of Jeremiah’s sources anything that he considers inauthentic. Holladay has thus filled one gap in scholarship – the relative inattention to the poetic allusions to Deuteronomy  – only to leave open another  – how these correlate to various compositional strata in the book. Finally, Holladay does little more than list the proposed uses of Deuteronomy. He does not fully explore the interpretive processes or supply argumentation for each proposal. Most problematically, his methodology does not adequately take into account the possibility of coincidental similarities between texts. The result is a large number of spurious proposals intermixed with those of greater plausibility.27 In the final analysis, Holladay considers Jeremiah to be a follower of Deuteronomy who condemns his audience for failing to obey Deuteronomy’s covenant.28 As this view is in basic agreement with what Duhm, Mowinckel, Thiel, and Hyatt concluded for the redactional additions to Jeremiah, one is left with  Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 29–35; CBQ 66 (2004) 55–77.  Ibid., 29. 25 See Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 241–49 on 7:1–15; ibid., 257–63 on 7:21–28; ibid., 281–83 on 8:8; ibid., 348–53 on 11:1–17. 26  Ibid. Cf. also idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 57. 27 This problem in Holladay’s methodology has been observed also by Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 35, as well as Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 258 n. 19, who faults Holladay for including “doubtful” examples and for not explaining the interpretative processes. 28 Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 78. 23 24

6

Chapter One: Introduction

the impression that Holladay has read a DtrJ perspective back in to the allusions that appear in the pre-DtrJ material. Jack Lundbom followed Weippert and, to some extent, Holladay, in discounting the supposed connections to Deuteronomy in Jeremiah. In Lundbom’s estimation, the similarities between Deuteronomy, DtrH, and Jeremiah arise from their “shar[ing] a common rhetorical tradition” that stems from the same Jerusalem rhetorical “school.”29 He points out also that “Baruch is as credentialed as anyone for being a ‘Deuteronomic’ scribe.”30 Lundbom acknowledges some influence of Deuteronomy on Jeremiah, primarily the style of Deut 32 and the notion of the conditional covenant,31 but is otherwise relatively uninterested in the relationship between the books. Lacking in the studies surveyed so far is adequate attention to the interpretative dynamics at work in the connections between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. Michael Fishbane’s magisterial Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel laid important groundwork for a more sophisticated perspective on the potentialities of literary dependance.32 Both in methodology and in specific insights, Fishbane’s work remains exceptionally insightful. Yet his work did not attempt to explore the nature of the relationships between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy in specific detail. His goal was rather a survey of the varieties of inner-biblical interpretation and an analysis of its transformational nature. In a review of this work, James Kugel leveled particular criticism at Fishbane’s categorization of inner-biblical interpretation according to rabbinic categories, suggesting rather a historical approach that proceeds by document, thus allowing the distinctive nature of interpretation present in the different books to come to light – a task taken up by the present study.33 In more recent scholarship, the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy has been taken up anew, often with the aid of sophisticated readings of interpretive processes at work in the literary connections between the two books, but without any attempts to treat the phenomenon in a comprehensive way. Christl Maier examined in detail four passages that portray Jeremiah as a teacher of Deuteronomic torah (Jer 7:5–7; 17:19–27; 22:1–5; 34:13–17).34 These passages present the laws of Deuteronomy as the supreme authority and Jeremiah as its preacher. Obeying Deuteronomy’s laws in the past could have averted the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. Obeying them in the post-exilic present will prevent a second loss of the land. Much of Maier’s study is committed to detailed redactional analysis in an effort to identify these passages as post-exilic  Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (1999) 64–65, 92.  Ibid., 65. 31 Ibid., 110–14, 142. 32  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (1985). 33  Kugel, Prooftexts 7 (1987) 276–77. 34 Lehrer der Tora (2002); idem, Interpretation 62 (2008) 22–32. 29 30

I. History of Scholarship

7

insertions. Her analysis of the relationship to Deuteronomy represents a renewed justification for Duhm’s characterization of Jeremiah in the redactional additions as a “Thoralehrer.”35 This conclusion is correct as far as it goes, and will be demonstrated from a different perspective in this study. The limited selection of passages, however, prevents this study from addressing the broader phenomenon of the relationship of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah and obscures the complexity of the perspective on Deuteronomy embedded in these passages. In his extensive work on Jeremiah, Mark Leuchter has also recognized the relationship to Deuteronomy as of central methodological importance.36 In his monograph, Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll, Leuchter raised the following pertinent questions: Was the literature associated with Jeremiah appropriated by the Deuteronomists, or did it grow out of a common background? Was Jeremiah an advocate of Deuteronomy or an opponent? In either case, is the answer to be found (or at least addressed) in the poetry of the book as distinct from the prose or in tandem with in? In essence, what texts within the book may be relevant to an understanding of what the prophet thought and how his book developed in relation to the book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History?37

Though I am not convinced of the profitability of framing these questions in relation to the historical prophet,38 his framing of the issue of the relationship to Deuteronomy with the question of prose and poetry is methodologically significant. Like Holladay, Leuchter recognized that the poetry of the book also alludes to Deuteronomy, and he rightly insisted that this phenomenon be part of the analysis.39 Leuchter concluded that Jeremiah was the author of both prose and poetry and that he was himself a Deuteronomistic scribe.40 According to Leuchter, therefore, the historical prophet Jeremiah considered Deuteronomy an authority,41 sought to apply its teaching, and set out to carry forward the Deuteronomic reform after Josiah’s death.42 While Leuchter raised important questions about the relationship between the books of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, he left others unanswered. Though he noted the allusions to Deuteronomy in the poetic texts, his conclusion that these allusions present evidence for common authorship of the poetic oracles and prose sermons – both authored by Jeremiah himself, according to Leuchter –  Duhm, Jeremia (1901) xviii. Reform (2006) 7. 37  Ibid. 38  Indeed, Leuchter’s work has been heavily criticized for the speculative nature of his reconstructions. Cf. the reviews of Nicholson, JTS 59 (2008) 234–38, Clements, VT 58 (2008) 278–279, and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, VT 59 (2009) 508, as well as the criticism in Silver, “The Lying Pen” (2009) 55, 71, 80–83. 39 Polemics of Exile (2008) 2–3. 40  Ibid., 169; Polemics of Exile (2008) 9. 41  Josiah’s Reform (2006) 13. 42 Ibid., 16. 35

36 Josiah’s

8

Chapter One: Introduction

does not address the possibility that the poetic oracles and prose sermons might engage Deuteronomy in different ways. Edward Silver took a very different approach to the relationship between Deuteronomy and the poetic oracles of Jeremiah.43 Taking up Hyatt’s earlier suggestion that Jeremiah was an opponent of the Deuteronomic reform, Silver offered a historical and literary analysis of the poetic texts in chs. 2–6. On a historical level, Silver presented powerful arguments against the early dating of these texts to the time of Josiah. On a literary level, Silver argued that these texts demonstrate a resistance to elements of the Deuteronomic reform. Silver did not claim, however, that Jeremiah rejected or opposed Deuteronomy itself, but rather that he presented a challenge to the Deuteronomic school. This perspective culminates in his view that Jer 8:8–10 involves a critique of the Deuteronomists for advancing a royal ideology that abrogates Deut 17:14–20. Thus, for Silver, Jeremiah sides with Deuteronomy against the Deuteronomists. His argument thus comes close to the conclusion of Holladay with respect to Jer 8:8; the prophet supports Deuteronomy but objects to a specific use of it. Georg Fischer has addressed the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy in a series of studies as well as a recent commentary.44 This work succeeds in demonstrating the extensive scope of Jeremiah’s dependence on Deuteronomy.45 While Fischer analyzes most cases as drawing on Deuteronomy’s authority, he notes several passages in which Jeremiah seems to correct or disagree with its source.46 Fischer’s analyses are frequently insightful, but his commitment to a more or less synchronic approach to the text prevents him from addressing the possibility of differing perspectives in different layers of tradition. Dalit Rom-Shiloni and Eckart Otto have recently devoted a number of article-length studies to addressing the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy through in-depth analyses of the interpretive processes involved in specific parallels.47 Though addressing similar questions and working contemporaneously, these scholars have come to diametrically opposing views. Rom-Shiloni saw the book of Jeremiah treating Deuteronomy as an authoritative document that the various layers of Jeremiah uses as literary reservoir, an authority, and a

 “The Lying Pen” (2009). Jeremia 1–25 (2005); idem, Jeremia 26–52 (2005); idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2009) 281–92; idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 247–69; idem, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 43–49. 45 But see n. 93 below. Many of the connections Fischer proposes between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy lack sufficient evidence to be persuasive. 46  Cf. especially Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 267, where he concludes by highlighting the questions that these apparent conflicts raise. 47  Otto, ZAR 12 (2006): 245–306; idem, OTE 19 (2006) 939–949; idem, Pentateuch as Torah (2007) 171–84; Rom-Shiloni, ZAW 117 (2005) 189–205; idem, Birkat Shalom (2008) 101–23; idem, ZAR 15 (2009) 254–281; idem, HeBAI 1 (2012) 203–230. 43

44 Fischer,

I. History of Scholarship

9

means of self-authorization.48 In Rom-Shiloni’s analysis, Jeremiah “actualizes” pentateuchal legal material in an ad hoc manner whenever doing so supported his message: “Such allusions functioned to indicate continuity from Moses to the prophet, and even more so to affirm the connection between giving / ​accepting the torah in the desert to the prophetic demand for obedience to God and to His covenant in the early sixth century BCE.”49 For Rom-Shiloni, Deuteronomy, along with the other pentateuchal legal texts, was canonical for Jeremiah. She found in the tradition no hints of resistance to the ideology of Deuteronomy.50 Jeremiah may have denounced opponents who misused torah (Jer 8:8), but he never questioned Deuteronomy itself.51 Otto’s conclusions have been very different. He situated the principle interaction between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy in the context of post-exilic debates between the priestly editors of the Pentateuch and the post-exilic prophetic school of Jeremiah. According to Otto, the primary disagreements between these groups centered on the nature of revelation. For the priestly editors of the Pentateuch, revelation ceased with Moses. The post-exilic Jeremianic school claimed that it continued. Though more than half of the primary parallels examined by Otto between Jeremiah and the Pentateuch are in the book of Deuteronomy,52 Otto’s contention is that these passages were not original to Deuteronomy but were inserted as part of the post-exilic priestly redaction of the Pentateuch.

 Rom-Shiloni, Birkat Shalom (2008) 114–19, 123; idem, ZAR 15 (2009) 258–60.  ZAR 15 (2009) 279. 50 Rom-Shiloni finds this perspective in both what she considers Jeremian and non-Jeremian texts. Cf. Rom-Shiloni,  Birkat Shalom (2008) 114–19, 123, where Rom-Shiloni points out a disagreement between early Jeremian texts and later additions on the nature of exile; though the later texts disagree with early Jeremian texts, they do not disagree with Deuteronomy. Instead, both texts cite different parts of Deuteronomy in support of their own views of exile. 51  Ibid., 254–55 52 The parallels to Deuteronomy he lists are as follows: Jer 1:7, 9 / ​Deut 18:18 (ZAR 12 [2006] 265–66); Jer  30:3 / ​Deut  30:3 (OTE 19 [2006] 943–4); Jer 8:8 / ​Deut 4:5–6 (ZAR 12 [2006] 283–84); Jer  11:10 / ​Deut  31:16, 20 (ZAR 12 [2006] 275, 278–79); Jer 11:3–5 / ​Deut 27:26 (ZAR 12 [2006] 276); Jer  11:6b / ​Deut  29:8a (ZAR 12 [2006] 277); Jer 26:2, 4 / ​Deut 4:2, 8; 11:32; 13:1 (ZAR 12 [2006] 256, 260; Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 180–82); Jer 26:10–16 / ​Deut 18:9–22 (ZAR 12 [2006] 258); Jer 29:14aβb / ​Deut 30:1, 3, 5 (ZAR 12 [2006] 290) Jer 30–31 / ​Deut 29–30 (OTE 19 [2006] 944; ZAR 12 [2006] 289); Jer 31:27–34 / ​Deut 30:1–5, 9 (OTE 19 [2006] 934–44; ZAR 12 [2006] 289); Jer 31:31–34 / ​Deut 31:9, 12 (ZAR 12 [2006] 284); Jer 34:14a / ​Deut 15:1, 12 (ZAR 12 [2006] 281); Jer  36:32 / ​Deut  4:2 (ZAR 12 [2006] 295); The pentateuchal parallels outside of Deuteronomy he discusses are as follows: Jer 1:5 / ​Exod 4:10 (ZAR 12 [2006] 270); Jer 7:3, 7 / ​Num 14:30 (ZAR 12 [2006] 262); Jer 11:10 / ​Lev 26:15 (ZAR 12 [2006] 275, 278–79); Jer 26:4bβ / ​Exod 16:4 (Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 180); Jer 26:13, 19 / ​Exod 32:14 (ZAR 12 [2006] 256; Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 178, 181); Jer 31:32 / ​Lev 26:15 (ZAR 12 [2006] 285); Jer 31:34 / ​Exod 34:9 (Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 178); Jer 34:16a / ​Lev 19:11f (ZAR 12 [2006] 282, n. 128); Jer 34:18–22 (LXX) / ​Exod 32:4, 8, 20, 35 (ZAR 12 [2006] 293–94); Jer 36:3, 27–28, 32 / ​Exod 34:1–4, 9, 27–28 (ZAR 12 [2006] 293–95); Jer 31:31–34 / ​Exod 24:12 (OTE 19 [2006] 940; Das Deuteronomium [2000] 196); Jer 36:3bβ / ​Exod 34:9bβ (Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 177). 48 49

10

Chapter One: Introduction

While Otto’s observations on individual passages are often incisive, his locating of these interactions in a post-exilic debate is open to question. Indeed, unless one is already convinced of the post-exilic dating of the many pentateuchal passages that Otto cites, one is left to wonder why the interactions should be characterized as reflecting a post-exilic debate between rival schools rather than one author or school making use of a literary precursor.53 A recent monograph by Jeffrey Stackert has directly addressed pentateuchal theories of prophetic revelation and found evidence in pre-exilic sources for the idea of prophecy ceasing, or at least being severely restricted, after the death Moses.54 Stackert’s work shows that what Otto identified as a post-exilic theory – and thus as evidence for “post-Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy” – is analyzable rather as a perspective embedded already in the pre-exilic texts E and D sources. Much of Otto’s analysis rests on his identification of Deut 34:10–12 – a text stating that no prophet like Moses has since arisen – as a post-exilic addition and his contention that late texts of Jeremiah seek to refute this text’s claims.55 His attribution of this text to a post-exilic priestly redaction has been questioned by recent scholarship in the Neo-Documentarian school of pentateuchal criticism, which argues for its attribution instead to the pre-exilic E-source.56 Furthermore, and equally damaging to the overall argument, the connections Otto traces between this passage and passages in Jeremiah are not convincing.57 Otto overcomes the paucity of evidence supporting references to Deut 34:10–12 by repeatedly asserting that this passage stands in the background when the book of Jeremiah cites other texts that, according to Otto’s reconstruction, belong to 53  Otto confidently distinguishes between the exilic “Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy” and the post-exilic “post-Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy” on the basis of particular themes that differentiate the two redactions (cf., for example, Otto, Das Deuteronomium [2000] 110–233; idem, OTE 19 [2006] 941, idem, Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 174). Otto’s distinction between a Horeb-redaction and a Moab-redaction, however, is hypercritical and succumbs to the “pseudo-historicism” criticized by Sommer, The Pentateuch (2011) 85–108. For a well-considered alternative model, see Baden, Composition (2012), 129–48; Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses (2014) 126–67 (see also below, pp. 29–31). 54 Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses (2014). 55 Cf., for example, the statements in Otto, OTE 19 (2006) 939, idem, ZAR 12 (2006) 257–58, 262, 265, 267–68; idem, Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 175, 179–82. 56  Baden, Composition (2012) 99–100, 120, 148, 185; Yoo, JBL 131 (2012) 436–38; Stackert, A Prophet like Moses (2014) 117–23. 57  Otto claims a direct allusion to Deut 34:10–12 only in Jer 1:10 (citing Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 136). He points out that Jer 1:10 attributes to Jeremiah functions such as building up, tearing down, rebuilding, etc., that elsewhere in the book are attributed to Yahweh. Otto then claims that the only other passage in the Hebrew Bible that similarly attributes divine functions to a human is Deut 34:11, and he bases a connection between the two texts on this observation (ZAR 12 [2006] 267). This observation, however, overlooks other pentateuchal passages that attribute divine functions to Moses. Stackert has, for instance, identified this conflation of the activity of Yahweh and Moses as a characteristic of – though not limited to – the J source (Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch [2012] 51).

I. History of Scholarship

11

the same post-exilic literary layer as Deut 34:10–12.58 Such arguments, however, assume what needs to be proven. If the authors of Jeremiah were so concerned to refute the theory of revelation embedded in Deut 34:10–12, why do they never cite it? While the contextualizing of the interactions between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy as part of a post-exilic debate is not convincing, Otto has successfully demonstrated that certain texts in Jeremiah attempt to overturn or subvert passages, primarily from Deuteronomy, that restrict post-Mosaic revelation. These observations mark an important advance on previous work since most of the parallels he analyzes appear in passages attributable to DtrJ. Thus, based on detailed examination of the interpretive processes at work in actual usages of Deuteronomy, Otto finds resistance to Deuteronomy in precisely those passages that the other scholars have found a simple relationship of authority. These recent efforts of Rom-Shiloni and Otto demonstrate the continued importance of the question of the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. Both scholars selected particular parallels and drew widely diverging conclusions about the nature of the relationship between the books. Rom-Shiloni concluded that Jeremiah, in both prose and poetry, drew on the authority of Deuteronomy without any hints of resistance, transformation, or subversion. Otto, on the other hand, pointed out a tension between a late redaction in Jeremiah and the post-exilic redactor of the Pentateuch that centers on the idea of post-Mosaic revelation. The disagreement on the nature of reuse points to the need to address the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy anew and to move beyond the impasse by addressing the full range of allusions in the book – a prospect neither scholar attempts. Given the ubiquity of connections between these books, any kind of selectivity of parallels for analysis runs the risk of distorting the potentially nuanced perspectives embedded in them. What is needed is an analysis of all the parallels to Deuteronomy in Jeremiah. Bringing this survey of scholarship to a close, a number of trends can be noted. First, much of the discussion of the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy has been dominated by the correlation between Deuteronomistic language and themes and redactional portions of the book. For these analyses, the fact of a connection to Deuteronomy has often been afforded greater import than the nature of the connection. For the prose passages marked with Deuteronomistic language, the relationship to Deuteronomy has been assumed to 58  Several examples of this procedure are worth quoting. Arguing that the authors of Jer 36 allude to the Sinai pericope, Otto makes the following claim: “Quoting the Sinai pericope implies that they presupposed the epitaph of the Pentateuch [Deut 34:10–12], which is part of the same postexilic Pentateuch redaction as the verses in Exod 32 and 34 that were quoted in the book of Jeremiah” (Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 179; also in ZAR 12 [2006] 256–58). Arguing that Jer 26:1–5 alludes to Deut 4, Otto reasons that “this means that the scribal authors of Jer 26:1–5 also presupposed Deut 34:10–12 as the hermeneutical key to the Priestly Pentateuch, which was part of the same literary layer as Deut 4:1–44” (Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 180–81).

12

Chapter One: Introduction

reflect a simple adoption of Deuteronomy’s authoritative status. This perspective persists from Duhm to Thiel and is followed also by scholars such as Holladay and Leuchter who argue for the common authorship of Deuteronomistic prose and poetic passages. In this regard, Otto’s suggestion of an underlying rejection of Deuteronomy’s theory of revelation is particularly significant. Scholars who consider the poetic oracles to represent a different layer of tradition than the DtrJ passages have addressed the perspective on Deuteronomy embedded in these oracles primarily in passages that supposedly refer to the “torah” Deuteronomy but do not use it – most prominently Jer 8:8 (cf. also 2:8). For such scholars, the poetic oracles register either ambivalence with respect to Deuteronomy (Duhm) or outright rejection of it (Hyatt). In these discussions, examples of actual uses of Deuteronomy in poetic texts play a relatively minor role. Such an approach has pitfalls. First, more caution should be exerted in imagining the reference of “torah” in these passages – a reference to Deuteronomy is not certain.59 Second, others have noted that it is particular users of the written torah that are rejected in Jer 8:8 rather than the torah itself.60 Important as such considerations are, the actual use of Deuteronomy in the poetic oracles should surely play a role. The present study will intervene in this discussion by addressing directly and comprehensively the nature of the literary relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy through an analysis of actual uses of Deuteronomy.

II. Allusion Answering the questions set forward by the study requires a nuanced approach to literary reuse. This study’s methodological basis for analyzing this phenomenon finds its basis in work on the nature of allusion as a general literary phenomenon61 as well as in scholarship that has focused on the phenomenon within biblical literature. In the latter category, the approach of scholars such as Michael Fishbane, Bernard Levinson, and Benjamin Sommer, who have highlighted the presence of allusions within biblical texts and outlined their dynamics, provides a useful point of departure.62 While the recognition of a hermeneutical element

59 Note the caution McKane rightly urges on this point: “We do not necessarily for example, have an indication of the unfavourable attitude of the prophet to the ‘second law’ – the code of Deuteronomy. A more general interpretation of the allusion should also be allowed, namely, that the prophet is concerned with what he regards as false rulings in connection with contemporary issues which he believes to be crucial” (Jeremiah I–XXV [1986] 186). 60  Cf. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 281–83. 61 Ben-Porat, PTL 1 (1976) 105–28; Perri, Poetics 7 (1978) 289–307; Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) 287–89; idem, PL 28 (2004) 227–42; Machacek, PMLA 122 (2007) 527–28. 62  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985); Levinson, Hermeneutics (1997); idem, Legal Revision (2008); Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998).

II. Allusion

13

in biblical literature is not new,63 these scholars have demonstrated the often transformative nature of this process within biblical literature, its pervasiveness in certain parts of the canon, and its theoretical grounding.64 While they are not the first to notice connections between texts, their contribution has been to offer a pronounced insistence on the sustained attention to the modes and methods of inner-biblical interpretation and what the hermeneutics of textual reuse tells us about the texts that engage in it. Claims about connections between biblical texts, however, are pervasive in the scholarly literature and often under-theorized. Vital to the task at hand is the establishing of methodological requirements and controls that will govern the identification and interpretation of literary parallels between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. While there are a number of different types of literary connections between texts, the goal of this study is to discover the perspectives on Deuteronomy in specific uses of it. As such, the form of literary dependence most relevant is allusion. This phenomenon can be defined as a literary device by which an author intentionally but indirectly refers to another literary work.65 An allusion is intentional in the sense that it is a literary device employed by an author for a particular purpose.66 It is indirect in the sense that the relevant intended associations between the two texts are not explicitly outlined by the author but rather require a reader to infer the meaning of the reference based on their knowledge of the source text as well as understanding of the alluding text.67 Allusions can be contrasted with other forms of literary dependence. Sommer’s typology of forms of dependence is useful. “Influence” represents a broader phenomenon in which the style and shape of one work is formed in relation to another but where interaction with specific passages does not occur.68 The poetry of Milton, for example, may be said to have influenced much subsequent English poetry even in the absence of references to specific passages. Also distinct from allusion is what Sommer calls “echo.”69 An echo reproduces language from another text, but does not invoke broader associations from the 63 See especially Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur (2011) 5–34, where he traces the roots of the methodology of “inner-biblical interpretation” to the very beginnings of modern biblical criticism, highlighting in particular its connection to redactional criticism. Cf. also Levinson’s bibliographic essay dealing with significant contributions to inner-biblical exegesis in the history of scholarship in Legal Revision (2008) 95–181. 64  Fishbane deals with the entire canon; Levinson primarily with legal exegesis in Deuteronomy; Sommer specifically with allusion in Second Isaiah. 65  Cf. especially Perri, Poetics 7 (1978) 292 and Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) 288–90. 66  This approach should not be confused with the synchronic post-structuralist study of intertextuality. See Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 6–10; Irwin, PL 28 (2004) 227–42. 67  Perri, Poetics 7 (1978) 292; Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) 288. 68  Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 14–15. 69 Ibid., 15–17.

14

Chapter One: Introduction

source text.70 In an echo there is no discernible interpretative process, no invocation of a literary context. Sommer distinguishes also “exegesis” as an overt attempt to explain the meaning of an earlier text.71 According to Sommer, “exegesis” differs from allusion in being direct rather than indirect, in having no independent existence in the world of the new text. The line between exegesis and allusion is particularly blurry, as Sommer admits, since both involve reference to specific texts that involve explicit interpretative processes. As such, “exegesis” can be considered a subset of “allusion.” In distinction from other forms of literary dependence, this study will focus on allusion since it provides the most direct access to an author’s interpretative use of and perspective on another text. For an allusion to function as a literary device, it requires what Ziva Ben-Porat calls a “marker,” which is some “element or pattern belonging to another independent text.”72 The marker must remain recognizable but regularly goes through a transformation from its original form.73 The transformation of the source is, in fact, potentially significant to the allusion’s meaning.74 The interpretation of the allusion requires the reader to recognize the marker, identify the source text, and then to modify their interpretation of the alluding text in terms of associations drawn from the source text.75 How these associations work cannot be predetermined. They rely rather on an understanding of the source text as well as the alluding text shared by the author and reader.76 The relevant associations invoked by the allusion are not limited to the specific features of the source text presented by the marker. Ben-Porat refers to this phenomenon as “the metonymic structure of the relationship sign-referent which characterizes all allusions: an ‘object’ is represented by one of its components.”77 In other words, more of the source text is often relevant than what is explicitly pointed to by the marker. In some cases, the entirety of the source text can be invoked.78 At the same time, as Carmela Perri comments, even when a text in its entirety is activated by an allusion, only certain aspects or associations of the source text are drawn in by the allusion.79 In every case, it is up to the reader to discover what associations are potentially relevant. The following example, drawn primarily from Perri’s discussion of the allusion to Hamlet in T. S. Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,” provides a 70 Cf.

also Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) 288.  Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 17–18. 72  Ben-Porat, PTL 1 (1976) 108. 73 Ibid., 109–10. 74  A point emphasized by Machacek, PMLA 122 (2007) 527–28. 75  Ben-Porat, PTL 1 (1976) 110. 76 Perri, Poetics 7 (1978): 292; Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) 293. 77  Ben-Porat, PTL 1 (1976) 108. 78  Ibid., 110. 79 Perri, Poetics 7 (1978) 295. 71

II. Allusion

15

example of allusion analysis.80 After fourteen stanzas of hesitation, Eliot’s Prufrock states: “No! I am not Prince Hamlet nor was meant to be.” Immediately recognizable are specific lexical markers that point to an external text – the overt reference to “Prince Hamlet” and the phrase “to be,” which invokes the “to be or not to be” soliloquy. Interpreting the allusion requires exploring the possible associations between the alluding text and its source. The reference to the soliloquy suggests a comparison between Hamlet’s inner debate and Prufrock’s.81 On the one hand, Prufrock is similar to Hamlet in his indecisiveness and introspection. Prufrock’s denial of this similarity, however, points to his perception of a deeper difference. Hamlet, though plagued by uncertainty, eventually takes action. Prufrock does not. Denying similarity to Hamlet, therefore, amounts to an excuse on Prufrock’s part for remaining in a state of indecision. He goes on to liken himself to Polonius instead: “Am an attendant lord, one that will do / ​To swell a progress, start a scene or two … Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse; At times, indeed, almost ridiculous  – /Almost, at times, the Fool.” The mechanics of the allusions here are typical. Eliot uses specific lexical markers to allude to a source text in a metonymic fashion. These markers are transformed from their original shape but remain, nevertheless, recognizable. Certain associations from the play Hamlet, and, with the reference to the “fool” type-character, even the Shakespearean corpus as a whole, are relevant to the interpretation. While this example is drawn from modern literature, the basic mechanics and possibilities presented here govern allusion also in ancient Near Eastern literatures. The phenomenon – as well explored by Fishbane and others – appears in the literature of ancient Israel. It is also ubiquitous in Mesopotamian literature.82 The Code of Hammurabi, for example, appears as a frequent source for allusion in later non-legal contexts.83 Significant also is the use of literary allusion in the Neo-Assyrian prophetic texts.84 These examples provide rough analogies to the kind of allusion that appears in Jeremiah and show that the kinds of literary techniques addressed and analyzed in this study were at home in the broader ancient Near Eastern culture. The analysis of allusion faces several pitfalls that must be addressed. The most prominent is the interpretive ingenuity of the scholars themselves. Coincidental similarities arise between texts that lead to what William Irwin calls “accidental associations.”85 Such associations may enrich a reader’s experience of a text, but they lead away from the central purpose of this study, which is to uncover the 80 Ibid.,

296–7.  Ibid., 297. 82  Cf. Seri, JAOS 134 (2014) 89–106, for a discussion of literary allusion in Mesopotamian literature generally and Enuma Eliš specifically. 83  Hurowitz, Jacob Klein (2005) 497–532; Seri, JAOS 134 (2014) 94. 84  Cf. Nissinen, Prophecy (2000) 97–98; Halton, ANES 46 (2009) 50–61. 85 Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) 294–96. 81

16

Chapter One: Introduction

perspectives on Deuteronomy embedded in actual uses of it by the authors of Jeremiah.86 The problem is acute since biblical literature tends to avoid citation formulae, and the marker of the allusion generally consists of shared language alone.87 This lack of formulae gives rise to another danger. Unlike modern literature, we cannot assume we have access to the full reservoir of written and oral tradition available to the ancient author. In analyzing a reference to “Hamlet,” for example, we know that the character “Hamlet” does not exist for modern readers independently of Shakespeare’s play, and so we would be justified in interpreting it as such even in the absence of other specific verbal parallels. Too often ignored when making claims of connections between ancient texts treating a similar topic or theme, however, is the potential counter-claim that both texts independently draw on a common store of traditions that may be only partially preserved for modern scholars. Fishbane gives the example of Amos 4:11’s reference to the Sodom and Gomorrah tradition. The temptation to identify this as an allusion to Gen 19 must be tempered by the recognition that the authors of Amos 4:11 and Gen 19 could have independently drawn on a shared tradition about Sodom and Gomorrah.88 Amos could very well know a Sodom and Gomorrah story from a source other than Genesis. In the case of biblical literature, therefore, we must postulate the existence of traditions, both oral and written, that are lost to modern analysis. A reference to a famous figure like “Moses” or “Samuel” (see, for example, Jer 15:1) or even an event like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is not enough to establish a literary allusion without further verbal parallels. In such cases, we have to remain agnostic about the presence of an allusion. For this reason, it is necessary to insist on verbal parallels to establish a connection between biblical passages. This excludes from consideration cases of similarities between texts that are merely thematic or where the verbal parallel is limited to proper names. 86 An

example drives the point home. Near the end of Dr. Seuss’s One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish, the protagonists bring home a creature and remark: “Look what we found / ​in the park / ​in the dark” ([1960] 61). This passage bears a strong lexical resemblance to a passage in Joyce’s Ulysses. Leopold, walking through the streets of Dublin, sees someone he recognizes and thinks to himself: “Corney. Met her once in the park. In the dark” ([1992, originally published in 1914] 71). The lexical and thematic parallels are strong, consisting of two identical phrases in the same order combined with the notion of a covert meeting or finding. Even the rhythm of the two passages is similar. Yet despite the parallels, there is no recoverable interpretative process that would account for Dr. Seuss’s use of Ulysses and, as such, the parallel is best understood as coincidental. Though whimsical, this example points to the necessity of uncovering an interpretive process even in cases of close lexical parallels. 87  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 12. Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 21–22. See also Shultz, Search for Quotation, 142–3, who notes that quotations unmarked by explicit introductory formulae are the rule in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Ugaritic literature as well, suggesting that implicit allusion was the norm in the broader Near Eastern literary tradition as well. 88 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 8.

II. Allusion

17

In the identification of allusions in ancient texts, therefore, verbal parallels are necessary. To guard against coincidental similarities, however, these parallels must be weighed. While each case must be judged on its own merit, several principles can be distilled that assist this process. In general, shared phrases are better than single lexemes. A higher density of parallels is better than a lower density. Also to be excluded are verbal parallels that are the result of a shared literary genre or that simply arise from the discussion of a particular topic.89 Rare lexemes are better than common ones, though this is not set in stone. Common words, if used in a distinctive combination, can serve as a marker of an allusion. The phrase “to be or not to be”, for example, remains an instantly recognizable allusion to Hamlet’s soliloquy despite being a combination of four of the most common English words. Finally, in each case where convincing verbal parallels are found, it will be necessary to uncover the interpretative process at work in the allusion. If this is not possible, the verbal parallel cannot be considered an allusion but could be classed rather as what Sommer calls an “echo,” an instance of textual reuse that does not add to our understanding of the alluding text.90 It may be unintentional or it may simply involve an author reusing language for aesthetic reasons. The analysis of markers of allusion faces also the possibility of “memory variants.” David Carr, drawing on psychological research on memory, argues that certain kinds of textual variants suggest that some texts were transmitted by memory or by a combination of memory and written exemplar.91 As he points out, textual transmission via memory is particularly susceptible to variants in word order, minor elements such as particles, prepositions, and conjunctions, as well as synonymous substitutions.92 Thus, variations between texts – especially variations in these minor elements – could arise from either allusive transformation – that is, an author’s adaptation of a text for their own purposes – or from an unintentionally introduced memory variant. This possibility serves as a check against the over-interpretation of variants, but it does not imply that every minor variant is meaningless. Each case must be addressed in its own idiosyncratic complexity. The criteria and guidelines outlined here have important implications for the scope of this study particularly as it relates to the Deuteronomistic parts of the book of Jeremiah. These passages are characterized by a high degree of stereotypical phraseology, much of it appearing also in the Deuteronomy, and so termed “Deuteronomistic.” These would in each case represent a verbal parallel to Deuteronomy, thus fulfilling the first criterion for an allusion. Only some of them, however, fulfill the second criterion and represent an interpretive activa89 Sommer,

A Prophet Reads (1998) 32–5.  Ibid., 66–7. 91  Carr, Formation (2011) 14–18, 25–36, 98–100. 92 Ibid., 14–18, 33. 90

18

Chapter One: Introduction

tion of a particular text from Deuteronomy. Thus, this study will not address in detail the phenomenon of Deuteronomistic language as a whole, but will rather focus on a narrower question. When the book of Jeremiah, both in its Deuteronomistic and non-Deuteronomistic parts, actually interacts with and alludes to specific texts from Deuteronomy, what is the nature of the interpretative interaction? In the study that follows, the parallels between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy that meet the criteria set forward here will be subject to in-depth analysis. A large number of parallels proposed by scholars have been passed over either for failure to provide adequate lexical parallels or for a lack of convincing interpretive process.93 In other cases, the evidence is more convincing, but points rather 93  Despite the guidelines given above, the adequacy of a parallel is open to interpretation, and one scholar will inevitably apply different criteria and expectations to the available evidence. The proposed allusions eliminated for lack of adequate lexical parallels include those for which there is no lexical parallel whatsoever and those for which the parallels given are minor and / ​or restricted to common lexemes or generic language. What follows is a list of proposed allusions that fail to meet the criteria of this study. This list follows the order of appearance in D: Deut  4:2 / ​Jer  36:32 (Otto, ZAR 12 [2006] 295); Deut 4:5–6 / ​Jer 8:8 (Otto, ZAR 12 [2006] 283– 84; Fischer, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 253); Deut 4:25–28 / ​Jer 29:1–7 (Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 [2009] 283–84); Deut 4:34 / ​Jer 21:5, 32:21 (Fischer, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 250–51); Deut 5 / ​Jer 7:9 (Weinfeld, ZAW 88 [1976] 54); Deut 5:3 / ​Jer 11:2 (Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 160); Deut 5:23–27 / ​Jer 42:1–6 (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 127); Deut  8:14–15 / ​Jer  2:6–7 (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 359; Silver, “The Lying Pen” [2009] 120); Deut 8:8 / ​Jer 41:8 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 388, 396); Deut 10:16 / ​Jer 6:10 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 59); Deut 10:16 / ​Jer 9:25 (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 359); Deut  10:18 / ​Jer  4:16 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 194); Deut 10:18 / ​Jer 49:11 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 544, 561); Deut 10:21 / ​Jer 17:14 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 559–60); Deut  11:19 / ​Jer  9:19 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 60; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 72); Deut 11:18–20 / ​ Jer 31:33–34 (Holladay, CBQ 66 [2004] 72); Deut 12:2 / ​Jer 2:20 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 57; idem, CBQ [2004] 66); Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 [2012] 219); Deut 12:5–6 / ​Jer 7:29–34 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 58); Deut 13:1–6 / ​Jer 23:14–15, 25–28 (Davidson, VT 14 [1964] 413); Deut  13:4 / ​Jer  27:9 (Fischer, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 260); Deut 13:9 / ​Jer 13:14 (Fischer, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 261); Deut 13:14 / ​Jer 30:21 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 137, idem, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 261); Deut 13:17 / ​Jer 30:18 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 13; idem, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 261; Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur [2011] 11); Deut 13:17 / ​Jer 21:10 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 639); Deut 13:17 / ​Jer 49:2 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 537, 561); Deut 13:7–10 / ​Jer 11:18–23 (Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 100); Deut 13:7–12 / ​Jer 44:15 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 442, 454); Deut 14:1 / ​Jer 16:6 (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 360; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 525); Deut 14:29 / ​Jer 22:3 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 59); Deut 15 / ​Jer 17:4 (Fischer, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 261); Deut 17:14–20 / ​Jer 36:24, 30 (Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles [1970] 45; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 299); Deut 17:15 / ​Jer 30:21 (Holladay, CBQ 66 [2004] 67–68); Deut 18 / ​Jer 23:21 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 697); Deut 18:9–22 / ​ Jer 26 (Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation [1985] 246; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 34, 42; Otto, ZAR 12 [2006] 258; Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 31–32; Hibbard, JSOT 35 [2011] 351–54); Deut  18:10 / ​Jer  1:7, 9 (Davidson, VT 14 [1964] 415); Deut 18:10, 14 / ​Jer 27:9 (Fischer, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 263); Deut 18:18 / ​Jer 15:16 (Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 [2012] 217, 219); Deut 18:18 / ​Jer 36:17–18 (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 34–5); Deut 18:20–22 / ​ Jer 14:14 (Fischer, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 264–65); Deut 20:19–20 / ​Jer 6:6 (Hol-

II. Allusion

19

to Jeremiah as a source for later parts of Deuteronomy (see excursus). What remains are forty-five allusions to Deuteronomy in the book of Jeremiah that are laday, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 58; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 65–66); Deut 20:3 / ​Jer 51:46 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 620, 632); Deut 20:5–10 / ​Jer 29:5–7 (Berlin, HAR 8 [1984] 3–11; Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 13; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 92–93); Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 [2012] 223–25); Deut  20:9 / ​Jer  51:63 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 629, 632); Deut 21:8 / ​Jer 26:15 (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 360); Deut 22:25–27 / ​Jer 20:7 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 57–58; idem, CBQ 66 [2005] 66); Deut 23:24 / ​Jer 44:25 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 448); Deut  24:16 / ​Jer  31:29–30 (Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 [1981] 23); Deut 24:19–22 / ​Jer 6:9–10 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 40, 58; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 65; Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 [2009] 260); Deut 24:4 / ​Jer 2:7 (Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 89); Deut  24:4 / ​Jer  16:18 (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 89–90); Deut 26:2, 10 / ​Jer 2:2–3 (Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 88); Deut 26:5 / ​Jer 50:6 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 57); Deut  26:17–19 / ​Jer  31:33b (Holladay, CBQ 66 [2004] 72); Deut 27:15 / ​Jer 10:3 (Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2009] 283); Deut 28:10 / ​Jer 14:9 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 478–79); Deut  28:12 / ​Jer  50:25 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 583, 632); Deut 28:15 ff. / ​Jer 11:8, 11 (Römer, Israël Construit Son Histoire [1996] 432–33, n. 60); Deut 28:26 / ​Jer 8:2 (Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 [2012] 219); Deut 28:26 / ​Jer 9:21 (Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 [2012] 219); Deut 28:29, 33 / ​Jer  50:33 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 586, 632); Deut 28:30 / ​Jer 6:12 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 270); Deut 28:30 / ​Jer 31:5 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 148); Deut 28:36, 64 / ​ Jer 5:19 (Rom-Shiloni, Birkat Shalom [2008] 116–18); Deut 28:36 / ​Jer 22:24–30 (Rom-Shiloni, Birkat Shalom [2008] 116); Deut 28:47–48 / ​Jer 15:14 (Bezzel, Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah [2009] 62–63); Deut 28:47–48 / ​Jer30:8–9 (Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 [2009] 260–61); Deut 28:51 / ​ Jer 21:12 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 154); Deut 28:54, 56 / ​Jer 6:2 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 262); Deut 28:58; 29:19–20, 26; 30:10 / ​Jer 25:13 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 743, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2009] 284); Deut 28:59, 61 / ​Jer 6:7 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 266); Deut 28:65 / ​Jer 31:2 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 146); Deut 28:68 / ​ Jer 42 (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 128–29); Deut 29:18 / ​Jer 3:17 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 195); Deut 29:27 / ​Jer 12:14 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 442); Deut 29:27 / ​Jer 22:26, 28 (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 360); Deut 30:1–10* / ​Jer 30:1–3; 31:27–34 (Otto, OTE 19 [2006] 943–4; idem, ZAR 12 [2006] 289); Deut 30:3 / ​Jer 30:18, 33:26 (Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 286); Deut 31:12 / ​Jer 40:7 (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 122–23); Deut  31:9–11 / ​Jer  34:14 (Leuchter, JBL 127 [2008] 642–43; idem, Polemics of Exile [2008] 90–94); Deut 31:10–11 / ​Jer 34:14 (Leuchter, ZAW 126 [2014] 216–17); Deut 31:20 / ​ Jer 14:21 (Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 286); Deut 31:29 / ​Jer 32:23, 44:23 (Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 286); Deut 32:1, 43 / ​Jer 6:18–19 (Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 159); Deut 32:10 / ​Jer 31:2 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 54); Deut  32:12 / ​Jer  5:19 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19; idem, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 54); Deut 32:4 / ​ Jer 2:5 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 54, idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 64; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 72); Deut  32:45 / ​Jer  43:1 (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 127–28); Deut 32:5, 20 / ​Jer 2:30–31 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 54; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 64); Deut 32:9 / ​Jer 10:16 (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 361); Deut 32:15, 19 / ​Jer 14:21 (Holladay, Jeremiah 1 [1986] 438; idem, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 54–55; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 487, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 288); Deut 32:15 / ​Jer 15:6 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19; idem, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 54–55; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 499); Deut 32:15a / ​Jer 5:28 (Holladay, CBQ 66 [2004] 64); Deut 32:16 / ​Jer 2:25 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19; idem, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 54); Deut  32:16 / ​Jer  3:13 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19); Deut 32:16, 21 / ​Jer 8:19 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19); Deut 32:17/2:11–12 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19; idem, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 55; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 64); Deut 32:17 / ​Jer 2:5 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19); Deut 32:17 / ​Jer 3:24 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19); Deut 32:17 / ​Jer 5:7 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19; idem, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 55); Deut 32:17 / ​Jer 14:20 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19); Deut 32:17 / ​Jer 16:19, 20 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19); Deut 32:17 / ​Jer 23:17 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19); Deut 32:17/

20

Chapter One: Introduction

supportable according to the criteria outlined above. These allusions appear in multiple strata of the book, and they will serve as the basic data set for analyzing the ways various layers of the Jeremianic tradition used Deuteronomy.

III. The Composition of Jeremiah Since this study is interested in the potential diversity of perspectives on Deuteronomy in the various strands of Jeremiah, it is necessary to address the compositional history of the book. The theories proposed to explain the composite authorship of Jeremiah, however, are dauntingly numerous. Yet to surrender the ground entirely and opt for a synchronic approach94 would be to give up the possibility of answering questions concerning changes in perspective, ideology, and interpretive modality across time. If we are to investigate how the various authors of Jeremiah viewed and used Deuteronomy without assuming the use was uniform across strata, it is necessary to enter the minefield and make some attempt to trace the compositional history of Jeremiah. Scholars have dealt with the complexity of the material in Jeremiah in a number of ways. Duhm’s highly influential model, which distinguished compositional strata according to genre, served as a starting place for much subsequent work. Mowinckel improved on this model and outlined both thematic and formal features that differentiated early poetic oracles (the A source), biographical narratives (the B source), “Deuteronomistic” sermons (the C source), and the originally separate Book of Consolation (the D source). Hyatt, Rofé, and Thiel each expanded on Mowinckel by demonstrating the more widespread distribution of the “Deuteronomistic” material in the book and arguing for it as a supplementary redaction rather than an independent source. Nicholson likewise argued for a Deuteronomistic redaction, but, in contrast to Hyatt, Thiel, Jer 23:23 (Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 288–89); Deut 32:18 / ​Jer 2:27, 32 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [2005] 55); Deut 32:20 / ​Jer 12:4 (Holladay, CBQ 66 [2004] 63); Deut  32:21 / ​Jer  2:5 (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 323); Deut 32:21 / ​Jer 8:19 (Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 289); Deut 32:22 / ​Jer 15:14 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 64; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 361; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 506, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 289; Bezzel, Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah [2009] 64); Deut 32:22 / ​Jer 17:4 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 19); Deut 32:23–25 / ​ Jer 14:12 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 55); Deut 32:32–33 / ​Jer 2:21 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 55); Deut 32:25 / ​Jer 6:11 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 20); Deut 32:25 / ​Jer 9:20 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 20); Deut 32:29 / ​Jer 12:4 (Holladay, JBL 85 [1966] 20); Deut 32:35 / ​Jer 20:10 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 55); Deut 33:12 / ​Jer 6:1 (Holladay, CBQ 66 [2004] 74); Deut 33:12 / ​Jer 11:15 (Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 289–90); Deut 33:12, 28 / ​Jer 23:6 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 53; Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 289–90); Deut 33:29 / ​ Jer 23:6 (Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 289–90); Deut 34:10–12 / ​Jer 1:4–19 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 136). 94  As done self-consciously, for example, in the volume Troubling Jeremiah (1999). Cf. especially the introduction to this volume (Diamond, Troubling Jeremiah [1999] 15–32).

III. The Composition of Jeremiah

21

and Rofé, saw it as including all of the prose material in the book. McKane and Carroll both recognized Deuteronomistic elements in the book, but denied the existence of a comprehensive redaction. Each opts instead for a process of gradual growth through relatively unrelated redactional insertions. Weippert, Holladay, and recently Leuchter, on the other hand, have argued in various ways for viewing both the prose sermons and the poetic oracles as attributable to the authentic Jeremiah. Carolyn Sharp has found in the late material of Jeremiah two distinguishable redactional strands that stand in polemical relation to each other – one pro-golah, one pro-Judah.

1. Deuteronomistic Redaction Navigating these proposals is not simple, and the sheer complexity of the book suggests that more than one perspective may be appropriate. Nevertheless, there remains sufficient evidence to adopt the perspective that sees a partial redaction of the book that can be characterized as “Deuteronomistic.” Several lines of evidence make this model compelling. First, as noticed since Mowinckel, many passages are characterized by distinctive linguistic patterns that have parallels to Deuteronomy and DtrH. Such phraseology by itself does not constitute evidence for a redaction. The phrasal similarities could, in theory, represent the use or influence of Deuteronomy or other Deuteronomistic literature.95 But when this language is correlated with other signs of redactional activity, the Deuteronomistic redaction becomes a convincing working model. In addition to characteristic phraseology, Rofé, Thiel, and Seeligman have highlighted a constellation of concerns and themes that shape redactional portions of the book. These include especially the explanation of the downfall of Judah in 587 as due to judgment for disobedience, a theme shared with DtrH, as well as the conditional character of prophetic revelation.96 The correlation of theme, phraseology, and redactional seems leads considerable persuasiveness to the theory of a Deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah. Both the general character of DtrJ as well as the converging lines of evidence that point to its identification can be illustrated by an analysis of Jer 22:1–5. First,  Cf. for example, Holladay, CBQ 66 (2004) 55–77, and Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform (2006) 169–82, who argue in different ways for the “Deuteronomistic” prose as authentic to Jeremiah who, they argue, was influenced by Deuteronomy or even himself a “Deuteronomistic scribe.” 96  Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973); idem, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981); Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 1–29, especially 27–28 [Hebrew]. Cf. also Seeligman, Congress Volume (1978) 283–84. Römer, Israël Construit Son Histoire (1996) 419–41, idem, Those Elusive Deuteronomists (1999) 189–99, presents similar arguments for a Deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah, though his argument that the initial redaction covered only chs. 7–35 is not convincing due to the literary connections between Dtr passages in chs. 7–35, 1–6, and 36–44 (cf. Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 116–31, 170–75; idem, Polemics [2008] 2–3). 95

22

Chapter One: Introduction

the prose form of this passage, identified already by Mowinckel as belonging to his “C” source,97 stands out from its poetic context. While the differentiation between prose and poetry is not without problems,98 instances of parallelism in the surrounding oracles point to the plausibility of differentiating Jer 22:1–5 from the immediately preceding and following oracles on the basis of literary genre. Note especially the parallelism characterizing Jer 21:13 and 22:6: Behold I am against you, O dweller of the valley, O rock of the valley,

21:13

Those who say, ‘who can march against us? Who can enter our dwellings?’ 22:6 Gilead you are to me, the summit of Lebanon.

Yet I will make you a wilderness, cities without inhabitant.

In addition to standing apart generically from what precedes and follows, Jer 22:1–5 reuses, expands, and reinterprets part of the preceding poetic oracle:99 Jer 21:11–12a

Jer 22:1–5

‫ולבית מלך יהודה‬ ‫שמעו דבר יהוה‬ ‫בית דוד‬ ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫דינו לבקר משפט‬ ‫והצילו גזול מיד עושק‬

To the house of the king of Judah: Hear the word of Yahweh,

97 Komposition

‫כה אמר יהוה רד‬ ‫בית מלך יהודה‬ ‫ודברת שם את הדבר הזה ואמרת‬ ‫שמע דבר יהוה‬ ‫מלך יהודה הישב על כסא דוד אתה ועבדיך ועמך‬ ‫הבאים בשערים האלה‬ ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫עשו משפט וצדקה‬ ‫והצילו גזול מיד עשוק‬ ‫וגר יתום ואלמנה אל תנו אל תחמסו ודם נקי אל‬ ‫תשפכו במקום הזה כי אם עשו תעשו את הדבר הזה‬ ‫ובאו בשערי הבית הזה מלכים ישבים לדוד על‬ ‫כסאו רכבים ברכב ובסוסים הוא ועבדו ועמו ואם‬ ‫לא תשמעו את הדברים האלה בי נשבעתי נאם יהוה‬ ‫כי לחרבה יהיה הבית הזה‬ Thus says Yahweh, “Go down to the house of the king of Judah and speak there this word, and say, ‘hear the word of Yahweh,

(1914) 40.  See especially Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (1981) 76–84, who criticizes this distinction as a means of dividing compositional layers in prophetic books. 99 The following analysis is drawn largely from Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 12–14 [Hebrew]. 98

23

III. The Composition of Jeremiah

Jer 21:11–12a O house of David: Thus says Yahweh, “Judge justice in the morning, and deliver the robbed from the hand of the oppressor.”

Jer 22:1–5 O king of Judah who sits on the throne of David, you and your servants and your people who enter in these gates. Thus says Yahweh, ‘Do justice and righteousness and deliver the robbed from the hand of the oppressor, and the sojourner, orphan, and widow do not oppress and do not treat violently, and the blood of the innocent do not spill in this place. But if you do this thing, kings will enter through the gates of this house riding on chariots and horses who will sit on the throne of David, he and his servants and his people. But if you do not listen to these words, I swear by myself, says Yahweh, that this house will become a desolation.

Jeremiah 22:1–5 reuses the previous oracle and adds two elements not present in 21:11–14. Where the previous oracle had adjured the kings to judge justly and protect the poor from oppression, the new oracle adds that the kings are themselves to avoid becoming the oppressors. The new oracle also adds a promise of a continuation of the Davidic dynasty. The lexical evidence is also important. Specific lexical items seen elsewhere in Jeremianic prose appear in Jer 22:1–5 in the portions of these verses that are not drawn from Jer 21:11–12. These examples include both phrases that are common to Deuteronomistic literature, including “to spill the blood of the innocent” (v. 3),100 and the triad, “sojourner, orphan, and widow” (v. 3), which appears regularly in Deuteronomic prose.101 Included also are phrases particularly characteristic only of the prose of Jeremiah. “Those entering these gates” is a phrase that appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in Jer 7:2 and 17:20,102 two passages that are infused with other instances of Deuteronomistic language. Similarly, though common in the Hebrew Bible, the phrases “this word” (vv. 1 and 4) as a reference to the divine word, “to sit on someone’s throne” (v. 2), “this place” (v. 3), and “to become a desolation” (v. 5) appear in Jeremiah only in late prose additions.103 It should be emphasized that all of these phrases, both those  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 356; Stipp, Konkordanz (1998) 39. Cf. Deut 19:10; 2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4; Jer 7:6, 19:4, 22:17. 101 Ibid., 356; Stipp, Konkordanz (1998) 33; Cf. Deut 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19, 20, 21; 26:12, 13; 27:19; Jer 7:6. 102  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 353; Stipp, Konkordanz (1998) 24, 142. 103 Stipp, Konkordanz (1998) 36, 50, 69, 85, 159. 100

24

Chapter One: Introduction

that show affinity with other Deuteronomistic literature and those that show affinity with other prose additions in the book of Jeremiah, occur in Jer 22:1–5 only in those places not borrowed from Jer 21:11–12. In other words, in expanding Jer 21:11–12, the author of Jer 22:1–5 has included language that elsewhere characterizes DtrJ. Further, there are specific connections between this passage and other passages in Jeremiah that suggest common authorship. Compare, for example, Jer 7:6, generally identified as DtrJ, with Jer 22:3b: Jer 7:6a

‫ גר יתום ואלמנה לא תעשקו ודם נקי אל‬Do not oppress the sojourner, orphan, ‫ תשפכו במקום הזה‬and widow, and do not shed the blood

Jer 22:3b

‫ וגר יתום ואלמנה אל תנו אל תחמסו ודם‬Do not oppress and the sojourner, ‫ נקי אל תשפכו במקום הזה‬orphan, and widow, and do not treat

of the innocent in this place.

[them] violently, and do not spill the blood of the innocent in this place.

Similarly, the structure and language of Jer 22:1–5 matches closely that of Jer 17:19–27.104 Both passages contain a similar opening (17:19/22:1), followed by a similar command to bring a word to the king and people (“say to them, ‘hear the word of Yahweh, O kings of Judah and all … who enter in these gates” [17:20] / ​“say, ‘hear the word of Yahweh, O king of Judah … you, and your servants and your people who enter in these gates’” [22:2]). Then comes a demand of Yahweh (17:21–22/22:3), followed by a reward for obedience (17:24–26/22:4) that contains the unique phrase, “riding on chariots and horses.”105 Both passages end with a punishment for those who disobey (7:27/22:5). As there are no indications that these two passages belong to different literary strata, these parallels support assigning them to a single compositional layer. Finally, Jer 22:1–5 is also characterized by a set of themes that mark DtrJ elsewhere in the book. These include the desire to explain the downfall of Judah, in this case represented by the destruction of the royal palace (v. 5), and the offer of repentance (v. 4). The possibility of avoiding the pronounced judgment stands in contrast to 21:13–14, whose language implies the certainty of the judgment to come (“Behold, I am against you … I will punish you for the fruit of your deeds, declares Yahweh. I will kindle a fire in its forest and it will devour everything around it”). The offer of the possibility of averting the prophetically announced disaster (22:4), represents what Rofé, Seelgiman, and Thiel have all noted as one of the central themes that animates DtrJ.106 This view, as Seelgiman points out,  See Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 13–14 [Hebrew]. Stipp, Konkordanz (1998) 121. 106  Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 301; idem, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) ; Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 26–29 [Hebrew]; Seeligman, Congress Volume (1978) 281–84. 104

105 Cf.

III. The Composition of Jeremiah

25

differs from the perspective of DtrH in Kings, which, apart from the potentially late 2 Kgs 17, never presents the prophets as urging repentance.107 While these two themes are not the only concerns of DtrJ, they are common and often appear as the guiding purpose of its redactional activity. The case of Jer 22:1–5 is not sufficient to fully prove the redactional approach adopted in this study.108 This example nevertheless illustrates the converging lines of argumentation for the existence of DtrJ. The formal shift from its context is, by itself, not enough to justify a redaction. The reuse of language from the previous oracle, by itself, does not indicate secondariness. The presence of language and themes found in other parts of Jeremiah and characteristic of Deuteronomistic literature, by themselves, do not prove a redaction. It is rather the confluence of these phenomena that leads to this conclusion. This example illustrates a number of important features characteristic of DtrJ. First, when appearing in the context of poetic oracles, DtrJ can often be distinguished by its contrasting prose form. Second, it often responds to and expands other texts in the book of Jeremiah. Third, it often uses a characteristic set of expressions. These include phrases called “Deuteronomistic” that are absent from the other layers of Jeremianic tradition. By “Deuteronomistic” is meant phrases that appear multiple times in either Deuteronomy or DtrH, many of which have been catalogued in Weinfeld’s appendix to Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School.109 Fourth, it often contains parallels to other DtrJ passages and makes use of phrases peculiar to this material. This phenomenon is significant as it shows that DtrJ has its own particular character that is not identical to the redaction of DtrH. Thus, to call this redaction “Deuteronomistic” does not imply that it comes from the same group that edited DtrH. The designation acknowledges rather the affinity in language and thought between the two groups even while each retains its own unique character. For this reason, Weippert’s argument, which Holladay largely follows, against the attribution of the prose discourses to a Deuteronomistic redaction is beside the point and unconvincing. Weippert’s argument seeks to establish both that the language of the prose sermons differs in important ways from the language and Deuteronomy and DtrH and that the prose language has affinities with the  Seeligman, Congress Volume (1978) 283–84. On stratification of 2 Kgs 17, see, most recently, Gary N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans (2013) 45–70. Knoppers notes two separate justifications given for the demise of the northern kingdom. The shorter account (2 Kgs 17:aα, 18, 21–23) blames the monarchs and people for following the cultic practices of Jeroboam I. The longer account (2 Kgs 17:7b–17) blames the people themselves for the adoption of the practices of the nations. The portrayal of prophets as preachers of repentance (2 Kgs 17:13) occurs in this second, longer account, which Knoppers identifies as the later of the two (ibid., 45, n. 1). 108 For fully fledged argumentation, see especially the works of both Rofé and Thiel: Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973); idem, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981); Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 1–29 [Hebrew]. 109 (1972) 320–65. 107

26

Chapter One: Introduction

poetic language. Though these points themselves are basically correct, her conclusion that Jeremiah the prophet wrote both the prose sermons and poetry is not. Differences between DtrJ and Deuteronomy and DtrH are to be expected since DtrJ represents a redaction that has affinities with these other works but is not identical with them. Further, as the example of Jer 22:1–5 shows, much of the prose material attributed to DtrJ interacts with previously existing poetic texts. As McKane points out, Weippert’s argumentation proves only that the poetry serves as a “reservoir for the prose”110 – that is, that the prose as a supplementary layer often draws from the pre-existing poetic texts. Further, as Rofé emphasizes, the influence of the pre-existing Jeremianic traditions on DtrJ extends to both language and ideas, with the result being that DtrJ can be adequately described as combining both Jeremianic and Deuteronomistic tradition in such a way that distinguishes it from other examples of Deuteronomistic literature.111 For this reason, the instances of phrases typical of DtrJ alone, in distinction from other Deuteronomistic literature, are particularly helpful for isolating DtrJ passages in Jeremiah.112 To sum up the preceding argument, multiple lines of evidence contribute to the identification of DtrJ redaction. The convergence of genre, characteristic language, a set of themes, as well as connections with other parts of the book sharing these features supports the theory of a wide-spread redaction of the book. The affinity of this redaction with other cases of Deuteronomistic literature justifies referring to it as “Deuteronomistic” with the qualification that this designation does not imply identity of authorship with other cases of Deuteronomistic redaction. Finally, Sommer has provided independent corroboration of the separation of the DtrJ from earlier traditions. After devoting a study to the allusions contained in Isa 34–35, 40–66, he noticed that the allusions to Jeremiah corresponded almost exclusively to the poetic oracles (Mowinckel’s “A” source). Though not definitive, this finding strongly suggests the independent existence of this material and, by implication, the secondary nature of the prose additions to it.113 Such a finding is particularly significant as the data were gathered in the service of an entirely different research agenda – an elucidation of the dynamic of allusion in Second Isaiah – but, once gathered, proved relevant also to the composition of Jeremiah.114  McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1989) xlii–xliii. Tarbiz 44 (1974) 10 [Hebrew]. 112  Cf. Weinfeld’s list of “Clichés characteristic of the Jeremian Sermons” (Deuteronomic School [1972] 352–55); cf. also Stipp’s more extensive collection of language characteristic of all later supplementary layers of Jeremiah (Konkordanz [1998]). 113  Sommer, CBQ 61 (1999) 646–666. While most of his conclusions are astute, I am less convinced by his registering of allusions to Jer 29:10–14, 31:31–36, and 33:3, 7–9. In some cases, the parallels themselves are loose (Jer 29:10–14 / ​Isa 55:6–12; Jer 31:31–36 / ​Isa 42:5–9; Jer 31:36 / ​ Isa 54:10 Jer 33:7 / ​Isa 61:1–4); in others, the parallel is good, but the direction of dependence could as easily go the other direction (Jer 31:35 / ​Isa 51:15; Jer 33:3 / ​Isa 48:6). 114 Ibid., 658, n. 33. 110

111 Rofé,

III. The Composition of Jeremiah

27

2. Pre-Deuteronomistic Poetry and Narrative Prior to DtrJ, there existed written traditions that included both poetic oracles and narratives about Jeremiah. The narrative material, which Duhm and others attributed to Jeremiah’s scribe Baruch, Mowinckel more soberly ascribed simply to a separate narrative source, which he called “B.” Whether this material all belonged to a single source, as Mowinckel assumed, or reflects multiple separate traditions about the prophet is a question that, for the purpose of this study, can remain open. Nicholson’s view that all the prose narrative in the book is to be attributed to DtrJ, however, fails to grapple with the composite nature of some narrative passages that are best described as containing at least two layers of tradition – a pre-existing tradition and a DtrJ redaction that responds to or expands it.115 The poetic material in the book includes the oracles in chs. 2–23, chs. 30–31 – the so-called “Book of Consolation”  – and the Oracles against the Nations (OAN) in 46–51. The relationship between these poetic sections is a matter of debate. Mowinckel considered the OAN a late addition to the book and argued that the poetic oracles of chs. 30–31 belong to a separate source that was originally anonymous and unconnected to the other poetic oracles.116 Others have pointed out thematic and linguistic affinity between these sections, arguing that they all represent a single layer of “authentic” Jeremianic prophecy.117 To a large extent, the question of the poetic section has been discussed in terms of an underlying assumption that the early poetic oracles represent the words of the prophet himself. Robert Carroll, however, has raised important objections to this search for the ipsissima verba of the prophet. He pointed out that prior to their redactional arranging, the oracles themselves are essentially anonymous. While it may be that these oracles stem from a prophet named Jeremiah, it appears equally possible that they are only secondarily attributed to this figure. Further, even if the poetic oracles are connected in some way to the prophet’s oral proclamation, we have no way of accessing the oral background and thus no way of determining to what extent the written word represents an adaptation of the oral speech. There is simply no way of knowing whether the poetic form of the prophetic oracles stems from the prophetic speech or arose as a part of the process of transforming oral prophecy into literary prophecy. Examples of unfulfilled prophecies show the early origin of some of these traditions,118 but 115  For a discussion of a number of such cases in Jer 37–44, see Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) [Hebrew]. 116  Komposition (1914) 14–16, 45–47. 117  Bright, Jeremiah (1965) 284–87. Cf. also Stipp, Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (2009) 148–86, who argues for single authorship of most of the poetic oracles. 118  Cf. for example, Jer 22:18–19 and 36:30, which prophesy childlessness and an irregular burial for Jehoiakim, and Jer 22:28–30, which appears to reapply this prophecy to his son Coniah / ​Jehoiachin.

28

Chapter One: Introduction

the evidence permits us only to speak of literary representations of Jeremiah’s speech and not the view or words of the prophet himself. Carroll’s contention that the oracles represent a collection of poetic prophecies that were likely originally disconnected,119 however, is contradicted by the strong literary and linguistic connections among these oracles. Stipp has recently committed the poetic texts of Jeremiah to an in-depth analysis and has concluded that they contain linguistic peculiarities strongly suggestive of an idiolect.120 Such peculiarities are not limited to linguistic patterns, but also include rhetorical tropes such as the triple rhetorical question.121 While it is problematic to speak of the poetic oracles as simple records of a single prophet’s words, the poetic substratum of the book can be spoken of as more or less a single literary effort, i. e. the work of a single author. Stipp’s work on the poetic idiolect further corroborates the distinction between the language of DtrJ and the poetic traditions since, as he points out, representatives of this idiolect appear in DtrJ only in passages that cite poetic texts.122

3. Deuteronomistic Language vs. Allusion to Deuteronomy Deuteronomistic language plays a major role in the identification of DtrJ, and it is important to differentiate this phenomenon from allusion. Since Mowinckel, the Deuteronomistic clichés of Jeremiah have been understood as an inventory of phrases whose repeated use represents the hallmark of a style that appears in Deut and the redactional parts of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.123 It may be that these phrases are intended to obliquely invoke Deuteronomy by marking an affinity with it through imitation of its style, but they nevertheless differ significantly from allusions as defined in this study. Allusions, as shown above, involve a reference to a specific text, and their interpretation requires exploring the possible relevant associations that can be drawn from that source text. Two contrasting examples will illustrate the difference between this phenomenon and Deuteronomistic phraseology. Weinfeld’s first example of Deuteronomistic phraseology is ‫הלך אחרי אלהים אחרים‬, “to go  Jeremiah (1986) 46–49.  Stipp, Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (2009) 148–86. Stipp finds the idiolect present in the poetry of chs. 2–23* (with several notable exceptions, including 10:1–16 and 16:16–17:13), including the laments, as well as, significantly, the Book of Consolation (chs. 30–31*), and parts of the oracles against the nations (46:1–49:33,* and the beginning of ch. 50) (cf. ibid., 177). 121 The triple rhetorical question employing the form ‫ ח … אם … מדוע‬is mentioned by Stipp (Ibid., 158–59) and recently subjected to in-depth analysis by Silver, “The Lying Pen” (2009) 151–298. This distinctive structure appears eight times in the poetry of Jeremiah and no where else in the Hebrew Bible. 122  Stipp, Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (2009) 177. 123  Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 33–34; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 35–39. 119 120

IV. The Composition of the D Source

29

after other gods.”124 This clause occurs in Deut 6:14; 8:19; 11:28; 13:3; 28:14; Judges 2:12, 19; 1 Kgs 11:10; Jer 7:6, 9; 11:10; 13: 10; 16:11; 25:6; and 35:15. The phrase appears in Deuteronomy as a stereotypical reference to apostasy, and it was adopted as such by the authors responsible for the passages cited from Judges, Kings, and Jeremiah. Yet in no case does one of these passages contain markers of an allusion to a specific passage in Deuteronomy. When combined with other indications of redaction, such language contributes support for the presence of DtrJ, but it does not represent true allusion. Thus, when Deuteronomistic phraseology involves language derived from Deuteronomy but used non-allusively, such usage is analyzable as “echo” and, more broadly, “influence.”125 The work of Deuteronomy as a whole exerted influence on DtrJ, which, in some cases, produced non-allusive echoes of language derived from Deuteronomy and, in other cases, actual allusions to specific passages. Very different, for example, is the allusion to Deut 24:1–4 in Jer 3:1 (analyzed in detail in ch. 4 below). This connection involves a unique constellation of lexical features that unites these passages as well as the presence of further associations and an interpretive process that characterize true allusions. Stereotypical Deuteronomistic phraseology is absent from Jer 3:1 and its immediate context, and nothing suggests attributing this passage to DtrJ.126 These observations lead to two principle methodological points. First, while DtrJ may be very interested in alluding to Deuteronomy, an allusion to Deuteronomy does not by itself constitute sufficient evidence for the DtrJ affiliation of a passage. Second, since much, though not all, of the language characterized as Deuteronomistic derives from Deuteronomy,127 it is possible that some instances of Deuteronomistic phraseology in Jeremiah are analyzable as true allusions to Deuteronomy. As with all examples of the interpretation of allusions, the adjudication of these possibilities must proceed by weighing the possibility of an interpretative process that could suggest an allusion.

IV. The Composition of the D Source As with the book of Jeremiah, the composition Deuteronomy has its own complexity. The double introductions in Deut 1:1 and 4:45 provide one of the more obvious indications of this compositional history. Prior to Martin Noth, scholars 124 Weinfeld,

Deuteronomic School (1972) 320.  Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 14–17. 126  So also Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 38–39, who acknowledges, but downplays, the presence of allusions to Deuteronomy in non-DtrJ texts. 127  Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 320–65. An example of Deuteronomistic phraseology that does not derive from Deuteronomy is the phrase ‫  ​עבדיו הנביאים‬/  ‫עבדי‬, “my / ​his servants the prophets” (ibid., 351). 125

30

Chapter One: Introduction

generally recognized these introductions as belonging to different editions of the book.128 Noth proposed instead that parts of the book of Deuteronomy, including 1:1–4:40, were composed as part of the introduction to the DtrH, which incorporated a preexisting D consisting more or less of Deut 4:44–30:20.129 Many subsequent scholars have followed Noth with varying modifications of his theory and identifications of other texts within Deuteronomy with this Deuteronomistic redaction.130 Joel Baden, however, has recently argued for a return to the view that 1:1–4:40 represents a supplemental addition to the book rather than an introduction to DtrH.131 Baden points out the affinity in style, outlook, and treatment of sources that unites 1:1–4:40 with 4:45–11:32 and distinguishes both from DtrH. For Baden, Deut 1:1–32:47 represents a document with its own compositional history that was eventually incorporated into the Pentateuch. For the purposes of this study, several features of this discussion need to be emphasized. First, scholars are unanimous in their consideration of the emergence of later materials in Deut 31–34.132 The book of Deuteronomy as we now have it is thus an entity that post-dates the composition of the Pentateuch. The majority of the book, however, belongs to a single source, which is conventionally labelled “D.” Several considerations support making this source rather than the “book of Deuteronomy” the focus of study. First, it is not known whether the various Jeremianic traditions made use of the pentateuchal sources in isolation from each other or as part of the combined Pentateuch. To deal with the post-compositional “books” of the Pentateuch is to exclude or ignore the possibility that pre-combined sources were used. Further, the early traditions of Jeremiah, which are plausibly dated to the late monarchic period, likely preceded the composition of the Pentateuch. Second, this study found no credible examples of allusions to the non-D portions of Deut 31–34 and only a single example of an allusion to a text in Deut 1:1–4:40 (Jer 29:13–14 / ​Deut 4:29). For both theoretical and practical reasons, therefore, this study will take the “D” source, rather than the post-compositional book of Deuteronomy, as the focus 128  Cf. for example, Wellhausen, Composition (1889) 189–95; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch (1900) 1:92–93, 2:246–48; Eissfeldt, Einleitung (1934) 258–60. 129 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (1943) 12–16. 130  Mayes, Deuteronomy (1976) 28–46; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (1991) 13–14; Nelson, Deuteronomy (2002) 8–9; Römer, The So-called Deuteronomistic History (2005) 73–81, 123–33, 170–83. also Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) xxv–xxvi, where he acknowledges the plausibility of Noth’s theory, but eschews engaging with it in favor of a final form approach to the book. 131  Baden, Composition (2012) 129–39. 132 This conclusion holds whether these represent other pentateuchal documents (Wellhausen, Composition [1889] 118; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch [1900] 2:295–302; Friedman, Sources Revealed [2003] 358–68; Baden, Composition [2012] 137–39, 147–48; Stackert, A Prophet like Moses [2014] 70–71, 117–23) or as later Deuteronomistic editing (Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien [1934] 13–14; Mayes, Deuteronomy [1976] 28–46; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 [1991] 13–14; Nelson, Deuteronomy [2002] 8–9; Römer, The So-called Deuteronomistic History [2005] 123–33, 170–83).

V. Authority and Scripture

31

of study.133 Following Baden, this source consists of Deut 1:1–32:47 with the exception of 31:14–15, 23 and with the acknowledgement of the existence of further compositional complexity to this document.134 Given the composite nature of both Jeremiah and D, the direction of dependence in any particular literary parallel cannot be pre-determined. By granting the analysis of allusion methodological priority, this study is able to contribute to the study of Deuteronomy by offering external evidence for possible cases of late supplementation in D (see excursus).

V. Authority and Scripture At the heart of the investigation of the perspectives on D in Jeremiah is the question of D’s authority. The fact that D makes its way into an authoritative canon of religious literature does not mean that it always and only had this status. The nature of D’s authority for the authors of Jeremiah is precisely the kind of question that the analysis of allusions is poised to answer. A helpful starting place in this regard is Jonathan Z. Smith’s discussion of canon and its distinction from classic. For Smith, a canon is essentially a closed list,135 and he emphasizes that one of the principal characteristics of canons is their exegetical application to situations beyond their restricted purview. He calls this hermeneutical application of canon “the most characteristic, persistent, and obsessive religious activity.”136 The users of canons, according to Smith, overcome the limitations of canon through “exegetical ingenuity.” Such activity is present as much in the preacher explicating an ancient text for a modern audience as a diviner manipulating and interpreting the objects in his basket to answer a specific question. The presumption underlying these procedures is the essential relevance of the canonical text – or at least the presumption that it can be rendered relevant through expert interpretation. Inherently different from a canonical text is a classic. As Smith defines it, “a classic is not so much an authority as it is an object of prestige, of status.”137 While both types of texts may be subject to interpretation, it is the canon whose interpretation carries with it the weight of necessity. As helpful as Smith’s distinctions are, Levinson points out a shortcoming to his analysis of canon.138 Smith imagines the kind of expansive interpretive 133 The many references to “Deuteronomy” above reflect the conventional usage of the scholarly discussion here reviewed. 134  Baden, Composition (2012) 129–39. 135 Imagining Religion (1982) 48; idem, Canonization and Decanonization (1998) 305–6. 136  Imagining Religion (1982) 43–44. 137  Canonization and Decanonization (1998) 305. 138 Levinson, Legal Revision (2008) 17–21.

32

Chapter One: Introduction

activity as occurring only after a canon has been closed. While the delimited nature of a canon is part of what leads to the necessity of exegetical ingenuity, Smith’s assumption of the essentially closed nature of canon overlooks a important phenomenon in the history of religion: an innovative religious text that seeks to establish its own authority through interpretive interaction with a previous authority. Levinson points to a number of biblical texts – especially in the pentateuchal legal corpus – where this strict distinction between canon and interpretation breaks down and where the exegetical ingenuity that Smith describes as characteristic of canon come in to play before anything like a closed canon emerges.139 In assessing ancient texts before the emergence of canonical boundaries, the issue is really one of authority rather than canon.140 Bruce Lincoln’s analysis of the phenomenon of authority includes a set of concepts that will also prove useful in this study.141 For Lincoln, authority is a form of discourse that involves a relationship between speakers and their audiences, and, particularly, the effect achieved when an audience confers authority on a speaker. The result of the conferral of authority is the audience’s trust in the speaker and willingness to act in accordance with the speaker’s speech. Authority can be contrasted to persuasion or force as modes of inducing action. Obedience to authority stems from the ascribed status of the speaker, not from the persuasiveness of an argument or the threat of violence. Though Lincoln’s discussion is not aimed directly at issues of textual authority, he acknowledges that the authority of texts is constructed in similar ways.142 Some elements of Lincoln’s analysis of authority will not apply in obvious ways to the sub-case of textual authority. Thus, while Lincoln makes much of authority being a relational effect achieved by “the right speaker, the right speech and delivery, the right staging and props, the right time and place, and an audience whose historically and culturally conditioned expectations establish the parameters of what is judged ‘right’ in all these instances,”143 it is not clear to what extent “the right time and place,” for example, are always analyzable with respect to textual authority.144 In this respect we are limited both by lack of evidence as to the social context for the reading of D and by the essentially repeatable nature of textual reading – authority encoded in writing may be reread in any number of occasions. Nevertheless, the basic speaker / ​audience relational situation persists 139  Ibid., 20–56, as well as his classic study of legal innovation in Deuteronomy, Hermeneutics (1997). 140 Cf. Smith, Imagining Religion (1982) 37, where Smith takes up “the canon and its authority” as the explicit subject of his study. 141  Authority (1994). 142 Ibid., 12. 143  Ibid., 11. 144  There are, however, several key examples in Jeremiah where the time, place, and speaker of a text from D are more or less explicitly marked (Jer 7:22–23; 11:3–5; 34:13–14).

VI. Allusion and Authority in Jeremiah

33

and is analyzable. In any given use of D by Jeremiah, we may ask to what extent the speaker, D, is treated by the audience, the alluding text, as an authority with the potential to produce consequential speech.145 If authority is the willingness of an audience to trust and obey a speaker, we may ask in each case of allusion whether such trust is conferred. The categories surveyed here will provide a useful basis for examining individual cases of allusion to D. Rather than simply assuming the authority of D for the authors of Jeremiah, each case must be interrogated for the extent to which authority is conferred. Smith’s contrast between canon and classic suggests that the interpretation of authoritative texts will have a particular recognizable character; the authoritative text is interpreted as a matter of necessity and applied to all aspects of thought and life. Lincoln’s analysis emphasizes the relational aspect of authority. We may ask of any case of allusion, to what extent is the source treated as having the ability to produce consequential speech stemming from its authoritative status alone.

VI. Allusion and Authority in Jeremiah This study will demonstrate that between the pre-DtrJ and DtrJ layers of Jeremianic tradition, the authority of D underwent an important development. The pre-DtrJ layers of tradition allude to D as a prestigious text, a classic but not an authority. It is in the DtrJ layer of tradition that D emerges with the full force of a religious authority. DtrJ accepts D’s central claim to divine origin and continually draws on that authority in support of its own claims. Yet even as the DtrJ layer confers authority on D, the relationship between these texts is complex and dynamic. In fact, as this study will show, it is ironically the very authoritative status of D that animates DtrJ’s sometimes transformative allusions to it. DtrJ confers authority on D and interprets it accordingly, yet simultaneously seeks to transform D in reference to specific themes where DtrJ’s ideology conflicted with D’s. The heart of this study appears in chapters 2–5. These chapters analyze every credible instance of allusion to D in the book of Jeremiah with respect to the evidence, direction of dependence, and meaning of the allusion. The most common theme addressed by way of allusion to D is that of prophecy – all the examples of which belong to DtrJ. Chapter 2 examines these allusions. On this topic more than any other, DtrJ confronts in D an ideology that conflicts with its own. Rather than simply rejecting or ignoring D’s prophetic ideology, however, DtrJ engages it through transformative allusion to specific passages, enlisting D both to support its own ideology and to condemn Jeremiah’s prophetic opponents. 145 Cf.

ibid., 4.

34

Chapter One: Introduction

If prophetic revelation is the most common theme evoked in allusions to D, the covenant curses of Deut 28 represent the most commonly cited passage. Chapter 3 examines these allusions. Though many scholars have seen Jeremiah as the source for Deut 28, this study argues that Jeremiah is in every case the alluding text. DtrJ alluded to D’s curses extensively to explain the fall of Judah in 587 as due to the violation of D’s covenant. DtrJ makes clear the equation: the violation of D’s laws leads directly to the enactment of D’s curses. Several pre-DtrJ passages also allude to Deut 28, but in a different way than the DtrJ passages. Rather than adopting D’s own claims, these passage simply reuse D’s language – a mode of allusion suggestive of the prestige of D but not its authority. Chapter 4 analyzes allusions to D’s laws in both DtrJ and pre-DtrJ passages. The pre-DtrJ poetic passages alluded to D in a distinctive mode by citing civil laws of D as metaphors for the relationship between Yahweh and Judah. These allusions draw on the prestige of D, but do not assume its authority. The DtrJ passages, on the other hand, cite the violation of D’s law as evidence in the prophetic accusation of the people and as justification for the downfall of Judah. These allusions adopt D’s central religious claims and cite D as binding law. Chapter 5 examines the allusions to D’s narrative frame. In a number of passages DtrJ presents an innovative view of Judah’s future obedience. Rather than being self-motivated, the future obedience will be divinely implanted such that the people will necessarily avoid breaking the covenant a second time. D itself, however, presented obedience as exclusively self-motivated. In presenting its innovation, DtrJ cited narrative passages from D that expressed the self-motivated nature of obedience and used them to justify the divinely motivated obedience projected for the future new covenant. Though transformative, these allusions do not seek to overturn or subvert D but rather to negotiate innovation in reference to the preceding authority. Pre-DtrJ allusions to D’s narrative, on the other hand, appear simply to reuse language from the source without extensive interaction with it. Though the book of Jeremiah repeatedly alludes to D, the direction of dependence is by no means unidirectional. An excursus will treat a number of allusions in late portions of D to the book of Jeremiah. It is telling that these allusions all occur towards the end of D (chs. 29, 30, 32) and, in several cases, draw from DtrJ’s innovative view of Judah’s future obedience. This study demonstrates the deep and multifaceted nature of the relationship between Jeremiah and D. The pre-DtrJ Jeremianic traditions, both poetic and narratival, alluded to D as a prestigious literary classic. The growth of the book through the DtrJ redaction witnessed a shift in perspective on D from a classic to an authoritative religious text. The shift to the authoritative status of D also occasioned a shift in interpretive strategy. Whereas pre-DtrJ texts could allude to D whenever it was convenient, DtrJ was constrained by necessity to allude to D in precisely those places where it innovated with respect to D. It is, in fact,

VI. Allusion and Authority in Jeremiah

35

in the exegetical ingenuity with which DtrJ negotiates its own innovation that the nature of the relationship between DtrJ and D is revealed. DtrJ sought to establish itself as a religious authority alongside D, but to do so, it engaged D with the hermeneutical creativity Smith described as the “most characteristic, persistent, and obsessive religious activity.”146 This study reveals, therefore, the self-conscious interpretative activity at work in an innovative text that had to negotiate its own authority in relation to an authoritative precursor.

146 Smith,

Imagining Religion (1982) 43.

Chapter Two

Allusion And Prophetic Authority The nature of prophecy emerges as a theoretical problem in the book of Jeremiah. The book addresses the origins and legitimization of prophecy, the subjective experience of the prophet, the problem of false prophecy, and the relationship between oral prophecy and written prophetic literature. This theme was of particular importance to DtrJ and served as fertile ground for interpretive interactions with D. These interactions point to a complexity at the heart of DtrJ’s relationship to its source. DtrJ rejects the restrictions that D places on post-Mosaic prophecy while simultaneously treating D as an authoritative resource justifying the repudiation of false prophets.

I. Prophecy in D To understand D’s view of prophecy, it is crucial to recognize that while prophecy is specifically addressed in only a few contexts (chs. 13 and 18), the bulk of the book – both the laws of chs. 12–26 and the discourses that frame them – takes the form of an extended prophetic revelation through Moses.1 On the one hand, this form represents a positive view of prophecy. By choosing to speak through the mouth of the great prophet, D grounds its own authority in prophetic charisma. On the other hand, the two passages that directly legislate prophecy show ambivalence about the prospect of post-Mosaic prophecy. Both passages treat post-Mosaic prophecy with suspicion as a potential threat to D’s own claim to mediate the definitive revealed will of Yahweh. Deuteronomy 13:2–6 presents the possibility of a prophet who legitimates himself through a miraculous sign (‫ )האות והמופת‬before calling the people to serve other gods. This represents a worst-case scenario for D – a miraculously legitimated prophet who contravenes D’s requirement of exclusive loyalty to Yahweh. D’s response to this imagined threat is unequivocal. The sign is to be ignored and the prophet executed. The people are to maintain their obedience to the commands of Yahweh transmitted by D (13:5).2 This passage precludes even the most convincingly legitimated prophet from contradicting D. 1 2

 Cf. Stackert, Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch (2012) 48.  Barstad, SJOT 8 (1994) 236–51; Stackert, Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch (2012) 56–57.

38

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

The so-called “canon formula” (Deut 13:1) that precedes and introduces this prophet law likewise urges D’s unsurpassability. As Levinson has shown, this formula is part of ch. 13’s reuse of Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (VTE) and serves as an introduction to the following loyalty laws.3 Deuteronomy 13:1 mandates obedience to D’s law (1a), and forbids either adding or subtracting from it (1b). The first law that follows this mandate treats the greatest threat to it: the possibility of a prophet who offers a message that could add or subtract from D’s own message. D, of course, explicitly condemns this prophet and reasserts exclusive obedience to itself (v. 5). This passage, as Barstad emphasizes, views post-Mosaic prophecy as a potential threat to obedience to D, and reserves for itself an authority superior to that of any subsequent prophet.4 D addresses future licit prophecy in Deut 18:15–22. While this passage does predict future prophets “like Moses,” Barstad and Stackert have argued convincingly that it places severe restrictions on this institution.5 In D, Mosaic prophecy manifests itself predominantly the giving of divine law. This law-giving does not come as a result of consultation and is, by nature, non-falsifiable. Deuteronomy 18, on the other hand, presents post-Mosaic prophecy as the only licit form of consultative divination. In contrast to the illicit forms of consultative divination (vv. 9–14), Israel will be given prophets (vv. 15–22). Within this framework, v. 22 makes it clear that post-Mosaic prophecy will be restricted to oracular responses to inquiries about what should be done or what will happen. Most importantly, v. 22 makes clear that post-Mosaic prophecy is falsifiable. In other words, as Deut 18:9–22 describes and legislates post-Mosaic prophecy, it describes forms of prophecy that are vastly different from the forms employed by Moses. It neither imagines nor allows post-Mosaic prophecy in a Mosaic form. Future prophets will thus be “like Moses” not by prophesying in a Mosaic mode, but by prophesying in a manner consistent with Moses’s prophecy in D. Further, as Barstad points out, this criterion of verifiability functionally undercuts post-Mosaic prophetic activity in general since it requires waiting until a prophecy is confirmed or denied before believing and acting on it.6 This legislation has the appearance of a concession. D concedes that prophecy occurs but significantly restricts its scope. The intermediaries that Deut 18 imagines as prophets “like Moses” are expected to give prophetic revelations that are starkly different from what D attributes to Moses. It is noteworthy that the criterion of verification lays on prophecy a standard that the canonical tradition did not hold to the classical prophets, which preserve numerous examples of unfulfilled prophecies. D effectively neuters the institution of prophecy in a way compara Levinson, JAOS 130 (2010) 337–47. SJOT 8 (1994) 241. 5  Ibid., 242–46; Stackert, Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch (2012) 58–59; idem, A Prophet like Moses (2014) 135–57. 6 Barstad, SJOT 8 (1994) 246. 3

4 Barstad,

I. Prophecy in D

39

ble to its treatment of the monarchy (Deut 17:18–20). D acknowledges the future existence of a monarch but imposes restrictions on the institution and allows as its only positive activity the reading of D itself.7 Finally, attaching a death penalty to the verification criterion also puts the post-Mosaic prophet in a fundamentally precarious position; one failed prediction warrants the death of the prophet. Deuteronomy 18 further restricts future prophecy by individualizing its sphere of potential influence. Mosaic prophecy, encoded in D’s law, applies to the nation as a whole, and its punishments for disobedience are correspondingly national in scope (cf. Deut 28). Deuteronomy 18:19, on the other hand, makes clear that disobedience to future consultative prophets is punished on an individualized level: “I will seek a reckoning from the one who does not obey my words which he [the prophet] has spoken in my name.” According to Deut 18, the restricted and dangerous consultative ministry of post-Mosaic prophets involves matters of individual, rather than national, scope. Whereas disobedience to Mosaic prophecy can endanger the nation, disobedience to post-Mosaic prophecy cannot. Both of D’s prophet laws, therefore, represent D’s jealous guarding of its own preeminent prophetic authority. D acknowledges the existence of post-Mosaic prophecy but incorporates it into its own system of authority by placing rigorous restrictions on it.8 What D repeatedly emphasizes, and never relinquishes, is its own claim to ultimate prophetic authority. In his 1964 article, R. Davidson drew attention to the limitations Deut 13:1–6 and 18:15–22 placed on future prophets.9 He argued that Jeremiah’s opponents used these passages against him, and Jeremiah, as a result, critiqued the passages themselves. While his evidence for the use of these passages by Jeremiah’s opponents is unsatisfying,10 his detection of a resistance to the restriction placed by these laws is valid.11 This resistance, however, does not derive from the supposed  Cf. Cook, Levites (2011) 157–59. well be, as Stackert, A Prophet like Moses (2014) 136–40, argues, that this perspective is an attempt to correct E’s more radical rejection of post-Mosaic prophecy in Deut 34:10–12 in the light of the actual practice of consultative prophecy.  9 VT 14 (1964) 407–16. 10 Davidson claims that Jeremiah’s advocacy of submission to Babylon would leave him open to the charge of following “other gods,” and thus in violation of Deut 13:1–6 (ibid., 411–12). Not only is this unconvincing (submission to Babylon could be viewed rather as submission to the divine will as encoded in Deut 28), there is also no evidence other than the bare possibility proposed by Davidson that they actually did this. 11  Unfortunately, many of the passages he mentions are not credible. His argument that Jer 23:14–15 points to the inadequacy of Deut 13:1–6 by not citing it is thoroughly circular (ibid., 413). His further contention that Jer 23:25–28 rejects the same passage by denying the legitimacy of dreams (ibid.) likewise fails both for lack of sufficient lexical connections to confirm an allusion to Deut 13:1–6 and for his failure to recognize that neither Deut 13:1–6 nor 18:15–22 legitimates dream prophecy – much the opposite! Of the cases of resistance to D’s prophet laws cited by Davidson, in fact, the only convincing example, which will be treated below, is the revision of Deut 18:22 in Jer 28:9 (ibid., 414).  7

 8 It may

40

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

uses of these laws against Jeremiah; it derives rather from the tension between authoritative status of D and the limits it places on future prophetic revelation.

II. Jeremiah as a Prophet like Moses A number of scholars have noted elements in the book of Jeremiah that present Jeremiah as a prophet like Moses. Holladay has pointed to similarities in the call and birth narratives of these two prophets as well as connections to the prophet law of Deut 18 in Jer 1, 15, and 20.12 In his study of the prophetic call narrative, N. Habel similarly argued that the Jeremiah’s call narrative in Jer 1:4–10 employs the Mosaic call in Exod 3:1–12.13 Building on Holladay, Christopher Seitz shows further points of contact that demonstrate a deliberate effort on the part of DtrJ to present Jeremiah as a prophet like Moses. Seitz highlights the theme of the prohibition of intercession (7:16; 11:14; 14:11; 15:1), which, in one instance, is invoked in explicit contrast to Moses (15:1).14 Yahweh’s determination to punish Judah led him to forbid Jeremiah from interceding lest, like Moses, his intercession succeed in forestalling judgment. Seitz notes a further parallel between the breaking and renewing of the tablets of the Decalogue and the scroll of Jeremiah in Jer 36.15 In her 2003 monograph, Carolyn Sharp raises objections to this view.16 Reviewing the connections that scholars have cited between Moses and Jeremiah, Sharp concludes that this parallel arises first in the imaginations of interpreters influenced by the “the sheer richness of the many traditions that have grown up around the figure of Moses in the Hebrew Bible.”17 Sharp is surely correct to criticize some of these arguments. Arguments for a literary parallel between Jer 1:6 and Exod 4:10, the presentation of Jeremiah as an “anti-Moses” in Jer 42–43, and the death of Hananiah in Jer 28 as an outworking of Deut 18 lack sufficient evidence and persuasiveness.18 While these criticisms are an important check to a sometimes overly keen scholarly imagination, they do not blunt the force of the arguments for literary allusions in Jer 1, 28, and 36. Sharp’s specific objections to these allusions will be addressed in the discussion below. As this study will show, the comparison between Jeremiah and Moses in fact goes further than has been noticed by scholars such as Holladay and Seitz. The allusions analyzed here will demonstrate that the DtrJ layer of the book had an acute interest in the relationship between the prophetic authority of Moses and  Holladay, JBL 83 (1964) 153–164; idem, JBL 85 (1966) 17–27; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 68–9. ZAW 36 (1965) 306–9. 14  Seitz, ZAW 101 (1989) 4, 6–10. 15  Seitz, ZAW 101 (1989) 14. Less convincing is his claim that Baruch and Ebed-Melech are modeled on the characters of Caleb and Joshua (ibid., 16–18). 16  Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 150–55. 17  Ibid., 153. 18 Ibid., 152–54. 12

13 Habel,

II. Jeremiah as a Prophet like Moses

41

that of Jeremiah. Through a series of literary allusions to the D source, the DtrJ authors portray Jeremiah’s prophetic authority as equivalent to the authority of Moses. This claim can be observed in Jer 1:4–9; 7:22–23; 11:1–5; 21:8–10; and 26:2. A similar effort appears in the non-DtrJ Jer 36:28.19 DtrJ’s development of an equivalency between Jeremiah and Moses poses a potential problem as it functionally conflicts with D’s concept of post-Mosaic prophecy. The Jeremiah of DtrJ brings new, unsolicited20 revelation, sometimes in the form of divine commands. Many of Jeremiah’s prophecies are not or cannot be subjected to D’s restrictions or its verification criterion. DtrJ presents Jeremiah as not merely a teacher of D’s law,21 but as a conveyer of new revelation. This portrayal of Jeremiah supersedes what D allows for post-Mosaic prophecy. Since DtrJ elsewhere treats D as a legitimate and important source of prophetic authority, one might hypothesize that this ideological conflict is accidental or that the authors of Jeremiah were not aware of the extent to which their their portrayal of the prophet conflicted with D’s idea of post-Mosaic prophecy. As will be shown below, however, the specific modes of transformative allusion that appear in the allusions to D demonstrate that some of the tradents of the Jeremiah traditions were indeed aware of the limitations that D sets on post-Mosaic prophecy. These authors sought to combat this ideology through transformative allusion to passages from D that deal with both D’s own prophetic authority and its view of post-Mosaic prophecy. This interest to interact hermeneutically with D on the issue of prophecy appears to be a peculiar concern of DtrJ. The only examples below that cannot be assigned to DtrJ are Jer 36:28 and two plusses in the MT that post-date the DtrJ redaction (Jer 28:14 and 29:32). As the analysis to follow will show, Eckart Otto is partially right to see in certain passages in Jeremiah a resistance to the theory of prophetic revelation found in D.22 The DtrJ layer of the book understands the ways that D limits post-Mosaic prophecy and actively resists these limitations. The relationship between Jeremiah and D, however, is not that of rival schools engaged in a debate 19  This trope continues to develop in other Second Temple Jewish literature, including, notably that Qumran Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, which portrays Jeremiah as giving divine commands to the Babylonian exiles (4Q385a 18 6–8). Devorah Dimant notes this text as containing a development of the Moses typology drawn from the book of Jeremiah (DJD 30 [2001] 150, 162; DSD 20 [2013] 460–61); Kipp Davis makes a similar point, noting that the setting of this speech on the banks of a river (likely the Euphrates) contributes to the characterization of Jeremiah as similar to Moses who spoke his law “beyond the Jordan” (The Qumran Jeremianic Traditions [2014] 135). 20 Consultative prophecy does appear in Jer 21:1–10; 37:3–10, 16–17; 38:14–23; and ch. 42. Such notices, however, prove the rule. The majority of oracles are presented as unsolicited, and where oracles come in response to consultation, the consultation itself is an important feature of the narrative. 21  Contra Duhm’s depiction of the Jeremiah presented by the late additions to the book (Jeremia [1901] xviii–xix). 22 See above, pp. 9–11.

42

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

about prophetic authority. It has the character rather of a religiously innovative text (DtrJ) that is constrained by the very authority it grants to existing religious tradition (D) to engage it hermeneutically precisely where the previous tradition conflicts with its own ideology.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation The allusions that treat the topic of prophecy cluster around two sub-themes. The first involves a sustained comparison between Jeremiah and Moses; the second addresses false prophecy. It is in the first group that the DtrJ authors have set out to transform their source in order to elevate Jeremiah’s prophetic authority to a level equivalent to Mosaic law.

1. Jer 7:23 and Deut 5:33 A salient and instructive example appears in Jer 7:23. Along with much of Jer 7:1–8:3, this passage belongs to DtrJ.23 Dtr language in vv. 21–28 confirms this designation for the passage under consideration. Phrases peculiar to DtrJ include “to speak and command” (v. 22), “to go after the stubbornness of the heart” (v. 24), “to turn backwards and not forwards” (v. 24), “they do not incline the ear” (vv. 24, 26), and the phrase “early and often” in conjunction with the sending of prophets (v. 25). Phrases characteristic of Dtr literature more generally include “to be a people to him” (v. 23), “from the day they left Egypt” (v. 25), and “my servants the prophets” (v. 25).24 The allusion in vv. 22–23 is demonstrated by the following clause-level lexical connections. Jer 7:23b

Deut 5:33a

‫והלכתם בכל הדרך אשר אצוה אתכם למען ייטב‬ ‫לכם‬

‫בכל הדרך אשר צוה יהוה אלהיכם אתכם תלכו למען‬ ‫תחיון וטוב לכם‬

Walk in all the way which I will command you in order that it might go well for you.

In all the way that Yahweh your god has commanded you, you are to walk in order that you might live and it be well for you.

23  Cf., for example, Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 68–71, and Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremiah 1–25 (1973) 103–34. Otto’s arguments for the basic unity of Jer 7:1–8:3, and his rejecting of the conflicting stratifications proposed by Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 44–54 and Maier, Lehrer der Tora (2002) 48–135 are mostly convincing (ZAR 12 [2006] 250–54), provided that allowance be made for the use of earlier sources (cf. Rofé, Tarbiz 44 [1974] 16–22 [Hebrew]). 24  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 327, 340, 341, 352, 353. Excluded from this list are the Dtr phrases that occur as part of the allusion itself.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

43

The phrase “in all the way that I / ​Yahweh your god command(ed)” appears nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. This unique phrase as a modification of the same verb “to walk” and collocated with the purpose clause “in order that it might be well” clinches the identification of an allusion.25 Further confirmation for this allusion comes in the first half of v. 23, which identifies what follows as a summary of what Yahweh said in the wilderness: “but rather this is the word that I commanded them [when I brought them out of Egypt].” In other words, unlike most biblical allusions, where citation formulae are avoided, this passage actually presents itself as a quotation from the time of the exodus.26 In addition to corroborating the lexical evidence for an allusion, this statement also secures the direction of dependence. Deuteronomy 5:33’s own literary setting is, of course, the wilderness period. It is straightforward and simple to imagine the author of Jer 7:23 making use of a literary tradition set in the wilderness in formulating a summary of the divine command given there. Overly complex and convoluted would be the opposite explanation that the author of Deut 5:33 found a pseudo-quotation of a wilderness period teaching in Jer 7 and decided to transform it into a true quotation by giving the saying a wilderness setting.27 25 So also Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 60; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 73; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 311, idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 252. 26  The phrase ‫ביום הוציאי אותם מארץ מצרים‬, “when I brought them out of the land of Egypt,” is used here and elsewhere (cf. Jer 11:4; 31:32; 34:13) to refer in a general way to the entire wilderness period (cf. Deut 4:45, which refers to the laws of D, spoken in Moab, as what Moses spoke ‫בצאתם ממצרים‬, “when they came out of Egypt,” and 2 Sam 7:11, where the entire period of the judges is referred to as ‫היום אשר צויתי שפטים‬, “the day when I commanded the judges.” Cf. also 1 Sam 8:8 and 2 Kgs 21:15). This usage undercuts Otto’s and Hermann’s claim that Jeremiah refers in these passages to an “Egyptian Covenant” separate and in some way opposed to the Moab or Sinai / ​Horeb covenants (Hermann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen [1965] 180–81; Otto, ZAR 12 [2006] 277–78). Rom-Shiloni, VT 65 (2015) 634–36, 639–42 also makes much of what she considers the decidedly non-Deuteronomic notion of a covenant “in the very day” of the Exodus. See, however, Hardy, “Diachronic” (2014) 232–35 for a discussion of the grammaticalization of ‫ ביום‬as a compound preposition meaning “when,” i. e. an unspecified period of time not limited to a single day. Hardy’s observation that ‫ ביום‬followed by an infinitive clearly has this grammaticalized function in 63/65 examples strongly supports reading these locutions in Jeremiah as “when” and as referring to the wilderness period in general. It is curious that Rom-Shiloni cites Num 7:1, 10, 84 as justification for reading the designation as referring to a specific day (ibid., 637, n. 37) when the passage describes the “day” of the dedication as spanning twelve days (cf. Hardy, “Diachronic” [2014] 235–36). Hardy’s observations show that Jeremiah’s ‫ביום הוציאי‬ ‫אותם מארץ מצרים‬, “when I brought them out from the land of Egypt” bears the same temporal designation as Deut 4:45’s ‫בצאתם ממצרים‬, “when they came out of Egypt,” and thus contradicts Rom-Shiloni’s contention that this is a non-Deuteronomic temporal designation. In both Jeremiah and Deut 4:45, the phrase “when they went out of Egypt,” simply represents a metony­mic reference to the entire wilderness period writ large. 27  Another similarly complex way of accounting for the lexical congruence of these passages would be to posit an unknown wilderness tradition referred to here by Jeremiah. D could then have subsequently used either Jer 7:23 or this now-lost source in its own formulation of the

44

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

The context and sense of both passages guide the interpretation of the allusion. In Deut 5, Moses recounts the events of Horeb, the voicing of the Decalogue to all the people, and the subsequent giving of the remainder of the laws of D to Moses alone. In vv. 32–33, Moses transitions from recounting this past event to addressing the people on the plains of Moab. He commands them to observe all that the Lord has commanded (‫)צוה‬. His reference here is to the laws that have been given so far only to himself but that he now – in Moab – is about to impart to them. Some commentators have puzzled over the suffix conjugation form of the verb ‫ צוה‬in 5:32–33 since the reference is to the laws that, according to the narrative framework, have not yet been imparted to the people. Some claim for this reason that vv. 32–33 are secondary28 or that the laws were assumed to have been given to the people before Moab.29 As Weinfeld points out, however, from the perspective of the Moab setting of vv. 32–33, the commanding of the laws to Moses is situated in the past at Horeb.30 The past setting of the initial imparting of the commands explains the past tense form. This can be nuanced further according to an aspect-prominent view of the verbal system. The past tense of the verb is contributed by the context (a reference to an earlier event) and the perfectivity of the form indicates the perspective on the completed nature of the commanding. Expressed here is a central element of D’s ideology. The laws of D were given in their entirety to Moses at one time, on Horeb: “In all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you [when he spoke to me on Horeb], you are to walk.” In other words, this verse amounts to the command simply to “obey D, given to Moses at Horeb.” This brief statement fits the ideology seen elsewhere. Nothing can be added to these commands (Deut 13:1), and the content of subsequent prophetic revelation can never contradict it (Deut 13:2–6). While further prophets are assumed (Deut 18), they will not serve the law-giving role and are thus subordinate to the prophetic authority of Moses. For D, the laws given to Moses at Horeb and communicated to the people at Moab are final. The perfectivity of ‫“ צוה‬command” in Deut 5:32–33 is thus far from trivial. The divine commanding of these laws began and ended at Horeb. Jeremiah 7:21–26 presents an argument that obedience to the ongoing prophetic word is more important than sacrifice. Verse 21 urges the people to stop bothering with sacrifices since, according to v. 22, such were not commanded “in the day I [God] brought them from the land of Egypt.” There are several expla-

wilderness tradition. While arguments based on non-existent sources are difficult to rule out, multiplying hypothetical entities is methodologically undesirable when the phenomenon is accounted for on the basis of the existing data, in this case, the texts of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. 28  Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 174. 29  Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) 88. 30 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (1991) 326.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

45

nations for this enigmatic historical claim.31 What is clear at the very least is that these verses assert that the foundational teaching of the wilderness period was the command to obey the Lord: “obey my voice … walk in all the way which I will command you” (v. 23). Cultic rites without obedience to divine commands are pointless. The passage twice declares that the people have in fact disobeyed Yahweh’s commands (vv. 24, 26), and because of this they will face judgment. Crucially, it also defines the means by which God’s voice and commands are mediated to the people: “from the day when they left Egypt until now, I have sent to you daily, early and often, all my servants the prophets” (v. 25). For Jer 7:21–26, God’s voice and commands are mediated by prophets, beginning with the departure from Egypt – i. e. Moses – and continuing to Jeremiah himself. This perspective explains the grammatical change in the aspect of ‫ צוה‬in Jer 7:23 from the perfective of its source text to an imperfective. While Deut 5:33 commands observance to commands that have been made, that is, D’s own law code, Jer 7:23 enjoins observance of commands that will be made. Key to the logic of Jer 7:22–23 is the historical nature of its claim. The author presents the command to obey future prophetic revelation as the essential command of the wilderness era: “For I did not speak with your fathers or command them when I brought them from the land of Egypt concerning matters of burnt-offering and sacrifice, but rather this is what I commanded them ….” Deuteronomy 5:33, on the other hand, asserts that the final authoritative set of divine commands are those that were given to Moses at Horeb and transmitted to the people in Moab. Jeremiah 7:22–23 has taken a passage in which D asserts its own final authority, transformed it into a command to obey the succession of prophets, and presented this new formulation as the Mosaic command given in the wilderness. Rather than simply disagreeing with D’s presentation of its own authority as ultimate, Jer 7:23 projects its own view of prophecy back to Moses and does so by transforming the words of its source. In sum, therefore, Jer 7:23 has enlisted Deut 5:33’s perspective on the ultimate authority of D and transformed it to express the idea that subsequent prophecies are of equal authority 31  Weinfeld, ZAW 88 (1976) 53–54, argues plausibly that referred to here is the Deuteronomic Decalogue, which does not command sacrifices. Milgrom, ZAW 89 (1977) 273–75, argues that the reference is to voluntary sacrifices, which in the P source, according to Milgrom, were legislated but not commanded in the wilderness. In other words, since the sacrifices are voluntary, they were not commanded. Weinfeld’s argument for a reference to the Decalogue is particularly suggestive given Deut 5’s emphasis on the Decalogue representing the only words that Yahweh spoke directly to the Israelites were those of the Decalogue. Afterwards the people insisted that further divine speech be mediated through Moses. The point of this reference within Jer 7:21–26 would seem to be that even though sacrifice was ultimately commanded through Moses, it was not a part of the unmediated commanding of the Decalogue. This reference assumes a kind of hierarchy between unmediated and mediated revelation and capitalizes on the lack of sacrificial legislation in the only instance of unmediated revelation.

46

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

to D. This transformation of Deut 5:33 provides evidence that the author of Jer 7:22–23 was aware of the way in which its view of prophetic authority conflicted with D’s and sought to address and neutralize this ideological difference.

2. Jer 11:1–5, Deut 27:15–26, and Exod 23:22 An allusion with a similar function appears in Jer 11:1–14. This passage contains one of the densest constellations of Deuteronomistic language in the book.32 Verses 3 and 5 allude to Deut 27:15, 26, and these verses frame an allusion to Exod 23:22 in v. 4. The allusion to Deut 27:15, 26 in Jer 11:3, 5 has been widely recognized and discussed.33 It is demonstrated by a high degree of phrase-level lexical correspondences: Jer 11: 3b, 5b

Deut 27:15, 26

​‫ארור האיש אשר לא ישמע את דברי הברית הזאת‬ …

‫ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ומסכה תועבת יהוה‬ ‫מעשה ידי חרש ושם בסתר וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן‬

‫ואען ואמר אמן יהוה‬

…

‫ארור אשר לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת לעשות‬ ‫אותם ואמר כל העם אמן‬ Cursed is the man who does not obey the words of this covenant …

“Cursed is the man who makes an idol or a molten image, the abomination of Yahweh, the work of the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret.” And all the people answered and said, “Amen.” …

and I answered and said, “Amen, ­Yahweh.”

“Cursed is he who does not establish the words of this law by doing them.” And all the people said, “Amen.”

While Deut 27:15–26 consists of a series of curses of a common form, the first and last curses (vv. 15, 26) are formally different than the others in their formation as relative rather than participial clauses. The summary curse in v. 26 is also the only curse in the series expressed as a negative.34 Jeremiah 11:3b shares both the relative clause formulation of Deut 27:25 and 26 and the negative formulation of v. 26. The phrase “cursed be the man who …” represents a formula that appears in other, unrelated contexts (1 Sam 14:24, 28, Jer 20:15). Combined with the 32  See Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 31, 36; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 67–68; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 320, 322 327, 330, 340, 350. 33 Holladay, JBL 85 (1966) 27; idem, Jeremiah 1 (1985) 350; idem, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 61; idem, “Elusive Deuteronomists” (2004) 62–63; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 237; Fischer, Jeremiah 1–25 (2005) 409, 425, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2011) 283; Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform (2006) 160; Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 276; Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 260; idem, VT 65 (2015) 627–29. 34  Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 345; Bellefontaine, A Song of Power (1993) 259–60; Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 253–54.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

47

response, “and X answered and said, ‘Amen,’” however, it is unique to Deut 27 and Jer 11. Further, the wording of the curse in Jer 11:3 is nearly identical in both syntax and semantics to the final, climactic curse of the series in Deut 27: ‫ לא ישמע את דברי הברית הזאת‬Jer 11:3 ‫ לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת‬Deut 27:26

The lexical variations amount to near-synonyms (‫  ​ תורה‬/  ‫ברית‬, ‫  ​ קום‬/  ‫ )שמע‬and could plausibly be accounted for as memory variants. The mostly likely explanation for the verbal parallels between these passages is that the author of Jer 11:3–5 alluded to the liturgical curses of Deut 27 and drew particularly on the climactic curse of v. 26, which proclaims a curse on anyone who fails to obey “this torah,” i. e., D itself. This reference to Deut 27:26 provides important evidence for the status of the source employed by the author of Jer 11. As a number of scholars have noted, Deut 27 interrupts Moses’s speech, so far unbroken since Deut 5:1, with third person narrative (vv. 1, 9, 11, 14).35 Since ch. 28 continues Moses’s speech and follows naturally on ch. 26, it is possible that ch. 27 represents an interpolation. Some scholars have also argued for the use of pre-D sources in this chapter.36 If part or all of Deut 27 existed before its potential interpolation into the book, Jer 11 could theoretically have alluded to this material apart from D. The general nature of the final curse of v. 26, however, and in particular its reference to ‫התורה הזאת‬, “this teaching,” show that this verse makes reference to the D’s own law.37 If Deut 27:15–26 is not an original part of the D-source, therefore, v. 26 would represent a means of incorporating that material into D. To the extent that the arguments for Deut 27 being an addition are convincing, Jer 11’s use of v. 26 shows that this allusion has encountered these curses after their inclusion in D. This allusion to Deut 27 supports seeing the covenant referred to in Jer 11 as the D-covenant, and this conclusion is reinforced by further references to D in this passage. Using language similar to Jer 7:22, this passage situates the covenant’s origins in the wilderness period: “… the words of the covenant which I commanded your ancestors when I brought them out of the land of Egypt” (vv. 3bβ–4aα). Nearly identical language appears in 34:13 introducing an allusion to Deut 15 (see ch. 4). Each instance of this reference to something commanded or said “when I brought them out of Egypt” thus has direct reference to D; in

35  Cf. Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) 294–96; Von Rad, Deuteronomium (1964) 118; Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 340; Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 246, 488. 36  Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) 295–97; Von Rad, Deuteronomium (1964) 118. 37  Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 348; Bellefontaine, A Song of Power (1993) 259–60; Holladay, CBQ 66 (2004) 62–63.

48

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

both 11:3bβ–4aα and 34:13 it is in reference specifically to D’s covenant. Further, vv. 4–5 contain what appears to be combination of Deut 7:8 and 8:18:38 ‫ משמרו את השבעה אשר נשבע לאבתיכם‬Deut 7:8 … because of his keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers …

‫ למען הקים את בריתו אשר־נשבע לאבתיך‬Deut 8:18b … in order to establish the covenant which he swore to your fathers …

‫ למען הקים את השבועה אשר נשבעתי לאבותיכם‬Jer 11:5 … in order to establish the oath which he swore to your fathers …

Several other, less convincing allusions to D have been claimed,39 but these observations suffice to demonstrate that the curse here proclaimed as “the words of the covenant” explicitly draws on D, and especially the liturgical curse of Deut 27. Thus, scholars are correct to see in Jer 11 a presentation of the prophet as a preacher of D’s covenant.40 The allusion to Deut 27 in Jer 11:3, 5 brackets an allusion to Exod 23:22 in v. 4. Jer 11:4aβ

‫שמעו בקולי ועשיתם אותם ככל אשר אצוה אתכם‬ Obey my voice and do [them]41 according to all which I will command you.

Exod 23:22a

‫כי אם שמע תשמע בקלו ועשית כל אשר אדבר‬ For if you indeed obey my42 voice and do all which I will say …

38  Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1985) 350; Römer, Israël Construit Son Histoire (1996) 432, n. 60; idem, Those Elusive Deuteronomists (1999) 195. 39  The “iron furnace” appears elsewhere only in Deut 4:20 and 1 Kgs 8:51. The direction of dependence, however, is not certain. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1985) 352, idem, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 63, idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 63, argues that Jer 11 is the source for the other texts. He notes that 1 Kgs 8:51 is exilic and Deut 4 secondary, and, on the basis of the affinity between the “iron furnace” of Egypt and the “iron yoke” of Babylon (Jer 28:14), argues that the image is original to Jeremiah (but cf. Fischer, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 248–49 for an argument that Jeremiah is dependent). Similarly, the suggestion that Jer 11:6b uses Deut 29:8a (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 340; Otto, ZAR 12 [2006] 277) is susceptible to the reverse analysis. This is particularly so due to the other cases where Deut 29 appears to use Jeremiah (cf. excursus). Other connections to D proposed in this passage represent phrases too common to confidently classify as allusions or echoes (Jer 11:3–5 / ​Deut 26:8–9, 31:20, proposed by Holladay, Jeremiah 1 [1985] 350; Jer 8, 11 / ​Deut 28:15–16, proposed by Römer, Israël Construit Son Histoire [1996] 432–33, n. 60). 40  Cf., for example, Hyatt, JNES 1 (1942) 168–70. 41  ‫ אותם‬is missing from both the LXX and Vulgate. It has no antecedent in this context and has probably been accidentally inserted under the influence of the similar phrase in v. 6, where the antecedent is ‫( דברי הברית‬Holladay, Jeremiah 1 [1985] 346). 42  While the MT attests a third masculine singular suffix on ‫קול‬, the Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX both attest a first-person pronoun here (cf. also Targum Neofiti). The issue is complicated by a reference shift from the messenger (third masculine singular) to Yahweh (first singular). The shift to Yahweh has certainly occurred with ‫( אדבר‬I will speak), but these variant textual readings make the participant reference of the first clause of v. 22 uncertain. Verse 21

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

49

The lexemes here are all common, and the collocation of ‫( שמע‬listen), ‫( קול‬voice), and ‫( עשה‬do) is attested in a number of places.43 What is unparalleled is the entire string: “Listen to my voice and do everything which I will [verb of speaking].” A unique combination of words, even if it consists of common words and phrases, is nevertheless recognizable as an allusion. In English, for example, “to be or not to be,” is immediately recognizable as an allusion to Hamlet despite the commonness of the lexemes and phrases used. This phrase is so recognizable that it works as an allusion without anything else in context pointing to the play. If the context prepares the reader, even the simple “to be” is theoretically sufficient to invoke Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, as, for example, T. S. Eliot’s “No! I am not Prince Hamlet nor was meant to be.” In this allusion, the direct reference to “Prince Hamlet” primes the reader to recognize the minimal two-word phrase “to be” as an allusion to the soliloquy. A similar dynamic is present in Jer 11:4. As was the case in Jer 7:22–23, the allusion in Jer 11:4 is framed explicitly as a quotation from the wilderness period: “… the words of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron furnace …” This phrasing is rhetorically identical to Jer 7:23. Both passages present a summary of the wilderness-era command that draws from narrative traditions surrounding Horeb; Deut 5 in Jer 7:23, and Exod 23 in Jer 11:4. Partially bracketing out the question of the identity of the “messenger” in Exod 23:20 and its relationship to the Israelite deity,44 it is nevertheless possible to describe the mode of revelation imagined in the quoted text of Exod 23:22: “You will surely obey my voice and do all which I will say.” This passage appears in the conclusion to the group of laws in Exod 20:19–23:19 (the Covenant Code). Though following this legal code. Exod 23:22 invokes obedience to future comclearly refers to the ‫( מלאך‬the “messenger”), and uses the same phrase as in v. 22: ‫שמע בקולו‬ (obey his voice). This might suggest that v. 22a resumes and repeats what is already said in v. 21. The shift to the first person in the second clause of v. 22a, however, could just as easily suggest that both clauses have the first person divine speaker as referent. Unfortunately, the principle of lectio difficilior does not help since the participant shift renders both readings equally difficult (contra Propp, Exodus 19–40 [2006] 136). In the final analysis, the weight of the external textual witnesses appears to support the reading shared by the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Targum Neofiti. The change of a waw to a yod in the MT could have been either harmonization with v. 21, graphical confusion of these two characters, which occurs in square script but not earlier forms, or a corruption from the following waw (Propp, Exodus 19–40 [2006] 136). It bears noting that this text critical decision, though it brings the Exod 23:22 closer to Jer 11:4, is not essential to the argument for an allusion here. If the MT does preserve the original reading, Jer 11:4 has simply transformed the referent to accommodate the quotation to its context. 43  This collocation, in various configurations, occurs elsewhere in Exod 18:24, Deut 26:14, 27:10, 30:8, 1 Sam 15:19, 28:18, 2 Sam 12:18, 1 Kgs 20:25. 44 The messenger appears to be some kind of representation of Yahweh, but its exact nature is difficult to assess. See Houtman, Exodus, vol. 3 (2000) 270, and the lucid discussion in Sommer, Bodies of God (2009) 40–44, which argues that the messenger is a small-scale manifestation of Yahweh.

50

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

mands. This particular utterance is thus not oriented toward obedience to the laws of the Covenant Code, but rather toward revelation that is yet to come.45 The portrayal of divine revelation in Exod 20:18–22 explains how this future revelation should be understood. Following the divine proclamation of the ten commandments, the people beg Moses to mediate any further divine speech: “They said to Moses, ‘You speak with us, and we will listen. Let not God speak with us lest we die’” (Exod 20:20). Moses agrees and goes to speak with God, who reveals to him the laws of the Covenant Code. However we are to understand the “voice” of the messenger in 23:21, Exod 20:18–22 implies that all divine revelation post-Horeb will be mediated through the prophet Moses.46 In other words, the statement in 23:22 “do all which I say,” implies “do all which I speak through the prophetic mediation of Moses.” Exodus 33:7–1147 describes how this Mosaic mediation was to occur in the wilderness period: Moses would speak with God in a tent pitched far from the camp. In its own context, therefore, Exod 23:22 commands the people to continue to obey the divine word as mediated through Moses. It is not immediately clear whether post-Mosaic prophetic mediation of the divine word is imagined here. Deuteronomy 34:10, which also derives from the E-source,48 suggests not: “There did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses.” In any case, just as in Jer 7:23, Jer 11:3–5 summarizes what was commanded in the wilderness as obedience to the divine word mediated prophetically. That prophetic mediation is intended is made clear in the MT in vv. 7–8, but these verses are missing in the LXX and likely represent an addition in the MT.49 Even without vv. 7–8, however, the commanding of v. 4 should be understood as referring to prophetic mediation of the divine word that goes beyond Moses. The parallel with Jer 7:23, 25 supports this conclusion. There, as here, the wilderness command is to obey everything that the Lord will command in the future. Jeremiah 7:25 states explicitly that  A point emphasized also by Houtman, Exodus, vol. 3, (2000) 270. should be pointed out that according to the documentary theory, all of Exod 20–23 belongs to the E source (Baden, Composition [2012] 117; Stackert, A Prophet like Moses [2014] 75–77; Friedman, Sources Revealed [2003] 154–59, also assigns all of chs. 20–23 except the Decalogue to E). Since no other sources intervene in the compiled Pentateuch, the observation that the view of revelation encoded in Exod 20:18–22 serves as the context for understanding Exod 23:22 holds whether the author of Jer 11:4 was reading the compiled Pentateuch or the E source in isolation. In either case, the mode of revelation implied by the reference to “all which I will speak” in Exod 23:22 will have been defined for the reader in Exod 20:19–22. 47  This passage also belongs to the E-source. Cf. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (2009) 109–10, who cites Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch (1900) 2:133; Driver, Exodus (1918) 359–60; and Friedman, Sources Revealed (2003) 175–76 in support of this source-identification; Baden, Composition (2012) 117; Stackert, A Prophet like Moses (2014) 82–91. 48 Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (2009) 158; idem, Composition (2012) 120, 148, 185; Yoo, JBL 131 (2012) 436–37; Stackert, A Prophet like Moses (2014) 117–23. 49  So, with some hesitation, Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (1973) 39–40. He notes that 6b and 8b are similar, though not identical, which at least raises the possibility of haplography. 45

46 It

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

51

this is accomplished through a succession of prophets. That passage, therefore, prepares the reader to interpret the similar statement in 11:4 in the same light. The addition in vv. 7–8 shows that the MT-expander did just that. Crucially, in both Jer 7:23 and 11:4, the divine commanding is presented in imperfective aspect. In ch. 7, we saw that this imperfectivity represented a grammatical transformation of the source. Here in 11:4, we see that the imperfective aspect matches the source text. Where Jer 7’s use of Deut 5 was transformative, Jer 11’s use of Exod 23 can be described as opportunistic. The author of Jer 11:3– 5, wishing to describe the wilderness command as a command to obey future prophetic mediation, opportunistically drew on a text in the E source that commands the people to obey the ongoing divine word mediated through Moses. It is now possible to return to the allusion to Deut 27:26 in Jer 11:3–5. Jeremiah 11 pronounces a curse against anyone who does not obey the wilderness covenant (v. 3). This curse is adapted from the liturgical curse of Deut 27:26, which brings the series of curses to a climax with a curse against anyone who does not obey D itself. Deuteronomy 27:26, like Deut 5:33, propagates one of the central ideologies of D, namely, that D itself represents the final word on the commands of God (cf. Deut 4:2; 13:1). Jeremiah 11:3–5, however, enlists this passage to present its own view of post-Mosaic prophetic authority. The covenant commanded in the wilderness is summarized through a quotation from Exod 23:22 and consists of the command to obey the ongoing prophetically mediated word of God (v. 4). Deuteronomy 27:26, the climactic curse in the series, can be summarized as “cursed is the man who does not obey D.” Jeremiah 11 transforms this verse into “cursed is the man who does not obey the ongoing prophetic word,” and presents this as a summary of the wilderness-era command. There is a paradoxical element to the relationship between Jeremiah and D here. On the one hand, Jer 11 presents Jeremiah as a conveyor of D’s covenant. On the other hand, even as D is used, its language is modified to present a prophetic ideology at odds with D’s. Transforming D’s curse against breakers of D into a curse against violators of future prophecies once again suggests that the author was aware of the limitations D placed on future prophecy and sought to transform them.

3. Jer 1:7–9 and Deut 18:18, 22 Though in a manner less pronounced than Jer 7:22–23 and 11:1–5, the allusion to D’s prophet law in Jeremiah’s call narrative also appears to transform D’s restrictive view of post-Mosaic prophecy. Though Mowinckel classed this passage with his A-source, Thiel and others have rightly noted its affiliation with DtrJ.50 50 Mowinckel,

Komposition (1914) 20; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 113–15;

52

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

Of particular importance is the structural role it serves with respect to other DtrJ passages throughout the book.51 Bracketing out the language represented by the allusion itself, DtrJ affiliation is supported by Dtr phraseology in v. 16, “to burn incense to other gods,” and to serve “the work of their hands.”52 a) Lexical Evidence The allusion in Jer 1:7–953 to Deut 18’s law of the prophet is widely recognized.54 Two unique phrases mark this literary borrowing: Jer 1:7–9

‫ויאמר יהוה אלי אל תאמר נער אנכי כי על כל אשר‬ ‫אשלחך תלך ואת כל אשר אצוך תדבר אל תירא‬ ‫מפניהם כי אתך אני להצלך נאם יהוה וישלח יהוה‬ ‫את ידו ויגע על פי ויאמר יהוה אלי הנה נתתי דברי‬ ‫בפיך‬ Yahweh said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am a youth,’ for you will go to everyone I send you, and all that I command you, you will speak. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, declares Yahweh.” Then Yahweh reached out his hand and touched my mouth, and Yahweh said to me, “Behold, I have placed my words in your mouth.”

Deut 18:18

‫נביא אקים להם מקרב אחיהם כמוך ונתתי דברי‬ ‫בפיו ודבר אליהם את כל אשר אצונו‬

A prophet I will raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you, and I will place my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I will command him.

Two parallel clauses appear in these passages in close proximity. The clause “to speak all which I command [you / ​him]” is not particularly distinctive. It appears elsewhere in Exod 7:2 and 31:6 and by itself would not be sufficient to mark an allusion. The word ‫דבר‬, “word,” as the object of ‫נתן‬, “give,” however, occurs only in Jer 1:9, 5:14, Deut 18:18, and 30:1, and among these, is further collocated

Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 62–79; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 321, 324, 357. 51  Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 113–15; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 14, 24–25. The most striking indication of this is the language of v. 10 concerning “plucking up, breaking down, destroying, overthrowing, building, planting” which appears elsewhere in Jeremiah in 12:14–17, 18:7–10, 24:5–7, 31:27–28, 32:10, and 45:4, all DtrJ passages. 52  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 321, 324. 53 On the unity of this section, see Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 151–54; Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 265. 54  Davidson, VT 14 (1964) 415; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 65–8; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 35–36; idem, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 61–62; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 359; Fischer, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 263; Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform (2006) 149; Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 265–66; Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 258–59; idem, HeBAI 1 (2012) 217, 219.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

53

with ‫בפיך‬, “in your mouth,” only in Deut 18:18, Jer 1:9, and 5:14.55 By itself, this unique collocation would be enough to mark an allusion. The further combination with “to speak all which I co mmand [you / ​him],” is utterly unique to Jer 1:7–9 and Deut 18:18. These lexical and clause-level parallels, along with the shared theme of prophetic commission, present strong evidence for this being a true allusion. b) Direction of Dependence Noting these literary connections, a handful of scholars have argued that Jer 1:7– 9 served as a source for Deut 18:18.56 These scholars claim that the shared phrases are more contextually suited to Jer 1:7, 9 than to Deut 18:18.57 They point out further that while false Yahwistic prophecy is a major concern in the book of Jeremiah, especially in chs. 27–29, it is not a major concern in Deuteronomy or DtrH. As such, these scholars consider it more likely that the law of the prophet in Deut 18 draws on Jeremiah and its concern with false prophecy rather than the contrary.58 Finally, a few have observed that Jer 1:4–10 represents a late addition to the book of Jeremiah that makes use of the book of Jeremiah itself in its composition. Thus, the phrase, “behold, I have put my words in your mouth,” could have been drawn as easily from the similar phrase in 5:14 as from Deut 18:18.59

55 As will be argued below contra Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 68, Jer 5:14 is also an allusion to Deut 18. 56  Schmidt, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (1997) 55–69; idem, Das Buch Jeremia (2008) 47–48; Köckert, Liebe und Gebot (2000) 85–93; Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 151–52; Nicholson, Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel (2010) 151–71. 57  Schmidt, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (1997) 61–62; idem, Das Buch Jeremia (2008) 47–48; Nicholson, Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel (2010) 155, citing Schmidt. One must also reject Schmidt’s implication (p. 48) that the unity of vv. 4–9 and the contextual smoothness of the clauses parallel to Deut 18:18 in vv. 7 and 9 constitute evidence against an allusion. This represents an underdeveloped sense of the potentialities of allusion (see ch. 1). 58 Schmidt, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (1997) 63–68; Köckert, Liebe und Gebot (2000) 88; Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 152; Nicholson, Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel (2010) 155–56. 59 Schmidt, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (1997) 62; Nicholson, Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel (2010) 154, citing McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 13. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 151, argues against an allusion here by claiming that to “‘put’ the divine word ‘in the mouth’ of the prophet seems to be a fairly self-evident choice.” She notes other cases where similar expressions are used (Exod 4:15; Isa 6:7; Jer 15:16; Ezek 3:1–3; Num 22:38), and concludes that using this as evidence for an allusion to Deut 18:18 is “somewhat perplexing” (p. 151). Sharp did not address, however, two centrally important elements of the argument for the allusion. First, while the passages she cites represent similar ideas, they do not contain the same collocation of ‫ דבר‬as the object of ‫נתן‬, which is also modifies by ‫בפיך‬. This lexical pattern occurs only in Deut 18:18, Jer 1:9, and 5:14. It is the uniqueness of this particular lexical pattern that justifies seeing a deliberately marked allusion. Second, Sharp ignores the further phrase-level parallel between Jer 1:7 and Deut 18:18b. In isolation, the parallel between Jer 1:9 and Deut 18:18 could potentially be coincidental. The combination of these two

54

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

None of these arguments, however, proves to be convincing. While on the one hand, these scholars are correct to note that the clauses in question are perfectly suited to their context in Jer 1:7, 9, the same can be said for the clauses as they appear in Deut 18:18. The occurrence of the idiom “to place a word in someone’s mouth” with ‫ שים‬rather than ‫ נתן‬shows that no narrative context beyond the sending of a verbal message through a messenger is required for such a clause to make contextual sense (cf. Num 22:38, 23:5, 12; Isa 51:16; 59:21; and Ezra 8:17). Since this context obtains in both Jer 1:9 and Deut 18:18, the phrase can be considered equally at home in either context. Likewise, the phrase “to speak all which I will command” fits both passages equally well. The suitability of the phrase to Deut 18:18 is particularly evident given the reference in 18:16– 17 back to Deut 5, where the people request that Moses speak “all which Yahweh our God will speak to you” (5:27). Both Schmidt and Köckert emphasize that since Jer 1:7bβ and 9b cannot be removed from its context, they must be original to Jer 1.60 Removability from context, however, is not a good criterion for identifying an allusion. The non-removability of the clauses in question from Jer 1:7, 9 implies only that if an allusion is present, it is thoroughly embedded in the context. That Jer 1:7b stands in poetic parallelism to 7a is also not evidence of the lack of allusion. An author may certainly redeploy language drawn from a prose text in a poetic passage and adapt that to the prosody of his or her own text. A poignant example of this appears in Jer 31:15’s allusion to Gen 37:35.61 The relatively greater interest in false prophecy in the book of Jeremiah than D is likewise unconvincing. While it is true that there is a concern for false prophecy elsewhere in Jeremiah, this concern does not yet appear in Jer 1. If Deut 18’s concern with false prophecy is drawn from the book of Jeremiah, it is surprising that it draws from a passage in Jeremiah that does not address that issue. These authors have also failed to explain the meaning of Deut 18’s supposed reuse of Jer 1. Moreover, to imply that the book of Jeremiah’s relatively acute interest in false prophecy proves that it is the source of the shared language succumbs to a fallacy similar to what Sommer has observed in some pentateuchal scholarship. He argues that the relevance of a text in a particular period does not mean that it originated there any more than that Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King Jr.s’ interest in Thoreau’s essay on Civil Disobedience implies that this essay must have been penned in the early‑ to mid-twentieth century.62 Similarly, that false

phrase-level parallels, however, clinches the existence of a literary relationship between Jer 1:7– 9 and Deut 18:18. 60 Schmidt, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (1997) 61–62; Köckert, Liebe und Gebot (2000) 66–68. 61  See Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 157; Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform (2006) 83–84. 62 Sommer, The Pentateuch (2011) 85–86.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

55

prophecy receives relatively more attention in the book of Jeremiah than D does not mean that D received this idea from Jeremiah. Finally, the argument that Jer 1 has simply drawn on “native” Jeremian terminology from 5:14 will be addressed in detail in the following section, which will argue that Jer 5:14 also belongs to DtrJ, and, in a continuation of the themes of Jer 1, also alludes to Deut 18:18. Other evidence supports the priority of Deut 18:18. First, the prophet law, including Deut 18:18–22,63 is consistent with D’s ideology and methodology observed elsewhere. D’s legal code occasionally imagines potential problems and attempts to provide solutions to them. An example of this appears in Deut 17:2–13, which addresses legal jurisdictions of local and central courts and standards of evidence and procedure. A case too difficult to solve evidentially in local courts is to be referred to oracular mediation at the central sanctuary. Further, as Barstad and Stackert have shown, this prophet law, including especially the criterion of verification, serves the ideological interests of the D source by restricting and threatening rival sources of authority.64 Thus, the extent to which Deut 18:18–22 reflects D’s own ideology militates against claims for its secondariness. A more decisive indication of Deut 18’s priority is the prevalence in Jeremiah of the theme of the equivalency of Jeremiah and Moses. This theme appears elsewhere in Jer 7:22–23 // Deut 5:33; Jer 11:3–5 // Deut 27:15–26; Jer 21:8–10 // Deut 30:15, 19; Jer 26:2 // Deut 13:1; Jer 36:28 // Deut 10:1–2 [or Exod 34:1]. If Jer 1:7–9 alludes to Deut 18:18, 22, it would represent another allusion to D that draws on this theme. The opposite direction of dependence would require positing an unnecessarily complex scenario in which the DtrJ authors first depicted Jeremiah as similar to Moses and the author of Deut 18 subsequently decided to present the prophet “like Moses” as similar to Jeremiah. Further, as noted by a number of scholars, Jer 1 also includes an allusion to the call-narrative of Moses (Exod 3).65 Again, it is simpler to conclude that the author of Jer 1:4–10 constructed a call narrative for Jeremiah through allusion to both Exod 3 and Deut 18 rather than to propose that Jer 1 compared Jeremiah to Moses through

63  Schmidt, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (1997) 56, argues that the prophet law should be divided into two parts, vv. 9–15 and vv. 16–22, on the basis of the repetition in 15a and 18a and the observation that only vv. 16–22 make reference to the beginning of the book of Deuteronomy. Neither point is convincing. The doublet serves a rhetorical point by formulating the words of Moses (15a) as a transmission of what Yahweh said at Horeb (18a). Likewise the references to Deut 5 that begin in v. 16 are embedded in a context where a historical justification for the establishing of future prophets is entirely appropriate (cf. similar historical references in the law of the Passover, Deut 16:1, 6). 64 Barstad, SJOT 8 (1994) 236–51; Stackert, Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch (2012) 56–57; idem, A Prophet like Moses (2014) 135–44. 65  Holladay, JBL 83 (1964) 155; Jeremiah 1 (1986) 27; idem, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 38; Habel, ZAW 36 (1965) 306–9; Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform (2006) 77; Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 258.

56

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

an allusion to Exod 3, and the author of Deut 18 later co-opted this to present his “prophet like Moses.” Finally, a number of scholars, including those who argue for Deut 18’s dependence on Jer, find an allusion to the Isaian call narrative in Jer 1.66 This, combined with the further allusion to Exod 3, suggests that the author of Jer 1 was composed by weaving together allusions to multiple other texts. A further allusion to Deut 18, therefore, would be consistent with the compositional logic of Jer 1. c) Meaning The typical way of understanding this allusion is as a means of identifying Jeremiah as a prophet “like Moses.” Deuteronomy 18:18 promises that the deity will raise up a prophet like Moses, and Jer 1 proclaims that Jeremiah is such a prophet.67 Again, this finds corroboration in an additional possible allusion to the Mosaic call narrative of Exod 3. Eckart Otto argues, however, that this allusion responds polemically to the Pentateuch by representing Jeremiah as a prophet overshadowing Moses. The reasons he gives for this are not compelling. He notes that v. 10 assigns functions to Jeremiah that are elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah predicated only of God. Otto claims that Deut 34:10–12, where divine functions are predicated of Moses, is the only other comparable place in the Hebrew Bible where this phenomenon occurs. For Otto, the assigning of divine functions to Jeremiah in 1:10 is a response to this final passage of the Pentateuch.68 In fact, the conflation of the actions of Yahweh and Moses occurs in a number of places,69 and so its appearance in Jer 1:10 does not support an allusion to Deut 34. Otto also notes that whereas Moses is sent only to Israel, Jeremiah is sent also to the nations (v. 10),70 and further, that Jeremiah, unlike Moses in Exod 4:15, requires no Aaronic / ​priestly mediation of his message.71 While an allusion to Exod 3:10–12 appears probable, the evidence for a further allusion to J’s account in Exod 4 is not convincing. The kind of lexical parallels are lacking that would substantiate the claim that the author of Jer 1 presented Jeremiah as overshadowing Moses in his lacking Aaronic / ​priestly mediation or in his mission to the nations.72  Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 48; Köckert, Liebe und Gebot (2000) 87–88; Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 265–66. 67  Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 65–8; Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform (2006) 149; Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 258–59. 68 Ibid., 267. 69  Stackert, Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch (2012) 51, has shown that this is a common feature of the J-source of the Pentateuch. 70 Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 267. 71  Ibid., 267–68, 270–71. 72  Otto proposes a syntactical parallel between Jer 1:6 and Exod 4:10 (ZAR 12 [2006] 270– 71). He fails to notice that the same syntagm (a ‫ כי‬clause that closes with a first person pronoun) 66

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

57

While Otto’s specific suggestions are not convincing, his suspicion that there may be more to Jeremiah’s call narrative than simply presenting a prophet like Moses finds support from another direction. As noted above, the prophet law of Deut 18 serves D’s ideological interests by preserving its own exclusive claim to law-giving authority, restricting future prophets to consultative prediction, and threatening them with death should their predictions fail. This presents a problem of authority for the author of Jer 1. The various traditions about Jeremiah in the book present him as a prophet who gives unsolicited divine messages and commands. In other words, the book presents Jeremiah as a prophet who is not limited in the ways that Deut 18 would seek to limit future prophets. The author of Jer 1, therefore, has taken a text intended to allow only a reduced consultative kind of prophecy and used it to elevate Jeremiah to the status of Moses. It is possible to imagine this transformation of Deut 18 as accidental. The author of Jer 1 may have drawn on Deut 18’s idea of a “prophet like Moses” without recognizing how Deut 18’s prophet law restricts the autonomy of future prophets. A further element in Jer 1:7–9, however, suggests that the author in fact both recognized and sought to militate against the way in which this passage would limit Jeremiah’s own authority. It is in Deut 18:20–22 specifically that the power and authority of a future prophet are limited and the mode of prophecy restricted to a verifiable sort of consultative prophecy.73 Jeremiah 1 does not mention the criterion of verification presented in that passage. Jeremiah 1:8, however, hints at Deut 18:22’s stated result of the application of the criteria: Jer 1:8

‫אל תירא מפניהם כי אתך אני להצלך נאם יהוה‬

Do not be afraid of them for I am with you to deliver you, declares Yahweh.

Deut 18:22

‫אשר ידבר הנביא בשם יהוה ולא יהיה הדבר ולא‬ ‫יבוא הוא הדבר אשר לא דברו יהוה בזדון דברו‬ ‫הנביא לא תגור ממנו‬ Whatever the prophet should speak in the name of Yahweh that does not happen or come about is a word that Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him / ​it74.

On its own, this parallel would be too thin to establish an allusion. None of the lexemes used is rare and synonyms rather than identical lexemes for “fear” appears also in the objection of Isaiah’s call narrative (Isa 6:5). Given the similar syntax and genre of all three passages, lexical parallels would be needed to prove an allusion. 73  Ibid. 74 While the most immediate antecedent to the final pronoun is ‫הנביא‬, it is possible that it refers rather to the ‫דבר‬. See Stackert, JAJ 4 (2013) 180, who argues that the sense requires a reference to the word since the prophet was to be put to death and there would be no need to fear a dead prophet.

58

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

appear.75 As part of the well-marked allusion to Deut 18:18 in vv. 7–9, however, v. 8’s correspondence to Deut 18:22 emerges as a possibility, not as an independent allusion, but as part of a broader allusion to Deut 18:18–22. The clear parallels in vv. 7 and 9 prime the reader to seek further associations with Deut 18’s prophet law.76 In such a context, a command not to be afraid of someone, even if different language is used, is suggestive of a further allusive connection between the texts. It is here that we see a transformative element in Jer 1’s reuse of Deut 18. Deuteronomy 18:20–22 identifies the specific danger posed by a false Yahwistic prophet and provides a test whereby the people can recognize a false prophet and as a result not fear him. Jeremiah 1:8 does not cite this criterion of verification for judging prophets. Instead, it cites the intended result of the criterion and turns it on its head. It is not the people who are in need of reassurance against fearing a false prophet, but the prophet who is commanded not to fear the people who will reject his message.77 The author of Jer 1:7–9 has incorporated references to the prophet law of Deut 18 to identify Jeremiah as a prophet like Moses while excluding those elements that limit post-Mosaic prophecy. Jeremiah 1:8 asserts, contrary to its source, that the true danger is that the people themselves will be a threat to the prophet.78 By appropriating the language that exhorts “do not fear,” which is the result and conclusion of the application of Deut 18:20–22’s criterion of verifiability, the author appears to have overturned the applicability of the criterion to Jeremiah. We see a similar rejection of Deut 18’s criterion expressed in more explicit terms by DtrJ in Jer 28:8–9, where the criterion of predictive accuracy is explicitly applied to prophets of peace alone (see below). This transformation of Deut 18:22 suggests that the author of Jer 1 was aware of the limitations that Deut 18 placed on future prophets and thus that the reuse of Deut 18 in the ser75 The substitution of the more common ‫ ירא‬for the rarer ‫ גור‬could be accounted for as a memory variant. 76  On allusions bringing in more of the text than what is explicitly marked, see Ben-Porat, PTL 1 (1976) 108. 77 There is also a conceptual parallel to Deut 1:17, where the judges are adjured not to fear the people (‫לא תגורו מפני איש‬, “do not fear anyone”). Given the fact that the command not to fear with the root ‫ גור‬appears only in Deut 1:17 and 18:22, the author could imagine this transformation of 18:22 as justified by Deut 1:17. As Stackert has argued with respect to the Temple Scroll’s version of Deut 16:18–20’s judge law (11Q19 LI:11–18), which makes use of both Deut 1:17 and 18:22, the identification of the divine origin of the judicial decree in 1:17 (‫המשפט‬ ‫ )לאלהים הוא‬could well serve as an impetus for the Temple Scroll to import the death penalty from 18:22 for its judge law (see Stackert, JAJ 4 [2013] 168–85). Jeremiah 1:8 may have had a similar exegetical perspective in mind, though moving in the opposite direction. If so, the author has submerged this association as there are no specific lexical links that connect Jeremiah 1:8 and Deut 1:17. 78  The threat posed by the people against the prophet serves as an important motif in a number of narratives about the prophet. Cf. chs. 19–20, 26, 29, 36, 37, 38.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

59

vice of promoting the Moses-like autonomy of Jeremiah was against the grain of the source. The import, therefore, of the allusion in Jer 1:7–9 to Deut 18:18–22 can be summarized as follows. Jeremiah is a prophet like and equal to Moses (vv. 7, 9 / ​ Deut 18:18). The criteria for judging prophets like Moses in Deut 18:22, however, do not apply to Jeremiah. The application of the criteria is to result in the people not fearing the false prophet, but this is not a true possibility with respect to Jeremiah and his message. It is rather the true prophet who is in danger and needs to be commanded not to fear the people. The transformative element in v. 8’s reversal of the Deut 18:22’s conclusion of the prophet law is admittedly subtle. If it were not followed by other cases of transformative allusion to D’s concept of prophetic revelation, it would remain merely suggestive. The other cases of similarly transformative allusion in DtrJ passages, however, add plausibility to what is presented here. To depict Jeremiah, whose actions are not limited to those described for post-Mosaic prophets in Deut 18:20–22, as a prophet sharing the same autonomy and authority as Moses is inherently transformative of Deut 18. Other cases of transformative allusion to D on the subject of prophecy in addition to the subtle transformation of Deut 18:22 in Jer 1:8 suggest that this text was aware of the extent to which its appropriation of Deut 18’s prophet law represented a transformation of that law’s intent.

4. Jer 21:8–10 and Deut 30:15, 19 Another allusion that functions to equate the words of Jeremiah to those of Moses in D appears in Jer 21:8–10. This passage appears as part of a larger section (21:1–10) that serves as an introduction to the collection of oracles against kings and prophets (21:11–24:10).79 Though vv. 1–10 consist of two distinct parts, vv. 3–7 containing an oracle addressed to Zedekiah and his servants, and 8–10 addressing the people directly, the unity of composition is indicated by the consistency in thought and compositional strategy. The concept highlighted in these two oracles is twofold: on the one hand, the king and the city are doomed (vv. 3–7), but individuals may still survive by defecting to the Babylonians (vv. 8–10). Moreover, each oracle makes use of another passage in Jeremiah (Jer 21:1–7 // Jer 37:3–10; Jer 21:8–9 // Jer 38:2–3) and represents a similar development from their source material – a concern to highlight the agency of Yahweh in the destruction of Jerusalem.80 79 So Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 230; Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 405. 80  See especially Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 6–10 [Hebrew]. Note that the 38:2–3 may also be a DtrJ insertion, in which case it represents reuse within the redaction itself. Even if this is the

60

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

The DtrJ affiliation of this passage is established by the following considerations. First, Mowinckel points to the word event formula – ‫הדבר אשר היה אל‬ ‫ירמיהו מאת יהוה‬, “the word which came to Jeremiah from Yahweh” (21:1) – as a regular indicator of “C” source material.81 Second, the passage contains phraseology unique or characteristic of the DtrJ redaction.82 Verse 7 makes use of the “sword, hunger, pestilence” triad, a unique stylistic feature of DtrJ. Verse 6 anticipates this triad with the expression, “they will die from a great pestilence.” This collocation of ‫מות‬, “to die,” + ‫ ב‬+ pestilence / ​sword / ​hunger (i. e., one or more members of the triad) is also characteristic of DtrJ.83 Language parallel to other DtrJ passages appears also in 5b, ‫באף ובחמה ובקצף גדול‬, “with anger, fury, and great wrath,” (Jer 32:27),84 6a, ‫ואת האדם ואת הבהמה‬, “man and beast” as the dual objects of judgment (Jer 7:20), and 7, “the king, his servants, and the people” (22:2; 37:2), “in the hand of their enemies and those who seek their life” (19:7, 9; 44:30). Two features of this evidence should be highlighted. First, it is localized to vv. 5–7. This can be explained by the extensive use of other texts in vv. 1–5, 8–10, including other texts from Jeremiah as well as from D. Second, the evidence is almost entirely restricted to peculiarities of DtrJ diction not shared by other strands of Deuteronomistic literature. This second observation has led to a number of objections to the DtrJ affiliation of this section based on the assumption that DtrJ affiliation must show connections to Deuteronomistic literature outside of the book of Jeremiah.85 McKane points out, however, that this line of reasoning amounts to a non sequitur.86 As argued above (pp. 21–26), the affiliation under consideration is with a redaction of its own particular character. As such, language unique to DtrJ is just as – or even more – relevant for identifying DtrJ affiliated passages than language that DtrJ shares with other DtrJ literature. The identification of language unique to the book of Jeremiah, especially when correlated with redactional seams as well as other Deuteronomistic language,

case, however, the evidence shown below demonstrates the use of 38:2–3 in 21:8–10. See also Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 230–31, 235. But see the McKane’s dissent from the view that 21:1–7 uses 37:3–10 (Jeremiah I–XXV [1986] 492–93). 81  Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 31. 82  See especially Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 233–36, and, more recently, Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 189 [Hebrew]. 83  ‫  ​בחרב‬/  ‫ ברעב‬+ ‫ מות‬appears in Jer 11:22; 21:9; 27:13; 34:4; 38:2; 42:17,22; 44:12, and elsewhere only in Ezek 6:12; 7:15; Am 7:11; 9:10; 2 Chron 32:11. ‫ בדבר‬+ ‫ מות‬appears in Jer 21:6, 9; 27:13; 38:2; 42:17, 22, and elsewhere in Ezek 5:12; 6:12; 33:27. 84  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 348. This triad appears also in Deut 29:27, which is most likely an allusion to this text (see excursus). 85 Berridge, Prophet, People, and the Word of Yahweh (1970) 204–5; Weippert, Prosareden (1973) 68–76; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 569–70, 573–74; Rom-Shiloni, ZAW 44 (2005) 192, n. 15. 86 McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 504.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

61

does not present evidence for the supposed authenticity of passages such as Jer 21:1–10. While the above considerations appear sufficient for identifying the passage as DtrJ, those who have argued for this affiliation have unfortunately tended to highlight the language in vv. 5 and v. 8 as clinching the affiliation. As I will argue here, however, v. 8 is an allusion to Deut 30:15, 19, and in ch. 5, I will argue that ‫ביד נטויה ובזרוע חזקה‬, “with an outstretched hand and a strong arm” (v. 5), represents an allusion to a Deuteronomic cliché. It is methodologically problematic to count an allusion to D as diagnostic of DtrJ. Such a procedure ignores the possibility of non-DtrJ passages alluding to D or DtrH and making use of Deuteronomistic language through allusion rather than through the stylistic habit of a DtrJ author. As allusions, therefore, the phrase “outstretched hand and strong arm” (v. 5) as well as the allusion to the choice of life and death (v. 8) cannot count as evidence for DtrJ affiliation. At the same time, it does not follow, as Rom-Shiloni asserts,87 that the deviation from the Deuteronomic norm in this passage is an indicator that the passage is non-DtrJ. Abundant examples of DtrJ allusions, operating in a number of ways including transformation, have shown DtrJ to be fully willing to make use of creative literary allusions to D. Turning now to the allusion itself, its markers involve the use of the language of a divinely offered choice between life and death: Jer 21:8–10

‫ואל העם הזה תאמר כה אמר יהוה הנני נתן לפניכם‬ ‫את דרך החיים ואת דרך המות הישב בעיר הזאת‬ ‫ימות בחרב וברעב ובדבר והיוצא ונפל על הכשדים‬ ‫הצרים עליכם יחיה והיתה לו נפשו לשלל כי שמתי‬ ‫פני בעיר הזאת לרעה ולא לטובה נאם יהוה ביד‬ ‫מלך בבל תנתן ושרפה באש‬ To this people you will say, “Thus says Yahweh, ‘Behold, I am offering you the way of life and the way of death. The one who stays in this city will die by the sword, by famine, and by disease, but the one who goes and falls to the Chaldeans who are besieging you will live and will have his life as spoil, for I have set my face against this city for evil and not for good, declares the Yahweh. Into the power of the king of Babylon it will be given, and he will burn it with fire.

87 Rom-Shiloni,

ZAW 44 (2005) 192, n. 15.

Deut 30:15, 19

‫ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים ואת הטוב ואת‬ )v. 15( ‫המות ואת הרע‬ ‫העידתי בכם היום את השמים ואת הארץ החיים‬ ‫והמות נתתי לפניך הברכה והקללה ובחרת בחיים‬ )v. 19( ‫למען תחיה אתה וזרעך‬ See, I have offered you today life and good, and death and evil. (v. 15) I call as witnesses against you today the heavens and the earth. Life and death I have offered you, blessing and curse, that you might choose life in order that you and your offspring might live. (v. 19)

62

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

The primary evidence, represented with a single underline above, is the offering of a choice between life and death. This appears nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and, as such, has been recognized as an allusion by a number of scholars.88 Given this strongly marked reference to Deut 30:15, 19, it appears that the reemployment of the terms “good” and “evil” in Jer 21:10 represents a further allusive interaction with Deut 30:15. Deuteronomy 30:15 offers the coordinated terms “life and good / ​death and evil.” The corresponding offer in Jer 21:8 presents “the way of life / ​the way of death,” initially leaving out the “good / ​evil” word pair. These terms, however, reappear in Jer 21:10 to describe the deity’s resolution to destroy the city: “I have set my face against this city for evil and not for good.” This redeployment of the terms from Deut 30:15 serves the rhetorical purpose of Jer 21:8–10. In contrast to Deut 30:15’s offer of life and good, death and evil, Jer 21:8–10 states that while Yahweh has already determined evil for the city (v. 10), life is still possible for individuals who submit (v. 8). In other words, the offer of life and good for the whole community in Deut 30:15 has been reduced to an offer of life for the individual.89 Comparing this passage to its parallel in Jer 38:2–3 corroborates what has been observed so far: Jer 21:8–10

‫ואל העם הזה תאמר‬ ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫הנני נתן לפניכם את דרך החיים ואת דרך המות‬ ‫הישב בעיר הזאת ימות בחרב וברעב ובדבר והיוצא‬ ‫ונפל על הכשדים הצרים עליכם‬ ‫יחיה והיתה לו נפשו לשלל‬ ‫כי שמתי פני‬ ‫בעיר הזאת‬ ‫לרעה ולא לטובה נאם יהוה‬ ‫ביד מלך בבל תנתן ושרפה באש‬

Jer 38:2–3

‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫הישב בעיר הזאת ימות בחרב ברעב ובדבר והיצא‬ ‫אל הכשדים‬ ‫יחיה והיתה לו נפשו לשלל‬ ‫וחי כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫הנתן תנתן העיר הזאת‬ ‫ביד חיל מלך בבל ולכדה‬

88 Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 235; Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 10 [Hebrew]; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 573–74; Parke-Taylor, Formation (2000) 203; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 638. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 346, lists this as “Deuteronomic Phraseology.” His organization of the data, however, does not distinguish between the employment of a stereotypical style and actual allusions to Deut in DtrJ. The uniqueness of this collocation favors the latter. 89 This observation, if correct, is relevant for assessing the parallel between Jer 21:10 and Amos 9:4. It suggests that the phrase “for evil and not for good” is original to Jer 21:10 as it represents a further working out of the allusion to Deut 30:15 commenced in v. 8. This supports Rofé’s argument that Amos 9:4 is an addition in its context (Introduction [2009] 317–19). Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 236 and Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 636, see in Jer 21:10 a reference to Amos 9:4, though neither considers the possibility of an allusion in the other direction.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

To this people you will say, “Thus says Yahweh, ‘Behold, I am offering you the way of life and the way of death. The one who stays in this city will die by the sword, by famine, and by ­disease, but the one who goes out and falls to the Chaldeans who are besieging you will live and will have his life as spoil, for I have set my face against this city for evil and not for good, declares the Yahweh. Into the power of the king of Babylon it will be given, and he will burn it with fire.

63

Thus says Yahweh, “The one who stays in this city will die by the sword, by famine, and by disease, but the one who goes out to the Chaldeans, will live and will have his life as spoil, and will live. Thus says Yahweh, “This city will surely be given into the power of the army of the king of Babylon, and he will capture it.

When comparing the elements shared between Jer 21:8–10 and 38:2–3 (underlined above) with the major plusses in Jer 21 (bolded above), one notes immediately that the plusses represent the language borrowed and redeployed from Deut 30:15. This phenomenon shows that the author of Jer 21:8–10 has expanded the oracle in 38:2–3 precisely with a two-part allusion to Deut 30:15.90 This also confirms the direction of dependence between Jer 21:8–10 and Deut 30:15, 19. It would be incredible for the author of Deut 30:15, 19 to have selected from Jer 21:8–10 only those elements that Jer 21:8–10 has added to Jer 38:2–3. This allusion accomplishes several things. In Deut 30:15–20 the choice of life / ​ good and death / ​bad is the choice to obey or disobey the laws of D itself. The allusion to this passage equates a command of Jeremiah with the command of Moses. Here there can be no mistaking Jeremiah as a preacher or applier of D law alone. He issues a unique command – submission to the Babylonians, and the allusion asserts that this command carries the same weight as the laws of D itself. In contrast to Deut 30:15’s offer of “life and good” to the nations as a whole, Jer 21:8–10 introduces an individualistic element. The possibility of “good” for Jerusalem has been removed. In its place remains only an offer of life for the individual who obeys Jeremiah’s words. 90 This feature of the text refutes the claim of Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 117, 204, and Parke-Taylor, Formation (2000) 203, that Jer 38:2 represents a later reworking of Jer 21:9. It is more likely that Jer 21:8–10 expanded 38:2–3 with an allusion to Deut 30:15 than that 38:2–3 abbreviated Jer 21:8–10 by removing the elements that allude to Deut 30:15. A further consequence of this argument pertains to the relationship of Jer 38:2–3 to its context. If, as Thiel and others have claimed, v. 2 is “sicher sekundär” (Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 [1981] 54), it follows that Jer 21:8–10 reused an already expanded passage.

64

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

5. Jer 26:2 and Deut 13:1 Jeremiah 26 narrates Jeremiah’s temple sermon (compare ch. 7) and the accusation of sedition and trial that followed. The issue of the legitimacy of Jeremiah’s message is here brought to the forefront. An allusion to D’s “canon formula” (Deut 4:2; 13:1) occurs in v. 2 of this chapter.91 Jer 26:2aβb

‫ודברת על כל ערי יהודה הבאים להשתחות בית‬ ‫יהוה את כל הדברים אשר צויתיך לדבר אליהם אל‬ ‫תגרע דבר‬

Deut 4:2/13:1

‫לא תספו על הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם ולא‬ ‫תגרעו ממנו לשמר את מצות יהוה אלהיכם אשר‬ )4:2( ‫אנכי מצוה אתכם‬ ‫את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אתו תשמרו‬ )13:1( ‫לעשות לא תסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו‬

You will speak to all the cities of Judah who come to the temple of Yahweh to worship all these words which I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word.

Do not add to the word which I am commanding you, and do not omit any of it, that you might keep the commands of Yahweh your God, which I am commanding you. (4:2) You will keep every word which I am commanding you to do. Do not add to it, and do not omit any of it. (13:1)

While similar formulae appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Prov 30:6; Eccl 3:14), the combination of lexical parallels here warrants viewing it as an allusion. The primary marker of the allusion is verb ‫גרע‬, “to omit, diminish,” in collocation with ‫ דבר‬in the sense of “word.”92 This collocation is unique to these passages in the Hebrew Bible. The further collocation with the less unique sequence of “the word(s) which I am / ​have commanding / ​commanded” corroborates the allusion. The shared theme of prophecy also supports an allusion. Both passages address the twin concerns of obedience to the true prophet and the sentence of death for the false one. In Deut 13:1–6, the people are adjured to obey everything that Moses commands (v. 1), and then warned against obeying any prophet who should proclaim other deities (vv. 2–6). Such a prophet is to be executed. In Jer 26, the prophet Jeremiah is adjured to proclaim everything Yahweh commands (v. 2), 91  Noted previously by Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 360, who lists it under “The Influence of Deuteronomy on Genuine Jeremiah,” a somewhat puzzling determination since he elsewhere identifies a phrase in v. 2 as one of the Dtr “clichés characteristic of Jeremian sermons” (353). Unless he posits an internal division of v. 2, this may be an inconsistency in Weinfeld’s presentation. Others who have noted the allusion to Deut 4:2/13:1 include Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 26, 42; idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 260; and Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 260; idem, Pentateuch as Torah (2007) 182. 92  This lexical collocation occurs elsewhere only in Exod 5:11. In that case the verb is niphal rather than qal, and the sense of ‫ דבר‬is “thing” rather than “word.”

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

65

and in response the people and officials seek to put him to death (vv. 8, 11). This thematic similarity suggests that Deut 13:1 and its immediate context rather than its parallel in 4:2 is in view. Corroborating this conclusion is the phrase ‫ את כל הדברים‬in Jer 26:2, which is closer to Deut 13:1’s ‫ את כל הדבר‬than to 4:2’s ‫על‬ ‫הדבר אשר‬. The direction of dependence can be established with reference to the Neo-Assyrian origins of the canon formula in Deut 13:1. As argued by a number of scholars, the apostasy laws of Deut 13:2–12 have their origins in the Neo-Assyrian treaty tradition, and are likely composed in dependence on the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon.93 The command to report disloyalty, even from a religious intermediary or a close friend, has strong links with VTE § 10. As Levinson shows, the “canon formula” in Deut 13:1 represents a further reuse of this document.94 VTE § 4 contains a two-part command of obedience to the imperial word. First, any changing of the “word of Esarhaddon” (abutu ša Aššur-aḫu-iddina), namely, the treaty itself, is prohibited. Following this comes a command to obey Ashurbanipal. Deuteronomy 13:1 parallels this pair of commands. In inverse order with respect to VTE § 4, Deut 13:1 places first the command to obey the words of Moses and second the prohibition of altering it.95 In its goal of enforcing exclusive obedience to the Mosaic word represented by D itself, Deut 13:1–12 has made use of two sections of VTE designed to adjure obedience to the imperial overlord and the treaty.96 Since Deut 13:1 is sufficiently explained as part of Deut 13:1–12’s larger reuse of VTE, there is no reason to see Jer 26:2 as a further source. A borrowing in the other direction is thus both more plausible and corresponds to patterns of allusion to D seen elsewhere in DtrJ. Having established the presence and direction of the allusion, it is now possible to analyze its import. The Mosaic word, according to Deut 13:1, is inviolable and cannot be superseded. With D as with VTE, the canon formula expresses the idea that the document itself represents the final and definitive word. While D contemplates the existence of future revelation (Deut 18:18–22), it is careful to assert the inviolability of its own authority. The allusion to Deut 13:1 in Jer 26:2 elevates the words of Jeremiah to the level of Moses. Just as the words of Moses are inviolable and must be obeyed, so also the words of Jeremiah. Two key transformations occur in this allusion. First, in Deut 13:1, the prophet Moses is the speaker, and the people are the ones adjured to obey and prohibited from altering the word. In Jer 26:2, Yahweh is the speaker, and Jeremiah is the one warned not to omit a word of the message.  Otto, ZAR 2 (1996) 1–52; Levinson, JBL 120 (2001) 236–41; Levinson and Stackert, JAJ 3 (2012) 123–140. 94 Levinson, JAOS 130 (2010) 337–47. See also Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History (2005) 75–76; Levinson and Stackert, JAJ 3 (2012) 131–32. 95  Ibid., 343–44. 96 Ibid., 345. 93

66

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

This transformation is connected to the narrative context, in which Jeremiah is given a message that will put him in danger. Within the narrative, therefore, Jeremiah becomes the audience of the divine command that functions to equate the authority of the message Jeremiah is about to speak to that of the Mosaic law. One notes further that this transformation is structurally similar to Jer 1:8, which transformed Deut 28:22’s command that the people not fear the prophet into a command for the prophet not to fear the people. Jeremiah 26:2 similarly transforms a command for the people not to alter the divinely given word into a command for the prophet not to omit any part of his message for fear of the people. The second transformation of Deut 13:1 is of greater significance. For D, to the word that must be obeyed (13:1a), nothing can be taken away or added (13:1b). Jeremiah 26:2, on the other hand, only prohibits subtraction from the divine word. As Otto has also noted,97 this adaption of Deut 13:1 represents a subversion of D’s concept of the finality of its own revelation. Jeremiah 26:2 ignores the Deut 13’s restriction on adding to the Mosaic law and elevates Jeremiah’s authority to equality with that of Moses. As in the case of Moses’s words, the words imparted by Jeremiah must be transmitted with verbatim fidelity without omitting a single word. This citation of D’s canon formula with the omission of the restriction on adding revelation thus enlists D in support of a very non-Deuteronomic perspective on prophecy: ongoing prophecy, including but not limited to D’s Mosaic law, carries the full authority of divine law. The equivalency between D’s law and subsequent prophecy is further established in Jer 26:4–5. Verses 4–6 represent the content of the message that Yahweh commands Jeremiah to proclaim in the temple court. Within this passage, vv. 4–5 represent the protasis of a conditional sentence whose apodosis is in v. 6: 4If

you will listen to me by obeying my law (‫)ללכת בתורתי‬, which I have given to you, 5by listening to the words of my servants the prophets (‫)לשמע על דברי עבדי הנבאים‬, whom I send to you early and often – and you did not listen, 6then I will make this temple like Shiloh, and this city I will turn into a curse before all the nations of the earth.

Some have claimed that v. 5 interrupts the transition from protasis to apodosis and is a secondary addition.98 Against this claim, however, the only part of v. 5 that interrupts the conditional sentence is the last clause: “but you have not listened.” The rest of the verse simply represents a long adverbial clause, which is itself expanded with a relative clause: “by listening to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I send to you early and often.” The adverbial phrase – “by listening to the words of my servants the prophets” – modifies the main verb of 97 Otto,

ZAR 12 (2006) 260; idem, Pentateuch as Torah (2007) 182.  Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 142; Hossfeld and Meyer, Prophet gegen Prophet (1973) 87; idem, ZAW 86 (1974) 35; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 100, 104; Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 55. 98

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

67

v. 4, “if you do not listen me,” and is structurally parallel to the adverbial clause in v. 4, “by obeying my law, which I have given to you.” The two adverbial clauses are thus are perfectly parallel. The passage asserts that the audience is to obey both the law and the prophets. The adverbial clause in v. 5 thus does not interrupt the transition from protasis to apodosis in vv. 4–6 either syntactically or semantically. If the interruption of the conditional sentence warrants positing a secondary insertion,99 therefore, it is only the final clause, “and you did not listen,” that should be considered secondary. Verses 4–5, therefore, mark the same equivalency between Mosaic and post-Mosaic prophecy expressed in the allusion in v. 2. Obeying Yahweh includes obeying both law and prophets, and the consequence of disobedience is the destruction of the temple and city. One notes further that in Deut 18:19, where obedience to future prophets is commanded, the consequences of disobedience are imagined with reference to individual perpetrators: “I will seek a reckoning from the one who does not obey my words which he [the prophet] has spoken in my name.” By contrast, the consequences of obedience or disobedience to D’s law in Deut 28 are addressed to the nation as a whole and involve blessings and curses of national scope. In stark contrast to Deut 18, therefore, Jer 26 asserts that obedience to post-Mosaic prophecy is as much a matter of national concern as is obedience to D’s law. Finally, one notes the asyndetic conjunction of the two adverbial phrases in vv. 4–5 that modify the main verb in v. 4. This asyndesis of nominal clauses is suggestive of equivalency or synonymity (cf. Gen 37:27, ‫אחינו בשרנו הוא‬, “our brother, our flesh is he”). Even ignoring this striking asyndesis, vv. 4–5 assert that obeying the deity requires obedience both to Mosaic law and prophetic commands.100 For this reason, Otto’s claim that this passage expresses an elevation of the Mosaic Torah as the criterion of true prophecy is puzzling.101 The passage does not suggest that prophecies are to be judged by correspondence to Mosaic Torah. It suggests rather that they are an independent and equivalent source of authority. If Torah serves as a criterion of prophecy in Jer 26, as Otto suggests, it is surprising that it does not feature in any way in the defense of Jeremiah. Jeremiah does not appeal to the correspondence of his message to Mosaic law; he appeals rather to the fact of his being divinely sent (vv. 12, 15).  99 It is also important to note in this regard that interrupted syntactical structures can serve to mark a parenthetical remark (cf. Zewi, ZAH 12 [1999] 83–95; idem, Parenthesis in Biblical Hebrew [2007] 21–24), and so even the final clause of v. 5 could be original to vv. 4–6, its function being to point out parenthetically that the hypothesized obedience did not, in fact, occur. 100  This idea is paralleled in 2 Kgs 17:13, where the message of the prophets is summarized as a call to obey the ‫תורה‬, “law,” which is qualified as both the Mosaic teaching “which I commanded your ancestors” as well as that which is imparted “through my servants the prophets.” 101  Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 257; idem, Pentateuch as Torah (2007) 181. One notes that Otto bypasses the asyndesis of v. 5 without comment and even supplies a conjunction in his translation (ibid.).

68

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

This defense rejects the necessity of any criterion justifying the legitimacy of Jeremiah’s words. The words of the elders that follow likewise fail to employ Torah as a criterion, but rather cite the unfulfilled prophecy of Micah as a precedent (vv. 17–19). It would be puzzling to see the Mosaic Torah taken up as a criterion of true prophesy in v. 4 and subsequently not applied as such when the issue of true prophesy arises later in the passage. While Otto is correct to see in this passage an argument against the idea of revelation more or less ceasing with Moses, he appears to have misidentified the relationship between Mosaic law and subsequent prophecy portrayed here. It is not a matter of claiming that Mosaic law serves as a criterion for prophecy, but rather of rhetorically equating Mosaic law with the commands given by subsequent prophets. Finally, it is necessary here to comment briefly on the frequently proposed allusion to Deut 18’s verification criterion in Jer 26.102 The citation of Micah as an example of a true prophet whose prophecy did not come about would seem to be a direct refutation of this criterion. The strong lexical markers that would identify an actual allusion to Deut 18, however, are missing. Present, to be sure, is a shared theme of capital punishment for a false prophet, but absent is the reemployment of recognizable markers of a source text that are the sine qua non of allusion. One notes further that Jeremiah’s accusers do not claim that Jeremiah’s prophecy has been falsified. Indeed, it has not yet had a chance to be falsified. Instead, the accusation is that his prophecies against the temple and city are seditious: “This man has committed a capital offense for he has prophesied against this city, as you have heard with your own ears” (11b). The principle behind this accusation is not Deut 18’s criterion of verification,103 but rather a principle of political loyalty buttressed, perhaps, by a type of Zion theology that holds to the inviolability of Jerusalem.104 Similarly, the precedent of Micah’s unfulfilled prophecy against Jerusalem does not appear to be raised to show that a true prophet might utter a failed prophecy per se, but rather to argue that Micah’s prophecy was not an act of sedition. Instead, Micah’s prophecy succeeded in saving the city by inspiring Hezekiah and the people to turn to Yahweh who in turn revoked the destruction.105 While the issue of prophecies not coming about is present, of more central concern is the positive affect that a prophecy of destruction can have. Deuteronomy 18’s criterion, therefore, is not raised directly in this chapter, though it certainly appears elsewhere in Jeremiah. Thus, not only are there no strong lexical connections to Deut 18 that would justify an allusion, 102  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 246; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52, (2005) 34, 42; Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 258; Leuchter, Polemics of Exile (2008) 31–32; Hibbard, JSOT 35 (2011) 352–55. 103  Noted also by Köckert, Liebe und Gebot (2000) 91–93. 104  This theology is expressed, for example, in 2 Sam 7:15–16, the traditions about the miraculous siege of Jerusalem in 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37 (as distinguished from 2 Kgs 18:13–16), and elsewhere in the HB. This Zion theology is also countered in Jer 7:4. 105  So also, Hibbard, JSOT 35 (2001) 353–54, whose analysis is helpful despite his adoption of the view that this passage interacts directly with Deut 18.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

69

the issues raised there are not directly addressed in the chapter. Evidence for an allusion to Deut 18 in Jer 26, therefore, is remarkably weak. The discussion of the proposed allusion in Jer 26:2 can be summed up as follows. The final words of this verse allude to Deut 13:1’s canon formula and in doing so elevate the words of Jeremiah to the same level of importance as the words of Moses in D. At the same time, however, this allusion leaves out the prohibition of adding to the divine word, and thus subverts D’s idea of the finality of Mosaic revelation even as it ostensibly accepts the authority of D. This perspective continues to be articulated in vv. 4–5, where obeying the deity requires observing the Mosaic law as well as the commands of the prophets. It is now possible to address the affinity of this allusion to the DtrJ editing of this chapter. While Mowinckel attributes the entire chapter to the biographical “B” source,106 there are plot elements that militate against a unified reading of the chapter107 and a constellation of language and themes that indicate DtrJ affiliation. Deuteronomistic language in these verses includes ‫וישבו איש מדרכו הרעה‬ (v. 3), ‫( ללכת בתורתי‬v. 4), and, of course, ‫( עבדי הנביאים‬v. 5), along with the collocation unique to DtrJ, ‫( השכ ם ושלח‬v. 5).108 Adding to this evidence, Rofé has noted a thematic tension in the passage that suggests vv. 3–5, 13 represent a secondary layer of reworking.109 He points out that while v. 9 assumes that Jeremiah had prophesied an unconditional judgment, vv. 3–5, 13 transform this into a conditional judgment that can be avoided. As Rofé has shown, this concern for the conditional nature of prophecy is central to the ideology of DtrJ.110 Since vv. 3–5 contain both Dtr language as well as an emphasis on a central theme of DtrJ, they can be assigned to DtrJ with confidence. Sharp has also noticed a tension between an original layer representing prophecy as unconditional and a later reworking that reformulates it as conditional.111 Her division differs significantly from Rofé’s, with the original layer consisting of vv. 5, 6b–8*, 9b, 17–19, 24.112 Her perception of a total-doom perspective in v. 5, however, is unwarranted. Sharp sees the parenthetical remark ‫ולא‬ ‫שמעתם‬, “but you did not listen,” as effectively countering the conditional perspective on prophecy established in vv. 3–4.113 Rather than countering the conditional perspective, however, this phrase simply asserts that the opportunity to avert disaster through repentance has so far not been taken. The point, well-ar106 Mowinckel,

Komposition (1914) 7, 24–27.  See especially Hossfeld and Meyer, ZAW 86 (1974) 30–50 as well as their preliminary work on this chapter in Prophet gegen Prophet (1973) 85–90. 108 These connections are noted by Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 3; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 334, 351, 352. 109  Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 15–16 [Hebrew]. 110 Idem, 1–29; cf. also Seeligmann, Congress Volume (1978) 281–84. 111  Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 55–62. 112  Ibid., 55–62, 79. 113 Ibid., 58. 107

70

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

gued by Rofé, is the theoretical possibility of repentance. From the exilic or post-exilic context of this composition, the possibility of repentance for the pre-exilic Judeans was of necessity only theoretical. Sharp’s proposal involves assigning v. 5 to the first verse of the earlier layer. This division leads to two further problems with her analysis. First, it means the beginning of this narrative has been excised by the later supplement. If the later supplement takes a polemical stance with respect to its source and is willing to excise material, the reason for its retaining other material (v. 5) that contradicts its perspective is unexplained.114 Second, the problem is compounded by the fact that v. 5a is syntactically dependent on the previous verse as well as semantically and syntactically parallel to the ‫ ללכת‬clause in v. 4b. It appears unnecessarily complex to posit, as Sharp does, that v. 5 existed in a previous narrative, was cut off from the sentence that it modifies, and then attached to another sentence (v. 4) which was composed as its new main clause complete with a parallel adverbial clause.115 The supposed thematic tension justifying this proposal is not merited, and the syntactically unexpected asyndesis of v. 5a, as noted above, is readable as intentional. Finally, Sharp has neglected to address the issue of Dtr language in this passage and the notable phenomenon that it appears clustered in the very places that the theme of the possibility of repentance is emphasized (vv. 3–5, 13). It is preferable, therefore, to follow Thiel and Rofé in considering vv. 3–5 as part of the DtrJ insertion in this narrative. The affiliation of v. 2, however, is more complex. As Hossfeld and Meyer argue, there is a double-introduction to this narrative in vv. 1, 2, and v. 2a appears to contain the original.116 Thiel cautiously suggests that 2b might belong to DtrJ, but bases this solely on the similarity to Deut 4:2, 13:1 – an approach that must be rejected on methodological grounds since the parallel language belongs to an allusion.117 More persuasive for 2b’s affiliation with DtrJ is the thematic relationship between 2b and vv. 3–5. As already pointed out, both 2b and vv. 3–5 equate the authority of the Mosaic law to the authority of the words of Jeremiah. This thematic relationship is buttressed by language characteristic of DtrJ. As Hossfeld and Meyer point out, the combination of ‫ צוה‬with ‫ דבר‬in Jeremiah is characteristic of DtrJ parts of the book.118 In both style and theme, therefore, the allusion to Deut 13:1 in Jer 26:2b appears to belong to the DtrJ layer of this narrative. 114 Indeed, this is the central criticism of Sharp’s overall thesis in Pardee, JNES 66 (2007) 226–27, where Pardee wonders what historical context could give rise to such a composition. 115  One could add, however, that even if this process did occur, the author of vv. 3–4 has chosen to incorporate v. 5 into the main clause commenced in v. 4. In this case, the equating of following the Mosaic law and obeying the prophets proposed here would still be a valid reading of the intention of this supplementer. 116 Hossfeld and Meyer, Prophet gegen Prophet (1973) 87; idem, ZAW 86 (1974) 34, 40. 117  Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 4, n. 5. 118  Hossfeld and Meyer, Prophet gegen Prophet (1973) 87–88; idem, ZAW 86 (1974) 41–42; noted also by Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 353.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

71

6. Jer 28:8–9 and Deut 18:21–22 While the present chapter has been divided between allusions that engage the issue of post-Mosaic revelation and those that address false prophecy, the allusion to Deut 18:21–22 in Jer 28:8–9 involves both categories. This allusion has been widely recognized and even cited as evidence of Deuteronomistic redaction.119 While I do not accept an allusion to D as sufficient evidence for Deuteronomistic redaction, further evidence does establish the affiliation of 28:8–9 with DtrJ. As Nicholson has pointed out, the prediction of Hananiah’s death and report of its fulfillment correspond to prophecy-fulfillment formulae in the DtrH, and the use of the hiphil of ‫ קום‬in the phrase “to establish the word” represents a characteristic Dtr idiom.120 Further, as Goldstein demonstrates, the signs of Dtr affiliation adduced by Nicholson belong in fact to a layer that has been added to this chapter.121 The original layer, which portrayed Jeremiah as humiliated by Hananiah, has been reworked by a second layer of material that includes vv. 3–4*, 5–9, 15–17 and functions to present him in a more positive light. The allusion to Deut 18:21–22 occurs in the midst of this DtrJ supplement to Jer 28. A unique lexical collocation supports the presence of an allusion: Jer 28:8–9

Deut 18:21–22

‫הנביאים אשר היו לפני ולפניך מן העולם וינבאו אל‬ ‫ארצות רבות ועל ממלכות גדלות למלחמה ולרעה‬ ‫ולדבר הנביא אשר ינבא לשלום בבא דבר הנביא‬ ‫יודע הנביא אשר שלחו יהוה באמת‬

‫וכי תאמר בלבבך איכה נדע את הדבר אשר לא דברו‬ ‫יהוה אשר ידבר הנביא בשם יהוה ולא יהיה הדבר‬ ‫ולא יבוא הוא הדבר אשר לא דברו יהוה בזדון דברו‬ ‫הנביא לא תגור ממנו‬

The prophets of old, who preceded you and me, prophesied to many countries and against many great kingdoms concerning war, misfortune, and disease. As for the prophet who should prophesy welfare, when the word of the prophet comes about, the prophet who has truly been sent by Yahweh will be known.

If you should wonder, ‘How will we know the word that Yahweh has not spoken?’ That which the prophet should speak in the name of Yahweh but does not happen or come to pass, that is the word Yahweh did not speak. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

Thematically, the connections between these two passages are clear. Deuteronomy 18:21–22 states that a prophet will be recognized when his word comes 119  Hyatt, JNES 1 (1942) 164; Davidson, VT 14 (1964) 414; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 128; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 74, idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 264–65; Leuchter, Polemics of Exile (2008) 46, 214, n. 26. Those who also list it as evidence of Deuteronomistic redaction include Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 96–97; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 724; Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 230 [Hebrew]. 120  Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 96–97; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 724. 121 Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 229–31 [Hebrew].

72

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

about. Jeremiah 28:8–9 specifies that this criterion applies only to a prophet who prophesies peace. The lexical parallels, though not particularly dense, are sufficient to support this as a true allusion. ‫דבר‬, “word,” as the subject of the verb ‫בוא‬, “come,” is not a particularly rare combination.122 Nevertheless, Deut 18 and Jer 28 are the only contexts where this combination appears in reference to the theme of judging the legitimacy of prophecy. The further collocation with ‫ידע‬, “to know, recognize,” adds additional support for the parallel representing an allusion.123 Finally, the references to prophets shift from plural in v. 8 to singular in v. 9. While De Jong may be correct that v. 9 represents a shift from “norm,” expressed by the plural in v. 8, to “exception,” expressed by the singular of v. 9, he fails to note that giving rise to this shift is the singular of the source text used in v. 9.124 The shift in the number of prophets from v. 8 to v. 9, therefore, can be taken as further corroborative evidence in support of the allusion. De Jong and Sharp have recently raised objections to this allusion.125 According to both scholars, the lexical parallels to Deut 18 are undermined by the diffe­ren­ces.126 Different verbs are used for prophetic speech (‫ דבר‬vs. ‫)נבא‬, and Deut 18:​21–22 lacks the verb ‫שלח‬, “to send,” as well as the adverb ‫באמת‬, “truly,” which appear in Jer 28:8–9. Further, while Deut 18:21–22 gives a criterion for recognizing a prophecy not spoken by Yahweh, Jer 28:8–9’s formulation deals with recognizing a prophecy that is spoken by Yahweh. In response to these observations, however, we have seen the the transformation of a source is a natural feature of literary allusion. The lexical parallels are striking, and the transformation of the source is in keeping with patterns of allusion seen elsewhere. Sharp notes further that Hananiah’s death is carried out (vv. 16–17) before his prophecy had been invalidated, and she takes this as indicating that Deut 18’s criterion is not here cited.127 This observation is blunted when one recognizes that the criterion is primarily aimed at judging the words of the prophecy and not the prophet himself.128 122 It occurs elsewhere in Exod 22:8; Num 31:23; Dt 18:22, 30:1; Jos 21:45; 23:14,15; Judg 13:12,17; 2 Sam 15:28; 19:12; Jer 17:15; and Ps 105:19. 123  In the MT, Jer 28:9 contains the niphal of ‫ ידע‬and Deut 18:21 the qal. This kind of grammatical adaptation is not unexpected in an allusion. The Samaritan Pentateuch of Deut 18:21, however, also attests a niphal (‫)נודע‬, which, given the following definite direct object (‫)את הדבר‬ would appear to be the more difficult, and therefore possibly original, reading. 124  In his detailed analysis of the participant reference shifts in Jeremiah, Glanz has noted that participant references from source texts are as a rule adapted to their context. At the same time, he notes that the participant structure of the source text may be preserved, but this occurs primarily if it works on a rhetorical or discourse level in the new context (Glanz, Participant-Reference Shifts in the Book of Jeremiah [2013] 195–242). 125  Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 152, 155; de Jong, JHS 12 (2012) 1–29. Sharp, ibid., adds that, even if there is a connection, the direction of dependence is from Jer 28 to Deut 18 since the latter is elsewhere uninterested in false Yahwistic prophecy. 126  De Jong, JHS 12 (2012) 11–12. 127  Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 152. 128 Cf. Goldstein, The Life of Jeremiah (2013) 230–31, n. 44 [Hebrew].

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

73

More serious is de Jong’s reversal of the traditional understanding of Jer 28:8– 9. While interpreters generally understand Jeremiah to consider himself as belonging to the prophets of war described in v. 8 and his opponent Hananiah as belonging to the prophets of peace described in v. 9, de Jong argues that the opposite is the case: Jeremiah is the prophet of peace, and Hananiah is the prophet of war.129 According to de Jong, Jeremiah prophesies peace for Babylon (29:7), and Hananiah prophesies war for the same (28:2–4). Jeremiah 28:8–9 does not address a criterion for prophecy but rather Jeremiah’s unusual prophecy of peace for Babylon and its historical validation.130 In other words, in contrast to what is usual held, Jer 28:8 refers to Hananiah, and 28:9 refers to Jeremiah. Several of de Jong’s observations are important and should inform the interpretation of this passage. While these verses are generally taken to refer to true prophets of war (v. 8) and false prophets of peace (v. 9), the rhetoric is better understood as referring to prophecies, not prophets per se.131 These verses do not establish a system that equates peace prophecy with false prophets and war prophecy with true prophets, but rather establishes different standards of evaluation for the two types of prophecies. The burden of proof, according to this argument, is on the prophet with a word of peace. De Jong emphasizes that the positive formulation of v. 9, and the lexeme ‫ באמת‬particularly, indicates that a positive outcome is imagined and thus that v. 9 implies the verification of a true prophecy of peace rather than the falsification of false one. There are a number of problems, however, with de Jong’s attempt to see Hananiah as the prophet of war described by v. 8. As de Jong himself points out, a prophecy of misfortune for one nation is simultaneously a prophecy of welfare and encouragement for another.132 It stands to reason that identifying which category a prophecy belongs to should be accomplished with reference to the audience. Hananiah has an exclusively Judean audience (28:1). This procedure suggests categorizing Hananiah’s prophecy as a prophecy of peace for his audience rather than as a prophecy of war for Babylon. What is more, Jeremiah in these chapters is explicitly portrayed as a prophet to many nations. In 27:3, Jeremiah sends a message to Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon that they will be conquered by Babylon (v. 6). That Jeremiah holds out to these nations the prospect of survival through complete submission (v. 11) is hardly grounds for calling his message a prophecy of peace.133 The narrative context, therefore,  De Jong, JHS 12 (2012) 11–12, 15–18, 29.  Ibid., 29. 131 Ibid., 14; this point is made also by Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 230, n. 44 [Hebrew]. 132  JHS 12 (2012) 18. 133 Contra de Jong, JHS 12 (2012) 16. This is all the more surprising of a claim on his part because he has already identified 28:8’s reference to prophesying ‫ למלחמה‬as a kind of metonymy that “functions as the shortest possible description for bad fortune, disaster, destruction, loss of power, military defeat, etc” (ibid., 10). Jeremiah’s prophecy to these nations emphasizes that they will be defeated by Babylon, thus suffering “loss of power” and “military defeat.” 129 130

74

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

supports seeing Jeremiah as counting himself among the prophets, like those of old, who prophesy war, misfortune, and pestilence to ‫ארצות רבות‬, “many countries” (v. 8). Since, on the other hand, Hananiah’s only audience is Judah, his prophecy about Babylon is best understood as a prophecy of peace for his Judean audience rather than a prophesy of war against Babylon. Traditional interpreters, therefore, are on firm ground in seeing in 28:8 a reference to the type of prophecy that Jeremiah claims for himself and in 28:9 a type of prophecy that characterizes Hananiah’s message of encouragement to Judah. De Jong’s emphasis on the positive formulation of v. 9, however, does suggest a modification of this traditional view. Rather than imagining an exclusively negative outcome for Hananiah, which is the traditional view, or an exclusively positive outcome for Jeremiah, de Jong’s view, it appears that v. 9 functions to distinguish between two conflicting prophecies of peace. Hananiah prophesies a restoration within two years (v. 3). In 29:10 Jeremiah prophesies a restoration that will occur 70 years in the future. The positive formulation of v. 9 permits a judgment on the part of the reader between these two claims. From a perspective in the post-exilic period, Jeremiah’s 70 year prediction is validated and Hananiah’s two year prediction is invalidated. In the context of conflicting claims about the immediacy or distance of restoration, v. 9 asserts that: “As for the prophet who should prophesy welfare, when the word of the prophet comes about, the prophet who has truly been sent by Yahweh will be known.” The situation is thus parallel to Jeremiah’s dispute with Shemaiah in Jer 29:24–32. That prophet objected specifically to the duration that Jeremiah sets for the exile (v. 28). The “lie” that he has prophesied (v. 31) is thus presumably the assurance of a more immediate restoration. Again, the dispute is not whether a restoration will occur, but rather how soon it can be expected. The situation imagined by the author of Jer 28:8–9, therefore, is one in which Jeremiah has prophesied both misfortune and peace and Hananiah has prophesied only peace. Jeremiah’s oracles of war, according to v. 8, do not require validation or justification. The conflicting prophecies of peace, on the other hand, are to be judged in light of historical events. According to this understanding, therefore, Jeremiah is both a prophet of war (v. 8) and a prophet of peace (v. 9). This theme of Jeremiah as a prophet of peace, it should be emphasized, has been added to this narrative sequence by the DtrJ author. The original underlying narrative presented Jeremiah here only as prophesying war. It is suggestive, therefore, that chs. 28–29 are followed immediately by the poetic oracles of peace in chs. 30–31. It appears that the DtrJ author inserted the theme of Jeremiah’s prophecy of distant restoration into these chapters in order to prepare for and interpret the salvation oracles that follow.134 134  See Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 106, who likewise sees the note of hope registered in ch. 29 as the basis for combining 27–29 to 30–33.

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

75

Had this theme not been inserted into the narratives of 27–29, the presentation of Jeremiah as a prophet of judgment and his opponents as prophets of peace would have been in tension with the presentation of Jeremiah as a prophet of peace in 30–31. The DtrJ additions to these narratives makes it possible to reconcile the tension by presenting Jeremiah’s salvation prophecies as exclusively for the distant future and thus in conflict with the prophets who predicted a more proximate restoration. We can return finally to the allusion itself and its the perspective on D. On the one hand, the allusion explicitly denies the applicability of Deut 18’s verification criterion for prophecies of judgment (v. 8).135 Jeremiah’s command of submission to Babylon (27:12, 17) accompanied with the threat of annihilation for failing to do so, are thus excluded from the domain of Deut 18’s law. Citing historically precedented prophetic practice (v. 8), the verification criterion is instead applied in a restricted sense to prophecies of peace alone (v. 9). This interpretive choice is significant. From the likely post-exilic perspective of this text, nothing would be lost by enlisting Deut 18’s verification criterion for Jeremiah’s prophecy of judgment since history has already verified his prophecies. If the issue were merely differentiating between true and false prophecy, an unaltered Deut 18 would have sufficed. The author nevertheless chose to transform Deut 18’s criterion and explicitly restrict its scope. In so doing, this passage functions to mitigate D’s restrictions on post-Mosaic prophecy and to promote the autonomy of Jeremiah. According to Jer 28 and contrary to Deut 18, the historically precedented practice of prophecies of doom and disaster are not subject to verification.

7. Jer 36:28 and Deut 10:1–2 or Exod 34:1 The account of the rewriting of Jeremiah’s scroll in Jer 36:27–32 contains an allusion to the narrative account of the second copying of the decalogue – a passage which appears in nearly identical form in Deut 10:1–2 and Exod 34:1. This allusion has been noted by a number of scholars136 and is supported by strong lexical markers. The compositional affiliation of this text is best addressed after analyzing the allusion itself. a) The Allusion The presence of an allusion is established by a tight sequence of phrase-level parallels with a number of semantic substitutions that adapt the source to its new

 Cf. Davidson, VT 14 (1964) 414.  Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 39; Seitz, ZAW 101 (1989) 14, n. 20; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 302, 304, 307; Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 295, idem, Pentateuch as Torah (2007) 178, n. 27. 135 136

76

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

context (underlined below are parallels with only minor variation; double-underlined are semantic parallels that have been adapted to the new context). ‫ שוב קח לך מגלה אחרת וכתב עליה את כל‬Turn, take another scroll, and write Jer 36:28 ‫ הדברים הראשנים אשר היו על המגלה‬upon it all the former words which ‫ הראשנה אשר שרף יהויקים מלך יהודה‬were upon the first scroll, which Jehoiakim, king of Judah, burned.

‫בעת ההוא אמר יהוה אלי פסל לך שני‬ ‫לוחת אבנים כראשנים ועלה אלי ההרה‬ ‫ועשית לך ארון עץ ואכתב על הלחת את‬ ‫הדברים אשר היו על הלחת הראשנים אשר‬ ‫שברת ושמתם בארון‬

At that time, Yahweh said to me, “cut two stone tablets like the first ones, and come up to me on the mountain, and make for yourself a wooden ark. I will write upon the tablets the words which were upon the first tablets, which you broke, and you will set them in the ark.

‫ויאמר יהוה אל משה פסל לך שני לחת‬ ‫אבנים כראשנים וכתבתי על הלחת את‬ ‫הדברים אשר היו על הלחת הראשנים אשר‬ ‫שברת‬

Yahweh said to Moses, “cut two Exod 34:1 stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write upon the tablets the words which were upon the first tablets, which you broke.

Deut 10:1–2

One notes here an almost verbatim reuse of either Deut 10:1–2 or Exod 34:1 that undergoes specific adaptation to the new narrative context. Terms appropriate for a scroll are substituted for those pertaining to the stone tablets (see the double-underlined items above). Thus, in addition to substituting “scroll” (‫ )מגלה‬for “two tablets of stone” (‫)שני לחת אבנים‬, the scroll is also “taken” (‫ )לקח‬rather than “cut out” (‫)פסל‬, and, in accordance with the preceding narrative, the previous scroll was “burned” (‫ )שרף‬rather than “broken” (‫)שבר‬. These adapted elements replace the parallel elements in the source without disrupting the sequence of clauses. The extended sequence of phrase-level lexical parallels to Exod 34:1 and Deut 10:1–2 presents strong evidence for an allusion to one of those passages. The LXX lacks words corresponding to the two instances of the adjective ‫ראשון‬, “former, first.”137 The textual history of this chapter is complex because, on the one hand, there appears to be a marked tendency observable in the MT to portray some of the scribes in a more positive light than in the – likely original – LXX version.138 At the same time, Barthélemy has registered a tendency in the LXX of this chapter to abbreviate.139 He finds this tendency plausibly in the omission of the last word of 15b, the first three words of 17b, and the last word of 17b. The absence of the terms corresponding to ‫ ראשון‬most likely belongs to this phenomenon for the following reasons. First, there does not appear to be an ideological motivation for the addition of these terms in the MT. The adjective  These are added by Aquila and Symmachus; cf. Ziegler, Jeremias (1976) 398.  See McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) cxliii–cxlv, 900–21, as well as, recently, Nicholson, Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel (2010) 160–61. 139  Critique Textuelle (1986) 713–14 137 138

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

77

“first, former” simply makes explicit what is already assumed in the rewriting of the scroll. The absence of these terms in the LXX, therefore, is similar to the other cases of abbreviation in the LXX that Barthélemy cites in this chapter. Second, the parallel to the recopying of the decalogue is strong with or without ‫ראשון‬. It would be surprising to find a deliberate strengthening of the allusion in the MT expansion. These considerations favor seeing the MT as original and explaining the minus in the LXX via translation technique. Since Deut 10:1–2 has reused Exod 34:1 almost verbatim,140 and there are no further clues indicating one of these texts over the other,141 it is impossible to decide definitively which text is the source. One might note that the elements unique to Deut 34:1–2 (‫ועלה אלי ההרה ועשית לך ארון עץ … ושמתם בארון‬, “and come up to me on the mountain, and make for yourself an wooden ark … and you will set them in the ark”) are not present in Jer 36:28. Even this phenomenon, however, does not give preference to Exod 34:1. In the process of adaption the source to its context, the author of Jer 36:28 could simply have removed the reference to the ark that Deut 10:1–2 has added since this motif has no relevance to the narrative of Jer 36. While not producing strong conviction, a further consideration tips the scales slightly in favor of Deut 10:1–2 as the source. In contrast to the E-source account, in which the decalogue serves exclusively as a demonstration of prophecy and validation of Moses, D has transformed the decalogue into a covenant that demands obedience.142 The function of Jeremiah’s scroll in Jer 36, therefore, appears to hew closer to the function of the decalogue in D than it does in E. This certainly does not prove that Deut 10:1–2 is the source, but it is suggestive and justifies treating this text alongside other allusions to D on the theme of prophecy. The allusion draws an analogy between the two writings of the decalogue and the two writings of the scroll of Jeremiah. This allusion is thematically parallel to another, more extensive allusion to 2 Kgs 22 earlier in the chapter. As recognized by a number of scholars,143 Jer 36 draws a contrasting parallel between Josiah’s 140  See, for example, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (1991) 417–18; Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (2009) 166–72. 141 Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 293–94, idem, Pentateuch as Torah (2007) 177, claims a further allusion to Exod 34:9 in Jer 36:3. If defensible, this might suggest that Exod 34 is used again in v. 28. The lexical evidence for the proposed allusion to Exod 34:9 in Jer 36:3, however, is limited to the phrase ‫סלח לעון ולחטאת‬, “to forgive iniquity and sin.” ‫סלח‬, however, regularly takes complementation with ‫ ל‬of either the entity receiving forgiveness or the offense forgiven. Both ‫חטאת‬ and ‫ עון‬appear multiple times in connection with this verb, and thus the usage is too common to constitute proof of an allusion. One notes, for example another exact parallel to this phrasing in Jer 31:34. 142  Stackert, A Prophet like Moses (2014) 78–79, 128–35. 143 Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 45; Isbell, JSOT 8 (1978) 33–45; Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 663–66; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 913; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 299; Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform (2006) 146–47; idem, Polemics of Exile (2008) 103–4; Silver, “The Lying Pen” (2009) 72–73; Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur (2011) 226.

78

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

response to the discovery of the book of the law and Jehoiakim’s reaction to the scroll of Jeremiah. This allusion functions on the level of plot and is established by specific lexical markers.144 In both stories, a previously unknown scroll with a claim to divine authority is brought to the king. In each case, the scroll contains words of judgment. In each case, the scribal family of Shapan is involved. Shapan the scribe reads the book of the law to Josiah (2 Kgs 22:10), and Baruch reads Jeremiah’s scroll in the chamber of Gemariah, Shapan’s son (Jer 36:10). Shapan’s grandson Michaiah hears the reading and reports it to a group of officials in the palace (vv. 11–13). The primary contrast between the stories appears in the royal response, which in both cases involves tearing (‫)קרע‬. Josiah exhibits the appropriate response to the divine word by tearing his clothes (2 Kgs 22:11, 19). Jehoiakim, on the other hand, responds by tearing the scroll itself (Jer 36:23). The narrative goes on to explicitly point out the appropriate tearing was not done: ‫לא קרעו את בגדיהם המלך וכל עבדיו‬, “The king and all his servants did not tear their clothes” (v. 24). This detail, as Schmid points out, represents a blind motif in Jer 36 that is explainable through its allusive relationship to 2 Kgs 22; it thus corroborates the direction of dependence from 2 Kings to Jeremiah.145 This structural and lexical set of parallels establishes a contrast between the response to the divine word of the righteous Josiah and the wicked Jehoiakim.146 A further relevant association between the texts is the equivalency of the book of the law and the scroll of Jeremiah. This parallels on a thematic level the function of the allusion in v. 28 to either Exod 34:1 or Deut 10:1–2. Both texts associate Jeremiah’s scroll with previous Mosaic revelation. b) Compositional Affiliation The attempt to assess the compositional affiliation of Jer 36 is plagued with complexity. Mowinckel assigned this the B source, citing lack of DtrJ language as well as a distinct style not found in Dtr passages.147 The appearance of Dtr language in vv. 3, 7, and 31 can be plausibly explained as DtrJ insertions.148 This is particularly convincing in the case of vv. 3, 7, since the DtrJ theme of the possibility of avoiding judgment through repentance appears in this chapter exclusively in these verses. The coincidence of Dtr language and theme in isolated verses is highly suggestive of insertion. A number of scholars, however, have followed Nicholson in arguing for DtrJ composition of the entire chapter. The primary arguments apart from the limited Dtr language are the chapter’s structural parallel to 2 Kgs 22 and the involvement  See especially Isbell, JSOT 8 (1978) 33–45.  Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur (2011) 226. 146 Isbell, JSOT 8 (1978) 33–45, lists further parallels of both a thematic and lexical nature. 147  Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 24; So also Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 23–24 [Hebrew]. 148  Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 49–50. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 351, also registers Dtr language in vv. 3, 7. 144 145

III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation

79

of the Shapanid family as supporters of Jeremiah. The connection between 2 Kgs 22 and Jer 36 (as well as Jer 26:24) suggests that the Dtr scribes saw themselves as the heirs of the Shapanids in one way or another.149 This perspective, however, gives insufficient attention to the textual variants between the LXX and MT. The earlier narrative preserved in the LXX does not present the Shapanids as supporters of Jeremiah. Instead, along with the other officials of Jehoiakim, they ultimately reject Jeremiah’s word and urge the king to burn the scroll (23:25; LXX 43:25). The MT has inserted ‫ לבלתי‬into v. 25, and, in so doing, converts Gemariah son of Shapan and Elnathan son of Achbor, along with Delaiah (MT) or Gedaliah (LXX), into supporters rather than opponents of Jeremiah.150 The original narrative, therefore, contained a correspondence between the king and his officials. Just as both Josiah and his officials (including Shapan and Achbor, 2 Kgs 22:12) responded rightly to the prophetic word, both Jehoiakim and his officials (including the descendents of Shapan and Achbor) responded wrongly. If it is true that there is a connection between the Deuteronomic school and the Shapanids as, perhaps, suggested by 2 Kgs 22, the original narrative of Jer 36 does not appear to serve their interests while the MT revision of it does. At the same time, it is not possible to conclude that this evidence unequivocally indicates that the passage is non-DtrJ. DtrJ is not identical to DtrH, and it is not impossible that DtrJ had a negative view of at least some branches of the Shapanid family. The specificity of names in the chapter suggests that there are political realities at play that may simply be unrecoverable. The issues being as complex as they are, the conclusion concerning affiliation must be held with some tentativeness. Three arguments suggest seeing this chapter as mainly non-DtrJ. First, its style differs from other DtrJ narratives. Second, the verses where DtrJ language appears can be plausibly identified as insertions (vv. 3, 7, 31). Third, one must admit a priori that the allusion to 2 Kgs 22 could have been accomplished by a non-DtrJ writer. This possibility finds apparent confirmation in the negative depiction of the Shapanids in the original narrative represented by the LXX. While we cannot conclude that it is impossible for this narrative to have been penned by DtrJ, the evidence appears to favor it being pre-DtrJ. The result is that Jer 36 represents a potentially non-DtrJ passage that alludes to D (or possibly Exod 34:1) and participates in the pattern of comparing Jeremiah’s revelation to Mosaic era revelation. If so, the pattern we have observed  This argument has been worked out especially by Dearman, JBL 109 (1990) 403–21. Cf. also Silver, “The Lying Pen” (2009) 98. 150 Noted by McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) cxliii–cxlv, 900–21, as well as, recently, Nicholson, Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel (2010) 160–61. Nicholson’s suggestion that the allusion to 2 Kgs 22 is only in the MT, however, does not follow. The lexical and thematic markers that establish the allusion are all present in the LXX. 149

80

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

elsewhere exclusively in DtrJ was present already in a non-DtrJ narrative tradition about Jeremiah.

IV. False Prophecy The concern to address false prophecy via interaction with D’s prophet law (Deut 18:9–22) emerged already in the discussion of Jer 28:8–9. Three other DtrJ passages similarly allude to this law in the context of discussions of false prophecy. Deuteronomy 13:2–6, which addresses prophets of foreign gods, also appears as a source for the MT expander in Jer 28:14 and 29:32.

1. Jer 5:14 and Deut 18:18 As shown above, Jer 1:7, 9 alludes to Deut 18:18 as a means of characterizing Jeremiah as a prophet like Moses. Jeremiah 5:14 returns to the same verse in treating the theme of false prophecy. The compositional affiliation of Jer 5:14 is difficult to assess. On the one hand, neither v. 14 nor its immediate context (vv. 12–13) contains any of the characteristic linguistic signals of DtrJ, though an example of such language does appear in v. 19.151 This linguistic profile leads most scholars, including Thiel, to classify this verse as belonging to the pre-DtrJ material in the chapter.152 Nevertheless, there are several compelling reasons to assign this passage to DtrJ. Since the allusion to Deut 18:18 itself plays a role in this identification, it is necessary to turn first to the evidence for this allusion and its meaning. Jer 5:14

‫לכן כה אמר יהוה אלהי צבאות יען דברכם את הדבר‬ ‫הזה הנני נתן דברי בפיך לאש והעם הזה עצים‬ ‫ואכלתם‬ Therefore, thus says Yahweh, god of hosts, “because you [plural – referring to the people] spoke this word, behold, I am turning my words [that are] in your [singular – referring to Jeremiah] mouth into a fire, and this people are the wood, and it will consume them.

151 Weinfeld,

Deut 18:18

‫נביא אקים להם מקרב אחיהם כמוך ונתתי דברי‬ ‫בפיו ודבר אליהם את כל אשר אצונו‬ A prophet I will raise up for them from the midst of their brothers like you. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them everything I will command him.

Deuteronomic School (1972) 341.  Cf. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 68, where he argues specifically against an allusion to Deut 18:18 in Jer 5:14 on the basis of the difference in meaning between the two texts. 152

IV. False Prophecy

81

As already noted in the discussion of Jer 1:9, the verb ‫ נתן‬with the object ‫ דבר‬and the prepositional modifier ‫ בפיך‬appears only in Deut 18:18, Jer 1:9, and 5:14, each of which deals with the divine origins of the prophetic word. Thus, Jer 5:14, like 1:9, bears a unique lexical collocation combined with a thematic parallel that marks it as an allusion to Deut 18:18. Thiel, however, objects to this possibility on the basis of the difference between Jer 5:14 and its supposed source text, Deut 18:18.153 On the one hand, his identification of a significant grammatical difference between these texts is correct. Both Deut 18:18 and Jer 1:9 use a finite form of the verb ‫ נתן‬+ object in the sense of “to place something:” “I will place my words in his mouth.” Jeremiah 5:14, on the other hand, uses the participial form of ‫נתן‬, and, more significantly, activates a different sense of that verb. In this verse, ‫ נתן‬+ object + ‫ ל‬expresses the idiomatic sense “to turn / ​make something into something else” (cf. Jer 1:18; 9:10): “I am turning my words [that are] in your mouth into a fire.” The function of ‫ בפיך‬in Jer 5:14 is thus different from its function in Deut 18:18 and Jer 1:9. In Deut 18:18 and Jer 1:9, ‫ בפיך‬denotes where the words will be placed. In Jer 5:14, it denotes the place where the words already are when they are turned into fire. The differences between Jer 5:14 and these other passages are indeed significant, but the conclusion does not follow that the lexical parallels are non-allusive. As argued in ch. 1, semantic and grammatical transformation of a source text is a regular and predictable element in literary allusion. To disprove an allusion requires more than semantic differences between the source text and alluding text. In this case, the claim that the shared language is coincidental is not convincing because the parallel consists of a completely unique multi-word phrase as well as the shared theme of the divine origin of the authentic prophetic word. One might claim, on the other hand, that the shared language is legitimate, but that the source text is not drawn on in any specific way, and thus that it represents what Sommer calls an “echo” – a reuse of language in which the source text is minimally activated in the borrowing text. A contextual interpretation of the passage, however, suggests that Deut 18:18 is indeed activated allusively. Verse 12 accuses the people of speaking falsely of Yahweh (‫ )כחשו ביהוה‬by denying the prophesied disaster. The meaning of v. 13, and its relationship to v. 12, is disputed. Some have taken it as a continuation of the quoted speech of the people in v. 12.154 If so, the people state in v. 13 that the prophets of the coming disaster, Jeremiah included, are empty and false (‫רוח‬, cf. Isa 41:29). Conversely, the speech of the people could end in v. 12, and v. 13 could represent the prophetic response to the people.155 In this case, the prophets of peace are con153 Thiel,

Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 68.  As McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 121, points out, this is a traditional view shared by Jerome, Calvin, and Lowth, as well as by the modern scholars Duhm, Rudolph, and Weiser. 155 Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 187; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 120–21. 154

82

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

demned for deceiving the people into disregarding the true prophecies of destruction. The preferability of this reading has been established by Schmuttermayr, who notes the similarity between v. 12 and other speeches attributed to the prophets of peace who are in various places the opponents of Jeremiah (14:13, 15; 23:17).156 Rather than v. 12 representing the speech of the peace prophets themselves,157 who are only introduced in v. 13, they represent words spoken by the people, the house of Israel and Judah (v. 11), who deny the coming destruction through the citation of the words of the peace prophets.158 They have heard the false prophetic message of peace and are depicted as parroting it. Verses 12–13 together, therefore, condemn first the people for making false claims about Yahweh and the coming destruction (v. 12), and second the prophets who are the source of these false claims (v. 13). Verse 14, then, comes as a response to both the people and the prophets of peace. The true prophetic word, which is in Jeremiah’s mouth, will be a word of judgment that consumes the people. The contrast between the false prophets of peace and the true prophet of destruction provides the context for understanding the allusion to Deut 18:18 in v. 14. Unlike Jer 1:9, this text brings into explicit focus the basic interest of Deut 18:18–22; that is, it seeks to distinguish true and false prophets. That the explicit reference to false prophets appears in Deut 18 and Jer 5:14, but not in Jer 1, supports the conclusion that Deut 18 is here directly invoked rather than that the language is drawn from Jer 1 apart from Deut 18. The allusion asserts that Jeremiah is the true Moses-like prophet, and, by implication, presents the prophets of peace referred to in v. 13 as false. Even as v. 14 alludes to Deut 18:18, however, it is also necessary to read it as referring back to Jer 1:4–19. In this regard, the way that v. 14 transforms its source text is particularly illuminating. As noted above, Jer 5:14 diverges semantically from its parallels in Deut 18:18 and Jer 1:9. In Deut 18:18, a prophet is promised for the future in whose mouth Yahweh will place (imperfective ‫ )ונתתי‬his words. In Jer 1:9, Yahweh states that Jeremiah is such a prophet and that the placing of the words is accomplished (perfective ‫)נתתי‬. Here in Jer 5:14, the divine words are already assumed to be in Jeremiah’s mouth (‫דברי בפיך‬, “my words [that are]159 in your mouth”), and these are transformed into fire. There is a narrative progression from the initial placing of the words in Jer 1:9 to their transformation to fire in 5:14. Where Jer 1:9–10 articulate that the divine words 156 Schmuttermayr,

BZ 9 (1965) 224, 228, followed by McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 121.  As suggested, for example, by Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 184–85. 158  Schmuttermayr, BZ 9 (1965) 224. 159 The relative clause here facilitates an English translation and should not be taken to represent the structure of the Hebrew. The prepositional phrase denotes where the words are before they are turned to fire (cf. for example 2 Sam 22:9aα: ‫עלה עשן באפו‬, “the smoke [which is] in his nostrils went up.”). 157

IV. False Prophecy

83

contain the possibilities of both destruction (“to uproot, tear down, destroy, and overthrow”) and salvation (“to build and to plant”) (v. 10), the statement in 5:14 that “I am turning my words, which are in your mouth, into a fire” (5:14) indicates that in the present circumstances the prophetic words will bring exclusively destruction.160 This reference back to Jer 1:9–10, which have already been identified as DtrJ, thus requires either that Jer 5:14 is also DtrJ or that it is a post-DtrJ addition. While the bulk of ch. 5 belongs to the pre-DtrJ stratum of the book,161 there are other indications in addition to its relationship to ch. 1 that align this text with DtrJ. First, several locutions in this context are indicative of later strata of the book. The full phrase ‫כה אמר יהוה אלהי צבאות‬, “thus says Yahweh, God of Hosts,” appears elsewhere in Jeremiah only in DtrJ (35:17, 44:7),162 and in a late narrative (38:17).163 Further, the reference to the divine word as ‫הדבר הזה‬, “this word,” though common in the Hebrew Bible, is restricted in the book of Jeremiah to late additions to the book,164 A more distinctive mark of the lateness of this passage is the word ‫הַּדִּבֵ ר‬ (v. 13).165 Holladay and Richard C. Steiner both take this as an attestation of the Mishnaic Hebrew term meaning specifically a “divine utterance.”166 Steiner notes in defense of this that the reading of the LXX, λόγος κυρίου, “word of the Lord,” could represent an understanding of this term, although he admits the possibilities of a contextual interpretation on the part of the translator or a divergent Vorlage.167 While this proposal is intriguing, this would be the only occurrence of this word prior to Mishnaic Hebrew. Another analysis of the word as vocalized in the MT is preferable. There are a number of cases in Biblical Hebrew where the definite article functions as a relative pronoun with suffix conjugation verbs (cf. Gen 18:21; 46:27; Josh 10:24; Isa 51:10; Ezek 26:17; 1 Chr 26:28; 29:17; 2 Chr 29:36; Job 2:11; Ruth 1:22; 2:6; 4:3; Ezra 8:25; 10:14, 17).168  Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 187. for example, Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 80, 97–99. 162  For the DtrJ affiliation of 35:17 and 44:7, cf. Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 31; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 320, 324, 334, 336, 338, 340, 348, 350, 351, 352, 357. 163 On Jer 38:14–28 as a late addition, see Goldstein, Shai le-Sara Japhet (2007) 23–25 [Hebrew]; idem, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 15–26 [Hebrew]. 164  Stipp, Konkordanz (1998) 36. 165 Many scholars elect to emend the form to the common noun ‫דבר‬, “word.” If this were the original reading, however, there is no good explanation for such a common word to be modified either to a much rarer term (according to Holladay and Steiner) or to a rare grammatical construction (to be defended below). In absence of an explanation for the change, the lectio difficilior is here to be preferred (so also Holladay, Jeremiah 1 [1986] 183). 166  Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 187; Steiner, JSS 37 (1992) 11–26. Hornkohl, Ancient Hebrew Periodization (2014) 294–97, recently reviewed this evidence and concluded that it is attractive but difficult to prove. 167  Ibid., 15–16. 168 GKC § 138 i, k; Joüon (2006) § 145 e; Waltke and O’Connor (1990) 19.7. 160

161 Cf.

84

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

This construction could be present in Jer 5:14, in which case the relative functions as an “independent relative” (cf. Gen 7:23; 38:10; Num 22:6 Ezek 23:28).169 This analysis explains the form by means of an attested grammatical construction and thus does not require recourse either to revocalization or to an otherwise exclusively post-biblical technical term. The clause ‫ הַּדִּבֵ ר אין בהם‬is to be translated as “the one who has spoken is not among them,” meaning that the one who has truly spoken a prophetic word, namely Jeremiah, is not among the prophets assuring the people of peace. While one might expect a participle in a context that involves an animate personal reference, the examples of Ezra 10:14, 17 and 1 Chr 29:17 show that this use of the definite article as a relative was used for personal referents. The grammars point out that this construction is almost exclusively found in late books; the most unambiguous cases, i. e., those not susceptible to repointing, occur in the books of Ezra and Chronicles (see, for example Ezra 8:25). The use of this construction in Jer 5:13 supports seeing this verse as part of a DtrJ insertion, since this layer of tradition is often marked by signs of late language.170 A final, corroborative marker of affiliation with the DtrJ redaction is the reuse of other texts from the book of Jeremiah seen in v. 12. A number of scholars have pointed out that this is a feature characterizing DtrJ.171 The identification of Jer 5:14 as part of a DtrJ insertion rests on its own reference back to Jer 1:9–10, the linguistic features noted above, and the reuse of other texts within Jeremiah. These indicators of a DtrJ addition are limited to vv. 12–14, and this unit in its entirety appears to be a DtrJ insertion. Verses 12 and 13 are united on the theme of false prophets of peace. The people in v. 12 utter the message that the peace prophets are elsewhere reported as proclaiming. These prophets themselves are then condemned in v. 13. In v. 14, the true prophet is contrasted to the false prophets. The deity turns to Jeremiah and announces that the prophetic word, which in ch. 1 was identified as an instrument of both destruction and renewal, will here be one of only destruction. The theme of the message of the false prophets of peace and Jeremiah’s own message of destruction, therefore, brings coherence to vv. 12–14. Prior to this insertion, v. 15 followed immediately on v. 11 and presented a further judgment against the “house of Israel”. This insertion ties the prophecy of destruction in this context to the people’s acceptance of the false prophetic word of peace. This creates a conceptual tension in the passage that reveals one of DtrJ’s principle aims. These verses adopt

 Waltke and O’Connor (1990) 19.3. for examples, the markers of late Hebrew in the DtrJ chs. 42, 44, that Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 90–94, 99–102 [Hebrew], has identified. 171  Cf. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 39–40; 25–26, 32; Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 13–14, 25–26 [Hebrew]. 169

170 Cf.

IV. False Prophecy

85

the basic form of a judgment oracle against Israel.172 Verses 12–13 present an accusation against the people, and v. 14 gives an announcement of judgment beginning with ‫לכן‬, “therefore,” and the messenger formula. The judgment in v. 14 that Jeremiah’s word will be one of destruction is thus a result and consequence of the people’s decision to listen to and parrot the message of the false peace prophets. Jeremiah, however, is distinguished from the peace prophets by already presenting a message of judgment. From a certain perspective, it would appear redundant or even nonsensical to claim that Jeremiah’s word will be one of judgment (v. 14) as a result of the people’s not listening to Jeremiah’s word of judgment (vv. 12–13). What renders this sequence sensible, however, is the assumption that the prophetic word of judgment is inherently conditional. If the people had listened to Jeremiah’s word of judgment rather than the prophets of peace, they would have had the opportunity to avoid the judgment. Having listened to the wrong prophets, however, Jeremiah’s word will now truly consume the people. As argued persuasively by Rofe and Seeligman,173 the emphasis on the possibility of avoiding judgment through repentance is one of the primary themes of DtrJ’s insertions. The presence of this theme thus not only brings sense to the passage; it provides further justification for seeing the insertion as stemming from DtrJ itself, and not some other later source. The interest shown here in contrasting false prophets of peace with Jeremiah likewise appears as a related concern of DtrJ in chs. 26–29.

2. Jer 29:15 and Deut 18:18 Jeremiah 29 contains two allusions to Deut 18’s prophecy law. The first, to Deut 18:18, appears in Jer 29:15 as part of the represented speech of the Babylonian exiles to whom Jeremiah writes. The second, to Deut 18:20, appears in Jer 29:23 as part of Jeremiah’s response. Mowinckel has assigned the letter recorded in 29:1–23 to C.174 As his identification relies on a process of elimination, arguing that the passage must be C since it is neither A nor B, it is not convincing. Thiel’s argument on this section is also flawed as it relies on the supposition that the major MT plusses (vv. 14b, 16–20) are original and were lost through various processes in the LXX.175 Few have followed this argument; the analysis of these plusses as ideological additions 172 Cf. 173

281.

Westermann, Basic Forms (1991) 132–35, 169–71.  Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 1–29, esp. 26–29 [Hebrew]; Seeligman, Congress Volume (1978)

174 Mowinckel,

Komposition (1914) 41–42.  Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 18. While Janzen views 14aβ-b as an expansion in MT, he too claims that 16–20 is original and had been lost through of haplography (Text of Jeremiah [1973] 48–49, 118). 175

86

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

in the MT remains the more convincing explanation.176 The lexical evidence that Thiel provides for the DtrJ affiliation of vv. 8–23 is almost exclusively restricted to these plusses and, as such, does not provide convincing evidence for DtrJ affiliation. Nicholson offers important insights on the affiliation of 10–14a (on which, see ch. 5), but his arguments for the affiliation of 8–9, 15, 21–23 are based on the untenable view that the prose of the book is all DtrJ.177 Despite the deficiencies in these arguments for the DtrJ affiliation of these verses, sufficient evidence remains to establish this affiliation for all of 8–14aα, 15, 21–23. The inclusion of vv. 10–14aα is controversial as many scholars understand this passage to represent an insertion into its context and, as such, not directly related to its immediate context in vv. 8–9, 15, 21–23. The inclusions of vv. 10–14aα in DtrJ will thus be left until ch. 5 and the discussion there of an allusion in vv. 13–14aα. Verses 8–9, which denounce false prophecy, represent a sharp change in tone from vv. 5–7, which adjure the exiles to settle permanently in Babylon and pray for the welfare of their city. Verse 15 continues the theme of false prophecy by introducing a judgment oracle against a specific group of false prophets. This verse is continued directly in vv. 21–23. Within these verses appears language characteristic of DtrJ combined with a central thematic and ideological concern of DtrJ that suffuses 28–29. Removing locutions appearing only in the MT and those not related to DtrJ passages, Stipp’s Konkordanz shows five examples of “Deuterojeremianische” language in vv. 9 and 21.178 In addition to these lexical marks, further evidence for the DtrJ affiliation arises in the theme of false prophecy introduced by these verses.179 As already seen with respect to Jer 28:8–9, the issue of false prophecy and its relationship 176  Bright, Jeremiah (1965) 205–6, 209; Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 553–54; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 735–40. Part of the problem with the argument that the LXX represents haplography by homoioteleuton (‫ )בבלה … בבלה‬is the observation that v. 15 leads naturally to vv. 21–23, such that the intervening vv. 16–20 look like an insertion on the grounds of content as well as textual witness. Overly complex is Janzen’s argument that the order was originally 14, 16–20, 15, 21–23, and that v. 15 was lost by haplography and then subsequently mistakenly reintroduced before v. 16 (Text of Jeremiah [1973] 118; followed by Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 135). Preferable is the simpler explanation: an expander inserted vv. 16–20 between v. 15 and vv. 21–23. 177 Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 97–100. 178  Stipp, Konkordanz (1998) 93, 86, 91, 94, 134, 136. Stipp’s use of the term “deuterojeremianische” includes but is not restricted to passages identifiable as DtrJ. It includes also other passages of a post-DtrJ nature and, as such, must be used with care in identifying DtrJ passages. At the same time, the great virtue of the work is its inclusion of locutions particularly characteristic of the redactional portions of Jeremiah that do not show broader distribution in Deuteronomistic literature. The locutions in question in vv. 9 and 21 are the following: the combination of ‫  ​ נביא‬/  ‫ נבא‬and ‫( שקר‬v. 9), “Yahweh has not sent” (v. 9), “to prophesy in the name of Yahweh” (v. 9), the hiphil of ‫ נכה‬in reference to the future judgment (v. 21), and the expression “to give X in the hand of Y” – a common enough expression in the Hebrew Bible, but as Stipp’s list shows, in Jeremiah particularly characteristic of DtrJ (v. 21). 179  Cf. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 93–94, 97–99; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 746–48.

87

IV. False Prophecy

to Jeremiah’s true prophecy is a key concern of DtrJ in this part of the book. It is not just that vv. 8–9, 15, 21–23 deal with this topic, however, that relates them thematically to DtrJ; it is rather the specific concern to negotiate the tension between the false prophecies of imminent return with the true Jeremianic prophecy of a distant return. This concern animated the use of Deut 18:18 in Jer 28:8–9, where Jeremiah’s prophecies of both war and distant peace are related to Hananiah’s prophecy of imminent peace. In 29:8–9, the prophets are described as prophesying a ‫שקר‬, “lie.” The content is not specifically spelled out but arises in relation to vv. 5–7. Jeremiah’s message in vv. 5–7 is to settle in Babylon for the long term. Following this with a call to reject the “lie” of the prophets implies that their lie is a contradiction of vv. 5–7. In other words, context dictates that the “lie” of the prophets in vv. 8–9 is that the exiles in Babylon will come home quickly. The passages proceeds to a condemnation of specific prophets in vv. 15, 21–23.180 The theme here is thus not just false prophecy in general, but a very specific configuration of that theme that characterizes DtrJ in ch. 28 and, as such, is plausibly continued in ch. 29. Thus, the presence of lexical marks of DtrJ in vv. 9 and 21 combined with the presence of a specific theme developed by DtrJ in close proximity support seeing vv. 8–9, 15, 21–23 as stemming from DtrJ. The allusion in v. 15 opens an accusation against the Babylonian exiles for trusting in false prophets who are then condemned in vv. 21–23 (the intervening vv. 16–20 are an MT addition). In this context, v. 15 places in the mouths of these exiles a claim for the legitimacy of the prophets who have arisen in Babylon:181 Jer 29:15

‫כי אמרתם הקים לנו יהוה נבאים בבלה‬ Because you said, “Yahweh has raised up for us prophets in Babylon …”

Deut 18:18a

‫נביא אקים להם מקרב אחיהם כמוך‬ A prophet I will raise up for them from the midst of their brothers like you.

Though the linguistic parallels span only three words, the collocation of the hiphil of ‫ קום‬with the object ‫ נביא‬occur only in these passages. This unique collocation, combined with DtrJ’s other allusions to Deut 18:18–23 in 1:7–9, 5:14, 28:8–9, and 29:23 (see below), support seeing this as an allusion to Deut 18:18. Read in light of the source text, Jer 29:15 characterizes the Babylonian exiles as appealing to Deut 18:18 in support of the legitimacy of the Babylonian prophets. The exiles claim that Yahweh, who promised in Deut 18:18 to raise up prophets, has done so for them in Babylon. This characterization of these prophets’ legitimacy serves as the basis for Jeremiah’s response, which alludes to the same passage to deny the legitimacy of the Babylonian prophets. 180

 On the place of vv. 10–14aα, see ch. 5. Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 101, idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 263.

181 So

88

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

3. Jer 29:23 and Deut 18:20 In 29:21–23, Jeremiah prophesies judgment for two named Babylonian prophets. Responding to the allusion to Deut 18:18 in v. 15, Jer 29:23 rejects the legitimacy of these prophets with reference to Deut 18:20. The allusion itself 182 is marked by a unique sequence of lexemes:183 Jer 29:23aβ

‫וידברו דבר בשמי [שקר] אשר לוא צויתם‬ They spoke a word in my name, [a lie,] which I did not command them.

Deut 18:20a

‫אך הנביא אשר יזיד לדבר דבר בשמי את אשר לא‬ ‫צויתיו לדבר‬

The prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name, which I did not command him ….

The phrase, ‫לדבר דבר בשמי‬, “to speak a word in my name,” is by itself a unique collocation that unites Jer 29:23 and Deut 18:20. The relative clause that follows, “which I did not command him / ​them,” further establishes an exclusive relationship between these passages. To this evidence can be added the thematic relationship – both texts deal with false prophets – and the preceding citation of Deut 18:18 in Jer 29:15. The evidence combined points to an allusion in Jer 29:23 to Deut 18:20. In the midst of its condemnation of the prophets in Babylon, Jer 29:23 makes use of the precise language used to describe the paradigmatic false prophet in Deut 18:20. The purpose of this allusion is to invoke D’s law in condemnation of the prophets and thus to justify the death prophesied against them (v. 22) as reflecting the fulfillment of that law. Here we see a treatment of D’s law as authoritative and divinely ordained: Yahweh himself is witness (‫ )עד‬against them (v. 23), and initiates D’s mandated death sentence by handing them over to Nebuchadrezzar to carry out the sentence (vv. 21–22). The relationship between this use of Deut 18:20 and the use of Deut 18:18 in Jer 29:15 is instructive for DtrJ’s view of the authoritative nature of D. In v. 15, the exiles are represented as invoking Deut 18:18 to identify the prophets in Babylon as legitimate. In v. 23, the same law is used to denounce those prophets as illegitimate. As the DtrJ author imagines the controversy, therefore, the Deuteronomic law is placed at the center of the discourse. This law is the point of departure both for the exiles’ (mistaken) view of their own prophets’ legitimacy as well as Jeremiah’s response.  Recognized also by Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 360, who lists it under “Influence of Deuteronomy upon Genuine Jeremiah” rather than “Deuteronomic Phraseology,” and Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 105. 183  ‫ שקר‬is lacking in the LXX of Jer 29:23 and represents a likely interpretive gloss (Janzen, Jeremiah [1973] 49). I retain it in brackets here but note that the version without ‫ שקר‬stands even closer to the parallel in Deut 18:20. 182

IV. False Prophecy

89

Jeremiah 29:15, 23 and Jer 28:8–9 involve the use of three different parts of Deut 18 (v. 20 in Jer 29:23; v. 18 in 29:15; vv. 21–22 in 28:9) for the purpose of condemning Jeremiah’s prophetic opponents as false prophets. These uses demonstrate that in the imagination of DtrJ, the issue of true and false prophecy is intimately linked to D’s prophet law. According to DtrJ in Jer 28–29, the interpretation and application of Deut 18’s prophet law is of central importance for the evaluation of true and false prophecy.

4. Jer 28:16/29:32 and Deut 13:6 The two final examples represent a special case as they are lacking in the LXX and represent the addition of the same clause drawn from Deut 13:6 in two different contexts. Such additions cannot be affiliated with the same Deuteronomistic redaction that we have seen at work elsewhere in the book.184 Represented in italics below are the plusses in the MT of the passages in question; the lexical parallels to Deut 13:6 are also underlined. Jer 28:16

‫ לכן כה אמר יהוה הנני משלחך מעל פני‬Therefore, thus says Yahweh, “Be‫ האדמה השנה אתה מת כי סרה דברת אל‬hold, I am sending you away from ‫ יהוה‬the earth. This year you will die, for you have spoken rebellion against Yahweh.

Jer 29:32

Deut 13:6

Therefore, thus says Yahewh, “Behold I am going to punish Shemaiah the Nehelemite and his offspring. He will not have a man dwelling in the midst of this people, and he will not see the good that I am going to do for my people, declares Yahweh, for he has spoken rebellion against Yahweh. ‫ והנביא ההוא או חלם החלום ההוא יומת‬But that prophet or the one who ‫ כי דבר סרה על יהוה אלהיכם‬dreamt that dream will be put to death, for he has spoken rebellion against Yahweh your God.

‫לכן כה אמר יהוה הנני פקד על שמעיה‬ ‫הנחלמי ועל זרעו לא יהיה לו איש יושב‬ ‫בתוך העם הזה ולא יראה בטוב אשר אני‬ ‫עשה לעמי נאם יהוה כי סרה דבר על יהוה‬

It is readily apparent that the phrase from Deut 13:6 has been added with minimal adaptation to Jer 28:16 and 29:32.185 Deuteronomy 13 construes apostasy as political treason, and v. 6 specifically condemns a prophet who has urged the 184  Cf. Tov, Empirical Models (1985) 220, 233, who sees these as representing a second Deuteronomistic redaction of the book. 185  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 360; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 32; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 78–79; idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 261; Hibbard, JSOT 35 (2011) 348.

90

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

people to follow other gods. In Jer 28:16 and 29:32, however, this condemnation has not been applied to apostate prophets but to Yahwistic prophets whose messages contradict Jeremiah’s. The purpose of the allusion in both cases, therefore, is to justify the judgment of these prophets by invoking the death sentence required for prophets of other deities in Deut 13. This allusion functionally equates contradicting the word of Jeremiah with apostasy.

V. Conclusion As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, the allusions to D that center around the theme of prophecy reveal an instructive tension at the heart of DtrJ. One group of these allusions addressed the problem of false prophecy through citations of Deut 18:18–22 (Jer 5:14 / ​Deut 18:18; Jer 28:8–9 / ​Deut 18:21–22; Jer 29:15, 23 / ​ Deut 18:18, 20). These references function to identify Jeremiah as a true prophet and to condemn his opponents as false. In passages missing from the LXX, an expander continued this effort by characterizing Jeremiah’s opponents with the language of Deut 13:6 (Jer 28:14; 29:32). These allusions reflect a presumption that the issue of true and false prophecy is to be resolved in reference to D’s prophecy law and thus point to the conferral of authority on D by DtrJ. A second group of allusions addresses the theme of post-Mosaic prophecy and, specifically, the equality of Jeremiah and Moses. A special significance accrues to Jer 28:8–9 as it activates both themes. Like the other examples that involve false prophecy, this text explicitly puts D’s prophetic verification criterion at the center of the narrated prophetic conflict. At the same time, however, this text explicitly modifies the original criterion so that it does not apply to Jeremiah’s prophecies of judgment. In so doing, it removes the limitations that D places on future prophets like Jeremiah while continuing to use D to legitimate Jeremiah and castigate his opponents. This paradoxical relationship to D emerges in a number of other allusions that establish the equal prophetic authority of Jeremiah and Moses (Jer 1:7–9 / ​ Deut 18:18, 22; Jer 7:22–23 / ​Deut 5:33; Jer 11:3–5 / ​Deut 27:15–26; Jer 21:8–10 / ​ Deut 30:15, 19; Jer 26:2 / ​Deut 13:1; Jer 36:28 / ​Deut 10:1–2 [or Exod 34:1]). The equivalency between Jeremiah and Moses asserted in these allusions goes beyond the limited verifiable consultative type of post-Mosaic prophecy envisioned by D. The above analysis has suggested that the authors of the DtrJ layer of the book were sensitive to these limitations and sought to hermeneutically neutralize them. This perspective is particularly clear in Jer 7:22–23 and 11:3–5. Both passages claim that the wilderness era divine command was the command to obey the future post-Mosaic prophets. In Jer 7:23, D’s ideology is transformed through a reformulation of Deut 5:33, which itself summarizes the wilderness command as obedience to D’s laws. Jeremiah 11:3–5 employs Exod

V. Conclusion

91

23:22 (E-Source), which invokes obedience to Moses alone, and Deut 27:15 and 26, which mandate obedience to D’s laws, for same purpose. The subversive element of the interaction with D is also perceivable in Jer 1:7–9. This passage uses language from D’s prophet law to portray Jeremiah as a prophet like Moses but bypasses the limitation placed on prophets in that text. A reversal appears in Jer 1:8’s reuse of the “do not fear” motif from Deut 18:22. According to the author of Jer 1, it is not the people who would fear the prophet, but the prophet who would fear the rebellious and recalcitrant people. The remaining allusions continue to liken Jeremiah’s prophetic authority to that of Moses. Jeremiah 21:8–10 characterizes Jeremiah’s command to submit to the Babylonians through the words of Deut 30:15, 19. Deuteronomy 30 offers a choice between life and death that hinges on obedience or disobedience to D’s Mosaic law. The allusion to this passage asserts that obeying Jeremiah’s command is equally as vital as obeying Moses’s. Similarly, Jer 26:2 adapts Deut 13:1’s cannon formula and applies it to the words of Jeremiah. Reproducing the prohibition of subtracting from the prophetic word but not the prohibition of adding gives a perspective on the ideological difference between the two texts. For D, nothing can be added that will be of equal authority to D, yet Jer 26:2 treats Jeremiah’s post-Mosaic prophetic word as of equal gravity. Where D imagines individualized punishment for ignoring the words of the consultative post-Mosaic prophets, Jer 26:2 elevates obedience to post-Mosaic prophecy to a national concern fully equivalent to the necessity of obeying D’s covenant. Finally, Jer 36:28 likens the recopying of Jeremiah’s scroll to the second writing of the Decalogue. That 36:28 is likely non-DtrJ is potentially significant. It suggests that the comparison between Moses and Jeremiah was part of the narrative tradition prior to DtrJ. It should be noted, however, that the subversive element seen in some of the other passages is not present in Jer 36:28. The passage used, either Deut 10:1–2 or Exod 34:1, does not make specific claims about exclusive Mosaic authority, and so its use does not function to transform such claims for the purpose of supporting Jeremianic authority. The effort to transform D’s prophetic ideology, therefore, remains the exclusive concern of DtrJ. These allusions demonstrate a complexity at the heart of the relationship between DtrJ and D. These DtrJ passages cite law (Deut 18:18–22; 13:1, 6), narrative (Deut 5:33), curse (Deut 27:15–26), and hortatory discourse (Deut 30:15, 19). The ideological tension between the views of post-Mosaic prophetic authority in D and Jeremiah combined with instances of transformative interpretation of D in Jeremiah show the DtrJ authors engaging in what Levinson has termed a “rhetoric of concealment” – a mode of interaction in which the transformation of the source text is deliberately concealed in the service of innovation.186 This characterization builds on Levinson’s observation that innovation and renewal in an186 Levinson,

Legal Revision (2008) 48.

92

Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority

cient Israelite texts was often covert rather than explicit.187 He has observed this primarily in legal literature, and the plausible reason he gives for its use in that corpus is that transformative exegesis becomes necessary for legal innovation in a context where previous legal corpora are given divine authority (in contrast to Hittite legal literature, for example, where innovations could simply be noted).188 The transformations of D in DtrJ, however, differ from those observable in the legal codes where, generally, one code appears to seek to subvert and replace the other.189 The repeated appeals to D in passages directed against false prophets show that DtrJ both assumes the continued validity of D and draws on its authority as decisive in settling controversy. Nevertheless, the rhetoric of concealment comes into play as the DtrJ authors set out to reserve for Jeremiah a prophetic autonomy and authority equal to Moses’s. To this end, Jer 7:23 constructs out of Deut 5:33 a Mosaic justification for the view that the primary command of the wilderness period was obedience to post-Mosaic prophets. Such a move represents a decision not to ignore the ideological tension, but rather to subvert it by hermeneutical fiat. A text that originally adjured obedience to D now adjures obedience to Jeremiah. A similar dynamic, I have argued, is at play in Jer 11:3–5. Viewed from this perspective, all the other allusions that equate Jeremiah’s revelation to Moses’ (Jer 21:8–10; 26:2; 36:28) can be seen as a covert means of undermining D’s claim to exclusive authority. This suggests that the portrayal of Jeremiah as a prophet like Moses represents a strategy for overcoming the limitations that D imposes on post-Mosaic prophecy.

187 Ibid,

20–22.  Ibid, 48. 189  On D’s use and subversion of the Covenant Code, see Levinson, Hermeneutics (1997); on H’s use of P, D, and the Covenant Code, see Stackert, Rewriting the Torah (2007). 188

Chapter Three

Allusions To Deuteronomy 28 Fourteen passages in Jeremiah contain close lexical and thematic parallels to Deut 28 (Jer 5:15–17; 7:33; 9:15; 15:3–4; 16:4; 16:13; 19:7–9; 24:9; 28:14; 29:5–7; 29:18; 32:41; 34:17–20; 42:16). These parallels have been widely recognized, but scholars have explained their nature in different ways. Some scholars cite the shared themes and images that appear in curses across ANE literature and claim that Deut 28 and Jeremiah independently draw on this ANE tradition.1 The high density of lexical parallels, however, has led many other scholars to posit literary dependence. Most scholars who see literary dependence have argued that Jeremiah serves as a source for Deut 28.2 Supporting this conclusion are literary divisions of Deut 28 that suggest the parallels with Jeremiah occur in later strata of that chapter. Scholars have frequently noticed a significant degree of stylistic and organizational difference between vv. 1–44 and 47–68 that suggests the latter section represents one or more later expansions.3 Given such a division, it will not escape notice that six of the parallels between Jeremiah and D contain parallels to Deut 28:47–68, and – apart from Jer 29:5–7 / ​Deut 28:30–32 – the remaining parallels are to Deut 28:25–26, or some element thereof. Deuteronomy 28:25–26, in turn, has also been identified by some as a late addition.4 The result is that almost every parallel between Jeremiah and Deut 28 occurs in a passage that could represent a late addition to Deut 28. The apparent lateness of these passages in Deut 28 suggests that the expander of this chapter may have repeatedly drawn on Jeremiah in the procession of expansion. 1  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 138–46, argues that DtrJ draws from Neo-Assyrian treaty language without mentioning the possible influence of Deut 28. Similar arguments are put forward for specific parallels by Hillers, Treaty-curses (1964) 33, 68–69; Seitz, Studien (1971) 292–94; Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 262. 2  Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia (1894) 33; Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 35; Hyatt, JNES 1 (1942) 172–73; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 97, n. 64; Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 351; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 62–63; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 75–76; Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 259, 263–64, 338, 348–50. 3 Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 349–50. Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 491–92, admits that this section marks a sharp divergence from 1–44, though he points out that the expansions in 45–57 and 58–68 may have occurred in the pre-exilic period. 4 Seitz, Studien (1971) 279–81; Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 350–51; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 62; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 76. Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 259–61, argues that 25b is an insertion but that 25a and 26 are original to vv. 20–44.

94

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

The primary problem with the treatment of these parallels is that scholars have invoked their existence without analyzing in depth the nature of the paralleled language or the potential interpretive processes at work in each case. While the composition of Deut 28 is certainly relevant to the question, an analysis of each of the allusions can offer an independent perspective from which to evaluate literary-critical conclusions reached by other means. Two considerations support this. First, literary critical conclusions are by nature tentative. A number of scholars have pointed to the shifts in topic, form, and logic that characterize curse lists in other ANE texts, and questioned the use of such shifts for literary divisions of Deut 28.5 Second, even if the proposed divisions of Deut 28 are correct, it may be that the book of Jeremiah alluded to an already expanded version of the chapter. Georg Fischer has recently addressed the parallels between Jeremiah and Deut 28 in a study that prioritizes analysis of the interpretive processes recoverable from these parallels.6 Bypassing discussions of composition by placing all of the Jeremian passages in the post-exilic period,7 Fischer focuses on the literary relationship between the texts. Fischer’s analysis, which highlights a handful of close parallels, finds literary evidence that Jeremiah is the alluding text on the basis of the nature of the literary relationships involved. Since the parallels in Jeremiah appear to be adaptations, elaborations, and in some cases reversals, of Deut 28, Fischer argues that Jeremiah must be the alluding text. Though the approach is promising, some aspects of Fischer’s presentation are problematic. His list of non-exclusive links between Jeremiah and Deut 28 includes many items that are not sufficiently unique to establish a connection, which, in turn, limits the value of his conclusions concerning the scope of Jeremiah’s interaction with Deut 28.8 Further detracting from the persuasiveness of the argument is Fischer’s limited engagement with potential alternative explanations of the phenomena. The shift of the role of speaker to God in Jer 28:14’s use of Deut 5 Hillers,

Treaty-curses (1964) 32–34, Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 128–29, Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 489–90, and Nelson, Deuteronomy (2002) 326–27 all point out that ANE treaty-curse discourse is often characterized by repetition and changes in style and form. The shifts present in Deut 28, therefore, may be just as much a feature of the genre as evidence for stratification. Driver rejects dividing this chapter on the basis of what he considers rhetorically deliberate use of repetition (Deuteronomy [1902] 303). 6 Fischer, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 43–49. 7  Ibid., 49. 8  Ibid., 45–46. These parallels include two-word lexical parallels that occur together elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Jer 32:39 / ​Deut 28:7, 25; Jer 9:15 / ​Deut 28:21; Jer 6:28 / ​Deut 28:23; Jer  15:12 / ​Deut  28:23; Jer  21:12 / ​Deut  28:29; Jer  20:4 / ​Deut  28:32; Jer  2:27 / ​Deut  28:36; Jer  6:7 / ​ Deut 28:61), single-words that occur elsewhere (Jer 30:6 / ​Deut 28:22; Jer 13:21 / ​Deut 28:44; Jer  6:2 / ​Deut  28:56; Jer  31:2 / ​Deut  28:65), a common three-word collocation (Jer  31:12 / ​Deut 28:51), a common grammatical construction (Jer 31:28 / ​Deut 28:63), and two instances of one or two-word unique lexical collocations that nevertheless lack a convincing interpretation process (Jer 48:40 / ​Deut 28:49; Jer 31:25 / ​Deut 28:65).

95

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

28:48, for instance, could represent either text’s adaptation of the other to its own participant reference structure.9 Likewise, his characterization of Jer 5:15 as clarifying Deut 28:49 is based on his assessment that the latter’s ‫לא תשמע לשנו‬, “you do not hear / ​understand their tongue,” is “quite puzzling / ​perplexing.”10 This assessment, however, overlooks the well-attested use of ‫ שמע‬for “understanding a language” (Gen 11:7; 42:23; 2 Kgs 18:26; Isa 33:19; Ezek 3:6). Fischer’s overall conclusion, however, appears to be correct, and the example of reversal that he highlights (Jer 32:41 / ​Deut 28:63) is an important evidence in favor of Jeremiah as the alluding text. While the present study will argue for literary allusions in Jeremiah to Deut 28, the stereotyped language of curses in ANE texts raises the possibility of thematic and lexical parallels between these texts arising from a shared tradition rather than literary dependence. An illustrative example appears in a parallel between the Eshmunazor inscription and two prophetic passages: KAI 14:11b–12a ’l ykn lm šrš lmṭ wpr lm‘l

2 Kgs 19:30 / ​Isa 37:31

Amos 2:9b

wysph plyṭt byt yhwdh hnš’rh w’šmyd pryw mm‘l wšršyw šrš lmṭh w‘śh pry lm‘lh mtḥt

May they have neither root May the remaining survivor of the house of Judah add below nor fruit above. root below and produce fruit above.

I destroyed his fruit above and his roots below.

The lexical parallels are striking. The combination of “root below” and “fruit above” appears nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The Phoenician inscription and 2 Kgs 19:30 / ​Isa 37:31 also share a word for “below,” mṭ / ​mṭh, that is relatively rare in Biblical Hebrew, occurring elsewhere only 13 times (compared to the 517 uses of ‫)תחת‬. Nevertheless, it is out of the question that literary borrowing occurred between 2 Kgs 19:30 / ​Isa 37:31 and Eshmunazor. A common curse tradition explains the parallel. The existence of traditions that include lexically fixed expressions should put a check on tracing allusions between Jeremiah and Deut 28. Sommer’s warning against counting language belonging to common literary genres as allusive11 is particularly relevant to curse texts. This study, therefore, will seek to exclude spurious examples that potentially fall into this category. Several principles can help guard against this possibility. First, lexical parallels that include the juxtaposition of separate curses are more likely to be literary. While the lexical parallels to Eshmunazor in 2 Kgs 19:30 / ​ Isa 37:31 and Amos 2:9b are striking, the parallels to not extend to a larger sequence or juxtaposition. Second, a higher degree of lexical matching than  Ibid. 47, 49.  Ibid. 47. 11 Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 32–34, 108–110.  9

10

96

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

merely phrase-level parallels can indicate a literary relationship. Third, and most importantly, the allusive quality of a parallel must be supported by the presence of an interpretative process in the alluding text that activates the source text in some way. If all that links two texts is shared curse language, there is a strong possibility that the parallel represents merely a shared curse tradition. These principles make it possible to exclude a number of parallels that scholars have proposed between Jeremiah and Deut 28. Many suggestions must be excluded on the basis of the limited nature of their lexical connections and the shared curse genre.12 The lexical connections proposed by these scholars are real, yet none is more extensive or striking than the connections between Eshmunazor in 2 Kgs 19:30 / ​Isa 37:31 and Amos 2:9b. Other connections have been proposed that do not involve curse language, but whose lexical parallels are also too limited to support a literary allusion.13 With the bar for identifying allusions to curse-texts thus raised, the following discussion will proceed by providing in the first case an analysis of each proposed 12 In addition to the spurious parallels in Fischer, Sem et Clas 5 (2012), which are listed in note 8 above, the following proposals are to be rejected as potentially shared curse-language rather than literary allusion: Jer 8:2, 9:21 / ​Deut 28:26 (Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 [2012] 219); Jer  50:33 / ​Deut  28:29, 33 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 586, 632); Jer 31:5 / ​Deut 28:30 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 148); Jer 15:14, 17:4 / ​Deut 28:36 (Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 [2012] 219); Jer  22:26, 28 / ​Deut  28:36 (Rom-Shiloni, Birkat Shalom [2008] 116; idem, HeBAI 1 [2012] 219); Jer 5:19 / ​Deut 28:36, 64 (Rom-Shiloni, Birkat Shalom [2008] 116–18); Jer 30:8–9 / ​Deut 28:47– 48 (Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 [2009] 260–61); Jer 6:2 / ​Deut 28:54, 56 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 262): similar to the case of mṭ / ​mṭh in Eshmunazor and 2 Kgs 19:30 / ​Isa 37:31, the use of a striking term for “delicate,” ‫ענג‬, is not enough to establish this as literary allusion rather than the activati o n of a common curse tr adition; Jer 6: 7  / ​Deut 28:59, 61 (F ischer, Je rem ia 1–25 [2005] 266); Jer 31:2 / ​Deut 28:65 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 146); Jer 44:18 / ​Deut 28:48, 57 (and Deut 8:9) (Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah [2013] 98 [Hebrew]): while I do not dispute the DtrJ character of Jer 44, the phrase “to lack everything,” could plausibly be drawn from a curse tradition rather than Deut 8:9, 28:48, 57. Arguments for allusions to Jeremiah in Deut 28 are subject to the identical criticism: Deut 28:20 / ​Jer 4:4, 21:12, 44:22 (Steymans, VE 24 [2013] 5–6): the use of the similar expression in Isa 1:16 and Hos 9:15, combined with what has already been observed regarding the stereotyped nature of the curse-genre, renders the phrase “because of the evil of your deeds” insufficient to support an allusion to Jeremiah. 13 Jer 14:9 / ​Deut 28:10 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 478–79): the lexical parallels in the phrase “to call the name of Yahweh upon Israel” are both lexically weak and attested elsewhere in Amos 9:12 and Isa 63:19; Jer 50:25 / ​Deut 28:12 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 583, 632): the lexical parallel does not extend beyond the clause “Yahweh opened his storehouse” (cf. the similar image and language in Mal 3:10); Jer 11:8, 11 / ​Deut 28:15 ff. (Römer, Isräel Construit son Histoire [1996] 432–33, n. 60): though the reference to bringing “the words of this covenant against them” (Jer 11:8) is plausibly a reference to the curses of Deut 28, no lexical parallels support an allusion to that chapter; Jer 31:12 / ​Deut 28:51, 7:13 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 154): the terms in this case, “grain, new wine, and oil,” appear designating agricultural abundance, and associated offerings, in a number of passages besides Jer 31:12 / ​Deut 28:51 (Num 18:12; Deut 7:13; 11:14; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; 2 Kings 18:32; Hos 2:10, 24; Joel 1:10; 2:19; Hag 1:11; 2 Chr 31:5; 32:28; Neh 5:11; 10:40; 13:5, 12); Jer 25:13 / ​Deut 28:58; 29:19–20, 26; 30:10 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 743): “all that is written in this book” is simply a way of referring to doing something in accordance with a document (cf. 1 Kgs 21:11).

I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26

97

allusion. This study will focus on the interpretive processes embedded in the use of a literary source as well as on the internal and external evidence for direction of dependence. The analysis will show that in every case, Deut 28 appears to be a source for the authors of Jeremiah. The curses of Deut 28 appeared to be a favorite text for the DtrJ authors, but in three instances, Jer 5:15–17, 28:14, and 29:5–7, a pre-DtrJ passage also alluded to D’s covenant curses. The evaluation of the perspective on D in these allusions is complex. The majority use the language of D’s curses to announce the coming judgment against Judah and Jerusalem. Such citation, however, does not necessarily imply that D functions as a religious authority. The possibility of redeploying curse-language from a text not considered authoritative is demonstrated by the use of the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (VTE) by the authors of Deut 28 itself (as well as Deut 13).14 Whatever the reason for this use of VTE, the author of Deut 28 certainly does not accept the religious claims of the source text, namely, that the deities of the Assyrian pantheon will enact curses for treason against Esarhaddon and his successor. Instead, the curses proved rhetorically useful for the Deuteronomic author’s own curses, and so they were adapted and incorporated into Deut 28. The use of a curse by itself, therefore, does not imply that the author has adopted the religious claims of the source text. Thus, in evaluating the allusions to Deut 28 in Jeremiah, attention will have to be given to the extent to which the allusion ascribes authority to D. The clearest indication of assent to D’s authority are cases where the violation of D’s covenant leads to the experience of D’s curses. In cases where D’s curses are used, but in no way attached to D itself, the possibility of D’s being used as a prestigious text rather than an authority cannot be ruled out.

I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26 Seven passages in the book of Jeremiah contain lexical parallels to Deut 28:25–26 (Jer 7:33; 15:3–4; 16:4; 19:7, 9; 24:9; 29:18; 34:17, 20): ‫יתנך יהוה נגף לפני איביך בדרך אחד תצא אליו ובשבעה דרכים תנוס לפניו והיית לזעוה לכל ממלכות הארץ‬ ‫והיתה נבלתך למאכל לכל עוף השמים ולבהמת הארץ ואין מחריד‬ May Yahweh set you stricken before your enemies. In one path you will go out to them, and in seven paths you will flee from them. You will become a cause of trembling to all the kingdoms of the earth. Your corpse will be food for all the birds of the sky and beasts of the ground, with none to scare [them] off. 14  Cf., for example, the discussions in Frankena, OtSt 14 (1965) 144–54; Weinfeld, Biblica 46 (1965) 417–27; idem, Deuteronomic School (1972) 116–29; Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 497; Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 292–300; Otto, ZAR 2 (1996) 38, 40–47; Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 497; Nelson, Deuteronomy (2002) 326, n. 1; Levinson and Stackert, JAJ 3 (2012) 129–30.

98

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

These passages sometimes include parallels to both verses of Deut 28:25–26, sometimes parallels to only one. In some cases, they include parallels to other passages from Deut 28. There are several possible explanations for these repeated parallels. They could have been independently generated from the same reservoir of stereotyped curse language, or one of these texts could have borrowed from the other. Further, if Deut 28 does in fact serves as a source for Jeremiah, it does not necessarily follow that each instance represents an allusion to this text. The book of Jeremiah is characterized by a high degree of inner-Jeremian repetition, some of which was produced by later compositional strata.15 Some of these doublets in Jeremiah, therefore, could have been generated on the basis of texts within Jeremiah that alluded to Deut 28. If this occurred, it could produce unintended parallels to Deut 28. Such parallels would not represent allusions – although the possibility that a passage in Jeremiah alludes to Deut 28 while at the same time reusing another passage in Jeremiah that also alludes to Deut 28 cannot be excluded. The following discussion will seek to sort out these possibilities by analyzing each of the parallel passages in context. Evidence will be sought in each case for direction of dependence as well as the potential for inner-Jeremian repetition. The analysis will show that all of these parallels in Jeremiah belong to DtrJ, and that most are best understood as allusions to Deut 28. What is more, almost every case of a parallel to Deut 28:25–26 in Jeremiah includes features parallel to Deut 28:25–26 that are unique to that text in Jeremiah. This means that while allusions to Deut 28:25–26 became a recurrent pattern for DtrJ, the pattern did not degenerate into clichéd phraseology. To the contrary, almost every instance has allusively activated this source text anew. Though the language is indeed repetitive, this phenomenon shows that we meet in these instances with something more than what Weinfeld saw as “stereotyped and ossified formulations reflecting the dry, rational mentality of the scribes.”16 Instead, we meet with scribal authors engaged in the reading and interpretation of Deut 28. Among those who argue for strata in Deut 28, many single out vv. 25b–26 as a late insertion into an otherwise older context. Such arguments often invoke the parallels to Jeremiah, understood as borrowings from Jeremiah, as evidence supporting the lateness of these verses in Deut.17 As I will show in the following discussion, however, the direction of dependence between almost every parallel between Jeremiah and Deut 28:25–26 can be decided in favor of the priority of Deut 28.

 See especially the comprehensive study in Parke-Taylor, Formation (2000). Deuteronomic School (1972) 138. 17  Steuernagel, Übersetzung (1900) 101; Hölscher, ZAW 40 (1922) 221, n. 2; Hyatt, JNES 1 (1942) 172; Seitz, Studien (1971) 288–89; Weippert, Prosareden (1973) 152, 186; Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 351, 354. 15

16 Weinfeld,

99

I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26

In addition to the Jeremian parallels, Seitz employs a form-critical criterion to identify vv. 25b–26 as a later expansion of the original curse in 25a.18 According to Seitz, the original curses of the section invoke the name of Yahweh with a jussive describing the judgment, as in v. 25a, and these original curses were elaborated in subsequent redactions. The shift to a 2ms perfect consecutive in 25b–26, according to Seitz, betrays the hand of a later expander. Steymans, however, has criticized this argument on the basis of other ANE texts that show various curse-forms appearing side by side in unified compositions.19 A shift in verbal form and participant reference, therefore, is not by itself a reliable criterion for sorting out the strata of a series of curses. Before moving to the analysis of the passages themselves, external evidence for the originality of v. 26 can be adduced. This verse participates in a network of reuse of VTE in Deut 28:20–44 that is particularly dense in vv. 26–35.20 Verse 26’s corpse exposure curse finds a parallel in VTE § 4121: Deut 28:26

VTE § 41

‫ והיתה נבלתך למאכל לכל עוף השמים ולבהמת‬Ninurta ašarid ilānī ina šiltāḫišu šam‫ הארץ ואין מחריד‬ri lišamqitkunu damīkunu limalli ṣēru šīrkunu erû zību lišākil Your corpse will become food for all the birds of the sky and the beasts of the land, with none to scare [them] off.

May Ninurta, first among the gods, overthrow you with his fierce arrow. May he fill the steppeland with your blood. May he feed your flesh to eagles and jackals.

This thematic correspondence would perhaps not be so impressive if it did not appear in a sequence of other curses in both Deut 28 and VTE that occur in close proximity nowhere else in the ancient Near Eastern literature (Deut 28:26  // VTE § 41; Deut 28:27  // VTE § 39; Deut 28:28–29  // VTE § 40; Deut 28:30, 32–33 // VTE § 42.). This correspondence strongly suggests that Deut 28 is here directly dependent on VTE, a possibility heightened now by the discovery of a copy of this treaty in a sanctuary at Tell Tayinat, which proves that copies of the treaty were sent to western vassals.22 Deuteronomy 28:26, therefore, participates in a close network of reuse of VTE § 39–42. Given Deut 28:26’s connection to Deut 28’s reuse of VTE, it is unlikely that Deut 28:26 also uses the Jeremian texts  Seitz, Studien (1979) 279–81, followed by Holladay, CBQ 66 (2004) 76.  Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 254. 20 Frankena, OtSt 14 (1965) 144–54; Weinfeld, Biblica 46 (1965) 417–27; idem, Deuteronomic School (1972) 116–29; Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 497; Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 292–300; Otto, ZAR 2 (1996) 38, 40–47; Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 497; Nelson, Deuteronomy (2002) 326, n. 1; Levinson and Stackert, JAJ 3 (2012) 129–30. 21  There is some debate on whether zību refers to a jackal or vulture. Cf. CAD, Z (1961) 106. 22  On the significance of Tell Tayinat for this discussion, see Levinson and Stackert, JAJ 3 (2012) 130, n. 13, 132; Steymans, VE 34 (2013) 1–13. 18 19

100

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

for two reasons.23 First, as has been pointed out by a number of scholars, this reuse of VTE in Deut 28 is most likely dated to the Neo-Assyrian period when access to VTE or a similar text would have been most likely.24 This historical context suggests an earlier date for this section of Deut 28 than even the earliest texts of Jeremiah, much less the later DtrJ stratum that accounts for all the parallels to Deut 28:26 in Jeremiah. Second, the procedure that would be involved if Deut 28:26 used these Jeremian passages appears unnecessarily complex. This proposal would require that the author of Deut 28:26 first selected the theme of the exposure of corpses as food for animals from VTE § 41, identified passages in Jeremiah that expressed this theme, and then used these Jeremian passages as a model for formulating the parallel to VTE § 41. It is less complex and more likely that the authors of Deut 28 simply produced their own formulation of the source text as they did with the other curses borrowed from VTE. These observations make it likely that Deut 28:26 served as the source for the parallels in Jeremiah. This conclusion will be buttressed in the analysis of the interpretive processes in each example explored below. This line of argumentation, however, does not apply to Deut 28:25b since it does not participate in Deut 28’s reuse of VTE. Steymans, though rejecting the form critical reason for assigning 25b–26 to a secondary expander and arguing for the originality of v. 26 to its context, nevertheless claims to detect content-based deviations in 25b that mark it as a later interpolation.25 Neither of the arguments he advances for this proposal, however, is convincing. First, he points out that 25b is one of only three cases in Deut 28 that connect “peoples,” in this case “kingdoms,” in construct with ‫ארץ‬, “the land.” The other two cases appear in vv. 1, 10, and, according to Steymans, these belong to a later literary layer than the original layer of vv. 20–44. The phrases in each case, however, are not only different (‫גויי הארץ‬, “nations of the earth” in v. 1, ‫עמי הארץ‬, “peoples of the earth” in v. 10, and ‫ממלכות הארץ‬, “kingdoms of the earth” in v. 25), but also each appears with some frequency in the Hebrew Bible. They can thus be classified among the conventional language for foreign peoples shared by many authors of the Hebrew texts and not isolatable to, or even characteristic of, a single author or stratum.26  So also Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 261–62, 296–97. Deuteronomic School (1972) 116–29; Nelson, Deuteronomy (2002) 326, n. 1; Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 377; Levinson and Stackert, JAJ 3 (2012) 130. 25  Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 259. 26 References to each of these phrases outside of Deut 28 are as follows: ‫גויי הארץ‬: Gen 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; Jer 26:6; 33:9; 44:8; Zech 12:3; 2 Chr 32:13, 17; Ezra 6:21; ‫עמי הארץ‬: Gen 21:23; 23:7, 12–13; 42:6; Exod 5:5; Lev 4:27; 20:2, 4; Num 14:9; Josh 4:24; 1 Kings 8:43, 53, 60; 2 Kings 11:14, 18–20; 15:5; 16:15; 21:24; 23:30, 35; 24:14; 25:3, 19; Isa 24:4; Jer 1:18; 34:19; 37:2; 44:21; 52:6, 25; Ezek 7:27; 12:19; 22:29; 31:12; 33:2; 39:13; 45:16, 22; 46:3, 9; Zeph 3:20; Hag 2:4; Zech 7:5; 1 Chr 5:25; 2 Chr 6:33; 13:9; 23:13, 20–21; 26:21; 32:13, 19; 33:25; 36:1; Job 12:24; Esth 8:17; Dan 9:6; Ezra 3:3; 4:4; 9:1–2, 11; 10:2, 11; Neh 9:24, 30; 10:29, 31–32; ‫ממלכות הארץ‬: 2 Kgs 19:15, 19; Is 23

24 Weinfeld,

I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26

101

Steymans also claims that the shift in perspective from defeat on the battlefield (25a) to international reputation (25b) interrupts the connection seen elsewhere between military defeat and the exposure of corpses as food for animals (1 Sam 17:46; Jer 19:7; 34:20; Ezek 39:4). That these motifs are found juxtaposed elsewhere, however, is hardly evidence that they cannot be combined here with the motif of international reputation, as indeed they are also in Jer 19:7–8. Rather than being an interruption between 25a and 26, 25b describes one result of military defeat, becoming a “terror” to the other kingdoms who witness the destruction, and 26 describes another, the exposure of corpses as food for animals. Steymans’s conclusion that Deut 28:25b is a Jeremiah-influenced insertion,27 therefore, does not appear well-supported by this argumentation. What is more, if 25b is indeed “einen von Jeremia beeinflußten Einschub,”28 Steymans fails to answer the crucial question of what a reuse of Jeremiah accomplishes here and why an editor would add it. These considerations do not automatically prove that the parallels between 25b and Jeremiah reflect the priority of Deut 28:25b. They demonstrate rather that the argument for direction of dependence cannot be resolved on the basis of the compositional history of Deut 28. The evidence that remains to be addressed is the nature of the reuse itself and the possibility of tracing an interpretive process that can resolve the question of direction of dependence. This line of inquiry will be pursued below. The status of the curses of Deut 28:25b–26 with respect to their place in Deut 28 can now be summarized. The form-critical argument for separating 25b– 26 as a later expansion of 25a is unconvincing given similar verbal shifts in curse texts observed elsewhere. Likewise unconvincing are the contextual arguments for the secondary nature of 25b alone. Furthermore, v. 26’s unique relationship to VTE § 41 in the context of Deut 28:20–44’s reuse of VTE, and particularly in the close network of reuse in Deut 28:26–35, argues for its originality to this sequence of curses. This evidence creates a presumption that v. 26 does not make use of the language of Jeremiah, but leaves this possibility open with respect to v. 25b. The analysis of the allusions that follows will fill this gap and clarify the relationship between these texts.

1. Jer 15:3–4 and Deut 28:25–26 Two passages in Jeremiah include parallels to both verses of Deut 28:25–26. The first appears in Jer 15:3–4. This passage appears as a conclusion to a complex sequence that begins in 14:1 and, in its final form, addresses the threat of drought, 23:17; 37:16, 20; Jer 15:4; 24:9; 25:26; 29:18; 34:17; 1 Chr 29:30; 2 Chr 12:8; 17:10; 20:29; 36:23; Psa 68:33; Ezra 1:2. 27  Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 259, 263–64. 28 Idem, 259.

102

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

the people’s and prophet’s lamenting response, and Yahweh’s unwillingness to respond to lament or prophetic intercession.29 As Thiel demonstrates, the renewed introduction of divine speech in 14:11 opens a new section that treats the theme of the prohibition of prophetic intercession.30 The DtrJ affiliation of this section is established by its connection in both in language and theme to 7:16 and 11:14, both also DtrJ compositions, and by the DtrJ expression “with sword, with famine, and with pestilence” in 12b. Jeremiah 15:1–4 continues the theme of the prohibition of intercession, contains a Dtr phrase in v. 1,31 and introduces the uniquely Deuteronomistic notion of blaming Manasseh for the downfall of Judah.32Jeremiah is here forbidden from interceding for the people whose doom is assured. The lexical connections between Jer 15:3–4 and Deut 28:25–26 appear as part of the expression of the now unavoidable doom of the people and are as follows:33 Jer 15:3–4

‫ופקדתי עליהם ארבע משפחות נאם יהוה את החרב‬ ‫להרג ואת הכלבים לסחב ואת עוף השמים ואת‬ ‫בהמת הארץ לאכל ולהשחית ונתתים לזועה לכל‬ ‫ממלכות הארץ בגלל מנשה בן יחזקיהו מלך יהודה‬ ‫על אשר עשה בירושלם‬ I will appoint against them four types [of punishment], declares Yahweh, the sword to kill, the dogs to drag, the bird of the sky and the beast of the ground to devour and to destroy. I will turn them into a cause of trembling to all the kingdoms of the earth, because of what Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem.

Deut 28:25–26

‫יתנך יהוה נגף לפני איביך בדרך אחד תצא אליו‬ ‫ובשבעה דרכים תנוס לפניו והיית לזעוה לכל‬ ‫ממלכות הארץ והיתה נבלתך למאכל לכל עוף‬ ‫השמים ולבהמת הארץ ואין מחריד‬ May Yahweh set you stricken before your enemies. In one path you will go out to them, and in seven paths you will flee from them. You will become a cause of trembling to all the kingdoms of the earth. Your corpse will be food for all the birds of the sky and beasts of the ground, with none to scare [them] off.

29  Cf. the treatments of this passage in McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 315–36, and Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 418–44, who extends the passage to 15:9. 30 Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 182–83, followed by McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 335–36. 31  “To dismiss before the face of the Lord” (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 347). 32 Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 189–90. For similar reasons, Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 100, assigns all of 14:1–15:4 to DtrJ. Halpern, VT 48 (1998) 511–12, suggests that Jeremiah is the origin of this tradition of blaming Manasseh. This proposal does not address the fact that this theme represents a blind motif in Jeremiah. Nothing in the book as a whole or the DtrJ strand in particular prepares for or develops the idea that Manasseh is to blame for the judgment on Judah. It appears more plausible to see that theme as developed originally in Kings and included here, but not developed, by a DtrJ expander. 33  Fischer, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 45, notes the parallel to Deut 28:25 on the word ‫ זעוה‬here, in Jer 24:9 and 29:18, but strangely leaves the same parallel in 34:17 unmentioned. The parallel to v. 25 is noted also by McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 336.

I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26

103

The phrase-level parallels are dense. Very distinctive is the phrase “to become a cause of trembling34 to all the kingdoms of the earth.” Apart from Deut 28:25 and Jer 15:4, this phrase occurs only in Jer 24:9, 29:18, and 34:17, each of which will be discussed below. While “bird of the heavens” is a fairly common idiom, “beast of the earth” appears outside Deut 28:26 and its Jeremian parallels only in Isa 18:6. Jeremiah 5:13–14 and Deut 28:25–26, therefore, contain two nearly identical curses in immediate juxtaposition, though with inverse order. This juxtaposition combined with the close lexical parallels makes it likely that this parallel represents a literary allusion.35 The counter-claim that this parallel is better accounted for on the basis of a common curse-tradition rather than literary borrowing fails to account for this evidence. Hillers has pointed out that the denial of a proper burial is a common curse in both ANE treaties and the Hebrew Bible. This observation leads him to account for the parallels between Deut 28:26 and Jeremiah on the basis of this common tradition.36 Comparing the other examples of the corpse exposure curse in the Hebrew Bible to Deut 28:26 and Jer 15:3 – and the other parallels discussed in this chapter – however, leads to the opposite conclusion. A number of instances involving lack of burial neither invoke the theme of animals eating the corpses nor show any lexical connection to Deut 28:26.37 Of the texts that do include reference to the consumption of corpses by animals, none describes it in the same way as Deut 28:26 and its Jeremian parallels. The examples in Kings all invoke ‫כלבים‬, “dogs,” and follow a particular pattern distinct from that in Deut 28:26.38 An example in Ezek 39:17–20 likewise describes exposure of corpses as food for animals without any lexical overlap with Deut 28:26 other than the common lexeme ‫אכל‬, “eat.” The strongest parallel to Deut 28:26 outside of Jeremiah occurs in Ps 79:2–3, though this passage lacks the distinctive ‫בהמת הארץ‬, “beast of the earth” that distinguishes Deut 28:26 and its parallels in Jeremiah. Moreover, the

34 The difference between ‫זעוה‬, which appears in Deut 28:25 as well as the Qere for this term in Jer 15:4, 24:9, 29:18, 34:17, and 2 Chr 29:8, and ‫זועה‬, which appears as the Ketib of Jer 15:4, 24:9, 29:18, 34:17, and 2 Chr 29:8 and only once without Qere in Isa 28:19, is plausibly accounted for as a dialectical difference arising from metathesis. 35  Noted also by Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 189 and Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 487–98. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 62, idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 76, acknowledges the allusion but understands Jeremiah as the source text. 36  Hillers, Treaty-curses (1964) 33, 68–69. 37  Ps 83:11; Isa 5:25; Jer 8:2; 9:21; 14:16; 22:19; 25:33; 36:30. 38 One pattern is represented by the following three examples: ‫ת בשדה יאכלו עוף השמים‬ ‫ המת לירבעם בעיר יאכלו הכלבים והמ‬1 Kgs 14:11a ‫ המת לבעשא בעיר יאכלו הכלבים והמת ל ו בשדה יאכלו עוף השמים‬1 Kgs 16:4 ‫ת בשדה יאכלו עוף השמים‬ ‫ המת לאחאב בעיר יאכלו הכלבים והמ‬1 Kgs 21:24 A second pattern makes use of similar language in reference to Jezebel: ‫ ואת איזבל יאכלו הכלבים בחלק יזרעאל ואין קבר‬2 Kgs 9:10 ‫ בחלק יזרעאל יאכלו הכלבים את בשר איזבל‬2 Kgs 9:36b

104

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

high degree of influence of the book of Jeremiah on Ps 79 as a whole suggests that the parallel to Deut 28:26 in Ps 79:2–3 is mediated through Jeremiah.39 These parallels show that while a curse of corpse-exposure as food for animals is not unique, the expression of this type of curse is not standardized. The theme is common in the Hebrew Bible, but the specific formulation of it is not. Thus, the close lexical parallels between the corpse-exposure curses (Jer 15:3b / ​Deut 28:26) as well as the “cause of trembling” curses (Jer 15:4a / ​Deut 28:25) combined with their juxtaposition argues in favor of a literary relationship. It is this congruency, which can now be contrasted with other similarly themed curses in the Hebrew Bible, that argues for a literary parallel between Jer 15 and Deut 28. The following considerations support Deut 28’s priority in this parallel. First, as already indicated above, Deut 28:26 likely dates to the Neo-Assyrian period due to its correspondence to VTE § 41. Like the other parallels to VTE, Deut 28:26 represents the author’s adaptation of its Assyrian source. Thus, external considerations support the priority of Deut 28:26 with respect to its parallel in Jer 15:3. Since Jer 15:3 draws on Deut 28:26, it follows that Deut 28:25b is also the likely source for the parallel in Jer 15:4. The alternative proposal that Jer 15:3 drew on Deut 28:26 while Deut 28:25b drew on Jer 15:4 would strain credulity. Far more plausible is the simpler solution: Jer 15:3–4 represents an allusion to Deut 28:25b–26. The presence of this allusion, and its direction, is confirmed by the interpretive process discovered here. Jeremiah 15:3–4 announces judgment against Judah grounded in the deeds of Manasseh, an accusation made elsewhere only in DtrH (2 Kgs 21:1–18; 23:26–27; 24:3–4). The allusion to Deut 28 thus functions to place responsibility on Manasseh for the breaking of D’s covenant and realization of D’s covenant curses.

2. Jer 34:17, 20 and Deut 28:25–26 Parallels to both verses of Deut 28:25–26 also appear in Jer 34:17, 20.40 Though these parallels occur in near proximity in Jer 34, they are not immediately juxtaposed as in Jer 15:3–4: Jer 34:17, 20

‫לכן כה אמר יהוה אתם לא שמעתם אלי לקרא דרור‬ ‫איש לאחיו ואיש לרעהו הנני קרא לכם דרור נאם‬

Deut 28:25–26

‫יתנך יהוה נגף לפני איביך בדרך אחד תצא אליו‬ ‫ובשבעה דרכים תנוס לפניו והיית לזעוה לכל‬

39  See Zenger’s list of parallels to Jeremiah in vv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6–7, 8, 9, 10, 12 (Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100 [2000] 447). 40  These parallels are noted by Weippert, Prosareden (1973) 151, 228, n. 5, and Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 62, idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 76, though both argue for Jeremiah as the source text rather than the alluding text.

105

I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26

Jer 34:17, 20

‫יהוה אל החרב אל הדבר ואל הרעב ונתתי אתכם‬ ‫לזועה לכל ממלכות הארץ‬ … ‫ונתתי אותם ביד איביהם וביד מבקשי נפשם והיתה‬ ‫נבלתם למאכל לעוף השמים ולבהמת הארץ‬ Therefore, thus says Yahweh: “You have not obeyed me by everyone announcing a release to his relative and neighbor. Behold, I am announcing a release to you, declares Yahweh, to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine. I will make you a cause of trembling to all the kingdoms of the earth. … And I will give them in the hand of their enemies and in the hand of those who seek their lives, and their corpse will become food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the ground.

Deut 28:25–26

‫ממלכות הארץ והיתה נבלתך למאכל לכל עוף‬ ‫השמים ולבהמת הארץ ואין מחריד‬

May Yahweh set you stricken before your enemies. In one path you will go out to them, but in seven paths you will flee from them. You will become a cause of trembling to all the kingdoms of the earth. Your corpse will be food for all the birds of the sky and beasts of the ground, with none to scare [them] off.

Once again, the relationship of Deut 28:26 to VTE supports the priority of D in this parallel. Included in v. 20, but not in the previous example of Jer 15:3, is the phrase “their corpse will become” as well as the nominal ‫ מאכל‬rather than the infinitival ‫לאכל‬. What is more, v. 20 here contains lexemes parallel to Deut 28:25a, “I will give” and “enemies” (underlined and bolded above), which were also not present in Jer 15:3–4. This suggests that Jer 34:17, 20 derives this language directly and independently from Deut 28:25–26 and does not merely repeat it from Jer 15:3–4. The same conclusion holds also for Jer 15:3–4. Since Jer 34:17, 20 alludes to both Deut 28:25b and 28:26, but separates these references, while Jer 15:3–4 preserves their immediate juxtaposition, Jer 15:3–4 likely draws directly from Deut 28:25b–26. It is important to emphasize that Jer 15:3–4 and Jer 34:17, 20 are the only texts in Jeremiah that allude to elements of both Deut 28:25 and 26, and these texts are best explained as independent allusions to Deut 28:25–26. The meaning of the allusion in Jer 34:17, 20 adds crucial corroboration for the priority of Deut 28:25b–26. At issue in Jer 34 is the failure of Zedekiah and the people to uphold the covenant (‫ברית‬, v. 13) that requires the release of Hebrew slaves at set times (v. 14). This law of slave manumission, as will be argued in ch. 4, cites Deut 15:1, 12. This passage thus cites D twice: first a specific law that was violated (Deut 15:1, 12) and then its punishment (Deut 28:25–26). The relationship between these two allusions is clear: violating D’s covenant leads to suffering D’s curses. The contrary possibility – that Deut 28:25–26 used Jer 34:17, 20 – would involve a complex and unlikely process. Such a process would involve the author of

106

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

Deut 28:25–26 first identifying a passage in Jeremiah that cited a Deuteronomic law as violated (Jer 34:14) and then borrowing part of the judgment for that offense (vv. 17, 20) to add to D’s curses. While such a process is not impossible, greater plausibility lies with the proposal that the author of Jer 34:12–22 alluded to D twice – citing it both as the source of the law that was violated and the judgment that followed. Finally, the language of this passage establishes its affiliation with DtrJ. Characteristic phrases include “house of bondage” (v. 13), “house upon which my name is called” (v. 15), “to do what is right in the eyes of Yahweh” (v. 15), as well as “they do not incline their ear” (v. 14), a phrase that appears in the Bible only in DtrJ (Jer 7:24, 26; 11:8; 17:23; 25:4; 34:14; 35:15; 44:5).41

3. Jer 7:33 and Deut 28:26 Two passages in Jeremiah contain parallels to Deut 28:26 alone. The first is Jer 7:33. This verse occurs in the midst of a DtrJ sermon that contains a dense array of characteristic phraseology, including a number of stereotypical phrases unique to the DtrJ portions of Jeremiah.42 The parallel to D in Jer 7:33 occurs as part of a series of judgments that are about to come on the people (32–34) for the sins of idolatry in the temple (30) and the burning of children at the Tophet (31). The judgments include the defiling of the Tophet (32), corpse exposure (33), and the silencing of joy (34). The inclusion of the phrase ‫אין מחריד‬, “with none to scare them off,” produces in Jer 7:33 an almost verbatim repetition of Deut 28:26 that is not duplicated in any of the other Jeremian parallels to this passage.43 Jer 7:33

‫והיתה נבלת העם הזה למאכל לעוף השמים‬ ‫ולבהמת הארץ ואין מחריד‬ The corpse of this people will become food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the ground, with none to scare [them] off.

Deut 28:26

‫והיתה נבלתך למאכל לכל עוף השמים ולבהמת‬ ‫הארץ ואין מחריד‬ Your corpse will be food for all the birds of the sky and beasts of the ground, with none to scare [them] off.

41  So Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 87–88; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 63–64; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 39–40; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 325–26, 335, 352. 42  On the DtrJ affiliation of the entire sermon (7:1–8:3), cf. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 68–71, and Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremiah 1–25 (1973) 103–34. For Dtr phraseology in the immediate context of 7:30–34, see entries in Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 322–23, 339, 352. 43  Fischer, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 45–46, lists this as an “exclusive connection” (idem, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 320, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2009] 283). It is recognized also by Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 128–29, and McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 180. Holladay understands Jer 7:33 to be the source text (Jeremiah 1 [1986] 270; idem, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 62; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 76).

107

I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26

These passages are identical except for two minor differences. Jeremiah 7:33 lacks Deut 28:26’s “all” before “the birds of the heavens,” and the reference attached to the corpse in each case matches the reference structure of its context: “your corpse” in Deut 28:26 and “the corpse of this people” in Jer 7:33. Apart from these minor differences, the passages are identical. While it is true that none of these phrases is unique, the identity of the phraseology cannot be adequately accounted for as stereotypical language, especially in light of the different ways that corpse exposure curses are formulated in the Hebrew Bible.44 The inclusion of ‫ אין מחריד‬in Jer 7:33 precludes explaining this passage as derived from one of the other texts from Jeremiah that contains parallels to Deut 28:26. The direction of dependence, as already suggested, is established adequately by noting the dependence of Deut 28:26 on VTE § 41.45 As in previous examples, this allusion functions in the context of a judgment oracle to announce that D’s covenant curses are about to come on Judah.

4. Jer 16:4 and Deut 28:26 Jeremiah 16:4bβ repeats once again the curse of exposure of corpses to birds and beasts in the context of a DtrJ affiliated passage.46 Jer 16:4bβ

‫והיתה נבלתם למאכל לעוף השמים ולבהמת הארץ‬ Their corpse will become food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the ground, with none to scare [them] off.

Deut 28:26

‫והיתה נבלתך למאכל לכל עוף השמים ולבהמת‬ ‫הארץ ואין מחריד‬ Your corpse will be food for all the birds of the sky and beasts of the ground, with none to scare [them] off.

The wording here is identical to Jer 34:20 and nearly identical to Jer 7:33. Since there is nothing further in the passage to link it to Deut 28:26, it is conceivable that it is adopted here from these parallels within the book of Jeremiah. Uncer44 Contra Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 262; Cf. Ezek 39:17–20 and 1 Kgs 14:11; 16:4; 21:24; 2 Kgs 9:10, 36 for other corpse-exposure curses that lack lexical parallels with Deut 28:26 and Jer 7:33. 45  Contra Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 62, idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 76, whose argument is based on the supposed secondary nature of Deut 28:25b–26, on which see above. Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 320, also sees Deut 28 as the source here. 46  While Mowinckel assigns this passage to his “A” source (Komposition [1914] 20), subsequent scholarship has found affiliation with DtrJ. Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 93–97, followed by Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 81–82, and Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 196–97, notes the high degree of Dtr terminology, which is particularly strong in vv. 4, 9, 10–13, as well as its relationship to other DtrJ passages (16:9 is nearly identical to 7:34; “to come to an end with sword and with famine” [4bα] is nearly identical to 44:27). Cf. also the Dtr language registered by Weinfeld in vv. 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and the language specific to DtrJ in vv. 4, 6, and 9 (Deuteronomic School [1972] 320–21, 340–41, 348–49, 350, 352).

108

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

tainty about the precise process of composition of the DtrJ portions of the book, therefore, prevents concluding that Deut 28:26 is here specifically invoked.

5. Jer 29:18 and Deut 28:25 Jeremiah 29:18 contains a parallel to Deut 28:25b:47 Jer 29:18

‫ורדפתי אחריהם בחרב ברעב ובדבר ונתתים לזועה‬ ‫לכל ממלכות הארץ לאלה ולשמה ולשרקה ולחרפה‬ ‫בכל הגוים אשר הדחתים שם‬ I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence. I will make them a cause of trembling to all the kingdoms of the earth, a curse, a horror, and a reproach in all the nations where I will drive them.

Deut 28:25

‫יתנך יהוה נגף לפני איביך בדרך אחד תצא אליו‬ ‫ובשבעה דרכים תנוס לפניו והיית לזעוה לכל‬ ‫ממלכות הארץ‬ May Yahweh set you stricken before your enemies. In one path you will go out to them, and in seven paths you will flee from them. You will become a cause of trembling to all the kingdoms of the earth.

This verse in Jeremiah belongs to a substantial plus in the MT (vv. 16–20), which is itself characterized by extensive Dtr phraseology, including phrases characteristic of DtrJ alone.48 The parallel matches allusions to Deut 28:25b in Jer 15:4 and 34:17, but, in contrast to these other parallels, there are no further parallels to Deut 28 that would secure Jer 29:18 as an allusion to Deut 28:25. It is probable that the MT expander here simply reused this language without recognizing or specifically activating the allusion present in Jer 15:4 and 34:17.

6. Jer 19:7, 9 and Deut 28:26, 53 Two passages combine an element of Deut 28:25–26 with another curse from Deut 28. Jeremiah 19:7 and 9, which also belong to DtrJ,49 bring the cannibalism curse of Deut 28:53 into proximity to the corpse curse of Deut 28:26. The governing theme of ch. 19 as a whole is a prophetic sign act involving the breaking of pottery. The DtrJ portion of this chapter, especially in vv. 7–9, has many affinities with Jer 7:30–34, including the reference to the Tophet, child sacrifice, and the corpse exposure curse of Deut 28:26. Though this context suggests that the 47

 So also Fischer, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 45, who notes the parallel to Deut 28:25 on the word

‫ זעוה‬here, in Jer 15:14, and in 29:18.

 Cf. the Dtr and DtrJ phraseology registered by Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 334, 348, 351–52, 354. 49 This affiliation is supported by extensive Dtr phraseology as well as connection to other DtrJ texts in Jeremiah, particularly Jer 7. Cf. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 219–225; Hyatt VSH 1 (1956) 83; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 28–29, 321–22, 324, 341, 352, 349–50, 357. 48

109

I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26

reference to Deut 28:26 could have simply been drawn from Jer 7:33, the further reference to Deut 28:53 supports seeing this passage interacting independently with Deut 28. The lexical parallels between Jer 19:7b, 9 and Deut 28:26, 53 are quite close:50 Jer 19:7b, 9

Deut 28:26, 53

‫ונתתי את נבלתם למאכל לעוף השמים ולבהמת‬ ‫הארץ‬

‫והיתה נבלתך למאכל לכל עוף השמים ולבהמת‬ ‫הארץ ואין מחריד‬

‫והאכלתים את בשר בניהם ואת בשר בנתיהם ואיש‬ ‫בשר רעהו יאכלו במצור ובמצוק אשר יציקו להם‬ ‫איביהם ומבקשי נפשם‬

‫ואכלת פרי בטנך בשר בניך ובנתיך אשר נתן לך‬ ‫יהוה אלהיך במצור ובמצוק אשר יציק לך איבך‬

I will turn their corpse into food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the ground.

Your corpse will be food for all the birds of the sky and beasts of the ground, with none to scare [them] off.

And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters. Each will eat the flesh of his friend due to the siege and due to the distress with which their enemies, and those who seek their life, will oppress him.

You will eat the fruit of your belly, the flesh of your sons and your daughters, which Yahweh your god has given you, due to the siege and due to the distress with which your enemy will oppress you.

The parallels between the corpse exposure curses are of a piece with the other allusions to Deut 28:26 already observed. The lexical parallels in the cannibalism curse (Jer 19:9 and Deut 28:53) are also striking. The phrase ‫במצור ובמצוק אשר‬ ‫יציק לך איבך‬, “due to the siege and the distress with which your enemy will oppress you,” appears only in Deut 28:53, 55, 57 and Jer 19:9, with variation only in participant reference.51 In Deut 28, the people of Israel are referred to with 2ms references and the enemy is singular; in Jer 19:9, the people take 3mp pronouns and the enemies are plural. The close proximity of curses of corpse exposure and the cannibalism of offspring (Jer 19:7b, 9 and Deut 28:26, 53) combined with the high density of phrase and clause-level lexical correspondence establishes the presence of a literary allusion rather than an independent activation of a common curse-tradition. 50 Fischer,

Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 45, notes the parallel between Jer 19:9 and Deut 28:53.  Noted also by Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 63, who sees Jeremiah as the source, and Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 599, who sees Deut 28 as the source. One notes that in the phrase ‫יציק‬ ‫לך איבך‬, the MT of Deut 28:53, 55, 57 attests a singular subject in keeping with its contextual participant structure while Jer 19:9 attests a plural. A change in number to adapt to the participant reference structure of the alluding text is perfectly normal, but it is worth noting that the Samaritan Pentateuch and Targums Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti all attest plurals in Deut 28:53, 55, 57. The LXX also attests this plural in Deut 28:55. These shifts from the contextual structure are difficult to explain but could plausibly be accounted for as deriving from Jeremiah. If so, the MT’s singular could represent a later smoothing of the reference structure. 51

110

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

The dependence of Deut 28:26 on VTE § 41 supports its priority in relationship to Jer 19:7b. This in turn makes it far more likely that Jer 19:9 depends on Deut 28:53 than that the author of Deut 28:53 reuses curse language from a passage in Jer 19 that already refers to Deut 28.52 Further, though most scholars are not inclined to see interaction with VTE extending beyond Deut 28:20–44, Weinfeld has pointed out that this cannibalism curse occurs as a standard feature in Neo-Assyrian curses and appears in VTE § 47, lines 448–50.53 While this cannibalism curse in Deut 28:53 does not occur in a particularly dense network of reuses of VTE, the proximity of the parallel in VTE § 47 to the use of §§ 39–42 in Deut 28:26–35 should not be overlooked. It may be, as Weinfeld suggests, that this represents a further use of VTE. In what now appears as a systematic pattern of reuse, Jer 19 has again appropriated the corpse-curse of Deut 28:26. Uniquely in this instance, the author has added an allusion to the cannibalism curse of Deut 28:53. The author appears to have identified this second curse as a particularly appropriate punishment for those who have committed the sins of spilling innocent blood and burning children (vv. 4–5). Those who would seek to secure divine favor by sacrificing their children will ultimately have to resort to devouring them during a siege-induced famine. It should further be emphasized that despite the high degree of similarity between Jer 7:30–34 and Jer 19:7–9, each passage’s use of Deut 28 shows that neither is drawn exclusively from the other. Jeremiah 7:33’s allusion to Deut 28:26 could not have been drawn from 19:7b – or anywhere else in Jer – due to its unique inclusion of Deut 28:26’s ‫אין מחריד‬. Jeremiah 19:7b, 9 likewise could not have been drawn exclusively from Jer 7:33 due to v. 9’s unique inclusion of the allusion to Deut 28:53.

52 As Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 351–52, points out, this motif of cannibalism as a result of lack of food is common in Mesopotamian texts, though he does not consider it a part of Deut 28’s systematic use of VTE. Thus, it is prima facie possible that either Jer 19 or Deut 28 makes reference to this curse-tradition, though the argument presented here forwards the claim for the priority of Deut 28. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 63; idem., CBQ 66 (2004) 75, asserts that the “wordplay” between ‫ מצור‬and ‫ מצוק‬supports Jeremian priority of this parallel since he identifies such paronomasia as characteristic of Jeremiah. He does not consider the weight the proximate allusion to Deut 28:26 exerts on the question of dependence, nor does he consider the fact that the “wordplay” between ‫ מצור‬and ‫מצוק‬, which is probably better analyzed as alliteration, is a common literary technique used by many authors and genres in the Hebrew Bible. A similar device occurs elsewhere in Deut 28 in v. 22: ‫בחרחר ובחרב‬, “with fever and with dryness” and ‫בשדפון ובירקון‬, “with blight and with mildew.” Alliterative pairs, therefore, are not a reliable diagnostic tool for distinguishing dependence between Jeremiah and Deut 28. 53 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 126–27.

111

I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26

7. Jer 24:9 and Deut 28:25, 37 Jeremiah 24:9, another passage belonging to DtrJ,54 alludes to both Deut 28:25 and 28:37.55 The context for this allusion is the presentation and interpretation of a vision of good and bad figs. This passage emphasizes that those who went in the first exile are the inheritors of Yahweh’s favor (5–7) while those who remained in the land – or fled to Egypt – can expect only judgment (8–10). This chapter connects back to Jer 1 both in the presentation of visions (cf. 1:11–14, which also attests the question / ​answer vision form) and in the language of building / ​ planting and tearing down (cf. 1:10/24:6). Pointing explicitly back to Jeremiah’s appointment “against nations and kingdoms to uproot and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant,” Jer 24 clarifies that, for Judah, the message of building / ​planting is for the Babylonian exiles only. Within this context, Jer 24:9 directs curses of Deut 28 against those who remained in Judah. The lexical parallels between Jer 24:9 and Deut 28:25, 37 are illustrated below with a single underline indicating verbatim parallels and a double underline indicating semantic parallels employing different lexemes: Jer 24:9

‫ונתתים‬ ‫לזועה לרעה לכל ממלכות הארץ‬ ‫לחרפה ולמשל לשנינה ולקללה‬ ‫בכל המקמות אשר אדיחם שם‬ I will turn them into a cause of trembling, into an evil thing, to all the kingdoms of the earth, to a reproach, and a proverb, a cautionary tale,56 and a curse in all the places where I will banish them.

Deut 28:25b, 37

‫והיית‬ ‫לזעוה לכל ממלכות הארץ‬ ‫והיית‬ ‫לשמה למשל ולשנינה‬ ‫בכל העמים אשר ינהגך יהוה שמה‬ You will become a cause of trembling to all the kingdoms of the earth. You will become a desolation, a proverb, and a cautionary tale in all the peoples where Yahweh will lead you.

The parallel to Deut 28:25b repeats phrases seen there and adds “to an evil thing” – a probable gloss – after ‫זועה‬. The parallel to Deut 28:37 reproduces two distinct phrases. The first, “a proverb, and a cautionary tale” appears elsewhere in 1 Kgs 9:7 and 2 Chr 7:20. These four passages account for all occurrences of 54 For the DtrJ affiliation of this chapter, see Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 84–85; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 81; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 253–61; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 327, 334–35, 337, 347–48, 354. 55 This relationship was noted also by Römer, Those Elusive Deuteronomists (1999) 195, and Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 722, idem, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 45, 48. Holladay lists the parallel, but considers Jeremiah the source (Jeremiah 2 [1989] 62, idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 76). 56 See Vayntrub and Hardy, VT 64 (2014) 279–83 for this understanding of ‫שנינה‬.

112

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

‫שנינה‬, “cautionary tale,” in the Hebrew Bible. All four cases also attest a prepositional phrase following this word-pair: ‫ בכל העמים‬in Deut 28:37, 1 Kgs 9:7, and 2 Chr 7:20, and ‫ בכל המקמות‬in Jer 24:9. Only Jer 24:9 and Deut 28:37, however, follow this phrase with a relative clause: “where Yahweh will lead you” in Deut 28:27, and “where I will banish them” in Jer 24:9. The relationship of all four texts can be accounted for literarily. 2 Chronicles 7:20 draws directly from 1 Kgs 9:7. 1 Kings 9:7, part of a passage attributed to DtrH,57 draws on Deut 28:37. Jeremiah 24:9 is excluded as a source for 1 Kgs 9:7 due to 1 Kgs 9:7’s preservation of Deut 28:37’s phrase ‫בכל העמים‬, which Jer 24:9 has transformed to ‫בכל המקמות‬. Not surprisingly, scholars have advanced differing positions on the direction of dependence between Jer 24:9 and Deut 28:37.58 Steymans has argued contradictions between Deut 28:36–37 and its immediate context point to these verses as a later, exilic insertion into Deut 28:20–44, the rest of which he considers early and of one piece.59 He concludes, therefore, that the parallel to Jeremiah here represents a reuse of Jeremiah by the editor who added Deut 28:36–37.60 His arguments for the secondary nature of Deut 28:36–37, however, are not sufficient to separate it from its context in vv. 20–44. First, he claims that while 36a, 37b assume the deportation of the entire people, v. 38 presupposes that they are still in the land, and v. 41 imagines the deportation of the children only. This standard of consistency as applied to curses, however, appears misplaced. Curse series in ancient documents are often characterized by non-natural orders and superfluous repetition, and it is not credible to use apparent contradiction and redundancy to isolate strata in a curse sequence.61 Second, Steymans identifies two parallels between Deut 28:36–37 and passages he claims are exilic. First, he 57 Cogan,

I Kings (2001) 296.  Arguing for the priority of Jeremiah are Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 62 and Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 263–64. Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 722, registers this as an allusion to Deut 28. 59 Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 259–60, followed by Otto, ZAR 2 (1996) 40–41. 60  Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 263–64. 61 On this point see Hillers, Treaty-curses (1964) 34; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 128–29; Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 489–90. The curses in the Eshmunazor inscription (KAI 14:8–12) provide an apt illustration of the problem. The sequence there moves from the lack of proper burial (lines 8–9) to lack of offspring (9) to subjugation to a mighty kingdom who will cut off the accursed as well as their offspring (9–10) to lack of root or fruit (11–12) to lack of honor (12). In this sequence, the death of the violator of the grave is invoked after a curse on that person’s burial (9–10 invokes the death of the accursed; 8–9 invokes their improper burial). This chronological inconsistency is not substantially different from what Steymans observes between Deut 28:36–37, which predict a complete deportation, and v. 38 which returns to the context of the produce of the land. It would be likewise wrong to resort to strata to explain the apparent tension in this inscription between the lack of offspring (l. 9) and the cutting off of offspring (l. 11). To query how offspring that one does not have can be cut off would be to misunderstand the rhetorical logic of curse sequences. Similarly, the prediction of children going in to exile (Deut 28:41) hardly contradicts the exile of the whole people (v. 36–37). 58

I. Allusions to Deut 28:25–26

113

shows that v. 36 presupposes the king law of Deut 17. This relationship between Deut 28:36 and Deut 17 is convincing (“the king which you will set over you” [Deut 28:37] parallels the similar phrase in 17:15), but it is not clear that Deut 17’s king law is exilic.62 Finally, Steymans notes that the depiction of idolatry as the punishment rather than the sin in v. 36 appears elsewhere in Deut 4:28 and 28:64, both of which he identifies as exilic. Even if it be granted that these two passages are late, however, it does not follow that the ironic transformation of the sin of idolatry into the punishment thereof is datable to that period. It is just as likely that the idea existed prior to the exilic period and proved useful to later authors.63 The reasons for assigning Deut 28:36–37 to a stratum later than the rest of vv. 20–44 are thus not convincing. In the absence of convincing evidence for the secondariness of these verses, there is no reason to separate them from their context, which has been dated on other grounds to the Neo-Assyrian period. This would situate Deut 28:37 temporally prior to Jer 24. A comparison of the specific differences between Jer 24:9 and Deut 28:37 adds internal evidence to this argument for the priority of Deut 28:37. Parallel to Deut 28:37’s tripartite phrase ‫“ לשמה למשל ולשנינה‬a desolation, a proverb, and a cautionary tale,” Jer 24:9 contains the quadripartite phrase ‫לחרפה ולמשל לשנינה‬ ‫ולקללה‬, “a reproach and a proverb, a cautionary tale and a curse.” The words present in Jer 24:9 but lacking in Deut 28:37, ‫חרפה‬, “reproach,” and ‫קללה‬, “curse,” are a word pair that appears together in the Hebrew Bible only in the book of Jeremiah (24:9, 42:18, 44:8, 44:12, and 49:13). Of these occurrences, four are attributed to DtrJ (24:9, 42:18, 44:8, 44:12).64 The one exception appears in 49:13, which likely reflects a later reuse of DtrJ language that applies formula used previously for Judah and Jerusalem to Edom.65 The uniqueness of this 62 Holding to a pre-exilic date for the law of the king in Deut 17 are Crüsemann, Die Tora (1992) 275–77; Knoppers, ZAW 108 (1996) 329–46; idem, CBQ 63 (2001) 393–415; Levinson VT 51 (2001) 511–34; and Albertz, Homeland and Exile (2009) 271–92. Particularly suggestive of this pre-exilic date is the observation that while D severely restricts the role of the monarch, DtrH restores this authority even while using D as an authoritative text. This restriction of the king’s power in Deut 17 is consistent with the larger D code, which sees no role for the king in matters of cult or judiciary. 63 Steymans claim in this regard falls into what Sommer has identified as “pseudo-historicism.” The fact that potentially exilic texts develop the idea of idolatry as a punishment does not permit dating that idea to the exilic era any more than the use of Thoreau by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. suggests that Thoreau’s essay on civil disobedience was a 20th century document (Sommer, The Pentateuch [2011] 85–86). 64  On the affiliation of 24:9, see above. On the affiliation of 42:18, 44:8, 44:12, see Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 88–89, 95–98 [Hebrew] and the bibliography cited there. 65  On the secondary nature of Jer 49:12–13, see Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 250–51; Bright, Jeremiah (1965) 330; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 1220, 1222; Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 805. Though not mentioning this parallel, Parke-Taylor, Formation (2000) 162, concludes with respect to the oracles against the nations in Jer 46–49 that this collection was expanded with numerous parallels to existing Jeremiah-texts as well as other prophetic books. Jeremiah 49:13 would represent another instance of this expansionist pattern.

114

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

word pair to the Jeremian corpus and particularly to the DtrJ stratum thus presents further evidence for the priority of Deut 28:37. It would be too incredible of a coincidence to imagine the author of Deut 28:37 citing this passage from Jeremiah and removing from it precisely the language that is characteristic and unique to that source’s diction. It would, on the other hand, not be surprising at all for a DtrJ author to incorporate some of its own characteristic language in adapting an allusion from Deut 28:37. Such adaptation, as pointed out in ch. 1 and observed numerous times in this study, is a common feature of literary allusion and well attested in DtrJ’s adaptation of source material.66 It should be noted that this line of argumentation is functionally independent from the argument offered above for the priority of Deut 28:37 on the basis of its association with a document that predates Jeremiah. Thus, if Deut 28:37 turns out to be a late addition to Deut 28, the instance of a lexical combination peculiar to Jeremiah in Jer 24:9 but not its parallel in Deut 28:37 would require that Jer 24:9 adapted a version of Deut 28 that had already been expanded with v. 37. Two independent lines of evidence, one historical and based on the dating of the two texts and the other internal and literary, support the conclusion that Jer 24:9 alludes to and combines Deut 28:25b and 37. The allusion to these curses serves, as in other instances, to identify the coming judgment on Judah and the Judean refugees in Egypt as the enactment of D’s covenant curses. Where the judgment of exile experienced by the exiles in Babylon will eventually usher into restoration, the curses of the covenant will continue to the rest of the Judeans.

8. Conclusion The repeated nature of the allusions to Deut 28:25–26 are instructive. They show, first of all, a predilection of DtrJ for the use of particular curses from Deut 28. This repeated reuse, however, does not imply that these curses have lost their connection to their context in Deut 28 and become merely stereotyped language.67 To the contrary, what is remarkable about the repeated allusions to these curses is that in the majority of cases the alluding passages include unique markers that independently activate the source in Deut 28. Jeremiah 15:3–4 and 34:17, 20 both bring together allusions to the ‫זעוה‬-curse (Deut 28:25b) as well as to the corpse exposure curse (Deut 28:26), but, as shown above, they do it in different combinations and with different markers. Jeremiah 15:3–4 invokes these curses in the context of laying blame on Manasseh for the coming destruc66  This method of expanding a source through the use of characteristic DtrJ language is common, as for example in the reuse of Jer 21:11–12 in Jer 22:1–4 (cf. Rofé, Tarbiz 44 [1974] 12–13 [Hebrew]; idem, Introduction (2009) 322–24; Seeligman, Congress Volume [1978] 279). 67  Non-allusiveness is implied, for example, by Weinfeld’s registering of these passages as “Deuteronomic Phraseology” (Deuteronomic School [1972] 348).

II. Jer 9:15, 16:13 and Deut 28:64 (36)

115

tion of Judah. Jeremiah 34:17 and 20 reference the same curses in laying blame at the feet of Zedekiah and the people for the specific failure to uphold Deut 15’s law of manumission, thus invoking a D curse for the breaking of a D law. Jeremiah 7:33 again draws on the curse of corpse exposure to characterize the coming destruction and, in doing so, contains the closest phrase-level parallel to Deut 28:26. Two passages combine one of the curses of Deut 28:25–26 with another curse from Deut 28. Jeremiah 19:7, 9 brings together the exposed curse formula of Deut 28:26 with the child-cannibalism curse of Deut 28:53, the latter being ironically appropriate for a context that condemns child sacrifice. Finally, Jer 24:9 combines the ‫זעוה‬-curse with curse language drawn from Deut 28:37. The other examples are potentially attributed to inner-Jeremianic reuse. In contrast to the examples just cited, Jer 16:4’s parallel to Deut 28:26 lacks any further markers that would verify an allusion. The parallel to Deut 28:25 in Jer 29:18 likewise lacks such markers and is part of a plus in the MT that reuses elements of Jer 7. It is thus likely that this parallel to Deut 28 is derived from Jer 7:33 and not allusive to Deut 28. We may conclude from this evidence that DtrJ found the curses of Deut 28:25– 26 to be a particularly fruitful source for describing the judgment that befell Judah in 587. With the possible exception of Jer 16:4 and the late addition in 29:18, the use of these curses remained anchored in their context in Deut 28 and did not develop into non-allusive stereotyped language. These passages attest the fact that DtrJ considered the judgment on Judah to be an enacting of the D-curses of Deut 28. It is instructive that in some of these texts, the cited curse comes in response to a specific violation of the D-law code. In Jer 7:33, 19:7, 9, the immediate cause of judgment is the sacrifice of children at the Tophet (Jer 7:31; 19:5; both in violation of Deut 12:31). In Jer 34:14, the law of slave manumission (Deut 15) is specifically cited. The preoccupation with these curses of military defeat and corpse exposure, as opposed to other curses that may have been chosen, reflects the element of judgment that DtrJ, speaking with the Babylonian destruction of 587 as its background, is most concerned to explain: Judah’s military defeat. DtrJ’s special interest in Deut 28’s curses of military defeat finds further substantiation its allusions to curses from Deut 28 other than those in vv. 25–26.

II. Jer 9:15, 16:13 and Deut 28:64 (36) Seven additional passages in Jeremiah contain allusions to other curses of Deut 28. The first of these involves a complex set of parallels to Deut 28:64 in Jer 9:15 and 16:14.

116

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

Jeremiah 9:15 appears as part of a prose passage (vv. 11–15) that follows and interacts with the immediately preceding poetic oracle (vv. 9–10).68 The poetic oracle describes the devastation of the countryside and city. Verses 11–15 ask why this judgment is coming (v. 11) and provide an answer (vv. 12–15). Where the oracle calls for a lament upon the mountains and pasturelands “for they are devastated for lack of a person passing through” (‫( )כי נצתו מבלי איש עבר‬v. 9), the prose comment asks “why has the land perished? It is devastated like a wilderness for lack of person passing through” (‫)על מה אבדה הארץ נצתה כמדבר מבלי עבר‬ (v. 11b). The answer: disobedience to the “Torah” and the voice of Yahweh (v. 12) as well as idolatry (v. 13) leads inevitably to judgment (vv. 14–15). In this context, the following lexical parallels demonstrate an allusion to Deut 28:64 in Jer 9:15: Jer 9:15

Deut 28:64

‫והפצותים בגוים אשר לא ידעו המה ואבותם‬ ‫והפיצך יהוה בכל העמים מקצה הארץ ועד קצה‬ ‫הארץ ועבדת שם אלהים אחרים אשר לא ידעת אתה ושלחתי אחריהם את החרב עד כלותי אותם‬ ‫ואבתיך עץ ואבן‬ I will scatter them among the nations that neither they nor their fathers knew, and I will send the sword after them until I destroy them.

Yahweh will scatter you among all the peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, and you will worship there other gods that neither you nor your fathers knew, that is, tree and stone.

The paralleled relative clause “that they / ​you have not known, they / ​you and their / ​your fathers” appears, with variation only in the person and number of the primary subject, only in Jer 9:15, 16:13; Deut 13:7; 28:36, 64. Variations on this clause in its function to modify either “nations” or “gods,” however, are rather common (Deut 13:3, 14; 29:25; Jer 10:25; 19:4; 44:3; Ezek 32:9; Zech 7:14; Psa 79:6; Dan 11:38). As such, the particular variation that appears in Jer 9:15; 16:13; Deut 13:7; 28:36, 64, is not – by itself – distinctive enough of a marker of an allusion. It is the occurrence of this clause collocated with the verb ‫פוץ‬, in the hiphil meaning “to scatter,” that appears uniquely in Deut 28:64 and Jer 9:15 and marks a likely allusion. Without immediately disclosing a direction of dependence, the high level of lexical correspondence suggests a literary relationship between these two texts. A key difference between these texts should also be noted. In Deut 28:64, the relative clause modifies ‫אלהים אחרים‬, “other gods.” The punishment of exile will include worshipping unknown gods. In Jer 9:15, on the other hand, the same clause modifies ‫גוים‬, “nations.”69 In this case, the punish­  Cf. McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 205–7. this reason, Rom-Shiloni, Birkat Shalom (2008) 116, considers Jer 9:15 an allusion to Deut 28:36, noting “a less direct echo of Deut 28:64.” She has ignored, however, the occurrence of “to scatter among” in Jer 9:15 and 28:64 and thus the strongly marked connection to that verse in particular (see also idem, HeBAI 1 [2012] 221–22). 68

69 For

117

II. Jer 9:15, 16:13 and Deut 28:64 (36)

ment is exile to unknown nations, as it is in Deut 28:36. There is, of course, a relationship between the two concepts: Yahweh is the god of Judah, and so exile from Judah means moving away from the domain of Yahweh and into the domain of other gods. Like Jer 9:11–15, Jer 16:10–13 juxtaposes a message of judgment with an explanation for the judgment in a question / ​answer form. The question is what sins the people have committed to merit all the evil prophesied against them (v. 10). The answer is that their ancestors committed idolatry and they themselves have exceeded their ancestors’ wickedness. In this context, the judgment included in v. 13 draws again from Deut 28:64,70 but with parallels that are more extensive than those in 9:15 on both a lexical and structural level: Jer 16:13abα

‫והטלתי אתכם‬ ‫מעל הארץ הזאת על הארץ‬ ‫אשר לא ידעתם אתם ואבותיכם‬ ‫ועבדתם שם את אלהים אחרים‬ ‫יומם ולילה‬ I will fling you from this land to the land that neither you nor your fathers knew, and you will there worship other gods day and night.

Deut 28:64

‫והפיצך יהוה בכל העמים‬ ‫מקצה הארץ ועד קצה הארץ‬ ‫ועבדת שם אלהים אחרים‬ ‫אשר לא ידעת אתה ואבתיך‬ ‫עץ ואבן‬ Yahweh will scatter you among all the peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, and you will worship there other gods that neither you nor your fathers knew, that is, tree and stone.

Once again, the relative clause “that neither you nor your fathers knew” appears in both contexts. Juxtaposed with this parallel is the phrase “you will there worship other gods,” varying only in the number of the subject (2ms in Deut 28; 2mp in Jer 16). Though these lexical parallels are strong, they appear elsewhere in Deut 13:7 and 28:36. The further semantic and structural parallels between the first two phrases of Jer 16:13 and Deut 28:64, however, demonstrate a unique connection between these two passages. Jeremiah 16:13’s “I will fling you” is semantically parallel to Deut 28:64’s “Yahweh will scatter you.” The prepositional phrases that follow are both semantically and lexically parallel: ‫“ מעל הארץ הזאת על הארץ‬from this land to the land” (Jer 16:13); ‫מקצה הארץ ועד קצה‬ ‫הארץ‬, “from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth” (Deut 28:64). Present in both is the double use of ‫ הארץ‬and the preposition ‫מן‬. Jeremiah 16:13abα and Deut 28:64 share a high degree of lexical, semantic, and structural correspondence that demonstrates literary relationship. As was the case in Jer 9:15, the relative clause “that neither you nor your fathers knew” in Jer 16:13 likewise modifies ‫ הארץ‬rather than ‫אלהים אחרים‬. 70 So

also Rom-Shiloni, Birkat Shalom (2008) 116–17; Fischer, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 45.

118

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

In addition to the connections between Jer 9:15, 16:13 and Deut 28:64, the two Jeremian passages likewise share a close relationship. These two passages appear in prose DtrJ additions that provide commentary on the preceding oracles of judgment (Jer 9:11–15; 16:10–13).71 They attest a shared form that begins with a question about the purpose of the destruction that has occurred (9:11, 16:10) and follows with an answer (9:12–13, 16:11–12).72 In each case, the answer is identical: the destruction has come in response to the worshiping of other gods, the failure to obey the ‫תורה‬, in the context of DtrJ a reference to D, and the following of the “stubbornness of their own heart” (‫)להלוך אחרי שררות לבם‬, a phrase peculiar to DtrJ.73 The structure and theme is similar in Jer 5:19, where the lexical connections are nevertheless less pronounced. In each case, the purpose is to address why the destruction of 587 was necessary and to offer disobedience to D’s torah as the answer. This reference to D’s torah suggests a likely interpretive process at work in the use of Deut 28:64: disobedience to D’s torah leads to the experience of D’s curses. The observations so far demonstrate a network of interactions between Jer 9:15, 16:13, and Deut 28:64. The parallels that exist are not explainable through inner-Jeremian borrowing or repetition since Jer 9:15 and 16:13 parallel Deut 28:64 in different ways. The possibility of independent genesis is difficult to disprove, especially given the fact that some of the lexical parallels are common phrases in Deuteronomic / ​Deuteronomistic literature. Nevertheless, the non-Dtr lexical parallels juxtaposed to the Dtr parallels make independent genesis of the parallels as a whole difficult to explain – particularly the lexical and structural parallels between Jer 16:13 and Deut 28:64. Thus it appears that either Deut 28:64 used and combined Jer 9:15 and 16:13 or that these two passages independently drew on Deut 28:64, perhaps with influence also from Deut 28:36, a text parallel to Deut 28:64 but with a reversed order of clauses. If the Jeremian texts are prior, it could be posited that the author of Deut 28:64 decided to combine the language of Jer 9:15 and 16:13 on the basis of their shared theme of exile and use of the phrase “that neither you / ​they nor your / ​their fathers knew.” Such a process is not impossible. Nevertheless, to make it plausible, 71 McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 205–7, 368–73. On the DtrJ affiliation of 9:11–15, see Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 80; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 60; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 136–38; see also the instances of Dtr phraseology registered by Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 334, 340, 341, 347, 357, as well as the phrase “to send the sword after them,” a phrase unique to and characteristic of DtrJ (354). On the DtrJ affiliation of 16:10–13, see Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 93–97; Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 81; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 60; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 195–98; see also the instances of Dtr phraseology registered by Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 320–21, 340–41, 357. 72 So Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 198–201. 73  To “go after the stubbornness of their own heart” appears 8 times in Jer, all DtrJ (Jer 3:17; 7:24; 9:13; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17). It’s single appearance in Deut 19:18 is explainable as an allusion to the book of Jeremiah (see excursus).

III. Jer 32:41 and Deut 28:63

119

it would be necessary to explain why the author of Deut 28:64 would have done this. A reason for this kind of reuse is lacking. The DtrJ affiliation of these passages, combined particularly with their reference to D’s torah, make it likely that Deut 28:64 is the source text. The rhetorical point is to invoke a D-curse for the breaking of the D-covenant, a use of Deut 28 that has appeared a number of times in DtrJ. That Deut 28:64 is the source for these Jeremian passages conforms to a pattern of reuse of Deut 28 in DtrJ and makes sense contextually. On the one hand, these two allusions to Deut 28:64 appear in DtrJ passages that contain a formulaic structure and employ similar rhetoric. On the other hand, as the parallels noted above demonstrate, each text contains unique markers that link it to Deut 28:64 and thus attest to independent uses of this source text. The formula employed by DtrJ here, therefore, involved in each instance a fresh allusion to Deut 28:64. This is similar to what has been observed with respect to the allusions to Deut 28:25–26. In most cases of allusions to that text, unique markers attest to independent interaction with the source text. This same phenomenon persists with respect to these allusions to Deut 28:64 as part of a DtrJ question and answer formula that seeks to provide a justification for the destruction of 587.

III. Jer 32:41 and Deut 28:63 Jeremiah 32:37–44 announces a restoration for the exiles in Babylon, a renewal of Judah’s fortunes, and the establishment of a new covenant. In articulating this vision of restoration, the passage alludes to and reverses one of the curses of Deut 28. The phrase “to rejoice over X for good” occurs in three passages, all of which appear to be related on a literary level:74 ‫ וששתי עליהם להטיב אותם‬I will rejoice over them to do them good.

Jer 32:41a

‫ והיה כאשר שש יהוה עליכם להיטיב אתכם‬Just as Yahweh rejoiced over you ‫ ולהרבות אתכם כן ישיש יהוה עליכם‬to do you good and to make you ‫ להאביד אתכם ולהשמיד אתכם‬numerous, so Yahweh will rejoice

Deut 28:63a

‫ כי ישוב יהוה לשוש עליך לטוב כאשר שש‬For Yahweh will again rejoice over ‫ על אבתיך‬you for good just as he rejoiced

Deut 30:9b

over you to destroy you and to devastate you.

over your fathers.

74  Fischer, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 45, 48, lists this as one of the “exclusive connections” between Deut 28 and Jeremiah (cf. also idem, Jeremia 2 [2005] 213, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 284–85).

120

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

A further parallel of an antonymic nature unites Jer 32:41 and Deut 28:63: Jer 32:41

‫וששתי עליהם להטיב אותם ונטעתים בארץ הזאת‬ ‫באמת בכל לבי ובכל נפשי‬

I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will truly plant them in this land with all my heart and with all my soul.

Deut 28:63

‫והיה כאשר שש יהוה עליכם להיטיב אתכם‬ ‫ולהרבות אתכם כן ישיש יהוה עליכם להאביד‬ ‫אתכם ולהשמיד אתכם ונסחתם מעל האדמה אשר‬ ‫אתה בא שמה לרשתה‬ Just as Yahweh rejoiced over you to do you good and to make you numerous, so Yahweh will rejoice over you to destroy you and to devastate you, and to tear you up from the land which you are entering to possess.

The antonymic parallel between “plant them in this land” and “tear you up from this land,” combined with the unique phrase “to rejoice over X for good,” confirms a literary relationship between these two texts. The direction of dependence from Deut 28:63 to Jer 32:41 can be established with reference to the exegetical logic of the Jeremian passage. Both passages, in their broader contexts, draw a contrast between the past and the future. Deuteronomy 28:63 contrasts the delight with which Yahweh did good to Israel in the past to the delight with which he will do them harm in the future. In the context of Deut 28, this means that when the covenant is broken, Yahweh will be just as happy to enact the covenant curses as he was previously happy to enact the blessings. The temporal progression proceeds from initial blessing to covenant breaking to curse. The context of Jer 32:41 assumes a context in which these covenant curses have already come about. Verse 36 addresses the city that “has been given [perfective] into the hand of the king of Babylon with sword, famine, and plague.” This final trio of terms is a phrase stereotypical of DtrJ for the enacted curses of the covenant (cf. Jer 14:12; 21:9; 27:8, 13; 38:2; 42:17, 22; 44:13). After this judgment, however, the people who had suffered the curses will be restored to their land (v. 37) and to the covenant relationship with Yahweh (v. 38). They will then be given a new heart to ensure obedience to the new covenant (vv. 39–40). Verse 41 then asserts that after this judgment, Yahweh will once again rejoice to do them good and to (re)plant them in the land. Jeremiah 32:41, a passage suffused with parallel and antithetical language to Deut 28:63, thus announces a reversal of judgment and a restored covenant. The people whom Yahweh has uprooted and rejoiced over for harm (Deut 28:63) will now be planted and rejoiced over for good. The temporal progression in this passage moves from a broken covenant with the attendant suffering of covenant curses to a new covenant and renewed blessing. This Jeremian passage thus picks up where Deut 28:63 left off, with the suffering of covenant curses, and adds the hope for restoration following this calamity.

IV. Jer 42:16 and Deut 28:60

121

If the direction of dependence were reversed,75 the rhetorical purpose would be obscure. Deuteronomy 28:63 imagines a period of blessing prior to curse. That the curse has already come, which is assumed by Jer 32:41, is not in the purview of Deut 28:63. Why would Deut 28:63 draw on a passage that announced blessing after judgment and transform it into a curse that announces judgment after blessing? The lucidity of the interpretive process at work in an allusion to Deut 28:63 in Jer 32:41, and the lack of such in the opposite direction, argues in favor of Deut 28:63 as the source text. It may be added as a merely corroborative line of support that the immediate context (vv. 24–26) includes two further allusions to D: an allusion to Deut 18:9–10 in Jer 32:35 (see ch. 4) and an allusion to Deut 5:29 in Jer 32:39–40 (see ch. 5). The author of this passage draws liberally from D. Jeremiah 32:4, therefore, takes a passage that envisions a reversal of previous blessing into curse, and transforms the language to present the hope for a reversal of curse back to blessing. It is important to note in this context that, though this is a reversal and transformation, it cannot be said to contradict or subvert the source text in any way. To the contrary, it understands Deut 28:63 to have been fulfilled by the Neo-Babylonian conquest of Judah (cf. v. 36). Jeremiah 32:41 does not contradict this curse; it asserts rather that the reversal of blessing announced in this curse will itself be reversed back to blessing. Finally, the DtrJ affiliation of this passage is widely recognized. Mowinckel classified it already as a paradigmatic deuteronomistic speech belonging to his C-source.76 Subsequent scholars who recognize the presence of DtrJ redaction have concurred with this view.77

IV. Jer 42:16 and Deut 28:60 A final example in the DtrJ layer of the book appears in Jer 42:16. The DtrJ nature of this chapter has long been recognized, and has been recently defended in detail by Ronnie Goldstein.78 Jeremiah 42:1–43:7 describes two meetings between Jeremiah and the Judeans who remained in Judah after the Babylonian conquest (587 BCE). These Judeans solicit an oracle from Jeremiah asking for a  As argued by Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 63; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 76. Komposition (1914) 31. 77  Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 87; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 85; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 31–37. For Dtr phraseology in 32:24–46 see the entries in Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 322–25, 327, 332–34, 339–41, 348; for clichés unique to DtrJ, ibid., 352. 78  Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 89; Nicholson, Jeremiah: Chapters 26–52 (1975) 144; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 62–67; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 1040, 1046–49. Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 88–89 [Hebrew], argues against the possibility, presented by Hyatt and Thiel, that a pre-DtrJ kernel can be extracted from this chapter. 75

76 Mowinckel,

122

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

course of action. In response, Jeremiah commands them to stay in the land and submit to the king of Babylon. They refuse and depart for Egypt. In vv. 15–17 Jeremiah announces a threat of destruction against those who go to Egypt. In this context, the author appears to have reused some of the language of the curse of Deut 28:60:79 Jer 42:16

‫והיתה החרב אשר אתם יראים ממנה שם תשיג‬ ‫אתכם בארץ מצרים והרעב אשר אתם דאגים ממנו‬ ‫שם ידבק אחריכם מצרים ושם תמתו‬ The sword, which you fear, will overtake you there, in the land of Egypt. The famine, which you dread, will cling to you in Egypt, and there you will die

Deut 28:60

‫והשיב בך את כל מדוה מצרים אשר יגרת מפניהם‬ ‫ודבקו בך‬ He will turn upon you every disease of Egypt, which you fear, and they will cling to you there.

These curses are admittedly quite different. Jeremiah 42:16 announces a “sword” and “famine” that will find the Judeans when they go to Egypt. Deuteronomy 28:60 threatens the audience with the “disease of Egypt.” Both the calamity imagined as well as the purpose of “Egypt” differ in each passage. Nevertheless, the relative clause “which you fear” combined with “Egypt” and the verb “to cling” is a unique combination and suggestive of literary reuse. The direction of reuse can be established by the presence of characteristic DtrJ diction that appears in Jer 42:16 and is lacking in Deut 28:60. In place of Deut 28:60’s “disease,” Jer 42:16 employs the word-pair “sword” / ​“famine.” This pair constitutes two-thirds of the phrase “sword, famine, and pestilence” that is characteristic of DtrJ and occurs in its entirety in the following verse (Jer 42:17).80 This reference accomplishes through allusion what is stated explicitly in v. 18: “Just as my anger and wrath were poured out on the dwellers of Jerusalem, so will my wrath be poured out on you when you enter Egypt.” The curses of Deut 28, which have already been unleashed on Jerusalem, will also be unleashed on the Judean refugees in Egypt. Two features of this allusion are particularly interesting. First, in announcing judgment to the Judeans who have decided to disobey Jeremiah’s word by fleeing to Egypt, the author of Jer 42:16 drew on and transformed the only curse of Deut 28 that invoked “Egypt.” The author, therefore, appears to have chosen the curse that used the word “Egypt” as a 79 Noted

by Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 88, n. 4 [Hebrew].  While the pairing of “sword” and “famine” itself is not limited to Jeremiah, Jeremiah accounts for 28 of the 40 total passages where these words occur together (Jer 5:12; 11:22; 14:12–13, 15–16, 18; 15:2; 16:4; 18:21; 21:7, 9; 24:10; 27:8, 13; 29:17–18; 32:24, 36; 34:17; 38:2; 42:16–17, 22; 44:12–13, 18, 27). The other occurrences of this pair are limited to other prophetic books and Chronicles (Is 51:19; Ezek 5:12, 17; 6:11–12; 7:15; 12:16; 14:21; 1 Chr 21:12; 2 Chr 20:9; Job 5:20; Lam 4:9). 80

V. Allusions to Deut 28 in non-DtrJ Passages

123

fitting judgment for the Judeans intent on fleeing to Egypt. Second, the curse of D here is explicitly invoked against those who disobey Jeremiah’s prophetic command to stay in Judah. Where other examples have been given above of D curses being invoked for the violation of D’s law (Jer 9:15; 16:13; 34:17, 20), in this case, it is the violation of Jeremiah’s “law” that brings the curse of D. This usage of D’s curse assumes the equivalency between the authority of Jeremiah’s prophecies and Moses’s laws.

V. Allusions to Deut 28 in non-DtrJ Passages The above passages show that DtrJ drew extensively on Deut 28. Three pre-DtrJ passages – one poetic (Jer 5:15–17) and two narratival (Jer 28:14; 29:5–7) – also alluded to D’s covenant curses. While these allusions demonstrate that D’s curses served as a source for the Jeremiah tradition prior to the DtrJ redaction, the use of Deut 28 in these passages never draws the same lines between the violation of D’s covenant and the enactment of D’s curses. These allusions represents instead simple reuse of curse language without apparent invocation of D’s status as an authority.

1. Jer 5:15–17 and Deut 28:49–52 A striking parallel appears between the poetic text of Jer 5:15–17 and Deut 28:49– 52. Jeremiah 5:15–17 is part of a series of poetic oracles that proclaim doom against Judah and Jerusalem. Its most immediate context is the preceding series of oracles against Jerusalem, which emphasize the lack of justice and truth (v. 1), swearing falsely by Yahweh (v. 2) and by false gods (v. 7), transgressions and apostasies (v. 6), and adulteries (vv. 7–8). The divine response is a call to punish Judah for its treachery (v. 9–11).81 In this context, Yahweh – using language strikingly similar to Deut 28:49 – announces that he will bring a foreign nation to destroy Judah (vv. 15–17). While such an oracle could theoretically either anticipate the fall of Judah or look back on it, the future-orientation and the vagueness of the reference to the distant nation (‫ )גוי ממרחק‬supports seeing the oracle as predating the fall of Judah.82 Whatever the time of composition, neither language nor theme appears in these verses that would suggest affiliation with DtrJ. One will note, however,

 Cf. above, pp. 80–85, on the DtrJ affiliation of 5:12–14.  Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 37; Holladay, Jeremia 1 (1986) 186; Hoffman, Jeremiah (2001) 74, 199, 240–41 [Hebrew]. 81 82

124

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

that the immediately following verses (18–19) as well as the immediately preceding (12–14) may well be attributed to redactional additions of DtrJ.83 The presence of an allusion is established by an identical thematic progression that is buttressed by a sequence of phrase-level lexical correspondences: Jer 5:15–17

‫הנני מביא‬ ‫עליכם גוי ממרחק‬ ‫בית ישראל נאם יהוה גוי איתן הוא גוי מעולם הוא‬ ‫גוי לא תדע לשנו‬ ‫ולא תשמע מה ידבר‬ ‫אשפתו כקבר פתוח כלם גבורים‬ ‫ואכל‬ ‫קצירך ולחמך יאכלו בניך ובנותיך יאכל צאנך‬ ‫ובקרך יאכל גפנך ותאנתך ירשש‬

Deut 28:49–52a

‫ישא יהוה‬ ‫עליך גוי מרחוק‬ ‫מקצה הארץ כאשר ידאה הנשר‬ ‫גוי אשר לא תשמע לשנו‬

‫גוי עז פנים אשר לא ישא פנים לזקן ונער לא יחן‬ ‫ואכל‬ ‫פרי בהמתך ופרי אדמתך עד השמדך אשר לא‬ ‫ישאיר לך דגן תירוש ויצהר שגר אלפיך ועשתרת‬ ‫צאנך עד האבידו אתך והצר לך בכל שעריך עד רדת‬ ‫ערי מבצריך אשר אתה בוטח בהנה‬ ‫חמתיך הגבהות והבצרות אשר אתה בטח בהן‬ ‫בחרב‬ ‫בכל ארצך‬

Behold, I am bringing against you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, declares Yahweh. It is an enduring nation; it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, and you cannot understand what it says. Its quiver is as an open grave. All of them are warriors. It will devour your harvest and your food. They will devour your sons and daughters. It will devour your flock and your cattle. It will devour your vine and your fig tree. It will crush your fortified cities, in which you trust, with the sword.

Yahweh will raise up against you a nation from afar, from the end of the earth, as an eagle flies, a nation whose language you cannot understand a nation fierce of appearance who shows neither consideration to the old nor mercy to the young. It will devour the fruit of your livestock and your land until you are destroyed, such that there will not remain to you grain, new wine, and oil, the offspring of your cattle and the young of your flock, until they have destroyed you. It will besiege you in all your gates until your high and fortified walls, in which you trust in all your land, collapse.

Both passages progress thematically in an identical fashion. Yahweh promises to bring against Israel a distant nation of foreign speech who will devour everything in the land and destroy the cities. These elements not only occur in identical se83  On the DtrJ affiliation of 5:18–19, see Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 60; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 97–98. On the affiliation of vv. 12–14, see ch. 4.

V. Allusions to Deut 28 in non-DtrJ Passages

125

quence; they also contain strong phrase-level lexical parallels (underlined above) that confirm a literary relationship between the texts.84 The markers of an allusion in this case are strong.85 The direction of dependence, however, is more controversial. A minority of scholars have seen Deut 28:49–52 as the source for Jer 5:15–17.86 In keeping with the general tendency discussed above to see Jeremiah as the source for Deut 28, however, the majority of scholars see Jer 5:15–17 as the source.87 This majority position argues for the priority of Jer 5:15–17 on the basis of historical and generic considerations.88These scholars reason that since Jer 5:15–17 is an early text in Jeremiah and Deut 28:49–52 is a late addition to Deut 28, Jer 5:15–17 must be the source for Deut 28:49–52. They also claim that the poetic diction and form of Jer 5:15– 17 is more likely to be original than the prosaic Deut 28:49–52. Steymans adds a further argument for Jeremian priority. He points out that in Deut 28:20–44, with the exception of v. 36, which he considers secondary, the foreign people are referred to as ‫עם‬, “people.” The shift to referring to the foreign people as a ‫גוי‬, “nation,” in v. 49, according to Steymans, was occasioned by the use of this term in Jer 5:15–17.89 While suggestive, this literary argument is not decisive since in the context of Jer 5, the use of ‫ גוי‬to refer to foreign peoples is restricted to v. 15, which is parallel to Deut 28:49. Since the term is newly de84  The MT contains several plusses with respect to the LXX: “It is an enduring nation; it is an ancient nation” (v. 15), “and you cannot understand what is says” (v. 15), and “its quiver is as an open grave” (v. 16). Whatever the explanation for these plusses, it should be noted that they do not impinge in on the proposed allusion. 85  Contra Seitz, Studien (1971) 292–93 and Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 356, it is not possible to dismiss these lexical parallels as merely arising from a common curse tradition of defeat to a foreign enemy. The other passages Mayes lists as attesting this tradition (Isa 5:26–29; Jer 6:22–24; Hab 1:5–11) do not compare to Jer 5:15–17 in terms of shared lexemes and structure. In fact, comparing these other texts to Jer 5:15–17 and Deut 28:49–52 serves to highlight the structural and lexical parallels that exist between these latter texts in contrast to the other texts that treat a similar topic. The differences between the passages, which Seitz highlights and are apparent in the layout of these passages above, are consistent with what is expected of allusion as a literary device (see ch. 1). 86  Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (1999) 393, 395; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 360; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 246–7; idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2011) 284; idem, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 45, 47; Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 116–18. Duhm, Jeremia (1901) takes these parallels as additions to the oracle designed to contribute to a later systematization of prophecy – thus agreeing that D is the source but denying common authorship with the rest of the oracle. The parallels, however, are not easily extracted from Jer 5:15–17, and, as such, not many scholars have followed Duhm. 87  Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia (1894) 33; Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 35; Hyatt, JNES 1 (1942) 172–73; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 97, n. 64; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 62; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 75; Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 338, 348–50. 88 Hyatt, JNES 1 (1942) 172–73; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremiah 1–25 (1973) 97, n. 64; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 62; idem., CBQ 66 (2004) 75; Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 338, 348–50. 89 Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 350.

126

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

ployed in both contexts, it cannot serve as a diagnostic for direction of dependence. Further, as argued above (pp. 112–13), Steyman’s arguments for the secondary nature of v. 36 are not convincing. Barring compelling reasons to separate this verse as a secondary accretion, v. 36 shows that Deut 28 indeed does already use ‫ גוי‬in reference to the foreign enemy. In response to these suggestions, several strands of internal evidence show that Jer 5:15–17 alludes to Deut 28:49–52. First, the original stratum of this chapter continues after the insertion of vv. 18–19 with an allusion to D’s law of the rebellious son (Deut 21:18–21) followed by another allusion to a narrative passage in D (Jer 5:24 / ​Deut 11:14).90 The rhetoric of this stratum of poetic oracle thus includes allusion to D as part of its literary argumentation. An allusion to Deut 28 would be consistent with the compositional logic of the larger passage. Second, Fischer marshals additional evidence that provides strong confirmation of the priority of Deut 28.91 The surrounding discourse in Jer 5 consistently addresses the audience in the 2nd person masculine plural (vv. 1, 10, 14–15, 18–19, 20–22, 25, 31).92 Deuteronomy 28, on the other hand, addresses an audience almost exclusively in the 2nd person masculine singular.93 In Jer 5, it is within the confines of vv. 15–17 alone that the audience is addressed in the 2nd person masculine singular.94 Deuteronomy 28:49–52 continues the participant reference structure of its surrounding discourse while Jer 5:15–17 deviates from it and produces the reference structure of Deut 28. This phenomenon is best explained as the author of Jer 5:15–17 adopting the participant reference structure of its source, Deut 28:49–52. Those who argue for the priority of Jeremiah do not give an account for why D would be drawing on Jeremiah in Deut 28 beyond the claim that “Ziel ist es, die Predigt des Propheten Jeremia zu bestätigen.”95 Why the author of Deut 28:49–52 should be concerned to confirm the prophet’s prophecy is not explained. The purpose of an allusion in the opposite direction, however, is likewise difficult to establish. It is tempting to simply conclude that the author of Jer 5:15–17 viewed the curses of Deut 28 as authoritative expressions of the divine will. While this interpretation is possible, it should be noted that the pas90 See

the discussion of these allusions in chs. 4 and 5.  Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 246–47. 92  It will be noted that the secondary additions in vv. 12–15, 18–19 have been accommodated to this 2nd person masculine plural address. The only exception to this rule is v. 7, where the audience is addressed with the 2nd person feminine singular. 93  The exceptions include vv. 62, 63, 68. Verse 14 is also an exception to this rule, but the expected 2nd masculine singular appears in the Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, and Syriac. 94  The LXX of this passage for the most part employs the 2nd masculine plural in this passage everywhere except in v. 15: ἀκούσῃ, “you will hear” (Ziegler, Jeremias [1976] 174). Given the 2nd masculine plural address elsewhere in the context, the grammatical variant in the LXX is adequately accounted for as homogenization, and thus the MT’s 2nd masculine singulars represent the more original form of the text. 95 Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 (1995) 349. 91

V. Allusions to Deut 28 in non-DtrJ Passages

127

sage, along with the rest of the original stratum of the chapter, does not invoke D as an authority or connect the cited curse to the violation of D’s covenant. If it is acknowledged that Deut 28 can, for instance, reuse curse language from VTE without adopting the authority of the Neo-Assyrian text, it must be allowed that Jer 5:15–17 may be doing something similar with Deut 28. Both cases may well simply involve the redeployment of useful and prestigious language from another literary document rather than a whole-scale adoption of that document’s religious vision. At the very least, it should be acknowledged that in contrast to DtrJ’s uses of Deut 28, in which D’s most basic religious claims are accepted and reasserted, it is not at all clear that Jer 5:15–17’s use of D reflects an adoption of its religious claims or authority. In cases where DtrJ used D curses to announce imminent judgments coming on the violators of torah (Jer 9:15; 16:13) or even for the breaking of specific D-laws (34:17, 20), it is particularly evident that the basics claims of D had been accepted and deployed. In Jer 5:15–17 and its context, however, no connection is made between the judgment and the violation of D’s covenant. The judgment proclaimed here is aimed rather at the lack of justice and truth (v. 1), false swearing (vv. 2, 7), generalized transgressions and apostasies (v. 6), and adulteries (vv. 7–8). Since a perspective on D as an authoritative presentation of the divine will is nowhere discoverable in this context, there is no direct evidence that this passage considers D anything more than a prestigious literary precursor. Two further implications arise from this discussion. First, this allusion puts to rest a presumption encountered occasionally in scholarship that in the case of a parallel between prose and poetry, the poetic text is more likely to be original. The evidence presented here shows that the poetic text of Jer 5:15–17 drew on a prose source and incorporated that borrowed language into a poetic discourse. Second, if Jer 5:15–17 plausibly predates the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE  – and nothing in this text suggests understanding it as a vaticinium ex eventu – Deut 28:49–52 must also be pre-exilic.

2. Jer 28:14 and Deut 28:48 A possible second example of an allusion to Deut 28 outside the DtrJ strand of the book of Jeremiah occurs in Jer 28:14. The composition of chs. 27–28 is highly complex.96 It is nevertheless possible to identify an early narrative focused on Jeremiah’s wearing a yoke that, despite a large amount of material intervening between original elements, can be identified in its entirety.97 Jeremiah fashions  See, for example, McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 716–23.  Wanke, Baruchschrift (1971) 34–35, and Hossfeld and Meyer, Prophet gegen Prophet (1973) 90–103, identified this narrative as consisting of 27:2–3, 12b (or 11, according to Hossfeld and 96 97

128

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

and puts on a yoke and announces that the surrounding nations and Judah will serve Babylon (27:2–12*). In response, Jeremiah’s opponent, Hananiah, breaks the yoke as a sign that the power of Babylon will likewise be broken (28:10–11). The story concludes with Jeremiah receiving a message that confirms his original message with a second sign. An iron yoke will replace the wooden one broken by Hananiah. This basic storyline conforms to a plot-pattern seen elsewhere in preDtrJ narratives of Jeremiah.98 In this plot-pattern, which appears most notably in Jer 19:1–20:6 and Jer 36, Jeremiah engages in an action that is counter-acted by an opponent. This opponent then receives an oracle of judgment. The connections to Jer 36 in both language and structure are particularly striking.99 Both narratives describe Jeremiah producing a physical object, a yoke in chs. 27–28 and a scroll in ch. 36. This object is destroyed by an opponent and then remade by Jeremiah. Jeremiah 28:14 belongs to this yoke-narrative of chs. 27–28 as its conclusion and can thus be classified as pre-DtrJ. This chapter has been subsequently subjected to DtrJ expansion. This expansion, as Goldstein has shown,100 attempts to mitigate the unflattering portrayal of Jeremiah in this narrative, who departs in apparent defeat from Hananiah (28:11). The lexical parallels between Jer 28:14 and Deut 28:48 are as follows:101 Jer 28:14

‫כי כה אמר יהוה על ברזל נתתי על צואר כל הגוים‬ ‫לעבד מלך בבל‬ For thus says Yahweh: “a yoke of iron I have placed on the neck of all the nations to serve the king of Babylon.”

Deut 28:48

‫ועבדת את איביך אשר ישלחנו יהוה בך ברעב‬ ‫ובצמא ובעירם ובחסר כל ונתן על ברזל על צוארך‬ ‫עד השמידו אתך‬ You will serve your enemies whom Yahweh will send against you, in famine, in thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things. He will place an iron yoke on your neck until he destroys you.

The phrase “iron yoke” is unique to these passages. The collocation with the other lexical items (‫ נתן על צואר‬and ‫ )עבד‬confirms a literary relationship. Unfortunately, the direction of dependence appears nearly impossible to decide. On the one hand, as Holladay points out, the “yoke” motif is well embedMeyer), 28:10–11, 12–14 (see McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII [1996] 722–23). Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 229–31 [Hebrew] has recently confirmed this analysis.  98 Wanke, Baruchschrift (1971) 34–36.  99  See Wanke’s list of parallels as well as his discussion on the connection between these two narratives (ibid., 33, 35–36); Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 230, n. 43 [Hebrew] likewise notes the similarity between this narrative and Jer 36. In addition to the structural parallels note particularly the lexical parallels between 28:12 and 36:27. 100  Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 229–30 [Hebrew]. 101 The MT of Jer 28:14 contains a number of plusses absent in the LXX. Reproduced and translated here is the hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX. This parallel is listed by Fischer, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) 45, 47, as an “exclusive connection” (idem,“Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” [2011] 284).

V. Allusions to Deut 28 in non-DtrJ Passages

129

ded in the Jeremian narrative.102 This observation is suggestive, but not definitive. The author of this narrative, if familiar with an already existing Deut 28:48, could well have drawn on that curse specifically because of the appropriateness of its imagery for the narrative. Other examples of this methodology have been observed. In Jer 19:9’s appropriation of Deut 28:53, the sin of child sacrifice prompted the author of Jer 19:9 to draw on Deut 28’s curse of child cannibalism (Jer 19:4–5). Similarly, Jer 42:16 likely made use of Deut 28:60 due to that curse’s unique reference to “Egypt.” The author of Jer 28:14 may have likewise selected the curse whose imagery was the most appropriate for the narrative. Fischer adds that the greater degree of specificity in Jer 28:14 suggests it as a development from its source.103 Deuteronomy 28:48 speaks of serving general “enemies;” Jer 28:14 specifies that the enemy is the king of Babylon.104 If this is an allusion to Deut 28:48, it bears noting that the yoke of iron is here given to all the nations – not just Judah / ​Israel as in Deut 28. Moreover, the reason for this yoke is not given in this context. It is a geopolitical fact – the hegemony of the Neo-Babylonian empire – that is given a religious interpretation (see 27:4–6). The violation of D’s covenant is hardly in view. Thus, if an allusion is present, it represents another use of D’s curse that stops short of ascribing authority.

3. Jer 29:5–7 and Deut 28:30–32 Another example from a pre-DtrJ passage occurs in Jer 29:5–7. This passage occurs as part of a letter sent by Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon urging them to settle there for the long term. The pre-DtrJ nature of this text is apparent both due to the lack of DtrJ language and the fact that the subsequent DtrJ passages that follow in vv. 8–9, 10–14, 15, 21–23 refer back to this text and interpret it.105 These passages connect vv. 5–7 to the theme of false-prophecy and correct the perspective of these verses from a permanent stay in Babylon to a 70-year sojourn. Whether vv. 5–7 represent the authentic words of a prophet named Jeremiah at the beginning of the 6th century is an unanswerable question. It is enough to say that these verses pre-date the DtrJ editing of ch. 29. The language of the pre-DtrJ prophetic letter in vv. 5–7 contains a number of parallels to Deut 28:30–32 that render it a plausible allusion to that passage: 102 Holladay,

Jeremiah 1 (1986) 62; idem., CBQ 66 (2004) 75.  Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 77. 104  This higher degree of specificity is analogous to the “gap-filling” phenomenon that Carr, Gottes Volk (2001) 126, identifies as one of the signs of lateness between parallel texts. Deuteronomy 28:48 leaves open the question of who the enemy will be; Jer 28:14 closes this gap by identifying it as the king of Babylon. 105 See above, pp. 85–87. 103

130

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

Jer 29:5–6

‫בנו בתים ושבו‬ ‫ונטעו גנות ואכלו את פרין‬ ‫קחו נשים והולידו בנים ובנות‬ ‫וקחו לבניכם נשים ואת בנותיכם תנו לאנשים‬ ‫ותלדנה בנים ובנות ורבו שם ואל תמעטו‬

Build houses and dwell [in them]. Plant gardens and eat their fruit. Get wives and beget sons and daughters. Get wives for your sons and give your daughters to men that they might bear sons and daughters. Increase there and do not be diminished.

Deut 28:30–32

‫אשה תארש ואיש אחר ישגלנה‬ ‫בית תבנה ולא תשב בו‬ … ‫כרם תטע ולא תחללנו‬ ‫בניך ובנתיך נתנים לעם אחר‬ ‫ועיניך ראות וכלות אליהם כל היום ואין לאל ידך‬ You will betroth a wife, and another man will ravish her. You will build a house, but you will not dwell in it. A vineyard you will plant, but you will not make use of it …. Your sons and your daughters will be given to another people and your eyes will see and long for them all day, but you will be powerless.

The curse in Deut 28:30–32 concerns the devastation of the foreign enemy on the people and the land. Jeremiah 29:5–6 reverses these curses and turns them into an encouragement to the exiles to settle permanently in Babylon. The specific curses transformed here are 1) the marrying of wives that another will ravish, 2) the building of houses that you will not dwell in, 3) the planting of vineyards that you will not enjoy, and 4) the giving of your children into slavery. According to Jer 29:5–6, the foreign enemy, Babylon, will, in fact, not deprive them of these blessings, but instead the people will enjoy them under Babylonian rule in Babylonian cities. This potential allusion is complication by the a similar passage in Deut 20:5– 10, which Adele Berlin has argued is the source in Jer 29:5–7.106 A comparison of Deut 28:30–32 and 20:5–7 shows that these passages are closely linked and representative of either literary dependence or common authorship:107 Deut 20:5–7

Deut 28:30–32

‫ודברו השטרים אל העם לאמר מי האיש אשר בנה‬ ‫בית חדש ולא חנכו ילך וישב לביתו פן ימות‬ ‫במלחמה ואיש אחר יחנכנו‬

‫אשה תארש ואיש אחר ישגלנה בית תבנה ולא‬ ‫תשב בו כרם תטע ולא תחללנו … בניך ובנתיך‬ ‫נתנים לעם אחר ועיניך ראות וכלות אליהם כל היום‬ ‫ואין לאל ידך‬

106  HAR 8 (1984) 3–11, followed by Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 92–93; and Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform (2006) 13. Rom-Shiloni argues that both passages are in the background (HeBAI 1 [2012] 223–25). Cf. also Weippert, Zion: Ort der Begegnung (1993) 131, who also compares both Deut 28:30 and 20:5–9 but does not specifically argue for dependence. 107  Cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 355.

V. Allusions to Deut 28 in non-DtrJ Passages

Deut 20:5–7

131

Deut 28:30–32

‫ומי האיש אשר נטע כרם ולא חללו ילך וישב לביתו‬ ‫פן ימות במלחמה ואיש אחר יחללנו ומי האיש אשר‬ ‫ארש אשה ולא לקחה ילך וישב לביתו פן ימות‬ ‫במלחמה ואיש אחר יקחנה‬ The officers will speak to the people, saying, “Who has built a new house and not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house lest he die in battle and another man dedicate it. Who has planted a vineyard and not made use of it? Let him go and return to his house lest he die in battle and another man make use of it. And who has betrothed a wife and not taken her? Let him go and return to his house lest he die in battle and another man take her.

You will betroth a wife, and another man will ravish her. You will build a house, but you will not dwell in it. A vineyard you will plant, but you will not make use of it …. Your sons and your daughters will be given to another people and your eyes will see and long for them all day, but you will be powerless.

In addition to these parallels, Berlin highlights the parallel between Jer 29:7’s reference to the “peace of the city” (‫ )שלום העיר‬and Deut 20:10’s offer of peace to a city.108 This reference, however, belongs to a different law and is removed from the other lexical parallels by several verses.109 If the payoff of the allusion to Deut 20:5–10 is to counsel against revolt in Babylon by encouraging the exiles to “Do those things … for which Deuteronomy permits a man to refrain from going to war,”110 the further reference to the subsequent law dictating the offer of peace within war is unexplained.111 Supporting Deut 28 as the source text is the motif of the giving of sons and daughters. This motif is shared by Jer 29 and Deut 28 but lacking in Deut 20. Rather than sons and daughters being “given” into slavery (Deut 28:32), parents will “give” their own daughters in marriage and receive wives for their own sons (Jer 29:6). The interpretive process at work in this allusion supports Deut 28 as the source. The original curses describe what will happen when the foreign enemy attacks and devastates Israel. In writing to the exiles, however, Jeremiah urges them to consider the judgment completed and the Babylonians no longer enemies. Rather than being marked by the deprivation described in Deut 28:30–32, the exiles will experience bounty and blessing in exile.

108 Ibid.,

4, 6.  Pointed out also by Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 (2012) 224, n. 72. 110  Berlin, HAR 8 (1984) 5. 111 Moreover, as Sharp points out in reference to Berlin’s argument, “the governing point of the Deuteronomy passage is that the LORD will defeat Israel’s enemies despite having radically thinned ranks of Israelite soldiers at his disposal, something that hardly counsels against war” (Prophecy and Ideology [2003] 107, n. 12). 109

132

Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy 28

VI. Conclusion As this analysis has shown, Deut 28 provided a rich source for the authors of Jeremiah. This was particularly the case for the DtrJ layer of the book, where most of these allusions are to be found (Jer 7:33, 9:15, 15:3–4, 16:13, 19:7, 9, 24:9, 29:18, 32:41, 34:17, 20, and 42:16). Nevertheless, Jer 5:15–17 shows that Deut 28 already served as a source for at least one pre-DtrJ poetic oracle, and Jer 28:14 and 29:5–7 suggest the same for pre-DtrJ narrative. The prevalence of references to Deut 28 is particularly significant for understanding the ideology and compositional methodology of the DtrJ authors. The repetition of these allusions produces a cumulative argument that the downfall of Judah came about due to the violation of D’s covenant. This interpretation is perhaps clearest in the case of Jer 34:17, 20, where a D curse (Deut 28:25–26) is invoked as punishment for failure to obey a specific D law (Deut 15). The invocation of these curses as punishment for torah-breaking in Jer 9:15 and 16:13 also shows this close connection. These passages explicitly adopt and apply D’s own religious claim that disobedience to D’s law ushers in divine judgment. Of a different nature entirely are the allusions to Deut 28 in the pre-DtrJ passages. Unlike the DtrJ uses of Deut 28, these allusions do not present D’s curses as retribution for violating D’s laws. Instead, they simply employ the language of Deut 28 either for judgments of a more general or unspecified nature (Jer 5:15–17, Jer 28:14), in one case deploying it against the neighboring nations in addition to Judah (Jer 28:14), or through reversal as a means of reformulating the Babylonian exile as blessing (Jer 29:5–7). Where DtrJ explicitly adopted D’s central religious claims – D’s curses for breaking D’s laws – these pre-DtrJ passages appear to simply adopt D’s language. Such usage is suggestive of D’s status for these texts as a classic rather than as a textual authority  – it contained prestigious language that could be drawn on as a resource, but the allusions lack the necessity associated with interacting with an authoritative text. Though citing Deut 28 more than any other chapter in D, DtrJ was selective in the curses it invoked. The curses chosen almost all involved military defeat and its aftermath (Deut 28:25–26, 37, 53, 63, 64). Curses of disease are for the most part skipped over (21–22, 27–29, 33–35, 61–62). In the exception that proves the rule, Jer 42:16 alludes to a disease curse, Deut 28:60, only to replace the disease element with sword and famine. Further, the DtrJ authors did not cite a single curse that dwells on the affect on the land itself. Curses of drought (22–23), locust (38, 42), agricultural failure (39–40) are all passed over. DtrJ’s preference for curses of military defeat (25–26, 30–32) and exile (36–37, 63–64) is not surprising given its interests in explaining the fall of Judah to Babylon and the experience of exile. Thus, the principle of selection simply reflects the aspect of the experience of Judah’s defeat that DtrJ intended to highlight.

VI. Conclusion

133

The three examples of allusions to Deut 28 in a pre-DtrJ texts likewise draw from curses that involve defeat and oppression at the hands of human enemies (Jer  5:15–17 / ​Deut  28:49–52; Jer  28:14 / ​Deut  28:48; Jer  29:5–7 / ​Deut  28:30–32). Deuteronomy 28’s repeated references to foreign enemies thus appeared to have been fruitful for the authors of multiple strands of Jeremianic tradition as each grappled with the Neo-Babylonian disaster. Finally, this analysis is relevant to discussions of the composition of Deut 28. The internal analysis of the interpretive processes at work in each parallel provides arguments for the priority of Deut 28 that operate independently of theories of the composition of that chapter. This observation by itself does not resolve questions about the supposed compositional strata of Deut 28. The authors of Jeremiah may have made use of a version of Deut 28 that had already been expanded by one or more redactor. The allusions analyzed here do, however, call into question arguments that have claimed parallels to Jeremiah as evidence for the stratification of Deut 28. This is particularly striking with reference to the allusion to Deut 28:49–52 in Jer 5:15–17. Despite the assumptions of many scholars as to the pre-exilic date of Jer 5:15–17 and the late exilic or post-exilic date of Deut 28:49–52, decisive internal evidence points to Jer 5 as the alluding text.

Chapter Four

Allusions To Law At the structural and ideological core of D stands its law code (chs. 12–26). According to the narrative frame of D, Yahweh gave these laws privately to Moses at Horeb (5:31–33), and Moses imparted them to the people on the plains of Moab forty years later. The book of Jeremiah, both in its DtrJ and pre-DtrJ layers of tradition, draws on this law code for a variety of purposes. Chapter 2 analyzed allusions to the prophecy laws in Deut 13:1–6 and 18:15–22. It remains now to examine allusions to the remainder of D’s law. The previous chapters have shown that allusions to prophecy and the curses of Deut 28 were a primary, though not exclusive, preoccupation of DtrJ. The pre-DtrJ poetic traditions show a more sustained interest in the legal corpora and, as such, permit a more sustained comparison of the perspectives on D in the compositional layers of Jeremiah. In these allusions to D’s law, the question of authority becomes especially acute. In each case, the question must be pressed of whether the law is cited as a prestigious literary work or as a binding authority carrying the force of a divine command. To raise the issue in this way is to imply that both perspectives on D’s law – as authoritative or as non-authoritative – are a possibility. Yet because D eventually became a part of an authoritative canon, it can in practice be easy to assume that it more or less always had an authoritative status. Further, given the strong claims it makes as to its own divine origins, it may be initially difficult to imagine an allusion to D as non-authoritative without rejecting it entirely. A fine example of allusions to a legal code as prestigious but non-authoritative, however, appears in the use of the Code of Hammurabi by the Neo-Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, King of Justice. Joshua Berman draws on Hurowitz’s analysis of this text in his discussion of the difference between statutory and common law.1 According to Berman, statutory law is law codified in a text that derives from a sovereign and represents a finite, complete system.2 Such law is authoritative in Lincoln’s sense: it has the capacity to produce consequential action and end debate. Common law, on the other hand, involves a set of cultural mores that a judge draws from to render judgments. It is not codified. It is by nature flexible and open. To the extent that 1 2

 CBQ 76 (2014) 19–39, citing Hurowitz, Jacob Klein (2005) 497–532.  Ibid., 21.

136

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

judgments are written down, such “texts did not become the source of law, but rather a resource for later jurists to consult.”3 In other words, while such texts may have prestige, they lack authority. They may become classics, but they are not textual authorities. As Berman argues, the use of the Code of Hammurabi in the Neo-Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, King of Justice is best understood as reflecting a common law perspective.4 This text uses quotations from the Code of Hammurabi to present the Neo-Babylonian monarch as an ideal king, a second Hammurabi. At the same time, however, the Neo-Babylonian text contains significant variants in the judgments cited from the Code of Hammurabi  – a form of legal revision that unabashedly contradicts the source text. Such usage, as Berman points out, is explainable under a common-law perspective. For this Neo-Babylonian text, the Code of Hammurabi served as a resource and source of prestige but not a collection of binding laws. Berman concludes that the uses of law in biblical texts should likewise be analyzed from a common law perspective. This common law model serves as an important corrective to the assumption that written law invariably functions as a binding authority. At the same time, contra Berman, the alternate perspective cannot be excluded. An analysis of the uses of biblical law should remain open to both models, and conclusions should arise from observations on the ways the laws are treated. Analyzing the allusions to D in Jeremiah requires asking whether a particular allusion cites D as an authority or merely as a prestigious document. To the extent that an allusion adopts D’s central religious claims and views its commands as binding law, we are justified in seeing it cited as a binding authoritative text that demands obedience. To the extent, however, that D serves merely as reservoir of prestigious language or a resource for legal thinking, it is better understood as a literary classic. The analysis to follow will reveal a basic contrast between the pre-DtrJ and DtrJ layers. For the pre-DtrJ traditions, D’s laws have prestige but are not used in ways that imply their status as an authoritative religious text. For DtrJ, D is a fully fledged religious authority.

I. Law as Authority A number of passages in DtrJ cite D’s law as a binding authority. These allusions accept D’s claim to the divine origin of these laws. The laws express divine requirements, and, according to these DtrJ passages, their violation necessitates divine judgment. In the examination of prophecy in ch. 2, we observed a number of passages in which Deuteronomic law served as a means of asserting the 3

 Ibid., 22. 28–31.

4 Ibid.,

I. Law as Authority

137

equivalences of Jeremiah’s prophetic authority with that of Moses (Jer 1:7–9 / ​ Deut 18:18, 22; Jer 26:2 / ​Deut 13:1). These allusions assumed D’s authority and sought to position Jeremiah’s authority in relation to it. In several other cases, the authority of D was directly cited as a means of condemning false prophecy. This occurred in Jer 29:23’s use of Deut 18:20 as well as in the transformed use of Deut 18:21–22 in Jer 28:8–9. The MT plusses in Jer 28:14 and 29:32 also cited Deut 13:6 as a means of justifying the condemnation of false prophets. Four other passages in DtrJ cite D’s law as a binding religious authority (Jer 8:2; 17:19–27; 32:35; 34:14). Two of these cases involve a form of legal exegesis. Jeremiah 17:19–27 explicates the practice of Sabbath, and Jer 34:14 combines the laws of debt remission and slave release from Deut 15. The kind of transformations that occur here, however, can be contrasted to that observed in Jer 28:9’s transformation of Deut 18:22’s prophet law. In this latter case, the purpose was to impose an interpretation of that law that fundamentally transformed something the author found to be problematic – namely, the limits the verification criterion places on future prophets – and to replace it with a law less damaging to the authority of Jeremiah – a verification criterion for prophets of peace alone. In contrast to this transformative mode of exegesis, DtrJ’s interaction with other laws of D takes a form of legal exegesis that expands on and interprets the law, but does not seek to subvert it.

1. Jer 8:2 and Deut 17:3 The first example occurs in Jer 8:2 at the conclusion to the DtrJ temple-sermon (Jer 7:1–8:3).5 Jeremiah 8:1–3 condemns astral worship and invokes an ironic judgment: the bones of the guilty will be disinterred and exposed beneath the same astral bodies that they had worshipped while alive. This judgment oracle connects to the previous oracle (Jer 7:30–34), which condemns child sacrifice and announces the exposure of corpses as food for animals. These two oracles are united in theme and evince a progression. Two forms of illicit worship are condemned, child sacrifice and astral worship. The first announces the exposure of the corpses of the currently living; the second announces the disinterment of those already dead. The first, as argued in ch. 3, alludes to the curse of Deut 28:26 (7:33). The second, as will be argued here, alludes to Deut 17:3, where D explicitly condemns astral worship.

5  On the DtrJ nature of this sermon, see Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 31; Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 80; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 68–70; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 105–34. While it appears clear that an earlier source or sources appear in this section, Otto’s comments sound a note of caution against the tendency to multiply redactional layers in this chapter (ZAR 12 [2006] 250–54).

138

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

The place of Deut 17:3 in D is a matter of some debate. As has long been noted, the interlude on idolatry in 16:21–17:7 appears to interrupt legislation concerning the judiciary in 16:18–20, 17:8–13.6 Deuteronomy 17:2–7 is, moreover, closely related to the apostasy law in Deut 13:7–12 (see especially the parallels between Deut 13:10 and 17:7). Levinson and Wells have argued, however, for the coherence of vv. 2–7 preceding vv. 8–13.7 Both scholars emphasize that together these passages address judicial procedure at both the local (vv. 2–7) and central (vv. 8–13) judiciaries.8 Within this framework, Deut 17:2–7 presents a paradigmatic capital case that can be handled at the local level and is resolvable on the basis of two witnesses. More difficult cases are to be referred to the central sanctuary. That Deut 17:3 belongs to its surrounding context, therefore, appears well supported. Levinson claims further that Deut 17:2–7 represents a reworking and revision of 13:7–12. This proposal has a certain suggestiveness. Deuteronomy 13:7–12 is well integrated in its own context as the second of a series of three instances of apostasy (13:2–6, 7–12, 13–18). The linguistic parallels are undeniable (see especially 13:10–11a and 17:5b–7), and the witness law of Deut 17 could plausibly be seen as correcting a law in Deut 13 that appears to mandate the summary execution of an inciter to idolatry on the basis of a single witness and without judicial process. On the other hand, since the topics are technically different – incitement to apostasy in Deut 13 and the judicial procedure for actual apostasy in Deut 17 – it is at least possible that these chapters belong to the same literary layer. In either case, these observations allow us to situate Deut 17:3 in its present context as belonging to D’s laws of the judiciary. The lexical parallels between Jer 8:2 and Deut 17:3 that suggest an allusion are as follows:9

6 Cf. Dillmann, Deuteronomium (1886) 317–19; followed by Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) 201, 205. 7  Levinson, Hermeneutics (1997) 107–37; Wells, The Law of Testimony (2004) 86–91. 8 Levinson argues that the distinction between the local and central judiciary arises due to the necessity of submitting the difficult cases to oracular inquiry, which, due to centralization, could only be performed at the central sanctuary (ibid., 113–18). Wells, The Law of Testimony (2004) 99–103, disputes this explanation and argues that the central court described in vv. 7–13 includes priests who function as professional judges and deal with cases too difficult for the local courts through additional rational, rather than oracular, investigation. If Wells is correct (but see the criticism of his exegesis of Deut 17:8–13 by Stackert, RBL [2009] 4, who tentatively suggests that the issue in this passage may be that of judicial interpretation rather than insufficient evidence), centralization remains the catalyst for the discussion of courts here since, as Wells argues, the central court is distinguished by the involvement of priests. If functioning priests are a necessary part of this higher court, as v. 9 implies, centralization indicates that these may be found only at the central sanctuary. 9  This allusion is noted also by Maier, Lehrer der Tora (2002) 129 and Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 322.

139

I. Law as Authority

Jer 8:2

‫ושטחום לשמש ולירח ולכל צבא השמים אשר‬ ‫אהבום ואשר עבדום ואשר הלכו אחריהם ואשר‬ ‫דרשום ואשר השתחוו להם לא יאספו ולא יקברו‬ ‫לדמן על פני האדמה יהיו‬ They will spread them out to the sun, moon, and the whole host of heaven, which they loved, worshiped, and followed, and sought, and bowed down to them. They will be neither gathered nor buried. They will become dung on the ground.

Deut 17:3

‫וילך ויעבד אלהים אחרים וישתחו להם ולשמש או‬ ‫לירח או לכל צבא השמים אשר לא צויתי‬

He went and worshipped other gods and bowed down to them and to the sun or moon or the whole host of heaven, which I did not command.

The high degree of lexical and phrasal identity here is, to some extent, belied by the fact that these phrases are all of a Deuteronomistic nature.10 The phrase “sun, moon, and whole host of heaven” appears elsewhere in Deut 4:19 and 2 Kgs 23:5. Further, the trio of verbs, “to go”, “to worship”, and “to bow down”, appear elsewhere in 12 passages, all composed or influenced by Deuteronomistic authors: Deut 8:19; 17:3; 29:25; Josh 23:16; Judg 2:19; 1 Kings 9:6; 16:31; 2 Kings 21:21; Jer 13:10; 16:11; 25:6; 2 Chr 7:19. These observations, combined with the conclusion that Jer 7:1–8:3 is DtrJ, might suggest that this is an instance of Deuteronomistic phraseology rather than an allusion.11 This constellation of terms could simply be a characteristically Deuteronomistic way of referring to astral worship. The methodological problem here is acute. Both an allusion and an independent deployment of Deuteronomistic phraseology would involve shared language; in one the lexical parallels would function as a marker of allusion, and in the other it would not. While distinguishing between these possibilities is difficult, several considerations support the presence of an allusion. First, the allusion to Deut 28:26 in Jer 7:33 demonstrates that allusion to D was already an element in the composition of this passage. Second, while neither of the two lexical parallels identified above  – the trio of terms for celestial bodies, “sun, moon, and whole host of heaven,” and the trio of terms for their worship, “to go, worship, and bow down”  – are by themselves unique, their combination is unparalleled outside these two passages. Deuteronomy 4:19 comes close but lacks the verb “to go.”

10 By calling the language in Deut 17:3 “Deuteronomistic,” I do not mean to imply that this language betrays the hand of a Deuteronomistic redactor there as commonly suggested (cf. L’Hour, Biblica 44 [1963] 14; Mayes, Deuteronomy [1979] 263, 266). While such redactional activity is possible, the heavy influence of the Deuteronomic style on the Deuteronomistic makes distinguishing the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic authors in D on the basis of language alone problematic. 11 So Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 321.

140

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

This combination of features, therefore, minimally suggests that the texts are related on a literary level. Third, if an allusion to Deut 17:3 is posited, the interpretive process would be lucid and would fit a pattern of reuse seen in the other DtrJ passages surveyed in this section – the citation of a violated D law as justification for punishment. Jeremiah 8:2 condemns astral worship and cites a passage in D that explicitly condemns this practice. The punishment in Jer 8:2 is directed against those already dead and so deviates from that prescribed in Deut 17:2–7 by requiring disinterment and exposure rather than stoning. The deviation in punishment reflects the differing situation envisioned in each passage – live idolators in Deut 17 and dead ones in Jer 8 – yet the transformation is a fitting. In addition to being a form of execution, the punishment of the stoning required in Deut 17 potentially reflects a kind of denial of normative burial – the bodies are mutilated by the stoning and potentially left unburied or improperly buried.12 The disinterment and exposure of bones could thus represent a replication for the already dead of the denial of proper burial for the victim of stoning. Finally, Maier points out that Jer 8:2 contains an expansion in the verbal sequence that suggests Jer 8:2 as the later of the two passages (Jer 8:2 adds “which they loved” and “which they consulted [‫ ”]דרשום‬to Deut 17:3’s “they went after, served … and bowed down”).13 This observation corresponds to the general rule that, everything being equal, the longer of two parallel texts is likely to be the later, reflecting a scribal preference for expansion over abridgment.14 The contrary direction of dependence appears unlikely. It seems prima facie implausible for the author of Deut 17:2–7 to draw from Jer 8:2, a judgment oracle against already dead idolators, to produce a paradigmatic description of apostasy, and, indeed, no interpreters that I am aware of have made this proposal. In the final analysis, the relationship between Jer 8:2 and Deut 17:3 represents a plausible, though not decisive, case of an allusion to a Deuteronomic law. Other allusions to D’s law lend credibility to this proposal.

2. Jer 17:19–27 and Deut 5:12–15 A more straightforward allusion to a violation of D’s law appears in a passage discussing the Sabbath (Jer 17:19–27). This passage cites Deut 5, explicitly situates itself with respect to ancient tradition (cf. 17:22b: “just as I commanded your 12 What happens to the corpse of the victim of stoning is not directly addressed in the biblical texts. That the victim is generally taken outside of the “camp” (Num 15:35–36; Lev 24:14) or “city” (1 Kgs 21:13) suggests the possibility that the corpse is simply left at the site of execution. Supporting this possibility is the story of Achan, who is stoned with his family and left under the heap of stones (Judg 7:26; cf. also Josh 8:29). 13  Maier, Lehrer der Tora (2002) 129. 14 Cf. Carr, Gottes Volk (2001) 126.

141

I. Law as Authority

ancestors”), and concludes with a judgment for the violation of this command (17:27). Like the previous example, the phraseology of this passage marks its affiliation with DtrJ.15 The lexical parallels that mark this as an allusion to Deut 5, and distinguish it from its parallel in Exod 20, are the following: Jer 17:21–22

‫כה אמר יהוה השמרו בנפשותיכם‬ ‫ואל תשאו משא ביום השבת‬ ‫והבאתם בשערי ירושלם ולא‬ ‫תוציאו משא מבתיכם ביום‬ ‫השבת וכל מלאכה לא תעשו‬ ‫וקדשתם‬

Deut 5:12–15

Exod 20:8–11

‫שמור את יום השבת לקדשו‬ ‫זכור את יום השבת לקדשו‬ ‫כאשר צוך יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫ששת ימים תעבד ועשית כל‬ ‫מלאכתך ויום השביעי שבת ליהוה ששת ימים תעבד ועשית כל‬ ‫אלהיך לא תעשה כל מלאכה אתה מלאכתך ויום השביעי שבת‬ ‫ובנך ובתך עבדך ואמתך ובהמתך ליהוה אלהיך לא תעשה כל‬ ‫וגרך אשר בשעריך‬ ‫מלאכה אתה ובנך ובתך ועבדך‬

15  Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 341, 352, 354, 357. Particularly dense are phrases that uniquely characterize DtrJ: “that enter these gates” (Jer 7:2; 17:20; 22:2); “to learn discipline” (Jer 17:23; 32:33; 35:13); “they do not incline the ear” (Jer 7:24, 26; 11:8; 17:23; 25:4; 34:14; 35:15; 44:5); “men of Judah and rulers of Jerusalem” (Jer 11:2, 9; 17:25; 18:11; 32:32; 35:13. cf. 4:4; 36:31; also in 2 Kgs 23:2; Dan 9:7); “who bring thank offerings to the house of Yahweh” (Jer 17:26; 33:11); Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 101–3; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 204–9, notes that in addition to the Deuteornomistic terminology this section is formally and structurally parallel to other DtrJ sermons, notably 7:1–15 and 22:1–5. A number of more recent commentators, however, have claimed that this passage is post-DtrJ and that the DtrJ language and structure represent the influence of DtrJ on this late passage (cf. McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV [1986] 417–28; Carroll, Jeremiah [1986] 368; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 [1986] 509; Maeir, Jeremia als Lehrer [2005] 205–23). While this identification is possible, the arguments advanced in support of it are not decisive. The principle argument hinges on the relationship to Neh 13:15–22, but Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 131, has argued that Neh 13 relies on this Jeremian passage (so also Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 [2009] 274–26). This argument implies that the Jeremian passage is older than Neh 13. The argument that Jer 17:19–27 assumes the existence of Jerusalem’s walls and a functioning cult (cf. Maier, Lehrer der Tora [2002] 224) is belied by the observation that these features refer to a hoped for restoration that can be obtained through Sabbath observance rather than a current reality that can be maintained. Indeed, this future-oriented perspective is confirmed by the expectation of a return of kings to the gates of Jerusalem (cf. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 [1986] 509; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV [1986] 418). The gates, walls, and temple cult are to be taken along with the kings as part of a future restoration of Jerusalem. Such a concern could be at home in either the exilic or early post-exilic period. In reference to the lack of concern on the part of Deuteronomistic literature elsewhere with Sabbath (Maier, Lehrer der Tora [2002] 224), we have already observed that DtrJ has its own unique profile and concerns within Dtr literature. We likewise do not observe a concern with slave-manumission in other Dtr literature, but DtrJ selects this law for particular attention in Deut 34 (see below). Maier, Lehrer der Tora (2002) 217, 224, also claims that v. 26 reproduces post-exilic cultic practice, particularly the thanksgiving offering. This claim apparently ignores the reference to this offering in Amos 4:5. In the final analysis, it appears impossible to decide the date of this text on internal grounds. Its central concerns – Sabbath observance, the destruction of Jerusalem, the restoration of monarchic Jerusalem and its cult – are all equally at home in either the exilic or post-exilic context. Given the likely late-exilic or post-exilic date of DtrJ, the instances of DtrJ language, and, as we will see, ideology, assigning this text to DtrJ appears justified.

142

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

Jer 17:21–22

Deut 5:12–15

‫את יום השבת כאשר צויתי את‬ ‫אבותיכם‬

‫ואמתך ושורך וחמרך וכל בהמתך‬ ‫וגרך אשר בשעריך למען ינוח‬ ‫עבדך ואמתך כמוך‬

Thus says Yahweh, “watch yourself and do not carry a burden on the Sabbath day and bring it into the gates of Jerusalem, and do not bring a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, and do no labor, and sanctify the Sabbath day just as I commanded your ancestors.

Keep the Sabbath day, sanctifying it, just as Yahweh your God commanded you. Six days you will work and do all your labor. But the seventh day is Yahweh your God’s Sabbath. You, your son, your daughter, your male and female servant, your ox, your donkey, all your animals, and your sojourner who is in your gates, will do no labor in order that your male and female servants may rest along with you.

Exod 20:8–11

Observe the Sabbath day, sanctifying it. Six days you will work and do all your labor. But the seventh day is Yahweh your God’s Sabbath. You, your son, your daughter, your male and female servant, your animals, and your sojourner who is in your gates, will do no labor.

Two features of these parallels show a literary relationship between Jer 17 and the Decalogue of Deut 5.16 First, in contrast to Exod 20, the command opens with a form of ‫שמר‬, “keep,” rather than ‫זכר‬, “remember / ​observe.” Second, and more crucially, Deut 5:12 and Jer 17:22 share the sequence “to sanctify the Sabbath day / ​it just as I / ​Yahweh commanded you / ​your fathers.” These features, along with other lexical parallels also shared with Exod 20, which is Deut 5’s source, show that the parallels between Jer 17 and Deut 5 are of a literary nature. To Deut 5’s general “sanctify the Sabbath-day” and “do no labor,”17 Jer 17 adds two stipulations to the Sabbath-law. Carrying burdens into Jerusalem and out of one’s home are now prohibited. Fishbane considered this allusion in Jer 17 an example of transformative exegesis.18 In his analysis, the clause “just as I commanded your ancestors” (v. 22) serves both as a mark of the allusion to Deut 5 as well as a “pseudo-citation” that functions to present the innovation as though it were part of the original law. There is a certain persuasiveness to this analysis, especially given the examples of “pseudo-citation” attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.19 Identifying this reuse of the Deuteronomic Decalogue as a “pseudo-citation” requires understanding the final clause of Jer 17:22 to refer to the entirety of 16 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 132; Gladson, CBQ 62 (2000) 36; Maier, Lehrer der Tora (2002) 215, 223; Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 274. 17  These formulations are, of course, found also in D’s source, Exod 20. 18 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 132–34, followed by Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 274. 19  Cf., for example, the Passover law in 2 Chron 35:12–13 and Fishbane’s discussion of it (Biblical Interpretation [1985] 134–37), and Deut 12:21 (Levinson, Hermeneutics [1997] 42–43, 47).

I. Law as Authority

143

the Sabbath command. Jerry Gladson, however, has suggested that rather than a rewriting of the Sabbath-law, Jer 17:21–22 presents a new prophetic revelation concerning the Sabbath-law side by side with a citation of the old Horeb-command.20 Several considerations support this conclusion. First, the legal innovation precedes the citation of Deut 5 and is immediately introduced only by the prophetic “thus says Yahweh.” Second, Fishbane’s assumption that “just as I commanded your ancestors” applies to the innovative Sabbath-stipulations is belied by the fact that this clause is subordinated directly to a main clause that replicates the command “to sanctify the Sabbath-day,” which is drawn from the source-text. It is both grammatically possible and contextually appropriate that this subordinate clause modifies only the immediately preceding main clause. A comparable case appears in Lev 8:31: “Moses said to Aaron and to his sons, ‘Boil the flesh at the door of the tent of meeting and eat there the bread that is in the basket of consecration, just as I commanded, saying, ‘Aaron and his sons will eat it.’” In this passage, two instructions are given, and the subordinate clause “just as I commanded” applies only to the second. A similar dynamic might be present in Jer 17:21–22. In both cases, a new command precedes an old command, and the old command is identified as already given. Third, Fishbane has not accounted for how the same clause “as I commanded your ancestors” serves both as a marker of Deut 5’s Sabbath law and as a clause that functions to create a “pseudo-citation.” That this clause is adopted from the source rather than added by the author of Jer 17 suggests that it might serve another function than disguising the innovation – all the more so since, as just pointed out, this clause is attached directly to the general “do no work and sanctify the Sabbath-day.” It appears entirely possible to understand the reference to the command to the ancestors as a way of linking the new commands directly to the old. This reading suggests a dynamic negotiation between the new Jeremianic legislation and the old Mosaic law. Based on his own prophetic authority, Jeremiah, like Moses, can transmit new commands from the mouth of Yahweh: “watch yourself and do not carry a burden on the Sabbath day and bring it into the gates of Jerusalem. And do not bring a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day.” Yet according to this text, the new command does not cancel or nullify the old, but stands in continuity with it. Following the new law, the old is cited and affirmed: “and do no labor, and sanctify the Sabbath day just as I commanded your ancestors.” This passage thus demonstrates in practice what a number of passages analyzed in ch. 2 argued in theory. According to DtrJ, Jeremiah has an authority that is equal to Moses’s authority as codified in D. In several passages, DtrJ developed this theory in relation to specific passages of D (Jer 1:7–9 / ​Deut 18:18, 22; Jer  7:33 / ​Deut  5:33; Jer  11:1–5 / ​Deut  27:15–22; Jer  21:8–10 / ​Deut  30:15, 19). 20 Gladson,

CBQ 62 (2000) 37–38, followed by Maier, Lehrer der Tora (2002) 215.

144

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

In Jer 17:19–27, Jeremiah enacts his authority in direct relation to that of Moses. The author is careful to point out that these new commands are a natural expansion of the old Sabbath-command but does not attempt to disguise the essential newness of the innovations. Thus, while Gladson’s proposal was not informed by this broader perspective on DtrJ, the approach to prophecy found elsewhere in DtrJ would lead us to expect precisely the kind of treatment that Gladson observed in this passage. According to DtrJ’s prophetic ideology, the prophet’s “thus says Yahweh” attached directly to the innovations (v. 21) is enough to justify them.21 At the same time, the new is a consistent outworking of the old, hence the citation of Deut 5’s more general formulation of the Sabbath-law.22 This allusion to D’s Sabbath law thus illustrates DtrJ’s basic prophetic ideology: the mediation of divine commands continues after the death of Moses in the mouths of prophets like Jeremiah.

3. Jer 32:35 and Deut 18:9–10 A third passage, likewise belonging to DtrJ,23 cites a specific law from D as a requirement whose violation resulted in the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. The markers of the allusion are as follows: Jer 32:35

Deut 18:9–10

‫ויבנו את במות הבעל אשר בגיא בן הנם להעביר את‬ ‫בניהם ואת בנותיהם למלך אשר לא צויתים ולא‬ ‫עלתה על לבי לעשות התועבה הזאת למען החטי‬ ‫את יהודה‬

‫כי אתה בא אל הארץ אשר יהוה אלהיך נתן לך לא‬ ‫תלמד לעשות כתועבת הגוים ההם לא ימצא בך‬ ‫מעביר בנו ובתו באש קסם קסמים מעונן ומנחש‬ ‫ומכשף‬

They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben Hinnom to offer their sons and their daughters to Molek24, which I did not command them, and it did not

When you enter the land which Yahweh your God is giving to you, do not learn to act according to the abominations of those nations. There will not be found among

 This point is emphasized also by Maier, Lehrer der Tora (2002) 215. ZAR 12 (2006) 280–81, claims to find here a presentation of Jeremiah as an “antitypus” to Moses with a contrast between the direct revelation to Jeremiah here as opposed to Deut 5, where Moses is an interpreter of the Decalogue. This interpretation misses the import of the “just as I commanded your fathers” in Jer 17:22, which functions to establish the equal validity of the old law and the new, as well as the fact in Deut 5:6–21 Moses presents the directly revealed words of Yahweh (cf. v. 5 and especially v. 22: ‫את הדברים האלה דבר יהוה אל כל קהלכם‬, “these words Yahweh spoke to your whole congregation), not an interpretation thereof. 23 Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 31; Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 87; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 85; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 31–37. For Dtr phraseology in 32:24–46 see the entries in Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1992) 322–25, 327, 332–34, 339–41, 348; for clichés unique to DtrJ, see ibid., 352. 24  For an argument in favor of this term as a reference to a deity, see Heider, The Cult of Molek (1985) and the review of the same by Pardee, JNES 49 (1990). The alternative proposal that this is a sacrificial term as in Punic does not impinge on this analysis. 21

22 Otto,

145

I. Law as Authority

Jer 32:35 come to my mind, to do this abomination, in order to cause Judah to sin.

Deut 18:9–10 you one who offers his son or his daughter in fire, a diviner, a soothsayer, an augur, or a sorcerer.

Collocated, the phrases “to do an abomination” and “to offer their / ​his son(s) and daughter(s)” suggest a literary relationship between these passages. A similar command in Lev 18:21 forbids “giving from your offspring to offer to Molek,” but the lexical parallel to Jeremiah is limited to “to offer” and “to Molek.” This reference to Molek is likewise included by 2 Kgs 23:10, which likely also cites Deut 18:9–10.25 The reference to Molek in 2 Kgs shows that the absence of this term in Deut 18:9–10 is not particularly significant. It implies rather that the practice referred to in Deut 18:9–10 was considered by the authors of Jer 32:25, Lev 18:21, and 2 Kgs 23:10 as an offering to Molek. While similar language of “offering sons (and daughters)” appears in a number of texts in the DtrH (2 Kgs 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; 23:10), the collocation with “abomination” occurs elsewhere only in 2 Kgs 16:3: ‫וגם את בנו העביר באש כתעבות הגוים‬, “and also he offered his son in fire, according to the abominations of the nations.” It would appear that this text also draws from Deut 18:9–10 but has adapted it in a different ways than Jer 32:35.26 The parallels between Jer 32:35 and Deut 18:9–10 thus appear dense and unique enough to support an allusion. Further support can be found in the allusion to Deut 28:63 in Jer 32:41, showing that reference to D formed part of the background to the composition of this passage. The immediate context of Jer 32:35 is a speech in vv. 30–35 that provides justification for the destruction decreed against Jerusalem (vv. 28–29). The people in their entirety, including all the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem as well as the prophets, priests, officials, and kings (v. 32), have sinned by ignoring divine instruction (v. 33), installing abominations in the temple (v. 34), and offering their children in the high places of Baal to Molek (v. 35). By citing Deut 18:9–10 in the context of this accusation, the author makes clear that the violation of D’s law stands behind the pronouncement of judgment. In light of DtrJ’s view of the relationship between Mosaic law and post-Mosaic prophecy, the reference to the failure of the people to obey the the continual divine teaching (v. 33) takes on particular significance. As other examples in DtrJ make clear, the language of this accusation – ‫ולמד אתם השכם ולמד‬, “though teaching them early and often” – indicates that this continual divine teaching is mediated through the post-Mosaic prophets.27 This passage, therefore, once  Cf. Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings (1988) 266, 288. contrast to Jer 32:35, 2 Kgs 16:3 drops “daughter,” fronts “his son” to the head of the clause, includes “in fire,” drops “to do,” and includes “according to” and “the nations.” 27  Cf. for example, Jer 7:25b: ‫ואשלח אליהם את כל עבדי הנביאים יום השכם ושלח‬, “I sent to them all my servants the prophets, every day, early and often.” 25

26 In

146

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

again upholds the equal importance of Mosaic and post-Mosaic prophecy. The people here are condemned both for disobeying the post-Mosaic prophets (v. 33) and, via the allusion to Deut 18:9–10 in v. 35, the Mosaic law codified in D.

4. Jer 34:14 and Deut 15:1, 12 The final example of a pronouncement of judgment for the violation of a specific law from D appears in Jer 34:14:28 Jer 34:14

‫מקץ שבע שנים תשלחו איש את אחיו העברי אשר‬ ‫ימכר לך ועבדך שש שנים ושלחתו חפשי מעמך‬ ‫ולא שמעו אבותיכם אלי ולא הטו את אזנם‬ At the end of seven years each one of you will release his hebrew kin who has sold himself to you, and he will serve you six years, and then you will send him away free from you. But your ancestors did not obey me and did not incline their ear.

Deut 15:1, 12 )v. 1( ‫מקץ שבע שנים תעשה שמטה‬

‫כי ימכר לך אחיך העברי או העבריה ועבדך שש‬

)v. 12( ‫שנים ובשנה השביעת תשלחנו חפשי מעמך‬ At the end of seven years, you will perform a release. (v. 1) When your male or female hebrew kin sell themselves to you, they will serve you six years, and in the seventh year you will send them away free from you. (v. 12)

Jeremiah 34:14 reproduces almost the entirety of Deut 15:12. Not only do these parallel phrases not appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, v. 13 also introduces v. 14 as a quotation of a command given in the wilderness period: ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫אלהי ישראל אנכי כרתי ברית את אבותיכם ביום הוצאי אותם מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים לאמר‬, “Thus says Yahweh God of Israel, I made a covenant with your ancestors when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, saying …” (compare this to the similar phrase used to introduce an allusion in 7:22–23 and 11:3–4). The allusion to Deut 15:12 is, therefore, both assured and widely recognized.29 Scholars have also generally noticed that the opening phrase “at the end of seven years” draws from the law of debt release (‫ )שמטה‬that precedes the manu28 Cf.

p. 106 for the DtrJ affiliation of this passage. Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (1950) 169–70; Weippert, Prosareden (1973) 92–93; Sarna, Orient and Occident (1973) 145–46, 148; Lemche, VT 26 (1976) 52; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 238; Weinfeld, The Law (1990) 39–40; Zakovitch, Inner-Biblical Interpretation (1992) 101 [Hebrew]; Chavel, JSOT 76 (1997) 77; Maier, Lehrer der Tora (2002) 269; Levinson, Congress Volume Leiden 2004 (2006) 302, n. 61; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 255–56, idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 261; Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 281; Leuchter, JBL 127 (2008) 641; idem, ZAW 126 (2014) 215–16; Bergsma, Teacher (2012) 72, 88–89; Berman, CBQ 76 (2014) 35; Rom-Shiloni, VT 65 (2015) 642. 29 Rowley,

I. Law as Authority

147

mission law (Deut 15:1).30 This particular phrase appears in the Hebrew Bible only five times. Two of these involve a prophecy against Tyre in Isa 23:15, 17 and are unrelated to the others. The phrase appears elsewhere in D also in Deut 31:10, where the levitical reading of D is set for the year of release at the time of Sukkoth. The rarity of the phrase combined with the proximity of Deut 15:1 to 15:12 confirm that the author of Jer 34:14 has combined Deut 15:1, 12. In addition to the reference to Deut 15, a number of scholars have also seen an allusion to Lev 25 in this context. The lexical parallels, however, are not compelling. The presence of the phrase ‫לקרוא דרור‬, “to announce a release,” in Lev 25:10 and Jer 34:8, 15, 17 is not substantial enough to establish a literary connection.31 Since the cognates of ‫ דרור‬appear elsewhere in the ANE referring to a similar practice of occasional slave release,32 the authors of Lev 25 and Jer 34 could have each independently drawn on a common technical term to describe this practice. A similar problem faces Simeon Chavel’s claim that the legal logic of the reference to the ‫ בית עבדים‬in Jer 34:13 finds its basis in the arguments of Lev 25:42, 55.33 While both texts do cite the historical experience of Israelite slavery as justification for manumission, Deut 15:15 makes the same claim.34 Given the strongly marked allusion to Deut 15:12 in Jer 34:14, the appeal to Israel’s Egyptian slavery is more likely drawn from Deut 15:15 than Lev 25. Further, the concept emphasized in Lev 25 – that Israelites cannot own other Israelites since all are slaves of Yahweh – does not appear in Jer 34. Chavel’s further claim that Jer 34:9b cites Lev 25:39, 46b,35 also faces problems. At issue are two phrases in Jer 34:9b: ‫“ לבלתי עבד בם‬to not impose labor upon them,” which Chavel suggests as parallel to ‫לא תעבד בו‬, “you will not impose labor on him” (Lev 25:39), and ‫ביהודי אחיהו איש‬, “his Judean brother,” which Chavel suggests is parallel to ‫באחיכם בני ישראל איש באחיו‬, “over your brothers, the Israelites, each his brother” (Lev 25:46b). The phrases posited here as markers of an allusion to Lev 25, however, are neither particularly close nor particularly unique. The phrase ‫עבד ב‬, meaning, “to impose labor upon,”36 is not rare and, in fact, appears a number of times elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah (Jer 22:13; 25:14; 27:7; 30:8; 34:9, 10; cf. also Exod 1:14; Ezek 34:27; Sir 13:4). The subsequent phrase shares with its supposed source only the lexeme ‫ איש‬and ‫אח‬,  Leuchter, JBL 127 (2008) 641; idem, ZAW 126 (2014) 215–16, dissents from this view (see below). 31  Contra Weinfeld, The Law (1990) 41, n. 8; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (2001) 2257–58; Bergsma, Teacher (2012) 88–89; Berman, CBQ 76 (2014) 35. Chavel, JSOT 76 (1997) 75, n. 12, and others have pointed out that the ‫דרור‬, “release,” in Jer 34 is occasional rather than calendrical and thus bears little relationship to the Jubilee legislation of Lev 25. 32  Lewy, Eretz-Israel 5 (1958) 21–31; Weinfeld, The Law (1990) 40, 45. 33 Chavel, JSOT 76 (1997) 84; cf. also Rom-Shiloni, VT 65 (2015) 642. 34  This point is acknowledged by Chavel, JSOT 76 (1997) 84. 35  Ibid., 90–93. 36 Clines, DCH (2007) 6:213. 30

148

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

both of which are common and appear together elsewhere in Jer 34:14.37 The syntax of ‫ איש‬is indeed peculiar, but Seidel’s law does not generally function so mechanically that it produces grammatical inconcinnities of this sort.38 It appears, therefore, that the lexical connections between Lev 25 and Jer 34 can be accounted for on the basis of their shared theme rather than an identifiable literary relationship between them. Thus, while the lexical evidence surveyed here strongly supports an allusion to Deut 15:1, 12, it does not support the same for Lev 25. The use of Deut 15:1 in Jer 34:14, however, raises a potential interpretive problem. This newly formulated law appears to mandate manumission both at the end of the seventh year – “at the end of seven years each one of you will release his hebrew kin who has sold himself to you” – and at the beginning of the seventh year / ​end of the sixth – “and he will serve you six years, and you will send him away free from you.” The LXX, aware of this problem, harmonized the clauses by correcting the initial “seven” to “six.”39 Leuchter presents an innovative approach to the apparent temporal problem of Jer 34:14. Rather than drawing on Deut 15:1, he argues that ‫ מקץ שבע שנים‬is an allusion to Deut 31:10, one of the only other instances of the phrase in the Hebrew Bible.40 The point of this allusion would be to highlight Jeremiah’s function as a Levitical priest who proclaims Torah in accordance with the law for septennial Levitical readings of D in Deut 31:10. According to Leuchter, and crucial for his overall analysis, this temporal clause, “at the end of seven years,” is syntactically independent of its context; it functions exclusively to bring into view its supposed source text in Deut 31:10. For Leuchter, this analysis effectively removes the apparent temporal contradiction between Jer 34:14aα and 14aβ. The passage claims in agreement with Deut 15:12 that slaves are to be freed after six years of labor, and the reference to “the end of seven years” points to Deut 31:10 but does not serve any syntactic or semantic role. He justifies this reading by reference to 1 Kgs 22:28: ‫ויאמר‬ ‫מיכיהו אם שוב תשוב בשלום לא דבר יהוה בי ויאמר שמעו עמים כלם‬, “Micaiah said, ‘If you 37 Cf. 38 

Leuchter, JBL 127 (2008) 649–650.

‫ איש‬in v. 9b likely serves as the subject of the infinitive ‫עבד‬, rendering a translation: “that

each person not force a Judean, his brother, to work.” The perceived awkwardness in this case is caused by the separation of the subject from the verb by a prepositional complement, ‫בם‬, followed by two appositional phrases, ‫ביהודי אחיהו‬. Structurally identical, though lacking appositional expansion, is Joel 2:17: ‫למשל בם גוים‬, “that nations might rule over them.” Other examples of an expressed subject of an infinitive that is separated from the infinitive and appears at the end of the clause include Gen 4:15 (‫ ;)לבלתי הכות אתו כל מצאו‬Num 35:6 (‫( )לנס שמה הרצח‬cf. Joüon [2006] § 124g, p. 403). 39  The evidence of the allusions itself as well as the principle of lectio difficilior both support LXX as a secondary correction here. So also Chavel, JSOT 76 (1997) 83; Maier, Lehrer der Tora (2002) 269. 40  Leuchter, Polemics of Exile (2008) 92–94; idem, JBL 127 (2008) 642–43; idem, ZAW 126 (2014) 216–17.

I. Law as Authority

149

return in peace, Yahweh has not spoken through me.’ Then he said ‘Hear, all you peoples.’” The second half of this verse serves to connect the Micaiah of this story with the Micah of the prophetic book (cf. Mic 1:2), but, as Leuchter points out, it is otherwise unconnected to the surrounding story.41 While this example establishes the possibility of an allusion to a text that is minimally integrated into its context, it does not establish the possibility of an allusion that has been inserted with absolutely no syntactical connection to the surrounding discourse. While ‫ ויאמר שמעו עמים כלם‬may be contextually surprising, it is connected syntactically to its context in ways that adhere to normal syntax.42 Though jarring, the clause is readable in context. Leuchter’s proposal for Jer 34:14, on the other hand, requires reading the clause in question as syntactically disconnected from its context. He is thus unable to provide comparable passages that would legitimate reading ‫ מקץ שבע שנים‬without connecting it to the immediately following main clause, ‫תשלחו איש את אחיו העבר‬, “each of you will send away his Hebrew kin.”43 Indeed, it is difficult to see how a reader of Jer 34:14 would be able to infer that the initial temporal clause should, in the face of all normative grammar, be read as isolated from the following main clause.44 The more conventional solution to the apparent temporal problem is to suggest that ‫ מקץ‬means “at the beginning of” or “at the time of” rather than “at the

41 Leuchter,

JBL 127 (2008) 643–44.  Contra ibid., whether the ‫ ויאמר‬is to be understood as a resumptive direct discourse or a change of speaker (cf. Bodner, JBL 122 [2003] 536–37), the material point is that it is connected syntactically via normal means. 43  Leuchter attempts to further ground his proposal in the phenomenon of “syntactically obtuse explanatory glosses” (JBL 127 [2008] 643, n. 30). According to Leuchter, however, the opening clause of Jer 34:14 is manifestly not a gloss. What is more, however syntactically obtuse explanatory glosses sometimes are, they are almost invariably readable in their contexts as apposition (cf. for example Leuchter’s discussion of “the ten tribes” in 1 Kgs 11:35 as well as “the Spirit of Yahweh” in Mic 3:8, which Leuchter cites as another example of the same phenomenon [JBL 125 (2006) 55]; another illustrative example appears in Isa 29:10, cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation [1985] 50). The exegetical use of ‫ את‬highlighted by Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 48–51, and cited by Leuchter in support of his reading of Jer 34:14 (JBL 127 [2008] 643, n. 30), deviates from this norm only in Hag 2:5. This exception does little to support Leuchter’s claim as it rests on a specific use of ‫ את‬and is marked by what Fishbane calls the “manifestly disruptive nature of this clause in this particular context” (ibid., 49). Neither is this specific use of ‫ את‬found in Jer 34:14aα, nor is that clause manifestly disruptive. On a syntactical level, it combines seamlessly with the following main clause. 44  Further, this proposal violates a general principle articulated in Perri, Poetics 7 (1978) 295: “the alluding marker has at least a double referent: it signifies un-allusively, within the possible world of the literary text … and allusively, to one or more texts outside its context.” In contrast to this principle, Leuchter would propose an allusion that has no function within the world of the alluding text. While it is theoretically possible that ancient texts would evince different allusive dynamics than the modern texts that serve as the basis of Perri’s analysis, Leuchter is unable to provide a single example. Even 1 Kgs 22:28b functions within the narrative world of the text as the final enigmatic word of Micaiah (or Ahab, according to Bodner, JBL 122 [2003]). 42

150

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

end of.”45 Chavel, however, surveyed every instance of ‫ מקץ‬and ‫ מקצה‬in Biblical Hebrew and showed that without exception it designates the end of a period of time.46 Chavel proposed instead that, though producing a contradiction, this citation of Deut 15:1 brings in the cancellation of debts as removing the possibility of reclaiming slaves.47 Chavel’s explanation of this passage as involving legal exegesis is promising, though it leaves open the question of why the author has produced a temporal contradiction. If the intent is to invoke the relevance of debt release for manumission, why cite a phrase that would produce a contradiction? While it may be that the response to this question is simply that the author was not concerned to produce a coherent law, it is possible to extend Chavel’s insights and to see in Jer 34:14 a logical exegetical combination of Deut 15’s debt release and manumission laws. As Nahum Sarna astutely argued, rather than a temporal conundrum, the two temporal designations of Jer 34:14 can be read as a combination of both Deut 15’s debt release and manumission laws such that “the prescribed six year limit on debt-bondage was regarded as a maximum that would be reduced by the incidence of the sabbatical year.”48 The combination of these laws involves the coordination of two distinct temporal systems. The debt release law operates on a calendrically fixed seven year cycle with debt release occurring at the end of the cycle. The manumission law, on the other hand, mandates six years of labor for the slave followed by a release at the beginning of the seventh. In contrast to the calendrically fixed debt release, this cycle commences uniquely for each individual slave. The structure of Jer 34:14a supports Sarna’s suggestion that this passage attempts to combine both cycles into an interlocking temporal system. The presence of two temporal designations as well as two uses of the piel of ‫שלח‬, “to send away,” suggests a parallel structure to this passage. 14aα

14aβ

‫מקץ שבע שנים‬ ‫תשלחו איש את אחיו העברי אשר ימכר לך‬

‫ועבדך שש שנים‬ ‫ושלחתו חפשי מעמך‬

At the end of seven years each one of you will release his hebrew kin who has sold himself to you,

and he will serve you six years, and then you will send him away free from you.

45  Wallenstein, VT 4 (1954) 213; Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 643, 645; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 238; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 255. 46 JSOT 76 (1997) 82–83, n. 26, 27. 47  Ibid., 83. Cf. also Levinson, Congress Volume Leiden 2004 (2006) 302, n. 61, who posits here a form of exegetical midrash, though without exploring it. 48 Sarna, Orient and Occident (1973) 148. Cf. also Weippert’s solution, who likewise sees a combined practice of the slave and debt release laws, but rather than overlapping temporal systems, considers the fixed seven year cycle of debt release to have supplanted the six year slave cycle (Prosareden [1973] 92–93).

I. Law as Authority

151

In order to achieve this structure, the author rendered twice the single piel of ‫ שלח‬derived from its source. This repetition allowed the formation of a parallel structure, each half with its own time designation and each commanding the release of slaves. Within this structure, only the initial clause (underlined above) derives from the debt release law; the rest of the language in both halves of the verse derives from the manumission law. The distribution of this language points to the proper understanding of the passage. The debt release law, which the opening temporal clause of Jer 34:14 alludes to, is focused on the periodic righting of economic inequality. In this light, it is significant that the author of Jer 34:14 took the element of Deut 15:12 that referenced the economic relationship between slave and master – the phrase, “his hebrew kin who has sold himself 49 to you” – and joined it to the debt release law. This suggests that the author understands the selling of oneself into slavery in terms of the social institution of debt slavery. To contemplate slavery as debt slavery justifies, perhaps even requires, combining the debt release and manumission laws. The legal reasoning that leads to the attaching of the temporal framework of the debt release year to the manumission of slaves is fairly straightforward. Since slaves have sold themselves because of debt, the release of debts in the calendrically fixed septennial year results in the release of debt slaves from both debt and concomitant bondage.50 According to Jer 34:14, therefore, slaves ought to be released both in the fixed year of release, and after six years of labor. Since both cycles are to be followed, the system will work in the favor of the slave, who will be released either at the calendrically fixed debt release year or after six years of labor, whichever came first. This suggests that the waw conjunction that connects the two halves of this hybrid law should be read according to its disjunctive use: “At the end of seven years, each one of you will release his hebrew kin who has sold himself to you, or he will serve you six years, and then you will send him away free from you.”51 This exegetical development of the debt release law serves to highlight the failure of both the ancestors and the cur49 On the reflexive nuance of this verb, see Clines, DCH (2001) 5:272–73; Koehler and Baumgartner, HALAT (2004) 1:551. 50  Sarna, Orient and Occident (1973) 148, points out that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan similarly extends the year of release (‫ )שמטה‬to slave release in the cases of the female slave (Exod 21:7) and the thief sold for his crime (Exod 22:2). 51  Cf. Joüon (2006) § 175 and Gen 26:11; Exod 21:15, 16, 17; Deut 24:7. Interestingly, each of these examples takes the form of an injunction, either the command of a human authority (Gen 26:11) or divine law (Exod 21:15, 16, 17; Deut 24:7). This may suggest that the disjunctive use of the waw conjunction was particularly suited to the pragmatics of commanding – a context shared by Jeremiah 34:14. On the possible of waw denoting alternatives, i. e. as able to express the same relationship as ‫או‬, “or,” compare 2 Sam 2:19 and 21: “Asahel pursued Abner and he did not turn to the right or to the left (‫ ”)על הימין ועל השמאול‬/ ​“Abner said to him, ‘turn to your right or to your left (‫)על ימינך או על שמאלך‬.”

152

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

rent generation to obey both D’s slave manumission law as well as its correctly understood debt release law. Rather than a bold innovation or transformation, this double system of overlapping temporal cycles actually represents what may be a plausible reading of Deut 15. Deuteronomy 15 does not combine these systems as Jer 34:14 does, but the juxtaposition of the laws could imply such a combination. Commenting on this juxtaposition, Lemche states that “it does seem peculiar that [the Deuteronomists] have not done more to harmonize Dtn xv 1–11 and xv 12–18.”52 Rather than requiring harmonizing, however, it may be that the author of Deut 15 simply understood these two laws as working together in favor of the slave and demonstrated this intention through the juxtaposition of the laws. In any case, the author of Jer 34:14 has inferred the applicability of D’s debt release for slave manumission. By invoking the violation of these laws as justification for the judgment to come on the Judeans, Jer 34:14 invokes D as an authoritative expression of divine will.

5. The Authority of Law In each of the passages analyzed above, DtrJ cited the violation of D’s law as justification for judgment. It is hardly surprising, therefore, to find that in two of the contexts, the passage goes on to also cite a curse from Deut 28 (after Jer 32:35, v. 41 alludes to Deut 28:63; after Jer 34:14, vv. 17 and 20, allude to Deut 28:25– 26). In this way, DtrJ makes explicit use of D to explain the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem as the result of the violation of D’s laws. This raises the question of why certain laws and not others were cited. In her treatment of Jer 17:19–27, Maier claims that by connecting destruction to Sabbath, the author has turned Sabbath into the central law of D’s Torah.53 In light of the three other passages that cite D’s laws as broken, however, Maier’s claim here is unsatisfying. The failure to obey manumission and debt release (Jer 34:14) results just as inexorably in destruction (17–22) as does the violation of Sabbath (Jer 17:27). Likewise, the list of sins recorded in Jer 32:30–35, which culminates in v. 35 with the violation of Deut 17:3, leads to destruction (v. 36). In none of these cases does DtrJ appear to have singled out a specific law as a center of D’s law. Instead, DtrJ appears to have selected laws ad hoc as they suited the interests of the passage. The selection of manumission and debt release in Jer 34 may have reflected an actual historical event – a royally mandated slave release that was later rescinded – or a preexisting narrative involving such an event. In either case, these laws are selected for their pertinence to this earlier narrative. Child sacrifice and idolatry are concerns repeatedly treated by DtrJ, and these concerns guide the selection 52

 VT 26 (1976) 45. Lehrer der Tora (2002) 223–25.

53 Maier,

I. Law as Authority

153

of Deut 17:3 and 18:9–10. The citation of the Sabbath law does not appear to respond to anything preexisting in its context;54 it likely represents the growing importance of the Sabbath in the exilic and post-exilic periods and the necessity of clarifying its scope. Jeremiah 8:2 and 32:35 both allude to a law with little adaptation of it beyond fitting it to its new context. In Jer 17:19–27 and 34:14, however, the author engages in a form of legal exegesis that expands the scope of the cited law. In Jer 17, this expansion involved specific regulations forbidding the carrying of burdens; in 34:14, the joining of debt release to manumission. These two exegetical passages treat their legal expansions in differing ways. In Jer 17, the innovative commands are introduced by Jeremiah’s own “thus says Yahweh.” Though grounded in the prophetic authority of Jeremiah, these innovations are also there stated to be a consistent working out of D’s Sabbath law. In Jer 34:14, on the other hand, the combination of manumission and debt release is presented as a quotation of the wilderness command of Yahweh (v. 13). More so than Jer 17:19–27, therefore, Jer 34:14 could merit analysis as an innovation disguised as a citation. In either case, the exegetical expansions of Deut 5 and 15 in Jer 17 and 34 can be contrasted to the transformation of Deut 18:21–22 in Jer 28:8–9. That passage, discussed in ch. 2, explicitly transforms Deut 18’s verification criterion to apply only to prophecies of peace. This represented an attempt to neutralize a problematic law by exegetically transforming it. The cases of Jer 17 and 34, on the other hand, do not betray any need to subvert their source material. They appear rather as attempts to work out the implications of the source text and to apply them to new situations. This hermeneutical extension of D’s law represents just that kind of interpretive ingenuity that Smith identified as a hallmark of “canon.”55 The perspective on D demonstrated by these allusions provides important insight for DtrJ’s understanding of its source. In each of these cases, D, whether exegetically expanded (Jer 17:19–27, Jer 34:14) or not (Jer 8:2, Jer 32:35), cites the violation of D law as justification for the divine judgment that is coming to Judah. The dynamics of authority at play here are multi-faceted. By citing D’s law as divine speech and its violation as ushering in divine retribution, DtrJ accepts D’s central religious claims. In Lincoln’s terms, D is a speaker and DtrJ its deferential, authority-conferring audience.56 At the same time, however, DtrJ is a speaker seeking to establish its own authority. Lincoln identifies the use of authorizing objects as a strategy speakers sometimes use to secure their authority. Such ob Thiel’s suggestion that vv. 19–27 are intended to specify the sin “written with an iron pen” in vv. 1–4 is belied by the absence of vv. 1–4 in the LXX (Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 [1973] 209). Even if correct, the connection is tenuous in contrast to the clear way that the DtrJ supplementation of ch. 34 interprets the narrative of Zedekiah’s slave release. 55  Imagining Religion (1982) 43. 56 Authority (1994) 8, 10–11. 54

154

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

jects confer authority only if the audience considers them capable of doing so. The paradigmatic example is the royal scepter, the possession and use of which is understood to give authority to its wielder.57 For the citation of D to work as a justification for the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem implies that DtrJ’s imagined audience also believes in the divine origin and authority of D and are therefore theoretically convincible through appeal to it. DtrJ’s ideal audience recognizes its use of D and accepts DtrJ’s claim to mediate D’s message and expand on it. In the discourse of textual authority, citation of an external text can serve the same role as possession of an authorizing object. For DtrJ, therefore, D is both a speaker on which it confers authority and an authorizing object that it uses to legitimate its own ability to make authoritative pronouncements. This perspective highlights the uniqueness of DtrJ’s treatment of the prophecy laws discussed in ch. 2. In the condemnation of false prophets, DtrJ does not refrain from citing D’s prophecy laws; yet where these laws impinge on Jeremiah’s full prophetic authority and autonomy, they are carefully circumscribed (in Jer 28:8–9) and subverted (Jer 1:7–9; Jer 26:2). No such ideological conflict appears in the four passages treated here – even where exegetical transformation occurs (Jer 17:19–27 and 34:14).

II. Further Allusions to Law by DtrJ In four further allusions to D (Jer 13:11 / ​Deut 26:29; Jer 32:21–22 / ​Deut 26:3, 8–9; Jer 31:29–30 / ​Deut 24:16; Deut 32:18–19 / ​Deut 5:9–10), DtrJ cites D’s law as a means of describing Yahweh’s relationship to Judah.

1. Jer 13:11 and Deut 26:29 Jer 13:11 alludes to the conclusion of the laws of D.58 The DtrJ affiliation of this passage arises from the uniquely DtrJ expression, “to go after the stubbornness of their hearts” (v. 10),59 as well as the Dtr phrases, “to go after other gods and 57  In this sense, D serves in a capacity analogous to Agamemnon’s royal sceptre: “the sceptre’s authorizing capacity hardly constitutes post facto proof of its divine status; rather, belief in its divinity is the precondition for its authorizing capacity” (ibid., 106). 58  This allusion is noted also by Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 58 and Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 455, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2009) 283. McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 291, also raises it as a possibility. 59  The phrase “the stubbornness of their hearts” does not appear in the LXX (Cf. Ziegler, Jeremias [1976] 214). Since the participial form πορευθέντας, “going,” corresponds better to the Hebrew participle ‫ ההלכים‬than to the finite ‫והלכו‬, it may be that the phrase “going after the stubbornness of their hearts” is original and that ‫בשררות לבם וילכו‬, “after the stubbornness of their own heart, and they went …” was secondarily lost – either in the transmission of a Hebrew or a Greek Vorlage. This solution is cautiously preferred also by Barthélemy, Critique

II. Further Allusions to Law by DtrJ

155

bow down” (v. 10), and “the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah” (v. 11).60 The primary marker of the allusion in v. 11 is a unique triad of terms: Jer 13:11

Deut 26:19

‫כי כאשר ידבק האזור אל מתני איש כן הדבקתי אלי‬ ‫את כל בית ישראל ואת כל בית יהודה נאם יהוה‬ ‫להיות לי לעם ולשם ולתהלה ולתפארת ולא שמעו‬

‫ולתתך עליון על כל הגוים אשר עשה לתהלה ולשם‬ ‫ולתפארת ולהיתך עם קדש ליהוה אלהיך כאשר‬ ‫דבר‬

For just as a loincloth clings to the loins of a man, so I made cling to me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, declares Yahweh, to become my people, name, praise, and glory, but they did not listen.

… and to make you preeminent with respect to praise, name, and glory over all the nations that he made, and that you would become Yahweh your god’s holy people, just as he said.

Apart from these two passages, the triad “praise, name, glory” appears only in Jer 33:9, which is a late addition to Jeremiah and likely reuses Jer 13:11 rather than Deut 26:19.61 In addition to this unique triad, Jer 13:11 and Deut 26:19 also share the covenantal formula “to become my people.” Due to the ubiquity of this phrase, this connection is unimpressive on its own, but combined with the unique triad, it further supports an allusion. The shared language is put to a significantly different use in these two passages. In Jer 13:11, the triad “name, praise, and glory” is governed by the adverbial ‫לי‬, “to become my people, name, praise, and glory.” Just as Judah and Israel become Yahweh’s people, they become also the source of his reputation and honor. In Deut 26:19, on the other hand, the “praise, name, and glory” are bestowed on Israel. According to this passage, the people are to become, “preeminent over all the nations,” (‫)עליון על כל הגוים‬. The prepositional complements ‫לתהלה ולשם‬ ‫ ולתפארת‬define the domain of this preeminence; it is a preeminence “with respect to praise, name, and glory.” Though both passages view this “praise, name, and glory” as a result of the covenantal relationship between Yahweh and Israel, for Textuelle (1986) 578–79. The omission of ‫ בשררות לבם וילכו‬could thus be explained by a scribe skipping from the first instance of “to go” to the second. 60 Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 68, idem, Jeremiah 1–25 (1973) 122–23; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 320, 321, 340; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 170–72; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 291. 61 Contra Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 228, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2009) 283, who sees Jer 33:9 as alluding to Deut 26:19. No part of Jer 33:9 links it uniquely to Deut 26:19. One notes that the order of constituents matches that of Jer 13:11 “name, praise, glory” rather than that of Deut 26:19, “praise, name, glory.” Jeremiah 33:9 also contains the phrase ‫ לי‬that is found uniquely in Jer 13:11. Since Duhm, many scholars have taken ch. 33 in its entirety to be a late addition (Duhm, Jeremia [1901] 270, Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 48; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 [1981] 37; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII [1996] 854, Carroll, Jeremiah [1986] 633–34). Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 222–24, finds some authentic material in vv. 1–13, but nevertheless identifies v. 9 as a late “generalizing expansion,” dependent on Jer 13:11.

156

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

Deut 26:19 it is a matter of the glory of Israel – a reward for their obedience, while for Jer 13:11 it is a matter of the glory that comes to Yahweh as a result of Israel’s obedience. This relationship between these passages establishes the priority of Deut 26:19. Jeremiah 13:11 can be seen as correcting Deut 26:19’s emphasis on the glory of Israel by clarifying the “praise, name, and glory” as in fact belonging to Yahweh. The reverse direction is more difficult to explain: why would Deut 26:19 transform a passage that assigns glory to Yahweh into one that assigns that glory to Israel? Such a transformation would be without explanation or precedent. Jeremiah 13:11, therefore, appears to allude to Deut 26:19, a verse that plays an important structural role in D. It serves as the final element in the conclusion to the laws of chs. 12–26 (Deut 26:16–19) and summarizes what is to be the reward for Israel’s obedience.62 This conclusion begins with a reference back to the opening of the laws (11:32–12:1): “Today Yahweh your god is commanding you to do all these statutes and commands. You will keep and do them with all your heart and all your soul” (Deut 26:16). The following verses formalize the covenantal relationship. Israel is to keep the commandments and have Yahweh alone as their god, and Yahweh is to take the people as his own special possession (v. 18) and give them preeminence over all other nations (v. 19). The verse alluded to by Jer 13:11, therefore, concludes the laws of D. It articulates Yahweh’s obligation to make covenant-keeping Israel into the greatest of all nations. Jeremiah 13:11 picks up on this obligation and likewise uses it to summarize the covenant. Verses 10–11 explain the loincloth sign act described in 13:1–7. According to v. 11, the loincloth represents the people of Judah and Israel. Yahweh’s metaphorical wearing of this loincloth close to the body represents his covenant: “for just as the loincloth clings to the loins of a man, so I have made cling to me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah.” Verse 11 then slips out of the metaphor to describe directly the purpose of this covenantal relationship and the failure of Israel to obey: “to become my people, name, praise, and glory, but they did not listen.” Here, as in the source text, the attaining of a “name, praise, and glory” comes about as a result of the covenant between Yahweh and his people. The transformation of the source text such that the “name, praise, and glory” belong to Yahweh rather than his people could simply reflect a desire to emphasize the glory of Yahweh. On the one hand, to be a source for Yahweh’s glory is still a high honor for Israel. On the other hand, v. 9 identifies the great pride (‫ )גאון‬of Judah and Israel as coming to an end. If v. 9 identifies pride as one of Israel’s problems, it may be that vv. 10–11 understand the loincloth image as inherently humbling for Judah and Israel. If so, the diverting of the “name, praise, and glory” from Israel to Yahweh could further serve this goal. 62 Mayes,

Deuteronomy (1979) 337–40; Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 244.

157

II. Further Allusions to Law by DtrJ

2. Jer 32:21–22 and Deut 26:3, 8–9, 15 Jeremiah 32:21–22, a text that also belongs to DtrJ,63 alludes to Deut 26 through a combination of markers drawn from vv. 3, 8–9, and 15.64 These lexical markers are most pronounced in v. 21, where almost every phrase is drawn from Deut 26:8: Jer 32:21

‫ותצא את עמך את ישראל‬ ‫מארץ מצרים‬ ‫באתות ובמופתים‬ ‫וביד חזקה ובאזרוע נטויה ובמורא גדול‬ You brought your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders, and with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and with a great fearful deed.

Deut 26:8

‫ויוצאנו יהוה‬ ‫ממצרים‬ ‫ביד חזקה ובזרע נטויה ובמרא גדל‬ ‫ובאתות ובמפתים‬ Yahweh brought us out of Egypt with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and with a great fearful deed, and with signs and wonders.

Here we note only minor changes. The phrase “with signs and wonders” (underlined above) appears in Jer 32:21 at the beginning of the series of ‫ב‬-initial prepositional clauses rather than at its conclusion. Jer 32:21 presents 2nd person address to Yahweh rather than a 3rd person account of him. The only phrase in Jer 32:21 not paralleled in Deut 26:8 is “your people, Israel.” This phrase, however, appears verbatim in near proximity in Deut 26:15. By themselves, none of these phrases is distinctive, especially in the Dtr corpus. Together, however, they present an impressive congruency of no less than six phrases in an almost identical order. Although a similar constellation of phrases appears in Deut 4:34 and 34:11–12 – the latter of which belongs to the E source, these passages lack the initial verb “to bring out” and its adjunct “from (the land of) Egypt.” What is more, the next verse in Jer 32 contains further parallels with the next verse in Deut 26: 63  The DtrJ affiliation of this passage is complicated by the fact that most of the markers connecting vv. 20–22 to Deut 26 are themselves Dtr phraseology found elsewhere. Since an allusion to material that uses Dtr phraseology does not necessarily indicate that the alluding passage is DtrJ, these markers need to be excluded from the analysis. Nevertheless, the discourse surrounding vv. 20–22 is thick with Dtr language and, as such, vv. 20–22 can be assigned to that stratum with confidence. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 322, 329, 331, 334, 342 for Dtr phraseology in vv. 17, 18, 23, and 29. For the many uses of DtrJ language in vv. 30–40, see ibid., 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 332, 333, 335, 339, 340, 341, 347, 348, 352. Cf. Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 87; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 37; Nicholson, Jeremiah 26–52 (1975) 79. 64  This allusion is noted also by Holladay, CBQ 66 (2004) 69–70, and Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 204, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2009) 282.

158

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

Jer 32:22

‫ותתן להם את הארץ הזאת‬ ‫אשר נשבעת לאבותם לתת להם‬ ‫ארץ זבת חלב ודבש‬ You gave to them this land, which you swore to their fathers, to give to them, a land flowing with milk and honey.

Deut 26:9

‫ויבאנו אל המקום הזה‬ ‫ויתן לנו את הארץ הזאת‬ ‫ארץ זבת חלב ודבש‬ He brought us to this place and gave us this land a land flowing with milk and honey.

In this case, two phrase-level parallels appear that differ from Deut 26:9 only in their participant reference structure. In Deut 26, Yahweh is represented by the third person and Israel by the first person plural; in Jer 32, Yahweh is addressed in the second person and the people of Israel in the third. The relative clause that appears in Jer 32:32 but is lacking in Deut 26:9 is another Dtr cliché, but its appearance at the beginning of the same liturgy65 (Deut 26:3) suggests that it may be drawn from there. As such, Jer 32:22 is composed entirely of phrases drawn from the first-fruits liturgy of Deut 26:3–11. This congruence, when combined with the fact that Jer 32:21 is similarly composed of phrases drawn from this first-fruits liturgy, as well as one phrase from the adjacent tithe liturgy (v. 15), leads to the conclusion that this passage alludes to Deut 26:3–15, and particularly the first-fruits liturgy in vv. 3–11. The symbolic action narrated in Jer 32:6–15 provides the key to this allusion. Jeremiah receives and carries out a divine command to purchase a field. According to v. 15, this act serves as a sign of the restoration of Judah: “for thus says Yahweh of hosts, god of Israel, ‘houses, fields, and vineyards will once again be bought in this land.’” Verses 16–44 represent a later, DtrJ addition to and extended interpretation of this sign-act.66 While some claim to find earlier material in these verses,67 none of the supposed seams is definitive.68 The DtrJ language that suffuses v. 16–44,69 combined with the lack of convincing redactional seams, supports viewing the whole as a DtrJ composition. This composition opens with a complaint by Jeremiah. The complaint begins with an interjection, “alas, lord Yahweh” (v. 17), and proceeds to offer 65 Even if vv. 3–4 are a late addition, as suggested by Seitz, Studien (1971) 244–45; Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 334, it remains that in the current form of ch. 26, they constitute the beginning of the first-fruits liturgy. 66 Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 87; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 64; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–52 (1981) 30–37. 67  Bright, Jeremiah (1965) 297–98; Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 179, both take 17aα, 24–25 as authentic. Holladay, CBQ 66 (2004) 69–70, adds vv. 21–23. 68  Cf. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–52 (1981) 31–32. 69  Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 339, 340, 341, 342, 347, 348, 350, 352; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 845.

II. Further Allusions to Law by DtrJ

159

praise to Yahweh for his power and justice (vv. 17–19). The following section, which contains the allusion to Deut 26, recounts the historical deliverance from Egypt (vv. 20–22). Next comes the substance of the prophet’s complaint. Despite Yahweh’s goodness, the people have disobeyed and brought on themselves the Babylonian onslaught as a just punishment (23–24). The complaint culminates in v. 25 with an accusation of injustice: “But you said to me, ‘purchase the field with money and have it witnessed.’ But this city has been given to the Chaldeans” (v. 25). Though Yahweh is powerful and just (vv. 17–19), and the punishment of Judah is itself warranted (vv. 23–24), it is not just for Yahweh to require Jeremiah to pointlessly purchase the field. Within this framework, the citation of the first-fruits liturgy gains a particular rhetorical force. In response to the command to buy a field, Jeremiah recites part of Deut 26’s first-fruits liturgy. On one level, the language of this liturgy serves the purpose of praising Yahweh for his past deliverance of Israel and gift of the land. This meaning is available to any reader of this passage. For the reader who perceives the allusion to Deut 26, however, vv. 21–22 take on a further ironic function. By praising Yahweh for the gift of land through the language of the offerer of first-fruits (vv. 21–22) only to point out the justified destruction of this land (vv. 23–24), Jeremiah highlights the absurdity of his purchase of land. With the enemy at the gates, the field Jeremiah just purchased will not yield first-fruits that might be offered to Yahweh. Jeremiah’s objection to the purchase of the field (v. 25) is thus dramatized by his citation of a first-fruits liturgy that he will never perform (vv. 21–23).

3. Jer 31:29–30 and Deut 24:16 Jeremiah 31:29–30 addresses and rejects the idea of transgenerational punishment. This passage quotes a proverb that articulates this principle and enlists Deut 24:16 as its authoritative refutation:70 Jer 31:29–30

‫בימים ההם לא יאמרו עוד אבות אכלו בסר ושני‬ ‫בנים תקהינה כי אם איש בעונו ימות כל האדם‬ ‫האכל הבסר תקהינה שניו‬ In those days, it will no longer be said, “Fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of sons will be set on edge.” But rather each person will die for his own iniquity. For every person who eats sour grapes, their own teeth will be set on edge. 70 Fishbane,

Deut 24:16

‫לא יומתו אבות על בנים ובנים לא יומתו על אבות‬ ‫איש בחטאו יומתו‬ Fathers will not be put to death for sons, and sons will not be put to death for fathers. Each person will be put to death for his own sin.

Biblical Interpretation (1985) 337, 341–43; Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 (2012) 217.

160

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

Though restricted to a single phrase-level parallel, these passages appear to be literarily connected. The phrase “each person will die / ​be put to death for his own iniquity / ​sin” is attested elsewhere only in 2 Kgs 14:6/2 Chr 25:4, a passage which explicitly cites this phrase as a quotation form the “torah in the book of Moses.” Two minor variants appear between Jer 31:30 and Deut 24:16. One involves a synonym substitution (‫  ​עון‬/  ‫חטא‬, “sin / ​iniquity”); the other involves a grammatical shift in the verb “to die” from hophal to qal (‫  ​ימות‬/  ‫יומת‬, “be put to death / ​die”). Both of these differences could be accounted for as memory variants. It is possible, however, that the original reading of the verb in Deut 24:16 was qal. Evidence for this appears in 1Q5, which preserves the first part of Deut 24:16 as ‫לא ימות אב]ות‬, “fathers will not die …,” in place of the MT’s ‫לא יומת‬ ‫אבות‬, “fathers will not be put to death.” While the rest of the verse is not extant in 1Q5, the parallelism of the rest of the verse suggests that the final verb would also be in the qal: ‫ ימותו‬or ‫ ימות‬rather than ‫יומתו‬. Suggestive also is 2 Kgs 14:6 (paralleled in 2 Chron 25:4), which explicitly cites Deut 24:16, but in the ketiv preserves a reading of this verb in the qal: “But the sons of the murderers he did not put to death, just as is written in the book of the torah of Moses, which Yahweh commanded, saying, ‘fathers will not be put to death (‫ )יומתו‬for sons and sons should not be put to death (‫ )יומתו‬for fathers, but rather each should die (‫ )ימות‬for his own sin.’ ” This text is significant for two reasons. First, along with the 1Q5, it suggests that the hophals of the MT were not the only readings of Deut 24:16. This feature raises the possibility of an original qal – thus reducing the variance between Jer 31:20 and Deut 24:16. Second, it provides precedent for another Deuteronomistic text citing Deut 24:16. The logic of the citation has the form of a proof-text. According to the argument, the sour grapes proverb must be false simply because it contradicts Deut 24:16. This form of argumentation is significant. The principle of transgenerational retribution serves as part of the Decalogue’s prohibition of idol-worship: “You will not bow down to them or worship them, for I, Yahweh your god, am a jealous god, who punishes sons for the iniquity of fathers for three and four generations, and keeps faithfulness to thousands for those who love me and keep my commands” (Exod 20:5–6 / ​Deut 5:9–10). Though other allusions to Deut 5 (Jer 7:23, 17:19–27) demonstrate that DtrJ likely knows this passage, DtrJ ignores it in its refutation of transgenerational punishment. This can be contrasted to Deut 7:9–10, which, as Levinson shows, both cites and refutes the principle expressed in the Decalogue.71 For Jer 31:29–30, transgenerational punishment is refuted simply by appeal to a law in D that expresses the principle of individual retribution in the sphere of human civil law. Jeremiah 31:29–30 understands this civil principle to be an expression of divine justice.72 The rhe71

 Levinson, Legal Revision (2008) 72–84. points out that Ezek 18:20 likewise cites Deut 24:16 in refutation of the same

72 Levinson

II. Further Allusions to Law by DtrJ

161

torical posture of Jer 31:29–30 treats D’s law as both relevant and authoritative. The authority constructed here is similar to what Lincoln describes as an extreme form of epistemic authority in that it offers a “pronouncement that ends all debate on a given question.”73 As this passage belongs to a section highly marked by DtrJ language,74 it can be included among the examples of DtrJ’s use of D as an authoritative and authorizing text.

4. Jer 32:18–19 and Deut 5:9–10 The issue of transgenerational punishment appears again in Jer 32:18–19.75 In this case, the decalogue’s articulation of the principle is cited (v. 18) and is then followed immediately with a refutation of the principle (v. 19). The cited formula appears in a number of contexts, but the unique parallels to the decalogue indicate the likely source:76 Jer 32:18–19

‫עשה חסד לאלפים ומשלם עון אבות אל חיק‬18 ‫בניהם אחריהם האל הגדול הגבור יהוה צבאות שמו‬ ‫גדל העצה ורב העליליה אשר עיניך פקחות על כל‬19 ‫דרכי בני אדם לתת לאיש כדרכיו וכפרי מעלליו‬ Who acts with faithfulness to thousands and pays back the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their sons after them. The great El, the warrior, Yahweh is his name. 19 [He is] great of counsel and mighty of deeds, whose eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of man in order to give to each according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds. 18

Deut 5:9b–10

‫כי אנכי יהוה אלהיך אל קנא פקד עון אבות על‬ ‫בנים ועל שלשים ועל רבעים לשנאי ועשה חסד‬ ‫לאלפים לאהבי ולשמרי מצותי‬ For I am Yahweh your god, jealous El, who visits the iniquity of fathers upon sons and upon the third generation and the fourth of those who hate me, but who acts with faithfulness to thousands of those who love me and who keep my commands.

Though Fishbane discusses this passage as a reuse of Exod 34:6–7,77 Jer 32:18’s closer affinity to the decalogue is confirmed by the use of ‫ עשה‬with ‫חסד‬, a collocation that appears in the decalogue but not the formulary in Exod 34:6–7.

principle, expressed in reference to the same folk proverb (ibid., 63–65). Cf. also Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 (2012) 217–18. 73  Authority (1994) 4. 74 Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 22–24. For Dtr phraseology in Jer 31:27–34, including some unique to DtrJ, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 322, 323, 324, 325, 332, 333, 339, 340, 341, 347, 352. 75  Cf. p. 157, n. 63 for the DtrJ affiliation of this passage. 76 Here reading the final word of Deut 5:10 with the Qere: “my commands” rather than “his commands.” 77  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretatation (1985) 341–43.

162

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

The probability that Jer 32:18 cites D’s decalogue is supported by several further observations. First, the allusion to Deut 26 in vv. 21–22 (see above) and Deut 5:29 in vv. 39–40 (see ch. 5) shows additional allusions to D in the immediate context. As the immediate context of vv. 18–19 alludes to D (Deut 26 in vv. 21–22) and the broader context returns to Deut 5 specifically (vv. 39–40), it is probable that the citation of the attribute formula likewise draws on its use in Deut 5. Further corroboration arises from the fact that DtrJ has already alluded to D’s decalogue in 17:19–27. Certainty as to the source here remains, however, impossible, and the possibility that attribute formula is cited apart from its literary occurrences cannot be excluded. Though Fishbane speaks of this allusion in relation to Exod 34, his comments are nevertheless valid as applied to the text in Deut 5:9–10. A tradition involving vicarious punishment is cited (32:18) and then immediately contradicted by asserting that God in fact pays back each according to his deeds (19b).78 The interplay between vv. 18 and 19 is important. Verse 18b describes Yahweh as ‫“ האל הגדול‬great El.” Verse 19 in its entirety appears to be an explanation this greatness: it is expressed in his counsel and deeds, which are themselves manifest in his repaying each person according to their own deeds. This interpretive procedure is difficult to explain. Why would the author cite a passage only to immediately contradict it? The answer appears to lie in the fact that Jer 32:17–25 itself is not geared towards addressing the issue of transgenerational punishment. The principle appears due to its connection to the cited attribute formula – that is, it is secondary phenomenon arising from the allusion rather than an intended focus of the passage. The context of this passage (vv. 17–25) is a complaint on the prophet’s part for the apparently useless command to purchase a field at a time when the nation is on the brink of collapse. In this context, Yahweh is praised for his acts of creation and deliverance and his justice in judging Judah. Emphasized, then, is that his rightness in judging Judah implies his wrongness in commanding the purchase of land. The attribute formula is cited as a classic expression of power and grandeur of Yahweh. As such, the principle of transgenerational punishment contained in the formula appears to be incidental. While the principle of transgenerational punishment contributes to the marking of the allusion, it expresses a principle at odds with DtrJ, and hence, the author hastens to correct the principle in v. 19. The nature of v. 19’s correction is telling. The principle is not subversively transformed or disguised through discernible exegetical or interpretive technique, but simply refuted, as it were, by hermeneutical fiat. The corrective v. 19 thus permits the DtrJ author to both have their cake – the use of a traditional divine attribute formula for rhetorical effect – and, through the interpretive correction, eat it too. Such a use of D’s decalogue can hardly be said to represent a rejection of D’s authority, however, since, as 78 Ibid.,

342.

163

III. Law as Metaphor

shown in the previous section, D itself rejects the principle of transgenerational punishment. Both D and DtrJ, however, incorporate the decalogue’s principle of transgenerational punishment despite their disagreement with it – a fact that most likely points to the prestige of the decalogue for these authors.

III. Law as Metaphor Allusions to D’s legal corpus surveyed so far – both in this chapter and in ch. 2 – have been located exclusively in DtrJ or later passages. In ch. 3, three pre-DtrJ texts alluded to Deut 28. Now we turn to a particular type of allusion that appears almost exclusively in pre-DtrJ poetic traditions. Very different from DtrJ’s use of D’s law as providing requirements whose violation brought judgment, these allusions makes use of D’s laws as a reservoir of metaphorical images suited for picturing the relationship between Yahweh and Judah and, in one instance, for the prophetic experience of persecution. While these poetic metaphorical allusions make striking use of D’s laws, they nowhere invoke D as an authority. This use draws on D as prestigious but does not invoke it as an authority.

1. Metaphorical allusions to non-D law Before examining the metaphorical allusions to the laws of D, it is useful to point out that the pre-DtrJ literary traditions also allude to the Covenant Code and Holiness Code in a similar manner. In Jer 2, the thief laws of Exod 22 are twice taken up and applied to Judah. The most apparent of these is Jer 2:34: Jer 2:34

‫גם בכנפיך נמצאו דם נפשות אביונים נקיים לא‬ ‫במחתרת מצאתים‬ Even on the edges of your garments are found the lifeblood of the innocent poor. You did not find them breaking in.

Exod 22:1

‫אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב והכה ומת אין לו דמים‬ If a thief is found breaking in, and he is struck down, there is no bloodguilt for him.

These are the only occurrences of the noun ‫מחתרת‬, “breaking in.” Since this noun appears in both cases as a part of a prepositional phrase modifying the verb ‫מצא‬, “to find,” it appears that this is a likely allusion.79 The only grammatical difference is that ‫ מצא‬appears as a niphal-passive in Exod 22:1 and as a qal active in Jer 2:34. This grammatical transformation emphasizes the agency of Israel: it is they who shed innocent blood, and so they are guilty for it. The allusion closes an imagined legal loophole provided by Exod 22:1 – as though the rich oppres79  So also Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 312–14; 409; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 103, 110; idem, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 39.

164

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

sors condemned here would justify their actions by the principle embedded in the law of Exod 22:1. The metaphorical valence of this allusion emerges in light of a previous verse in the same discourse: Jer 2:26a

‫כבשת גנב כי ימצא כן הבישו בית ישראל‬ Like the shame of a thief when he is caught, so will the house of Israel be ashamed.

Exod 22:6b

‫אם ימצא הגנב ישלם שנים‬ If the thief is caught, he will pay back double,

This series of thief laws in Exod 22:1–8 are the only places in the Hebrew Bible where the qattāl form of ‫גנב‬, “thief,” appears as the subject of the niphal of ‫מצא‬, “to find.” A similar formulation occurs in Deut 24:7, but in this case treats the specific case of a ‫גנב נפש‬, a “kidnapper,” rather than a common thief and employs participial form of ‫ גנב‬rather than the qattāl form.80 Proverbs 6:30–31 contains a formulation closer to Exod 22:6: “A thief (‫ )גנב‬will not be despised when he steals to fill his throat out of hunger. When he is found (‫)נמצא‬, he will pay sevenfold …” Though this passage is close in language and theme to both Exod 22:6 and Jer 2:26, the juxtaposition of the terms ‫ גנב‬and ‫ מצא‬that appears in those passages is lacking in Prov 6:30–31. The strong and unique lexical link between Jer 2:34 and Exod 22:1 just a few verses later corroborates the identification of v. 26 as an allusion to the same set of laws as v. 34. In v. 26, then, the people are imagined as the law’s thief, shamed by exposure and subject to punishment. Having metaphorically identified Israel as a thief in v. 26 invites further associations surrounding the subsequent allusion in v. 34. As already indicated, this verse removes a supposed legal loophole that the wealthy might invoke to justify their oppression of the poor. Verse 34 asserts that the poor are not thieves, and thus the guilt of violence against them adheres to the perpetrators. In light of v. 26, the implication of this allusion expands. The perpetrators of this violence are themselves thieves. Thus whereas their violence against the poor cannot be justified by Exod 22:1, the judgment of Yahweh against Israel can be so justified. We see developed here, therefore, a use of the laws concerning thieves from the Covenant Code applied metaphorically to the situation of Israel. Another example from the same chapter puts to metaphorical use the cultic law concerning the consumption of consecrated offerings (‫)קדש‬. The cultic principle that serves as the basis for this passage appears in Lev 22:14–16:81  Without the mater, the participial qōtēl and the nomen professionis qattāl are indistinguishable in the consonantal text. The participial form in Deut 24:7a, however, is likely mandated by the construct phrase ‫ גנב נפש‬since the nomen professionis does not typically take an objective genitive, whereas this is common for the participial form. 81  Milgrom, Cult and Conscience (1976) 70–74; idem, Leviticus 17–22 (2000) 1864–5; Fisbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 300–4; Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 259, n. 24. Here I stop short 80

165

III. Law as Metaphor

Jer 2:3

Lev 22:14–16

‫קדש ישראל ליהוה ראשית תבואתה כל אכליו‬ ‫יאשמו רעה תבא אליהם נאם יהוה‬

‫ואיש כי יאכל קדש בשגגה ויסף חמשיתו עליו ונתן‬ ‫לכהן את הקדש את הקדש ולא יחללו את קדשי בני‬ ‫ישראל את אשר ירימו ליהוה והשיאו אותם עון‬ ‫אשמה באכלם את קדשיהם כי אני יהוה מקדשם‬

Israel is a consecrated portion to Yahweh, the first fruit of his produce. All who devour it incur guilt. Disaster will come to them, declares Yahweh.

The man who eats a consecrated portion unintentionally will add a fifth to it and give it to the priest with the consecrated portion. They will not defile the consecrated portions of the Israelites, which they offer to Yahweh, and so bear the iniquity of guilt when they eat their consecrated portions, for I am Yahweh who consecrates them.

The cultic principle in Lev 22:14–16 holds that the unauthorized eating of a ‫קדש‬, “consecrated portion,” results in ‫אשמה‬, “guilt,” which requires a prescribed restitution. Jeremiah 2:3 applies this cultic principle to Israel, which is treated here metaphorically as the consecrated portion. Just as an unauthorized eater of a consecrated portion incurs guilt, so also will Israel’s enemies incur guilt when they attack Israel. As with the allusions to the thief laws, the author finds in the cultic law an apt metaphor for Israel’s relationship with Yahweh. These texts show a particular type of metaphorical allusion to law. These metaphors assume the validity of the legal principle, but metaphorically substitute Judah and / ​or Yahweh for an element regulated by the law. Pre-DtrJ traditions make use of the same trope in reference to D’s legal traditions.

2. Jer 3:1–4, 8 and Deut 24:1–4 A well-recognized allusion to the divorce law of Deut 24:1–4 appears in Jer 3:1– 4, 8.82 Beginning with v. 1, the following lexical parallels provide evidence of a literary allusion:

of claiming that Lev 22:14–16 is directly alluded to. Such an allusion is possible, but especially given the possibly late date of the Holiness Code, it may be that the Holiness Code gives expression to the cultic principle that stands behind Jer 2:3 and does not serve as that passage’s direct source. In either case, however, the essential point remains the same. Jeremiah 2:3 here takes a cultic regulation and applies it metaphorically to Judah in a way analogous to the thief laws of the Covenant Code and the several uses of D to be analyzed below. 82  Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) 270–71; Hyatt, JNES 1 (1942) 164; Rowley, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (1950) 171; Bright, Jeremiah (1965) 23; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 359; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 88; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 308–9; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 112–13, 118; idem, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 56–57; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 65; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 185, 189; idem, Tora für

166

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

Jer 3:1

Deut 24:1–4

‫לאמר הן ישלח איש את‬ ‫אשתו והלכה מאתו והיתה‬ ‫לאיש אחר הישוב אליה עוד‬ ‫הלוא חנוף תחנף הארץ‬ ‫ההיא ואת זנית רעים רבים‬ ‫ושוב אלי נאם יהוה‬

‫כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו כי מצא בה ערות‬ ‫דבר וכתב לה ספר כריתת ונתן בידה ושלחה מביתו ויצאה מביתו והלכה‬ ‫והיתה לאיש אחר ושנאה האיש האחרון וכתב לה ספר כריתת ונתן בידה‬ ‫ושלחה מביתו או כי ימות האיש האחרון אשר לקחה לו לאשה לא יוכל‬ ‫בעלה הראשון אשר שלחה לשוב לקחתה להיות לו לאשה אחרי אשר‬ ‫הטמאה כי תועבה הוא לפני יהוה ולא תחטיא את הארץ אשר יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫נתן לך נחלה‬

Saying, “If a man sends his wife away and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, can he afterwards return to her again? Would not that land surely be polluted? And you have whored with many companions. Nevertheless, return83 to me, declares Yahweh.

When a man takes and marries a woman, if she is not pleasing to him because he finds in her some indecency, and he writes for her a document of divorce and gives it to her and sends her away from his house, and she departs from his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the other man hates her and writes for her a document of divorce and gives it to her and sends her away from his house – or if the other man, who took her as a wife, dies – her first husband who sent her away is not permitted to take her back again as a wife after she has been defiled for that would be an abomination before Yahweh. You will not bring guilt on the land which Yahweh your god is giving you as an inheritance.

The idea of divorce and return links the passages on a thematic level, and the lexical correspondences indicated above support a literary connection. Of particular note is the phrase ‫( והלכה והיתה לאיש אחר‬Deut 24:2b), which Jer 3:1 reproduces almost verbatim. A semantic parallel occurs also in the reference to the result this sin would have on the land. Deuteronomy 24:4 uses the hiphil of ‫חטא‬, “to cause to sin / ​bring guilt on,” which implies a moral guilt that accrues to the land as a whole.84 The usage in Jer 3:1 of ‫חנף‬, “to be polluted,” corresponds to usage found principally in the Priestly writings of the Pentateuch (cf. Num 35:33) and may well reflect the influence of Priestly ideology here.85 The use of ‫ חנף‬instead of ‫ חטא‬reflects the Priestly idea that the sin of the people ritually pollutes the entire land.86 This idea is expressed in the poetic oracles of Jeremiah elsewhere in 2:7, eine neue Generation (2011) 260; Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform (2006) 93–4; Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 259, 262–67. Duhm, Jeremia (1901) 33, 37, is confident of this allusion only in v. 8. 83  On this interpretation of ‫ושוב אלי‬, see below. 84 Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) 272. This formula occurs only here and has been taken by some (eg. Mayes, Deuteronomy [1981] 323) as evidence of a late edition. Though a unique expression in D, it is not foreign to the ideas expressed in D. The basic idea of an individual’s disobedience bringing danger on the whole is codified in the repeated expression ‫בערת הרע‬ ‫מקרבך‬, “you will remove the evil from your midst.” Analogous is the statement in Deut 24:4 that holds the performance of an abomination to have brought guilt to the whole land. 85 Cf. the discussion of this in Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 264–66. 86  In Num 35:33, ‫ חנף‬is used of bloodshed. The synonymous use of ‫טמא‬, “to defile,” however appears in Lev 18:25 in reference to sexual sins polluting the land. The idea of sins as polluting the land appears as an innovation of H and Ezekiel. Over against P, which viewed sin as

III. Law as Metaphor

167

16:18, and 23:15. The author, therefore, has adapted the moral terminology of the source text to correspond to his or her own ritual view of sin. Though most scholars acknowledge this allusion, T. R. Hobbs has argued against it.87 He points out first that the MT and LXX of Jer 3:1 differ with respect to the gender of the one returning. In place of the MT’s masculine agent (“can he return again to her?”), the LXX construes the woman as agent: “will she really return to him?” Since the masculine gender matches the formulation of Deut 24:4, Hobbs argues that the MT represents a harmonization to Deut 24:4 and that the LXX preserves the better reading.88 The principle of lectio difficilior, however, can cut both ways. Holladay argues that the MT represents the more difficult reading because it “suggests a kind of humbling action on Yahweh’s part, as if Israel is the stable one and Yahweh contemplates moving back to her.”89 More significantly, the last clause of Jer 3:1 in both MT and LXX contemplates Judah, the metaphorical wife, as the entity doing the potential returning. Thus, in the MT, the agent of the turning in the final clause stands in tension with the cited legal principle, which contemplates the husband returning to the wife. The LXX reflects a more logical development: a legal principle stating that the wife may not return to her husband followed by a metaphorical application to Judah stating that she may not return to Yahweh. Rather than the MT presenting a harmonization to the known law, the LXX reading could represent a harmonization to its present context. The situation would thus be analogous to Jer 34:14, where we saw a combination of Deut 15:1 and 12. The MT there maintained the allusion that the LXX smoothed over by changing the phrase “at the end of seven years” to “at the end of six years.” Hobbs registers incredulity about an early poetic oracle citing the recently published Deuteronomy. He considers it unlikely that D could have already achieved sufficient status to be cited. He also points to other lexical differences between Jer 3:1 and Deut 24:1–4 and notes the lack of Deuteronomic language in Deut 24:1–4.90 He concludes that Deut 24:1–4 and Jer 3:1 independently make use of an older law. Differences between the texts as well as supposed proximity in date, however, are not credible objections. As we have seen, allusions habitually adapt their source texts in numerous ways. Further, accepting for the sake of argument Hobbs’s claim that Jer 3:1 was written soon after Deut 24:1–4, he nevertheless gives no justification for his assumption that a greater time-depth is required for an allusion.

polluting the sanctuary alone, H sees the entire land as polluted and emphasizes the role of illicit sexual intercourse as a cause of this pollution (Nihan, Priestly Torah [2007] 480–81, 559). 87 ZAW 86 (1974) 23–29, followed by Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 322. 88  Ibid., 23. 89  Holladay, Jeremia 1 (1986) 113. 90 Hobbs, ZAW 86 (1974) 24.

168

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

While the possibility that both texts make use of a hypothetically older law is difficult to disprove, this proposal succumbs to Occam’s razor. The MT of Jer 3:1, as shown above, produces a tension between the legal principle cited and its application to Judah. For Jer 3:1 to include such a tension shows that the legal principle cited is linguistically fixed. The hypothetical older law used by Jer 3:1 and Deut 24:1–4 would thus have had to be in written form. No evidence for such a document exists. A supposed lack of Deuteronomic language in Deut 24:1–4 is not sufficient to posit the existence of an older written law for which there is otherwise no evidence. It is more economical to see the literary relationships as adequately accounted for by the dependence of Jer 3:1 on Deut 24:1–4. Corroborative support for this conclusion will appear in other allusions to D’s law in the poetic texts of Jeremiah that show that D’s laws served as a source for these poetic texts. Jeremiah 3:1, therefore, describes the relationship between Yahweh and Judah91 through a metaphorical allusion to the divorce law of Deut 24:1–4. In this metaphor, Judah is the wife who is divorced for indecency, and Yahweh is the husband who cannot return to her. The rhetorical force of this allusion is complicated by the ambiguity on the final clause: ‫ושוֹב אלי נאם יהוה‬. Most interpreters take this infinitive absolute as a stand-in for an imperfective verb, and see here a rhetorical question with a negative answer: “will you then return to me, declares Yahweh?”92 Fishbane, however, has pointed out that “there are no contextual reasons to prefer to construe it as a question rather than a declaration.”93 He concludes that the ambiguity between the two construals is intentional; the legal impossibility of return is juxtaposed to the possibility of return offered by Yahweh, who would be willing to violate the legal principle to take back a repentant Judah. In fact, the widespread use of the infinitive absolute as an imperative, and the correspondingly rare use of it as a stand-in for imperfective verbs,94 suggests reading this infinitive with a non-ambiguous imperatival meaning. If this analysis of the infinitive absolute is correct, the movement from the legal precedent, which denies the possibility of return, to the offered repentance rests on a sudden and clear offer of repentance rather than on ambiguity. The first half of the verse cites the law: “If a husband sends his wife away and she goes from him and 91 Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 62–66, argued that Jer 3:1–2, 4–5 originally addressed the north; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 69–72, however, has shown that, apart from the supplemental 3:6–12aα, the references to “Israel” in chs. 2–3 are addressed to Judah. 92 Cited as such in Joüon (2006) § 123w; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 58, 63. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 57, 113, does not see a rhetorical question, but rather an statement of indignation: “and to think you would return to me!” Holladay’s interpretation is rhetorically equivalent to the rhetorical question; both possibilities present an argument a fortiori. If a divorced wife may not return to her husband, how much less may Judah return to Yahweh. 93  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 310. 94 See Waltke and O’Connor (1990) 35.5.1–35.5.2; Joüon (2006) § 123u-w.

III. Law as Metaphor

169

becomes another man’s wife, can he afterwards return to her again? Would not that land surely be polluted?” The next line invokes the metaphorical application to Judah: “And you have whored with many companions.” The legal logic is already clear at this point; Judah has gone to other husbands and thus cannot return to Yahweh. The final line, then, comes not as an ambiguous hint at the possibility of Judah’s repentance and return, but as a surprising offer of that return. The author invokes the legal analogy of a divorced wife and her husband only to highlight an even greater disanalogy. Judah has no legal right to return to Yahweh; nevertheless, Yahweh offers the possibility of return. The broader context of Jer 3:1–4 supports this interpretation and shows that its basic contours are correct even if the final clause of v. 1 is interpreted as a rhetorical question with a negative answer. Establishing the immediate context of this passage, however, is not simple. Scholars are generally agreed that at least vv. 6–11 present an addition to the original poetic oracle in vv. 1–5.95 Verses 6–11 set themselves apart with a Deuteronomistic introductory formula (v. 6), prose style, and the introduction of a new theme: the Northern Kingdom’s historical experience as an example for Judah. While some scholars, noting the verbal similarity between vv. 5 and 19, have considered v. 19 the original continuation of this poetic passage,96 McKane and Holladay present convincing arguments that at least vv. 12aβ – with its call for Israel’s return to Yahweh – originally continued v. 5 and addressed the same audience as vv. 1–5.97 Verses 12aβ–13 call Israel to return to Yahweh, and respond directly to v. 5, where the people ask, “will he be angry forever (‫ ”?)הינטר לעולם‬The answer: “Return … I will not be angry forever (‫( ”)לא אטור לעולם‬v. 12). This “Israel,” as McKane points out, is likely originally a reference to Judah, as in its repeated uses in the previous chapter.98 This theme of repentance is continued in v. 19,99 where Yahweh expresses desire for a re95  Cf. Bright, Jeremiah (1965) 25–27; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 64–69; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 64. Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 19–21, though concurring that vv. 6–11 are not the original continuation of vv. 1–5, nevertheless considers them early and authentic, but secondarily included here by the author of vv. 14–18. 96  Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 42; Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 25; Bright, Jeremiah (1965) 25. 97 McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 71–72; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 64–65. Cf. Duhm, Jeremia (1901) 38, who also advanced this argument. 98  Jeremiah 1–25 (1986) 69–72, citing Skinner, Prophecy & Religion (1922) 83, n. 1. See the references to “Israel” in Jer 2:3, 4, 14, 26, 31, and the reference to “Judah” in 2:28. In Jer 3, it is only in the redactional expansion of vv. 6–12aα that “Israel” refers to the Northern Kingdom, and the inclusion of 12aα transforms an oracle originally addressed to Judah into one addressed to the Northern Kingdom. While Holladay sees this “Israel” as addressing the north (see n. 91), he views vv. 1–5 as addressed to the same. Whether referring to the former Northern Kingdom or Judah, both scholars see 12aβ–13 as addressing the same audience as vv. 1–5. 99 McKane’s view that vv. 19–25 are an independent unit not connected to 1–5, 12–13 (Jeremiah 1–25 [1986] 82–83) is based on his observation that despite the husband-wife imagery of v. 20, the opening image of the father-son relationship is incompatible with the husband-wife relationship of vv. 1–5. This argument is unconvincing, however, since both vv. 1–5 and 19–25

170

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

stored relationship with Judah. Verse 20 returns explicitly to the metaphor of Judah as treacherous wife only to issue once again the imperative ‫שובו‬, “return” (v. 22). Thus, even when excising what is likely a later addition to the poetic unit beginning with vv. 1–5, Judah’s repentance emerges as central to the discourse. Whatever the interpretation of the final clause of v. 1, in this larger context, the metaphorical allusion to Deut 24:1–4 contrasts the legal impossibility of return for the divorced wife to the possibility of repentance for wayward Judah. This interpretation holds whether the offer of repentance comes first in the final clause of v. 1, in vv. 12aβ–13, or in v. 19. This theme is picked up in the supplement vv. 6–11, which takes the example of the Northern Kingdom’s sin and exile and reinvokes the divorce analogy. Jeremiah 3:8 returns to Deut 24:1–4 with its reference to the required ‫ספר כריתות‬, “document of divorce.”100 The Northern Kingdom’s exile is represented in v. 8 as “sending her away and giving her a document of divorce.” The sending away of Israel with a document of divorce emphasizes the finality and, with the allusion to Deut 24:1–4, the legal irreversibility of the separation. Nevertheless, the author of this section, concluding that Israel is more righteous than Judah (v. 11), incorporates the poetic oracle of vv. 12–13 as an offer of return to the Northern Kingdom.101 This expansion thus recognizes and extends the logic of the original metaphorical allusion to Israel: the legal finality of the “divorce” is countered by Yahweh’s offer of a return. Though the status of vv. 6–12α as an expansion enjoys a consensus among scholars, its affiliation with DtrJ has been questioned. Arguments in favor of DtrJ composition point to its prose form and didactic character, the Dtr introduction in v. 6,“Yahweh said to me in the days of Josiah the king,” the Dtr phrase “return with all their heart” (cf. Jer 24:7, also DtrJ, Deut 30:2, 10; 1 Sam 7:3; 2 Sam 19:15; 1 Kings 8:48; 2 Kings 23:25) in v. 10, and “under every green

combine both metaphors (father-son in vv. 4, 19; husband-wife in vv. 1–3, 20). What is more, these sections share key lexemes, as McKane himself partially acknowledges (‫ רע‬for the woman’s lovers in vv. 1, 20; ‫ שפים‬as the place first of infidelities in v. 2 then supplications in v. 21; and finally Judah’s calling Yahweh “father” in vv. 4, 19; cf. McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV [1986] 80). Thus, it is correct to see 19–25 as intrinsically connected to vv. 1–5. It may be said, however, that even if McKane is correct to separate vv. 19–25 from 1–5, his view that 12–13 belong with 1–5 upholds the basic point that this poetic passage contemplates the repentance of Israel. 100  This particular term is used elsewhere only in Isa 50:1, which may also be an allusion to Deut 24 (Sommer, A Prophet Reads [1998] 128, 274, n. 10) or to this passage (see below pp. 257–58). 101  Cf. McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 69–72. The opening of v. 12 “Go and announce these words to the north,” transforms what was likely an oracle originally addressed to Judah as an oracle to the Northern Kingdom. Contra McKane, this need not imply that this author misunderstood vv. 1–5, 12–13, as referring to the Northern Kingdom. This author may rather have understood vv. 1–5 to refer to Judah, extending the analogy to the Northern Kingdom, and reinterpreted vv. 12–13 to address the Northern Kingdom.

III. Law as Metaphor

171

tree” in 13bβ.102 Nevertheless, scholars who identify this passage as DtrJ generally acknowledge the scarcity of Dtr language, usually so characteristic of DtrJ compositions.103 Some scholars have taken this lack as evidence for the post-DtrJ character of this expansion.104 Though not conclusive, thematic considerations buttress the attribution of this passage to DtrJ. The themes of the Northern Kingdom as a foil for Judah and the possibility of the Northern Kingdom’s return (v. 12–13, 18) appear elsewhere in Jer 30–31, whose contents are summarized in 30:3: “for behold, the days are coming, declares Yahweh, when I will return the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says Yahweh, and I will restore them to the land which I gave to their ancestors that they might possess it.” The oracles in Jer 31 contain geographical designations – Samaria and Ephraim – that confirm that the Northern Kingdom, together with Judah, will experience restoration and a new covenant (cf. 31:2–9, 18, 20, 27, 31). While the poetic oracles addressing the Northern Kingdom in Jer 31 cannot be attributed to DtrJ, the introduction, which summarizes chs. 30– 31 as restoration for both kingdoms, can be so attributed.105 Further, the theme of the Northern Kingdom’s experience of apostasy and exile as an example for Judah appears elsewhere only in the Jer 7:15 (DtrJ). The themes that appear in 3:6–12α, therefore, are found in DtrJ elsewhere. They also appear, however, in post-DtrJ 33:7, 14 (vs. 14 is part of a plus in the MT), and 50:19–20. To sum up the foregoing, Jer 3:1–4 contains a metaphorical allusion to D’s divorce law (Deut 24:1–4). This allusion functions by drawing a parallel to the social situation described in Deut 24:1–4. Judah is pictured as a divorced woman who has been defiled by other men and thus cannot legally be taken back by her husband. Judah’s position, therefore, would seem utterly hopeless; she has no right to return to Yahweh. The oracle, however, in keeping with a theme developed in both the poetic substratum of ch. 3 as well as the later prose additions to it, overturns this impossibility with Yahweh’s offer of a repentance and return. The allusion draws an analogy between the civil law and Judah’s relationship to Yahweh only to immediately undermine it as incomplete. The likely DtrJ expansion in this chapter has both recognized and expanded the allusion to Deut 24:1–4. Jeremiah 3:8 makes reference now to the “document of divorce” specified in Deut 24:1–4 as having sealed the fate of the Northern Kingdom. 102 Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 42; Hyatt, JNES 1 (1942) 168; idem, VSH 1 (1956) 79; Nicholson, Jeremiah: Chapters 1–25 (1973) 43–44; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 87–90, who adds that the theme of the return of the north could not have been contemplated in the post-exilic period. 103  Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 79; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 89. 104 Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 19–21; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 68. 105  Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 85; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 20–22. Cf. particularly the DtrJ introductory formula in v. 1 as well as the formula “behold the days are coming” (v. 3).

172

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

Despite the finalized nature of this divorce, however, the expansion holds out the possibility of the return of the Northern Kingdom as well.

3. Jer 5:21–24 and Deut 21:18–21 A similarly metaphorical application of D’s law appears in Jer 5:21–24. The striking word-pair ‫“ סורר ומרה‬stubborn and rebellious” invokes the law of the rebellious son (Deut 21:18–21).106 Jer 5:21–24a

Deut 21:18–21

‫שמעו נא זאת עם סכל ואין לב עינים להם ולא יראו‬ ‫אזנים להם ולא ישמעו האותי לא תיראו נאם יהוה‬ ‫אם מפני לא תחילו … ולעם הזה היה לב סורר‬ ‫ומורה סרו וילכו ולא אמרו בלבבם נירא נא את יהוה‬ ‫אלהינו הנתן גשם ויורה ומלקוש בעתו‬

‫כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה איננו שמע בקול אביו‬ ‫ובקול אמו ויסרו אתו ולא ישמע אליהם ותפשו בו‬ ‫אביו ואמו והוציאו אתו אל זקני עירו ואל שער‬ ‫מקמו ואמרו אל זקני עירו בננו זה סורר ומרה איננו‬ ‫שמע בקלנו זולל וסבא ורגמהו כל אנשי עירו‬ ‫באבנים ומת ובערת הרע מקרבך וכל ישראל ישמעו‬ ‫ויראו‬

Hear this, O foolish people who have no mind, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears, but do not listen. Have you not feared me, declares Yahweh, have you not trembled before me … ? But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart. They have turned and gone. They do not say in their hearts, “Let us fear Yahweh our God who gives rain, early rain, and latter rain, in its time.”

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father or his mother, and they discipline him but he does not obey them, his father and mother will seize him and bring him to the elders of his city, to the gate of his place. They will say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He does not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city will stone him until he dies, and in this way you will remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will see and fear.

The primary marker here is the word-pair “stubborn and rebellious,” and this pair is buttressed by the further collocation with the verb ‫שמע‬, “to listen / ​ obey.”107 This motif of listening / ​obeying combined with the distinctive wordpair “stubborn and rebellious” gives rise to two associations between the pas106 See especially Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 314–17. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 197, mentions an association of these texts but leaves it out of his survey of connections between Deut 12–26 and the poetry of Jeremiah in his second volume (Jeremiah 2 [1989] 56–58). Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 250 and Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 259 also register this allusion. 107  This collocation sets these two passages apart from Ps 78:8 – the only other occurrence of the “stubborn and rebellious” word-pair in the Hebrew Bible. It is possible that Ps 78:8 also represents an allusion to this law, as suggested in Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100 (2000) 433. In that context, however, there are no further markers linking the passages, the proposed allusion does not correspond to a pattern found elsewhere in the psalm, and the possible associates between the two texts are limited to the idea of stubborn disobedience.

III. Law as Metaphor

173

sages. The metaphor depicts Judah as a rebellious son and Yahweh as a disobeyed parent. The judgment to come follows from this metaphor. Just as the stubborn and rebellious son must be executed, Judah must be punished (Jer 5:29). The metaphor also functions to liken the prophetic word to attempted parental discipline. The oracle opens with a command issued from the prophet to listen (‫)שמעו‬. Yet just as the son in Deut 21:18–20 refuses to obey to his parents (‫)לא ישמע‬, so likewise Judah refuses to obey Yahweh (‫( )לא ישמעו‬v. 21). Jeremiah 5:21–24 displays none of the characteristics of DtrJ and thus should be assigned to the pre-DtrJ stratum of the chapter.108 Along with v. 20, this allusive passage immediately followed vv. 15–17 in the pre-DtrJ stratum.109 As noted in ch. 3, Jer 5:15–17 borrows language from the curses of Deut 28:49–52 (vv. 15–17). The immediate sequel in vv. 20–24, as argued here, proceeds to castigate Judah for failing to obey the prophetic word and refusing to fear Yahweh. In doing so, it alludes to D’s law of the rebellious son. Jeremiah 5:15–17, 20–24 as a whole, therefore, appear to take D as a lens on Judah’s relationship to Yahweh. D’s curses will be visited on Judah (15–17), and D’s social law illustrates the severity of Judah’s refusal to obey. Finally, it bears noting that while this passage is similar to Jer 3:1–4, 8 in describing the relationship between Yahweh and his people in reference to the laws governing social relationships in D, unlike Jer 3:1–4, 8, the inevitable outcome of the law is here upheld. Judah, like the son, must be punished for refusal to obey its divine parent. Nevertheless, the metaphorical character of the allusion needs to be emphasized. This passage does not claim that Judah faces punishment due to its violation of D’s law as in several passages in DtrJ. Instead, it finds in D’s law a useful analogy: Judah’s behavior is like that of a rebellious son. The legal principle provides an image, but the metaphorical use of that image stops short of citing D as an authority.

4. Jer 11:19 and Deut 20:19–20 A peculiar instance of metaphorical allusion to D’s laws occurs in Jer 11:19. In this passage, the author imagines the prophet’s adversaries articulating their intent to destroy Jeremiah through the imagery of cutting down a tree. As Holladay has pointed out, the language used by these adversaries borrows from Deut 20:19–20, a law forbidding the felling of fruit trees during a siege:110

 Cf. Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 20; Hyatt, VSH 1 (1956) 80; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 97–99. 109 On vv. 18–19 as a DtrJ addition, cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 341; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 97–99. 110  Holladay Jeremiah 1 (1986) 370, 372–73; idem, Jeremiah 2 (1986) 58; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 66, followed by Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 421–22. 108

174

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

Jer 11:19

‫ואני ככבש אלוף יובל לטבוח ולא ידעתי כי עלי‬ ‫חשבו מחשבות נשחיתה עץ בלחמו ונכרתנו מארץ‬ ‫חיים ושמו לא יזכר עוד‬

But I am like a tame lamb that is led to slaughter. I did not know that they plotted against me, [saying] “Let us destroy a tree with its food, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, and his name be remembered no more.”

Deut 20:19–20

‫כי תצור אל עיר ימים רבים להלחם עליה לתפשה‬ ‫לא תשחית את עצה לנדח עליו גרזן כי ממנו תאכל‬ ‫ואתו לא תכרת כי האדם עץ השדה לבא מפניך‬ ‫במצור רק עץ אשר תדע כי לא עץ מאכל הוא אתו‬ ‫תשחית וכרת ובנית מצור על העיר אשר הוא עשה‬ ‫עמך מלחמה עד רדתה‬ When you besiege a city for many days to fight against it and seize it, do not destroy its trees by swinging an ax against them, for you will eat from them. You will not cut them down, for are the trees of the field humans that they be besieged by you? Only the tree that you know is not a food-tree may you destroy, cut down, and build into siegeworks against the city that wages war against you, until it falls.

Most indicative of an allusion is the unique use of the hiphil ‫שחת‬, “to destroy,” with the direct object ‫עץ‬, “tree.” This collocation occurs no where else. Further, though ‫כרת‬, “to cut down,” is used commonly with ‫עץ‬, these are also the only passages where ‫ כרת‬is paired with the hiphil of ‫שחת‬. Both passages also emphasize that the type of tree destroyed is one that is good for food. In place of Deut 20:20’s ‫עץ מאכל‬, “food-tree,” Jer 11:19 uses ‫לחם‬, “food / ​bread.” These passages thus share a number of unique lexical combinations as well as the theme of the illicit cutting of fruit trees. These connections indicate a likely allusion in Jer 11:19 to Deut 20:19–20 in which a law regulating the cutting of literal trees is taken metaphorically to describe the machinations of Jeremiah’s opponents.111 ‫ בלחמו‬has given commentators difficulty. Many commentators, incredulous that this word, whose most common meaning is “bread,” would be used for the produce of a tree, read it as ‫“ בלחו‬in its sap,” either deleting the ‫ מ‬or interpreting it as enclitic.112 Holladay suggests an emendation to “his opponent” (reading

111  The evidence presented here can be contrasted with Jer 6:6, where Holladay claims to find another allusion to Deut 20:19–20 (Jeremiah 2 [1989] 58; CBQ 66 [2004] 65–66). In Jer 6:6, however, the only parallels to Deut 20:19–20 are the verb ‫כרת‬, “to cut down,” and the noun ‫עץ‬, “tree.” “Tree” and it semantic equivalents, however, are common objects of ‫כרת‬. Further, while Jer 11:19 shares with Deut 20:19–20 the idea of the illicitness of cutting down a fruit tree, this element is lacking in Jer 6:6. The lexical parallels to Deut 20:19–20 in Jer 6:6, therefore, are accounted for adequately as such that arise in the independent treatment of a shared topic. The lexical combinations in Jer 11:19, on the other hand, suggest a true allusion to Deut 20:19–20. 112 Hitzig, Der Prophet Jeremia (1841) 94–95; Duhm, Jeremia (1901) 113; Rudolph, Jeremia (1947) 70. Dahood, Gregorianum 43 (1962) 66; idem, Biblica 47 (1966) 409, was the first to invoke the “enclitic mem,” which was adopted by subsequent commentators; Bright, Jeremiah (1965) 84; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 253, n. 1, 257; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (1999)

III. Law as Metaphor

175

‫ לחם‬as a participle).113 Holladay’s solution is surprising since it cuts out one of

the key connections to the law he sees cited here. Deuteronomy 20:19–20 does not forbid cutting any tree, but specifically an ‫עץ מאכל‬, “a food-tree.” Further, Holladay’s emendation requires interpreting the clause as “let us destroy the tree by his opponent,” but why his adversaries would imagine recourse to some other unspecified opponent is unclear and is furthermore offset by the following clause, in which they state their intent to destroy him themselves: “let us cut him off from the land of the living.” Holladay’s suggestion that the unspecified opponent is Passhur114 is contextually unsupported. Though unique to this passage, ‫ לחם‬should be understood here as referring to the fruit of a tree.115 It is well known that ‫לחם‬, whose most basic sense is “bread,” is used for food more generally.116 That a general term should be used rather than the specific term, such as ‫פרי‬, “fruit,” is supported by the similar use of the general term ‫מאכל‬, “food” in the source text.117 1 Chronicles 12:41 demonstrates the way these terms can function together as general designations for food: “And their relatives … brought food (‫ )לחם‬on donkeys, on camels, on mules, and on cattle: food (‫)מאכל‬, fine flour, fig cakes, raisins, wine, oil, cattle, and sheep.” The general ‫לחם‬, “food,” is then specified with a list of food types. Just as the general term ‫ מאכל‬can be used with ‫ עץ‬as a designation for fruit tree, ‫ לחם‬in Jer 11:19 appears to be used to designate the same. A comparable usage appears in Sir 7:31, where ‫ לחם אבירים‬refers to the “meat of bulls.” The reason for the change from ‫ מאכל‬to ‫ לחם‬in Jer 11:19 is, however, not entirely clear. It is possible that it was done for poetic reasons. ‫ בלחמו‬produces a terser line than ‫ ולכאמב‬and furthers the consonance of the repeated ‫’ח‬s118 in the adjacent lines: ‫חשבו מחשבות נשחיתה עץ בלחמו ונכרתנו מארץ חיים‬. Having established the likelihood of an allusion to the siege-law of Deut 20:19– 20, the metaphorical resonance of the law can be explored. This allusion is placed in the mouths of the prophet’s opponents. The opponents reject the prophet and his message and announce their intention to end his life. Within this con636–37; Nicholson, Jeremiah: Chapters 1–25 (1973) 113. Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 274–75, mentions this proposed solution, but nevertheless maintains the translation “let us destroy the tree with its fruit.” Cf. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle (1986) 568–69, for a survey of ancient interpreters’ solutions to this problem. 113  Jeremiah 1 (1986) 372–73. 114 Ibid., 370. 115  So also Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle (1986) 568–69, followed by Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 405. 116 Cf. Dommershausen, TWAT 4 (1984) cols. 540–41; Clines, DCH (1998) 4:535; Koehler and Baumgartner, HALAT (2004) 1:500–50. 117  Though he does not identify it as an allusion, Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle (1986) 569, also sees corroboration for his exegesis in Deut 20:20. 118  Since all of these ‫’ח‬s go back to the same proto-Semitic consonant, even if Classical Hebrew had two pronunciations for the letter ‫ח‬, representing Proto-Hebrew / ​ḥ / and / ​ḫ /, these ‫’ח‬s would all represent the same pronunciation.

176

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

text, the stated goal of “destroying a tree with its fruit” could have a number of connotations. Jeremiah 17:8–9 could suggest that the “fruit” imagined is the “fruit” that comes to the righteous person from trusting in Yahweh. In this case, their intention would be to put to death someone who would otherwise enjoy the blessings of divine favor. Alternatively, the “fruit” could refer to Jeremiah’s message. In this case, their intention would be to kill the prophet as a way of silencing the prophetic message and removing the possibility of the prophetic “fruit” becoming nourishment to the people.119 The allusion to Deut 20:19–20 supports this interpretation since part of the purpose of the law is to preserve trees that might serve the armies of Israel as nourishment (v. 19). The other reason given in Deut 20:19 is likely also relevant: the trees are not combatants. For the prophet’s opponents to express their intention to metaphorically abrogate the Deuteronomic siege-law by killing Jeremiah has the function of characterizing their motivation as an intent both to cut off the benefit that the people of Judah might receive from the prophetic message and to portray their hostility as wrongly directed against someone who is not in fact a true enemy. Finally, several considerations support identifying this passage as belonging to a pre-DtrJ stratum of material.120 It is affiliated with a group of texts within 119 Another possibility would be to take the ‫ ב‬as expressing “price” rather than accompaniment. Such as expression would be analogous to the possible ‫ ב‬of price in Gen 9:6: “the one who sheds the blood of a man, his blood will be shed for / ​because of the man [whose blood was shed]” (cf. DCH, vol. 2 [1995] 85). Such an interpretation of Jer 11:19 would read, “let us destroy a tree for / ​because of its fruit.” In this case, the “fruit,” i. e. the prophetic message, represents the reason the opponents want to kill the prophet. To read the ‫ ב‬as expressing accompaniment, as I suggest here, carries the implication that the destruction of the fruit, i. e. the message, is part of the goal of cutting down the tree. Either possibility is grammatically possible and both buttress a similar reading of the metaphor as reflecting the opponents’ rejection of the prophet’s word. 120  Duhm, Jeremia (1901) 112–13, assigns these verses to an original stratum to which a later editor has added vv. 21–23; Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 20, assigns vv. 18–19 to his A-source; Nicholson, Jeremiah: Chapters 1–25 (1973) 114, likewise identifies vv. 18–19 as preDtrJ and vv. 21–23 as a DtrJ supplement to that passage; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 360–61, 366–67, 374–75, likewise considers vv. 21, 23 are added to an original lament. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973), 158–59, on the other hand, sees this verse as a composition of DtrJ since it appears in prose rather than the poetry appropriate to the “Konfession” genre (cf. also McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV [1986] 254, who concurs with Thiel’s identication of v. 19 as non-poetic). This observation rests, however, on an overly narrow view of what constitutes biblical “poetry.” Strict semantic parallelism is not a sine qua non of poetry (cf. the definition of Hebrew poetry in Dobbs-Allsopp, New Interpreter’s Dictionary [2009] 551–53, where the presence of a poetic line, concision, and “verbal inventiveness” are the primary features), but even this outdated criterion is met in the bicolon: “Let us destroy a tree with its food / ​and let us cut him off from the land of the living.” This semantic parallelism, the consonance of ‫ ח‬mentioned above, as well as the imaginative imagery support v. 19 as at home in the poetic discourse of the lament genre. One need look no further than Jer 12:4 for an example of poetic discourse that combines semantically parallel bicola with lines that lack semantic parallelism: ‫  ​כי אמרו לא יראה‬/ ​  /  ‫ ​מרעת ישבי בה ספתה בהמות ועוף‬/ ​ / ‫  ​ועשב כל השדה ייבש‬/  ‫עד מתי תאבל הארץ‬ ‫את אחריתנו‬, “How long will the land languish / ​and the plants of the field dry up? / ​ / ​Because of

III. Law as Metaphor

177

the book of Jeremiah that share elements of the lament genre familiar from the Psalms and have often been referred to by scholars as the “confessions” of Jeremiah. Verse 19 represents a complaint against enemies – a common element in the lament of the individual. While many interpreters simply understand these laments as stemming from the prophet himself,121 others have suggested they are included as part of a literary construction of the character of Jeremiah.122 Carroll draws an analogy to the psalms that were originally anonymous but later attributed to David and connected to events in his life. This analogy to the Davidic psalms is suggestive, and it represents an important corrective to the assumption of authenticity. Nevertheless, the presence of the metaphorical allusion to law, a trope that we have seen particularly characteristic of the poetic oracles of the book, suggests this passage’s affinity with the Jeremianic corpus. This observation is not meant as a claim that this lament is an authentic utterance or composition of the prophet. Rather, if it is included here as part of a literary effort at constructing the figure of the suffering Jeremiah, the use of this Jeremianic trope suggests that it was not originally an anonymous lament, as Carroll suggests, but rather was composed for its use in the characterization of Jeremiah.123

5. Jer 34:17 and Deut 15:1, 12 As discussed in the previous section, Jer 34:14 contains a highly marked allusion to the debt release and manumission laws of Deut 15. This hybrid law is identified as a covenant that Yahweh made with the generation of the exodus (v. 13). The passage then states that Zedekiah’s slave release was an act of obedience (v. 15), but this obedience was then reversed when the people took back the slaves (v. 16). Verse 17 proceeds to announce the judgment for this misdeed: ‫לכן‬

‫כה אמר יהוה אתם לא שמעתם אלי לקרא דרור איש לאחיו ואיש לרעהו הנני קרא לכם דרור נאם‬ ‫יהוה אל החרב אל הדבר ואל הרעב ונתתי אתכם לזועה לכל ממלכות הארץ‬, “therefore, thus

says Yahweh: ‘You have not obeyed me my announcing a release, each man to his kin and neighbor. Behold I am announcing a release to you, declares Yahweh, the evil of its dwellers, it sweeps away beast and bird / ​ / ​for they said, ‘he will not see our end.’” The first two lines represent a classic form of semantic parallelism while the second two lack it. Thiel rightly considers these part of a “Konfession” (ibid., 160), yet the mixing of poetic lines constituted by semantic parallelism with those lacking it parallels what appears in 11:19, thus undercutting his argument for the secondary prose nature of 11:19. It is preferable, therefore, to see in v. 19 a pre-DtrJ poetic lament text. 121 So recently, for example, Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 358–61; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) xcii–xcvii. 122  Carroll, Chaos to Covenant (1981) 105–30, idem, Jeremiah (1986) 278; Polk, The Prophetic Persona (1984) 127–74; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 406–7. 123  See Bezzel, Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (2009) 53–61 for a similar conclusion that the lament in Jer 15:10–21 was composed for its inclusion in its present context as a means of characterizing the prophet Jeremiah.

178

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

to sword, to pestilence, and to famine, and I will make you a cause of trembling to all the kingdoms of the earth.” The manumission is here referred to with the term ‫דרור‬, “release,” in accordance with vv. 8, 15.124 While no language from Deut 15:1, 12 is reused, vv. 14–15 have already identified Zedekiah’s initial release as an upholding of Deut 15’s debt release and manumission laws (v. 15). Verse 16 shows the repeal of the release to be a violation of the same. Thus, when the language in v. 17 continues to speak of a release – now ironically twisted – the allusion to Deut 15 remains in the background. Here, the Deuteronomic law that is violated becomes a figure for the judgment to come. The people failed to effect a release of slaves. Yahweh himself, therefore, will follow the law that the people flouted and perform a release, yet it will be a “release” to destruction for the people who themselves have not abided by the law. This passage is unique in taking up a specific law that has been violated and applying it metaphorically to Yahweh and Judah. Nevertheless, the trope seen a number of times elsewhere is evident here as well. The legal texts provide a reservoir of metaphorical imagery that the authors of this corpus continually draw from. Most instances we have seen belonged to pre-DtrJ poetic texts. In this case, the alluding text belongs to DtrJ.125

6. Conclusion These passages share a specific allusive trope. In each case, the author enlists legal traditions as metaphors. Pre-DtrJ poetic traditions use this trope five times, three of which are in reference to D. In two other cases, it appears in a later stratum. Jeremiah 3:8, possibly DtrJ, builds on and reapplies the allusion to Deut 24 already found in the poetic oracle, Jer 3:1–4. In Jer 34:17, which can with greater confidence be attributed to DtrJ, the law that the people are accused of breaking (a combination of Deut 15:1, 12) itself serves as the metaphor for the judgment to follow. This allusive trope appears unique to the Jeremianic corpus and may be said to be characteristic of it. Fishbane noticed this phenomenon, though his evaluation of it as a means of orienting the audience towards fidelity to the covenant126 is not satisfying. These allusions draw on the laws in accordance with their own rhetorical needs. The allusions to the thief laws (Jer 2: 26, 34) and the law of the rebellious son (Jer 5:21–24) are not selected as “pars pro toto” examples of covenantal disobedience,127 but rather as apt descriptors of Judah’s sin. Judah is like 124 See

above, p. 147 for a discussion of this term.  For the compositional affiliation, see p. 106. 126  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985) 409. 127 Ibid. 125

III. Law as Metaphor

179

a thief, and so it ought to feel like one who is caught. Judah is like a rebellious son, and so it must be punished. Jeremiah 3:1 functions differently. As a divorced wife, Judah cannot expect to return to Yahweh. The legal principle adds weight to the offer of repentance that follows. Finally, in 11:19, the imagined speech of the prophet’s enemies reveals their intent to harm Jeremiah as though they were plotting to cut down a fruit tree, in violation of Deut 20:19–20. Indeed, in the cases mentioned, only Jer 34:17 invokes a law that the author condemns the audience for literally not keeping. Thus, only in one example, attributable to DtrJ, does the allusion point to Judah’s specific violation of covenant and function as a kind of pars pro toto argument for the violation of the whole covenant. As we saw in the previous section, it is in DtrJ alone that we see law whose violation ushers in divine judgment. The uniqueness of this metaphorical trope can be seen when compared to the results of Benjamin Sommer’s study of allusions in Second Isaiah. In this study, only two cases appeared analogous to this metaphorical allusion to law, and both present problems. The first appears in Isa 50:1: “Where is the document of divorce (‫ )ספר כריתות‬of your mother, whom I sent away (‫ ”?)שלחתיה‬Sommer argues that this is an allusion to Deut 24:1–4.128 This allusion, however, is doubtful for a number of reasons. First, the language parallel to Deut 24:1–4 is limited to technical terms for divorce. Whereas Jer 3:1 had further lexical features that tied these passages together, Isa 50:1 may well simply use common technical vocabulary. Further, though Sommer lists other cases of allusion to D in Second Isaiah, this would be the only allusion to a law. Finally, it is remarkable to claim that the single allusion to law in Second Isaiah would allude to the same law alluded to by Jer 3:1–4, 8, especially given Sommer’s discovery that Jeremiah is one of the most productive texts for Second Isaiah.129 Sommer’s claim that Second Isaiah and Jeremiah here only share the term “send away” is belied by the appearance of “document of divorce” in v. 8. If an allusion to law occurs in Isa 50:1, it is likely that it is mediated by Jer 3:1–4, 8. The second potentially analogous example in Second Isaiah appears in 61:1: “He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to announce (‫ )לקרא‬a release (‫ )דרור‬to the captives, and liberation to the prisoners.” Sommer takes this as a typological allusion to Lev 25’s year of jubilee.130 The release granted by this law to slaves within Israel will be given to the nation as a whole. The lexical connections to Lev 25, however, are not strong. What is more, to “announce a release” as Sommer himself points out, refers to a broader ancient Near Eastern institution, and is well attested in Mesopotamian texts. The evidence for an allusion, therefore, does not appear particularly strong.131 128 Sommer,

A Prophet Reads (1998) 137–38.  Ibid., 32–72. 130  Ibid., 141–42. 131 Sommer’s attempt to clinch the allusion by claiming that Isa 61 and Lev 25 uniquely share 129

180

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

The metaphorical allusion to law, therefore, appears to uniquely characterize the Jeremian corpus. That it is characteristic of the corpus and not a single layer of tradition is a point worth emphasizing. As we have seen, it is most prevalent in poetic texts. Later strata in 3:8 and 34:17, however, have picked up on this trope and put it to use. The trope, therefore, cannot be assigned to the idiosyncrasies of a single author. It has its origins in the earliest written traditions about Jeremiah, but was adopted and used by later tradents who added subsequent material. This observation has relevance for the use of allusion, or other literary tropes, in tracing authorship. Sommer identified particular allusive tropes in Isa 40–66 and argued on that basis for the common authorship of Second Isaiah and socalled Third Isaiah.132 While Sommer’s observations in that regard may well be correct, the appearance of metaphorical allusion to law in the Jeremian corpus demonstrates that later transmitters of a tradition are capable of adopting and using idiosyncratic tropes embedded in their source material. This does not mean that the presence of idiosyncratic tropes is irrelevant for the question of authorship. Such evidence, however, cannot be determinative. The perspective on D’s law embedded in the pre-DtrJ metaphorical allusions differs in an important way from the perspective evident in DtrJ’s use of D as binding law. These allusive metaphors have the same status as other metaphors that the poetic traditions resort to in their construction of prophetic discourse. Passages are chosen that provide rhetorically and poetically apt images. The legal logic embedded in the source texts provides rhetorical force for the metaphors, but in none of the poetic examples does the cited passage serve as a kind of religious constraint. Unlike the DtrJ allusions to law as requirement, these metaphorical allusions nowhere presume that D is a religious authority. For these passages, D provides poetically useful images for the authors of poetic prophecy. It is also noteworthy that these pre-DtrJ passages cite other legal codes as well. Unlike DtrJ, which focuses on the unique authority of D, the pre-DtrJ passages cite it as one prestigious text among others.

IV. Spurious Claims of Allusions to D’s Law Scholars have proposed a number of allusions to D’s law beyond those discussed above. Many of these are not supported by good lexical evidence and / ​or a traceable interpretive process. The majority of these claims are to be rejected for the lack of adequate lexical support; either lexical parallels are completely missing the feature of the release occurring after a fifty-year cycle (ibid., 142) does not hold up to scrutiny. Nothing in Isa 61 implies that the “year of Yahweh’s favor” is the culmination of a cycle. 132 Ibid., 187–95.

IV. Spurious Claims of Allusions to D’s Law

181

or are limited to common lexemes or phrases.133 Five other proposals, however, are more complex and warrant further attention.134 Jeremiah 2:20 contains the stereotyped, “upon every high hill and under every green tree,” a pair of phrases that appear in slightly different form in Deut 12:2, “upon the lofty mountains and the hills, and under every green tree,” and in identical form in DtrH (1 Kgs 14:23, 2 Kgs 17:10). Holladay has argued that this dual phrase has its ultimate origins in Hos 4:13. It found prosaic adaptation in Deut 12:2, which in turn served as a source for Jer 2:20.135 The examples in 133  The proposals rejected for lack of adequate lexical evidence are the following: Jer 2:2–3 / ​ Deut 26:2, 10 (Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 88); Jer 6:6 / ​Deut 20:19–20 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 58; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 65–66); 6:9–10 / ​Deut 24:19–22 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 40, 58; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 65; Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 [2009] 260); Jer 7:6, 22:3 / ​ Deuteronomy (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 59: the triad ‫גר יתום ואלמנה‬, “resident alien, orphan, and widow” is a Dtr phrase, not an allusion to any particular text in D [cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 356]); Jer 7:21 / ​Deut 12:15 (Milgrom, ZAW 89 [1977] 274); Jer 7:31, 19:5 / ​ Deut 12:31 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 58; though the collocation of ‫ שרף‬and ‫ בן‬are indeed unique to these passages, the lexical parallel is explainable as arising from the shared topic of child sacrifice); Jer 11:3–5 / ​Deut 26:8–9 (Holladay, Jeremiah 1 [1986] 350); Jer 11:18–23 / ​ Deut 13:7–10 (Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 100); Jer 14:14 / ​Deut 18:20 (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 360); Jer 15:16 / ​Deut 18:18 (Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 [2012] 217, 219); Jer  16:18 / ​Deut  24:4 (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 89–90); Jer  20:7–8 / ​Deut  22:25–27 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 57–58; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 66); Jer 21:10 / ​Deut 13:17 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 639); Jer 23:21 / ​Deut 18 (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 697); Jer 26:10–16 / ​ Deut 18:9–22 (Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation [1985] 246; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52, [2005] 34, 42; Otto, ZAR 12 [2006] 258; Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 31–32; Hibbard, JSOT 35 [2011] 352–55; cf. the discussion of this claimed allusion in ch. 2); Jer 26:15 / ​Deut 21:8 (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 360); Deut 29:5–6 / ​Deut 20:5–7, 28:30, 4:27 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 92–93; Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 [2012] 223–25); Jer 29:7 / ​Deut 23:7 (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School [1972] 360; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 94); Jer 30:21 / ​Deut 17:14–20 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 61–62; idem, CBQ 66 [2004] 67–68); Jer 31:33b / ​Deut 26:17–19 (Holladay, CBQ 66 [2004] 72); Jer 36:17–18 / ​Deut 18:18 (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 34–35); Jer 36:24, 30 / ​Deut 17:14–20 (Nicholson, Preaching to the Exile [1970] 45; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 299); Jer 44:15 / ​Deut 13:7–12 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 442, 454); Jer 44:25 and Deut 23:24 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 448); Jer 49:2 / ​Deut 13:17 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 629, 632); Jer 50:6 / ​Deut 26:5 (Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 57); Jer 51:63 / ​ Deut 20:9 (Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 629, 632). Two other spurious proposals bear mentioning here. First, while there are a number of parallels between Jer 2:7 and Deut 24:4 (Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 89), these are better understood as parallels to Lev 18 (Holladay, Jeremiah 1 [1986] 88; idem, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 40; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 158). Second, the connection between Jer 33:9 and Deut 26:19 is indeed strong but, since Jer 33:9 is a late passage, the lexical parallel is more likely drawn from Jer 13:11, where an allusion to Deut 26:19 does exist, than from Deut 26:19 itself (contra Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 228). 134 On Adele Berlin’s suggestion of an allusion to Deut 20:5–10 in Jer 29:5–7 (HAR 8 [1984] 3–11; followed by Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 [2005] 92–93 and Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform [2006] 13), see the discussion in ch. 3, where I identify this passage instead as an allusion to Deut 28:30–32 (cf. also the rejection of Berlin’s proposal in Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology [2003] 107, n. 12.) 135  Holladay, VT 11 (1961) 170–76; idem, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 98; idem, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 57; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 66. So also Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 (2012) 219; idem, JBL 133 (2014) 765–66.

182

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

DtrH, according to Holladay, are drawn from Jer 2:20, the authenticity of which is secured by its inseparability from its context as well as the secondary nature of the examples in DtrH.136 The connection between the passages invoking these phrases is complex, but for the present purposes, it is sufficient to examine the relationships between Jer 2:20, Deut 12:2, and Hos 4:13: Hos 4:13

‫על ראשי ההרים יזבחו ועל‬ ‫הגבעות יקטרו תחת אלון ולבנה‬ ‫ואלה כי טוב צלה על כן תזנינה‬ ‫בנותיכם וכלותיכם תנאפנה‬ At the tops of the mountains they sacrifice, and upon the hills they burn incense. Under oak and poplar and terebinth [they sacrifice], for their shade is good. Therefore, your daughters have whored, and your daughters-in-law have committed adultery.

Jer 2:20

Deut 12:2

‫אבד תאבדון את כל המקמות אשר כי על כל גבעה גבהה ותחת כל‬ ‫עבדו שם הגוים אשר אתם ירשים עץ רענן את צעה זנה‬ ‫אתם את אלהיהם על ההרים‬ ‫הרמים ועל הגבעות ותחת כל עץ‬ ‫רענן‬ For upon every high hill and under every green tree you recline as a prostitute.

Destroy all the places where the nations that you are dispossessing served their gods upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree.

Holladay’s argument for Deut 12:2’s dependence on Hos 4:13 is convincing. Deuteronomy 12:2 shares with Hos 4:13 the phrases “upon the mountains” and “upon the hills,” both plural, and Deut has substituted “under every green tree” for Hosea’s more elaborate “under oak and poplar and terebinth.” At the same time, however, Jer 2:20 appears to make independent use of Hos 4:13 since it draws on the imagery of whoring to express the apostasy occurring at every hill and tree. This feature is lacking also in Deut 12:2 as well as 1 Kgs 14:23 and 2 Kgs 17:10. Given the shared use of Hos 4:13, the only feature that uniquely links Jer 2:20 and Deut 12:2 is the phrase “under every green tree.” If, as Holladay asserts, this phrase represents Deut 12:2’s own adaptation of Hosea, this would confirm his claim of a linear development from Hos 4:13 to Deut 12:2 to Jer 2:20. This claim, however, is problematic. The formula “on every hill high and under every green tree” appears in a number of variations. While the reference to the hills or mountains shows significant variation (cf. 2 Kgs 16:4, “in the high places and upon the hills”; Jer 3:6, “upon every high mountain”; Ezek 6:13, “to every lofty hill, at the tops of the mountains”), the reference to trees remains in each case statically “under every green tree.” The phrase “under every green tree,” moreover, appears in a number of passages without the reference to the mountains 136 Holladay,

VT 11 (1961) 173–74.

IV. Spurious Claims of Allusions to D’s Law

183

(e. g. Isa 57:5; Jer 3:13). The fixity of this phrase suggests that rather than a phrase coined by the author of Deut 12:2, it could just as likely exists independently of this passage, and even of the Deuteronomic / ​Deuteronomistic corpus, as a linguistically fixed prophetic trope. In this case, it could be compared to the phrase “the day of Yahweh” – a prophetic trope with a certain linguistic fixity that appears in literarily unrelated contexts. Holladay’s contention for a use of Deut 12:2 in Jer 2:20, therefore, cannot be accepted as persuasive. While it is possible that Jer 2:20 draws on the identical phraseology used in Kings or that it is inserted by DtrJ,137 the lack of other evidence of DtrJ in the vicinity of Jer 2:20 threatens to render this claim circular. It is possible that the dual phrase, though taken up by DtrH as a stereotypical reference to apostasy, was not uniquely Deuteronomistic but was adopted by both DtrH and other authors or speakers. This suggestion requires further study, but the presence of variations of the trope in Hos 4:13, Isa 2:14 Jer 2:20, Ezek 6:13, 20:28 suggests its plausibility. Holladay also argues that Jer 7:21–34, which claims that Yahweh did not command the Israelites to bring sacrifices, alludes to Deut 12:5–6, which claims the opposite. The relationship between Jer 7’s repudiation of sacrifice and D’s legislation of it is highly suggestive, but the lexical connections are lacking that would indicate that the author of Jer 7:21–34 had this particular text in mind. As shown in ch. 2, Jer 7:22–23 cites a transformed Deut 5:33 as a means of asserting that the most basic command given in the wilderness was obedience to future prophets rather than cultic observance. This allusion involved transforming Deut 5:33 into a statement about future prophets rather than D itself. Jeremiah 7:21–23’s denial that sacrifice was commanded in the wilderness could be hyperbolic or could refer to the Decalogue.138 However it is explained, what the author of Jer 7:21–34 does not do is engage D allusively on its claims concerning temple sacrifice. Weinfeld and Fischer both see in Jer 16:6 an allusion to D’s law forbidding shaving the head and gashing oneself for the dead (Deut 14:1).139 These passages do share somewhat rare lexemes (‫התגדד‬, “to gash oneself”; ‫  ​ ק רח‬/  ‫קרחה‬, “baldness / ​to shave oneself”), but there does not seem to be any reason for Jer 16:6 to cite Deut 14:1 here. Deutereonomy 14:1 forbids practices that Jer 16:6 appears to assume to be legitimate (cf. also Amos 8:10). While polemical allusion is by no means out of the question, there is no evidence for it here. It is more likely that the shared lexemes simply reflect the shared topic of mourning practices.

137 Silver, “The Lying Pen” (2009) 116, for example, identifies it as an allusion to the Deuteronomic language of apostasy in general rather than a specific passage. 138  Cf. ch. 2 and Weinfeld, ZAW 88 (1976) 53–54. 139 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 360; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 525.

184

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

Fischer and Schmid have identified an allusion to the law of the apostate city (Deut 13:14, 17) in Jer 30:18, 21.140 This possibility produces a satisfying reading. Yahweh will abrogate his own law by restoring the apostate Jerusalem (Jer 30:18 / ​Deut 13:17) and will establish rulers that will negate the evil doers who were responsible for the original apostasy (Jer 30:21 / ​Deut 13:14). The markers of the allusion, however, are unimpressive. The lexical connection between Jer 30:21 and Deut 13:14 is restricted to ‫יצא‬, “go out,” and ‫מקרב‬, “from the midst.” While these are the only contexts where ‫ מקרב‬is used with ‫יצא‬, these words are very common in the Hebrew Bible, and the complementation of ‫יצא‬ with ‫ מן‬is standard. What is more, the choice of a leader “from the midst” of the people is also attested elsewhere (Deut 17:15; 18:15). The parallels in Jer 30:18 / ​ Deut 13:17 are likewise too sparse to clinch an argument for allusion. The niphal of ‫ בנה‬appears in a number of texts both with ‫ עיר‬as subject (Deut 13:17; Isa 44:26; Jer 30:18; 31;38) and with the name of a specific city as subject (Num 13:22; 21:27; Isa 44:28; Ezek 26:14; Dan 9:25). The use of the rare ‫תל‬, “mound,” represents a unique collocation that unites Deut 13:17 and Jer 30:18, but as it belongs to the semantic domain related to the destruction of cities, it is difficult to deny the possibility that the semantic overlap is due to the shared theme of city destruction rather than an allusion in Jer 30 to the law of the apostate city in Deut 13. Finally, Fischer suggests an allusion in Jer 51:46 to Deut 20:3, part of the laws governing proper warfare, on the basis of the shared phrases, “do not let your heart be weak and do not be afraid.”141 While the combination of phrases is indeed striking, there does not appear to be a satisfactory interpretative process at work. Deuteronomy 20:3 involves the priests’ adjuration to the Israelites not to fear when they go to war. Jeremiah 51:45–46 commands the people to flee from Babylon so as to escape the wrath of Yahweh about to be unleashed upon it. There does not appear to be anything about the warfare context of Deut 20 invoked in Jer 51:45–46. The people are not there encouraged to fight a battle against Babylon, but rather simply to save their own lives by fleeing the city. Moreover, though the two phrases are striking, they do appear together also in Isa 7:4, suggesting that they are idiomatic. The lack of convincing interpretive process combined with the presence of the lexical markers in collocation elsewhere suggests that this parallel is not a true allusion. Corroborating this conclusion are the findings of this study as a whole, which has not found a single other allusion to D in the OAN (chs. 46–51).  Fischer, Trostbüchlein (1993) 191–92; idem, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 135, 137; idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 216; Schmid, Buchgestalten (1996) 120–21; idem, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur (2011) 10, n. 35. While Fischer argues for an allusion in both verses of Jer 30:18, 21, Schmid identifies an allusion only in v. 18, which he considers a secondary addition. 141 Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 620, 632. 140

V. Jeremiah and D’s Law

185

V. Jeremiah and D’s Law This chapter has analyzed twelve passages in Jeremiah that contain significant evidence of allusion to D’s law. The varying uses of law that appear in pre-DtrJ and DtrJ portions of Jeremiah provide insight into the role that D serves for these layers of tradition. DtrJ’s allusions to D’s law demonstrate D’s status as an authoritative religious text. Several passages cited specific laws whose violation provided the basis for judgment on Judah. This type of allusion explicitly affirms and draws on D’s own claim to divine origin and authority. In two cases, Jer 17:19–27 and Jer 34:14, DtrJ exegetically expanded the scope of D’s laws and, in one case, Jer 31:29–30, cited it as a prooftext. DtrJ makes use of D as a religious text that is centrally relevant and capable of putting an end to debate. Maier is thus correct to describe Jeremiah in these texts as a “teacher of torah,”142 an assessment echoing Duhm’s earlier conclusions. The Jeremiah of the secondary additions, according to Duhm, was focused on Torah but brought no new revelation.143 This characterization, however, fails to grasp the independent authority accorded to Jeremiah by DtrJ. The expansion of the sabbath law in Jer 17:19–27 is particularly relevant here. This passage considers the sabbath law in Deut 5 to be an authoritative tradition, yet it grounds the expansion of it in the prophetic authority of Jeremiah himself. As shown by the analysis of allusions concerning prophecy in ch. 2, this authority accords with DtrJ’s concern to depict Jeremiah as of equal status and authority with D’s Moses. The transformative allusions to the prophet laws and the non-transformative application of D’s law shown in this chapter combine to show an instructive tension at the heart of DtrJ’s view of D. Jeremiah is not merely a teacher of Mosaic law; he is also an equally authoritative conveyor of divine commands. Otto is also partially right to see in Jeremiah an attempt to “create a counterposition to the hermeneutics of the Pentateuch.”144 As shown in ch. 2, DtrJ does indeed oppose D’s claim that, with the exception of consultative prophecy, prophecy more or less ended with Moses. Otto misses, however, the instructive tension at the heart of DtrJ’s view of D. While the allusions analyzed in ch. 2 show that DtrJ engages D transformatively on the issue of post-Mosaic prophecy, the allusions analyzed here show that DtrJ used D as an authoritative text. The perspective that emerges for DtrJ is neither one of polemic nor of a simple parroting of D’s authority. What emerges, rather, is a complex relationship between an  Maier, Lehrer der Tora (2002); idem, Interpretation 62 (2008), 22–32. (1901), xviii–xix. 144  Otto, Pentateuch as Torah (2007) 179. Otto’s reference here to the hermeneutics of the “Pentateuch” is based on his view that there was a dispute between the tradents of the book of Jeremiah and the post-exilic formers of the Pentateuch. I am not confident in Otto’s success at distinguishing the activity of the late redactors of the Pentateuch. For an alternate view that holds all the texts from D to predate the compilation of the Pentateuch, see especially Baden, Composition (2012); Stackert, A Prophet like Moses (2014). 142

143 Jeremia

186

Chapter Four: Allusions To Law

existing authority, D, and a text that accepts that authority while simultaneously seeking space to innovate and to establish itself as equally authoritative. The metaphorical allusions to D’s law in the non-DtrJ poetic oracles show a very different perspective. Though Fishbane’s exegesis of these passages is characteristically masterful, he assumes in each case that the source text is interpreted as a religious authority. James Kugel’s criticism of Fishbane’s analysis of the allusion in Jer 3:1–4 applies equally to the other cases of metaphorical allusion to D’s law (5:21–24, 11:19). The author does not “exegete” or “reinterpret” the source text; rather, “it is an evocation, an argument by analogy.”145 The mode of allusion to law in Jer 3:1–4, 5:21–24, and 11:19, as well as those to Exodus and Leviticus in Jer 2:26, 26 and 2:3, is instructive. These allusions provide images that illustrate and provide rhetorical force, yet the divine origin and normative religious authority of the cited texts is never claimed or necessarily assumed. The metaphorical allusions assert nothing more than that a certain situation is like a certain law. The law and the legal logic surrounding it are fruitful ways of describing Judah’s relationship to Yahweh. The allusions draw on the prestige of the texts they cite, but they are not cited as having the authority to govern action, resolve disputes, or justify divine judgment. This distinction between DtrJ and pre-DtrJ can be stated another way. Whereas allusion to D’s law is useful for the authors of the Jeremianic poetry, it is necessary for the authors of DtrJ. Smith’s distinction between canon and classic is once again helpful. Canon, for Smith, implies a closed body of material that necessitates interpretation.146 Canon places limitations that must be overcome through interpretation. Though not belonging to a closed canon per se, D is like a canon for DtrJ in that it is authoritative, unalterable, and requires application. For the pre-DtrJ texts, D is like a literary classic in that allusions to it are occasional and do not bear the weight of necessity – they draw on the prestige of the source but do not invoke its authority.147 The analogy to Smith’s dichotomy is, of course, incomplete. DtrJ certainly does not consider D to belong to a closed list of authoritative texts but rather seeks to establish its own equal authority. Indeed, anything like a canon – conceived as a closed list of authoritative texts – is hundreds of years removed from the cultural milieu in which these texts had their origins. Nevertheless, the analogy is instructive as the essential dynamics of Smith’s “canon” – namely the necessity of interpretation and the recourse to creative exegesis – notably emerge in DtrJ’s use of D.148 The book of Jeremiah itself thus witnesses a shift in the status of the authority of D.  Kugel, Prooftexts 7 (1987) 280.  Smith, Imagining Religion (1982) 36–52. 147 Smith, Canonization and Decanonization (1998) 304–5. 148  This appearance of the principle phenomena associated in Smith’s thinking with “canon” points to the inadequacy of his insistence on closure as a sine qua non of canon. Cf. Levinson, Legal Revision (2008) 16–18. 145

146

V. Jeremiah and D’s Law

187

In light of this analysis, Berman’s distinction between statutory and common-law perspectives proves useful.149 Though Berman argues that a common-law perspective is the the reigning paradigm for biblical law, the various uses of D’s law in the book of Jeremiah show that both perspectives were active. The pre-DtrJ poetic allusions indeed appear to evince a common-law type perspective. According to Berman, this perspective views law as fluid and flexible. To the extent that it is written down, the written law is a resource rather than an authority. Taking the Neo-Babylonian King of Justice as a paradigmatic case, Berman describes the dynamics of this perspective in the following way: “The author of King of Justice referenced LH through the mechanism of common law. He employs LH as a resource, a touchstone of his tradition.”150 Like the King of Justice, the pre-DtrJ poetic passages analyzed here tap the prestige of source text, citing it as a resource of pertinent legal metaphors rather than as a source of divine requirements. The allusions in DtrJ, however, contradict Berman’s claim that the statutory law perspective is anachronistic for biblical texts. The DtrJ allusions to D consider D to reflect inviolable law codified in writing. For DtrJ, the breaking of specific laws of D ushers in divine judgment as a matter of necessity. Though laws can be expanded upon and interpreted by the prophet, they nevertheless stand as codified legal requirements. They are not merely precedents or examples of legal reasoning. For DtrJ they are firm rules whose violation bring punishment. Berman rightly points out the fact that the Code of Hammurabi, for all its prestige, was never cited as justification for specific legal punishments.151 His conclusion that the same would be the case for biblical codes fails to account adequately for the role D plays in DtrJ. In the prophetic discourses of DtrJ, the violation of D is explicitly cited as justification for the judgment of the people. This perspective does not view D as a repository of common law, but rather as a written codified law that carries with it the finality of statutory law.

 CBQ 76 (2014), 19–39.  Berman, CBQ 76 (2014) 31. Berman’s conclusion that D’s use of the Covenant Code follows the same model does not necessarily follow. Overlooked by Berman is the fact that in D’s narrative retelling of the events surrounding Horeb, D narratively eliminates the Covenant Code (cf. Stackert, Strata [2009] 200–1). 151 Berman, CBQ 76 (2014) 24. 149 150

Chapter Five

Allusions To Narrative The final group of allusions draw from the narrative frame of D, which includes chs. 1–11 and 29–32.1 Several allusions to this framing narrative have already been treated in ch. 2’s discussion of prophetic authority. This chapter will analyze the remaining allusions to the narrative portions of D. Since both pre-DtrJ poetic texts and DtrJ and post-DtrJ supplements allude to D’s narrative, this chapter allows once again the comparison between pre-DtrJ and DtrJ perspectives on D. For DtrJ, the theme of Israel’s future obedience emerges as a particular focus of interaction with D’s frame narrative. In relation to its source, DtrJ innovates a new solution to the problem of obedience and, in so doing, engages in transformative allusion to D.

I. Obedience Four of these allusions to D’s narrative frame address the theme of the source and motivation of obedience. While the pre-DtrJ poetic texts that make use of D on this subject agree uncontroversially with their source, the DtrJ texts use D in the development of an innovative solution to the problem of disobedience.

1. Jer 4:4 and Deut 10:16 Deuteronomy 10:16 functions as part of an exhortation for the Israelites to fear Yahweh and obey the commandments (10:12–16). This exhortation follows a narrative of Moses’s successful intercession (9:6–21, 25–29), and the remaking of the Decalogue (10:1–11). In this context, Deut 10:16 enjoins the Moab generation to reform themselves so as not to mimic the rebelliousness of their parents. The old generation “stiffened their necks” (Deut 9:6, 13); in contrast, the current generation is to “circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.” Though D nowhere discusses the rite of physical circumcision, the metaphor of heart circumcision presumes that the physical rite was practiced by the ancestors. This assumption brings into relief the contrast between the new gen1

 Cf. Baden, Composition (2012) 129–48.

190

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

eration and the old. Where the previous generation were presumably circumcised in the body, but nevertheless stubborn and disobedient, the new generation is to remove the “foreskin of the heart.” The physical operation is here transformed into a metaphor for a removal of the inward, mental barrier to obedience.2 As the following lexical parallels show, Jeremiah 4:4 alludes to this heart-circumcision idea:3 Jer 4:4a

‫המלו ליהוה והסרו ערלות לבבכם איש יהודה וישבי‬ ‫ירושלם‬ Circumcise yourselves to Yahweh and remove the foreskins of your heart, O man of Judah and dwellers of Jerusalem!

Deut 10:16

‫ומלתם את ערלת לבבכם וערפכם לא תקשו עוד‬ You will circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.

The most important lexical datum for this allusion is the phrase “foreskin(s) of the heart,” which appears only in these two passages. The related collocation “uncircumcised heart” appears in Lev 26:41, Jer 9:25, and Ezek 44:7, 9, but these examples differ from Jer 4:4 / ​Deut 10:16 in important ways. Each use the adjectival form ‫ערל‬, “uncircumcised,” rather than the nominal ‫ערלה‬, “foreskin,” and they lack the corresponding verb ‫מול‬, “to circumcise,” that is found in Jer 4:4 and Deut 10:16. Further, Jer 4:4 and Deut 10:16 share the volitive mood and express a command given to the Israelite audience. The command in both cases also presents a solution to the problem of apostasy: that of the parents in Deut 10; that of the audience in Jer 4 (cf. vv. 1–2). The evidence for this allusion – and the priority of Deut 10:16 – is strengthened by another phenomenon. As Holladay points out, the book of Jeremiah favors the form ‫לב‬, which appears fifty-eight times in the book, to ‫לבב‬, which appears only eight times. In D, on the other hand, ‫ לבב‬is the preferred form, appearing forty-seven times. D uses ‫ לב‬only four times, at least one of which is a probable allusion to Jer.4 Of the eight occurrences of ‫ לבב‬in Jeremiah, half can be identified on other grounds as allusions to D (Jer 4:4 / ​Deut 10:16; Jer 29:13 / ​ Deut 4:29; Jer 32:40 / ​Deut 5:29; Jer 51:46 / ​Deut 20:3). The correlation between the use of ‫ לבב‬in Jeremiah and an allusion to D is not foolproof, but it is highly suggestive. As a piece of corroborative evidence, therefore, the appearance of ‫לבב‬ supports the proposal of an allusion to Deut 10:16 in Jer 4:4. While other examples of the concept of an “uncircumcised heart” indicate that this concept is not wholly unique to Jer 4:4 and Deut 10:16, the lexical and  Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 107–8.  This allusion is recognized by Duhm, Jeremia (1901) 46; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 94–95; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 359; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 107–8; idem, Jeremiah 2 (1986) 59; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 66; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 202; idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 258. 4 Deut 29:18; cf. excursus. 2 3

I. Obedience

191

thematic parallels between these passages demonstrate an allusion in Jeremiah. The context for this allusion is the call to repentance in Jer 4:1–4, a theme developed throughout Jer 3:1–4:4.5 Verses 1–2 hold out the possibility of a return if the people repent and desist from idolatry. Verses 3–4 indicate that a surface repentance is not enough; they must change inwardly if they are to obey and so avoid judgment. What Jer 4:4 draws from Deut 10:16 appears to be the idea that the avoidance of apostasy will require a change in inward mental disposition, a removal of that which impedes obedience. It is possible this allusion includes a partial comparison between the present audience and the wilderness generation who, in Deut 10:16, is called to effect an inward change that will enable obedience in contrast to the disobedience of their parents. In both cases, a past apostasy is to be remedied through a change of heart. The passage itself belongs to a pre-DtrJ layer of tradition.6 Thiel, however, assigns Jer 4:4 to DtrJ primarily on the basis of the allusion to Deut 10:16 and the apparent reuse of Jer 21:21.7 This argument, as McKane points out, is unconvincing.8 There is nothing that prima facie prevents a non-DtrJ text from alluding to D. The instances in DtrJ passages of the phrase ‫רע מעלליכם‬, “the evil of your deeds,” can be adequately explained according to McKane’s model, in which the later prose passages habitually borrowed language from the poetic texts.9 Likewise, the use of language from 21:12, which Thiel understands as non-DtrJ, in 4:4 does not constitute evidence for 4:4 being secondary since such repetition could reflect an author’s reuse of their own language or an idiolect.10 By providing a means for overcoming disobedience, and thus enabling repentance, Jer 4:4 serves as a fitting conclusion to a set of pre-DtrJ poetic oracles that are centrally concerned with the theme of repentance (3:1–4:4*). Jeremiah 4:4 is thus to be aligned with this body of material. As for the perspective on D in this passage, it is possible to conclude no more than that the author found in Deut 10:16 an apt metaphor for describing a solu-

 See pp. 165–72. this there is relative agreement among scholars, though there is, unsurprisingly, disagreement as to how the pre-DtrJ material in chs. 2–4 fit together. See Duhm, Jeremia (1901) 46, McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 89–90; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) 62–68. Stipp’s catalogue of linguistic markers of the poetic author’s idiolect includes two expressions in Jer 4:4 itself and two in the contextually near and related 3:21 (Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah [2009] 160, 171, 175).  7  Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 94–95, followed by Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 158–59. Thiel argues that in Jer 4:4, DtrJ has used both Deut 10:16 and Jer 21:12.  8  McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV (1986) 89–90.  9 Ibid. 10  Strengthening this possibility is the fact that the use of ‫ חמה‬as the subject of ‫יצא‬, which is shared by Jer 4:4 and 21:12, occurs elsewhere only in Jeremian poetry (23:19; 30:23), a fact marshaled by Stipp as evidence for an idiolect (Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah [2009] 160).  5

 6 On

192

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

tion to the problem of disobedience. Such a usage assumes neither the authority nor divine origin of the source material.

2. Jer 5:24 and Deut 11:14 In chs. 3 and 4 above, I discussed two allusions to D in the pre-DtrJ poetic stratum of Jer 5: Deut 28:49–52 in Jer 5:15–17 and Deut 21:18–20 in Jer 5:23. Jeremiah 5:2411 adds a third. The lexical parallels are as follows:12 Jer 5:24

‫ולא אמרו בלבבם נירא נא את יהוה אלהינו הנתן‬ ‫גשם וירה ומלקוש בעתו שבעות חקות קציר ישמר‬ ‫לנו‬ They did not say in their hearts, “let us fear Yahweh our god, who gives rain, early rain, and late rain, each in its own time, [who] keeps for us the fixed weeks of harvest.”

Deut 11:14

‫ונתתי מטר ארצכם בעתו יורה ומלקוש ואספת דגנך‬ ‫ותירשך ויצהרך‬ I will give the rain of your land in its time, early rain and late rain, that you may gather your grain, your new wine, and your olive oil.

Here, the most distinctive marker is the unique lexeme ‫יורה‬, “early rain,” which appears in the Hebrew Bible only in these two passages. ‫מלקוש‬, “latter rain,” is slightly more common but appears only eight times in the Hebrew Bible. Of these eight occurrences, ‫ מלקוש‬functions as the direct object of ‫ נתן‬in only Jer 5:24 11  This passage is identifiable as pre-DtrJ by the lack of redactional seams and DtrJ language / ​ themes. The poetic form of the oracle is shown by the rough semantic parallelism of “who gives rain, early rain, and late rain in their time / ​[who] keeps for us the fixed weeks of harvest” (v. 24) as well as the tighter semantic and syntactic parallelism of much of the rest of the oracle, from which v. 24 is unextractable. As such, many critics recognize the affiliation of this oracle with the pre-DtrJ poetic stratum (Mowinckel, Komposition [1914] 20; Rudolph, Jeremia [1947] 36–37, who, though viewing 21–25 as not fitting with the rest of the pre-DtrJ chapter, nevertheless attributes them to Jeremiah and the “Urrolle”; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 [1973] 97–99; Holladay, Jeremiah 1 [1986] 194, who argues for the unity of vv. 20–29). Some scholars see the oracles of 20–25 or 20–31 as originally independent of the rest of the poetic substratum of ch. 5 on the basis of a shift in topic away from enemy invasion to sin as the direct cause of calamity (Duhm, Jeremia [1901] 62–63, for whom secondariness is also suggested by parallels to Third Isaiah; McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV [1989] 128–30). While I see no reason to suppose that these topics are incompatible in a single literary prophecy, the affiliation of this passage with the pre-DtrJ stratum is not contradicted by their view if one accepts that the poetic stratum itself represents a collection of materials. Stipp’s catalogue of linguistic markers of the poetic author’s idiolect includes three idiosyncratic expressions in the near context of v. 24. These appear in vv. 21, 22, and 28 (Stipp, Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah [2009] 158, 168). These data corroborate the identification of v. 24 with the pre-DtrJ poetic stratum and suggest that it is the work of the same author as was responsible for the other poetic material characterized by this idiolect. 12  The allusion is noted also by Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 360; Fischer, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 258.

I. Obedience

193

and Deut 11:14. Finally, the phrase ‫ בעתו‬adds further weight to the lexical parallels uniting these passages. The direction of dependence is supported in the previous allusions to D in the pre-DtrJ poetic stratum of Jer 5 already noted. The proximity of these allusions suggests that allusion to D played a central role in the composition of these oracles. In the absence of a similar tendency on the part of Deut 11, Jer 5:24 appears as the likely alluding text. These other allusions also support seeing these parallels as reflecting a literary allusion rather than simply shared stereotyped language for the divine blessing of rain. A potential further marker of the allusion and its direction is the lexeme ‫לבב‬ in Jer 5:24. As discussed above, this form of the word “heart” is particularly characteristic of D, and its presence in Jeremiah often serves as an indication of a borrowing from D. This lexeme appears in the verse preceding Deut 11:14 as part of the protasis to which vv. 14–15 provide the apodosis: “If you indeed obey … with all your heart (‫ )לבבכם‬and with all your soul ….” The presence of this lexeme in Deut 11:13 makes suggestive the appearance of the long form ‫לבב‬ in Jer 5:24. Where Deut 11:13–15 states that the blessings of rain and agriculture will flow from those who obey with all their heart (‫)לבב‬, the alluding Jer 5:24 states that the disobedient people did not say in their hearts (‫)לבב‬, “let us fear Yahweh.” Though based on a common lexeme, this connection corroborates the identification of Jer 5:24 as the alluding text. The larger context of Deut 11:10–17 addresses the necessity of rain in Canaan in contrast to the irrigation-agriculture of Egypt. The passage frames the blessing of rain in relation to obedience or disobedience to Yahweh. This larger context does not seem to be invoked in any specific way in Jer 5:24 since the sending of rain, the departure from Egypt, or any other association from Deut 11:10–17 or its surrounding context are absent from Jer 5:24 and its context. The association drawn from the source text appears to be nothing more than the concept of Yahweh’s providing rain to obedient Israel, and, specifically, the motivation to obedience that this provision provides. In Jer 5:24, the people that have just been compared metaphorically to Deut 21’s ‫ בן סורר ומורה‬are condemned for neglecting to fear Yahweh through the citation of the language of Deut 11:14, which is aimed at motivation to obedience. The people are like D’s rebellious son (Deut 21:18–21), and D’s attempt to motivate them through the need for rain and harvest (Deut 11:10–17) has fallen on deaf ears. The perspective on D itself is difficult to extract. On the one hand, as in Jer 4:4, the author essentially agrees with D. The allusion could be characterized as ad hoc; the author has found in Deut 11 a felicitous way of expressing a particular perspective – that Yahweh’s rain-giving capacity ought to induce obedience. On the other hand, to condemn the people for failing to say in their hearts, “let us fear Yahweh … who gives rain, early rain, and late rain in their time,” could be taken to imply that the people not only ought to have been motivated by D’s

194

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

discourse but also that this discourse should have been part of their internal speech. In other words, the author of Jer 5:24 condemns the people for a failure to internalize D as a form of self-motivation. The question is whether – or to what extent – this allusion confers authority on D. The answer to this question lies in the way that Jer 5:24 employs Deut 11:14. That the citation of Deut 11:14 is geared toward the persuasiveness of that text rather than obedience to it  – or to D in general  – suggests that Jer 5:24 stops short of conferring authoritative status on D. This allusion assumes that D is an important, prestigious, and useful text, but not that it represents a supreme and central authority that demands obedience. As discussed above, I understand authority as a form of discourse in which an audience confers on a speaker the right to command obedience.13 The relational aspect of this dynamic is particularly significant. Jeremiah 5:24 imagines a situation in which the people should have – but failed to – submit to Yahweh’s authority. By adopting the divine first person, this prophetic text shows precisely how Yahweh’s commanding authority is to be accessed – the prophet himself transmits it. Thus, in this text, the theoretical authority is Yahweh, but the real authority is the text itself, an authority constructed by the text through the use of the prophetic voice. Within this dynamic, D is cited, but it is not cited as a co-authority with Jeremiah. It is used as part of a persuasive argument that Yahweh ought to have been obeyed. Its use as persuasion does not claim anything more about D than that its adjuration to obey Yahweh ought to have been persuasive but was not. Very germane is the distinction drawn by Lincoln between authority and persuasion.14 In these two forms of the discourse, the status of the speaker is manifested in different ways. An attempt to persuade has recourse to various modes of argumentation that seek to produce a desired effect. A speaker using persuasion is not guaranteed acceptance, but must earn it through successful argumentation. An authoritative speaker, on the other hand, produces the effect without the necessity of argumentation by virtue of the authority conferred on them by the audience. Since Jer 5:24 does not appeal to the authoritative status of D in this allusion, but rather to its persuasiveness, it cannot be said that Jer 5:24 confers authority on D here or that D is functioning here as an authority for Jer 5:24. The authority assumed in Jer 5:24 is Yahweh – mediated prophetically – and not D. The allusions to D in Jer 4:4 and 5:24, both pre-DtrJ texts, use the source in straightforward, non-transformative ways. These poetic texts found in D language and ideas that were amenable to their own rhetorical purposes and so employed allusion to draw on what was likely a prestigious literary precursor.

13  Following the basic definition of Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (1922) 28–29, 122 and the discussion of Lincoln, Authority (1994) esp. 3–4, 10–11. 14 Authority (1994) 4–6.

I. Obedience

195

3. Jer 29:13–14aα and Deut 4:29 More complex are two allusions in DtrJ that treat the theme of obedience with a view to the future renewed covenant between the people and Yahweh. The first example appears in Jer 29:13–14aα. The immediate context of this passage is vv. 10–14aα.15 In ch. 2, I argued for the DtrJ affiliation of vv. 8–9, 15, 21–23 but deferred judgment on vv. 10–14aα since a number of scholars have proposed that this section was added later than vv. 8–9, 15, 21–23. The evidence for secondariness appears in the seemingly abrupt thematic changes from false prophecy (vv. 8–9) to restoration after 70 years (vv. 10–14aα) and then back to false prophecy in vv. 15, 21–23.16 According to this interpretation, vv. 10–14aα would be a correction to the prophecy of a permanent stay in Babylon (vv. 5–7); the sojourn there will in fact be a finite 70 years. While this interpretation has merit, the suggestion that it is unconnected to vv. 8–9, 15, 21–23 should be reconsidered. As noted in ch. 2, the DtrJ redaction of chs. 27–29 is organized around the theme of false prophecy.17 It is for this very reason, however, that McKane questions the validity of assigning 29:10–14α to DtrJ since, according to McKane, it lacks this distinct theme.18 In response to McKane’s complaint that Nicholson “offers no demonstration that vv. 10–14 or 16–20 are concerned with that theme,”19 several considerations show that the offer of a restoration after 70 years is central to DtrJ’s development of the theme of false prophecy in ch. 28. As shown in ch. 2, the allusion to Deut 18:18 in Jer 28:8–9 does not simply identify Jeremiah as a prophet of war in contrast to Hananiah, the prophet of peace. Rather, the adaptation of Deut 18:18 there differentiates between two types of prophecy, both of which Jeremiah performs. According to Jer 28:8–9, Jeremiah’s prophecies of war need no verification, and the audience themselves – post-587 by all accounts and most likely post-exilic – can judge the failure of Hananiah’s prophecy of imminent restoration and the success pf Jeremiah’s prophecy of distant restoration. Thus, each section within Jer 29:8–14aα, 15, and 21–23, centers around a particular configuration of the theme of false prophecy. Within this passage, vv. 10– 14aα represent a coherent development from vv. 8–9. Verses 8–9 respond to the pre-existing vv. 5–7 by introducing the theme of the falseness of the prophecies of imminent return. Jeremiah has prophesied a long stay in Babylon (vv. 5–7), 15  The remainder of v. 14 – beginning with ‫נאם יהוה‬ – is missing in the LXX and likely reflects an expansion by the MT with language found elsewhere in the book (so Janzen, Studies [1973] 48–49; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII [1996] 729–30). Holladay’s claim that the LXX has suffered haplography due to the repeated suffix ‫ ‑כם‬is strained by the plus ending with ‫ משם‬rather than this suffix (Jeremiah 2 [1989] 133). 16 Wanke, Baruchschrift (1971) 58; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 738. 17  Cf. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 93–94, 97–99. 18  McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 46–747. 19 Ibid., 747.

196

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

and so the prophets who have prophesied otherwise are to be ignored and condemned for prophesying lies (vv. 8–9).20 As a development of vv. 8–9, vv. 10–14aα continue in the same vein, further clarifying the prophecy of vv. 5–7 in a manner consistent with 28:8–9. While the prophets of an imminent return are indeed liars, a return will in fact occur, but only after 70 years. Thus, contra McKane’s objection, the prophecy of a return 70 years in the future is directly related to the DtrJ concern with true and false prophecy; it counters the false prophecy of an imminent return with the true prophecy of a delayed one. As such, this section can be directly related to the aims of the DtrJ redaction of chs. 27–29. Finally, the Deuteronomistic phrase “to establish the word of Yahweh” corroborates the DtrJ identification of this passage.21 Having identified the compositional affiliation of Jer 29:10–14aα, we turn now to the allusion itself. The connections between Jer 29:13–14aα and Deut 4:29 are strong, as the following parallels demonstrate: Jer 29:13–14aα

‫ובקשתם אתי ומצאתם כי תדרשני בכל לבבכם‬ ‫ונמצאתי לכם‬ You will seek me and you will find [me] because you will seek me with all your heart and I will prove discoverable to you.

Deut 4:29

‫ובקשתם משם את יהוה אלהיך ומצאת כי תדרשנו‬ ‫בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך‬ You will seek Yahweh your god from there and you will find [him] if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul.

The lexical correspondence is dense and unparalleled elsewhere. As such, a literary relationship appears highly probable. More complex is the direction and nature of the literary relationship. While some have registered this parallel as representing an allusion to Deut 4 in Jer 29,22 Otto has argued vigorously that Deut 4:29 is the alluding text.23 He notes first a change in grammatical number in Deut 4:29 from the 2nd person masculine to the second person masculine singular. According to Otto, this shift is explainable if Deut 4:29 is the alluding text since the shift to the singular serves the parenetic function of shifting address to the survivors of the exile: “No longer the collective of the people is addressed but the single person of the few who had survived the exile.”24 According to Otto, since a change from singular to plural in Jer 29:13  See above, pp. 86–7. Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 98; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 350; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 15, who notes that while the phrase “to establish a word” is not exclusive to Deuteronomic / ​Deuteronomistic texts, the connection of this phrase to Yahweh’s establishing his word is – barring late usages in Daniels and Nehemiah – exclusive to such texts. 22  Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 553; Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 99, idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 249–50. 23  Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 290–291; idem, OTE 19 (2006) 945–947. 24  Otto, OTE 19 (2006) 946. Cf. also idem, Deuteronomium 1:1–4:43 (2012) 523. This claim is connected to his larger attempt to read a consistent theological valence to the number changes 20

21 Nicholson,

I. Obedience

197

would be without explanation, Jer 29:13 is more likely to be the original text. As Glanz has recently shown in his study of the participant reference structure of the book of Jeremiah, however, the general rule for the incorporation of allusions in Jeremiah is for the participant reference structure of the source to be adapted to the structure of the alluding text.25 In other words, not only would a shift to the plural in Jer 29:13 be explainable; it would be entirely expected and predictable. Otto’s second argument for Deut 4:29’s allusion to Jer 29:13–14aα rests on his identification of a contrast between the Deuteronomistic nature of Jer 29:13– 14aα and the post-Deuteronomistic nature of Jer 29:10–12. Jeremiah 29:10–12, according to Otto, express a post-Deuteronomistic view of unconditional salvation, distinct from the Deuteronomistic conditional perspective represented in Jer 29:13–14aα.26 Since Otto considers Deut 4:29 to be post-Deuteronomistic and Jer 29:13–14aα to represent an earlier Deuteronomistic tradition, he is able to posit the relative dating of these texts. Since the post-Deuteronomistic must be later than the Deuteronomistic, Deut 4:29 must allude to Jer 29:13–14aα. This argument is problematic for two reasons. First, it succumbs to the pseudo-historicism criticized by Sommer.27 The view of salvation along the axes of conditionality and unconditionality cannot be reliably dated with as much precision as Otto attempts to do here, such that the conditionality of Jer 29:13–14aα becomes sufficient evidence to identify it as temporally prior to the post-Deuteronomistic Deut 4. Ideas do not develop in such a linear fashion as to allow this method of relative dating. The supposed conditionality of Jer 29:13–14aα could have as well been penned in the post-exilic as the exilic period. Second, Otto’s argument for the conditionality of Jer 29:13–14aα, which serves as his basis for dating it prior to Deut 4, makes an unwarranted assumption about the nature of allusion. Otto identifies the conditionality of Jer 29:13– 14aα on the following basis: “Jeremiah 29:13.14aα differs fundamentally from Jeremiah 29:10–12 because the kî-sentence has to be interpreted as a conditional clause ‘if you search for me with all your heart’, because the identical sentence in Deuteronomy 4:29 is clearly a conditional clause, which has its horizon in Deuteronomy 4:23.”28 The alternative Otto avoids here is the the causal interpretation of the ‫כי‬-clause. A causal interpretation would maintain the unconditionalin Deut 4 and elsewhere (cf. Otto, Tora für eine neue Generation [2011] 105–22; idem, Deuteronomium 1,1–4,43 [2012] 523–32). 25  Glanz, Participant-Reference Shifts (2013) 201. 26 Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 291; idem, OTE 19 (2006) 946. 27  Sommer, The Pentateuch (2011) 85–108. 28  Otto, OTE 19 (2006) 946. The argument in Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 291 is identical: “In Dtn 4,29 ist der kî-Satz ‘wenn ihr mich mit ganzem Herzen sucht’ konditional zu interpretieren, da Dtn 4,29 seinen Horizont in der Ermahnung in Dtn 4,23 hat, nicht den Bund zu vergessen. Der wörtlich übereinstimmende kî-Satz in Jer 29,13 ist ebenfalls konditional zu verstehen.” The same argument is expressed in idem, Deuteronomium 1,1–4,43 (2012) 575–76.

198

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

ity of vv. 10–12 and so overturn the basis by which Otto identifies Jer 29:13–14aα as Deuteronomistic and thus prior to Deut 4. The assumption that the conditional use of this ‫כי‬-clause in Deut 4:29 – which for Otto is the alluding text – proves its conditional use in Jer 29:13, however, fails to account for the fact that allusions as a rule represent adaptations of source texts. Granting for the sake of argument that Deut 4:29 alludes to Jer 29:13–14aα does not at all prove that Jer 29:13 represents salvation as conditional since this text could well activate a causal sense of ‫ כי‬here. The substitution of the meaning of a word found in a source text for another meaning is a well attested phenomenon in inner-biblical interpretation.29 Otto further supports his division of Jer 29:13–14aα from the preceding verses 10–12 on the basis of an argument forwarded by Robert Carroll. Carroll sees in these verses two distinct and incompatible views of the return. Verses 10–12 express the view that the return will occur at the initiative of Yahweh; vv. 13–14 express the view that Yahweh brings the people back only after they have repented and sought Yahweh.30 In contrast to this view, however, a coherent progression can be read in vv. 10–14aα. Verse 10 announces the return from Babylon in 70 years, grounded as a fulfillment of Yahweh’s “good word.” Yahweh’s plans for the people still involve their well-being and future (v. 11). What follows in vv. 12–14aα is an elaboration of the people’s response. They will seek and find because their seeking will be whole-hearted (vv. 13–14aα). The inevitability of this final outcome flows from the divine initiative that initiated the return. As we will see below, DtrJ returns to the mechanics of this divinely-initiated return in subsequent passages, notably Jer 31:31–34 and 32:39–40. Thus, contrary to both Otto and Carroll, Jer 29:13–14α follows naturally on vv. 10–12. Together they form a later response to vv. 5–7 and express a divinely initiated return. That Jer 29:13–14α here alludes to Deut 4:29 is supported by two considerations, one simple and inconclusive, the other complex but more decisive. First, Jer 29:13 employs ‫ לבב‬rather than its habitual ‫לב‬. As discussed above, four of the eight occurrences of ‫ לבב‬in Jeremiah are attributable to the allusive reuse of language from D. Its appearance here is a suggestive, but not decisive, indication of the priority of D. More significant support for this conclusion comes from consideration of the possible interpretive processes at play. Either Deut 4:29 has transformed a statement of unconditional salvation in Jer 29:13–14α into a conditional one, or 29 Cf. for example, the allusion to Deut 34:10 in Deut 18:15, 18 and Stackert’s argument that the conjunctive ‫ כ‬of the source is reemployed as a preposition (A Prophet Like Moses [2014] 138). Other examples of similar transformations of lexical meaning in allusive texts include the transformations of ‫ יראה‬and ‫ קול‬in Deut 5 (Brettler, Significance of Sinai [2008] 20–22 [cited by Stackert, A Prophet like Moses (2014) 138] and Sommer, JR 79 [1999] 433) and those of ‫ מקום‬and ‫ זבח‬in Deut 12 (Levinson, Hermeneutics [1997] 34–36). 30 Jeremiah (1986) 558–59.

I. Obedience

199

Jer 29:13–14α has transformed a conditional statement into an unconditional one. While neither of these possibilities can be strictly ruled out, the second possibility is preferable as it corresponds to the theme developed by DtrJ in Jer 29–32 of obedience through a divinely initiated heart change (a theme that also appears in DtrJ in Jer 24:7). As will be shown below, this theme is developed in relationship to D also in Jer 32:39–40. Thus, the concept of obedience through a divinely initiated heart-change is developed elsewhere by DtrJ as a transformation of D’s view of the priority of human initiative in obeying the covenant. As such, the interpretive process of transforming Deut 4:29 in Jer 29:13–14aα is supported by a similar process elsewhere and can be said to reflect a particular concern of DtrJ in the closely related chapters 29 and 32. A similar motivation and pattern is not apparent for Deut 4’s possible use of Jer 29. Thus, the explicability of the interpretative process in Jer 29:13–14aα, combined with the use of the lexeme ‫לבב‬, support an allusion to Deut 4:29 in Jer 29:13–14aα. This allusion in Jer 29:13–14aα amounts to a transformation of Deut 4’s concept of the solution to covenant disobedience. Deuteronomy 4:25–28 contemplates the breaking of the covenant and subsequent exile from the land. Verse 29–31 announce the possibility of return. As Otto rightly argues, the context provided by the adjuration to obedience in v. 23 leads to reading the ‫ כי‬in v. 29 as conditional.31 The conditional reading is also supported by the conditional structure of vv. 25–28: if you break the covenant, then you will suffer exile, but if you then seek Yahweh, you will return to the land. The conditionality of v. 29 is therefore a vital feature of its view of restoration after exile: it is initiated by the repentance of the people. The choice of this text by Jer 29:13–14aα is occasioned by its consideration the same theme: restoration after exile. DtrJ’s solution, however, is different: it is Yahweh’s initiative that will effect this restoration. Given the transformation, we must ask why Jer 29 alludes to Deut 4 at all. Here we see a case comparable to those instances of transformational allusion that focused on the subject of prophecy. As there, the authority conferred on D by the DtrJ author provides the context for understanding why Deut 4:29 is used. Because DtrJ has a different solution to the problem of restoration after exile than D, it cannot ignore D’s solution, but must hermeneutically transform it. The dissonance caused by disagreeing with the authoritative text is dispelled by alluding to the offending text and transforming it in such a way that it supports the innovation. In the service of its own innovative view of a divinely initiated unconditional 31 Otto, ZAR 12 (2006) 291; idem, OTE 19 (2006) 946; idem, Deuteronomium 1,1–4:43 (2012) 575. So also Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) 73–74; Craigie, Deuteronomy (1976) 140–41; Nelson, Deuteronomy (2002) 58, 68–69, who, though seeing Deut 4:29–31 as expressing periods in Israelite history, also understands and translates the passage as placing the initiative for repentance in the people; and Rom-Shiloni, Birkat Shalom (2008) 107. But see Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 156 and Tigay, Deuteronomy (1996) 432, who view this passage as expressing an unconditional promise of restoration.

200

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

salvation, DtrJ transformed the notion of conditional restoration in the source text (Deut 4:29) into a promise that Yahweh will guarantee restoration.32

4. Jer 32:39–40 and Deut 5:29 Jeremiah 32:39–40, which also belongs to the DtrJ,33 alludes to D in a similar manner. This passage brings into focus the same topic as Jer 29:13–14aα – Judah’s future restoration – and provides a more explicit solution to Judah’s tendency to disobey. As part of the future new covenant, Judah will enjoy a divinely implanted obedience that will override and cancel out the human tendency to disobedience. Unlike the old covenant, the new one will not be broken because the people will be incapable of disobedience. The language used to describe this implanted obedience draws on and transforms Deut 5:29:34 Jer 32:39–40

Deut 5:29

‫ונתתי להם לב אחד ודרך אחד ליראה אותי כל‬ ‫הימים לטוב להם ולבניהם אחריהם וכרתי להם‬ ‫ברית עולם אשר לא אשוב מאחריהם להיטיבי אותם‬ ‫ואת יראתי אתן בלבבם לבלתי סור מעלי‬

‫מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם ליראה אתי ולשמר את‬ ‫כל מצותי כל הימים למען ייטב להם ולבניהם‬ ‫לעלם‬

I will give to them a single heart and a single way to fear me always for their own good and that of their sons after them. I will make with them an eternal covenant that I will not turn away from doing them good. I will place the fear of me in their heart so that they will not turn from me.

O that [literally, who would give that] they had this heart of theirs to fear me and to keep all my commands always in order that it might go well for them and for their sons for ever.

32 Cf. Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 99, who makes a similar point without perceiving that this divine guarantee of restoration represents a transformation of Deut 4:29. 33  Many scholars are agreed on the DtrJ attribution of the majority of 32:16–44, including vv. 36–41. Cf. Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 31; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 84; Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 629–30; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 30–37. For DtrJ phraseology in vv. 36–41 see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 327, 334, 339, 346, 348 (and cf. his complete list for many more entries for phrases in 32:16–44 outside of 36–41). Though of course not assigning it to DtrJ, Holladay identifies vv. 38–40 as “secondary,” but his reasoning – that they represent a “language a bit softer than that of the ‘new covenant’ passage” is not convincing (Jeremiah 2 [1989] 208). McKane, though agreeing that vv. 16–44 are redactional, sees certain elements within them as more closely related to vv. 1–15 than others and considers it preferable to posit multiple redactional hands in the chapter (Jeremiah XXVI–LII [1996] 848–49, 852). Given, however, the uniformity of language and thought that McKane himself admits (cf. 848), Thiel’s argument that vv. 16–44 represents the work of DtrJ – perhaps making use of pre-existing material in varying stages of recoverability – remains the simplest and most satisfying explanation. 34 So also Weinfeld, ZAW 88 (1976) 31; idem, Deuteronomy 1–11 (1991) 325 (in both cases, Weinfeld mistakenly cites Deut 5:29 as Deut 5:26); Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 212; idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 251–52.

I. Obedience

201

Observable in these passages is a high density of lexical parallels that occur in nearly identical order. Both passages begin with the verb “to give” (‫ )נתן‬followed by the direct object, “heart” (‫  ​ לב‬/  ‫)לבב‬, and the prepositional adjunct “to them” (‫)להם‬. The sequence of shared material continues with a multiple-phrase series that is nearly identical in each text: “to fear me always for their own good and that of their sons.” Jeremiah 32:40 then repeats, now in a new configuration, the words from the beginning of Deut 5:29: “I will place the fear of me in their heart.” That these parallels constitute an allusion rather than merely two independent instances of Deuteronomistic language35 is supported by the density of terms in sequence, especially the sequence “to fear me all the time for their own good and that of their sons.” Moreover, the phrase “a heart to fear me” is unique to these passages. The reduced phrase “a heart to fear” is found elsewhere only in Ps 86:11, where it is not further collocated with the other lexemes underlined above.36 Thus, the density of lexical parallels plus this unique collocation point to a literary allusion. Finally, the use of ‫ לבב‬in Jeremiah once again suggests that Deut 5 is the source text. Interestingly, Deut 5:29’s ‫ לבב‬is rendered twice in Jer 32:39–40. In the first instance, it appears as ‫לב‬, the common form in Jeremiah. In the second instance, the reduplicated form appears. Why the author used two different forms of the word “heart” is difficult to explain, but the use of the reduplicated form in v. 40 corroborates the presence of an allusion here to D. Many of the parallels are inexact. As observed before, this phenomenon is an expected and predictable feature of literary allusion. Thus the change from ‫למען‬ ‫ ייטב‬to ‫ לטוב‬is unremarkable and could as well represent a memory variant as simply a stylistic choice on the part of the author of Jer 32. More informative is the transformation of the beginning of Deut 5:29. In Deut 5:29, ‫ נתן‬appears as part of an idiomatic expression of, as DCH puts it, “a forlorn wish,”37 which is phrased as a rhetorical question: literally “who will give that X would happen?” The rhetorical force of the idiom comes from the implied answer: “no one.” In Deut 5:29, Yahweh approves of the Israelite response to the experience at Horeb. They express their fear of Yahweh and their intention to obey everything commanded them through Mosaic mediation (vv. 23–28). In response, Yahweh employs this idiom to express his wish that the disposition of fear and obedience would last and his expectation that it would not. The experience of Horeb will lose its power over time; the Israelites will forget the fire and the terrible voice of their god, and their resolve to obey every word of Yahweh will fade.

 Contra Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 335.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100 (2000) 544 suggest that 86:11 alludes to Jer 32:38–41. 37 Clines, DCH (2001) 5:213. 35 36

202

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

Jer 32:39–40’s transformation of Deut 5:29’s forlorn question points to the meaning and purpose of this allusion.38 The author, in justifying the improved future covenant, highlights an insufficiency embedded in D itself by drawing on Yahweh’s forlorn wish that the response to Horeb would persist in the hearts and minds of the Israelites. For readers who recognize the allusion, the citation of Deut 5:29 both justifies the concept of a newer, better, covenant – Yahweh himself, after all, knew that the Israelites would be unable to sustain their own obedience under D’s covenant – and defines precisely how the new covenant will surpass the old. Whereas in D, Yahweh asks rhetorically “who will give them a heart to obey me always?”, Jer 32:39–40 provides an answer. In the new order, Yahweh himself will provide what was lacking in the old order. The transformation of D’s simple “heart” into “a single heart and a single way” (‫ )לב אחד ודרך אחד‬in Jer 32:39–40 expresses a further element of innovation. The phrase “single heart” appears elsewhere and has the sense of determination / ​single-mindedness (Cf. 1 Chr 12:39, 2 Chr 30:12; compare also Ezek 11:19).39 In Jer 32:39, this “single-mindedness” is a determination to fear and obey Yahweh. It is tempting, however, to see in this phrase a further contrast with the dynamics of obedience in D’s covenant. Under D’s covenant, the heart of the people was divided. The solution was heart circumcision (Deut 10:16) – a removal of the part of the heart that was a barrier to obedience. Part of the heart proved a barrier to obedience and had to be metaphorically cut away. Under the prophesied new covenant, on the other hand, Yahweh will give a whole, undivided heart that will fear Yahweh without the need to metaphorically cut away the disobedience. A similar idea plausibly lies behind the giving of the “single way” (‫)דרך אחד‬. Jeremiah 21:8–10 is instructive in this regard. That passage, discussed above in ch. 2, applied D’s offer of the choice between life and death (Deut 30:15, 19) to Jeremiah’s command to submit to the Babylonians. In adapting Deut 30:15 and 19 to its new context, Jer 21:8 spoke of D’s offer of life and death as a choice between two possible “ways”: “Behold, I am offering you the way of life and the way of death (‫)את דרך החיים ואת דרך המות‬.” This understanding of Deut 30:15, 19’s offer of life and death as a choice between two “ways” sheds light on the offer of a “single way” in Jer 32:39. Built into the old covenant was a choice of two ways, and the people chose disobedience and death. The new covenant, in contrast, will offer only a single path: the way of obedience and blessing. This type of transformation manifested in Jer 32:39–40 does not represent the outright ideological tension that appeared in DtrJ’s interaction with D on the  The scholars who have noted this allusion have had relatively little to say about its interpretative process and transformative nature. Weinfeld does no more than note the parallel and claim that Jer 32:39–40 is likely dependent on Deut 5:29 (ZAW 88 [1976] 31; idem, Deuteronomy 1–11 [1991] 325). Fischer likewise notes the dependence on Deut 5:29, pointing out that Jer 32:39–40 provides a variation with God as the giver of the heart (Jeremia 26–52 [2005] 212). 39 Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 212; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36 (2004) 519. 38

I. Obedience

203

theme of post-Mosaic prophecy. It represents rather the necessity of the author’s articulating the vision of the better future covenant in terms of D’s covenant. Assumed here is that D is essentially what it claims to be: a covenant between Yahweh and the people of Israel that was contingent on Israel’s self-motivated obedience. In relation to this, the author did not invent a future covenant wholly anew, but rather found in D both the evidence of the D-covenant’s insufficiency as well as the solution to this insufficiency. D’s covenant required a circumcised heart and involved the built-in possibility of disobedience. With Yahweh’s forlorn question in Deut 5:29, D hints at the insufficiency of this covenant. DtrJ exploits this hint in support of its own innovative view of a new covenant.

5. Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Obedience These passages allow us once again to compare the treatment of pre-DtrJ and DtrJ allusions to D on a single topic. In the case of DtrJ, these allusions also provide a second example – alongside that of prophecy – in which the DtrJ authors negotiated innovation with respect to D. Jeremiah 4:4, a pre-DtrJ poetic oracle, alludes to D’s adjuration to the Israelites to circumcise their hearts, that is, to remove their inward barrier to obedience. The author of Jer 4:4 used a text that corroborated its own perspective, borrowing prestige from the source but not assuming or constructing its authority. Similarly, Jer 5:24 cites the failure of the Israelites to find motivation for obedience in the agricultural fertility and rainfall provided by Yahweh. Though this passage cites D as a text that should have persuaded the Israelites to obey Yahweh, it too stops short of constructing D itself as a religious authority. A more complex relationship to D appears in the DtrJ passages Jer 29:13–14aα and Jer 32:39–40 in which DtrJ expresses an innovative view of Judah’s future obedience. Jeremiah 29:13–14aα alludes to a passage that specifically imagines restoration after judgment (Deut 4:29). The view in Deut 4:29 is that the future restoration and attendant obedience will be contingent on the people’s self-motivated obedience. Jeremiah 29:13–14aα uses and transforms this language to support its own concept of the guaranteed obedience of the Israelites under the future new covenant, an idea hinted at in Jer 24:7 and developed in 31:31–34 and 32:37–41. The allusion to Deut 5:29 in 32:39–40 is particularly instructive. In justifying the idea of a new, better covenant, the author found in D an indication of the insufficiency of the old covenant and a hint at how it could be overcome. Where in Deut 5:29, Yahweh asks “who will give them a heart to fear?”, in Jer 32:39–40, he proposes a solution: Yahweh himself will supply the heart. DtrJ here engages in innovation, but that it does so in interpretive relation to D – in fact justifying itself with reference to D – demonstrates the importance and authority of D. The interaction with D in these passages does not represent

204

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

an attempt to overturn or attack its source40 but rather an attempt to explain and justify its innovation in terms of its source. These allusions are, to be sure, transformative in that they use passages of D to present a new idea, but they leave intact the authority of D by showing that D itself supports DtrJ’s solution to the problem of disobedience. This DtrJ innovation is paralleled in Deut 30:1–10, which, as Brettler shows, draws from these very passages of Jeremiah.41 The evidence for this borrowing arises from the following observations. On a thematic level, this passage introduces the idea that after inflicting the covenant curses, Yahweh will provide a heart change that will enable the people to obey. This is especially evident in v. 6, where Deut 10:16’s adjuration to circumcise the heart – cited also in Jer 4:4 – is transformed to make Yahweh the agent of the heart-circumcision, changing “circumcise the foreskin of your heart” to “Yahweh your god will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring.” As Brettler points out, this view is absent from the rest of D, including Deut 4:29 where the topic of a future beyond judgment is explicitly taken up.42 The best lexical evidence for borrowing comes from the parallel in language between Deut 30:9–10 and Jer 32:41: Deut 30:9–10

‫והותירך יהוה אלהיך בכל מעשה ידך בפרי בטנך‬ ‫ובפרי בהמתך ובפרי אדמתך לטובה כי ישוב יהוה‬ ‫לשוש עליך לטוב כאשר שש על אבתיך כי תשמע‬ ‫בקול יהוה אלהיך לשמר מצותיו וחקתיו הכתובה‬ ‫בספר התורה הזה כי תשוב אל יהוה אלהיך בכל‬ ‫לבבך ובכל נפשך‬ Yahweh your god will enrich you in all your undertakings, in the fruit of your womb, in the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your ground, for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good just as he rejoiced over your ancestors, for you will obey Yahweh your god by keeping his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the teaching, for you will return to Yahweh your god with all your heart and with all your soul.

Jer 32:41

‫וששתי עליהם להטיב אותם ונטעתים בארץ הזאת‬ ‫באמת בכל לבי ובכל נפשי‬

I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land in truth with all my heart and with all my soul.

40 Contra Potter, VT 33 (1983) 347–57, who argues that Jer 31:31–34 represents “a deliberate contrast to Deuteronomy, not a complement to it, or a restatement of it” (350). Potter’s observations on this passage are sometimes astute, but the passage needs to be interpreted in the larger context of DtrJ’s work, in which context Jer 31:31–34 is better characterized as a complement to D. 41  Brettler, Those Elusive Deuteronomists (2001) 171–88. 42 Ibid., 185.

I. Obedience

205

The principle lexical parallel is the phrase “to rejoice over you / ​them for good.” This unique group of words (‫ טוב‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫ )שוש‬appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in Deut 28:63. Due to proximity, one might think Deut 30 drew on Deut 28:63, but the congruence of theme between Deut 30:1–10 and Jer 32:36–42 suggests a direct relationship between those texts. Both texts, as we have seen, deal explicitly with post-judgment salvation. Both texts imagine the solution to the problem of the first covenant to be a divinely changed heart that will guarantee obedience. Moreover, if Brettler’s understanding of the grammar of Deut 30:1–10 is correct,43 both texts advance a view of the unconditionality of the future salvation. Buttressing the proposal of a literary relationship to Jer 32, and corroborating the direction of dependence from Jeremiah to Deuteronomy, Brettler outlines other lexical connections to Jeremiah in Deut 30:1–10. Most significant are two usages that are unique to the book of Deuteronomy but attested elsewhere in Jeremiah: the hiphil of ‫ נדח‬used for the dispersing of Israel (in Deuteronomy only in 30:1; in Jeremiah in 8:3; 16:5; 23:3, 8; 24:9; 27:10, 15; 29:14, 18; 32:37; 46:2844) and the piel of ‫ קבץ‬for the regathering of Israel (in Deuteronomy only in 30:3, 4; in Jeremiah in Jer 23:3; 29:1445; 31:8, 10; 32:37). While the latter usage – the piel of ‫ קבץ‬as a reference to the gathering of exiled Israel – appears also with frequency in Ezekiel (Ezek 11:17; 16:37; 20:34, 41; 28:25; 29:13; 34:13; 36:24; 37:21), only in Deut 30:1, 3 and Jer 23:3, the MT plus to 29:14, and 32:27 do these two terms in conjunction refer to the dispersing and regathering of Israel. That Deut 30:1–10 uses these terms, which are unique to D but repeatedly used in Jeremiah, corroborates the suggested allusion to Jer 32:41.46 Further, since one of the texts in Jeremiah that combines the terms ‫ נדח‬and ‫ קבץ‬occurs in close proximity to Jer 32:41 in 32:37, it is plausible that these terms in Deut 30:1, 3 are drawn from Jer 32:37. If so, Deut 30:1–10 would both open (Deut 30:1, 3 / ​Jer 32:37) and close (Deut 30:9–10 / ​Jer 32:41) with one of the

43 Brettler,

Those Elusive Deuteronomists (1999) 174–77.  Listed in Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) 329. 45 The appearance of  ‫ קבץ‬in Jer 29:14 occurs in the MT plus to this verse and, as such, represents a likely addition. 46  Otto argues for the opposite direction of dependence (Otto, OTE 19 [2006] 943–4; idem, ZAR 12 [2006] 289). His argument, however, does not adequately address the lexical evidence provided by Brettler. Otto argues that Jer 30:3 uses Deut 30:3 on the basis of the phrase ‫לשוב‬ ‫ שבות‬with a divine subject. The idiom, however, occurs 25 times, suggesting that it is a figure of speech rather than a citation (Deut 30:3; Jer 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7, 11, 26; 48:47; 49:6, 39; Ezek 16:53; 29:14; 39:25; Hos 6:11; Joel 4:1; Amos 9:14; Zeph 2:7; 3:20; Ps 14:7; 53:7; 85:2; 126:4; Job 42:10; Lam 2:14). Moreover, since the idiom appears in D only in 30:3, but multiple times in Jeremiah, if there is dependence, especially given the other evidence of Jeremianic locutions in Deut 30:1–10 provided by Brettler, it is more likely that Jeremiah is the source (Brettler, Those Elusive Deuteronomists [1999] 187). Otto’s further claims that Jer 30:3b uses Deut 30:5 and that Jer 31:27 uses Deut 30:5, 9 lack the requisite lexical connections that are necessary to support an argument for allusion. 44

206

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

central Jeremianic texts that develops the theme of divinely implanted obedience (Jer 32:36–42). These texts demonstrate a dialogical relationship between the two literary traditions. Deuteronomy 5:29 first prompted an innovation in Jer 32:36–42. A later supplementer to D then used Jer 32:36–42 to incorporate DtrJ’s innovation into D itself.

II. Other Allusions to Narrative Three further allusions to D’s narrative frame merit discussion. Two stem from the DtrJ layer; the third is post-DtrJ. In two of these cases, Jer 22:8–9 (DtrJ) and Jer 33:5 (post-DtrJ), the purpose of the allusion is to identify the destruction of Judah / ​Jerusalem as a fulfillment of the judgments ordained in D. As such, their purpose is equivalent to the many allusions to the curses of Deut 28. These allusions capitalize on the authority of D, using it – as in the allusions to Deut 28 – to authorize an interpretation of the fall of Judah.

1. Jer 21:5 and a Deuteronomic Cliché A formally unique DtrJ allusion appears in Jer 21:5.47 This allusion is unlike any observed so far in that it involves a Deuteronomic cliché rather than a specific passage in D. As such it violates one of the basic guidelines established at the beginning of this study that an allusion, by definition, invokes a specific passage. The violation of this rule appears justified, since, in this case, the clichéd phrase itself appears to be reflected on and transformed. The cliché in question appears in v. 5: ‫ונלחמתי אני אתכם ביד נטויה ובזרוע חזקה‬ ‫ובאף ובחמה ובקצף גדול‬, “I myself will fight you with an outstretched hand and a strong arm, and with anger, fury, and great wrath.” The cliché in its usual formulation ‫ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬, “with a strong hand and an outstretched arm,” appears a number of times in D (Deut 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 11:2; 26:8) invariably in reference to the ancient deliverance from Egypt, once in Kings (1 Kgs 8:42), once in DtrJ (32:21), once in Ps 136:12, and twice in Ezekiel (Ezek 20:33, 34). With good warrant then, a number of scholars have noted that the use of this phrase in Jer 21:5 represents a reversal of its original use as a reference to Yahweh’s deliverance from Egypt.48 Where Zedekiah’s messengers hold out the prospect of Yahweh acting in accordance with his past acts of deliverance – “per47 See

pp. 59–61 above for the DtrJ affiliation of this passage.  Duhm, Jeremia (1901) 169–70; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 233–34; Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 7 [Hebrew]; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 58; Rom-Shiloni, ZAW 117 (2005) 193–94. 48

II. Other Allusions to Narrative

207

haps Yahweh will act for us according to his wonders” (v. 2) – Jeremiah responds that rather than fighting for the Israelites, Yahweh will fight against them (vv. 5–7). The prophet punctuates this reversal through the use of the Deuteronomic stereotype; the divine hand and arm that in the past were raised against Israel’s enemies will now be raised against Israel itself. The switching of adjectives in Jer 21:5 from the conventional stereotype may thus be explained as a kind of iconicity; the reversing of adjectives reflects the turning of the divine gesture from deliverance to judgment.49 Among the allusions analyzed in this study, this allusion to a stereotyped phrase is formally unique. Every other instance involved a specific passage. In this case, the author appears to have alluded to the conventional phrase and capitalized on its conventionality to highlight the reversal in the divine activity. It is worth noting that the rhetorical strategy DtrJ employs here is similar to its use of D in Jer 29:15 and 23.50 In that passage, DtrJ imagines Jeremiah’s interlocutors as citing Deut 18 (Jer 29:15) and presents Jeremiah as responding by citing the same passage. Similarly, in Jer 21, Jeremiah’s interlocutors make reference to the tradition of Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel, and Jeremiah responds with a reversal of the Deuteronomic expression of that tradition.

2. Jer 22:8–9 and Deut 29:23–25 A complicated example appears in Jer 22:8–9. This passage appears in the midst of a series of poetic oracles against the kings of Judah that have been collected and supplemented by DtrJ redaction.51 Within this collection, several features of vv. 8–9 set it apart as a redactional insertion attributable to DtrJ. First, it intervenes in the midst of what is plausibly a single oracle that exhibits poetic parallelism and style (vv. 6–7, 10): ‫ גלעד אתה לי‬6 ‫ראש הלבנון‬ ‫אם לא אשיתך מדבר‬ ‫ערים לא נושבה‬ ‫ וקדשתי עליך משחתים‬7 ‫איש וכליו‬ ‫וכרתו מבחר ארזיך‬ ‫והפילו על האש‬

[Like] Gilead you are to me; [like] the summit of Lebanon. Surely I will turn you into a wilderness; [I will turn you into] uninhabited cities.52 I will consecrate against you destroyers, each with his weapons. They will cut the best of your cedars, and make them fall into the fire.

 So Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 58. pp. 85–89. 51  Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (1973) 240. 52  The Ketib ‫ נושבה‬represents a number mismatch with the subject ‫ערים‬. The reading here is according to the Qere: ‫נושבו‬. 49

50 See

208

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

‫ אל תבכו למת‬10 Do not weep for the dead. Do not mourn for him. ‫ואל תנדו לו‬ ‫בכו בכו להלך‬ ‫כי לא ישוב עוד‬ ‫וראה את ארץ מולדתו‬

Weep instead for the one who goes away, for he will never again return, [nor] see his native land.

Into this poetic oracle, vv. 8–9 insert a non-poetic explanation for the destruction against the city: ‫ועברו גוים רבים על העיר הזאת ואמרו איש אל רעהו על מה עשה יהוה‬

‫ככה לעיר הגדולה הזאת ואמרו על אשר עזבו את ברית יהוה אלהיהם וישתחוו לאלהים אחרים‬ ‫ויעבדום‬, “Many nations will pass by this city and say, each to his companion,

‘Why did Yahweh do this to this great city?’ And they will say, ‘It is because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh their god and worshipped other gods and served them.’ ” In addition to its prosaic form, this passage contains a number of phrases indicative of DtrJ.53 Since, however, they are all involved as potential markers of an allusion, they cannot serve as independent indicators of DtrJ here. A better indicator is the question / ​answer formula that, while not exclusive to DtrJ, appears elsewhere in Jeremiah only in DtrJ passages (Jer 5:19; 9:11–12; 16:10–11).54 Since vv. 8–9 represent a likely redactional insertion into a poetic oracle, articulate the DtrJ explanation of Judah’s judgment, and reflect a question / ​answer form employed elsewhere by DtrJ, it appears justifiable to identify these verses as DtrJ without recourse to their strongly Deuteronomistic language. The reason for passing over the Deuteronomistic language is that all of it appears paralleled in the proposed source text, Deut 29:23–25: Jer 22:8–9

‫ועברו גוים רבים על העיר הזאת ואמרו איש אל‬ ‫רעהו על מה עשה יהוה ככה לעיר הגדולה הזאת‬ ‫ואמרו על אשר עזבו את ברית יהוה אלהיהם‬ ‫וישתחוו לאלהים אחרים ויעבדום‬ Many nations will pass by this city and say, each to his companion, “why did Yahweh do this to this great city?” And they will say, “It is because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh their god and worshipped other gods and served them.”

53 Cf.

Deut 29:23–25

‫ואמרו כל הגוים על מה עשה יהוה ככה לארץ הזאת‬ ‫מה חרי האף הגדול הזה ואמרו על אשר עזבו את‬ ‫ברית יהוה אלהי אבתם אשר כרת עמם בהוציאו‬ ‫אתם מארץ מצרים וילכו ויעבדו אלהים אחרים‬ ‫וישתחוו להם אלהים אשר לא ידעום ולא חלק להם‬ All the nations will say, “why did Yahweh do this to this land? Whence the heat of this great anger?” And they will say, “It is because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh, the god of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went and served other gods and worshipped

Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 321, 341.  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 341; each of these texts is identified by Thiel as DtrJ (Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 [1973] 97–99, 136–38, 196–97). Cf. ch. 3 on 16:10–11 and 9:11–12. 54

II. Other Allusions to Narrative

Jer 22:8–9

209

Deut 29:23–25 them, gods whom they did not know and [whom] he did not apportion to them.”

While the paralleled phrases themselves are mostly common Deuteronomistic stock, their density and particular constellation speak in favor of literary allusion. A verbatim clause-level parallel attested nowhere else appears in the answer to the question: ‫ואמרו על אשר עזבו את ברית יהוה‬, “And they will say, ‘It is because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh.’” The uniqueness of this parallel provides support for the presence of an allusion and contributes to establishing the likely direction of dependence. The theme of disobedience to the covenant suffuses Deut 29 (cf. vv. 8, 11, 13, 18–20, 24), but, apart from the verse in question, is absent in Jer 22. Since the language of covenant is well integrated into Deut 29, and is not integrated into Jer 22, and since the only attestation of this language in Jer 22 appears as part of a redactional supplement, it follows that Jer 22:8–9 is likely the alluding text.55 Jeremiah 22:8–9 moderately abridges its source and changes the object of judgment contemplated from “this land” to “this great city” – a change geared toward fitting the text to the context, which addresses the royal palace (vv. 1, 4, 6a) and by extension the city of which it is a part. The purpose of the allusion appears to be to provide a specific reason for the judgment described in the surrounding poetic oracles: the city will be destroyed because the people – not just the king – broke the covenant. Deuteronomy 29:23–25 imagines a future when the covenant will be broken and judgment will fall on the land. Jeremiah 22:8–9 actualizes this vision and directs it to the immediate future. 55 So also Seeligmann, Congress Volume (1978) 282. A constellation of phrases very similar to those observed in Jer 22:8–9 and Deut 29:23–25 occurs also in 1 Kgs 9:8–9. That passage lacks, however, the reference to ‫ברית‬, “covenant,” that ties Jer 22:8–9 and Deut 29:23–25 together. Moreover, like Jer 22:8–9, 1 Kgs 9:8–9 appears to reuse Deut 29:8–9. Where Jer 22:8–9 adapts Deut 29:8–9 to its own context by substituting “city” for “land” as the object of destruction, 1 Kgs 9:8–9 retains “land” but adds its own contextual concern: “and to this temple.” A score of the three passages illustrates the different ways 1 Kgs 9:8 and Jer 22:8 adapted their common source: Deut 29:23 ‫על מה עשה יהוה ככ ה לארץ הזאת‬ 1 Kgs 9:8 ‫ת ולבית הזה‬ ‫ה לארץ הזא‬ ‫על מה עשה יהוה ככ‬ Jer 22:8 ‫לעיר הגדולה הזאת‬ ‫על מה עשה יהוה ככה‬ Moreover, 1 Kgs 9:9 makes reference to “bringing their ancestors out of the land of Egypt,” an element present in Deut 29:24 but lacking in Jer 22:8–9. The elements that potentially link Jer 22:8–9 and 1 Kgs 9:8–9 do not, on the other hand, appear to warrant positing a literary connection. The word ‫עבר‬ – lacking in Deut 29:24 – appears in both passages, but this term arises from the question / ​answer form rather than a necessary dependency. The order of “bowing down” and “serving” and the contrast between “their god” and “the god of their fathers” likewise do not provide evidence for a literary connection as these each represent commonly met variants. Thus, it appears that Deut 29:23–25 served as a source for both Jer 22:8–9 and 1 Kgs 9:8–9 rather than that Jer 22:8–9 combined Deut 29:23–25 and 1 Kgs 9:8–9 as claimed by Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 655.

210

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

The reason for the redactional placement of vv. 8–9 could have been a perceived tension between the judgment envisioned against the royal house in vv. 6–7 and the resulting mourning for the exiles in v. 10. According to this passage, the king’s obedience will lead to the continuation of the dynasty (v. 5);56 his disobedience to its dissolution and the literal devastation of the palace. Since vv. 1–5 are directed against the king and his palace, and v. 6a introduces the following oracle as against the house of the king, the reference to the experience of exile in v. 10 – an experience which, from the perspective of DtrJ, was not unique to the royal house  – might seem to be unwarranted. Why should the people suffer exile for the king’s failure to do his duty (v. 3)? The concern raised by this passage for DtrJ is similar to that raised by the principle of transgenerational punishment, which DtrJ addresses and overturns in Jer 31:29–30.57 Similarly, this context addresses the problem of a nationally experienced punishment for the disobedience of the individual king. In light of this concern, DtrJ added vv. 8–9 before v. 10 to clarify that the people themselves, rather than the royal house, were responsible for the exile described in v. 10. The insertion of vv. 8–9, therefore, appears to solve an exegetical problem presented by the preexisting poetic oracle. DtrJ solved this problem by citing Deut 29:23–25, which asserts that it is the people and not just the king himself who are responsible for the judgment.

3. Jer 33:5 and Deut 31:17–18 Though not the strongest example, a possible final allusion to D appears in what a number of scholars have identified as a post-DtrJ addition to the book in Jer 33. The post-DtrJ affiliation of this passage is based on the following considerations. The reference in v. 1 to the word of Yahweh coming “to Jeremiah a second time while still detained in the court of the guard,” marks the account in Jer 33:1–13 as a expansion of Jer 32, which is likewise set during Jeremiah’s imprisonment in the court of the guard (32:2).58 This expansion reiterates the basic theme of Jer 32 – judgment now followed by restoration later – and clarifies certain elements not fully explained in ch. 32. One prominent concern appears to clarify the fate of the city Jerusalem. Chapter 32 specified that Jerusalem, with its houses (v. 29), would be captured and destroyed (28–31). When promising a restoration, ch. 32 specifies that this involves a regathering of the people (37), a 56 As famously in 2 Sam 7, the multiple senses of ‫בית‬, “house / ​household / ​dynasty,” appear to be played on in this passage, such that the burning of the royal palace and the ending of the dynasty are related metonymically (cf. the use of ‫ בית‬in vv. 1, 5, 6). 57 See above, pp. 159–61. 58  Duhm, Jeremia (1901) 270, Mowinckel, Komposition (1914) 48  Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (1981) 37; Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 633–34; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII (1996) 854.

II. Other Allusions to Narrative

211

new covenant (38–40), renewed blessing (41–42), and renewed agricultural and economic activity (43–44). This discourse closes with the general promise of a restoration of fortunes, ‫אשיב את שבותם‬, “I will restore their fortunes” (v. 44), but does not specify what this means for Jerusalem or other destroyed habitations. The question as to whether the restoration of fortunes includes a restoration of the cities and land to their former glory is not specifically addressed. The supplement in 33:1–13 appears aimed at – among other concerns – closing this gap.59 Verses 7 and 11 repeat this last statement of ch. 32 and emphasize that the land and cities will be rebuilt as they were formerly: ‫והשבתי את שבות יהודה ואת שבות‬ ‫ישראל ובנתים כבראשנה‬, “I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and I will build them as they were formerly” (v. 7); ‫כי אשיב את שבות הארץ‬ ‫כבראשנה‬, “For I will restore the fortunes of the land as formerly” (v. 11b). Verse 5 reiterates from ch. 32 that Jerusalem will be destroyed, but v. 6 promises its restoration and healing, a promise absent from ch. 32: ‫הנני מעלה לה ארכה ומרפא‬, “Behold I am bringing to her [the city] restoration and healing.” Verse 9 likewise indicates a restoration of Jerusalem to its preeminence among the nations.60 The allusion appears in the section that describes the destruction of Jerusalem (vv. 4–5) and is expressed through a unique combination of verbal and prepositional phrases. Though vv. 4–5 appear to be textually corrupt, v. 5b – where the allusive language appears – is relatively lucid:61 Jer 33:5

Deut 31:17–18

‫אשר הכיתי באפי ובחמתי ואשר הסתרתי פני מהעיר‬ ‫הזאת על כל רעתם‬

‫וחרה אפי בו ביום ההוא ועזבתים והסתרתי פני מהם‬ ‫והיה לאכל ומצאהו רעות רבות וצרות ואמר ביום‬ ‫ההוא הלא על כי אין אלהי בקרבי מצאוני הרעות‬ ‫האלה ואנכי הסתר אסתיר פני ביום ההוא על כל‬ ‫הרעה אשר עשה כי פנה אל אלהים אחרים‬

… whom I struck in my anger and wrath, for I I have hidden my face from this city because of all their evil.

My anger will burn against [this people] in that day. I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them. They will be devoured. Many evils and calamities will

59 Though seeing it as authentic and emphasizing the rebuilding of houses rather than the city of Jerusalem, Holladay comes to a similar conclusion on the relationship between Jer 33:1–13 and Jer 32: “it is clear that the passage, focusing on houses to be rebuilt, is a companion to chapter 32, which focuses on fields to be planted” (Jeremiah 2 [1989] 223). Cf. also Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 634. 60  As in v. 6, the 3rd feminine singulars in v. 9 refer most likely to ‫העיר הזאת‬, “this city,” of v. 5, that is, Jerusalem. 61 The syntax of the second relative clause of v. 5b is difficult. Some, noting the LXX’s “from them” instead of “from this city,” emend in accordance with the LXX in order to produce an acceptable syntax (So Holladay, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 221). The improved syntax this produces, however, suggests that the LXX could represent a grammatical correction; the more difficult reading remains that of the MT. It is preferable to take ‫ ואשר‬as a quasi-causal subordinator, with or without deletion of the ‫( ו‬Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle [1986] 701; McKane, Jeremiah XXVI–LII [1996] 857).

212

Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative

Jer 33:5

Deut 31:17–18 find them. In that day, they will say, “Is it not because our god is not among us that these evils have found us. But I will surely hide my face in that day because of all the evil which they did, for they have turned to other gods.

On its own, “to hide the face” (hiphil of ‫ פנים‬+ ‫ )סתר‬is not rare, but its combination with “because of all the evil” (‫ )על כל רעה‬is unique to these passages and points to a potential allusion.62 While the possibility of these passages independently producing this collocation of phrases cannot be ruled out, the lucid interpretive process suggested adds further support for the presence of an allusion. The context of Deut 31:17–18 imagines a future time when D’s covenant will be broken and judgment will fall on the nation. The section in which they appear (vv. 16–22)63 serves as D’s introduction to the song of Moses (ch. 32) and emphasizes that Yahweh knew from the beginning that Israel would break the covenant. Within this context, the allusion to Deut 31:17–18 simply marks the judgment that came on Judah as a fulfillment of this divine prediction.

III. Conclusion This final set of allusions provides further insight on the two principle phenomena this study has uncovered. The allusions on the topic of obedience demonstrate the difference between DtrJ and pre-DtrJ poetic allusions to D. In the pre-DtrJ allusions, D is invoked as a prestigious literary precursor. These passages invoke D’s narrative where it serves their own arguments about obedience to Yahweh, but the authority constructed in these passages remains that of the prophetic passages themselves. The DtrJ (and post-DtrJ) passages, on the other hand, use D in ways that simultaneously confer authority on D while negotiating space for themselves as a co-authority. Jeremiah 33:5 presents itself as a fulfillment of D – an operation observed in multiple DtrJ texts, particularly those that cite Deut 28. Jeremiah 22:8–9 uses D to impose an interpretation on an existing oracle, thus appealing 62 So

Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (2005) 226, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2011) 286.  Cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 375–77; Baden, Composition (2012), 137–38. While I argue that the many parallels to Deut 32 in Jeremiah reflect Deut 32’s use of Jeremiah rather than the other way around (see excursus), the allusion in Jer 33:5 is to a part of D concerned to incorporate the song of Moses. The lateness of Deut 32 – as well as material introducing it – is not contradicted by the presence of this allusion since, as I have argued, Jer 33:1–13 is rightly identified as post-DtrJ. 63

III. Conclusion

213

explicitly to the authority of D to resolve a perceived problem in a previously existing Jeremian text. This usage is partially parallel to the citation of Deut 24:16 in Jer 31:29–30, where the principle of transgenerational punishment is refuted through a citation of D. In both cases, DtrJ appeals to D’s authoritative capacity to resolve controversy. Similar to its treatment of prophecy, DtrJ engages in transformative allusion to D in its development of a solution to Israel’s tendency towards disobedience. In both Jer 29:13–14 and 32:39–40, DtrJ enlists texts from D to present an ideological position that differs from D’s. In addressing the ideology of prophecy, DtrJ simply considered D’s perspective on prophecy to be wrong and in need of correction. In the case of obedience, however, DtrJ still considers D to be correct in its description of the old covenant. D’s demand for self-motivated obedience to divine commands is, according to DtrJ, precisely what was required of Israel under the old covenant, and their failure to obey led to the downfall of Judah in 587. For DtrJ, it is not that D is wrong, but rather that the failure of Israel reflected a deficiency in the old covenant: to require self-motivated obedience of a people prone to disobey is a recipe for a failure. In making this claim and in formulating the idea of a new and better covenant, DtrJ found and capitalized on hints within D of its own insufficiency. DtrJ found in Deut 5:29 a hint that obedience would only be possible if Yahweh himself provided a new heart and drew from Deut 4:29 a promise that Israel would seek Yahweh after suffering judgment. Thus, while DtrJ innovates with respect to D in announcing a new covenant with a divinely implanted obedient heart, it is able to present this as an outworking of ideas already present in D. For DtrJ, these texts contributed exegetical justification for its innovative vision of a new covenant.

Excursus

Allusions to Jeremiah in Deuteronomy This study has focused on the allusions to D in Jeremiah. As both books are composite, however, the relationship between them need not be unidirectional. In Holladay’s studies of the relationship between these books, he concluded that several late additions to Deuteronomy alluded to Jeremiah.1 Though differing in specifics, the current study comes to a similar conclusion. Chapter 3 examined the proposed influence of Jeremiah on Deut 28 and found the influence flowing in the other direction. Chapter 5 discussed the dependence of Deut 30:1–10 on Jeremiah. This excursus will examine further allusions to the book of Jeremiah in Deut 29 and 32.

I. Parallels to Deut 29 Deuteronomy 29 contains several distinct parallels to both pre-DtrJ and DtrJ passages. These parallels occur in three verses of Deut 29, two of which combine passages from Jeremiah (Deut 29:3 / ​Jer 5:21, 24:7; Deut 29:17–18 / ​Jer 23:15, 17; Deut 29:27 / ​Jer 21:5, 32:37).

1. Deut 29:3 and Jer 5:21, 24:7 Nearly every word in Deut 29:3 appears in Jer 5:21 or 24:7: Jer 5:21, 24:7

Deut 29:3

)24:7( ‫ונתתי להם לב לדעת אתי‬

‫ולא נתן יהוה לכם לב לדעת‬

‫שמעו נא זאת עם סכל ואין לב‬ )5:21( ‫עינים להם ולא יראו אזנים להם ולא ישמעו‬

‫ועינים לראות ואזנים לשמע עד היום הזה‬

I will give to them a heart to know me (24:7) Yahweh has not given you a heart to know, Hear this, O foolish people, lacking heart; they have eyes but they do no see; ears but or eyes to see or ears to hear to this day. they do not hear.

1

 Jeremiah 2 (1989) 53–63; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 55–77.

216

Excursus: Allusions to Jeremiah in Deuteronomy

Most striking is the parallel between Jer 24:7 and Deut 29:3. The collocation of ‫נתן‬, “to give,” with the direct object ‫לב‬, “heart,” and the prepositional complement ‫לדעת‬, “to know,” occurs only in these passages and Eccl 1:17, 8:16, where it refers to a self-directed action rather than a divine action as in Jer 24:7 and Deut 29:3.2 Given the commonality of the word pairs “ear / ​hear” and “eyes / ​see,” the connection between Jer 5:21 and Deut 29:3 is less striking. In fact, identical language appears in Ps 115:5–6 (=Ps 135:16–17) and similar language in Ezek 12:2. Though less compelling, the stronger parallel to Jer 24:7 makes it plausible to see a connection between Jer 5:21 and Deut 29:3.3 The Jeremian priority of this parallel is supported by the following considerations. First, as discussed in ch. 5, one of DtrJ’s innovations was the view that Judah’s future obedience will arise from a divinely given obedient heart. DtrJ developed this idea in distinction from D’s own perspective that obedience arises from the people’s own initiative. As we saw in the previous chapter, however, Deut 30:1–10 adapted DtrJ’s innovation and appended it to D. Deuteronomy 29:3 appears to represent a similar appropriation of DtrJ’s theory of future obedience. Jeremiah 24:7 expresses the promise that Yahweh will restore the Judeans currently in exile to the land and, as part of that restoration, will give them a new obedient heart. The context of Deut 29:3 recounts the exodus from Egypt. In this context, the claim of v. 3 that “Yahweh has not given you a heart to know, or eyes to see or ears to hear to this day,” functions as an explanation of why, so far, Israel has been unable to obey – Yahweh has not yet bestowed the capacity to obey. Within D, with its numerous adjurations to obey the commandments, the statement that the people are unable to obey without a divinely implanted heart is unexpected. The author of Deut 29:3 appears to have adopted DtrJ’s theory of obedience and cited Jer 24:7, a passage that expressed it, as a way of explaining Israel’s failure. Corroborating this conclusion is the form of the word “heart.” As noted before, the books of Jeremiah and D have distinct preference for the use of ‫  ​לבב‬/  ‫לב‬. The short form ‫ לב‬is dominant in Jeremiah (58 occurrences, vs. 8 occurrences of ‫לבב‬, of which 4 are allusions to D) while ‫ לבב‬is dominant in D (47 occurrences, vs. 4 occurrences of ‫לב‬, of which two, I will argue, are allusions to Jeremiah). Combined with the other markers of the connection to Jeremiah, the unexpected appearance of ‫ לב‬in Deut 29:3 thus corroborates the Jeremian priority of the passage.

2  Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 720, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2011) 285, registers this as a borrowing in Jer 24:7 from Deut 29:3. 3 Rom-Shiloni, HeBAI 1 (2012) 219, identifies Jer 5:21 as an allusion to Deut 29:3.

217

I. Parallels to Deut 29

2. Deut 29:17–18 and Jer 23:15, 17 (4:10) Deuteronomy 29:17–18 contains several close parallels to Jeremiah. These verses are part of a passage (Deut 29:17–20) that describes the judgment on the individual man or woman who turns aside from the covenant and worships other gods. Such a person is a danger to the community; they are a “root bearing wormwood and poison.” Rather than the entire nation suffering for the covenant breaking of an individual, however, the individual will themselves bear the curses of the covenant (vv. 19–20). The removal of individuals from the community through execution is well attested in D and is expressed with the stereotyped phrase “you will remove the evil from your midst” (Deut 13:6; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7). Yet Deut 29:17–20 is the only passage that imagines the curses of the covenant themselves applied to an individual: “All the curses written in this book (‫ )כל האלה הכתובה בספר הזה‬will settle on him and Yahweh will wipe out his name from under the heavens. Yahweh will separate him out from all the tribes of Israel for disaster, according to all of the curses of the covenant written in the book of this torah (‫”)ככל אלות הברית הכתובה בספר התורה הזה‬ (Deut 29:19aβ–20). Whereas the covenant curses are directed in Deut 28 against the nation as a whole, this passage uniquely applies them to an individual. Indeed, the next verses make reference to the future destruction of the land and speak of curses exclusively in their corporate sense (Deut 29:21–22). This abrupt shift not only highlights the surprising nature of the claim of Deut 29:17–20, its nature as a non-sequitur following those verses suggests compositional complexity.4 The parallels themselves are as follows:5 Jer 23:15, 17

Deut 29:17–18

‫לכן כה אמר יהוה צבאות על הנבאים הנני מאכיל‬ )15( ‫אותם לענה והשקתים מי ראש‬ ‫אמרים אמור למנאצי דבר יהוה שלום יהיה לכם וכל‬ )17( ‫הלך בשררות לבו אמרו לא תבוא עליכם רעה‬

‫פן יש בכם איש או אשה או משפחה או שבט אשר‬ ‫לבבו פנה היום מעם יהוה אלהינו ללכת לעבד את‬ ‫אלהי הגוים ההם פן יש בכם שרש פרה ראש ולענה‬ ‫והיה בשמעו את דברי האלה הזאת והתברך בלבבו‬ ‫לאמר שלום יהיה לי כי בשררות לבי אלך למען‬ ‫ספות הרוה את הצמאה‬

Therefore, thus says Yahweh of hosts against the prophets, “Behold I am making them eat wormwood, and I will make them drink poisonous water.” (15)

Lest there be among you a man or a woman or a clan or a tribe who turns in his heart today from Yahweh our god to go serve the gods of those nations, lest there be among you a root producing poison

4 Cf.

Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) lxxiii, 327; Nelson, Deuteronomy (2002) 342.  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 360, lists this as an example of the influence of Deuteronomy on genuine Jeremiah. Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (2005) 695, idem, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2011) 285–86, likewise considers Deut 29 the source. 5

218

Excursus: Allusions to Jeremiah in Deuteronomy

Jer 23:15, 17 They keep saying to those who despise me: “Yahweh has spoken. You will have peace.” And all who walk in the stubbornness of their heart said, “disaster will not come upon you.” (17)

Deut 29:17–18 and wormwood. When he hears the words of this oath, he blesses himself in his heart, saying, “I will have peace, for in the stubbornness of my heart I walk to bring an end to the wet and the thirsty.”

Very distinctive is the phrase ‫שלום יהיה ל‬. Outside of these passages, it appears only in Jer 4:10, though a modified form with perfective rather than imperfective aspect appears in 1 Kgs 5:4. Similarly distinctive is the word-pair ‫  ​ראש‬/  ‫לענה‬, “wormood / ​poison,” which appears elsewhere only in Jer 9:14, Amos 6:12, and Lam 3:19. Further buttressing the allusion, as well as providing strong support for Jeremianic priority, is the phrase ‫ללכת בשררות לב‬, “to walk in the stubbornness of heart.” Outside Deut 29:18, this phrase appears only in DtrJ and is, indeed, one of the characteristics phraseological clichés of that source and is used eight times as a reference for the Judeans’ obstinate disobedience (Jer 3:17; 7:24; 9:13; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17).6 Once again, the particular form of the word for “heart” corroborates the Jeremianic priority. The usage in Deut 29:17–18 is all the more striking since the expected Deuteronomic form ‫ לבב‬appears twice in these verses, including immediately before the Jeremian parallel in v. 18: “Lest there be among you a man or a woman … who turns in his heart (‫… )לבב‬. When he hears the words of this oath, he blesses himself in his heart (‫)לבב‬, saying, “I will have peace, for in the stubbornness of my heart (‫ )לב‬I walk ….” (parallels to Jer in italics). Thus, not only is ‫ לב‬by itself characteristic of Jeremiah as opposed to D, it appears in its context here as part of a phrase that is particularly characteristic of DtrJ, ‫ללכת‬ ‫בשררות לב‬. The priority of Jeremiah, therefore, appears well supported. The use of Jer 23:15, 17 in Deut 29:17–20 functions to compare the individual covenant breaker to the prophets of peace addressed in Jer 23:15, 17. By hearing the covenant and disbelieving it, this individual comes to the same conclusion as Jeremiah’s prophetic opponents: peace, not disaster, will come (v. 18). Like the peace prophet, this individual presents a danger to the community since others might follow his example and consider themselves safe from repercussions. Significant is the new use to which “wormwood and poison” are put to in Deut 29:17. In Jer 23:15, these toxic substances are fed to the prophets as a punishment. In Deut 29:17, the individual covenant breaker produces the toxic substances to the detriment of their community.

6 Stipp,

Konkordanz (1998) 144.

219

II. Parallels to Deut 32

3. Deut 29:27 and Jer 21:5, 32:37 Another possible connection between Deut 29 and Jeremiah occurs in v. 27, which contains a sequence of three prepositional phrases that occurs elsewhere only in Jer 21:5 and 32:37: Jer 21:5; 32:37

Deut 29:27

I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and a strong arm, and with anger, wrath, and great fury (‫( )באף ובחמה ובקצף גדול‬21:5)

Yahweh uprooted them from their land with anger, wrath, and great fury (‫)באף ובחמה ובקצף גדול‬, and he cast them to another land as today.

Behold I am gathering them from all the lands where I drove them with my anger, my wrath, and great fury (‫באפי ובחמתי‬ ‫( )ובקצף גדול‬32:37)

While the parallel is fairly strong, the direction of dependence is difficult to determine.7 All three cases refer to the fall of Judah to the Babylonians in 587. Jeremiah 32:37 and Deut 29:27 appear to be explicitly retrospective, while Jer 21:5 has at least the form of a prospective prophecy. No interpretative process appears to explain the relationship between Deut 29:27 and either of the Jeremian passages. As such, this literary connection may be described as an echo, the direction of dependence for which is uncertain, but Jeremian priority is suggested by the precedent provided by Deut 29’s use of Jeremiah in vv. 3 and 17.

II. Parallels to Deut 32 Scholars have found an impressive number of parallels between Jeremiah and Deut 32. Holladay presented a comprehensive list of these parallels and argued that in each case Deut 32 was the source for Jeremiah, and a number of scholars have followed him.8 Jeremiah is not the only text with strong parallels in Deut 32, however, and Otto has highlighted numerous literary connections between Deut 32 and other biblical texts as part of an argument for the post-exilic provenance of Deut 32.9 The presence of numerous parallels between Deut 32 7 Holladay’s argument for Jeremianic priority in this case rests on his presumption that Jer 21:5 is authentic (Jeremiah 2 [1989] 63; CBQ 66 [2004] 76). Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2011) 286, identifies Deut 29 as the source in both Jer 21:5 and 32:37. 8 This argument was originally stated in JBL 85 (1966) 19–21, refined in Jeremiah 2 (1989) 53–56, and rearticulated with slight variation in CBQ 66 (2004) 63–64. Several scholars have followed Holladay, including, recently Leuchter, VT 57 (2007) 304–6, and Silver, “The Lying Pen” (2009) 121, 292. Cf. also Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (1999) 110–14. 9  See Otto, Psalmody and Poetry (2012) 174–80 who, in contrast to Holladay, sees Deut 32 as a late text that makes repeated allusions to prophetic and psalmic literature.

220

Excursus: Allusions to Jeremiah in Deuteronomy

and other texts thus raises two possibilities: either Deut 32 was an exceptionally influential early text, or Deut 32 is late and learned and drew extensively from multiple sources. The approach to allusion that has formed the basis of this study provides support for Otto’s conclusion. Holladay claimed to find nine persuasive examples of the influence of Deut 32 on Jeremiah.10 These parallels are, however, either inadequately supported or contain internal hints of Jeremian priority. The first parallel Holladay cites as persuasive is between Deut 32:4 and Jer 2:5,11 yet only a single lexeme unites these texts. Where Deut 32:5 announces that Yahweh is “without iniquity” (‫)אין עול‬, Jer 2:5 asks “what iniquity (‫)עול‬ did your ancestors find in me?” A single lexeme, however, is rarely sufficient to establish a connection. Moreover, if a connection is present, the direction of dependence remains unclear. It is just as likely that Deut 32:4 provides an answer to Jer 2:5’s question than the other way around. Similarly weak is Holladay’s second parallel (Deut 32:5, 20 / ​Jer 2:30–31).12 The only lexemes uniting these passages are the parallel terms ‫בנים‬, “sons,” and ‫דור‬, “generation” – a natural word pair that appears together elsewhere in both prose and poetry (Deut 23:8; 29:22; Joel 1:3; Ps 73:15; 78:4, 6; Job 42:16) and thus not indicative of borrowing.13 Holladay’s third parallel (Deut 32:15 / Jer 5:28) rests on a single lexical connection, the qal of ‫שמן‬, “to be fat.”14 Though the qal of this verb appears only in these two passages, the hiphil appears elsewhere (Isa 6:10; Neh 9:25), and a single lexeme, even if distinctive, is rarely enough to justify a literary connection.15 More striking is the similarity between Deut 32:17 and Jer 2:11–12: Deut 32:17 They sacrificed to demons, not God (‫)לא אלה‬, gods which they did not know, new (gods) who have come from nearby, your fathers did not know (‫ )שערום‬them.

Jer 2:11–12 Does a nation change its gods – though they are non-gods (‫?)לא אלהים‬ But my people changes its glory for what does not profit. Shudder, O heavens at this, bristle (‫)ושערו‬, be devastated, declares Yahweh

 Jeremiah 2 (1989) 56. He later revised the number down to eight (CBQ 66 [2004] 64).  Jeremiah 2 (1989) 54, 56; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 64. 12 Jeremiah 2 (1989) 54, 56; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 64. 13  Cf. Berlin, Biblical Parallelism (1985) 67–80 for a description of word pairs as generated independently by speakers through word association. 14 Jeremiah 2 (1989) 54–55, 56; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 64. 15  Holladay further accentuates the parallels between these passages by translating both ‫כשית‬ in Deut 32:15 and ‫ עשתו‬in Jer 5:28 as “to become sleek.” Cf., however, DCH , which does not consider these synonymous, but rather glosses ‫ כשה‬as “to be satiated” and ‫ עשת‬as “to be shiny.” 10 11

II. Parallels to Deut 32

221

Here we have the juxtaposition of ‫  ​לא אלהים‬/  ‫ לא אלה‬and the verb ‫שער‬, “know” / ​ “bristle.”16 While at first glance an impressive connection, it fails to be persuasive for several reasons. First, part of the claimed parallel rests on the interpretation of ‫ לא אלה‬in Deut 32:17 as standing in apposition to ‫שדים‬, “shades,” and meaning “non-god.” The term would thus be semantically parallel to Jer 2:11, where the “gods” of the people are qualified as “non-gods.” Yet, in Deut 32:17, apposition is problematic both due to lack of number agreement with ‫ שדים‬and the use of this epithet for the Israelite deity two verses earlier: “They forsook God (‫ )אלוה‬who made them” (Deut 32:15b). Deuteronomy 32:17 is thus better rendered as, “they sacrificed to demons, not [to] God.” Second, even if Holladay’s reading of ‫ לא אלה‬is correct, the locution ‫לא אלהים‬ as a reference to “non-gods” appears elsewhere in 2 Kgs 19:18 / ​Isa 37:9, Hos 8:6, 2 Chr 13:9, and in Jer 5:7, 16:20. Third, if an allusion is present, Holladay has not explained its intent or meaning other than to claim that Jeremiah offers “a variation here on the verse in Deuteronomy.”17 The possibility of a coincidental similarity – especially acute since the parallels are inexact – is thus not adequately addressed. Finally, if there is a connection, it is not clear that Deuteronomy is the source rather than the alluding text. That the locution ‫ לא אלהים‬occurs three times in poetic texts of Jeremiah makes it plausible that it is simply a part of that layer’s poetic idiolect rather than a borrowing from Deut 32. The fifth parallel that Holladay registers as persuasive is Deut 32:20 / ​Jer 12:4.18 In Jer 12:4, the people claim that Yahweh “will not see our end” (‫לא יראה את‬ ‫ ;)אחריתנו‬Deut 32:20 denies this: “I [Yahweh] will see what is their end” (‫אראה מה‬ ‫)אחריתם‬. Though this parallel is distinct and suggestive, it once again appears that the influence could go in either direction. Holladay claims that Jer 12:4 has placed an ironically transformed Deut 32:20 in the mouth of the people. Yet, equally reasonable is the alternate possibility. Deuteronomy 32:20 could here contradict the words of the people taken from Jer 12:4 as part of a condemnation of them. A sixth parallel in Holladay’s persuasive category is the list of people slated for destruction in Deut 32:25, which Holladay claims parallels Jer 6:11.19 Both passages include the pairs young and old, male and female, but remarkably only share the common lexemes ‫בחור‬, “young man,” and ‫איש‬, “man.” The theme of the indiscriminate destruction of all segments of society is not unique (see, for 16  Holladay understands both instances of ‫ שער‬to mean “fear” despite the fact that in Deut 32:17, ‫ שער‬is paralleled to ‫ידע‬, “to know,” and receives an object, whereas ‫ שער‬in Jer 2:12 is intransitive and stands parallel to ‫( שמם‬JBL 85 [1966] 19; idem, Jeremiah 2 [1989] 55; CBQ 66 [2004] 64) (HALOT and DCH list them as separate roots). Cf. also Leuchter, VT 57 (2007) 304. 17  Jeremiah 2 (1989) 55. 18 Ibid., 55–56; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 64. 19  JBL 85 (1966) 20; idem, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 55. That Holladay left this example out of his later survey of the connections between Jeremiah and Deut 32 (CBQ 66 [2004] 63–64) suggests that he may have changed his mind about its persuasiveness.

222

Excursus: Allusions to Jeremiah in Deuteronomy

example the old / ​young dichotomy in Deut 28:50, and the male / ​female in Deut 28:54, 56) and so the lack of more striking lexical parallels renders this example unpersuasive. Holladay’s seventh example contains an impressive parallel between Deut 32:22 and Jer 15:14/17:4:20 Deut 32:22a For a fire has been kindled in my anger (‫)כי אש קדחה באפי‬, and it burned (‫ )ותיקד‬to Sheol below.

Jer 15:14b/17:4b For a fire you have kindled in my wrath (‫כי‬ ‫)אש קדחתם באפי‬. Forever will it burn (‫)תוקד‬ (Jer 17:4). For a fire has been kindled in my anger (‫ )כי אש קדחה באפי‬against you it will burn (‫( )תוקד‬Jer 15:14).

Once again, however, the direction of dependence in not clear. While both Jer 17:2–4 and Deut 32:21–22 deal with idolatry and the anger it incites in Yahweh, no clear interpretive process is discernible in either passage. This may represent an “echo,” that is, a minimally informative form of literary reuse.21 Without any evidence suggesting the priority of one passage over the other, to conclude that this example represents a clear case of the influence of Deut 32 on Jeremiah begs the question. These seven foregoing examples either lack convincing lexical parallels (Jer 2:5 / ​ Deut 32:4; Jer  2:30–31 / ​Deut  32:5, 20; Jer  5:28 / ​Deut  32:15; Jer  12:4 / ​Deut 32:​20; Jer 6:11 / ​Deut 32:25) or, if lexical parallels were plausible, the direction of dependence appeared irresolvable (Jer  2:11–12 / ​Deut  32:17; Jer  15:14/17:4 / ​Deut 32:​22). Holladay’s two remaining “persuasive” examples (Jer 8:19 / ​Deut 32:21; Jer 2:​27–28 / ​Deut 32:37–38) contain parallels that are convincing but for which Jeremiah appears to be the source. The first such case appears in Deut 32:21, which contains lexical parallels to Jer 8:19:22 Deut 32:21

Jer 8:19

They have stirred me to jealousy with a non-god. They have vexed me with their vanities (‫)כעסוני הבליהם‬. So I will stir them to jealousy with a non-people, with a foolish nation I will vex them.

Behold, the sound of the cry of the daughter of my people from a distant land. Is Yahweh not in Zion? Is its king not in it? Why have they vexed me (‫ )הכעסוני‬with their idols, with their foreign vanities (‫?)בהבלי נכר‬

20 These

two passages in Jeremiah are nearly identical. Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2011) 289, also notes this parallel. 21  Cf. Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 15–17. 22 Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 55–56; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 64. Also acknowledged in Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 361; Silver, “The Lying Pen” (2009) 121, 292; Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2011) 289.

223

II. Parallels to Deut 32

A verbal form of “to vex” (‫ )כעס‬modified with the phrase “with vanities” (‫ )בהבלים‬appears only in these two passages and 1 Kgs 16:13, 26. This lexical collocation, therefore, appears to be distinctive enough to warrant positing a literary relationship. Neither passage, however, presents an obvious interpretive process suggesting it as the source. Whichever passage is the alluding text appears to borrow little more from its source than a colorful way of expressing the notion that the people have angered Yahweh through idolatry. The use of the word “vanity” (‫)הבל‬, however, suggests Jeremian priority. This root appears ten times in Jeremiah in both nominal and verbal forms (Jer 2:5; 8:19; 10:3, 8, 15; 14:22; 16:19; 23:16; 51:18). With the exception of Jer 51:18, all of these appear in pre-DtrJ poetic texts. Like Jer 8:19, two of these passages use ‫הבל‬ to refer to idols (10:8; 14:22). In Deuteronomistic literature, ‫ הבל‬appears only in Deut 32:21; 1 Kgs 16:13, 26; and 2 Kgs 17:15 – a passage that many scholars consider an allusion to Jer 2:5.23 In other prophetic literature, forms of ‫ הבל‬appear a total of four times (Isa 30:7; 49:4; 57:13; Jon 2:9; Zech 10:2). The usage in the poetic material of Jeremiah thus represents a idiosyncratic lexical preference. Everything else being equal, this phenomenon suggests that the author of Jer 8:19 simply drew on his or her own stock of favorite expressions and tropes. This type of argument is, of course, limited. The possibility cannot be entirely excluded that Jer 8:19 drew on Deut 32:21, making use from that context of an expression that matches its own lexical preferences. In the absence of compelling arguments for this direction of dependence, however, the fact that one of the two lexemes paralleled in these passages represents an idiosyncratic preference of Jeremianic poetry supports Jeremian priority in this parallel. The final of Holladay’s nine strongest examples of Deut 32’s influence on Jeremiah involves Deut 32:37–38 and Jer 2:27–28.24 The parallel itself is once again fairly convincing: Deut 32:37–38 And he will say, “where are their gods (‫ ?)אי אלהימו‬The rock in which they have taken refuge? Those who eat the fat of their sacrifices and drink the wine of their libation? Let them arise and help you (‫)יקומו ויעזרכם‬. Let them be a protection over you.

Jer 2:27b–28 In the time of their misfortune they will say [to their idols], “Arise and save us (‫קומה‬ ‫ ”!)והושיענו‬But where are your gods (‫איה‬ ‫ )אלהיך‬which you made for yourself? Let them arise if they can save you (‫ )יקומו אם יושיעוך‬in the time of your misfortune, for your gods, O Judah, are the number of your cities.

23  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 323; Weippert, Prosareden (1973) 218, n. 504, 229; Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 9, n. 22, 144–45; Silver, “The Lying Pen” (2009) 124. 24  Jeremiah 2 (1989) 55; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) 64. Seeing an allusion to Deut 32 here are Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School (1972) 361; Leuchter, VT 57 (2007) 304; Silver, “The Lying Pen” (2009) 121; and Fischer, “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (2011) 289. Holladay discusses also the parallel between Deut 32:35’s ‫יום אידם‬, “day of their calamity,” and Jer 2:28’s ‫בעת‬ ‫רעתם‬, “in the time of their misfortune” (Jeremiah 2 [1989] 55). This synonymous parallel is not particularly persuasive and is, moreover, separated from the stronger parallel in Deut 32:37–38.

224

Excursus: Allusions to Jeremiah in Deuteronomy

The question “where are your / their gods” combined with the injunction “let them arise and save / ​help” represents a unique set of lexical collocations that makes a literary connection between these passages likely. The variant between “help” and “save” could represent either a memory variant or simply a lexical preference of whichever text alludes to the other. Once again, however, the direction of dependence cannot be settled on the basis of an interpretive process. As in previous examples, whichever passage is the borrowing passage appears to draw nothing more from the source text than the condemnation of idolatry through an ironic injunction to call for help from gods who are incapable of a response. Several observations, however, hint at the priority of the Jeremian passages. First, the reference to the people in Deut 32:27–28 undergoes a shift in person from the third (“where are their gods? The rock in which they have taken refuge? Who eat the fat of their sacrifices and drink the wine of their libation?”) to the second (“Let them arise and help you”). While other instances of the 2nd person in Deut 32 qualify the decisiveness of this observation, the shift to the 2nd person plural in Deut 32:38 could represent influence from the person-number structure of Jer 2:27–28. This explanation is particularly suggestive since the person shift in Deut 32:28 occurs precisely in the phrase – “let them arise and help you” – that parallels Jer 2:28’s “let them arise if they can save you.” If the shift in person reflects the influence of Jer 2:28, it should be noted that the author of Deut 32:28 only partially adopted the person-number structure of the source text. It would have taken the 2nd person of the source while retaining the plurality of its own context. This observation, though suggestive, is not definitive, and though the people in Deut 32 are predominantly referred to in the 3rd person, there are other shifts to the second person in that chapter that do not stem from borrowed texts. A second observation, similarly suggestive but not definitive, surrounds the use of rhetorical questions in both passages. Apart from the verses in question, the distribution of rhetorical questions in Jer 2 and Deut 32 is as follows: Jer 2:5, 11, 14 (x3), 18 (x2), 23, 29, 31 (x3), 32 (12 times in 37 verses). In Deut 32:6 (x2), 30, (3 times in 43 verses).25 Though rhetorical questions appear in both compositions, their frequency of use shows them to be more centrally constitutive of Jer 2 than Deut 32. Though not decisive, such an observation favors Jer 2 as the origin of the rhetorical question shared by these two passages. More significant for Jeremian priority is the parallel between the rhetorical question in Jer 2:28 and Jer 2:6, 8:  Deut 32:34 contains one more possible case. This verse opens with ‫הלא‬, traditionally interpreted as the interrogative particle plus the negative particle. Both this morphological interpretation as well as its pragmatics, however, have been called into question (the particle is interpretable as asseverative rather than interrogative; see Brown, Maarav 4 [1987] 210–19; Sivan and Schniedewind, JSS 38 [1993] 210–211, 219; Moshavi, JNES 33 [2007] 51–63, idem, HS 48 [2007] 172–86). 25

II. Parallels to Deut 32

225

v. 6

They did not say, “Where is Yahweh (‫)איה יהוה‬, who brought us up from the land of Egypt?” v. 8 The priests did not say, “Where is Yahweh (‫”?)איה יהוה‬ v. 28 And where are your gods (‫ )ואיה אלהיך‬that you made for yourself?

The parallels between these verses is reinforced by structural considerations. Verse 4 directs the words to follow against the “house of Jacob, and all the clans of the house of Israel.” This collective “house of Jacob / ​house of Israel” is the subject of the condemnation in v. 6: they have not called on Yahweh. Verse 8 brings in the priests, who have likewise failed to call on Yahweh. The next mention of both the “house of Israel” and “the priests” is v. 26, which introduces a passage (26–28) that condemns all aspects of society for turning to idols rather than Yahweh for salvation. To those who have not sought Yahweh with the words “where is Yahweh?” (vv. 6, 8), Yahweh mockingly asks through his prophet, “where are your gods?” Thus, the rhetorical question of Jer 2:28, rather than a minimally informative borrowing from Deut 32, appears to be meaningfully connected to its own larger context. Though Deut 32:37–38 does not contradict or stand in any specific tension to its context, neither is it as meaningfully embedded as Jer 2:28. As such, Jer 2:27–28 is likely the original text, and Deut 32:37–38 the borrowing text. These hints of Jeremian priority are not definitive. Like the example of ‫הבל‬, however, they create a presumption in favor of Jeremiah as the source. Combined with Otto’s observations on the numerous allusions in Deut 32 to other prophetic texts as well as the psalms, these hints point to the likelihood that in this case Jeremiah has influenced the author of Deut 32. These hints of Jeremian priority in the parallels in Deut 32:21 / ​Jer 8:19 and Deut 32:37–38 / ​Jer 2:27–28 suggest that the others parallels that appeared compelling also represent the dependence of Deut 32 on Jeremiah (Deut 32:17 / ​ Jer 2:11–12; Deut 32:22 / ​Jer 15:14/17:4). The mode of dependence in each of these cases is important to note. The parallels generally appear minimally informative, closer to echoes than to allusions. In three of these cases, Deut 32 borrows poetic language to describe idolatry (Deut 32:17 / ​Jer 2:11–12, Deut 32:21 / ​ Jer 8:19, Deut 32:37–38 / ​Jer 2:27–28), and in the fourth, to describe Yahweh’s wrath (Deut 32:22 / ​Jer 15:14/17:4). In none of these cases are further associations from the source text brought into the purview of the alluding text. This observation fits Otto’s observations on the highly allusive nature of Deut 32.26 Deuteronomy 32 appears to be a late text whose compositional strategy involves extensive reuse of the language of prophetic and psalmic texts. The result is a text formed like a patchwork of previously existing poetic traditions.

26 Otto,

Psalmody and Poetry (2012) 169–80.

226

Excursus: Allusions to Jeremiah in Deuteronomy

III. Conclusion The evidence compiled here for allusions to Jeremiah in Deut 29 and 32, combined with the observations concerning Deut 30:1–10 in the previous chapter, demonstrates the supplementation of D prior to its inclusion in the Pentateuch.27 Just as D served as a resource for various layers of Jeremianic tradition, the book of Jeremiah exerted influence on later additions to D. Of particular interest is the appropriation of DtrJ’s innovative view of future obedience in Deut 29:3 and 30:1–10. As shown in the previous chapter, DtrJ articulated this view in reference to D. A supplementer to D appears to have appropriated the innovation and incorporated it into a later version of D. These observations offer external support to arguments for the lateness of portions of the final chapters of D (29–32). Chapters 29–30 are set apart from the core of D, including ch. 28, both in their assumption of the inevitability of national disaster as well as for stylistic reasons.28 If a Neo-Assyrian period appeared plausible for the curses of ch. 28, the perspective on the inevitability of disaster and the subsequent possibility of restoration is suggestive of an exilic or post-exilic date for elements of chs. 29–30. These chapters are further set apart by their references to the law as a discrete written entity, as well as the reference to it as a covenant, a term used elsewhere in D only in 17:2.29 Thus, the influence of Jeremiah corroborates what is suggested on other grounds. Since Deut 29, 30, and 32 contain allusions to the compositional strata  – both pre-DtrJ and DtrJ – that themselves allude extensively to D, portions of these chapters must represent later additions to D.

 The supplementation precedes the composition of the Pentateuch is suggested by Deut 32, where the introduction of the song is interrupted by E-source material in v. 23 (cf. Baden, Composition [2012] 120, 137, 146). This shows that though Deut 32 is a later addition to D, it was added before D was joined to the other sources. 28  Cf. Driver, Deuteronomy (1902) lxxiii–lxxv. 29 Mayes, Deuteronomy (1979) 358–60. 27

Chapter Six

Conclusion The close reading of Jeremiah’s allusions to D has confirmed that D served as a source for multiple layers of Jeremianic tradition and demonstrated the discernibly different perspectives on D embedded in them. These different perspectives attest an analyzable shift in the nature of D’s authority. Considered together, the thirty-three allusions to D in DtrJ bring into focus a dynamic relationship between an innovative text and its authoritative source. D’s status as a religious textual authority for DtrJ emerges with particular clarity. Allusions to the violation of D’s laws as ushering in the curses of Deut 28 are particularly revealing (chs. 3–4). In these passages, DtrJ explicitly adopts D’s central claim to its divine origin and the binding, statutory nature of its laws. These aspects of DtrJ’s perspective are well illustrated in Jer 34:12–22. This passage grounds its citation of D’s manumission and debt release laws (v. 14) as a quotation from the covenant made in the wilderness (v. 13). The subsequent announcement of judgment for violating D’s law (vv. 16–22) includes an allusion to D’s curses (Deut 28:25–26) in vv. 17 and 20. This passage thus parrots D’s own central historical and religious claims: the violation of the covenant mediated by Moses results in the unleashing of covenant curses. These aspects of DtrJ’s perspective on D’s authority appear in multiple contexts. Chapter 3 examined ten passages in which DtrJ drew on Deut 28’s curses, each of which shows that DtrJ understood the downfall of Judah in 587 as divine judgment for disobedience.1 The allusions to specific laws of D that were violated (ch. 4) show that the disobedience was, in part, to the covenant of D. The authoritative status of D for DtrJ, however, also made it the object of transformative reuse. The allusions to D examined in Chapter 2 demonstrate DtrJ’s concern to establish Jeremiah as a prophet of equal authority to D’s Moses. In several passages, DtrJ transformed texts in D that originally asserted the exclusive and final authority of Moses into language that supported the continuing authority of the post-Mosaic prophets. The allusion to Deut 5:33 in Jer 7:23 stands out as a paradigmatic example. Like Jer 34:13–14, this passage introduces the allusion as a command given in the wilderness (Jer 7:22–23). The 1 Though Jer 32:41 represents a reversal of this judgment, it too understands the Deut 28 curse to have fallen on Judah. This passage acknowledges the occurrence of the curse in the past and holds out hope for its future reversal.

228

Chapter Six: Conclusion

cited passage (Deut 5:33) summarizes the covenant as obedience to the words of Moses. Jeremiah 7:23 transforms this passage to portray the basic wilderness era command as continued obedience to the post-Mosaic prophets. A number of other passages make similar claims that equate Jeremiah and Moses and minimize and transform the limitations that D places on post-Mosaic prophecy (Jer 1:7–9, 11:1–5, 21:8–10, 26:2, 28:8–9). Transformative allusion to D also appears in DtrJ’s discussions of the future restoration and the new covenant. Having argued that Israel and Judah broke D’s covenant through disobedience, DtrJ imagines a new covenant with a divinely given obedient heart. DtrJ develops this idea in relation to passages from D that suggest the future obedience of Israel and the inherent insufficiency of D’s covenant (Jer 29:13–14; 32:39–40). DtrJ’s simultaneous acceptance of D’s authority and occasional transformation and subversion of it points to an instructive tension at the heart of DtrJ’s relationship to its source. By accepting D as a religious textual authority, DtrJ faced essential limitations imposed by D, the most prominent being the restrictions D places on post-Mosaic prophecy. By addressing these limitations through transformative allusion, DtrJ engages in a relationship with its source that approaches Jonathan Z. Smith’s description of canon as “one form of a basic cultural process of limitation and of overcoming that limitation through ingenuity.”2 The tension at the root of DtrJ’s relationship with its source thus participates in what Smith identifies as one of the most characteristic of religious activities – creative interpretation aimed at the overcoming of the limits of authoritative religious texts.3 Smith’s insight allows us to situate DtrJ’s activity as a recognizable mode of religious thought and expression, but his insistence that this mode arises in response to a closed canon of texts appears inadequate.4 DtrJ’s operations with respect to D show that the kind of maneuvers Smith imagines as characterizing canonical interpretation can arise before anything like a canon historically emerges. The limits imposed by authoritative texts can be felt and responded to even without the existence of a closed canon.5 It is important to note that DtrJ’s perspective on D’s authority can not be taken as somehow normative for post-exilic Judean religion. The authority of D for DtrJ can be fruitfully contrasted to the roughly contemporary Second Isaiah. As Benjamin Sommer has shown, Second Isaiah, while intensely interested in previous prophetic texts, was relatively uninterested in D.6 Though D’s limitations 2 Imagining

Religion (1982) 52.  Cf. ibid., 43. 4  Imagining Religion (1982) 48; idem, Canonization and Decanonization (1998) 305–6. 5 See Levinson, Legal Revision (2008) 17–18. 6  See Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 134–39. Sommer finds only four allusions to Deuteronomy in Second Isaiah, two of which draw from poetic texts at the end of D (Isa 58:11–14 / ​ Deut 32:9–13; Isa 45:14–19 / ​Deut 33:26–29), one of which draws from D’s curses (Isa 58:8–10 / ​ 3

Chapter Six: Conclusion

229

on prophecy were theoretically no less relevant for Second Isaiah’s prophetic authority and autonomy than for DtrJ’s, Second Isaiah ignores them entirely. In contrast to DtrJ, the pre-DtrJ allusions to D do not appear to assume or construct the authority of D. D serves rather as a resource for these traditions, a well of language that could be drawn on or ignored at will. Smith’s description of a literary classic, which serves as a source of prestige but not authority, is well suited to this form of allusion.7 Pre-DtrJ poetic passages, for instance, allude to laws governing the relationships of husband and wife (Jer 3:1–4) and parents and child (5:21–24) as ways of describing the relationship between Yahweh and Judah. These allusions adopt language from D but do not assume the divine authority of that source any more than do the uses of VTE in Deut 28. These usages demonstrate that the texts cited were held in high regard. They cite legal principles as exemplary of just laws, but they do not treat the laws as components of a covenant, the violation of which would constitute a breach of covenant and usher in covenant curses. Instead, the primary allusive mode is metaphor. The civil and social relationships described and governed by the cited laws serve as metaphors for other relationships, primarily between Yahweh and Judah. What these pre-DtrJ passages never do is present a world in which the violation of specific laws provides the justification for divine judgment. These texts are not interested in the violation of laws per se, but rather how the legal concepts provide useful metaphors and imagery for describing situations the laws themselves do not contemplate. Unlike DtrJ, the pre-DtrJ texts were free to ignore D where it might present ideological limitations. Nowhere in these passages does D appear as presenting limitations that needed to be overcome; the allusions represent instead ad hoc appropriations of metaphors and language from a prestigious precursor. For the pre-DtrJ texts, allusions to D, along with other pentateuchal legal traditions, were literarily useful; for DtrJ, they were necessary. Thus, while the pre-DtrJ materials occasionally allude to D, the sole authority they construct remains the charismatic authority of the prophet himself. Such charismatic authority, as Weber describes it, is grounded exclusively in the extraordinary gifts of a prophet and, in its pure form, is not subject to any authority outside of itself.8 Allusions to D in the pre-DtrJ materials do not imply a constraint on their authority but rather function as a further construction of the charismatic giftedness of the speaker. The prophetic figure’s charismatic gifts include not only the ability to speak for Yahweh, but also the crafting of poetic language and the virtuosic allusion to prestigious literary traditions. Deut 28:28–29), and one of which draws from D’s law (Isa 50:1 / ​Deut 24:1–3). See above, p. 179 on the unconvincing nature of the proposed allusion to Deut 24:1–3. 7  Canonization and Decanonization (1998) 304–5. 8 Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (1922) 140–41, 250–51.

230

Chapter Six: Conclusion

Claims made about the pre-DtrJ’s oracles ambivalence or rejection of D9 need to be evaluated with respect to these actual allusions to specific texts. As this study has shown, pre-DtrJ traditions held D in high regard and alluded to it favorably when it supported their argumentation. While D does not attain the level of an authoritative text, neither does it polemically oppose D as some scholars have claimed. The change in perspective on D represents a historical development reflected in the composition of the book of Jeremiah. The dating of texts is always difficult, but the general location of the poetic and prosaic pre-DtrJ texts in the late monarchic and early exilic periods is supported by both linguistic and internal considerations.10 The preservation of unfulfilled prophecies is particularly indicative of the early locus of at least some of this material.11 The DtrJ passages reflect a later time. Suggestive of the Persian period is DtrJ’s concern for the exclusive rights of the Babylonian exiles12 as well as its perspective on the relativity of the divine word, an ideology approaching that of Chronicles.13 Late lexical features likewise imply this setting.14 The experience of exile and the contemplation of restoration, therefore, provide the historical context for understanding the shift in the status of D over the course of the composition of the book of Jeremiah.

 See above, p. 12.  For the most recent technical study of the linguistic dating of Jeremiah, see Hornkohl, Ancient Hebrew Periodization (2014). Hornkohl concludes that the book as a whole can be categorized as Transitional Biblical Hebrew and datable, roughly, to the 6th century (370–73). He qualifies this conclusion, however, with the recognition that the predominantly prosaic second half of the book (chs. 26–52) show slightly later forms than the predominantly poetic first half (ibid., 66–69). Though helpful in a general sense in situating the language of the book historically, this study does not rigorously compare the linguistic character of compositional strata. 11 See the prediction in Jer 36:30’s that Jehoiakim would have no son sit on the throne and would be denied proper burial and the contradiction of this prophecy in 2 Kgs 24:6 (see Stipp, Jeremia im Parteienstreit [1992] 110–11; Leuchter, Polemics of Exile [2008] 111. But see also Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur [2011] 230–31 who still considers Jer 36:30 late). Cf. also Jer 22:18–19, 28–30 that likewise predicts corpse exposure for Jehoiakim and lack of offspring for Coniah (noted with approval by Schmid as evidence for the early date of these oracles [ibid., 229–30]). 12 Cf. Pohlmann, Studien (1978) 183–97, who identifies the pro-golah material as representing a distinct redactional layer; cf. also Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology (2003) 158–59, and, more recently Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 118 [Hebrew], who connects this theme to DtrJ. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (1970) 127–33, however, argues for its origins in the exilic period. 13  This point is argued by Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 25–29 [Hebrew], and Seeligman, Congress Volume (1977) 279–84, and has been reiterated and further supported by Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 106–11 [Hebrew], who offers a further formal hint at the Persian dating of the DtrJ narratives in chs. 42 and 44 by showing their affinity with a type of confession literature that is seen most prominently in Persian era texts (eg. Dan 9; Ezra 9, Neh 1:5–11; 9). Cf. also Carroll, Jeremiah (1986) 69; Hill, ABR 56 (2008) 19–31. 14  Goldstein, Life of Jeremiah (2013) 44, 90–94, 99–102 [Hebrew], lists lexical indications supporting a Persian date for a number of DtrJ texts.  9

10

Chapter Six: Conclusion

231

This shift in perspective on D situates the book of Jeremiah at a crucial moment in the religious history of ancient Israel. The earliest traditions transmit prophetic oracles with occasional literary reference to D and other prestigious texts. The authority drawn on in these oracles is that of the charismatic prophet who is able to mediate the divine word. DtrJ retains prophetic charisma but also grapples with the authority of a textual precursor, a movement which can be understood as marking a small step towards the text-centered religion that was to characterize later forms of Judaism. Text-centeredness, as described by Moshe Halbertal, is a feature of a community that organizes itself around a shared textual canon.15 Halbertal highlights several features of this phenomenon and investigates its development and variegation in rabbinic Judaism. One aspect of this text-centeredness appears in a community’s “procedural agreement that all practices, beliefs, or institutions, whatever they may be, are to be justified in reference to the text, as an interpretation of the text. In a text centered community such as the Jewish one … interpretation becomes the main and central form of justification.”16 The beginnings of this procedural assumption emerge in DtrJ’s constant appeals to D. Jeremiah 29:15 and 23 dramatize the idea of a community’s agreement on the centrality of D by presenting conflicting parties as each appealing to D’s prophet law: the exiles in Babylon first invoke Deut 18:18 to claim the legitimacy of their own prophets, and Jeremiah rejects this claim with an appeal to Deut 18:20. Other passages similarly justify the condemnation of false prophets with reference to D’s prophet law (Jer 5:14; 28:8–9). Jeremiah 31:29–30 resorts to a prooftext from D in the resolution of another controversy. DtrJ’s innovative view of prophecy, though conflicting with D’s own ideology, is articulated with reference to D as an interpretation of the text (Jer 1:7–9; 7:23; 11:1–5; 21:8–10; 26:2; 28:8–9). The downfall of Judah is taken up with reference to D (see chs. 3–4). The vision of a renewed and better covenant is likewise developed and justified through allusion to D (Jer 29:13–14; 32:39–40). For DtrJ and the implied community it addresses, D has become a necessary touchstone of religious thought and a locus of religious discourse. DtrJ’s perspective on D, of course, does not represent the kind of fully-fledged text-centeredness characteristic of later Judaism. Some features of text-centeredness, such as the emergence of reading as a religious practice, are not discernibly present in DtrJ. In DtrJ, rather, appears an incipient text-centeredness, and its deviations from future forms are as significant as its anticipation of them. Halbertal singles out the transfer of authority from the charismatic prophet to the scholar as a decisive aspect of the historical process that led to the text-centeredness of

15

 People of the Book (1997) 6–10, 129. 8.

16 Ibid.,

232

Chapter Six: Conclusion

rabbinic Judaism.17 Similarly, Bruce Lincoln, in his discussion of the transition from ancient to post-ancient religious discourse, draws attention to the shift from prophetic authority to the centrality of the text and its interpretation. According to Lincoln, this transition involved the production of restricted bodies of scripture that were invested with authoritative status, and a situation in which energies were directed toward the interpretation of these texts rather than the production of new ones. Reading rather than speaking became the privileged moment of religious discourse, and most potential for innovation no longer came through the claim of inspiration, but through the practice of shrewd hermeneutics. To put it in slightly different terms, as Jeremiah yielded to the rabbis, John the Baptist to the church fathers, Muhammad to the qadis and ulama, one can see not only Weber’s routinization of charisma but the historic shift from a prophetic ethos associated with orality to the scholarly ethos of the textual.18

Given the results of the present study, it is both fitting and ironic that Lincoln singles out Jeremiah as paradigmatic of the prophetic ethos as opposed to the textual. DtrJ’s primary mode of discourse is indeed prophetic speech placed in the mouth of Jeremiah. Though interacting at length with an authoritative predecessor, DtrJ’s external form nevertheless retains prophetic charisma as the principal locus of authority. DtrJ takes pains to reserve prophetic autonomy for Jeremiah and to use this mouthpiece to give its own words the imprimatur of prophetic revelation. Yet at the same time, identifying Jeremiah as the paradigm of the prophetic ethos obscures the extent to which DtrJ commits energies to interpreting, deploying, and sometimes transforming a textual predecessor. DtrJ thus occupies a transitional moment in religious history. In its formation of a prophetic book, DtrJ speaks with prophetic authority and transmits existing traditions that do the same. Yet, in its interactions with D, DtrJ exhibits the beginnings of a movement toward a text-centered form of religiosity. To adapt Lincoln’s language, DtrJ directs energies both toward the interpretation of an authoritative text and the production of a new one. It speaks and innovates through both prophetic inspiration and shrewd hermeneutics. If the development of text-centered religion in Judaism can be understood, in part, as the transfer of authority from prophet to expert interpreter, DtrJ’s significance lies in its inhabiting both worlds.

17

 Ibid., 6, 22–23, 129. and Demons (2012) 77.

18 Gods

Bibliography Albertz, Rainer. “A Possible Terminus ad Quem for the Deuteronomistic Legislation – A Fresh Look at Deut 17:16.” Pages 269–96 in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded. Edited by Gershon Galil, Mark Geller, and Alan Millard. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 130. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster, 2008. Baden, Joel S. J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. Barstad, Hans M. “The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8 (1994): 236–51. Barthélemy, Dominique. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 2. 4 vols. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Bellefontaine, Elizabeth. “The Curses of Deuteronomy 27: Their Relationship to the Prohibitives.” Pages 256–68 in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy. Edited by Duane L. Christensen. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Ben-Porat, Ziva. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105–28. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Studying Prophetic Texts against Their Original Backgrounds: Pre-­ Ordained Scripts and Alternative Horizons of Research.” Pages 125–35 in Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. Edited by Stephen Breck Reid. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 229. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1996. –. “A Deuteronomistic Redaction In / ​among ‘The Twelve’?: A Contribution from the Standpoint of the Books of Micah, Zephaniah and Obadiah.” Pages 232–61 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Berlin, Adele. “Jeremiah 29:5–7: A Deuteronomic Allusion?” Hebrew Annual Review 8 (1984): 3–11. –. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Bergsma, John S. “The Biblical Manumission Laws: Has the Literary Dependence of H on D Been Demonstrated?” Pages 65–91 in A Teacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason et al. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Berman, Joshua. “The History of Legal Theory and the Study of Biblical Law.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 76 (2014): 19–39.

234

Bibliography

Berridge, John Maclennan. Prophet, People, and the Word of Yahweh: An Examination of Form and Content in the Proclamation of the Prophet Jeremiah. Basel Studies of Theology 4. Zürich: EVZ, 1970. Bezzel, Hannes. “The Suffering of the Elect: Variations on a Theological Problem in Jer 15,20–21.” Pages 48–73 in Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. Edited by Hans M. Barstad and Reinhard G. Kratz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 388. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Boda, Mark J. “From Complaint to Contrition: Peering through the Liturgical Window of Jer 14,1–15,4.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113 (2001): 186–197. Brettler, Marc Zvi. “Predestination in Deuteronomy 30:1–10.” Pages 171–88 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. –. “‘Fire, Cloud, and Deep Darkness’ (Deuteronomy 5:22): Deuteronomy’s Recasting of Revelation.” Pages 15–27 in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Themes in Biblical Narrative 12. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Bright, John. “The Date of the Prose Sermons of Jeremiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951): 15–35. –. Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation and Notes. The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1965. Brown, Michael. “‘Is it not?’ or ‘Indeed!’: HL in Northwest Semitic.” Maarav 4 (1987): 210–19. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, Editors. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Carpenter, J. Estlin, and G. Harford-Battersby. The Hexateuch According to the Revised Version. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900. Carr, David M. “Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and Its Parallels.” Pages 107–40 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2001. –. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: a New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Carroll, Robert P. From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. New York: Crossroad, 1981. –. Jeremiah: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986. Chavel, Simeon. “‘Let My People Go!’ Emancipation, Revelation, and Scribal Activity in Jeremiah 34.8–14.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76 (1997): 71–95. Clines, David J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2011. Clements, Ronald E. Review of Mark Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response. Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 278–279. Coggins, Richard. “What Does ‘Deuteronomistic’ Mean?” Pages 22–35 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Bibliography

235

Cogan, Mordechai. I Kings. Anchor Bible 10. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Cogan, Mordechai and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. Anchor Bible 11. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Cook, Stephen L. “Those Stubborn Levites: Overcoming Levitical Disenfranchisement.” Pages 155–70 in Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition. Edited by Mark A. Leuchter and Jeremy M. Hutton. Ancient Israel and its Literature 9. Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, 2011. Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Crüsemann, Frank. Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes. Munich: Kaiser, 1992. Dahood, Mitchell. “Ugaritic Studies and the Bible.” Gregorianum 43 (1962): 55–79. –. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV.” Biblica 47 (1966): 403–19. Davidson, R. “Orthodoxy and the Prophetic Word: A Study in the Relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy.” Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964): 407–16. Davis, Kipp. The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions. Brill: Leiden, 2014. Dearman, J. Andrew. “My Servants the Scribes : Composition and Context in Jeremiah 36.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 403–421. De Jong, Matthijs J. “The Fallacy of ‘True and False’ in Prophecy Illustrated by Jer 28:8– 9.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12 (2012): 1–29. Diamond, A. R. Pete. “Introduction.” Pages 15–32 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Diamond, A. R. Pete, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, Editors. Troubling Jeremiah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Dillmann, August. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium, und Josua. 2nd Edition. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1886. Dimant, Devorah. Qumran Cave 4 XXI. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXX. Clarendon Press: Oxford 2001. –. “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah.” Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013): 452–71. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “Poetry, Hebrew.” Pages 550–58 in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009. Dommershausen, W. “‫לחם‬.” Columns 538–47 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Volume 4: ‫כ‬-‫מר‬. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986. Dozeman, Thomas B, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, Editors. The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902. –. The Book of Exodus. Cambridge Commentaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1918. Dr. Seuss. One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish. New York: Random House, 1960. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jeremia. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament. Tübingen: Mohr, 1901. Eissfeldt, Otto. Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluß der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen: Entstehungsgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr, 1934.

236

Bibliography

Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Fischer, Georg. Das Trostbüchlein: Text, Komposition und Theologie von Jer 30–31. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993. –. Jeremia 1–25. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2005. –. Jeremia 26–52. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2005. –. “Das Ende von Deuteronomium (Dtn 26–34) im Spiegel des Jeremiabuches.” Pages 281–92 in “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by R. Achenbach and M. Arneth. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 13. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. –. “Der Einfluss des Deuteronomiums auf das Jeremiabuch.” Pages 247–69 in Deu­te­ro­ nomium – Tora für eine neue Generation. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. –. “Fulfilment and Reversal: The Curses of Deuteronomy 28 as a Foil for the Book of Jeremiah.” Semitica et Classica 5 (2012): 43–49. Frankena, R. “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 (1965): 124–54. Friedman, Richard E. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. Giesebrecht, Friedrich. Das Buch Jeremia. Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894. Gesundheit, Shimon. Three Times a Year. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Glanz, Oliver. Understanding Participant-Reference Shifts in the Book of Jeremiah: A Study of Exegetical Method and Its Consequences for the Interpretation of Referential Incoherence. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 60. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Gladson, Jerry A. “Jeremiah 17:19–27: A Rewriting of the Sinaitic Code?” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 33–40. Goldstein, Ronnie. “The Lie and the Rumor: The Two Accounts of the Meeting of Jeremiah and Zedekiah – Modes of Coping with Competing Versions in the Ancient World.” Pages 23–35 in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and its Language, 23–35. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007. [Hebrew] –. The Life of Jeremiah: Traditions about the Prophet and their Evolution in Biblical Times. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2013. [Hebrew] Habel, N. “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 36 (1965): 297–323. Halbertal, Moshe. People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Halpern, Baruch. “Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition.” Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998): 473–513. Halton, Charles. “Allusions to the Stream of Tradition in Neo-Assyrian Oracles.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 46 (2009): 50–61. Hardy, Humphrey Hill II. “Diachronic Development in Biblical Hebrew Prepositions: A Case Study in Grammaticalization.” University of Chicago, 2014.

Bibliography

237

Heider, George C. The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 43. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Herrmann, Siegried. Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament. Ursprung und Gestaltwandel. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 85. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965. Hibbard, J. T. “True and False Prophecy: Jeremiah’s Revision of Deuteronomy.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (2011): 339–358. Hill, John. “Duhm-Ed Again  – Back to the Future in Jeremiah Research?” Australian Biblical Review 56 (2008): 19–31. Hillers, Delbert R. Treaty-curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Biblica et Orientalia 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. Hitzig, F. Der Prophet Jeremia. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 3. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1841. Hobbs, T. R. “Jeremiah 3:1–5 and Deuteronomy 24:1–4.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (1974): 23–29. Hoffman, Yair. “Aetiology, Redaction and Historicity in Jeremiah XXXVI.” Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996): 179–189. –. Jeremiah: Introduction and Commentary, Volume One, Chapters 1–25. Mikra leYisra’el. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2001. [Hebrew] –. “‘Micah the Morashite was Prophesying in the Days of Hezekiah …’: Jeremiah 26:18 and Micah 3:12.” Pages 287–307 in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and its Language. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007. [Hebrew] Holladay, William L. “On Every High Hill and under Every Green Tree.” Vetus Testamentum 11 (1961): 170–76. –. “The Background of Jeremiah’s Self-Understanding: Moses, Samuel, and Psalm 22.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 153–164. –. “Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966): 17–27. –. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. –. Jeremiah 2. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. –. “Elusive Deuteronomists, Jeremiah, and Proto-Deuteronomy.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 55–77. Hölscher, Gustav. “Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 40 (1922): 161–255. Hornkohl, Aaron D. Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah: The Case for a Sixth-Century Date of Composition. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 74. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Hossfeld, F.-L., and I. Meyer. Prophet gegen Prophet: Eine Analyse der alttestamentlichen Texte zum Thema: Wahre und falsche Propheten. Biblische Beiträge 9. Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973. –. “Der Prophet vor dem Tribunal.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (1974): 30–50. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalmen 51–100. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. Houtman, Cornelias. Exodus. Vol. 3. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 2000.

238

Bibliography

Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. “Hammurabi in Mesopotamian Tradition.” Pages 497–532 in ‘An Experienced Scribe who Neglects Nothing’: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Edited by Yitschak Sefati et al. Bethesda: CDL Press, 2005. Hyatt, J. Philip. “Torah in the Book of Jeremiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 60 (1941): 381–396. –. “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1 (1942): 156– 173. –. “The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah.” Vanderbilt Studies in the Humanities 1 (1956): 71–95. Irwin, William. “What Is an Allusion?” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59 (2001): 287–297. –. “Against Intertextuality.” Philosophy and Literature 28 (2004): 227–42. Isbell, Charles D. “2 Kings 22:3–23:4 and Jeremiah 36: A Stylistic Comparison.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 8 (1978): 33–45. Janzen, J. Gerald. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Harvard Semitic Monographs 6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Jeremias, Jörg. “Das Rätsel der Schriftprophetie.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125 (2013): 93–117. Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: E. P. I. B., 2006. Joyce, James. Ulysses. The 1934 text, as corrected and reset in 1961. New York: Random House, 1992. Knoppers, Gary N. “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 329–46. –. “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001): 393–415. –. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of their Early Relations. Oxford: OUP, 2013. Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Köckert, Matthias. “Zum Literargeschichtlichen Ort des Prophetengesetzes Dtn 18 zwischen dem Jeremiabuch und Dtn 13.” Pages 80–100 in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 190. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Kugel, James L. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981. –. “The Bible’s Earliest Interpreters.” Review of Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Prooftexts 7 (1987): 269–305. Kugler, Robert A. “The Deuteronomists and the Latter Prophets.” Pages 127–44 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Lemche, N. P. “The Manumission of Slaves – the Fallow Year – the Sabbatical Year – the Jobel Year.” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 39–59. Leuchter, Mark. “Jeroboam the Ephratite.” Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 51–72. –. Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2006.

Bibliography

239

–. “Why is the Song of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy?” Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007): 295–317. –. “The Manumission Laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: The Jeremiah Connection.” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 635–53. –. The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. –. “The Medium and the Message, Or, What Is  »Deuteronomistic« about the Book of Jeremiah?” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 126 (2014): 208–27. Levin, Christoph. Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes: In ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. –. “Textual Criticism, Assyriology, and the History of Interpretation: Deuteronomy 13:7a as a Test Case in Method.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 211–43. –. “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah.” Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001): 511–34. –. “The Manumission of Hermeneutics: The Slave Laws of the Pentateuch as a Challenge to Contemporary Pentateuchal Theory.” Pages 281–324 in Congress Volume Leiden 2004. Edited by A. Lemaire. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. –. Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. –. “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty as the Source for the Canon Formula in Deuteronomy 13:1.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 130 (2010): 337–347. Levinson, Bernard M., and Jeffrey Stackert. “Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13 and the Composition of Deuteronomy.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 3 (2012): 123–40. Lewy, Julius. “The Biblical Institution of D erôr in the Light of Akkadian Documents.” Eretz‑ Israel 5 (1958): 21–31. L’Hour, Jean. “Une Législation Criminelle dans le Deutéronome.” Biblica 44 (1963): 1–28. Lincoln, Bruce. Authority: Construction and Corrosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. –. Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars: Critical Explorations in the History of Religions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. Lohfink, Norbert F. “Was There a Deuteronomistic Movement?” Pages 36–66 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997. –. Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. –. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2004. –. Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 21C. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Machacek, Gregory. “Allusion.” PMLA 122 (2007): 522–36.

240

Bibliography

Maier, Christl. Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora: Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 196. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. –. “Jeremiah as Teacher of Torah.” Interpretation 62 (2008): 22–32. Mayes, A. D. H.  Deuteronomy. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah: Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I–XXV. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. –. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996. McKenzie, Steven L. “Postscript: The Laws of Physics and Pan-Deuteronomism.” Pages 262–71 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Milgrom, Jacob. Cult and Conscience: the Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. Leiden: Brill, 1976. –. “Concerning Jeremiah’s Repudiation of Sacrifice.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 273–75. –. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Moshavi, Adina. “Syntactic Evidence for a Clausal Adverb ‫ הלא‬in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 33 (2007): 51–63. –. “‫ הלא‬as a Discourse Marker of Justification in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 48 (2007): 172–86. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia. Kristiana: J. Dybwad, 1914. –. The Spirit and the Word: Prophecy and Tradition in Ancient Israel. Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002. Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Nicholson, E. W.  Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970. –. The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. –. The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 26–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. –. Review of Mark Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response. Journal of Theological Studies 59 (2008): 234–38. –. “Deuteronomy 18.9–22, the Prophets and Scripture.” Pages 151–71 in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 531. New York: T & T Clark, 2010. Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 25. Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2007. Nissinen, Martti. “The Socioreligious Role of the Neo-Assyrian Prophets.” Pages 89–114 in Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian

Bibliography

241

Perspectives. Edited by Martti Nissinen. SBL Symposium Series 13. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Noth, Martin. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1943. Otto, Eckart. “Treueid und Gesetz: Die Ursprünge des Deuteronomiums im Horizont Neuassyrischen Vertragsrechts.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 2 (1996): 1–52. –. Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 20. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “Der Pentateuch im Jeremiabuch: Überlegungen zur Pentateuchrezeption im Jeremiabuch anhand neuerer Jeremia-Literatur.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 12 (2006): 245–306. –. “Old and New Covenant. A Post-exilic Discourse Between the Pentateuch and the Book of Jeremiah. Also a Study of Quotations and Allusions in the Hebrew Bible.” Old Testament Essays 19 (2006): 939–949. –. “Scribal Scholarship in the Formation of Tora and Prophets: A Postexilic Scribal Debate Between Priestly Scholarship and Literary Prophecy – The Example of the Book of Jeremiah  and Its  Relation to the Pentateuch.” Pages 171–84 in Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. –. “Tora für eine neue Generation in Dtn 4: Die hermeneutische Theologie des Numeruswechsels in Deuteronomium 4,1–40.” Pages 105–22 in Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation. Edited by Georg Fischer, Dominik Markl and Simone Paganin. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. –. Deuteronomium 1,1–4,43. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Herder: Freiburg, 2012. –. “Singing Moses: His Farewell Song in Deuteronomy 32.” Pages 169–80 in Psalmody and Poetry in Old Testament Ethics. Edited by Drik J. Human. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 572. T & T Clark: New York, 2012. Pardee, Dennis. Review of George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49 (1990): 370–72. –. Review of Carolyn J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 66 (2007): 226–27. Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Perri, Carmela. “On Alluding.” Poetics 7 (1978): 289–307. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 118. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Polk, Timothy. The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 32. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Propp, William H. C. Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Rofé, Alexander. “Studies on the Composition of the Book of Jeremiah.” Tarbiz 44 (1974): 1–29. [Hebrew]

242

Bibliography

–. “The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 101 (1989): 390–98. –. Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 9. Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 2009. Römer, Thomas. “Y A T-Il Une Rédaction Deutéronomiste Dans Le Livre de Jérémie?” Pages 419–41 in Israël Construit Son Histoire: L’Historiographie Deutéronomiste à La Lumière Des Recherches Récentes. Edited by Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer and Jean-Daniel Macchi. Le Monde De La Bible 14. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1996. –. “How Did Jeremiah Become a Convert to Deuteronomistic Ideology?” Pages 189–99 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. –. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “Facing Destruction and Exile: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 117 (2005): 189–205. –. “Deuteronomic Concepts of Exile Interpreted in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” Pages 101–23 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Post-biblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Chaim Cohen et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. –. “Actualization of Pentateuchal Legal Traditions in Jeremiah: More on the Riddle of Authorship.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 15 (2009): 254–281. –. “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: What Might Stand Behind the Silence?” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 203–230. –. “‘How can you say, ‘I am not defiled …’?’ (Jeremiah 2:20–25): Allusions to Priestly Legal Traditions in the Poetry of Jeremiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (2014): 757–775. –. “‘On the Day I Took Them out of the Land of Egypt’: A Non-Deuteronomic Phrase within Jeremiah’s Conception of Covenant.” Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015): 621–47. Rowley, H. H. “The Prophet Jeremiah and the Book of Deuteronomy.” Pages 157–200 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson by the Society for Old Testament Study on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, August 9th, 1946. Edited by H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Jeremia. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1947. Sarna, Nahum. “Zedekiah’s Emancipation of Slaves and the Sabbatical Year.” Pages 143–49 in Orient and Occident: Essays presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty‑ Fifth Birthday. Edited by Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 22. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. Schmid, Konrad. Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions‑ und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 72. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996. –. “Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte.” Pages 1–22 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Reinhard Gregor Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid.

Bibliography

243

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. –. Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur: Fallstudien zur innerbiblischen Schriftauslegung im Alten Testament. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. The Old Testament: A Literary History. Translated by Maloney, Linda M. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Schmidt, Werner H. “Das Prophetengesetz Dtn 18,9–22 im Kontext Erzählender Literatur.” Pages 55–69 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W.  Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. –. Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 1–20. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Schmuttermayr, Georg. “Beobachtungen zu Jer 5, 13.” Biblische Zeitschrift 9 (1965): 215–232. Seeligmann, I. L. “Die Auffassung von der Prophetie in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung (mit einem Exkurs über das Buch Jeremia).” Pages 255–84 in Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Seitz, Christopher R. “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 101 (1989): 3–27. Seitz, Gottfried. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1971. Seri, Andrea. “Borrowings to Create Anew: Intertextuality in the Babylonian Poem of ‘Creation’ (Enūma eliš).” Journal of the American Oriental Society 134 (2014): 89–106. Sharp, Carolyn J. Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero‑ Jeremianic Prose. London: T & T Clark, 2003. Silver, Edward. “The Prophet and the Lying Pen: Jeremiah’s Poetic Challenge to the Deuteronomic School.” PhD Diss., University of Chicago, 2009. Sivan, Daniel and William Schniedewind. “Letting your ‘Yes’ be ‘No’ in Ancient Israel: A Study of the Asseverative ‫ לא‬and ‫הלא‬.” Journal of Semitic Studies 38 (1993): 209–226. Smith, Eustace J. “The Decalogue in the Preaching of Jeremias.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 4 (1942): 193–209. Smith, Jonathan Z. Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. –. “Canons, Catalogues and Classics.” Pages 295–311 in Canonization and Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (Lisor), Held at Leiden 9–10 January 1997. Edited by A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Sommer, Benjamin. “Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger.” Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996): 479–89. –. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. –. “New Light on the Composition of Jeremiah.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999): 646–666. –. “Revelation at Sinai in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish Theology.” The Journal of Religion 79 (1999): 422–51. –. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

244

Bibliography

–. “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism.” Pages 85–108 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 273. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. Review of Bruce Wells, The Law of Testimony in the Pentateuchal Codes. Review of Biblical Literature (2009): 1–5. –. “The Holiness Legislation and its Pentateuchal Sources: Revision, Supplementation, and Replacement.” Pages 187–204 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. –. “Mosaic Prophecy and the Deuteronomic Source of the Torah.” Pages 47–63 in Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Konrad Schmid and Raymond F. Person Jr. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –. “Before and After Scripture: Narrative Chronology in the Revision of Torah Texts.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 4 (2013): 168–85. –. A Prophet like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Steiner, Richard C. “A Colloquialism in Jer 5:13 from the Ancestor of Mishnaic Hebrew.” Journal of Semitic Studies 37 (1992): 11–26. Steuernagel, Carl. Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900. Steymans, Hans Ulrich. Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 145. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. –. “Deuteronomy 28 and Tell Tayinat.” Verbum et Ecclesia 34 (2013): 1–13. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. Jeremia im Parteienstreit: Studien zur Textentwicklung von Jer 26, 36–43 und 45 als Beitrag zur Geschichte Jeremias, seines Buches und judäischer Parteien im 6. Jahrhundert. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 82. Frankfurt am Main: Hain, 1992. –. Deuterojeremianische Konkordanz. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 63. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1998. –. “Baruchs Erben: Die Schriftprophetie im Spiegel von Jer 36.” Pages 145–70 in “Wer darf hinaufstiegen zum Berg JHWHs?”: Beiträge zu Prophetie und Poesie des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Sigurður Örn Steingrímmson zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hand Irsägler. St. Ottilien: EOS, 2002. –. “Sprachliche Kennzeichen jeremianischer Autorschaft.” Pages 148–86 in Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. Edited by Hans M. Barstad and Reinhard G. Kratz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 388. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Stulman, Louis. The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah : a Redescription of the Correspondences with Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 83. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

Bibliography

245

Thiel, Winfried. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 41. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. –. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu­kir­che­ ner Verlag, 1981. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Review of Mark Leuchter, The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): 508. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tov, Emanuel. “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 145–67 in Le Livre de Jérémie. Edited by P. M. Bogaert. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1981. –. “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History.” Pages 211–237 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Vayntrub, Jacqueline E., and Humphrey H. Hardy. “Biblical Hebrew Šninɔ: A ‘Cautionary Tale’ of Root Identification.” Vetus Testamentum 64 (2014): 279–83. Von Rad, Gerhard. Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. Das alte Testament deutsch 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Wallenstein, M. “Some Lexical Material in the Judean Scrolls.” Vetus Testamentum 4 (1954): 211–14. Wanke, Gunther. Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971. Waltke, Bruce, and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Weber, Max. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. J. C. B. Mohr: Tübingen, 1922. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy.” Biblica 46 (1965): 417–27. –. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. –. “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 88 (1976): 17–56. –. “Sabbatical Year and Jubilee in the Pentateuchal Laws and their ancient Near Eastern Background.” Pages 39–62 in The Law in the Bible and in its Environment. Edited by Timo Veijola. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. –. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Weippert, Helga. Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 132. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. –. “Fern von Jerusalem: Die Exilsethik von Jer 29,5–7.” Pages 127–39 in Zion: Ort der Begegnung. Edited by Ferdinand Hand et al. Athenäum: Hain Hanstein, 1993. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 2nd Edition. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1889. Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Louisville: Westminster, 1991. Wells, Bruce. The Law of Testimony in the Pentateuchal Codes. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004.

246

Bibliography

Wilson, Robert R. “Who Was the Deuteronomist? (Who Was Not the Deuteronomist?): Reflections on Pan-Deuteronomism.” Pages 67–82 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Yoo, Philip. “The Four Moses Death Accounts.” Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (2012): 423– 441. Zakovitch, Yair. An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Interpretation. Even-Yehuda: Reches Publishing House, 1992. [Hebrew] Ziegler, Joseph. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. 2nd Revised Edition. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Zewi, Tamar. “Interrupted Syntactical Structures in Biblical Hebrew.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 12 (1999): 83–95. –. Parenthesis in Biblical Hebrew. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 50. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Index of Ancient Sources I. Biblical Texts Genesis 7:23 84 11:7 95 18:21 83 37:35 54 38:10 84 42:43 95 46:27 83 Exodus 1:14 147 3:1–12 40 3:10–12 56 9n52, 40 4:10 4:15 53n59, 56 7:2 52 16:4 9n52 20:5–6 160 20:8–11 141 20:18–22 50 22:1 163–64 22:1–8 164 22:6 164 46–51, 90–91 23:22 24:12 9n52 31:6 52 32 11n58 32:4 9n52 32:8 9n52 32:14 9n52 32:20 9n52 32:35 9n52 33:7–11 50 34 11n58 55, 75–80, 90, 91 34:1 34:6–7 161 34:9 9n52, 77n141

Leviticus 8:31 143 18 181n133 18:21 145 19:11 9n52 20–23 50n46 22:14–16 164–65 147–48, 179 25 25:10 147 25:39 147 25:42 147 25:46 147 26:15 9n52 26:41 190 Numbers 13:22 184 14:30 9n52 21:27 184 22:6 84 53n59, 54 22:38 23:5 54 23:12 54 35:33 166 Deuteronomy 1–11 189 1:1 29 1:1–4:40 30 1:1–32:47 30–31 2:11–12 19n93 4:1–44 11n58 4:2 9n52, 18n93, 64, 65 4:5–6 18n93 4:8 9n52 4:19 139 4:20 48n39 18n93, 199 4:25–28 4:27 181n133

248

Index of Ancient Sources

4:28 113 30, 190, 195–200, 203, 4:29 204 4:34 18n93, 157 4:44–30:20 30 29, 43n26 4:45 4:45–11:32 30 18n93, 45n31, 49, 50, 54, 5 144n22, 153, 160, 162, 185 5:1 105 5:3 18n93 5:5 144n22 5:6–21 144n22 5:9–10 154, 160–63 5:12 105 5:12–15 140–44 5:22 144n22 5:23–27 18n93 121, 162, 190, 203 5:29 5:31–33 135 5:32–33 44 42–46, 51, 55, 90, 91, 92, 5:33 143, 183, 227–28 6:14 29 7:8 48 7:9–10 160 8:8 18n93 8:9 96n12 8:14–15 18n93 29, 139 8:19 9:6–21 189 9:25–29 189 10:1–2 55, 75–80, 90, 91 10:1–11 189 10:12–16 189 10:16 18n93, 189–92, 202, 204 10:18 10n93 10:21 18n93 11:10–17 193 126, 192–94 11:14 11:18–20 18n93 11:19 18n93 11:28 29 11:31 9n52 11:32–12:1 156 12 167 37, 135, 156 12–26

18n93, 181–83 12:2 12:5–6 183 12:15 181n133 12:31 181n133 13 37–38 9n52, 38, 44, 51, 55, 13:1 64–70, 90, 91, 137 13:1–6 18n93, 39, 64, 135 13:1–12 65 37, 44, 138 13:2–6 13:2–12 65 29, 116 13:3 13:4 18n93 13:4–5 69–70 13:5 37 13:5–24 69 13:6 89–91, 137 13:7 116–17 18n93, 181n133 13:7–10 13:7–12 138, 181n133 18n93, 69 13:9 69, 70 13:13 13:13–18 138 13:14 18n93, 116, 184 18n93, 181n133, 184 13:17 18n93, 183 14:1 14:29 18n93 18n93, 115, 132, 137, 153 15 9n52, 146–52, 177–78 15:1 15:1–11 152, 167 4, 9n52, 146–52, 177–78 15:12 152, 178 15:12–18 15:13 177 15:14–15 178 147, 177–78 15:15 15:16 177–78 15:17 178 15:18 178 16:18–20 138 16:21–17:17 138 17 113 17:2–7 138 137–140, 152–53 17:3 17:8–13 138 17:14–20 8, 18n93, 181n133 18n93, 113, 184 17:15 17:18–20 39

Index of Ancient Sources

18

18n93, 37, 39, 40, 44, 68, 181 18:9–10 121, 144–46, 153 9n52, 18n93, 38, 181n133 18:9–22 18:10 18n93 18:14 18n93 39, 135, 184 18:15–22 18:16–17 54 18:18 9n52, 18n93, 48, 51–59, 80–87, 88, 90, 137, 143, 181n133, 195, 231 18:18–22 55, 65, 90, 91 87, 89 18:18–23 39, 67 18:19 18:20 85, 88–89, 90, 137, 181n133, 231 18n93, 58 18:20–22 18:21–22 71–75, 89, 90, 137, 153 51–59, 90, 91, 137, 143 18:22 19n93, 184, 190 20:3 20:5–7 181n133 19n93, 130–31 20:5–10 19n93, 181n133 20:9 20:19–20 173–77, 179 19n93, 181n133 21:8 21:18–20 192 21:18–21 126, 172–73, 193 19n93, 181n133 22:25–27 23:7 181n133 23:24 19n93, 181n133 24 178 29, 165–72, 179 24:1–4 19n93, 181n133 24:4 24:7 164 19n93, 154, 159–61, 213 24:16 19n93, 181n133 24:19–22 26 64, 161 19n93, 181n133 26:2 154, 157–59 26:3 26:3–15 158 19n93, 181n133 26:5 48n39, 157–59, 181n133 26:8–9 26:10 19n93, 181n133 26:15 157–59 26:16–19 156 26:17–19 19n93, 181n133 26:19 181n133 26:29 154–56

249

27–28 127 27:15 19n93, 91 27:15–22 143 46–51, 55, 90, 91 27:15–26 27:26 9n52, 51, 91 34, 39, 67, 93–133, 135, 28 212, 217, 227, 229 28:1–44 93, 100 28:7 94n8 19n93, 100 28:10 28:12 19n93 28:14 29 28:15 19n93 28:15–16 48n39 28:16 89–90 28:20 96n12 28:20–44 100, 101, 110, 112, 125 28:21 94n8 28:21–22 132 28:22 66, 94n8, 110n52 28:22–23 132 28:25 94n8 132, 25–26 28:25–26 28:26 96n12 94n8, 96n12 28:29 28:33 96n12 28:36 96n12, 121 108, 111–14 28:25 93, 97–123, 115, 119, 132, 28:25–26 152 28:26 19n93, 99, 106–108, 137 28:26–35 101 28:27 99 28:27–29 132 28:28–29 99 28:29 19n93 19n93, 96n12, 99, 28:30 181n133 28:30–32 93, 129–133, 181n134 28:32 93n8 28:32–33 99 28:33 19n93 28:33–35 132 19n93, 94n8113, 116–17, 28:36 126 28:36–37 112, 132 111–14, 115, 132 28:37 28:38 132

250

Index of Ancient Sources

28:39–40 132 28:42 132 28:44 94n8 19n93, 93, 96n12 28:47–48 28:48 94, 96n12, 127–29, 133 95, 94n8 28:49 123–27, 133, 173, 192 28:49–52 19n93, 94n8 28:51 28:53 108–10, 115, 129, 132 19n93, 96n12 28:54 28:55 109 28:56 19n93, 94n8, 96n12 96n12, 109 28:57 28:58 19n93 28:59 19n93, 96n12 121–23, 129, 132 28:60 19n93, 94n8, 96n12 28:61 28:61–62 132 94n8, 119–121, 132, 145, 28:63 152, 205 28:64 19n93, 96n12, 113, 115–19, 132 19n93, 94n8, 96n12 28:65 29 34, 215–19 29–30 9n52 29–32 189 29:1–23 85–87 29:3 215–16 29:5–6 181n133 29:8 9n52, 48n39 29:17–18 217–18 29:17–20 217 29:18 19n93 29:19–20 19n93 29:23 85 29:23–25 207–10 29:25 116, 139 29:26 19n93 19n93, 219 29:27 30 34 9n52, 52 30:1 30:1–5 9n52 30:1–10 19n93, 204–6 30:2 170 9n52, 19n93 30:3 30:5 9n52, 205n46 9n52, 119, 205n46 30:9 30:9–10 204

19n93, 170 30:10 30:15 55, 59–63, 90, 91, 143, 202 30:18 18n93 55, 59–63, 90, 91, 143, 30:19 202 31–34 30 31:9 9n52 31:9–11 19n93 31:10 147–48 31:10–11 19n93 31:12 9n52, 19n93 31:14–15 31 31:16 9n52 31:17–18 210–12 9n52, 19n93, 48n39 31:20 31:23 31 31:29 19n93 34, 212, 219–25 32 32:1 19n93 32:4 19n93, 220 19n93, 220 32:5 32:9 19n93 32:10 19n93 32:12 19n93 19n93, 220 32:15 32:16 19n93 19n93, 220–21 32:17 32:18 20n93 32:18–19 154 32:19 19n93 19n93, 20n93, 220, 221 32:20 32:21 20n93, 222–23 20n93, 222 32:22 32:23–25 20n93 20n93, 221–22 32:25 32:29 20n93 32:32–33 20n93 32:35 20n93 32:37–38 223–24 32:43 19n93 32:45 19n93 33:12 20n93 33:28 20n93 33:29 20n93 34:1–2 77 34:10 50 10–11, 20n93, 39n8, 56 34:10–12 34:11–12 157

Index of Ancient Sources

Joshua 10:24 83 23:16 139 Judges 2:12 29 29, 139 2:19 1 Samuel 7:3 170 17:46 101 2 Samuel 7:11 43n26 19:15 170 1 Kings 8:48 170 8:51 48n39 9:6 139 9:7 111–12 9:8–9 209n55 11:10 29 11:35 149n43 14:11 103n38 14:23 181–82 103n38, 182 16:4 21:24 103n38 22:28 148 2 Kings 9:10 103n38 9:36 103n38 14:6 160 16:3 145 17 25 17:10 181–2 17:13 67n100 17:17 145 18:26 95 95, 96n12 19:30 21:1–18 104 21:6 145 21:21 139 22 77–79 23:5 139 23:10 145 23:25 170

251

23:26–27 104 24:3–4 104 Isaiah 1:16 96n12 2:14 183 5:26–29 125n85 6:7 53n59 7:4 184 23:15 147 23:17 147 24:6 230n11 29:10 149n43 33:19 95 95, 96n12 37:31 40–66 180 41:29 81 44:26 184 44:28 184 50:1 179 51:10 83 51:16 54 57:5 183 59:21 54 61:1 179 Jeremiah 1, 40, 111 1:4–9 41 1:4–10 40, 53 20n93, 82 1:4–19 1:5 9n52 1:6 40 1:7 9n52, 18n93, 80 52–59, 87, 90, 91, 137, 1:7–9 143, 154, 231 1:8 66 9n52, 18n93, 52, 53n59, 1:9 80, 81, 82 1:9–10 82–83, 84 10n57, 56, 111 1:10 1:11–14 111 1:18 81 2–6 8 2–23 27 2:2–3 19n93, 181n133 165, 169n98, 186 2:3 2:4 169n98

252

Index of Ancient Sources

2:5 19n93, 20n93 2:6 224–25 2:7 19n93, 167, 181n133 2:8 224–25 2:11–12 220–21 2:14 169n98 18n93, 181–83 2:20 2:21 20n93 2:25 19n93 164, 169n98, 178, 186 2:26 20n93, 94n8 2:27 2:27–28 223–24 169n98, 224–25 2:28 2:30–31 220 2:31 169n98 2:32 20n93 163–64, 178 2:34 3:1 4, 29, 170n99, 179 3:1–4:4 191 165–72, 173, 178–79, 186, 3:1–4 229 3:1–5 170 3:6–11 170 3:6–12 169n9 170–71, 182 165–72, 173, 178–80 3:8 169n98, 170–71 3:12–13 3:13 19n93, 183 3:17 19n93 3:18 171 3:19 169 3:19–25 169–70n99 3:20 170 3:21 170n99 3:22 170 3:24 19n93 4:1–4 190–191 4:4 96n12, 189–93, 203, 204 4:10 218 4:16 18n93 5 83, 125–26 5:7 19n9 5:15–17 97 5:11–15 80–85 52, 53, 55, 80–85, 87, 90 5:14 5:15 95 5:15–17 93, 123–27, 132–33, 173, 192 5:18–19 126

19n93, 96n12, 118 172–73, 178, 186, 215–16, 229 5:23 192 5:24 126, 192–94, 203 5:28 19n93 5:29 172 6:1 20n93 19n93, 94n8, 96n12 6:2 18n93, 174n111 6:6 6:7 19n93, 94n8, 96n12 19n93, 181n133 6:9–10 6:10 18n93 6:11 20n93, 221–22 6:12 19n93 6:18–19 19n93 6:20 3 6:22–24 125n85 64, 115 7 7:3 9n52 42, 139 7:1–8:3 7:5–7 6 24, 29, 181n133 7:6 7:7 9n52 18n93, 29 7:9 7:15 171 7:16 40, 102 7:21 181n133 7:21–26 42–46 7:21–34 183 7:22 47 41, 49, 51, 55, 90, 146, 7:22–23 227–28 7:23 42–46, 50, 51, 92, 160, 231 7:24 106 7:25 50 7:26 106 7:29–34 18n93 108, 110, 137 7:30–34 115, 181n133 7:31 7:33 93, 97, 106–7, 109, 115, 132, 143 8:1–3 137 8:2 19n93, 96n12, 137–140, 153 8:4–10a 5 2n7, 3, 9n52, 12, 18n93 8:8

5:19 5:21–24

Index of Ancient Sources

8:8–9 3 8:8–10 8 8:13 3, 5 19n93, 20n93, 222–23 8:19 9:5 123 9:9–10 116 9:10 81 116, 118 9:11–15 9:15 93, 94n8, 115–19, 126, 132 9:19 18n93 9:20 20n93 19n93, 96n12 9:21 18n93, 190 9:25 10:3 19n93 10:16 19n93 10:25 116 11 48n39 41, 46–51, 143, 231 11:1–5 11:1–14 46 11:2 18n93 11:3–4 146 9n52, 48n39, 55, 90, 92, 11:3–5 181n133 11:4 43n26, 50n46 9n52, 48n39 11:6 11:7–8 50–51 19n93, 106 11:8 9n52, 29 11:10 11:11 19n93 40, 102 11:14 3, 20n93 11:15 18n93, 181n133 11:18–23 11:19 173–77, 179, 186 20n93, 176n120, 221 12:4 12:5–6 18n93 12:14 19n93 12:31 115 13:1–7 156 13:4 18n93 29, 139, 154 13:10 13:10–11 156 13:11 154–56, 181n133 13:14 18n93 13:21 94n8 14:1 101 14:9 19n93 40, 102 14:11

253

20n93, 102, 120 14:12 14:13 82 18n93, 181n133 14:14 14:15 82 14:20 19n93 14:21 19n93 15 40 15:1 16, 40 15:1–4 102 93, 97, 101–4, 102–3, 105, 15:3–4 114, 132 15:4 108 15:6 19n93 15:12–14 124 19n93, 96n12, 20n93, 222 15:14 18n93, 53n59, 181n133 15:16 15:18–19 124 93, 97, 107–8, 115 16:4 18n93, 183 16:6 16:10–13 116, 118 29, 139 16:11 93, 115–19, 123, 126, 132 16:13 19n93, 167, 181n133 16:18 16:19 19n93 16:20 19n93 18n93, 20n93, 96n12, 222 17:4 17:8–9 175 17:14 18n93 17:18–19 176n120 17:19–27 6, 24, 137, 140–44, 152–54, 160, 185 17:21–23 176n120 17:22 144n22 17:23 106 108, 110 19 19:1–20:6 128 19:4 116 19:4–5 129 19:5 115 97, 101, 108–10, 115, 132 19:7 19:7–8 101 19:7–9 93, 110 97, 108–10, 115, 129, 132 19:9 19:15 191n133 20 40 20:4 94n8 20:7 19n93 20:7–8 181n133

254

Index of Ancient Sources

20:10 20n93 18n93, 206–7, 219 21:5 21:1–10 41n20, 59 41, 55, 59–63, 90, 91, 92, 21:8–10 143, 202, 231 21:9 120 18n93, 181n133 21:10 22–24, 114n66 21:11–12 21:11–24:10 59 19n93, 94n8, 96n12 21:12 21:13 22 21:13–14 24 21:21 191 22:1–4 114n6 22:1–5 6, 11n58, 21–26, 210 22:3 181n133 22:6 22 22:3 18n93, 24 207–10, 212 22:8–9 22:13 147 22:18–19 230n11 22:24–30 19n93 19n93, 96n12 22:26 22:28 19n93, 96n12 22:28–30 230n11 23:6 20n93 23:14–15 18n93, 39n11 167, 217–18 23:15 19n93, 82, 217–18 23:17 23:21 18n93, 181n133 23:23 20n93 23:25–28 39n11 24 113 24:5–10 111 24:6 111 170, 199, 203, 215–16 24:7 24:9 93, 97, 103, 132 111–14, 115 24:9 25:4 106 25:6 29, 139 25:13 19n93 25:14 147 26 3, 18n93, 64, 68 26–29 85 9n52, 41, 55, 64–70, 90, 26:2 91, 92, 137, 154, 231 26:4 9n52 9n52, 181n133 26:10–16

26:11 68 26:12 67 26:13 9n52 19n93, 67, 181n133 26:15 26:17–19 68 26:19 9n52 26:24 79 27–29 53, 195 27:7 147 27:8 120 27:9 18n93 27:13 120 28 40 28–29 74–75, 87 28:2–4 73 28:3–17 71 28:8–9 58, 71–75, 86–87, 89, 90, 137, 153–54, 195, 231 4, 39n11 28:9 28:14 41, 48n39, 89–90, 93, 94, 97, 123, 127–29, 132–33, 137 28:68 19n93 29 129 29–32 199 29:1–7 18n93 29:1–23 88–89 19n93, 93, 97, 123, 29:5–7 129–33, 195, 198 29:7 73, 181n133 29:8–9 195 29:10 74 29:10–14 195–96 29:13 190 30, 195–200, 203, 213, 29:13–14 228, 231 29:14 9n52 85–89, 90, 195, 207, 231 29:15 29:16–20 108, 195 93, 97, 103, 108, 115, 132 29:18 88, 195 29:21–23 29:23 88–89, 90, 137, 199, 207, 228 41, 89–90, 137 29:32 29:24–32 74 29:29–31 199 30 106 9n52, 27, 74–75, 171 30–31

Index of Ancient Sources

30:1–3 19n93 9n52, 171, 205n46 30:3 30:6 94n8 30:8 147 30:8–9 19n93, 96n12 30:15 61 19n93, 184 30:18 30:19 61 30:21 18n93, 181n133, 184 31 106 19n93, 94n8, 96n12 31:2 31:2–9 171 19n93, 96n12 31:5 31:12 94n8 31:15 54 31:18 171 31:20 171 31:25 94n8 171, 205n46 31:27 9n52, 19n93 31:27–34 31:28 94n8 19n93, 154, 159–61, 185, 31:29–30 213 31:30 160 31:31 171 9n52, 198, 203 31:31–34 31:32 9n52, 43n26 19n93, 181n133 31:33 9n52, 77n141 31:34 31:38 184 32 210–11 32:2 210 32:6–15 158 32:16–44 158, 200n33 32:17–25 162 32:18–19 161–63 32:21 18n93 154, 157–59 32:21–22 32:23 19n93 32:24–26 121 145, 152 32:30–35 121, 137, 144–46, 153 32:35 32:36 120, 152 32:36–42 205 32:37 219 32:37–44 119–20 32:38 120 211, 231 32:38–40

255

32:39 94n8 32:39–40 120–21, 198–99, 200–3, 213, 228 32:40 190 32:41 93, 95, 119–21, 132, 145, 204 32:41–42 211 32:43–44 211 32–34 106 155n61, 211, 212n63 33:1–13 33:5 210–12 33:7 171 155, 181n133 33:9 33:14 171 33:26 19n93 34 105 34:8 147 34:9 147 34:10 147 34:12–22 106, 227 32n26, 47, 105, 146, 227 34:13 6, 147 34:13–17 4, 9n52, 19n93, 105, 106, 34:14 115, 137, 146–54, 167, 177, 185, 227 34:15 147 34:16 9n52 97, 103, 104–6, 108, 115, 34:17 123, 126, 132, 147, 152, 177–80 34:17–20 93 34:18–22 (LXX) 9n52 34:20 97, 101, 104–7, 115, 123, 126, 132, 152 29, 106 35:15 35:17 83 1, 11n58, 40, 77, 79, 128 36 9n52, 77n141 36:3 36:10 78 36:11–13 78 18n93, 181n133 36:17–18 36:23 78 18n93, 181n133 36:24 36:27–28 9n52 36:27–32 75 41, 55, 75–80, 90, 91, 92 36:28 18n93, 181n133, 230n11 36:30 1, 9n52, 18n93 36:32

256

Index of Ancient Sources

37:3–10 41n20, 59 37:16–17 41n20 38:2 120 59, 62–63 38:2–3 38:14–23 41n20 38:17 83 40:7 19n93 41:8 18n93 42 19n93, 41n20 42–43 40 42:1–6 18n93 42:1–43:7 121 42:16 129 42:17 122 42:18 113 93, 121–3, 132 42:16 42:17 120 42:22 120 43:1 19n93 44:3 116 44:5 106 44:7 83 44:8 113 44:12 113 44:13 120 44:14 181n133 44:18 96n12 44:22 96n12 44:23 19n93 19n93, 181n133 44:25 46–51 27, 184 48:40 94n8 18n93, 181n133 49:2 49:11 18n93 49:13 113 19n93, 181n133 50:6 50:19–20 171 50:25 19n93 19n93, 96n12 50:33 51:45–46 184 19n93, 184, 190 51:46 19n93, 181n133 51:63 Ezekiel 3:1–3 53n59 3:6 95 6:13 182–83 20:28 183

23:28 84 26:14 184 32:9 116 34:27 147 39:4 101 39:17–20 103 26:17 83 44:7 190 44:9 190 Hosea 4:13 181–83 9:15 96n12 Amos 2:9 95 8:10 183 9:4 62n89 4:11 16 Micah 1:2 149 3:8 149n43 Habakkuk 1:5–11 125n85 Haggai 2:5 149n43 Zechariah 7:14 116 Psalms 79:2–3 103 79:6 116 Job 2:11 83 Proverbs 30:6 64 6:30–31 164 Ruth 1:22 83 2:6 83 4:3 83

Index of Ancient Sources

Daniel 9:25 184 11:38 116 Ezra 8:17 54 83, 84 8:25 83, 84 10:14 10:17 83, 84 1 Chronicles 12:41 175 26:28 83 83, 84 29:17 2 Chronicles 7:19 137 7:20 111–12 25:4 160

Sirach 7:31 175 13:4 147

II. Other Ancient Documents Eshmunazor inscription (KAI 14) Lns. 8–12 112 95–96 Lns. 11–12 Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (VTE) § 4 65 65 § 10 99–100, 110 § 41 §§ 39–42 99, 110

257

Index of Modern Authors Barthélemy, Dominique ​76–77, 175 Baden, Joel S. ​30, 31 Barstad, Hans M. ​38, 55 Ben-Porat, Ziva ​14, 58 Berlin, Adele ​130–31, 181 Berman, Joshua ​135–36, 186 Carr, David M. ​17, 129 Carroll, Robert P. ​21, 27–28, 174, 177, 198 Chavel, Simeon ​147, 150 Dahood, Mitchell ​174 Davidson, R. ​39 Davis, Kipp ​41 Dearman, J. Andrew ​79 DeJong, Matthijs J. ​72–74 Dimant, Devorah ​41 Driver, S.  R. ​94 Duhm, Bernhard ​2–3, 5, 12, 20, 21, 81, 125, 155, 166, 176, 185 Fishbane, Michael ​6, 12, 15, 141, 142–43, 149, 161, 162, 168, 178, 186 Fischer, Georg ​8, 48, 62, 64, 94, 102, 107, 108, 109, 119, 126, 128, 155, 183, 184 Gladson, Jerry A. ​143–44 Glanz, Oliver ​72, 197 Goldstein, Ronnie ​71, 85, 121, 128 Habel, N. ​40 Halpern, Baruch ​102 Halbertal, Moshe ​231 Hardy, Humphrey Hill II ​43 Heider, George C. ​144 Hermann, Siegried ​43 Hibbard, J.  T. ​68 Hillers, Delbert R. ​93, 94, 103 Hobbs, T.  R. ​167 Holladay, William L. ​4–5, 7, 12, 21, 25, 40, 48, 83, 107, 109, 110, 128, 129, 155, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173–75, 176, 181, 182, 183, 190, 195, 220–24 Hossfeld, F.-L. ​70, 127, 172

Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor ​135 Hyatt, J. Philip ​3–4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 20, 107, 121 Irwin, William ​15, 16 Isbell, Charles D. ​78 Janzen, J. Gerald ​49, 85, 86 Knoppers, Gary N. ​25 Köckert, Matthias ​54 Kugel, James ​6, 22, 186 Lemche, N.  P. ​152 Leuchter, Mark ​7–8, 12, 21, 148–49 Levinson, Bernard M. ​12, 13, 31–32, 38, 65, 91, 138, 150, 160 Lincoln, Bruce ​32, 153, 161, 194, 232 Lundbom, Jack R. ​1, 6 Maier, Christl ​6, 42, 140, 152, 185 Mayes, A. D. H. ​125, 158 Meyer, I. ​70, 127 McKane, William ​4, 12, 21, 26, 60, 79, 81, 102, 168, 169, 170, 191, 195, 196 Milgrom, Jacob ​45 Mowinckel, Sigmund ​2–3, 5, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 51, 60, 69, 78, 85, 107, 121, 176 Nelson, Richard D. ​94 Nicholson, E. W. ​20–21, 27, 71, 74, 78, 79, 86, 102, 176, 195 Noth, Martin ​29–30 Otto, Eckart ​8–12, 41, 42, 43, 56, 57, 64, 66–68, 77, 137, 144, 185, 196, 197–98, 205n46, 219–20, 225 Pardee, Dennis ​70, 144 Parke-Taylor ​63, 113 Perri, Carmela ​14, 149 Rofé, Alexander ​3, 20, 21, 24, 26, 62, 69, 70, 85 Rom-Shiloni, Dalit ​5, 8–9, 11, 43, 61, 116, 130, 215n3 Römer, Thomas ​21 Rudolph, Wilhelm ​63, 81, 107, 169

Index of Modern Authors

Sarna, Nahum ​150, 151 Schmid, Konrad ​13, 78, 184 Schmidt, Werner H. ​53, 54, 55 Schmuttermayr, Georg ​82 Seeligmann, I. L. ​21, 24, 85 Seitz, Christopher R. ​40, 93, 99, 125, 158 Sharp, Carolyn J. ​21, 40, 42, 53, 69, 70, 72, 131 Silver, Edward ​8, 28, 183 Smith, Jonathan Z. ​31, 153, 186, 228–29 Sommer, Benjamin ​5, 12–14, 17, 26, 49, 54, 94, 113, 179–80, 197, 228–29 Stackert, Jeffrey ​10, 38, 39, 55, 56, 57, 58, 138, 198 Steiner, Richard C. ​83 Steymans, Hans Ulrich ​93, 99, 100–101, 110, 112–13, 125–26

259

Stipp, Hermann-Josef ​28, 86, 191, 192 Thiel, Winfried ​3, 5, 12, 20, 21, 24, 51, 62, 63, 70, 80–81, 85–86, 102, 107, 121, 141, 153, 171, 176, 191, 196 Tigay, Jeffrey H. ​93, 94 Tov, Emanuel ​89 Wanke, Gunther ​127, 128 Weber, Max ​229 Weinfeld, Moshe ​25, 26, 28, 44, 45, 62, 64, 88, 93, 94, 98, 107, 108, 110, 114, 144, 157, 161, 183 Weippert, Helga ​4, 6, 21, 25, 130, 150 Wells, Bruce ​138 Zenger, Erich ​172

Index of Subjects allusion – nature of  ​12–20, 28–29, 33–35 – markers of ​14–15 – vs. echo ​13–14 – modern vs. ancient ​15–17 authority – nature of ​31–33, 227–32 Babylon – conquest by ​61–62, 73, 115, 120, 121, 159 – defection to ​59 – exile in ​41n19, 85–87, 111, 114, 119, 129–32, 195, 198 – Neo-Babylonian Empire ​121, 129, 131, 133, 202 – prophets in ​87–88 – submission to ​39n10, 63, 75, 91, 122, 128 – yoke of ​48n39, 127–29 Book of Consolation ​20, 27, 28n120, Book of the Covenant. See Covenant Code canon ​31–33, 135, 153, 186, 231 circumcision. See heart circumcision classic ​31, 33, 132, 136, 186, 228–29, 231 covenant – conditional ​6 – curses ​34, 46–48, 51, 97, 105, 107, 114, 119, 120, 123, 206, 217, 228 – Decalogue as ​77 – new ​34, 119–20, 171, 195, 202, 213, 228 – obedience to ​5, 9, 91, 178, 199, 200–06, 213 – and relationship between God and Israel ​155–56 – violation of ​5, 34, 97, 104, 105, 119, 120, 123, 127, 129, 132, 178–79, 199 Covenant Code ​49–50, 92n189, 163, 164, 165n81, 187n150

Decalogue ​40, 44, 45n31, 50n46, 144n22, 183 – recopying of ​75, 77, 91 – Sabbath law in ​141–42 – transgenerational punishment in ​ 160–63 Deuteronomic source of the Pentateuch (D) ​29–31 Deuteronomistic History (DtrH) ​3, 6, 25, 26, 30, 53, 61, 104, 112, 145, 181–83 Deuteronomistic Jeremiah (DtrJ) ​21–26, – phraseology ​21, 23–24, 25, 28–29, 42, 46, 60–61, 69–70, 78–79, 113, 139, 158, 161, 171 – Persian date ​230 documentary hypothesis ​10–11, 50n46 echo ​13–14, 17, 29, 81, 219, 222, 225 Egypt – deliverance from ​157, 159, 193, 206–7, 216 – iron furnace of ​48n39 – Judean refugees in ​111, 114, 122–23 – slavery in ​147 Elohistic source of the Pentateuch (E) ​10, 50–51, 77, 91, 157 Eshmunazor ​95–96, 112 Esarhaddon, Vassal treaty of. See Vassal treaty of Esarhaddon (VTE) exile ​111, 112n61, 114, 116–18, 131–32, 196, 199, 210 – duration of ​74 – of northern kingdom ​170–71 exodus ​43, 157, 159, 177, 193 Ezekiel ​2, 166n86 false prophecy. See prophecy, false heart circumcision ​189–90, 202–3, 204 Hananiah ​40, 71–74, 87, 128, 195 Horeb ​44, 45, 49, 50, 55n63, 135, 143, 187n150, 202

Index of Subjects

inner-biblical interpretation ​6, 13, 198 Israel. See northern kingdom Jehoiakim ​27n118, 76, 78–79, 230n11 Jeremiah – as a literary persona ​177 – composite authorship of ​20–29 – historicity of ​7 Jerusalem – carrying burdens into ​142–43 – competing prophecies concerning ​68 destruction of ​6, 59, 63, 127, 141n15, 144, 145, 152, 154, 206, 210–12 See also Judah: destruction of – judgment against ​97, 122, 123 – restoration of ​141n15, 184 Josiah ​78–79, 170 Judah – destruction of ​6, 21, 24, 34, 97, 102, 115, 121, 123, 132, 144, 152, 154 lament ​28n120, 102, 116, 176n120, 177 Manasseh ​102, 104, 114 memory variant ​17, 47, 58n75, 160, 201, 224 metaphor ​34, 156, 163–80, 186–87, 189–91, 193 Moses – Jeremiah likened to ​40–42, 55–59, 63, 65, 66, 80, 82, 90–92, 137, 143, 144, 185 – revelation after, see prophecy: post-​ Mosaic Nebuchadnezzar / ​Nebuchadrezzar ​88, 135–36 Northern Kingdom ​25n107, 169–72 obedience – to authority ​32 – to D ​38, 65, 67, 77, 90–92, 136, 213 – future ​34, 120, 189–206, 216 – to future commands (E) ​49–50 – to God ​9, 37, 45, 177 – to prophets ​44, 50, 64, 67, 91, 92, 183 – reward for ​24, 156 Oracles against the Nations (OAN) ​27, 28n120, 113n65, 184

261

Pentateuch ​9, 185 poetic oracles ​2–4, 7, 8, 12, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 74, 123, 166, 171, 177, 186, 191 poetic parallelism ​22, 54, 160, 176n120, 192n11 post-Deuteronomistic additions ​83, 86n178, 141n15, 171, 189, 206 pre-Deuteronomistic poetry ​27–28, 34, 123–27, 132–33, 135, 163–80, 186, 187, 189–94 pre-Deuteronomistic narrative ​27, 79–80, 91, 123, 127–33 Priestly literature in the Pentateuch (P) ​ 9–10, 45n31, 166 prophecy – false ​37, 42, 53, 54–55, 57, 58, 59, 71–75, 80–90, 92, 129, 137, 195, 196 – theory of ​33, 37 – post-Mosaic ​10, 37–39, 41–80, 90–92, 145–46, 154, 185, 228 – verification criterion for ​38–39, 41, 55, 57, 58, 68, 73, 75, 90, 137, 153, 195 repentance ​70, 78, 85, 168–71, 179, 191, 199 Shapan ​78–79 Septuagint (LXX) ​1, 9n52, 48n41, 48n42, 50, 76–77, 79, 83, 85, 86n176, 88n183, 89, 90, 109n151, 125n84, 126n93, 126n94, 128n101, 148, 153n54, 154n59, 167, 195n15 Sabbath ​137, 140–44, 152–53, 185 Second Isaiah ​13n64, 179–80, 228–29 temple ​64, 66–68, 106, 137, 145 Tophet ​106, 108, 115 transgenerational punishment ​159–63, 210, 213 Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (VTE) ​38, 65, 97, 99–101, 105, 107, 110, 127, 229 Yahwistic source of the Pentateuch (J) ​ 10n57, 56n69 Zedekiah ​59, 105, 115, 153n54, 177–78, 206–7