Prophecy and Foreign Nations: Aspects of the Role of the Nations in the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.reihe, 135, 135) 9783161615962, 9783161616099, 3161615964

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by

Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

135

Prophecy and Foreign Nations Aspects of the Role of the “Nations” in the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel

edited by

Hannes Bezzel, Uwe Becker, and Matthijs de Jong

Mohr Siebeck

HANNES BEZZEL, born 1975; 2007 Dr. theol. Göttingen; 2010 Juniorprofessor of Old Testament at Friedrich Schiller University Jena; 2014 Habilitation Jena; since 2015 Professor of Old Testament at Friedrich Schiller University Jena. orcid.org/0000-0002-2117-4005 UWE BECKER, born 1961; 1989 Dr. theol. Bonn; 1996 Habilitation Göttingen; since 2003 Professor of Old Testament at Friedrich Schiller University Jena. MATTHIJS DE JONG, born 1977; 2006 Dr. theol. Leiden; 2006 Bible translator and Biblical scholar at the Netherlands Bible Society; since 2016 Head of Translation and Exegesis at the Netherlands Bible Society; since 2022 endowed professor of Bible Translation at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

ISBN 978-3-16-161596-2 / eISBN 978-3-16-161609-9 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-161609-9 ISSN 1611-4914 / eISSN 25689-8367 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com 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 and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen, printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface In 2016, the editors of this volume initiated a research group under the auspices of the European Association for Biblical Studies (EABS). This group devoted itself to highlighting various aspects concerning “Prophecy and Foreign Nations” with respect to the books of the three so-called major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The present volume contains some of the papers read and discussed at the research group’s sessions at the EABS conferences, which were held in 2016 in Leuven, 2017 in Berlin, and 2018 in Helsinki. Of these three meetings, the first one dealt with the book of Isaiah, the second with the book of Jeremiah, and the third with the book of Ezekiel. We look back gratefully on those days of intense scholarly discussion in a collegial and amicable atmosphere – and we look forward to the days when it hopefully will be possible again to meet not only digitally but in real life – !1! -'-'/'. Unfortunately, the book has become less voluminous than we had planned. Not all participants of the meetings were able to hand in their paper for publication, and therefore important aspects of our topic and our discussion are not, or not sufficiently, represented. Hence one might argue that the book cannot keep what its ambitious title “Prophecy and Foreign Nations” promises. But a volume presenting collected essays would never claim to exhaust a subject anyway. Its purpose is rather to address certain aspects of it and to stimulate further discussion and research, which has been our primary task from the beginning. At the same time, by now the above-mentioned conferences lie several years in the past, and of course research has since moved on. Several reasons have led to a significant delay in the publication, and we cannot but apologise wholeheartedly. However, we are convinced that none of the articles has become outdated in any respect. “Prophecy and Foreign Nations” is a topic which still does not belong to the over-researched fields in Old Testament  / Hebrew Bible Studies, so it is our conviction that this volume contains something to contribute to the present stage of research. Our gratitude goes to the EABS, for accepting the proposal for our research group, to the publishers of Mohr Siebeck, especially to Tobias Stäbler and Markus Kirchner, for their patience, and to the editors of the series FAT for accepting our manuscript, to Simon Büchner, Dr. Sarah Köhler, Dr. André Zempelburg, and

VI

Preface

Johannes Seidel for their editorial work with this book, and to Martina Boltres and Julius Sperling for preparing the indices. All’s well that ends well. Erfurt / Jena / Leiden, October 2021

Hannes Bezzel  Uwe Becker Matthijs de Jong

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V

Hannes Bezzel / Uwe Becker / Matthijs de Jong Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen Isaiah 13–23 and Its Text-Immanent Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Uwe Becker Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Burkard M. Zapff Jes 63,1–6 und das Jesajabuch – Die Integration eines sperrigen Textes . . . . 45 Eric Peels From Egypt to Babylon, or from Elam to Moab? Queries Concerning the Order of the Oracles against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah . . . . . . 59 Matthijs J. de Jong Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Else K. Holt A Prophet to the Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Rannfrid I. Lasine Thelle Moab as a Mirror for Judah? Echoes of Jeremiah 1–20 in Jeremiah 48 . . . . . . 111 Hannes Bezzel When, How, and Why Did Jeremiah Become a “Prophet to the Nations”? Jer 46:2–12 (MT) as a Test Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Miklós Kőszeghy Babylon – Nabel der Welt in Jer 50–51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Andrew Langley The Vindication of YHWH in Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations . . . . . . . 163

VIII

Table of Contents

Lydia Lee The Tyrian King in MT and LXX Ezek 28:12b–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 R. Sofia Salo The Masoretic Sondergut in Ezekiel 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Index of Selected Biblical Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Introduction HANNES BEZZEL / UWE BECKER / MATTHIJS DE JONG Over the last decades, research on the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible has undergone a major change. While, in the wake of 19th century philosophy and hermeneutics, scholars had been interested first and foremost in the “historical” prophet as a religious genius and in this person’s “original” utterings, since the second half of the 20th century scholarly interest has turned to “the prophets” as literature. Of course, this does not mean that there were no longer debates over the question of the “originality” of certain texts or over the specific character of the “historical” Israelite and Judahite prophets – quite the opposite. But these discussions notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that the phenomenon of the prophetic book as a literary genre sui generis has drawn more and more attention.1 This holds true for synchronic research with its interest in the so-called final form of the book as well as for the diachronically interested analysis of the book’s literary history. In this context, especially for scholars interested in diachronic research, the comparison with the extra-biblical Ancient Near Eastern corpora of prophecies or divinatory texts2 has become an important issue. The questions concerning the origins of the biblical prophetic books and the emergence of theologically reasoned prophecy of doom in particular have been rethought against this backdrop.3 Accordingly, the focus of scholarly attention has been mainly on the interrelation between salvation prophecy and a theology of judgment. This fact is anything but surprising, since the main interest of Christian theology in the prophets has always been in interpreting the texts addressing “Israel”. Compared with that, the – often unpleasant – Oracles concerning foreign Nations have passed a little bit from view, even though these texts take up a large part of the biblical prophetic tradition. As a consequence, in a recent publication on the topic, Martin Sweeney regarded it as a worthy task to try a fresh “attempt at stimulating research on the Oracles concerning the Nations”.4 Responding to this stimulus has been one of the goals of the EABS research group “Prophecy and Foreign Nations”. It has been our intention to investigate 1

Cf. BECKER, Wiederentdeckung. Cf. the groundbreaking study by NISSINEN, Potential. 3 Exemplarily for the (German) discussion of the past years, see the debate between Joachim Jeremias and Reinhard Kratz: JEREMIAS, Rätsel, and KRATZ, Rätsel. 4 SWEENEY, Foreword, xvii. 2

2

Hannes Bezzel / Uwe Becker / Matthijs de Jong

the role of “foreign nations” in the books of the three so-called major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and, in so doing, to approach the current discussion of the literary history of the prophetic books from a different angle. The leading questions have been: – What is the literary and theological interrelation of the Oracles concerning foreign Nations with Ancient Near Eastern (salvation) prophecy on the one hand and with Israelite prophecy of doom as represented in the prophetic books on the other? – Was there a fixed genre of “prophecy concerning foreign nations”, and if so, what was its Sitz im Leben? – How can the intertextual relationship between the respective passages of the several biblical books be determined? – Which processes of re-reading and rewriting the tradition finally led to a kind of uniform prophetic image which is reflected by the so-called tripartite eschatological pattern5 of the prophetic books? The contributors to the three session meetings at the conferences in Leuven 2016, Berlin 2017, and Helsinki 2018 took different approaches in the engagement with these leading questions. Synchronic as well as diachronic questions were brought to the fore, text-critical and redaction-critical problems were treated as well as questions concerning literary composition and reader response. As a result, in this volume meticulous case studies stand side by side with articles which take a broader perspective. Though sometimes proceeding from different general propositions and therefore differing in their exegetical conclusions, the several contributions, knowingly or not, comment on and complement each other. Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen starts by focussing on the text-immanent reader of the book of Isaiah. According to him, Isa 13–23 can be read as the centre of the entire book. Whereas Isa 6–12 and 36–39 deal with the Aramean and Assyrian crisis, chapters 13 and 21 speak of Babylon. In so doing, they create something like an invisible centre, since the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, is not mentioned explicitly but only retrospectively, as an overcome crisis, in Isa 40–66, which van Wieringen calls “the second part of the book” (22). Thus, the corpus of Oracles concerning foreign Nations serves as a bridge between the different parts of the prophetic book as well as between their narrated times, i. e., the Assyrian, Babylonian, and the Persian Period. Uwe Becker traces the origins of the Oracles against the Nations in Isa 13– 23 back to the prophet Isaiah himself: The prophet’s announcements against 5 The idea of a “tripartite eschatological pattern,” including the succession of prophecy against the own people, prophecy against foreign nations, and salvation prophecy for the own people, probably was brought up first by Georg Fohrer, see FOHRER, Grundstrukturen, 7. Whether this structure can be found in which prophetic book and how it might be interpreted, is a matter of discussion, though.

Introduction

3

Israel and Aram in Isa 8:1–4 and 17:1.3* – still without a theological interpretation – form the basis for the later steps in the development of Isa 13–23. After the destruction of Jerusalem these announcements would have been transferred to Judah (Isa 8:5–8) and interpreted as a divine punishment for the sins of the people. A further step is marked by the anti-Assyrian prophecies in Isa 10:5–11* + 14,24–25a: They are not simply a political announcement that Assyria will fall but reflect – in a meta-historical way – the power of YHWH in history: He is able to use foreign nations as an instrument of punishment (10:5) but also limits the power of these nations when Jerusalem/Zion is affected (Isa 10,11* + 14:24–25a; see also Isa 29:1–4 + 29:1.3.8). Subsequently, Becker reasons, the word against Assyria was divided by the prophecy against Babylon in 13:1a.17–22. The third contribution concerned with the book of Isaiah turns to the theologically difficult and reception-historically influential pericope about Edom in Isa 63:1–6. Burkard M. Zapff analyses the text diachronically as well as synchronically. The passage appears to be a classic example of Fortschreibungs-literature, marked by a dense network of references throughout the entire book of Isaiah. According to Zapff, the rare expression of a “day of revenge” may serve as a diachronic guideline. A development can be detected which begins with the “day of YHWH” in Isa 13:6 and 21:9, extends over Isa 34:8 and 61:2, and culminates in Isa 63:4. Furthermore, Isa 63:5 takes up 59:16. All in all, the pericope proves to be one of the youngest pieces of the prophetic book. Synchronically read, however, the words about Edom are not God’s last word concerning the nations. This will be Isa 66:18–24. The second part of this volume deals with the book of Jeremiah and opens with an article by Hendrik G. L. Peels. One of the central issues regarding the “nations” and Jeremiah is the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek version of the book. While in JerMT the Oracles concerning foreign Nations constitute the final section of the book, in JerLXX they are to be found in the middle, directly following the pericope about the cup of wrath in Jer 25. Furthermore, the respective oracles themselves are presented in different order in the two versions of the book. Which of them represents the older is an intensely debated question. Contrary to the majority of present scholars, Peels advocates the view that JerMT represents the older compositional structure, at least regarding the relative position of the separate oracles to each other. As an argument he brings forward the oracles concerning Egypt, Elam, and Babylon. While the prominent placement of Egypt in JerMT befits well the role of this global player in the wider context of the book, the priorisation of Elam in JerLXX could be explained by the political situation in the second half of the 4th century around the collapse of the Persian Empire. Matthijs J. de Jong focuses on Jer 28:8–9, a text commonly considered as proof for the existence of “prophecies against the nations” as a distinct kind of prophecy in the late monarchic era. De Jong, however, argues that Jer 28 does

4

Hannes Bezzel / Uwe Becker / Matthijs de Jong

not testify to a subgenre of prophecy, but rather to the appearance of foreign nations in prophetic oracles in general, in which they figure as “the enemy” who will be trampled down. As De Jong understands Jer 28:8–9, it is not Jeremiah, but Hananiah who prophesies “war” – for Babylonia. And it is Jeremiah who prophesies “peace” – again for Babylonia. In 28:1–14*, which in De Jong’s view belongs to the earliest narrative traditions relating to Jeremiah, the prophet Jeremiah is depicted as announcing Babylonia’s good fortune, thereby implying that Judah’s survival depends on submission. During a much later, redactional stage, Babylonia’s ruination became part of the preaching ascribed to Jeremiah. It is in this redactional sphere that we can situate the Oracles concerning the Nations. Accordingly, they constitute a literary development, not a subclass of oral prophecy. Two contributions to this volume, Else K. Holt’s, and Hannes Bezzel’s, deal with the special designation of Jeremiah as a “prophet to the nations” in Jer 1:5. Both articles, however, approach the topic from a different methodological starting point. Else K. Holt works synchronically. She points out that the “nations” in the book of Jeremiah fulfil four different functions which are equally mirrored by the respective roles of Israel. Accordingly, Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations goes hand in hand with YHWH as a God for all nations, and thus comes at least close to an already monotheistic theology. Rannfrid I. Thelle takes a close look at the passage concerning Moab in Jer 48. From the perspective of a synchronic reading of the Masoretic Text and with a broader view at the canonical images of Moab, she asks for the role of Judah’s eastern neighbour in the concept of the book. The important observations that the length of the chapter signifies its weight within the OAN6 corpus, and that there are numerous links with the pericopes about the foe from the north in Jer 4; 6; and 10 lead her to the conclusion that Moab, the close relative and often arch enemy, serves as a mirror for Judah’s fate. All in all, the relationship between Judah and Moab, and, using the metaphor of the mirror, Judah’s self-relation, stays ambivalent. In Jer 48, elements of irony and mockery go hand in hand with empathy and even pity. With this case study and by means of applying the leading metaphor of the mirror7 to the OAN, Thelle provides an option for rethinking the theological function of these texts in general beyond their traditional interpretation as implicitly salvific for Judah according to an assumed tripartite eschatological pattern. A diachronic approach is taken by Hannes Bezzel. As Else Holt, he proceeds from Jeremiah’s title as a “prophet for the nations” (-'#+'1) in Jer 1:5. With this designation defined as a secondary addition to the call narrative, whose aim it is to include the corpus of the OAN into the prophetic book, the question arises 6 7

In the following, OAN be the abbreviation for Oracles against the Nations. Cf., regarding the book of the Twelve, HAGEDORN, Die Anderen.

Introduction

5

how the status of those pieces which in the Masoretic version are to be found in Jer 46–51 may be defined in redaction-critical terms. As a test case, Bezzel turns to the first oracle concerning Egypt in Jer 46:1–12 and analyses the motifs and the vocabulary of the poem. As Thelle observes in the case of the Moab oracle, he exhibits many references to the first part of the book of Jeremiah, which, from a redaction-critical point of view, reach into two different literary strata. At the same time, the pericope is marked by the usage of special vocabulary when it comes to the description of weaponry. Parallels to this terminology can be found in what one might call “late” texts of the Hebrew Bible. Consequently, contrary to a current trend in Jeremiah research to ascribe all or most of this poem as well as of the OAN in general to a historical prophet Jeremiah, Bezzel provides two alternatives. Either the double poem can be regarded as literary unitary. Then, its language points to a dating rather later than the 6th century. Or one carves out a literary kernel which might be found in Jer 46: 5a, 6b, 7, (8b), 12, representing an “un-Jeremian” (mocking) lament about an Egyptian defeat, possibly the one at Carchemish in 605. In both cases the starting questions, when, how, and why Jeremiah was made a “prophet for the nations” need further consideration. Miklós Kőszeghy asks for the provenance and historical setting of the oracles concerning Babylon in Jer 50–51MT. He denies the option of ascribing the corpus or parts of it to the prophet Jeremiah or, more precisely, to the same person that is responsible for the major part of Jer 1–25, not least because of the different general view on the Mesopotamian metropolis here and there. Recapitulating what is known of the history of Babylon in the Persian Period, however, leads him to the conclusion that it is not possible to unambiguously provide a historical setting which would befit the scenarios depicted in the two chapters. At the same time, Kőszeghy argues that the text displays a historical memory not too far off the city’s prosperity in the 6th century. All in all, he distinguishes four strata of tradition: 1) Older war oracles such as Jer 51:17–20 which predated 612 BCE; 2)  pieces announcing retribution for what Babylon had done to Jerusalem in 586; 3) quotations from other parts of the book of Jeremiah and the prophetic literature as a whole; and 4) pieces rendering the anti-Babylonian perspective at the Judean court soon before the catastrophe, as it is literarily represented by Hananiah in Jer 27–28. Another three contributions apply themselves to the book of Ezekiel. As Else Holt does with respect to the book of Jeremiah, Andrew Langley asks for the literary and theological function of the OAN in the book of Ezekiel. Langley builds his theses mainly on two observations: The first one is that the block of OAN is embedded between the announcement that the temple will be demolished in Ezek 24:21 and its fulfilment in 33:21. Not totally unlike Thelle’s interpretation, Langley claims that the communicative purpose of the OAN was to make the exiles, as the implicit addressees, understand their own hybris and transgression. Although he does not use the metaphor, this seems to be not far from the idea of

6

Hannes Bezzel / Uwe Becker / Matthijs de Jong

mirroring the fate of the other. Langley’s second point is the recognition formula, which occurs throughout the entire material, and here “in the context of both judgement and salvation” (163). From this, Langley develops the theology of the OAN in the book of Ezekiel as vindication of YHWH by means of a dialectical relationship between justice and mercy. As in the second part of the volume, the broad perspective on the OAN corpus in Ezekiel as a whole is accompanied by two contributions which focus on exegetical and philological details. Lydia Lee and Reettakaisa Sofia Salo both deal with the differing textual traditions of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Lydia Lee focuses on the dirge over the Tyrian king in Ezek 28:11–19, and here especially on the description of the king in 28:11b–15. In a combination of textcritical and literary-critical methodology, mostly by comparing the MT with the Old Greek as it is prominently represented by Papyrus 967, Lee identifies some additions and reconstructs an earlier Hebrew stage of the pericope. This textcritical and literary-critical decision notwithstanding, it is the MT which had preserved the original understanding of the passage. In v. 14, it compares the Tyrian king with a cherub, a divine being, whereas in LXX he has secondarily become a mortal being by turning the point of comparison towards the direction of the high priest. The last article in the book draws a line to its first section. Reettakaisa Sofia Salo treats Ezek 35, the oracle against Seïr, and thus touches on the topic of Burkard M. Zapff ’s contribution about Isa 63. Her main interest, however, lies in the relationship between the different textual traditions. By carefully comparing all extant versions of Ezek 35:6–15, she is able to provide a nuanced interpretation of the evidence. On the one hand, in direct comparison with the Old Greek, the MT gives clear evidence of pre-Masoretic redactional activity after the time when EzekLXX was translated into Greek. On the other hand, in the case of Ezek 35:7 a scribal error or even the replacement of an incomprehensible formulation might be considered. Thus, the short passage gives witness to both the authoritative status of the text and the possibility of altering this text even by omission of at least small parts of it if found necessary.

Bibliography BECKER, UWE, Die Wiederentdeckung des Prophetenbuches. Tendenzen und Aufgaben der gegenwärtigen Prophetenforschung, BThZ 21 (2004), 30–60. HAGEDORN, ANSELM C., Die Anderen im Spiegel. Israels Auseinandersetzung mit den Völkern in den Büchern Nahum, Zefanja, Obadja und Joel, BZAW 414, Berlin/Boston 2011. JEREMIAS, JÖRG, Das Rätsel der Schriftprophetie, ZAW 125 (2013), 93–117. KRATZ, REINHARD GREGOR., Das Rätsel der Schriftprophetie. Eine Replik, ZAW 125 (2013), 635–639.

Introduction

7

NISSINEN, MARTTI, Das kritische Potential in der altorientalischen Prophetie, in: MATTHIAS KÖCKERT  / MARTTI NISSINEN (Ed.), Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel, FRLANT 201, Göttingen 2003, 1–32. SWEENEY, MARVIN A., Foreword: The Oracles Concerning the Nations in the Prophetic Literature, in: ELSE K. HOLT  / HYUN CHUL PAUL KIM  / ANDREW MEIN (Ed.), Concerning the Nations. Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, LHBOTS 612, London et al. 2015, xvii–xx.

Isaiah 13–23 and Its Text-Immanent Reader ARCHIBALD L. H. M. VAN WIERINGEN Chapters 13–23, a highly complex corpus in the Book of Isaiah, are known as the “Oracles against the Nations.” In this contribution I would like to examine this text corpus from the text-immanent reader’s perspective. The reader in the text, the text-immanent reader, is “manipulated” by the text.1 For a text corpus in a book, this has to be done in two ways: from within and from without. First, I will focus on the text-immanent reader as he is guided by the text of Isa 13–23. Next, I will discuss the position of the text-immanent reader as directed by the broader context of Isa 13–23 as a part of the Book of Isaiah as a whole.

Part I: The Text-Immanent Reader’s Perspective from Within 1. The Local Aspects in Isaiah 13–23 First of all, the text-immanent reader in Isa 13–23 is influenced by the order of the nations mentioned in the text, creating the local aspects of the Oracles against the Nations. Based upon the headings, Isa 13–23 contains two movements, both starting with Babel and ending with Jerusalem. The movement from Babel to Jerusalem is made twice in order to intensify this movement. These two movements can be schematised as follows:2 distant East

nearby East

distant West

final destination

first movement

Isa 13–14: Babel

Isa 15–16: Moab Isa 17–18: Damascus

Isa 19: Egypt

[Isa 20: Jerusalem]

second movement

Isa 21:1–10: Babel

Isa 21:11: Dumah (Edom) Isa 21:12–16: Arab

transitional text

Isa 22: Jerusalem Isa 23: Tyre

Fig. 1: Movements in Isa 13–23 1

For the idea of the “text-immanent reader” see: VAN WIERINGEN, Reader-Oriented Unity, 3–7; VAN WIERINGEN, Psalm 114, 46–48 and the literature mentioned there. 2 VAN WIERINGEN, Reader-Oriented Unity, 86–87. Cf. also: TULL, Isaiah 1–39, especially 257.

10

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

Both movements begin in the distant East and go via the nearby East to the final destination Jerusalem. In both movements, the distant East is Babel. It is true that chapter 14 mentions Assur, but it discusses Assur under the heading concerning Babel. This is expressed syntactically in Isa 14:24–27 by using the qatal-form (! š#! ’')3C™ f’ –1 (the LORD) had sworn, indicating that what is happening to Babel, previously happened to Assur. From the distant East, the movement approaches Jerusalem by mentioning the nearby East. The first time, Moab and Damascus, the capital of Aram, are mentioned; the second time Dumah and Arab. Dumah is a toponym for Edom or for some place in Edom. Because in the oracle concerning Arab, Dedan and Tema are mentioned, places which are considered as belonging to Edom, the indication Arab is parallel to the indication Dumah.3 After mentioning the (distant and nearby) East, the distant West receives its place in the first movement through the mentioning of Egypt. The couple EastWest, with Jerusalem in the middle, seems to suggest that foreign nations are surrounding the capital city Jerusalem. However, such a West is absent in the second movement. A pincer movement has not been completed. Jerusalem forms the final destination of the movements. The first movement is accomplished in chapter 20. This chapter, however, does not have a heading mentioning Jerusalem, parallel to the other headings in chapters 13–23. Nevertheless, this chapter is very remarkable because it is the single narrative text amid all the discursive texts in Isa 13–23. Because chapter 20 has no heading, but is nevertheless recognizable as a sub-unit, it indicates that the first movement, although having reached Jerusalem, is still open-ended. The eventual and final destination, however, is 0L' šO%– ' —E the Valley of the Vision, indicating Jerusalem, in chapter 22. Chapter 23, concerning Tyre, is a transitional text leading on to chapters 24– 25. Because in this text, Tarshish is mentioned, which has to be located in the western Mediterranean, I consider this text as parallel to the West-element in the first movement. This double order of toponyms means that, for the text-immanent reader, the two topographical poles of Babel and Jerusalem are in focus. Because of the double movement and because of the nearby East, the tension between these two topographical poles is intensified. Assur is absent in the headings, but is nevertheless present in the text. From a topographical point of view, Egypt is not part of a movement from Babel to Jerusalem, but is nevertheless present in the text, even with a separate Egyptheading. For the text-immanent reader, this implies that Assur and Egypt must have something to do with the main movement from Babel to Jerusalem.

3

See also: DELITZSCH, Jesaia, 261–62.

11

Isaiah 13–23 and Its Text-Immanent Reader

2. The Temporal Aspects in Isaiah 13–23 Next, the text-immanent reader is influenced by the temporal elements in Isa 13–23. In the scheme below, these elements are outlined.4 end of end of Hezekiah end of Babel / Assur Ahaz nowmoment

end of nowSyromoment Ephraimite War

end of open SyroEphraimite War

first movement

13:1– 14:23

15:1– 16:12

17:1–18:7 19:1–25 as well?

second movement

21:1–10

14:24– 27

14:28– 32

16:13– 14

20:1–6 21:11– 12 21:13– 17 22:1–25 transitional text

23:1–18

Fig. 2: Temporal elements in Isa 13–23

Isa 13–23 can be read as a journey back in time. The formal headings already suggest a past perspective and, therefore, a “back in time.” The headings make it clear that the nations are listed as belonging to the past. However, the beginning of the Oracles against the Nations evokes a temporal tension for the text-immanent reader: on the one hand, the heading in 13:1 creates a past perspective, on the other hand, as from 13:2 onwards, a kind of a now-moment is also created. 13:2 starts with a direct speech without any introductory formula. Not only is it not made explicit who is speaking to whom, but the moment in time of the direct speech is not marked either. This implies that the text-immanent reader starts with an unknown moment in time, which, therefore, suggests a kind of a now-moment: time seems to start at the moment the direct speech begins. The use of the particle ! —^!– + participle, indicating a futurum instans,5 in the v. 9 and 17 intensifies the idea of a now-moment. Furthermore, the weqatal-forms characterize 13:19–14:2, indicating Babel’s future, elaborated upon in the ! š'!š ’# -L'C-formula ’ in 14:3.

4 5

See also: VAN WIERINGEN, Oracles against the Nations. WALTKE and O’CONNOR, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 627 (§ 37.6f ).

12

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

This implies that the text-immanent reader primarily has a past perspective and that this past perspective explicitly starts at the moment of Babel’s inevitable decline. It is from this moment in time that the decline of Assur is discussed in 14:24– 27.6 The qatal-form, which has a past perspective, characterizes this text: 3C™ f’ –1 =Lš 8! ’ š#! ’' the Lord of hosts had sworn (v. 24a). This means that Assur’s past decline is the proof of Babel’s imminent decline. In order to magnify the parallelism between the divine speeches concerning Babel and concerning Assur, the weqatal-forms characterize both. What the Lord announced in the past concerning the future decline of Assur, he did indeed bring about; so, what he announces now concerning Babel, he will bring about as well. The past perspective of the heading proves the trustworthiness of the Lord’s words.7 The next text-passage, 14:28–32, is about the year of the death of King Ahaz. The introductory formula again contains a qatal-form, indicating the past perspective: ! ˜O! ™ gš ]™ !! ™ š'!$ š %š T š +˜ ]˜ !=L/¡= ™ ™1f’ C– in the year of the death of King Ahaz this oracle had come. This means that the text-immanent reader has moved from the time of the Assyrian decline, to the time of the end of King Ahaz’ reign. This also implies that, although the text of 14:24–27 leaves open which concrete Assyrian threat the Lord is speaking about, the Assyrian crisis under King Hezekiah, King Ahaz’ successor, is the most plausible one. The next temporal indication can be found in 16:13–14, concluding the oracle against Moab. A double temporal indication is used: $š /— in the past in v. 13 and !kš 4™ ’# now in v. 14. This first temporal indication is in line with the text-immanent reader’s journey back in time. Before the year of King Ahaz’ death, the period of King Ahaz’ reign takes place, which implies that 15:1–16:12 is related to the Syro-Ephraimite War. Without mentioning Ahaz and the enemies in the Syro-Ephraimite War, Rezin and Pekah, and even without mentioning Assur, the negative consequences of this crisis become visible and are interpreted as a divine intervention. From a textual perspective, the !kš 4™ ’#-moment itself cannot be situated during King Ahaz’ reign. To what textual moment of time is this now-moment related? There are three possibilities. Firstly, the now-moment could be linked to the moment of time mentioned just before the moment of time of 15:1–16:12, which means it is linked to the year of King Ahaz’ death. If this is the case, the text makes clear that Moab should not think that it can take advantage of Ahaz’ death (14:28–32). The death of a king always implies a moment of crisis. A new king must still establish his power, which could take some time – a period bearing a high risk of possible revolts in or against the new king’s realm. 6 7

See also, from a diachronic perspective: CLEMENTS, Isaiah 14,22–27, 253–62. See also: RENDTORFF, Book of Isaiah, 40.

Isaiah 13–23 and Its Text-Immanent Reader

13

However, there is a second possibility. All moments in time are about the end of a reign: the end of Babel, the end of Assur, the end of King Ahaz, the end of the nations involved in the Syro-Ephraimite War. The reign of Hezekiah is, however, missing. In his journey back in time, the text-immanent reader leaps over Hezekiah’s reign. His reign is nevertheless present, and especially so, through the mentioning of the year of King Ahaz’ death, which is the beginning of King Hezekiah’s reign. If this is the case, the text-immanent reader is prepared for the time of Hezekiah, which will be discussed in the last text-passage of the movement from Babel to Jerusalem. The text increases the tension about what occurs during King Hezekiah’s period of time, first by not mentioning Hezekiah, next by mentioning a now-moment, and finally by discussing the reign of the still unmentioned8 Hezekiah in the concluding chapter 20. The third and last option is to link the now-moment to the beginning of the series of Oracles against the Nations, which means to the beginning of the textimmanent reader’s journey back in time, where, besides a past perspective, a now-moment is also present. If this is indeed the case, Moab is discussed from a Persian perspective. More important, however, is that the text-passage 16:13–14 reminds the text-immanent reader of the opening now-moment, in order to keep the text-immanent reader aware of the journey back in time. The oracle against Damascus in chapters 17–18 can be seen as a continuation of the time present in 15:1–16:12 concerning Moab. Damascus is the capital of Aram, which was explicitly involved in the Syro-Ephraimite War by its King Rezin. Just as in 15:1–16:12, neither the Syro-Ephraimite War nor Assur is mentioned. It is the textual order of time which makes the text-immanent reader aware that these times of war are being discussed. The oracle against Egypt in chapter 19 can be read as a continuation of the oracle against Damascus, which implies a continuation of the textual time of chapter 17–18. Whereas, after the explicit moments of time in 16:13–14, the textual indications of time are scarce in chapters 17–19,9 chapter 20 opens with a concrete temporal phrase about the Assyrian King Sargon (v. 1). This moment of time belongs to King Hezekiah’s reign, but he is not mentioned anywhere in the narration of chapter 20. In the second movement from Babel to Jerusalem, the text-immanent reader’s journey back in time is repeated, but briefly, without using many temporal phrases. Only the main moments are mentioned again.

8

The fact the King Hezekiah is not mentioned in the text itself is hardly noticed; e. g. WATTS, Isaiah 1–33, 1264; BEUKEN, Jesaja 13–27, 209. 9 See also: LACK, Symbolique, 66.

14

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

The fist repetition is the starting point in time. The journey back in time restarts with Babel’s decline. The Sproßerzählung10 in v. 8–9, characterised by the wayyiqtol-forms :š 9’ –Q ™# and 04™ ™Q ™#, emphasises the past perspective. The short oracle in 21:11–12 is characterised only by a participle: :œ— 9 in v. 11. In contrast to the wayyiqtol-form :š 9’ –Q ™# in v. 8, this participle suggests a nowmoment. Because the oracle in 21:13–17 does not have a new moment of time, 21:11–17 forms the repetition of the now-moment. Chapter 22, which has Jerusalem as its decor, forms the repetition of King Hezekiah’s time. Again, Hezekiah is not mentioned anywhere in chapter 22, but the names of his staff-members Shebna and Eliakim make his presence undeniable for the text-immanent reader.11

3. The Communication towards the Text-Immanent Reader in Isaiah 13–23 In chapters 13–23, the text-immanent reader is explicitly involved in the double movement from Babel to Jerusalem back in time in the chapters concerning the final destination Jerusalem, chapters 20 and 22. Babel is playing the role of the villain. But does this imply that Jerusalem is playing the role of the “good guy?” The movement ends in Jerusalem twice, and twice the situation in Jerusalem is problematic. In chapter 20, a critical situation is described. There is a foreign army, besieging Ashdod. Will Jerusalem be the next city to be besieged? The King of Jerusalem is not mentioned in chapter 20. Does this imply that there is a lack of leadership? According to a commission of the Lord, the character Isaiah, the son of Amoz, plays a role. The meaning of this role is not clear to the addressees – even after the character Isaiah has played this role for three years. Therefore, the Lord explains the role of the character Isaiah in the direct speech in v. 3–6. Isaiah plays the role of someone who is about to be exiled: naked and barefoot. This exile-role that Isaiah acts out is meant for Egypt and Cush. Assur will lead away the people of Egypt and Cush: a shameful abduction, with bared buttocks. This scene, however, is not without meaning for Jerusalem itself. In v. 6, an embedded direct speech is rendered within the Lord’s direct speech. It is spoken ™ – !š this coastby the inhabitants of ! ˜O!' ™ – !š this coastland.12 The expression ! ˜O!' land is unique in the Hebrew Bible. Because of the fact that no toponym is used to indicate which coastland is meant, the text-immanent reader has to fill in which coastland is involved. Ashdod is situated in the coastal area and, there10

SCHNEIDER, Grammatik, 199–200 (§ 48.4.5). For chapter 22 as a climax of chapters 13–23 see also: LACK, Symbolique, 64. 12 DELITZSCH, Jesaia, 255. 11

Isaiah 13–23 and Its Text-Immanent Reader

15

fore, could be meant. However, if from an Assyrian perspective all the land west of the Jordan could be considered to be “coastland”, Jerusalem could be meant as well. Jerusalem could just as easily be besieged as Ashdod. Two more features involve the text-immanent reader. In the introductory formula of the Lord’s direct speech in v. 3a, no addressee is mentioned, in contrast to the Lord’s direct speech in v. 2, where the addressee is explicitly present through the mentioning of his proper name, i. e. K! š'4’ f™ ’' Isaiah, and an extra indication, i. e. 7L/¡0 š ˜ the son of Amoz. The openness of the addressee in v. 3 offers a textual access to the text-immanent reader. What the Lord explains about Isaiah’s role could also be applicable to the text-immanent reader’s own situation. The embedded direct speech of the inhabitants of ! ˜O!' ™ – !š this coastland is in the first-person plural. The first-person plural can be used both exclusively and inclusively.13 If it is used inclusively, the addressee or the text-immanent reader could also be (indirectly) addressed. In verse 6, this feature is all the more eyecatching, because of the fact that the direct speech ends with a question: T'— ’# K1%’ š1& ™’ +— ]š –1 how may we escape? The first-person plural is emphatically present through the use of the personal pronoun K1%’ ™1™’ we, although the first-person plural is already present in the verbal form &+— ]š –1. The text-immanent reader is supposed to be able to answer the final question. At the very least, this answer is: do not trust Egypt; but the full answer should be: do not trust Egypt, but trust the Lord.14 In chapter 22, the textual decor is once again Jerusalem. Whereas, in chapter 20, the critical situation concerns Ashdod, in chapter 22 a siege of Jerusalem is described in v. 7–8. Still, the King of Jerusalem is not mentioned.15 Instead, internal conflicts within Jerusalem’s leadership, surrounding Shebna and Eliakim, are discussed. This means that, in comparison with the Jerusalem portrayed at the end of the first movement, the situation in Jerusalem has become worse. The worsening of the situation in Jerusalem in chapter 22 functions as an answer to the final question in chapter 20: how may we escape? In chapter 22, the answer is: we will not. This implicit answer is expressed twice, in the v. 14 and 25. Due to Jerusalem’s failing attitude during the siege, there will be no atonement 0K=/ž k¡ ’ 4™ till you die. Death is the answer. Death is the internal conflict as well, for a mausoleum is at issue here.16 Finally, v. 25 contains the ultimate answer: no matter how firmly the spike was driven in, it will break off and fall down.

13 LEWANDOWSKI, Linguistisches Wörterbuch, 790. See also: VAN WIERINGEN, ReaderOriented Unity, 126–30. 14 Cf. BEUKEN, Jesaja 13–27, 214. 15 Cf. BEUKEN, Jesaja 13–27, 272. 16 See also: HAYS, Covenant with Death, 232–49.

16

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

Part II: The Text-Immanent Reader’s Perspective from Without The Book of Isaiah discusses subsequent crises, forming a climax. These crises are mainly present in the narrative parts of the Book of Isaiah. The first crisis, in chapters 6–12, concerns Aram and Ephraim (known as the Syro-Ephraimite War). It can hardly be described as a threat, because the enemy is not even able to wage war against Jerusalem (7:1). Nevertheless, behind the insignificant enemy, Aram together with Ephraim, the big enemy Assur looms. Rejecting the Lord’s help to resist the enemy, Aram together with Ephraim, evokes the Assyrian threat (7:16–17). This Assyrian crisis is dealt with in chapters 36–38. The Assyrian army is standing before Jerusalem’s city wall, but is not able to conquer the city due to an intervention of the angel of the Lord (37:36). However, behind the Assyrian threat, the threat of Babel looms. This crisis is discussed in chapter 39, but how this Babylonian threat ends is, however, not told. Looking back from chapter 40, the Babylonian victory, including the exile to Babel, must have taken place, but has now come to an end. The realisation of this severe Babylonian crisis is only present as an ellipsis between chapters 39 and 40. The text-immanent reader in chapters 13–23 is also guided to perform the movement of the three crises, from chapters 6–12 to chapters 36–38 and 39, going onwards to chapters 40–66.

4. From Ahaz to Hezekiah The position of chapters 13–23 within the Book of Isaiah allows the text-immanent reader to understand the transition from King Ahaz to King Hezekiah. In chapters 6–12, King Ahaz is one of the main characters in the narrative of 7:1–17. He is the King of the threatened Jerusalem. In his efforts to rescue his capital city, he rejects the help of the Lord, offered to him by the prophet Isaiah, the other main character in 7:1–17. Due to his rejection, Ahaz is rejected by the Lord. In contrast to Ahaz, a sign is given not to Ahaz, but to the House of David, indicating the continuation of Jerusalem with its Davidian King, but without Ahaz. In three successive images the ideal royal leader is depicted in chapters 6–12: the Immanu-El in 7:14–15, the Child-born-to-us in 9:6–7, and the Sproutof-the-stump-of-Jesse in 11:1–5.17 The tension between rejection and ideal image is magnified by the fact that the rejected King is concretely mentioned, i. e. King Ahaz, whereas the ideal image is nowhere identified with any king. In chapters 36–38, King Hezekiah seems to be the realisation of this image of the ideal royal leader, but he certainly is not in chapter 39.18 17 18

VAN WIERINGEN, Isaiah 6–12, especially 243–44. VAN WIERINGEN, The Diseased King.

Isaiah 13–23 and Its Text-Immanent Reader

17

In the double movement in chapters 13–23, going back in time, Ahaz is mentioned in the first movement only. For the text-immanent reader, 14:28 is the confirmation of King Ahaz being rejected and not being the ideal royal figure, as present in chapters 6–12. It is true that the temporal phrase T+˜ ]˜ !=L/¡= ™ ™1f’ C– ! ˜O! ™ gš ]!! ™ š'!$ š %š š in the year of the death of King Ahaz this oracle had come confirms the end of Ahaz’ role in the text, but it does not confirm the beginning of King Hezekiah’s role, let alone the beginning of the reign of the ideal leader. The villain Ahaz has definitively left the textual scene, but who is acting instead of him? The text does not say that Hezekiah is acting in his place. In chapter 20, the end of the first movement, Jerusalem’s leadership has not been filled in. In chapter 22, the end of the second movement, a king is textually absent, but a couple of names regarding Jerusalem’s leadership are nevertheless mentioned: Shebna and Eliakim. There clearly are problems related to these names; and due to these problems, Jerusalem is in trouble. The combination of the announced ideal royal leader, the absence of Hezekiah and the problems regarding Jerusalem’s leadership creates a tension for the text-immanent reader: on the one hand, the problems might (still) be there because Hezekiah is not yet on the textual scene, on the other hand, the problems might (still) be there, because Hezekiah is not the real implementation of the announced ideal royal leader. It is exactly this tension that prepares the text-immanent reader for the same tension in chapters 36–39: whereas King Hezekiah seems to be the implementation of the announced ideal royal leader, especially of the Immanu-El, during the Assyrian crisis, at least undoubtedly in chapters 36–37, he certainly is not in chapter 39 during Babel’s visit to Jerusalem.19 Chapters 13–23 make the transition from Ahaz to Hezekiah possible, against the background of the nations. The end of King Ahaz is marked by the announcement of the Assyrian threat, whereas the end of Hezekiah is marked by the Babylonian threat. Both nations are mentioned in chapters 13–23, in such a way that the text-immanent reader is confronted with a double movement from Babel to Assur. In the first and most elaborate movement, the distant West is also present, in the guise of Egypt. Egypt does not really play a role in the threats of Assur and Babel against Jerusalem. In the crisis during Ahaz’ reign, Egypt is absent. At most, Egypt is mentioned to illustrate the extent of the Assyrian threat (10:24 - –':š 8’ /T – :˜ ˜ C’ in the way of Egypt).20 In the crisis during Hezekiah’s reign, Egypt is just a bit-part player. The Rabshakeh makes clear in 36:6, 9 that it is senseless for Jerusalem to put its trust in Egypt for obtaining liberation from the Assyrian threat. In 37:9, Tirhakah unexpectedly appears on the textual scene.21 In 19

For chapter 38, see: VAN WIERINGEN, Isa 38,10–20. Cf. also: WATTS, Isaiah 1–33, 158. 21 Cf. also: AVAUX, Taharqa, 39–40. 20

18

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

a way, being the King of Cush (which is Nubia, south of Egypt), he symbolizes the powerless Egyptian assistance. Therefore, the position of Egypt in chapter 19 in the series of Oracles against the Nations emphasizes his bit-part. When exile is discussed for the first time, in chapter 20, the first one to be mentioned for exile is none other than Cush (Egypt). In other words, the text-immanent reader knows that, in the following chapters, Egypt is not at issue, but Assur and eventually Babel.

5. Babel’s Surprising Presence For the text-immanent reader, the most surprising position in the series of Oracles against the Nations is taken by Babel. Reading from chapters 6–12, the text-immanent reader would expect the Assyrian threat after the minor crisis regarding Aram. After all, Assur is explicitly mentioned in the direct speech of the prophet Isaiah to the failing King Ahaz in 7:17: the Lord will bring days over Ahaz and his people which are filled in by means of the phrase :KiT ™ +˜ /= ˜ — the King of Assur, a phrase constructed with the nota objecti =, — indicating the second object of the verb # hiph’il.22 Moreover, Assur is mentioned in the description of the arrogance of the instrumental enemy in 10:5–19: Assur is only a rod in the hand of the Lord, and should not think that it is able to act on its own.23 Nevertheless, chapters 13–23 do not start with Assur, but with Babel, being the first time that the name +˜ Cš is used in the Book of Isaiah. This surprise is increased by the fact that in the heading of the Book of Isaiah in 1:1, kings are mentioned who only belong to the Assyrian time. The last king mentioned is King Hezekiah (written as K! šQ9– ’$%– ’'), as if there were no kings after him and, consequently, no kings during the time of the Babylonian threat. Babel’s surprising presence at the beginning of the series of Oracles against the Nations intensifies the tension of 10:28–32 for the text-immanent reader.24 This text describes a military march against Jerusalem. It is an attack by surprise, quickly executed. Just a little while and the capital Jerusalem will fall as well. However, the text does not mention by whom the attack is made. It cannot be Aram, because Aram is not even able to wage war against Jerusalem (7:1). Assur seems the obvious military power being capable of carrying out this attack on Jerusalem. Assur is mentioned in the previous text 10:15–27. However, the main issue in this text is Assur’s arrogance, and that it is not able to wage war on its own, due to the fact that it is merely a rod in the Lord’s hand. Could Babel be the

22

VAN WIERINGEN, Isaiah 6–12, 59 and the literature mentioned there. See: VAN WIERINGEN, Isaiah 6–12, 165–70; cf.: BÜRKI, oracles contre les nations, 27–28. 24 See also: WILDBERGER, Jesaja 1–12, 429–32. 23

Isaiah 13–23 and Its Text-Immanent Reader

19

acting army? If this is indeed the case, chapters 13–23 open with Babel’s powerlessness as a sharp contrast. Babel’s first position in the series of the Oracles against the Nations helps the text-immanent reader to also survive chapters 36–39.25 The first lesson in trusting the Lord is 7:1–17. In fact, 7:1–17 is not an exciting text. The first verse contains a prolepsis, communicating that the enemy was not even able to wage war against Jerusalem. Whereas the character King Ahaz does not know whether Jerusalem will survive, the text-immanent reader already knows this. Consequently, 7:1– 17 does not focus on the thrilling question as to whether Jerusalem will or will not fall, but on the call to trust in the Lord. The character Isaiah summons the character Ahaz to do so, whereas the text-immanent author directly addresses the text-immanent reader with the same call to do so in 7:9c–d. For the character Ahaz, this call is too much. With a religious excuse he tries to get rid of the prophet (7:12). For the text-immanent reader, the summons is not very difficult, thanks to the prolepsis in 7:1 and the aside in 7:9c–d. The second lesson in trusting the Lord is chapters 36–37(38). This time, the narrative does not open with a prolepsis. Consequently, the end of the plot is unknown to the text-immanent reader. Moreover, chapters 36–37 also do not contain an aside in which the text-immanent reader is directly addressed with a call to trust in the Lord. The text-immanent reader has to read on until the end of the narrative to hear about the happy end of the plot. His reward for continuing to read until the end is even a double happy end: the Assyrian King and his army have to withdraw (37:36–37) and, thereafter, ironically, the pagan King of Assur is murdered by his own sons in a temple of an idol (37:38). The third lesson in trusting the Lord is chapter 39. For the text-immanent reader, this is the most difficult chapter. There is no prolepsis. There is no aside. There is no happy end. The situation is worse than ever before. Whereas Aram was not able to wage war against Jerusalem and Assur was not able to conquer the city, Babel enters the city, even without executing any military action. He is warmly welcomed in Jerusalem. And according to the text, he does not leave Jerusalem; he simply stays. Exile looms. Only if the text-immanent reader dares to continue reading after chapter 39, will he find himself to be, as from 40:1 onwards, immediately beyond the crisis. The Babylonian exile is only present as an ellipsis between chapters 39 and 40.26 However difficult the situation may seem in chapters 36–37(38) and especially in chapter 39, the Oracles against the Nations prepares the text-immanent reader for reading these challenging chapters. Because of the movement back in time, the text-immanent reader knows that Assur will not succeed. Because Babel is the beginning of this movement, even twice, and described as a nation of de25 26

See also: VAN WIERINGEN, Jesajaboek als leraar, 20–58. BERGES, Buch Jesaja, 316.

20

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

struction, no longer powerful, but sitting in the She’ol, the text-immanent reader knows that Babel will not succeed either. Jerusalem is in trouble in chapters 13–23, as well as before and after these chapters. However, this is not because of the nations. The series of Oracles against the Nations start in the She’ol, and the subsequent nations appear as powerless as someone can be in the She’ol. Actually, the nations as enemies are just instruments in the hand of the Lord. They are not able to act on their own. The real problem, therefore, is Jerusalem itself. In chapter 20, Jerusalem does not understand the prophet. In chapter 22, Jerusalem’s leadership squabbles about a mausoleum, a She’ol-like place of death. Not the nations are to blame, but Jerusalem is.27

6. A Bridge to Chapters 40–66 Chapters 13–23 form a link between chapters 6–12, which deal with the Aram crisis becoming an Assur crisis, and chapters 36–39, which deal with the Assur crisis becoming a Babel crisis. Furthermore, however, chapters 13–23 also play a role in the bridge to chapters 40–66, after the ellipsis of the Babylonian exile. All these relations within the Book of Isaiah can be outlined as follows. HEADING [1:1

I ] [1:2–31] [Jerusalem]

[Ahaz + Hezekiah ]

II

III

IV ] [13–14  20

[2–5 ] [6–12 [Aram crisis  Assur crisis

 22

] [Babel  Jerusalem // Babel  Jerusalem

[King Ahaz  ideal royal leader ] [ [2:2–5] [

V // 21

]

[Assur Babel ]

Shebna + Eliakim ]

[ Hezekiah ]

11:11–6] [ 19:23–25

VI

] [24–35] [36–38+39 ]

][

35]

[40–66]

Fig. 3: Relations in the Book of Isaiah

The Book of Isaiah consists of a heading in 1:1 and six main units.28 Main unit IV, the Oracles against the Nations (elaborated in chapters 24–35), twice describes the movement from Babel to Jerusalem as a movement back in time. This implies that chapters 13–20 and 21–22(23) are parallel. While the – announced – Assur crisis in chapters 6–12 prepares the real Assur crisis in chapters 36–38, the position of Assur in chapters 13–23 prepares the Babel crisis in chapter 39. These relations are indicated by using the bold line. Chapters 13–23 make the transition from Ahaz to Hezekiah, from chapters 6–12 to chapters 36–39, possible, by means of chapter 22, mentioning Shebna 27 28

For more details, see: VAN WIERINGEN, Oracles against the Nations. VAN WIERINGEN, Reader-Oriented Unity, 23–52, especially 51.

Isaiah 13–23 and Its Text-Immanent Reader

21

and Eliakim. In a way, this transition from Ahaz to Hezekiah is already implied in the headin the Oracles against the Nations. The text of 19:23–25, often considered to be “deutero-isaianic”, is important here.29 At the end of the Egypt-oracle, a situation of salvation is described; a situation that will be reached Ÿ™Q#-!™!Kon that day. Beside Israel, the Lord’s inheritance, Egypt and Assur will be blessed peoples of the Lord as well. The text-immanent reader has gone all the way back during the first movement from Babel to Jerusalem. At the end of the movement a positive text is expected, a text in which a situation is described which is not infected by the problems regarding the nations. A glimpse of such a situation is given to the text-immanent reader. However, it is present only in the form of a Ÿ™Q#-!™!K-text. Even more, the real ending of the first movement is chapter 20, concerning Jerusalem, that does not understand the prophet the Lord has sent. This glimpse of a positive future in 19:23–25 does not stand on its own. At the end of chapters 6–12, main unit III, in which the transition of the Aram crisis to an Assur crisis is announced, Egypt and Assur, as a couple, are positively mentioned in 11:11–16. This K!!- ™ #QC-text ™ is a stepping stone for the - #QC™ K!!-text ™ 19:23–25. Whereas in 11:11–16 Egypt and Assur form a highway back from the exile, but do not have a part in the liberation themselves, in 19:23–25 Egypt and Assur are equal to Israel.30 Although there are no nations mentioned in chapter 35, the positive liberation is clearly present in the blossoming wilderness with its highway running through it. In this way, the last chapter of main unit IV has the same function as the conclusion of the description of the ideal royal leadership in main unit III. In general, the nations in chapters 13–23 perform a negative role. The positive description in 19:23–25 is the exception. No longer being the enemy, and thus no longer playing a negative role, is not the same as playing a positive role, and thus having part in the Lord’s salvation. Such a positive role for the nations is scarce in the Book of Isaiah. Actually, it occurs only in 2:2–5, the prophecy about the nations going up to the house of the Lord along with Israel, at the beginning of the Book of Isaiah after main unit I (the introduction). The implementation of the prophecy reaches its climax at the end of the Book of Isaiah in 66:18–24. These relations are outlined by using standard lines in the scheme above. It makes clear that, in the implementation of 2:2–5, i. e. the implementation of a positive role for the nations, exactly in the middle of the Oracles against the Nations, a glimpse of this full implementation is given to the text-immanent reader.31

29

See also: WILLIAMSON, Book Called Isaiah, especially 127. See also: BERGES, Buch Jesaja, 144. 31 I am greatly indebted to Drs. Maurits J. Sinninghe Damsté (De Gordyk, Fryslân, the Netherlands/Breña Baja, San Miguel de la Palma, Spain) for his correction of the English translation of this article. 30

22

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

7. Concluding Remarks In my analysis above I have made clear that the text-immanent reader’s position in chapters 13–23 of the Book of Isaiah is primarily determined by the twofold movement from Babel to Jerusalem as a journey back in time. Due to this construction, the Babel crisis is presented as already having been overcome, just like the Assur crisis and the preceding Aram crisis have been overcome. Moreover, as a result of this construction, Jerusalem and its problems are brought into focus. This focus, however, is ambiguous as far as King Hezekiah is involved. Next, chapters 13–23 create the continuation especially between chapters 6–12 and 36– 39. These chapters prepare the transition from Assur to Babel, which also plays a major role in chapters 36–39. It indeed creates a tension regarding King Hezekiah as (not) being the implementation of the ideal royal leader. The climax of this tension appears in chapter 39 and the ellipsis of the Babylonian exile between the chapters 39 and 40. In particular the conclusion of the Egypt-oracle in chapter 19 makes clear that the so-called Oracles against the Nations even play a role in bridging chapters 1–39 (main units I–V ), the first part of the Book of Isaiah, to chapters 40–66 (main unit VI), the second part of the Book of Isaiah.

Bibliography AVAUX, MARIUS, La Mention de Taharqa en II Rois 19,9  / Is 37,9, AIPh 20 (1968/1972), 31–43. BERGES, ULRICH, Das Buch Jesaja. Komposition und Endgestalt, HBS 16, Freiburg i. Br. 1998. BEUKEN, WILLEM A. M., Jesaja 13–27, HThKAT, Freiburg i. Br. 2007. BÜRKI, M., Grandeur et démesure dans les oracles contre les nations du Prophète Ésaïe, Trans 41 (2012), 25–40. CLEMENTS, RONALD E., Isaiah 14,22–27: A Central Passage Reconsidered, in: JACQUES VERMEYLEN (Ed.), The Book of Isaiah. Le Livre d’Isaïe. Les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense XXXVII), BEThL 81, Leuven 1989, 253–62. DELITZSCH, FRANZ, Commentar über das Buch Jesaia, Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament 3/1, Leipzig 1889. HAYS, CHRISTOPHER B., A Covenant with Death. Death in the Iron Age II and Its Rhetorical Uses in Proto-Isaiah, Grand Rapids 2015. LACK, RÉMI, La Symbolique du Livre d’Isaïe, AnBib 59, Rome 1973. LEWANDOWSKI, THEODOR, Linguistisches Wörterbuch, UTB 1518, Heidelberg 1994. RENDTORFF, ROLF, The Book of Isaiah. A Complex Unity: Synchronic and Diachronic Reading, in: ROY F. MELUGIN / MARVIN A. SWEENEY (Ed.), New Visions of Isaiah, JSOT.S 214, Sheffield 1996, 32–49. SCHNEIDER, WOLFGANG, Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch. Völlig neue Bearbeitung der „Hebräischen Grammatik für den akademischen Unterricht“ von Oskar Grether, München 1989.

Isaiah 13–23 and Its Text-Immanent Reader

23

TULL, PATRICIA K., Isaiah 1–39, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary, Macon 2010. WALTKE, BRUCE K.  / O’CONNOR, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake (IN) 1990. WATTS, JOHN D. W., Isaiah 1–33, WBC 24, Waco 1985. VAN WIERINGEN, ARCHIBALD L. H. M., The Implied Reader in Isaiah 6–12, BibInt 34, Leiden 1998. –, The Reader-Oriented Unity of the Book Isaiah, ACEBT.S 6, Vught 2006. –, The Diseased King and the Diseased City (Isa 36–39) as Reader-Oriented Link Between Isa 1–39 and 40–66, in: IDEM / ANNEMARIEKE VAN DER WOUDE (Ed.), “Enlarge the Site of Your Tent”. The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah. The Isaiah Workshop. De Jesaja Werkplaats, OTS 58, Leiden 2011, 81–93. –, Two Reading Options in Psalm 114: A Communication-Oriented Analysis, RB 122 (2015), 46–58. –, The “I”-Figure’s Relations in the Poem in Isa 38,10–20, Bib 96 (2015), 481–97. –, Het Jesajaboek als leraar: Leerprocessen voor de tekst-immanente lezer, in: BART J. KOET  / IDEM (Ed.), Modellen van Leraarschap. Van Jesaja tot Bioshock, Utrechtse Studies 21, Almere, 20–58. –, The Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Amos and Zephaniah: A Text-Immanent Reader’s Perspective, in: BURKARD M. ZAPFF  / JOACHIM ECK (Ed.), Isaiah and the Twelve, BZAW 527, Berlin 2020, 205–20. WILDBERGER, HANS, Jesaja 1–12, BK 10/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1980. WILLIAMSON, HUGH G. M., The Book Called Isaiah. Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford 1994.

Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch UWE BECKER 1. Fremdvölkerorakel und Gerichtsprophetie Wer sich heute zur Entstehung des Jesajabuches – besonders des sogenannten Protojesaja – äußert, sticht in ein Wespennest. Kaum ein anderes Prophetenbuch hat in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten eine vergleichbare Aufmerksamkeit auf sich gezogen, und bei keinem anderen Prophetenbuch liegen die Grundauffassungen so weit auseinander wie hier. Der wesentliche Streitpunkt dürfte nach wie vor in der Frage nach dem Umfang und Charakter der jesajanischen Verkündigung liegen, aber auch die nähere Beschreibung der Neuinterpretation der Jesaja-Überlieferung in nachjesajanischer Zeit ist überaus strittig. Im Blick auf den „historischen“ Jesaja hat die Alternative Heils- oder Unheilsprophetie in der jüngeren Forschung eine besondere Aufmerksamkeit erfahren:1 Ist der historische Jesaja primär als Künder des unabwendbaren Unheils gegen das (eigene) Volk zu beurteilen, wie man auf der Basis des Verstockungsauftrags in Jes 6,9–11 und der Gerichtsworte gegen Juda (z. B. Jes 8,5–8) gewöhnlich annimmt? Oder gehören – im Gegenteil – die im Jesajabuch ebenfalls vorhandenen heilsprophetischen Züge, die sich in Worten gegen Israel und Aram, also gegen die Feinde Judas manifestieren (vgl. nur Jes 8,1–4 und 17,1–3*), zum ältesten Stratum des Buches?2 In diesem Fall hätte bereits der „historische Jesaja“ Worte gegen fremde (benachbarte) Völker ausgesprochen. Das zweite Grundproblem der gegenwärtigen Jesaja-Forschung besteht in der Abgrenzung, Profilierung und zeitlichen Situierung der nachprophetischen Anteile im Buch. Während man in der älteren Forschung von einem maximalen Bestandteil an „echten“ jesajanischen Worten ausging,3 mehren sich seit den 1970er Jahren redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, die sich auf die nachjesajanischen Fortschreibungen richten, sich also von der Person des Propheten lösen und den formativen Phasen der Buchentstehung zuwenden. Als ein forschungsgeschichtlich bedeutsamer Markstein ist immer noch die Arbeit von Hermann Barth zur 1

Vgl. den Überblick in BECKER, Jesaja, Jeremia, 79–100. Vgl. die Skizze in BECKER, Problem, 117–124. Ein im Grundsatz heilsprophetisches Bild zeichnet auch die – allerdings sehr späte – Szene Jes 7,1–17, in der König Ahas der faktische Untergang Arams und Israels in einem Königsorakel zugesichert wird. 3 Repräsentiert durch den großen dreibändigen Kommentar von WILDBERGER, Jesaja 1–12; Jesaja 13–27; Jesaja 28–39. 2

26

Uwe Becker

Assur-Redaktion (1977) zu nennen, in der „Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung“ aus der Josia-Zeit interpretiert werden.4 In dieser Studie geht es um eine Neubewertung der (Anti-)Assur-Texte in Jes 1–39: Hat man die Worte gegen Assur bis dahin überwiegend als jesajanisch beurteilt und das widersprüchliche Assur-Bild – Assur einerseits als Gerichtswerkzeug Jahwes (Jes 8,6–8) und andererseits als Großmacht, die selbst gerichtet wird (Jes 10,5–15) – mit den veränderten Zeitumständen bzw. Wandlungen des Propheten Jesaja erklärt,5 so konnte H. Barth zeigen, dass sich die Anti-Assur-Worte einer joschijanischen Redaktion verdanken und gerade nicht zum literarischen Kern der Jesajaüberlieferung zu rechnen sind. Für die Beurteilung der Fremdvölkerworte und ihres Ursprungs im Jesajabuch ist auch diese Einsicht von einigem Belang. Mit anderen Worten: Sowohl in den vermuteten „echten“ jesajanischen Worten wie auch in den späteren Schichten des Buches spielen die Worte gegen fremde Völker eine nicht unbeträchtliche Rolle, so dass der Fragehorizont sich weit über Jes 13–23 ausdehnt.6 Mit dieser Einsicht hängt eine weitere, schon ältere Forschungskontroverse zusammen, die sich auf den Ursprung der Fremdvölkerworte bezieht, aber im Lichte der neueren Prophetenforschung  – Stichwort Heils- oder Unheilsprophetie – eine neue Aktualität gewinnt: In welchem zeitlichen und theologischen Verhältnis stehen Gerichtsprophetie und Fremdvölkerorakel zueinander?7 In der älteren Forschung war es üblich, die Worte gegen fremde Völker sowohl entstehungsgeschichtlich als auch theologisch auf die Unheilsprophetie, die man als den Kern der Botschaft der „klassischen“ Propheten des 8. und 7. Jahrhunderts meinte ausmachen zu können, folgen zu lassen: Am Anfang stand die prophetische Gerichtspredigt, die später auch auf die fremden Völker in der näheren und weiteren Umgebung Israels und Judas übertragen wurde. Die Perspektive änderte sich mit dem Aufkommen der gattungsgeschichtlichen Betrachtung:8 Zum einen wurde – etwa im Vergleich mit den ägyptischen Ächtungstexten – der konventionelle Charakter der biblischen Völkerworte deutlich. Zum andern zeigte sich – und hier spielten die neuassyrischen Prophetentexte eine herausgehobene Rolle9 –, dass es offensichtlich einen engen Zusammenhang von Heilsprophetie und Weissagungen gegen fremde / feindliche Völker gibt: Unheil für das fremde Volk bedeutet Heil für das eigene. Wäre es also denkbar, dass die Orakel gegen fremde Völker in den Büchern der sog. klassischen Propheten des 8. und 7. Jahrhunderts in ihrer ursprünglichen (Heils-)Verkündigung ihren Ursprung haben? 4

BARTH, Jesaja-Worte. Das Zitat gibt den Untertitel der Studie wieder. Vgl. z. B. DIETRICH, Jesaja, 101–114. 6 Vgl. auch die Beiträge in dem Band KRATZ / SCHAPER, Imperial Visions. 7 Vgl. insbesondere BEZZEL, Gerichtsprophetie. 8 Zur Forschungsgeschichte vgl. KŐSZEGHY, Streit, 37–41; ferner BEZZEL, Gerichtsprophetie, 235 f. 9 Vgl. die Textauswahl in NISSINEN (Hg.), Prophets. 5

Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch

27

Die folgenden Überlegungen möchten einige Beobachtungen zu dieser Frage anhand der Sammlung Jes 13–23 beisteuern und der Frage nach der „Geburt“ der Fremdvölkerworte im Jesajabuch nachgehen.

2. Die Fremdvölkerworte in Jes 13–23 Auf den ersten Blick wirken die Fremdvölkerworte in Jes 13–23 (darin der sog. Jesaja-Apokalypse Jes 24–27 ähnlich) wie eine Sammlung für sich, die auf eine eigene Geschichte zurückblickt und mit dem übrigen Buch nur relativ locker verknüpft ist. Für diese relative Selbständigkeit spricht zum einen die Anordnung der Orakel; die Reihe setzt mit einem längeren Wort gegen den Erzfeind Babel ein (c.13 f.), das in 13,2–16 von Weltgerichtsaussagen unterbrochen wird, und wendet sich dann (grob) erst den näheren und später den weiteren Feinden zu. Zum andern zeigt die Sammlung durch die Überschrift jš /™ maśśāʾ „Ausspruch“, „Orakel“ (in 13,1; 14,28; 15,1; 17,1; 19,1; 21,1.11.13; 22,1; 23,1) ein einheitliches Gepräge, wenngleich nicht alle Orakel diese Überschrift kennen (18) und die Reihe zudem von Prosastücken unterbrochen wird, die nur locker eingebunden sind (20; 22,15–25). Zudem fällt nicht nur die Kürze der beiden Worte gegen Edom und Arabien ins Auge (21,11–12 und 21,13–17), sondern auch die Orakel gegen das „Tal der Schauung“ (' —E0 #' šO%) – in 22,1–14 und gegen den Palastvorsteher Schebna in 22,15–25 – beide also gegen Jerusalem gerichtet – fügen sich nur schwer in den Zusammenhang der Worte gegen fremde Völker ein (vgl. auch 17,3 f.: gegen Efraim/Jakob).10 Und schließlich eine letzte Beobachtung: Die Reihe ist durch die Zeichenhandlung in c.20 deutlich zweigeteilt: 21,1–10 setzt erneut mit einem Wort gegen Babylon ein, das auf c.13 f. offensichtlich keinen Bezug nimmt. Hier die Anordnung der Orakel im Einzelnen:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12

13,1–14,27 14,28–32 15–16 17 18 19 20 21,1–10 21,11–12 21,13–17 22,1–14 22,15–25 23

Babylon Philistäa Moab Damaskus (und Efraim/Jakob) „Land voll schwirrender Flügel“ / Kusch Ägypten Zeichenhandlung über Ägypten und Kusch Wüste am Meer (Babylon) Duma (= Edom) Arabien Schautal (Jerusalem) Schebna und Eljakim Tyros (und Sidon)

maśśāʾ hammaśśāʾ hazzæh maśśāʾ maśśāʾ hôj maśśāʾ maśśāʾ maśśāʾ maśśāʾ maśśāʾ maśśāʾ

Fig. 1: Anordnung der Fremdvölkerorakel Jes 13–23 10 WILDBERGER, Jesaja 28–39, 1562: „Eine Crux für alle, die den Aufbau des Jesajabuches verstehen wollen, ist indessen die Stellung von 22,1–14 und 15–19.“

28

Uwe Becker

Die Sammlung der Völkerworte entpuppt sich damit als ein nur schwer durchschaubares, redaktionelles Gebilde. So ist es kein Wunder, dass man in der Forschungsgeschichte zu einem komplexen Entstehungsmodell griff und in Jes 13– 23 sowohl jesajanische Worte wie auch ganz spätes Material aus dem 2. Jh. v. Chr. ausmachen zu können meinte. Richtungsweisend bleiben die Bemerkungen B. Duhms, der mit zwei Sammlungen von Worten rechnete: Die erste Sammlung aus fünf Fremdvölkerworten gegen Philistäa, Moab, Aram, Ägypten und Kusch in 14,28–20,6 könne aufgrund von 19,16–25 „erst in der zweiten Hälfte des zweiten Jahrh.s vor Chr.“11 erfolgt sein. Die zweite Sammlung indes – auch sie bestand ursprünglich aus einer Fünfzahl (c.21 f. und 30,6.7) – könnte jesajanisch sein.12 Bei der Zusammenarbeitung beider Sammlungen gelangte das Babel-Wort 13,1–14,23 an den Anfang. „Endlich sind, aber nicht von der Hand des Redaktors, die unbekannten Stücke c. 14,24–27 und c. 17,12–18,7 diesem Jesajabuch einverleibt, in das sie wegen ihres Inhalts nicht hineingehören.“13 Die Überlegungen Duhms zeigen zweierlei: Die „Sammlung“ Jes 13–23 ist weit weniger homogen, als man denken möchte, und sie enthält Fremdkörper wie 14,24–27 und 17,12–14, deren Existenz inmitten der Orakel nur schwer zu erklären ist. Kurz: Sie besteht aus ganz frühem (aus dem 8. Jh.) und ganz spätem Material (aus dem 2. Jh.),14 so dass man zu dem Eindruck gelangen muss, dass der Block der Fremdvölkersprüche an der Entstehungsgeschichte des gesamten Jesajabuches partizipiert und keinen Sonderfall darstellt. Trotz dieser älteren Tendenz zur Spätdatierung war die Forschung des 20. Jahrhunderts von dem Bemühen getragen, in der Reihe der Fremdvölkerorakel möglichst zahlreiche „echte“ jesajanische Worte freizulegen – auch und gerade Worte gegen fremde Völker. So stellt H. Wildberger im Jahr 1974 in seinem Resümee der Forschungsgeschichte fest: „Die heutige Forschung betrachtet nur relativ wenig Teile von 13–23 als jesajanisch“,15 um dann selbstbewusst fortzufahren: „Jes 13–23 besteht, aufs Ganze gesehen, aus jesajanischen Worten, die vorwiegend an fremde Völker gerichtet sind, und einer Sammlung von Fremdvölkerweissagungen aus exilisch-nachexilischer Zeit.“16 Ein sprechendes Beispiel für das Bemühen um die Herausarbeitung authentischer jesajanischer Worte liegt in der 1976 erschienenen Erlanger Dissertation von Friedrich Huber vor, der ein Bild

11

DUHM, Jesaja, 12 (noch ohne 14,24–27 und 17,17–18,7). Vgl. DUHM, Jesaja, 12. 13 DUHM, Jesaja, 12 f. 14 Auch MARTI führt nur wenige Worte innerhalb von Jes 13–23 auf Jesaja zurück (17,1–11 + 18,5 f.; 18,1.2.4; [20,1.3.4.6]; 22,1–5.12–14.15–18); „die übrigen stammen aus sehr verschiedener Zeit, führen aber zu einem nicht unbeträchtlichen Teil sicher in das zweite Jahrhundert, ja bis an das Ende desselben“ (Jesaja, XVI). 15 WILDBERGER, Jes 13–27, 497. Die erste Lieferung des Bandes erschien 1974. 16 WILDBERGER, Jes 13–27, 498. Alle nicht von Jesaja stammenden Worte seien mit maśśāʾ überschrieben, wobei der jesajanische Beleg 14,28 als Vorlage gedient habe. 12

Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch

29

der fremden Völker bei Jesaja zeichnet und immerhin Jes 14,24–27; 14,28–32; 17,1–3.4–6; 18,1–6; 20; 22 auf den Propheten selbst zurückführen kann.17 In neuerer Zeit wirken die Beurteilungen – selbst in umfangreicheren Kommentaren – bescheidener: Man geht von einer wesentlichen Gestaltungsarbeit in babylonischer Zeit aus, unterlässt es aber, den Weg dorthin näher zu beschreiben. So stellt Konrad Schmid in seinem knappen Jesaja-Kommentar fest: „Man kann damit rechnen, dass Jes 13–23 besonders in babylonischer Zeit erweitert und strukturiert worden ist.“18 Ähnlich vage lautet das Urteil von Willem A. M. Beuken: Man kann „den geistigen Horizont der zehn Aussprüche am ehesten als ‚das Zeitalter Babels‘ bestimmen, d. h. in die zweite Hälfte des 6. Jh.s datieren, ungehindert der Tatsache, dass vermutlich einige Bestandteile ursprünglich älter sind.“19 Gegenüber den Spätdatierungen, wie man sie noch bei B. Duhm oder K. Marti findet, wirken diese zurückhaltenden Einordnungen, die offenkundig in ihrer groben Datierung in die Zeit der Babylonier von Jes 13–14 ausgehen, mit ihrer frühen Ansetzung der Gesamtkomposition wie ein vorsichtiger Schritt zurück. Die alten Fragen bleiben aber auch heute aktuell: Wie und wann ist die Gesamtkomposition Jes 13–23 entstanden? Und welche Vorstufen, die womöglich in die Zeit Jesajas reichen, lassen sich rekonstruieren?20 Gegenüber der älteren Forschung sind zudem literargeschichtliche Perspektiven hinzugekommen, die hier aber nur als Problemanzeigen genannt werden können: 1. Eine Bewertung der Fremdvölkerorakel kann nicht mehr von der Entstehung des Großjesajabuches absehen.21 Wenn deutlich ist, dass ein beträchtlicher Teil der in Jes 13–23 vereinigten Worte zeitlich nach den sog. deutero- und tritojesajanischen Prophetien liegt, muss diese Perspektive in die redaktionsgeschichtliche Rekonstruktion einbezogen werden.22 2. Neue Aufmerksamkeit hat das literarische Verhältnis zu den jeremianischen Fremdvölkerworten in Jer 46–51 erfahren. Besonders eng sind die Bezüge zwischen dem Moab-Orakel Jes 15 f. und Jer 48,23 aber auch Jer 50 f. weist signifikante Berührungen mit Jes 13 f. auf.24 3. Neuerdings werden auch die Bezüge zum 12-Propheten-Buch stärker thematisiert und redaktionsgeschichtlich ausgewertet.25 17

HUBER, Jahwe. SCHMID, Jesaja I, 128. 19 BEUKEN, Jesaja 13–27, 28. 20 Vgl. auch die Übersicht bei ZAPFF, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 276–285. 21 Vgl. die Übersicht bei BECKER, Book of Isaiah. 22 So stellt etwa WILLIAMSON, Book Called Isaiah, 156–175, die These auf, dass Jes 13–14 in seiner jetzigen Fassung von „Deuterojesaja“ gestaltet worden sei. 23 Vgl. die Übersicht bei WILDBERGER, Jesaja 13–27, 604–609, der Jer 48 von Jes 15 f. abhängig sieht. 24 So nimmt KLEIN, Babylon, 145–153, in Umkehrung der traditionellen Sicht an, dass Jes 13 auf Jer 50 f. (und Jer 4–6) beruhe. 25 Vgl. z. B. BOSSHARD-NEPUSTIL, Rezeptionen, 17–267, der sowohl in Jes als auch im 18

30

Uwe Becker

Die folgenden Überlegungen beschreiten einen etwas anderen Weg: Sie wenden sich weder der Gesamtkomposition von Jes 13–23 zu noch versuchen sie, eine vollständige Redaktionsgeschichte dieser Kapitel zu entwerfen. Vielmehr sollen zwei Aspekte näher beleuchtet werden: Der erste Blick richtet sich auf die Ursprünge der Orakel gegen fremde Völker in der jesajanischen Verkündigung. Es zeigt sich nämlich, dass der Prophet Jesaja mit der Ankündigung des Untergangs des Nordreiches und Arams den Grund gelegt hat für eine Reihe weiterer Worte gegen fremde Völker. Ein zweiter Blick gilt sodann den (Anti-)Assur-Worten und ihrer Einordnung. Denn sie bilden so etwas wie den „Nukleus“ der Fremdvölkerworte im Jesajabuch.

3. Jesajanische Prophetien In der gegenwärtigen Jesaja-Forschung herrscht eine große Uneinigkeit im Blick auf die Frage, wie die Verkündigung des Propheten Jesaja einzuordnen ist. Hat er – so die Mehrheitsmeinung – vor allem radikales Unheil gepredigt, wie es sich in dem Verstockungsauftrag der Berufungsvision Jes 6 widerspiegelt? Oder liegt der Kern der jesajanischen Verkündigung in den Worten gegen die Feinde Judas, ist also als Heilsprophetie anzusprechen. Hier kann selbstverständlich keine ausführliche Begründung gegeben werden; diese ist anderwärts erfolgt und inzwischen auch gelegentlich positiv rezipiert worden.26 Es scheint jedenfalls so, dass es eine Reihe von jesajanischen Worten gibt, die sich durch eine für Juda heilvolle Perspektive auszeichnen. Am besten lässt sich diese These an Jes 8,1–8 veranschaulichen (vgl. auch die beiden Worte Jes 17,1–3* und 28,1–10*). Jes 8,1–8 besteht aus zwei Redeeinheiten, die durch „und Jahwe sprach noch weiter zu mir“ (8,5) miteinander verknüpft sind. Die erste Einheit in 8,1–4 kündigt im Rahmen einer ominösen Tafelaufschrift die Geburt eines Jesaja-Sohnes mit dem Namen „Eilebeute-Raubebald“ an, der den Untergang der beiden feindlichen Staaten Aram und Israel symbolisch vorwegnimmt. Aus der Geschichte Israels werden diese Vorgänge gewöhnlich in die Zeit des sog. syrisch-efraimitischen Krieges (734–732) eingeordnet, in dem sich Juda von seinen beiden nördlichen Nachbarn existentiell bedroht sah. In der Ankündigung des Endes dieser beiden Staaten – tatsächlich ist Damaskus 732, Samaria 722/20 gefallen – konnte man nur Heilsprophetie sehen. Auf einen nur selten beobachteten Umstand ist dabei besonders hinzuweisen: Die Ankündigung des Endes von Aram

Dodekapropheton zwei markante Redaktionsschichten aus babylonischer und aus persischer Zeit herausarbeitet, die aufeinander bezogen sind: die „Assur/Babel-Redaktion“ und die darauf aufbauende „Babel-Redaktion“. Zur ersteren gehört etwa der Grundbestand von Jes 13,2–8.14– 16, zur letzteren die Erweiterung in 13,1.17–22. 26 Vgl. etwa DE JONG, Isaiah.

Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch

31

und Israel wird erstaunlicherweise nicht direkt mit Jahwe in Verbindung gebracht; es „geschieht“ einfach. Ein ganz anderer Klang bestimmt die Fortsetzung in 8,5–8. In dieser Redeeinheit wird sekundär (!), also auf literarischem Wege, die Unheilsprophetie gegen Aram und Israel nun auch gegen Juda gewendet:27 Weil dieses Volk verschmäht die sanft und freundlich fließenden (hôlekīm le-ʾaṭ û-māśôś) Wasser des Schiloah [Kommentar: d. h. den Rezin und den Sohn des Remaljah], deshalb führt der Herr gegen sie herauf die starken und großen Wasser „des Flusses“ [Kommentar: d. h. den König von Assur und all seine Macht]. Und er (scil. der Fluss) kommt über all seine Kanäle, und er überfällt all seine Bäche.

Nicht nur über das Nordreich Israel ist das Unheil hereingebrochen, sondern auch über den judäischen Bruderstaat, das eigene Volk. Jesaja mutiert so – gleichsam im Wachstum des Buches – vom Heilspropheten zum Künder des unentrinnbaren Gerichts. Es spricht einiges dafür, dass diese Fortführung des ursprünglichen jesajanischen Wortes auf einer Ebene mit der Erweiterung der älteren Berufungsvision Jes 6,1–8, die zunächst im heilvoll-präsenztheologischen Sinne zu verstehen war, durch den Verstockungsauftrag Jes 6,9–11 erfolgte.28 Damit wäre der historische Jesaja primär als Heilsprophet zu klassifizieren, was übrigens durch das ebenfalls heilsprophetische Bild Jesajas in den Hiskija-JesajaLegenden (Jes 36–39) tendenziell bestätigt wird: Jesaja stand mit dem Königshof in Verbindung und betätigte sich offenbar als (kritischer) Ratgeber. Zurück zu Jes 8,5–8. Für eine nachjesajanische Einordnung dieses Wortes sprechen weitere Gründe. So wird das Gericht in 8,6–8 im Gegensatz zu 8,1–4 ausdrücklich auf Jahwe selbst zurückgeführt und – darin dürfte die Pointe liegen – als Strafe für Ungehorsam gegen Gott selbst betrachtet: Das Volk habe die Wasser des Schiloah „verachtet“ (mʾs). Damit kommt eine theologische Kategorie ins Spiel, die in 8,1–4 noch fehlte; sie verweist auf eine spätere, nachjesajanische Reflexionsebene, wie nicht zuletzt die Verwendung des Verbums mʾs zeigt. Es gehört, wie man früher sagte, der „Bundestradition“ an,29 stammt also aus dem Umkreis (spät-)deuteronomistischen Denkens. Die Wasser des Schiloah zu „verachten“  / „verwerfen“ bedeutet, Jahwe selbst zu verwerfen.30 Folgt man dieser Sicht der Dinge, wäre eine Datierung des Wortes 8,5–8 noch in die assyrische Zeit sehr unwahrscheinlich. Noch unwahrscheinlicher ist die neuerlich wieder von Konrad Schmid vorgebrachte These,31 die beiden Worte 8,1–4 und 5–8 gehörten literarisch auf eine – nämlich jesajanische – Ebene. Dass ein späterer 27 Vgl. die ausführliche Begründung BECKER, Jesaja, 94–123; etwas modifiziert in: BECKER / KREBERNIK, Beobachtungen, 123–137. 28 Vgl. BECKER, Jesaja, 61–123, sowie die Skizze in: BECKER, Problem, 117–124. 29 Vgl. WILDBERGER, Jesaja 1–12, 197. 30 Vgl. ähnlich Jes 5,24b. 31 Vgl. zuletzt SCHMID, Anfänge, 431–443.

32

Uwe Becker

Glossator in 8,7 den „König von Assur und seine ganze Macht“ eintrug und damit das gesamte Wort 8,5–8 ausdrücklich in den Kontext der Denkschrift und des syrisch-efraimitischen Krieges einordnete, spricht noch einmal für die grundsätzliche, beinahe zeitlose Beschreibung des Gerichtshandelns mittels des Bildes von der herannahenden Flut im literarischen Grundbestand des Wortes.32 Sie spricht übrigens auch gegen eine in neuerer Zeit von F. Hartenstein und R. Müller vorgebrachte Verbindung der Flutmetaphorik in 8,6–8 mit assyrischen Texten (den Babylon-Inschriften) aus dem Beginn der Herrschaft Asarhaddons (680–669), um auf diese Weise eine Datierung des Wortes noch in die assyrische Zeit zu sichern.33 Das Bild von der herannahenden Flut mag in assyrischen Texten seinen Ursprung haben und damit assyrisch konnotiert sein. Doch damit ist lediglich ein terminus a quo gegeben. Darüber hinaus ist das Wort wiederum so allgemein gehalten, dass es auch anderen Großmächten (Babylon) gleichsam unterlegt werden konnte. Entscheidend für eine Datierung von Jes 8,6–8 bleiben die textinternen Hinweise, die redaktionsgeschichtlichen Erwägungen zur Denkschrift insgesamt und nicht zuletzt die erwähnte „Theologisierung“, nämlich die Zurückführung des Gerichts auf Jahwe selbst. Diese dürfte kaum schon in der Zeit des Propheten Jesaja möglich gewesen sein. Man sieht an den Anfängen des Jer-Buches in Jer 4–6, dass der Gedanke eines Gerichtes Jahwes erst mühsam errungen werden musste; dieser Prozess dürfte kaum vor dem Ende der Königszeit im ausgehenden 7. und beginnenden 6. Jahrhundert eingesetzt haben.34 Die Anfänge der Orakel gegen fremde Völker liegen also in der Verkündigung des Propheten selbst. Das angekündigte Unheil wendet sich gegen umliegende Völker (das Nordreich Israel und Aram), die Juda existentiell bedrohen. Zu diesen Orakeln dürfte auch der Kern des Wortes gegen Damaskus in Jes 17,1.3a (bis middammæśæq) gehört haben.35 In der Entstehungsgeschichte des Jes-Buches spielen sodann die Worte gegen Assur eine zentrale Rolle. Hier liegt eine zweite Gruppe von Worten vor, die man früher auf den Propheten selbst zurückführte und die sich charakteristisch von den „gewöhnlichen“ Worten gegen fremde Völker in Jes 13–23 unterscheiden.

4. Das Problem der (Anti-)Assur-Redaktion im Jes-Buch Der Befund lässt sich einfach skizzieren: Es gibt in der Jesaja-Überlieferung Texte, die (a) Assur als Gerichtswerkzeug Jahwes gegen die Feinde Judas (so ist wohl 10,5 zu verstehen) sowie gegen Juda selbst (vgl. 8,6–8) einführen und 32 BARTHEL, Prophetenwort, 198, spricht nicht zu Unrecht von einem „gebrochene[n] Geschichtsbezug von V. 6–8“, erklärt diesen freilich mit der metaphorischen Redeweise. 33 Vgl. HARTENSTEIN, JHWH, 83–102 (bes. 95–97); MÜLLER, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 71–94. 34 Vgl. BECKER, Jesaja, Jeremia, 79–100. 35 Vgl. BECKER, Jesaja, 174 f.

Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch

33

die (b) auch diesem Gerichtswerkzeug am Ende das Gericht ansagen (vgl. bes. 10,5 und 14,25). Es liegt also ein höchst ambivalentes, ja widersprüchliches Assur-Bild vor. Ohne auf das Problem der Assur-Texte im Einzelnen ausführlicher eingehen zu können, kann man die gegenwärtige Forschung doch wie folgt zusammenfassen. Zu den traditionellen Lösungen gehört die These, das gespaltene Assur-Bild habe noch in der Lebenszeit Jesajas seinen Ursprung. Demnach hätte sich aufgrund der schlechten Erfahrungen mit den real agierenden Assyrern das zunächst positive Assur-Bild in ein negatives gewandelt.36 So kann man das uneinheitliche Assur-Bild in Jes 1–39 mit „Wandlungen Jesajas“ erklären.37 Zu einem neuen Blick auf dieses Problem führte die bereits erwähnte redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie von Hermann Barth, eine bei O. H. Steck gearbeitete Dissertation, über die „Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit“ (1977). Nach ihm ist der Umschwung in der Beurteilung Assurs nicht in der Person des Propheten und seinen „Wandlungen“ zu suchen, sondern in der Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches. So spricht er diejenigen Texte dem Propheten ab, die von einer Bewahrung des Zion und einer Vernichtung Assurs reden, und deutet sie als das Ergebnis einer „produktiven Neuinterpretation prophetischer Überlieferung“38 aus der Zeit Joschijas und rechnet die betreffenden Texte einer einheitlichen „Assur-Redaktion“ zu. Zu dieser Redaktion werden, um nur einige wichtige Texte zu nennen, die Verheißung in 8,23–9,6 sowie 10,16–19 und die beiden Worte 14,24–27 und 17,12–14 gerechnet, die die Vernichtung Assurs in den Kontext des Weltgerichts rücken (vgl. auch 29,8). Das Problem der im Wesentlichen positiv aufgenommenen Assur-Redaktion Barths liegt in einem doppelten Umstand:39 Auf der einen Seite rechnet Barth ihr Texte zu, die eigentlich gar nicht von Assur, sondern von einem Völkerkampf sprechen – so vor allem Jes 8,9 f.; 14,26–27 (Assur begegnet nur in v. 25!) und 17,12–14. Man darf auf die Untersuchung von G. Wanke verweisen, der gerade diese Texte auf eine nachexilische Redaktion zurückgeführt hat.40 Hinzu kommt, dass Barth dieser Redaktion weitere Texte zuschreibt, die weder formal noch inhaltlich etwas mit ihr zu tun haben. Das gilt vor allem für die Herrscherverheißung Jes 8,23–9,6, die Barth auf König Joschija bezieht, um einen (scheinbar) festen zeithistorischen Anker zu erhalten. Auf der anderen Seite belässt er den Text, der in geradezu paradigmatischer Weise vom Gericht am Gerichtswerkzeug Assur spricht, nämlich Jes 10,5–15, dem Propheten. Die hier angedeutete Uneinheitlichkeit des Textbestandes ist nur selten thematisiert worden, stellt aber das 36

So pointiert bei DIETRICH, Jesaja, 101–114. FOHRER, Wandlungen, 11–23. 38 BARTH, Jesaja-Worte, 301. 39 Positiv aufgenommen z. B. von CLEMENTS, Isaiah (als „Josianic Redaction“), und SWEENEY, Isaiah 1–39, 353–358. Kritisch und mit ausführlicher Diskussion BECKER, Jesaja, 212–222, und bes. WILLIAMSON, Theory, 3–21; DERS., Isaiah 6–12, 540–542. 40 WANKE, Zionstheologie. 37

34

Uwe Becker

wichtigste Argument gegen die These einer joschijanischen Assur-Redaktion dar, wie sie von Barth beschrieben wurde. Und doch gibt es in Jes 1–39 Texte, die Assur, das zur Bestrafung Judas eingesetzt war (10,5), nun seinerseits das Gericht ansagen. Der Schlüsseltext liegt in Jes 10,5–15*, der einmal eng mit dem Kern von 14,24–27 zusammengehört hat. Das Ergebnis der Analyse, die an dieser Stelle nicht vorgeführt werden kann,41 lautet wie folgt: Im Grundtext Jes 10,5–7a.8–9.11* + 14,24–25a liegt ein Wehewort gegen Assur vor, das sich als Fortschreibung des Kehrversgedichtes von der ausgestreckten Hand in Jes 9,7–20* – seinerseits ein später, nachjesajanischer Text – verstehen lässt.42 Die Analyse geht von drei Grundbeobachtungen aus: (1) Das Mittelstück v. 8–11*, also das Zitat des Assyrerkönigs, gehört entgegen vielen älteren und neueren Analysen zum Grundbestand, nicht hingegen die weisheitliche Reflexion in v. 13–15.43 (2) Die Rede des Assyrerkönigs zielt keineswegs auf Samaria, wie man denken möchte, sondern auf Jerusalem (v. 11). (3) Das Stück 10,5–11* dürfte eine ursprüngliche literarische Einheit mit 14,24–25a gebildet haben und zur Vorbereitung der Jesaja-Hiskija-Legenden in Jes 36–37 – vielleicht auch zu deren Integration in das Jes-Buch – verfasst worden sein. Der Text in literarkritischer Differenzierung (der Grundbestand ist fett gedruckt): 10,5

Wehe Assur, Stock meines Zorns und Stab {in ihrer Hand ist er} meiner Verwünschung. 6 Gegen eine gottlose Nation sende ich ihn, und wider das Volk meines Grimms entbiete ich ihn, um Beute zu erbeuten und Raub zu rauben und es zu zertreten wie Straßenstaub. 7 Aber er selbst hat es so nicht im Sinn, und sein Herz denkt so nicht: Denn zu vernichten hat er im Herzen und auszurotten nicht wenige Völker. 8 Denn er sagt: „Sind nicht meine Fürsten allzumal Könige? 9 Erging es nicht Kalno wie Karkemisch, nicht Hamat wie Arpad, nicht Samaria wie Damaskus?

41

Ausführlich BECKER, Jesaja, 200–222. Zur Literarkritik von Jes 10,5–15 vgl. BECKER, Jesaja 202 f.; zu 14,24–27 ebd., 207, bzw. KAISER, Jesaja 13–39, 40–42. 43 So z. B. WILDBERGER, Jesaja 1–12, 392. In der jüngsten Analyse von MÜLLER, Carchemish, 74–79, wird ebenfalls das Mittelstück v. 8–11* aus dem Grundbestand (v. 5–7a.13a*.15abα) herausgenommen. Ein wesentliches Argument, das an dieser Stelle immer wieder vorgebracht wird, liegt darin, dass die Rede des Assyrerkönigs v. 8–11* deutlich auf die Hiskija-Jesaja-Legenden Bezug nehme (vgl. MÜLLER, Carchemisch, 71 f., der zwar im Blick auf den Grundbestand nicht mehr für eine jesajanische Autorschaft eintritt, aber offenbar noch an die Assyrerzeit denkt). Auch WILLIAMSON, Isaiah 6–12, betrachtet die v. 10–11 (+ 12) als spätere, götzenpolemisch orientierte Einsätze (vgl. 495 f. und 516–520). 42

Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch

35

10 Wie

meine Hand griff nach den Götzenreichen, und deren Bilder mehr als die als die Jerusalems und Samarias, 11 Kann ich nicht, wie ich tat an Samaria {und seinen Götzen}, so auch an Jerusalem tun {und seinen Gebilden}?“ 14,24 Es

hat geschworen Jahwe Zebaot: Fürwahr, wie ich es im Sinn hatte, so wird es geschehen, und wie ich es plante, so kommt es zustande. 25 Zerschmettern will ich Assur in meinem Lande und auf meinen Bergen es zertreten, damit weiche von ihnen sein Joch und seine Last von seiner Schulter weiche. 26 Dies ist der Plan, der über die ganze Erde beschlossen ist, und dies ist die Hand, die ausgestreckt ist über alle Völker. 27 Denn Jahwe Zebaot hat es beschlossen – wer kann es vereiteln? Und seine Hand ist ausgestreckt – wer kann sie zurückbiegen?

Der Tenor des Grundbestandes lautet: Der Angriff der Assyrer gegen Samaria ist legitim (hier wird der Gedanke des Kehrversgedichtes 9,7–20 fortgesetzt), aber die Bestürmung Jerusalems ist unzulässig (v. 11) und wird von Jahwe selbst verhindert. Deshalb wird Assur, wie es in 14,25a heißt, „in meinem Lande und auf meinen Bergen zertreten“. Vor diesem Hintergrund lesen sich die Hiskija-JesajaLegenden in Jes 36 f. wie eine erzählerische Entfaltung der zionstheologischen Grundidee von 10,8–11*. Assur wird der Untergang angekündigt, weil es Hand an den Zion gelegt hat: Dies ist ein Akt der Hybris, der um jeden Preis verhindert werden muss. Das Wort 10,5–11* stellt sich damit als eine geschichtstheologische Meta-Reflexion dar, die – zumal angesichts der Schuld des Gottesvolkes – über die Rolle des Zion und seine Verbindung zu Jahwe nachdenkt und die Rolle der Völker in der von Gott bestimmten Weltgeschichte definiert. Das Ergebnis dieser Denkbemühung ist höchst ambivalent: Jahwe lässt den Zion aufs Äußerste bedrängen, gibt ihn aber nicht preis; diesem Willen hat sich auch die Völkerwelt, die durch „Assur“ repräsentiert wird, zu beugen. Eine ähnliche Abfolge von Bedrängung und Rettung in letzter Not findet sich in den beiden zusammengehörenden Worten Jes 29,1–4a und 31,1.3.8a:44 29,1 Wehe,

Ariel, Ariel, Stadt, da David lagerte. Fügt nur Jahr an Jahr, die Feste sollen kreisen. 2 Ich werde Ariel bedrängen, […] 3 und ich werde dich ringsum belagern, ich werde dich mit Wällen einschließen und Schanzen gegen dich errichten. 44

Vgl. die ausführliche Analyse in BECKER, Jesaja, 234–245 und 257–263.

36

Uwe Becker 4 Und

du wirst tief am Boden kauernd reden, und aus dem Staub erniedrigt kommt deine Rede. […]

31,1

Wehe denen, die hinabziehen nach Ägypten um Hilfe! Auf Rosse stützen sie sich. Sie vertrauten auf Wagen, weil ihrer viel, und auf Reiter, weil sie sehr zahlreich sind. Aber sie schauten nicht auf den Heiligen Israels, […] und Jahwe suchten sie nicht. 3 Die Ägypter sind Menschen und nicht Gott, und ihre Rosse sind Fleisch und nicht Geist. Wenn Jahwe seine Hand ausstreckt, strauchelt der Helfer und fällt der, dem er hilft […] 8 Und fallen wird Assur durch das Schwert, doch nicht eines Mannes, und das Schwert, nicht eines Menschen, wird es fressen. […]

Die Aussage dieser Textabfolge ähnelt der in Jes 10,5–11* + 14,24–25a: Der Zion wird zwar lebensbedrohlich gefährdet, aber am Ende doch bewahrt. Dabei leitet der letzte Vers 31,8a, der erkennbar 10,5 aufgreift (der „Stock des Zorns“ wird selbst gerichtet), die Hiskija-Jesaja-Legenden in Jes 36 f. ein: Assur war beauftragt worden, das Gottesvolk zu bestrafen, aber die letzte Verfügungsgewalt bleibt bei Jahwe; er kann den Zion um seiner selbst willen nicht preisgeben.45 Dabei ist zu beachten, dass diese Hand – man mag die beiden Textfolgen Jes 10,5–11* + 14,24– 15a einerseits und 29,1–4* + 31,1–3*.8a andererseits „Assur-Redaktion“ nennen – das heilsprophetische Bild der Legenden nicht einfach übernimmt und fortschreibt, sondern durchaus von einer Schuld Judas ausgeht. Zwar wird der Zion von Jahwe gerettet und bewahrt (14,24–25a; 31,8a), doch er wird offenbar nicht grundlos bedrängt, wie 29,2 zumindest andeutet. Dass der Text letztlich auch ein gleichsam universalhistorisches Urteil über die Rolle der Völker coram Deo fällt, zeigt sich auch an der Erwähnung Ägyptens in Jes 31,3: Die Völker – sei es Assur, sei es Ägypten – neigen zur Hybris, der Jahwe sein Machtwort entgegensetzt. Für die Fragestellung dieses Beitrags bedeutet dies: Sowohl in der Verkündigung Jesajas selbst als auch in den sog. Assur-Texten sind zwei Wurzeln für die Völkerorakel erkennbar, die als älteste Kerne zu einem Teil der Sammlung c.13–23 geworden sind. Wie dies geschah, soll nun noch in einigen wenigen Strichen nachgezeichnet werden.

45

Dass die Reihenfolge in der Regel anders bewertet wird – also Jes 36–37 als nehmender und Jes 28–31* als gebender Teil interpretiert werden, ist bekannt. Siehe zuletzt PANOV, Hiskijas Geschick, 183–195.

Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch

37

5. Die Entstehung von Jes 13–23: eine Skizze Die literarische Grundlage der jetzigen Völkerspruchsammlung ist zweifellos in der Verkündigung Jesajas selbst zu suchen; sie gehört zum Kern seiner judäischen Heilsprophetie. So liegt mit dem Wort gegen Damaskus in Jes 17,1.3* ein mit 8,1–4* vergleichbares Orakel gegen die Feinde Judas zur Zeit Jesajas vor. Möglicherweise gehörten auch die Worte gegen Kusch in 18,1–2* und gegen Ägypten bzw. Kusch in 20,3–4* zu diesem ältesten Stratum. Eine weitere markante Stufe in der Entwicklung der Fremdvölkerworte bilden die Prophetien gegen Assur: Die Vorschaltung von 10,5–11* + 14,24–25a vor die jesajanischen Orakel 17,1.3* (und 28,1–10*)46 stellt die Besiegung der Feinde Judas, Israel und Aram, in einen größeren und weiteren geschichtstheologischen Rahmen, indem sie die Großmacht Assur einbeziehen: Die Assyrer sind von Jahwe selbst herbeigerufen worden, sie bedrohen auch Juda, sind aber nicht befugt, den Zion selbst anzugreifen. Dass diese Redaktion eher zu den späteren als früheren Nachinterpretationen der Jesaja-Überlieferung gehört, liegt nahe. Schon aus Gründen der relativen Chronologie kommt man in eine deutlich „nach-assyrische“ Zeit; die „Assur-Redaktion“ schließt direkt an das kaum vorexilische Kehrversgedicht Jes 9,7–20 an. Eine solche Spätdatierung legt sich aber auch aufgrund des theologisch-reflektierenden Charakters der Anti-Assur-Worte nahe: Sie greifen nicht in eine konkrete zeithistorische Situation ein, sondern reflektieren in allgemeiner und grundsätzlicher Weise über die Rolle der Völker in der Geschichte des Gottesvolkes. Insofern stehen diese Worte nicht allein für Assur, sondern für jede Großmacht – für Babel wie auch für nachfolgende Reiche. W. A. M. Beuken spricht in diesem Zusammenhang treffend von einer „Teleskopierung“:47 Bestimmte Assur-Texte sind bewusst offen für verschiedene Zeitbezüge und können sich ebenso auf das Jahr 701 wie 587 beziehen. Entscheidend ist nun der dritte Schritt, mit dem sich die Völkerspruchsammlung als eine Größe eigener Art zu etablieren begann: Durch die Vorschaltung eines Babel-Wortes in c.13–14* vor die anti-assyrische Prophetie in 14,24–25a und die Integration des jesajanischen Wortes gegen Damaskus in 17,1.3* ist der Anfang einer Sammlung von Völkerworten entstanden, die  – möglicherweise aufgrund von Jer 5148  – mit Babel, der gottfeindlichen Weltstadt schlechthin, einsetzte. Dass dies nicht mehr zur Zeit der babylonischen Herrschaft erfolgte, legt sich wiederum aus Gründen der relativen Chronologie und der Buchentstehung nahe. Man befindet sich also bereits in der Zeit der Perser, in der man – vielleicht nicht zufällig – auf die Schreckenszeit Babels zurückblickte, wie auch 46 Es ist zu beachten, dass die sog. Apokalypse Jes 24–27 in mehreren Schüben (und beginnend mit 24,1–20*) den ursprünglichen Zusammenhang von Jes 23 und 28–31 durchtrennt hat; vgl. BECKER, Isaiah 24–27, 136–140. 47 BEUKEN, Jesaja 13–23, 27. 48 Vgl. KLEIN, Babylon, 145–153.

38

Uwe Becker

die Verfasser des Kyros-Zylinders mit ihrer dualistischen Geschichtsschau die gute Zeit der Perser von der bösen Zeit Babels absetzten. Dass Babel an den Anfang der Liste der fremden Völker gerückt wurde, hat demnach mit konkreten historischen Erfahrungen und daraus abgeleiteten Deuteprozessen zu tun, sagt aber noch nichts über die Entstehungszeit des Orakels aus. Man wird die babylonische Zeit sogar ausschließen können. Dass sich dieser Datierungsvorschlag des Babylon-Orakels in Jes 13–14 von gegenwärtigen Beurteilungen abhebt, wurde schon bemerkt. Nach wie vor argumentiert man mit vermeintlich zeitgeschichtlichen Anspielungen. So schließt man aus der der Tatsache, dass Babylon nicht durch die Meder, wie 13,17 es ankündigt, sondern durch die Perser untergegangen sei, auf eine Datierung des Spruches vor 539; meist kommt man auf ein geschätztes Datum um 540.49 Eine ähnliche Argumentation findet man für die Erwähnung des Kyros in Jes 45,1 f., wo ein – historisch nicht belegtes und deshalb vor dem Ereignis angesetztes – gewaltsames Eindringen des Perserkönigs in Babylon angekündigt wird. Eine solche Argumentation ist aber alles andere als zwingend: (1) Die Meder könnten bei bzw. vor der Eroberung Babylons tatsächlich eine wichtigere Rolle gespielt haben, als es der Kyros-Zylinder glauben machen will.50 Im Übrigen: Was wusste man etwa um 400 v. Chr. überhaupt über die Eroberung Babylons? (2) Bei Jes 13,17 könnte es sich um literarische, topische Bildungen handeln, die man nicht unbedingt zeitgeschichtlich deuten muss. (3) Die Erwähnung der Meder beruht auf der literarischen Abhängigkeit des Babel-Wortes von Jer 51,12,51 lässt sich also nicht für eine zeithistorische Datierung von Jes 13 f. auswerten. Einige literarkritische Überlegungen zur Entstehung von Jes 13–14 seien skizziert: Als Grundlage lässt sich das Babel-Wort in 13,1a.17–22 herauslösen:52 Babel wird, so der Tenor, von ganz oben nach ganz unten fallen. Dieses Wort, das von topischen Formulierungen durchsetzt ist (vgl. bes. 13,17–22), dürfte dann in mehreren Schüben erweitert worden sein: (1) Eine erste markante Erweiterung liegt in 13,2.4–5 vor. Dieser Abschnitt – er greift, wie Anja Klein wahrscheinlich gemacht hat,53 in vielfältiger Weise auf Jer 4–6 und Jer 51 zurück  – schaltet 49

Vgl. SCHMID, Jesaja 1–23, 132, und ZAPFF, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 292, für seinen Grundbestand in Jes 13,1a.17–22. KŐSZEGHY, Streit, datiert das Orakel gegen Babel in seiner Studie von 2007 noch in die späte vorexilische Zeit. Auch der Versuch von GOSSE, Isaïe 13,1–14,23, das Wort gegen Babel Jes 13,1–14,23 als ein literarisch einheitliches Orakel zu betrachten, das zusammen mit 14,24–27 als „introduction ultérieure“ (273) der Sammlung Jes 13–23 vorangestellt wurde und wohl auch in die Nähe der Endredaktion des Jesajabuches zu rücken ist, erscheint nur wenig differenziert. 50 Vgl. zu den verwickelten Verhältnissen KNAUF / NIEMANN, Geschichte, 316–318. 51 Vgl. KLEIN, Babylon, 150–153. 52 Vgl. ausführlich ZAPFF, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 227–275. 53 Vgl. KLEIN, Babylon, 145–154. Die Parallelen betreffen nicht nur das „Signal“ (2 —1) in 13,2 (Jer 4,6.21), sondern auch die „Stimme“ (+L9) in 13,4 (Jer 4,15.16.19.21.21.29.31; 6,17.23) und das „ferne Land“ (7:˜ 9 ˜ %š :’ /) ˜ in 13,5 (Jer 4,16; 6,20; vgl. 8,19).

Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch

39

der Ankündigung des Untergangs Babels das Aufgebot eines unbestimmten, geradezu kosmisch ausgemalten Gerichtsvolkes vor: Es ist von Jahwe selbst gesandt und hat die Aufgabe, Babel und die ganze Welt mit ihm zu vernichten (13,5). Auffällig ist der inhaltliche Rückbezug von 13,5 („die Werkzeuge seines Grimms“) auf Jes 10,5 („Stock meines Zorns“), der anzeigen dürfte, dass das Babelwort spätestens auf dieser Ebene das Anti-Assur-Wort 10,5–11* voraussetzt und aufgreift. – (2) Mit der Ankündigung des Tages Jahwes in 13,6–13 (die IchRede in 13,11–13 könnte wiederum sekundär sein, s. u.) wird der Babel-Bezug gänzlich verlassen. Nun steht ein universaler Gerichtstag im Blick, der vielleicht von 13,5 inspiriert worden ist.54 Das kleine Stück 13,14–16, das in der Regel zu 13,6–13 gezogen wird, scheint ursprünglich (sekundär) an 13,1–5 angeschlossen zu haben, wie die Wiederaufnahme von 13,5 in 13,13 andeutet.55 (3) In 13,3 und 13,11–13 wird – jeweils in einer Gottesrede – schließlich die Thematik Gerechter / Frevler in das Orakel eingebracht. Die Entstehung von Jes 14 kann ebenfalls nur skizziert werden. Das Kapitel besteht aus zwei Segmenten, einer Rahmung in 14,1–4a.22 f. und einem Mittelteil in 14,4b–21, dem Spottlied auf den König von Babel, der allerdings nicht als solcher bezeichnet wird. Nach gängiger Auffassung wird man die Rahmenverse 14,1–4a.22 f. „als die Verklammerungsstücke anzusehen haben, die bei der redaktionellen Erstellung des Komplexes 13,1(2)–14,27 gebildet wurden, um die bereits vorliegenden Texte 13,1(2)–22; 14,4b–21; 14,24–27 zusammenzubinden.“56 Daran ist wohl richtig gesehen, dass mittels 14,3(+4a) das Gedicht über den Fall eines ungenannten Tyrannen in 14,5–21 in den Kontext eingefügt und auf den König von Babel bezogen wurde. Aber auch schon die Einleitung in 14,1–2  – selbst kaum auf einem Guss57 – wirkt wie eine „Weiterspinnung von Kap. 13“, die sich nach dem Gericht gegen Assur nun der „Wiedergewinnung des ganzen Gottesvolkes“58 widmet. Dabei leitet der Abschnitt 14,22–23 zum Schluss von c.13 zurück, so dass sich die folgenden (groben) Entstehungsphasen für Jes 13–14 insgesamt nahelegen: (1) Den Anfang bildete das Babel-Wort in 13,1a.17–22, das zwischen dem Anti-Assur-Wort Jes 10,5–11* und 14,24–25a zu stehen kam und das Gericht gegen Assur gewissermaßen um ein Gericht gegen Babel erweiterte. (2) In einem zweiten Schritt wurde mit 14,1–2* die Heilsperpektive eröffnet: Jahwe wird Jakob/Israel, wie es in „deuterojesajanischer“ Diktion heißt, „noch 54 Wegen der universalen Ausrichtung von 13,5 wird der gesamte Abschnitt 13,5–16 einer einzigen Redaktion zugewiesen, die das Babel-Wort in ein allgemeines Weltgericht transformiert, so pointiert STECK, Abschluß, 27, der an seine großjesajanische „Fortschreibung I“ aus der Zeit nach Alexander dem Großen denkt. 55 Vgl. HÖFFKEN, Jesaja 1–39, 130 f. 56 BARTH, Jesaja-Worte, 127. Vgl. zur Diskussion bes. ZAPFF, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 263– 269. 57 Vgl. dazu bes. KAISER, Jesaja 13–39, 22 f. 58 HÖFFKEN, Jesaja, 132.

40

Uwe Becker

einmal erwählen“ und es auf seinem Boden zur „Ruhe“ kommen lassen (14,1). Dabei könnten die beiden Verse 14,22–23 den ursprünglichen Abschluss gebildet haben: Sie setzen 14,2 fort und leiten zum älteren Zusammenhang 14,24–25a über. (3) In einem weiteren Schritt wäre das Spottlied in 14,4b–21 mit Hilfe der Einführung 14,3–4a hinzugekommen. Jedenfalls wirken die beiden Verse 14,22– 23 nicht wie der natürliche Abschluss des Gedichts, sondern eher wie der Rest eines vorgegebenen Textes. Es zeigt sich damit, dass Jes 14,1–23 insgesamt später anzusetzen ist als Jes 13*. Hinter den beiden Kapiteln Jes 13–14 verbirgt sich also ein komplexer und mehrschichtiger Entstehungsprozess, der bei dem Babel-Wort in 13,1a.17–22 seinen Anfang nahm: Es ist zwischen das Orakel gegen Assur 10,5–11* und 14,24– 25a eingestellt worden, um Assur mit Babel zu synchronisieren und beiden das Gericht anzusagen. Eine Folge dieses Eingriffs ist der nunmehr verloren und deplatziert wirkende Abschnitt 14,24–25a mit seinem Assur-Bezug. Es ist möglich, dass es bei der „Einarbeitung“ Babels  – oder aber der Weltgerichtspassage in 13,6–13 – auch zu der Fortführung in 14,26–27 kam, denn hier wird das Gericht gegen Assur zu einem Gericht gegen die gesamte Völkerwelt ausgedehnt. Kurzum: Mit der Einschaltung des Babel-Worts und der Überschrift in 13,1* „Ausspruch über Babel“ ist der Grund gelegt worden für die Etablierung einer eigenen Reihe von Fremdvölkerworten, die im Kern auf jesajanischen Prophetien und den Anti-Assur-Worten beruht. Die weitere Geschichte der Fremdvölkerworte kann an dieser Stelle nicht verfolgt werden. Im Kern dürfte die eingangs zitierte Einordnung B. Duhms, Jes 13–23 versammle Sprüche vom 8. bis zum 2. Jh. v. Chr. – das ist im Übrigen die Zeitspanne, in der das ganze Jesajabuch entstanden ist – das Richtige treffen.

6. Zusammenfassung Das wenig überraschende Ergebnis lautet: Die Fremdvölkerworte des JesajaBuches haben ihre Anfänge in der prophetischen Überlieferung selbst. In der Ankündigung des Untergangs der beiden Staaten Israel und Aram (Jes 8,1–4; 17,1.3*)59 manifestiert sich der grundsätzlich heilsprophetische Charakter der jesajanischen Verkündigung im Blick auf das eigene Volk von Juda.60 Beide 59 Hinzuzunehmen wären noch die beiden Worte Jes 28,1*.3 und 28,7b–10, die sich gegen das Nordreich richten. 60 Diese Ausrichtung schließt Kritik im Einzelnen nicht aus, wie man sie auch in den neuassyrischen Prophetentexten findet. Bei der Alternative Gerichts- oder Heilsprophetie geht es indes um die grundsätzliche Frage, ob schon der historische Prophet eine radikale Unheilsbotschaft gegen das gesamte (Gottes-)Volk verkündigt habe. Die Einzelkritik ist dann von den Bucheditoren zu einer Generalkritik verallgemeinert und gerichtstheologisch ausgebaut worden. Dies geschah offenbar nicht nur bei Jesaja, sondern auch im Hosea- und Amosbuch (vgl. die beiden „nachprophetischen“ Belege Hos 1,6.9 und Am 8,2).

Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch

41

erhaltenen Worte sind noch ganz „untheologisch“ formuliert; sie stellen beinahe nüchtern fest, dass die beiden Rivalen untergehen werden. Erst in der literarischen (!) Übertragung des Gerichts auf das eigene Volk  – so pointiert in Jes 8,5–8, vorbereitet durch die Verstockungstheorie in 6,9–11  – wird die Schuldfrage explizit einbezogen: Das Volk von Juda hat sich gegen Jahwe selbst versündigt und muss deshalb in toto untergehen. Dass sich hinter dieser Vorstellung eine Theodizee verbirgt, wie man sie auch in der deuteronomistischen Historiographie findet, liegt auf der Hand. Einen erheblichen Schritt weiter geht die anti-assyrische Bearbeitung der Prophetenüberlieferung. In ihr wird (auf der Basis der Erzählüberlieferung Jes 36–37) die Rolle der Großmacht Assur in einer anspruchsvollen geschichtstheologischen Reflexion bedacht (Jes 10,5–11* + 14,24–25a). Sie ist weniger an einer Deutung der Zeitgeschichte interessiert – die Assyrerzeit ist längst Vergangenheit – als vielmehr an einer metahistorischen Verhältnisbestimmung Jahwes zur Völkerwelt: Jahwe bedient sich als Herr der Welt auch der fremden Völker und weist ihnen den gebührenden Platz zu. Sie können als Gerichtsvolk eingesetzt werden (10,5), werden in ihrer Macht aber begrenzt, wenn der Zion tangiert wird. Insofern bieten die Anti-Assur-Texte eine etwas andere Grundanschauung von der Völkerwelt als die Idee einer Völkerwallfahrt zum Zion.61 Damit kann auch die Ausgangsfrage vorläufig beantwortet werden: Die Geburtsstunde der Fremdvölkerworte im Jesajabuch war die Prophetie gegen fremde Völker der näheren Umgebung (Israel und Aram) aufgrund einer konkreten Bedrohung. Diese hatte ihren ursprünglichen „Sitz im Leben“ in der Heilsverkündigung des Propheten Jesaja. Daraus haben sich dann – über den notwendigen Zwischenschritt der Unheilsverkündigung gegen das eigene Volk, also die literarische Gerichtsprophetie – die Orakel gegen Assur und sodann auch Babel entwickelt. Zeitlich ist man bei den Anti-Assur-Worten, die man in früheren Zeiten Jesaja selbst zugeschrieben hat, längst in der persischen Epoche angekommen, in der man wohl die äußere Gelegenheit und die innere Kraft hatte, über die heil- und unheilvolle Rolle der Völker in der Geschichte des Gottesvolkes nachzudenken. Immerhin sind es die Perser, die in allen diesen Überlegungen eine durchgehend positive Bewertung erhalten (vgl. Jes 45,1; Esr 1,1–4).

61

Vgl. zu diesem Strang v. a. MAIER, Völkerwallfahrt.

42

Uwe Becker

Literaturverzeichnis BARTH, HERMANN, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit. Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, WMANT 48, NeukirchenVluyn 1977. BARTHEL, JÖRG, Prophetenwort und Geschichte. Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31, FAT 19, Tübingen 1997. BECKER, UWE, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, FRLANT 178, Göttingen 1997. –, Das Problem des historischen Jesaja, in: IRMTRAUD FISCHER  / KONRAD SCHMID  / HUGH G. M. WILLIAMSON (Hg.), Prophetie in Israel, ATM 11, Münster 2003, 117–124. –, Jesaja, Jeremia und die Anfänge der Unheilsprophetie in Juda, HeBAI 6 (2017), 79–100. –, Isaiah 24–27 and Intertextuality, in: REINHARD G. KRATZ / JOACHIM SCHAPER (Hg.), Imperial Visions, FRLANT 277, Göttingen 2020, 129–140. –, The Book of Isaiah. Its Composition History, in: LENA-SOFIA TIEMEYER (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of Isaiah, New York/Oxford 2020, 37–56. BECKER, UWE / KREBERNIK, MANFRED, Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 8,1–8, in: CHRISTIANE KARRER-GRUBE u. a. (Hg.), Sprachen – Bilder – Klänge. Dimensionen der Theologie im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld. Festschrift für Rüdiger Bartelmus zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, AOAT 359, Münster 2009, 123–137. BEUKEN, WILLEM A. M., Jes 13–27, HThKAT, Freiburg i. Br. 2007. BEZZEL, HANNES, Gerichtsprophetie und Fremdvölkerorakel. Ihr Verhältnis zueinander mit Blick auf die Worte über Damaskus in Jes 17, Jer 49 und Am 1, in: MICHAEL MEYERBLANCK (Hg.), Christentum und Europa. XVI. Europäischer Kongress für Theologie (10.-13. September 2017 in Wien), VWGTh 57, Leipzig 2019, 234–248. BOSSHARD-NEPUSTIL, ERICH, Rezeptionen von Jesaja 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit, OBO 154, Fribourg/Göttingen 1997. CLEMENTS, RONALD E., Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem. A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament, JSOT.S 13, Sheffield 1980. DIETRICH, WALTER, Jesaja und die Politik, BEvTh 74, München 1976. DUHM, BERNHARD, Das Buch Jesaja. Mit einem bibliographischen Geleitwort von Walter Baumgartner, Göttingen 51968. FOHRER, GEORG, Wandlungen Jesajas [1967], in: DERS., Studien zu alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen (1966–1972), BZAW 155, Berlin/New York 1981, 11–23. GOSSE, BERNARD, Isaïe 13,1–14,23. Dans la tradition littéraire du livre d’Isaïe et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations, OBO 78, Fribourg/Göttingen 1988. HARTENSTEIN, FRIEDHELM, JHWH und der „Schreckensglanz“ Assurs (Jesaja 8,6–8). Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur „Denkschrift“ Jesaja 6–8*, in: DERS. u. a. (Hg.), Schriftprophetie. Festschrift für Jörg Jeremias zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004, 83–102. HÖFFKEN, PETER, Das Buch Jesaja. Kapitel 1–39, NSK.AT 18/1, Stuttgart 1993. HUBER, FRIEDRICH, Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja, BZAW 137, Berlin/New York 1976. JENKINS, ALLAN K., The Development of the Isaiah Tradition in Isaiah 13–23, in: JACQUES VERMEYLEN (Hg.), The Book of Isaiah, BEThL 81, Leuven 1989, 237–251. DE JONG, MATTHIJS JASPER, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets. A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies, VT.S 117, Leiden 2007.

Die Geburt der Fremdvölkersprüche im Jesajabuch

43

KAISER, OTTO, Der Prophet Jesaja. Kapitel 13–39, ATD 18, Göttingen 31983. KLEIN, ANJA, Babylon Revisited. A New Look at Isa 13 and Its literary Horizon, in: REINHARD G. KRATZ  / JOACHIM SCHAPER (Hg.), Imperial Visions: The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires, FRLANT 277, Göttingen 2020, 141–154. KNAUF, ERNST AXEL / NIEMANN, HERMANN MICHAEL, Geschichte Israels und Judas im Altertum, De Gruyter Studium, Berlin 2021. KŐSZEGHY, MIKLÓS, Der Streit um Babel in den Büchern Jesaja und Jeremia, BWANT 173, Stuttgart 2007. KRATZ, REINHARD G. / SCHAPER, JOACHIM (Hg.), Imperial Visions: The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires, FRLANT 277, Göttingen 2020. MAIER, MICHAEL P., Völkerwallfahrt im Jesajabuch, BZAW 474, Berlin/Boston, MA 2016. MARTI, KARL, Das Buch Jesaja, KHC X, Tübingen/Freiburg i. Br./Leipzig 1900. MÜLLER, REINHARD, Ausgebliebene Einsicht. Jesajas „Verstockungsauftrag“ (Jes 6,9–11) und die judäische Politik am Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts, BThSt 124, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2012. –, From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah. Paradigmatic Images of Imperial Hubris in Isa 10:5–15, in: KRATZ, REINHARD G. / SCHAPER, JOACHIM (Hg.), Imperial Visions: The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires, FRLANT 277, Göttingen 2020, 61–80. NISSINEN, MARTTI (Hg.), Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. With Contributions by CHOON-LEONG SEOW, ROBERT K. RITNER, and H. CRAIG MELCHERT, Writings from the Ancient World 41, Atlanta, GA 22019. PANOV, LIDA LEONIE, Hiskijas Geschick und Jesajas Beistand. Heilstheologische Verarbeitungen der Jesajaüberlieferung in den Hiskija-Jesaja-Erzählungen, AThANT 110, Zürich 2019. SCHMID, KONRAD, Jesaja. Band I: Jesaja 1–23, ZBK.AT 19/1, Zürich 2011. –, Die Anfänge des Jesajabuchs, in: CHRISTL M. MAIER (Hg.), Congress Volume Munich 2013, VT.S 163, Leiden/Boston, MA 2014, 426–453. STECK, ODIL HANNES, Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament. Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons, BThSt 17, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991. WANKE, GUNTHER, Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, BZAW 97, Berlin 1966. WILDBERGER, HANS, Jesaja 1–12, BK X /1, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972; 21980. –, Jesaja 13–27, BK X /2, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978. –, Jesaja 28–39, BK X /3, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982. WILLIAMSON, HUGH G. M., The Book Called Isaiah. Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford 1994. –, The Theory of a Josianic Edition of the First Part of the Book of Isaiah: A Critical Examination, in: TOMMY WASSERMAN u. a. (Ed.), Studies in Isaiah, LHB/OTS 654, London 2017, 3–21. –, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27 in three Volumes: Volume 2: Commentary on Isaiah 6–12, ICC, London/New York (NY ) 2018. ZAPFF, BURKARD M., Schriftgelehrte Prophetie – Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches, FzB 74, Würzburg 1995.

Jes 63,1–6 und das Jesajabuch – Die Integration eines sperrigen Textes BURKARD M. ZAPFF Wer von den sehr ansprechenden Texten im Zentrum des sogenannten Tritojesaja1, insbesondere Jes 60–62, auf den ersten Text des Folgekapitels in Jes 63,1–6 trifft, erlebt fast so etwas wie einen Schock. So begegnet er hier einem Abschnitt, in dem von „Zorn“, „Blut“, vom „Tag der Rache“, ja vom Zerschmettern der Völker die Rede ist. Damit kann er recht gut jenes Urteil nachvollziehen, zu dem Peter Höffken in seinem Kommentar zu Jes 40–66 in NSK kommt: „Das ist eine grässliche Vision. Es ist gut, dass es im Jesajabuch andere gibt …“.2 Tatsächlich wirkt Jes 63,1–6 an seiner heutigen Stelle im dritten Teil des Jesajabuches irgendwie deplatziert und überflüssig. Dergestalt fügt sich der Text nur recht schlecht in die mehrheitlich positive Sicht der Völker im tritojesajanischen Corpus ein, denkt man nur einmal an dessen Beginn in Jes 56,1–8, wo zumindest einzelnen Menschen aus den Völkern die Möglichkeit einer Annahme und Integration ins Gottesvolk aufgezeigt wird oder an dessen Ende, in Jes 66,18–24, wo schließlich alle Welt regelmäßig zum Zion kommen wird, um vor JHWH niederzufallen. Selbst wenn man Jes 63,1–6 als Ergänzung oder spätere Fortschreibung literar- und redaktionskritisch ausscheiden wollte,3 so bleibt doch die Frage, welche Funktion dieser Text im heutigen Ganzen des Jesajabuches spielt, und zwar sowohl hinsichtlich seines näheren Kontextes wie auch seines Verhältnisses zu den beiden eben beschriebenen Rahmentexten des „Tritojesaja“. Nicht zuletzt ist zu klären, in welchem Verhältnis Jes 63,1–6 darüber hinaus zu anderen Texten des Jesajabuches steht, wobei insbesondere bereits bei einer oberflächlichen Lektüre die Ähnlichkeit zu Jes 34 auffällt, insofern dort vergleichbare Themen eine Rolle spielen, wie z. B. ein Gericht JHWHs über Edom (Jes 34,5), das sich mit einem universalen Völkergericht verbindet (vgl. Jes 34,2).

1 Zur neueren Forschung bezüglich Jes 56–66 vgl. neben der neueren Kommentarliteratur z. B. RUSZKOWSKI, Volk; STECK, Studien; ZAPFF, Jesaja 56–66; GOLDENSTEIN, Gottesknechte; KOENEN, Ethik. 2 HÖFFKEN, Jesaja, 230; ein Überblick zur Deutung von Jes 63,1–6 findet sich bei HERRMANN, Signifikanz, 533–540. 3 So bereits STECK, Heimkehr, 50, Anm. 26, der Jes 63 als „großjesajanischen Redaktionstext“ betrachtet.

46

Burkard M. Zapff

Genau diesen Fragen soll dieser Beitrag nachgehen. Selbstredend sind die dabei beschriebenen Beobachtungen nicht alle neu, vielmehr ist es das Ziel dieser Ausführungen, sie in einen größeren Gesamtzusammenhang einzufügen. Folgendes soll hier zur Sprache kommen: 1. Um was geht es in Jes 63,1–6? 2. Wie ist Jes 63,1–6 im Jesajabuch verankert? 3. Welches Verständnis ergibt sich aus den sprachlichen und inhaltlichen Bezügen zu den jeweiligen Texten? 4. Welche Rolle spielt Jes 63,1–6 möglicherweise im Jesajabuch? 5. Welche redaktionsgeschichtlichen Schlussfolgerungen bezüglich des Verhältnisses von Jes 63,1–6 zum Jesajabuch lassen sich aus diesen Beobachtungen ziehen? 6. Wie fügt sich Jes 63,1–6 bei einer synchronen Betrachtung in den Duktus des Jesajabuches ein?

1. Text und Übersetzung von Jes 63,1–6 1

2 3

4 5

6

Wer ist dieser, der von Edom her kommt, hochrot seine Kleider, (der) von Bosra her (kommt)? Dieser, prächtig in seinem Gewand, stolz einherschreitenda in der Größe seiner Kraft. Ich bin es, der in Gerechtigkeitb spricht, (Ich bin) groß zum Retten. Warum ist dein Gewand rot und deine Kleider wie bei einem, der die Kelter tritt? Die Weinpresse trat ich allein und von den Völkerna war keiner bei mir und ich tratb sie in meinem Zorn und zerstampfteb sie in meinem Grimm und ihr Saft spritzteb.c über meine Kleider und alle meine Gewänder befleckte ich. Denn ein Tag der Rache lag mir im Sinn und ein Jahr meiner Auslösunga war gekommen. Und ich blicktea hin, doch niemand war da, der half, ich wunderte micha, doch niemand war da, der (mich) stützte, da half mirb mein Arm und mein Grimm: er stützte mich. Und ich zerstampftea die Völker in meinem Zorn, und machte sie trunkenb in meinem Grimm und ich ließ ihren Saft zur Erde rinnena.

Jes 63,1–6 und das Jesajabuch – Die Integration eines sperrigen Textes

47

2. Anmerkungen zum Text 1 a !4œ˜ 8 für das Gesenius die Bedeutung „stolz einhergehn [sic!]”4 angibt, wörtl. eigentlich mit „gekrümmten“ i. S. v. „zurückgebogenen Halse“, übersetzt G mit „mächtig mit Kraft“ βίᾳ μετὰ ἰσχύος (vgl. S: ÌàÙσ¿½ÄÍéÁçÙýund stark in der Größe seiner Kraft“) und hat dabei vielleicht ein #%)-#83 „mächtig in seiner Kraft“ gelesen.5 Mit Symmachus βαίνων wird meistens eine Verschreibung von 38 „schreitend“ (vgl. Vg.: gradiens) angenommen (vgl. BHS).6 b G spricht hier davon, dass der Sprecher Gerechtigkeit redet: διαλέγομαι δικαιοσύνην. 3 a 1 QJesa liest '/3/# „und von meinem Volk“,7 geht also davon aus, dass Israel nicht, wie in der JHWH–Kriegstradition vorausgesetzt, JHWH bei seinem Kampf zu Hilfe eilte (vgl. Ri 5,23). 1 QJesb hingegen bestätigt MT.8 b Die in MT futurisch wiedergegebenen we-jiqtol-Formen sind mit G entsprechend der qatalForm in V. 3a („trat ich“) ebenfalls mit Vergangenheitsformen (wa-jiqtol) wiederzugeben. Mit ihrer Vokalisation „wollen die Masoreten wohl dem bisherigen Ausbleiben der Vernichtung der Feinde Rechnung tragen und die Verse als Ankündigung der Vernichtung ihrer eigenen Feinde betrachten“.9 c $ —' ’# „und (der Saft) wird spritzen“ ist wohl als $ –Q ™# (wa-jiqtol) „und spritzte“ zu vokalisieren (vgl. BHS); G nimmt hier eine Angleichung an V 6b vor, wenn sie mit „und ich ließ ihr Blut zur Erde rinnen“: κατήγαγον τὸ αἷμα αὐτῶν εἰς γῆν übersetzt und dabei entsprechend V 3b die 3.Pers. sing. masc. in eine 1.Pers. sing. verwandelt. Gleichzeitig lässt G V. 3cβ unübersetzt. ™ ’E ist umstritten. In jedem Fall dürfe ein Anklang 4 a Die Herleitung von '+K an das in V 3bβ vorausgehende 'k– +’ š ’˜ „ich befleckte” beabsichtigt sein.10 Gegen eine Übersetzung mit „Jahr meiner Befleckung“11 spricht allerdings die Parallele mit -9š š1-L' „Tag der Rache”, die entsprechend den üblichen Verbindungen von „Tag” und „Jahr”, auf die in verschiedener Weise Bezug genommen wird (vgl. z. B. Jes 34,8 s. u.), eine mit ähnlicher Konnotation verbundene Qualifikation der Zeitangaben erwarten lässt. So ist hier wohl G zu folgen, die mit „Jahr der Erlösung“ ἐνιαυτὸς λυτρώσεως übersetzt (vgl. V: „annus redemptionis“; T: = ™1fK 09:# ™ 6; ž S: Úæø˜Íñƒ¿ÿæü†„und ein Jahr meiner Erlösung“). Dabei liegt offensichtlich eine Anspielung auf das Jobeljahr in Lev 25,25 vor.12 Einige lesen allerdings  4 GESENIUS, Handwörterbuch, 689; er verweist dabei auf eine Analogie im Arabischen; ähnlich auch BEUKEN, Warrior, 285: „swaggering“; BAUMGARTNER, Lexikon, 974, hingegen geht von einer Verlesung aus.  5 SEPTUAGINTA, Kommentar, 2685.  6 So bereits DUHM, Jesaja, 464.  7 ULRICH/FLINT, Qumran, 100 f., Zeile 29.  8 ULRICH/FLINT, Qumran, 148 f., Zeile 12.  9 SEPTUGINTA, Kommentar, 2685. 10 STECK, Untersuchungen, 210, Anm. 125. 11 So z. B. die Neue Züricher Übersetzung: „Mein Jahr der Besudelung“. 12 GESENIUS, Handwörterbuch, 123 f.; BAUMGARTNER, Lexikon, 161: „Jahr m. Blutrache“.

48

Burkard M. Zapff

entsprechend Jes 62,12a kein Abstraktum, sondern eine Partizipialform „meiner Erlösten“,13 was jedoch angesichts der vorausgehenden Qualifikation des Tages mit einem Abstraktum eher unwahrscheinlich ist. 5 a Auch hier sind entsprechend G anstelle der futurischen Formen in MT Vergangenheitsformen (wa-jiqtol) vorzuziehen, vgl. V. 5b. b G liest hier ein Objekt „sie“ also: „und mein Arm rettete sie“: καὶ ἐρρύσατο αὐτοὺς ὁ βραχίων μου, so dass Gott nicht sich selbst, sondern andere, wahrscheinlich Israel, rettet. 6 a Wiederum sind die in MT als futurisch vokalisierten Formen mit G/S/V als Vergangenheitsformen zu lesen, ähnliches gilt mit vielen masoretischen Textzeugen für b (vgl. BHS).

3. Zum inhaltlichen Profil von Jes 63,1–6 Wir beginnen mit der ersten Fragestellung: „Um was geht es in Jes 63,1–6?“. Schon immer ist beobachtet worden, dass Jes 63 durch Fragen und Antworten strukturiert ist,14 vgl. V. 1a.(b): Frage – V. 1c: Antwort; V. 2: Frage – V. 3–6: Antwort. Dabei fällt auf, dass sich die erste Frage zunächst nicht an den richtet, der hier als mit auffallenden Kleidern bekleidet und in der Größe seiner Kraft stolz einherschreitend beschrieben wird.15 Vielmehr wendet sich die Frage an Adressaten, die, ebenso wie der Fragesteller offensichtlich die gleiche Beobachtung machen. Erst in V. 1c erhält diese Frage eine Antwort seitens des Beschriebenen selbst, der diese Frage offenbar mitbekommen hat. Dadurch aber entsteht der Eindruck eines sich aus der Ferne Nahenden, der erst als Angekommener selbst die passende Antwort geben kann. Dies wiederum erinnert formal16 an Jes 21,9, wo durch einen Späher (vgl. V. 8bα) das Kommen von Pferden und Wagen – übrigens mit derselben Wendung ! š ˜$ – beschrieben und erst an dessen Ende das Rätsel in Form einer Antwort (:/ ˜ œ Q ™#04™ ™Q ™#) aufgelöst wird, wenn – offensichtlich durch JHWH selbst17 – die Niederlage von Babel verkündet wird. In V. 2 richtet sich die Frage dann an den Herankommenden selbst, der sich in V. 1c identifiziert hat. Wiederum in Analogie zu Jes 21,6–9, wobei in V. 6 sogar ausdrücklich von einem „Späher“ !a˜ 8™ /’ !™ die Rede ist, handelt es sich bei dem Sprecher offensichtlich um einen Wächter, der einen in auffälliger Erscheinung Nahenden bemerkt, zunächst die Umstehenden nach ihrer Meinung fragt, um

13

BEUKEN, Warrior, 285. Vgl. z. B. CHILDS, Isaiah, 515; KOENEN, Ethik, 77. 15 CHILDS, Isaiah, 516: „The challenge is also not exclusively addressed to the approaching one, but includes a wider audience“. 16 Trotz des im Übrigen nicht begründeten Einspruchs von CHILDS, Isaiah, 515. 17 Die meisten neueren Übersetzungen verdecken diese Frage–Antwort–Struktur, indem sie z. B. mit: „und er fing an und sprach“ übersetzen, vgl. z. B. Elberfelder Übersetzung. 14

Jes 63,1–6 und das Jesajabuch – Die Integration eines sperrigen Textes

49

schließlich aus dem Mund des Beschriebenen selbst eine Antwort auf seine Frage zu erhalten. Aus V. 3 geht hervor, dass der Beschriebene aus einem Gericht über die Völker zurückkehrt und nicht, wie man immer wieder lesen kann,18 lediglich aus einem Gericht über Edom, also dem direkten Nachbarn Israels. Die Tatsache, dass einerseits die Völker entsprechend V. 3a JHWH nicht zur Seite standen,19 andererseits in V 3b selbst Objekt des Zertretens JHWHs wurden, muss dabei nicht besonders überraschen. V 3a dient offensichtlich der Aussageabsicht, dass sich JHWH – anders als in Proto- und Deuterojesaja20 (vgl. z. B. Jes 10,15; Jes 45,4) – keiner fremden Macht zur Durchsetzung seines Gerichtshandelns bedienen muss und ist damit Ausdruck seiner Souveränität und unumschränkten Macht. Vielmehr werden die Völker, die in Gestalt von Assur bereits in Protojesaja JHWHs Werkzeuge zum Vollzug seines Zorns waren, nun selbst Opfer des Zorns JHWHs (vgl. Jes 10,16). Wiewohl V. 6 durch die Aufnahme der Stichworte „in meinem Zorn“ 'a– ™ C,’ „in meinem Grimm“ '=– /š %” C™ und „ihren Saft“ -%š 8’ –1 gegenüber V. 3 nichts Neues zu sagen scheint,21 so lässt sich doch eine Entwicklung innerhalb des Textes feststellen. Danach ist in V. 6 nun nicht mehr nur vom „Zerstampfen“ der Völker und dem „Hochspritzen ihres Saftes“ die Rede, sondern auch das Ziel des Keltervorgangs tritt in den Blick, insofern die Völker „trunken“ gemacht werden, bzw. JHWH als Keltertreter „ihren Saft“ zur Erde fließen lässt. Zudem wird nun durch die Entsprechung beider Verse das Objektsuffix 3. masc. Plural in V. 3b in V. 6a durch -']– 4™ konkretisiert, so dass nochmals deutlich wird, dass es sich bei dem Objekt des Gerichtes wirklich um die Völker handelt. Merkwürdig ist, dass bei diesem Völkergericht das Bild der Kelter verwendet wird, verbindet sich doch mit dieser Metaphorik eher Freude und Frohsinn (vgl. Ri 9,27; Joel 2,24), wenngleich sie auch andernorts, wie an unserer Stelle als Gerichtsbild dient (vgl. Klgl 1,15, dort ebenfalls mit JHWH als Keltertreter). Das heißt, das Kelterbild ist offensichtlich gewählt, weil ihm eine Art Ambivalenz innewohnt: Im Hinblick auf die Völker assoziiert es grausame Vernichtung, im Hinblick auf Israel hingegen Freude. Dass es hier tatsächlich auch um Freude, Erlösung und Befreiung geht, wird anhand von V. 4 deutlich, wo im Zentrum der JHWH–Rede die Stichworte -9š š1 „Rache“ und '+K ™ ’E „meiner Auslösung“ stehen, die, ähnlich wie die beiden damit verbundenen Zeitangaben 18 Z. B. PAUL, Isaiah, 561; KOENEN, Ethik, 77; GOSSE, Isaïe, 30; dagegen mit Recht STECK, Untersuchungen, 210: „nicht vom Kampf gegen (!) Edom, sondern vom vollzogenen Völkergericht (V. 3.6) in (!) Edom ist die Rede, …“; vgl. auch ZAPFF, Jesaja 56–66, 403. 19 Die Kelter allein zu treten entspricht nicht dem üblichen Brauch, wonach gewöhnlich die ausschließlich roten Trauben durch mehrere Personen zu Mus zertreten und der Saft in Gefäße abgeleitet wurde, vgl. ZAPFF, Jesaja 56–66, 403 unter Verweis auf eine Darstellung im Grab der Nacht, Theben West, nach KEEL / KÜCHLER / UEHLINGER, Orte, 77. 20 HÖFFKEN, Jesaja, 230, denkt an eine „kritische Abwertung von Aussagen des Buches über Kyros als Heilsmittler“. 21 So bereits DUHM, Jesaja, 465.

50

Burkard M. Zapff

„Tag“ und „Jahr“, demselben Wortfeld angehören und die Wiederherstellung eines gestörten Gleichgewichtes bzw. einer Befreiung aus Schuldknechtschaft beinhalten.22 Davon aber spricht auch bereits V. 1c, in dem sich der Heranschreitende als jemand, der „in Gerechtigkeit spricht“ und „groß zum Retten“ ist, vorstellt. Betrachtet man nun die JHWH–Rede in V. 3–6 von ihrer Struktur her, so zeigt sich durch die aufgewiesene Stichwortentsprechung, dass die V. 3 und 5 f. V. 4 rahmen.23 Dabei entsprechen sich V. 3a und 5 (Stichwort: „niemand“ 0'— , bzw. das Motiv des alleinigen Handelns JHWHs) und V. 3b.c und 6 (Stichwort: „in meinem Zorn“ 'a– ™ C’ und „Völker“ -']– 4™ bzw. „sie“ und „ihr Saft“ -%š 8’ –1, Motiv des Zertretens der Völker in der Kelter). Zentrum der Aussage ist demnach V. 4,24 der wiederum V. 1c in inhaltlicher Hinsicht entspricht, so dass für ein angemessenes Verständnis des Ganzen beide Verse bzw. Versteile entscheidend sind. Es geht hier demnach nicht um ein sinnloses, blutrünstiges Abschlachten, sondern um die Herstellung eines Ausgleichs und einer Erlösung, die sich der Autor offensichtlich nur durch die Vernichtung der als Inbegriff der Unterdrückung verstandenen Völker vorstellen kann. Dass das Bild der Kelter nicht ein reales Zerschmettern der Völker bezeichnet, sondern offenbar vor allem wegen seiner oben beschriebenen Ambivalenz gewählt ist, macht nicht zuletzt auch die Aussage in V. 6aβ deutlich. Zwar knüpft der Gedanke, die Völker „trunken“ zu machen locker an das Bild der Kelter an, insofern es hier, wie bereits gesagt, um das Ergebnis des Keltervorgangs geht, dennoch fällt die Aussage grundsätzlich aus dem Gesamtduktus der bildlichen Aussage heraus, wonach die Völker wie Trauben zerquetscht werden.25 Die Völker trunken zu machen, assoziiert vielmehr einen Vorgang, der zu ihrer Entmachtung führt, so dass sie ohnmächtig dem Spott ausgeliefert sind (vgl. Jer 48,26). So weist gerade dieses durch den Einschub bewirkte Verlassen der die V. 1–6 durchziehenden Metaphorik darauf hin, dass das Kelterbild nicht im wörtlichen Sinn zu verstehen ist, vielmehr stehen die damit verbundenen, oben beschriebenen Konnotationen im Vordergrund. Soweit zunächst zum internen Verständnis des Abschnittes, wie es sich aus der Struktur des Abschnittes und seiner Semantik, insbesondere der Keltermetaphorik ergibt.

22 Vgl. BOTTERWECK / RINGGREN ThWAT I, 884–890; zur engen Verbindung mit -9š š1 „rächen“ mit +™ š vgl. BOTTERWECK / RINGGREN / FABRY, ThWAT V, 604, wonach für den (Blut-)Rächer auch der goʾel stehen kann. 23 Dies spricht auch gegen eine Abtrennung von V. 5 f. als nachträglicher Ergänzung im Hinblick auf Jes 59,16b, wie ich irrtümlicher Weise vertreten habe, vgl. ZAPFF, Jes 56–66, 404. 24 So bereits KOENEN, Ethik, 79. 25 Vgl. BEUKEN, Warrior, 296: „In real life, the two metaphorical actions of V. 6a, ‚to tread down‘ and ‚to make drunk‘, do not match“. Beuken nimmt dies als weiteres Zeichen dafür, wie sehr der Text bemüht ist, zu unterstreichen wie schwer der Charakter des Agierenden zu begreifen ist.

Jes 63,1–6 und das Jesajabuch – Die Integration eines sperrigen Textes

51

4. Die kontextuelle Einbindung von Jes 63,1–6 Wir kommen damit zur zweiten und dritten Frage, nämlich denen nach der Verankerung des Abschnittes im Jesajabuch und zwar sowohl hinsichtlich seines näheren wie weiteren Kontextes.26 Vorrang hat hier natürlich zunächst einmal die Verbindung mit dem näheren Kontext. Dabei fällt auf, dass sich hier eine ganze Reihe von thematischen Bezügen aber auch Stichwortverbindungen ergeben.27 Sollte es sich bei Jes 63 tatsächlich um eine Wächterbefragung handeln,28 bei der ein Neuankömmling an den Toren Jerusalems – dem vorausgehenden Vers Jes 62,10 entsprechend handelt es sich wohl um diesen Ort, an welchem sich der Leser von der Fiktion des Textes her befindet (-':– 4š i’ C™ K:’ 4– K:’ 4) – – nach seinem „Woher“ und „Wohin“ befragt wird, dann verweist Jes 63,1 auf Jes 62,6.29 Dort nämlich ist ausdrücklich davon die Rede, dass Wächter auf die Mauern Jerusalems gestellt werden,30 mit dem Ziel, entweder JHWH an Zion zu erinnern – so etwa die Deutung der EÜ – oder aber an JHWH zu erinnern: ! š#! ’'¡=-' ˜ :– V– ’$]™ !.™ 31 Eben letzteres aber geschieht in Jes 63,1, wenn der Wächter das Kommen JHWHs von Südosten her vermeldet! Von einem Kommen „deiner Rettung“, nämlich derjenigen Zions, spricht Jes 62,11b: CT š 4— f’ –'. Daran knüpft offensichtlich Jes 63,1aα und c an, wobei nun das Retten ausdrücklich mit JHWH verbunden wird, der sagt: „(Ich bin) groß zum Retten“ µ'™ fL! – + ’ :.™ 32 Auch das in Jes 61,10b verwendete Motiv der Kleidung, wonach JHWH Zion mit „Kleidern der Rettung“ bekleidet 3f™ ˜'¡'— ’C' – –1f' ™ C– +’ !– wird in Jes 63,1aβ.bα aufgegriffen. Hier ist es nun JHWH selbst, der mit „hochroten Kleidern“ -'– šC7K/ ’ %” und „prächtig in seinem Gewand“ LfK+’ C:K – !š bekleidet ist – als Ausdruck seines richtenden und damit zugleich rettenden Handelns.33 26 M. E. ist Jes 63,1–6 aufgrund seiner vielfältigen schriftgelehrten Bezüge nicht ohne seinen Kontext zu verstehen. Deshalb halte ich den Versuch Beukens, den Text zunächst ohne diese Bezüge zu lesen und zu verstehen, für nicht angemessen. 27 PAUL, Isaiah, 561. 28 ZAPFF, Jes 56–66, 403. 29 GOLDENSTEIN, Gebet, 188. 30 Auf diese Beziehung weist auch jüngst wieder BEUKEN, Warrior, 288, hin und identifiziert die Stimme in 63,1 mit der prophetischen Stimme in 62,10–12. 31 Vgl. GESENIUS, Handwörterbuch, 198. 32 VERGA, Victoria, 60–62, sieht hier mit Recht einen Bezug zu Jes 45,19–20, so dass sich durch diesen schriftgelehrten Rückbezug neben dem Herkunftsort des Fremden tatsächlich ein Hinweis auf seine Identität ergibt; dass, wie Beuken meint, die prophetische Frage in V 2 keinen Hinweis darauf gebe, die Aussage des Fremden in V 1c als eine Selbstidentifikation JHWHs zu erkennen, vgl. BEUKEN, Warrior, 289, Anm. 10, ist m. E. nicht schlüssig, bezieht sich doch die Frage in V 2 nicht mehr auf die Identität, sondern die Kleidung des Fremden. Offensichtlich genügt also dem Fragenden die vorherige Auskunft des Fremden bezüglich seiner Identität. 33 ZAPFF, Jes 56–66, 403; möglicherweise soll das hier verwendete, seltene Lexem 7K/%,” wörtl. „das Scharfe, Stechende“ übertragen auf Farben, vgl. GESENIUS, Handwörterbuch, 242

52

Burkard M. Zapff

An zentraler Stelle der Gottesrede in V. 4 findet sich eine weitere inhaltliche und sprachliche Verbindung, diesmal mit Jes 61,2. So kündigt der dort Sprechende als seinen Auftrag an, ein „Jahr der Gnade für JHWH“ ! š#!'+0L8 ™ :¡= š ™1f’ und „einen Tag der Rache für unseren Gott“ K1'!Y — +— 9š š1-L' ’# auszurufen. In Jes 63,4 spricht nun JHWH selbst davon, dass „ein Tag der Rache in meinem Sinn“ 'C– +– C’ 9š š1-L' liege „und ein Jahr“ = ™1fK ’ „meiner Auslösung“ '+K ™ ’E gekommen sei. Damit aber wird jener in Jes 61,2 angekündigte Tag der „Rache unseres Gottes“ nun mit dem Kommen JHWHs von seinem Gerichtshandeln in Bosra verknüpft. Die Formulierung „Jahr meiner Erlösung“ greift dabei ein Stichwort aus Jes 62,12a auf, in welchem von den „Erlösten JHWHs“ ! š#! ’''+K — ’E die Rede ist, als welche die künftige Bewohnerschaft Zions bezeichnet wird.34 Hinsichtlich der Verbindung mit dem folgenden Abschnitt Jes 63,7–64,11 hat m. E. Goldenstein schlüssig nachgewiesen, dass jener Text Jes 63,1–6 bereits voraussetzt und in verschiedener Weise darauf Bezug nimmt, was hier nicht näher entfaltet werden muss.35 Somit lässt sich bezüglich der näheren kontextuellen Einbindung von Jes 63 auch bereits die vierte Frage zumindest ansatzweise beantworten. Betrachtet man nämlich die aufgezeigten Stichwortverbindungen zwischen Jes 61 f. und Jes 63,1–6, so ist es kaum von der Hand zu weisen, dass Jes 63,1–6 Jes 61 f. fortführt, insofern dort das Kommen JHWHs vom Völkergericht die Vollendung des in Jes 61 f. angekündigten Heilshandelns JHWHs an Zion ist.36 Spricht in Jes 61 f. eine menschliche Person im Auftrag JHWHs, so findet dies seine Klimax im persönlichen Kommen und der direkten Rede JHWHs in Jes 63,1–6. Das Völkergericht und die Heimkehr JHWHs nach Zion stellen somit den Schlusspunkt der Verheißungen an Zion in Jes 61 und 62 dar. Die Beziehungen reichen jedoch noch weiter. So ist Jes 63,1–6 auch mit Jes 34 verbunden, insofern auch hier, wie bereits kurz angedeutet, ein Gerichtsgeschehen geschildert wird.37 Dieses vollzieht sich zunächst an Edom, wobei auch hier Bosra als Ort des Gerichtes JHWHs genannt wird, vgl. Jes 34,6c. Dieses Gericht über Edom wird dabei so radikal vollzogen, dass Edom in den Bereich und BAUMGARTNER, Lexikon I, 314, an das spätere Stichwort '=– /š %” C™ „in meinem Grimm“ (V 3b) anklingen, ähnlich wie :K!š „prächtig“ —an -):’ ’ ˜ ’# „ich trat sie“. 34 GOSSE, Isaїe, 29, weist darauf hin, dass die Formulierung wšnt gʾwly das Orakel gegen Edom in Jes 63,1–6 als Gegenstück zum Heil Jerusalems hervorhebt, welches in Jes 62,12 mit der Formulierung gʾwly yhwh gefeiert wird, vergleichbar dem Orakel gegen Edom in Jes 34, das ebenfalls als Gegenstück zum Heil Jerusalems fungiert, welches in Jes 35 beschrieben wird und wo ebenfalls von den „Erlösten“ gʾwlym gesprochen wird (vgl. Jes 35,9). 35 Vgl. GOLDENSTEIN, Gebet, 188–190. 36 GOLDENSTEIN, Gebet, 186, schreibt mit Recht: „Das Heil für Zion/Jerusalem hat eine Kehrseite für dessen Gegner, insofern ist die Gerichtsschilderung für die Völker die konsequente Fortsetzung und Ausformulierung der Heimkunfts- und Heilsaussagen von Jes 62,10 ff.“. 37 Auf diese Beziehungen wurde bereits mehrfach und ausführlich hingewiesen, vgl. VERMEYLEN, Isaïe, 441 f.; STECK, Heimkehr, 50–52; STECK, Untersuchungen, 210 f.

Jes 63,1–6 und das Jesajabuch – Die Integration eines sperrigen Textes

53

der chaotischen Gegenwelt überführt wird. Dies wiederum veranschaulicht in eindrucksvoller Weise die Aufzählung verschiedener Tiere mit dämonischen Zügen in Jes 34,11–15. Gleichzeitig weitet sich dieses Gericht zu einem Völkergericht, bei dem nun alle Völker für den Bann bestimmt sind, vgl. V. 2. Auch hier wird das Ereignis mit einem Zeitpunkt in Verbindung gebracht, der – ähnlich wie in Jes 63,4 – aus dem Wortpaar „Tag“ und „Jahr“, nämlich einem „Tag der Rache für JHWH“ ! š#!'+™ 9š š1-L' und einem „Jahr der Vergeltung für den Streit um Zion“ 0LQ8' – :– +-' ’ /KX – f= – ™1f’ besteht (vgl. Jes 34,8). Es ist, wie bereits Steck anmerkt, wohl klar, dass Jes 34 die Grundlage für Jes 63,1–6 bildet und dieser Text ohne Jes 34 nicht zu verstehen ist.38 Dabei sind folgende Aspekte zu berücksichtigen, die wiederum die vierte Frage beantworten helfen. 1. In Jes 34 geht es primär um das finale Gericht über Edom. Damit schließt Jes 34 den Bogen zu Jes 13, das in ähnlicher Weise ein finales Gericht über Babel schildert.39 Gerade die erwähnten Tiere mit teils dämonischen Zügen, die in Jes 13 und 34 die beiden zerstörten Städte bzw. Landschaften besiedeln, unterstreichen diese Verbindung.40 Dabei scheint das Gericht in Jes 34 trotz eines universalen Bezuges zunächst nur Edom zu betreffen, über dessen Gebiet die vom Herrn Erlösten entsprechend Jes 35,10 ungefährdet in die Heimat zurückkehren können. Demnach ist Jes 63,1–6, wo es nun nicht um ein Gericht über Edom, sondern ausdrücklich um eines über die Völker geht, als eine Art Fortführung und Vollendung von Jes 34 (und Jes 13) zu verstehen.41 2. Durch das Stichwort „Tag der Rache für JHWH“ knüpft Jes 34,8 offensichtlich an Jes 13,6 an, wo ganz allgemein vom kommenden „Tag JHWH“ die Rede ist. Dieser wird nun zu einem „Tag der Rache“, was im Sinne der Wiederherstellung eines aus dem Gleichgewicht geratenen Gesamtgefüges zu verstehen ist, unter dem Zion leidet. Da nun ein „Tag der Rache“ „für JHWH“ bzw. „für unseren Gott“ bzw. ein „Tag der Rache“, der JHWH „im Sinne“ liegt, das Stichwort ist, das alle drei Texte Jes 34,8; Jes 61,2 und Jes 63,4 verbindet, scheint damit ein Dreischritt intendiert zu sein, in dem sich die Wiederherstellung der Rechte Zions widerspiegelt. Dabei wird der „Tag der Rache“ jeweils durch ein „Jahr“ ergänzt, das entsprechend des Kontextes näher qualifiziert wird. In Jes 34,8 ist es ein „Jahr der Vergeltungen für den Streit um Zion“. Dabei stehen im traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund offenbar die Ereignisse von 586 v. Chr., 38 STECK, Untersuchungen, 210; eine umgekehrte Abhängigkeit vertritt in neuerer Zeit BERGES / OBERMAYER, Violence, 14. 39 ZAPFF, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 240–257; vgl. BERGES  / OBERMAYER, Violence, 13. 40 ZAPFF, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 252: „Nichtsdestoweniger setzt Jes 34G beim Leser die Kenntnis von Jes 13G voraus und will offenbar vor dem Hintergrund dieses Kapitels gelesen werden.“ 41 STECK, Untersuchungen, 210: „63,1–6 stellt bezüglich eines Völkergerichts in Edom den erfolgten Vollzug heraus; insofern ist der Text zwingend auf Jes 34, wo von Ankündigung und Vorgang dieses Gerichts die Rede ist, angewiesen;“.

54

Burkard M. Zapff

bei denen sich Edom auf Kosten Zions schadlos zu halten suchte (vgl. Obd 11– 14). In Jes 61,2 geht es – nun in umgekehrter Reihenfolge – um einen „Tag der Rache für unseren Gott“, dem die Ankündigung eines „Jahres der Gnade für“ bzw. „von JHWH“ voransteht. Hier, wo es nicht um die Vernichtung der äußeren Feinde geht, steht demnach die Gnade (für Zion) vor dem vergeltenden Handeln JHWHs. Entsprechend des Kontextes ist hier der Wiederaufbau Zions als Ausgleich für alle Erniedrigung, die Zion ertragen musste im Blick. Möglicherweise ist durch die ausdrückliche Erwähnung der Tatsache, dass es hier um einen Tag der Rache „für unseren Gott“ geht, an die Zerstörung Zions als des Heiligtums JHWHs gedacht, die JHWH direkt tangierte. In Jes 63,4 handelt es sich schließlich wiederum um einen Tag der Rache, der durch ein „Jahr meiner (JHWHs) Erlösung“ expliziert wird. Hier ist nun die endgültige Auslösung Israels aus der Gewalt der Völker leitendes Thema, welches die Folge des richtenden Handelns JHWHs am Tag der Rache ist. Wir hätten also insgesamt etwa jene Abfolge: Gericht über Edom, dem Erzfeind Israels – Wiederaufbau Zions als Kontrastbild zur Vernichtung Edoms  – finales Völkergericht als Ausdruck der endgültigen Rettung Israels. Jes 63,1–6 stellt somit auch hier den Schlusspunkt eines sich durch das Jesajabuch ziehenden Gesamtduktus dar. Dieser setzt mit Kapitel 13 ein, welches durch das Motiv des Tages JHWHs mit Jes 2,6–22 verknüpft ist (dort gegen Israel gerichtet) und nicht nur den Völkergerichtszyklus in Jes 14– 23 einleitet,42 sondern in allgemeiner Weise das Kommen des Tages JHWHs nun im Hinblick auf die Völkerwelt ankündigt, dessen konkrete Durchführung und Auswirkungen die beschriebenen Texte entfalten. Dabei wird die in Jes 13 angekündigte Zerstörung Babels in Jes 21,9 vermeldet, ähnlich wie die Durchführung des in Jes 13 und in Jes 34 angekündigten Völkergerichts in Jes 63,1–6 festgestellt wird. Ein letzter, schon oft beobachteter Bezugszusammenhang43 besteht zwischen Jes 63,5 und Jes 59,16.44 So wird dort JHWHs Verhalten im Rahmen eines Gerichts42

ZAPFF, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 214. Auf die zahlreichen Stichwortverbindungen zwischen Jes 63,1–6 und Jes 59,15b–20 weist bereits GOLDENSTEIN, Gebet, 184, Anm. 150 hin; vgl. auch PAUL, Isaiah, 560; dieser Zusammenhang spricht auch gegen die von WATTS, Isaiah, 321, vertretene These, hier handle es sich um eine Symbolgestalt der persischen Macht, besser noch um den persischen General Megabyzus; RUSZKOWSKI, Volk, 70–72, beschäftigt sich mit dem Abhängigkeitsverhältnis beider Texte. Seiner Meinung nach ist dabei Jes 63,1–6 der ältere Text und Jes 59,15–20 der nehmende Part. Zwar sind die kontextuellen Bezüge von Jes 59,15–20 entsprechend der Darstellung Ruszkowskis nachvollziehbar, sie lassen sich jedoch nicht für das redaktionsgeschichtliche Verhältnis beider Texte fruchtbar machen, zumal auch Jes 63,5 nicht ohne Berücksichtigung seines Kontextes formuliert ist. Beachtet man den großjesajanischen Bezugszusammenhang beider Texte und ihre heutige rahmende Funktion von Jes 60–62 spricht wohl mehr dafür, dass sie von einer Redaktion eingefügt worden sind; zu einer ähnlichen Schlussfolgerung kommt bereits KOENEN, Ethik, 84. 44 Dabei scheint, worauf GOSSE, Isaїe, 31 hinweist, bereits Jes 59,17–18 durch die Bekleidungsmetaphorik auf Jes 63,1 Einfluss gehabt zu haben, so dass sich die Beziehung nicht nur auf die fast wörtliche Entsprechung in V. 5 beschränkt. 43

Jes 63,1–6 und das Jesajabuch – Die Integration eines sperrigen Textes

55

handelns an den Feinden Israels in Jes 59,16 folgendermaßen beschrieben: „Er sah, dass keiner da war und war bestürzt, dass keiner Fürsprache hielt. Da half ihm sein Arm und seine Gerechtigkeit: sie war seine Stütze“: -/Lk — f’ –Q ™#f'0' – ¡' — V – :’ ™Q ™# K!=’ )š /š 2' ’ !L= – 9š ’ 8– ’#L3œ : ’$L+3fLk ™ ™#µ'™ –E6’ /0' ™ ' — V.– Jes 63,5 variiert die Aussage in charakteristischer Weise: „Ich blickte hin, doch niemand war da, der half, und ich wunderte mich, doch niemand war da, der (mich) stützte. Da half mir mein Arm und mein Grimm: er war meine Stütze.“ Zwei Aspekte sind hier zu bedenken: 1. Zum einen scheint, ähnlich wie beim „Tag der Rache“, durch eine vergleichbare Formulierung ein absichtlicher Bezugszusammenhang zwischen beiden Texten hergestellt zu werden. Geht es in Jes 59 um ein Gericht über die Frevler in Israel,45 bei dem ebenfalls JHWH als Erlöser nach Zion kommt (vgl. Jes 59,20), so handelt Jes 63,1–6 von einem Völkergericht. In beiden Situationen tritt JHWH als Kämpfer auf. Damit aber scheint das insgesamt beschriebene Gerichtsgeschehen verschiedene Phasen zu durchlaufen: Dem Gericht über die Frevler in Israel folgt das Gericht über die Völker. 2. Zum anderen wird die hier jeweils verwendete Formulierung, ähnlich wie im Fall des „Tages der Rache“ der sich aus dem Kontext ergebenden Situation angepasst. So geht es in Jes 59 um das Fehlen von Recht und Gerechtigkeit innerhalb Israels, vgl. V. 9.14. Dies wird ersetzt durch JHWHs Gerechtigkeit, die ihm zur Stütze wird. In Jes 63,1–6 hingegen ist der Zorn bzw. der Grimm JHWHs ein entscheidendes Stichwort, vgl. V. 3b und V. 5b. Von daher ist es naheliegend, dass hier, wo es nicht um die Herstellung von Gerechtigkeit, sondern um Erlösung geht, der Zorn zur entscheidenden Stütze JHWHs wird. Im Hinblick auf die vierte, oben formulierte Frage lässt sich damit folgende Antwort geben: Auch im Hinblick auf Jes 59,17 und seinem Kontext bildet Jes 63,1–6 den Schlusspunkt eines Duktus, insofern nach den Frevlern in Israel nun die Völker vernichtet werden, um Gerechtigkeit und Erlösung für Israel zu erreichen.

5. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen Berücksichtigt man diese vielfältigen Beziehungen von Jes 63,1–8 ins Jesajabuch, lassen sich abschließend eine Reihe redaktionsgeschichtlicher Schlussfolgerungen ziehen. 1. Die Vielzahl der Stichwortverbindungen spricht in jedem Fall dafür, dass es sich bei Jes 63,1–6 um eine schriftgelehrte Fortschreibung im Kontext der Endredaktionen des Jesajabuches handelt.46 Es liegt hier also mit großer Wahr-

45

GOLDENSTEIN, Gebet, 185; CHILDS, Isaiah, 515. Eine grundlegende Hypothese zu solchen Fortschreibungsphänomenen am Ende des Jesajabuches hat STECK, Abschluß, entwickelt. 46

56

Burkard M. Zapff

scheinlichkeit kein Text vor, der jemals ein Eigenleben unabhängig vom Jesajabuch geführt hat. 2. Jes 63,1–6 setzt Jes 34 voraus und bringt das dort Ausgeführte zum Abschluss, insofern der Text offensichtlich davon ausgeht, dass das dort angekündigte Völkergericht im Kontext eines Gerichtes an Edom noch nicht Wirklichkeit geworden ist.47 3. Jes 63,1–6 steht dabei im Duktus eines Rachetages JHWHs, der ausgehend von der Vernichtung Babels in Jes 13, dessen Vollzugsmeldung in Jes 21,9, die Vernichtung Edoms in Jes 34, den Wiederaufbau Zions in Jes 61 f. und schließlich die Vernichtung der Völker umfasst. Ob es sich dabei um den ursprünglichen Buchschluss eines früheren jesajanischen Corpus handelt,48 ist möglich, lässt sich jedoch nicht mit Sicherheit sagen. 4. Jes 63,1–6 setzt schließlich Jes 59,16 voraus, bzw. steht wohl mit diesem Text auf einer redaktionellen Ebene, so dass dem Gericht über die Frevler in Israel das Völkergericht JHWHs folgt.49

6. Jes 63,1–6 – synchron gelesen Abschließend noch kurz ein Versuch zur Beantwortung der Frage, wie sich Jes 63,1–6 in den heutigen Kontext des tritojesajanischen Corpus einfügt. Wie eingangs gesagt, ergibt sich im Hinblick auf die Sicht der Völker ein inhaltliches Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Jes 63,1–6 und Jes 56,1–6 sowie Jes 66,18–24. Dies könnte auf folgende Weise gelöst werden. Wie Jes 63,1–6 deutlich macht, handelt es sich bei diesem Völkergericht um einen Vorgang, der sich zwar außerhalb des Verheißungslandes, jedoch in dessen Nähe (Edom, Bosra) vollzieht. In Jes 56,1–8 hingegen handelt es sich um einzelne Menschen aus den Völkern, die sich in Jerusalem aufhalten und in einer positiven Beziehung zum Haus des Herrn stehen, folglich vom Gerichtsschlag JHWHs nicht betroffen sind. In Jes 66,18– 24 wiederum geht es um die übrigen Völker in der Ferne (vgl. die Formulierung „entfernte Inseln“ -'9œ– %:’ !-' š –Q– !), š die weder von JHWH wissen noch seine Herrlichkeit gesehen haben, demnach auch vom Gerichtsschlag JHWHs nicht betroffen sind und nun nach Zion kommen, um JHWH zu huldigen. Von daher gelesen ist das Gerichtsgeschehen in Jes 63,1–6 weder ein totales Völkergericht noch das letzte Wort über die Völker und ihr künftiges Schicksal im Jesajabuch.50 47

So bereits BERGES  / OBERMAYER, Violence, 16: „What once has been announced is now fulfilled …“. 48 So STECK, Untersuchungen, 211 Anm. 127; GOLDENSTEIN, Gebet, 187. 49 BERGES/OBERMAYER, Violence, 17, hingegen meinen, dass Edom in 63,1–6 nicht länger die auswärtigen Feinde, sondern die innergemeindlichen Gegner bezeichnen, wofür es jedoch m. E. keinen Hinweis gibt, wiewohl natürlich Edom nicht allein das vormalige Brudervolk bezeichnet, sondern bereits zum Inbegriff auswärtiger feindlicher Bedrohung geworden ist. 50 Vgl. HÖFFKEN, Jesaja, 230.

Jes 63,1–6 und das Jesajabuch – Die Integration eines sperrigen Textes

57

Literaturverzeichnis BERGES, ULRICH  / OBERMEYER, BERND, Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah, in: NATHAN MACDONALD / BROWN KEN (Hg.) Monotheism in Late Prophetic and Early Apocalyptic Literature, FAT 2/72, Tübingen 2014. BEUKEN, WILLEM A. M., Questioning a Warrior: Otherness as Literary Strategy in Isaiah 63:16, ETL 92 (2016), 285–303. CHILDS, BREVARD S., Isaiah. A Commentary. The Old Testament Library, Louisville (KY ) 2001. DUHM, BERNHARD, Das Buch Jesaja, Göttingen 1892/51968. GESENIUS, WILHELM, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch, Leipzig 171921. GOLDENSTEIN, JOHANNES, Das Gebet der Gottesknechte. Jesaja 63,7–64,11 im Jesajabuch, WMANT 92, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001. GOSSE, BERNARD, Isaїe 63,1–6, le livre d‘Isaїe et le Psautier, BN NF 146 (2010), 27–36. HERRMANN, WOLFRAM, Die religiöse Signifikanz von Jesaja 63,1–6, in: MARCUS WITTE (Hg.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80.Geburtstag, BZAW 345/I, Berlin / New York 2004, 533–540. HÖFFKEN, PETER, Das Buch Jesaja. Kapitel 40–66. NSK Altes Testament 18/2, Stuttgart 1998. KARRER, MARTIN  / KRAUS, WOLFGANG, Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, Band II, Psalmen bis Danielschriften, Stuttgart 2011. KEEL, OTHMAR  / KÜCHLER, MAX  / UEHLINGER, CHRISTOPH, Orte und Landschaften der Bibel. Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer zum Heiligen Land, Band 1: Geographisch-geschichtliche Landeskunde, Zürich, Einsiedeln / Köln 1984. KOENEN, KLAUS, Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch, WMANT 62, NeukirchenVluyn 1990. LIPINSKI, E., Art. -9™ š1, in: ThWAT V (1986), 602–612. PAUL, SHALOM M., Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary, Grand Rapids (MI) 2012. RINGGREN, HELMER, Art. +™ šE, in: ThWAT I (1973), 884–890. RUSZKOWSKI, LESZEK, Volk und Gemeinde im Wandel. Eine Untersuchung zu Jesaja 56–66, FRLANT 191, Göttingen 2000. STECK, ODIL HANNES, Studien zu Tritojesaja, BZAW 203, Berlin / New York (NY ) 1991. –, Zu jüngsten Untersuchungen von Jes 56,9–59,21; 63,1–6, in: DERS. (Hg.), Studien zu Tritojesaja, BZAW 203, Berlin / New York (NY ) 1991, 192–213. –, Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament. Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons, BThSt 17, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991. FLINT, PETER W. / ULRICH, EUGENE (Hg.), Qumran Cave 1. II. The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions, DJD 32/1, Oxford 2010. VERGA, CARLOS H., La Victoria del Salvador: Is 63,1–6, Revista Bíblica, (2008), 49–92. VERMEYLEN, JACQUES, Du Prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique. Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d’un demi–millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël, Tome I, Paris 1977. WATTS, JOHN D. W., Isaiah 34–66, Word Biblical Commentary 25, Waco (TX) 1987. ZAPFF, BURKARD M., Schriftgelehrte Prophetie – Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches, FzB 74, Würzburg 1995. –, Jesaja 56–66, NEB, Würzburg 2006.

From Egypt to Babylon, or from Elam to Moab? Queries Concerning the Order of the Oracles against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah1 ERIC PEELS 1. Questioning an Increasingly Dominant View There are two versions of the book of Jeremiah, as the text form of the Old Greek translation (JerG) differs considerably from that of the Masoretic Text of the book (JerMT). For almost two centuries, the relationship between both versions has been a matter of much debate. While, especially in the past, many scholars believed that the text form of JerG is secondary to JerMT, the prevailing view today is that, on the contrary, JerMT is due to secondary developments. Among other arguments, the latter view is based on the fact that there are two Qumran-manuscripts containing a Hebrew text of Jeremiah that resembles JerG (4Q71=4QJerb and 4Q72a=4QJerd).2 Thus, in the past decades, a consensus has grown that JerG reflects a Hebrew Vorlage of the book that, compared to JerMT, represents an earlier stage in the book’s literary development.3 Only a small minority of scholars maintain the priority of JerMT.4 An important topic in the debate on the text of Jeremiah concerns the position and order of the collection of Oracles against the Nations (OAN). In JerG, these oracles are found in the center of the book (25:14–31:44), but in JerMT they are located at the end (46:1–51:64). According to most scholars, JerG has preserved 1

This article is a slightly revised and expanded version of PEELS, Volgorde, 137–55. Recently, however, it is argued that the text of 4QJerd attests most likely to a somewhat developed version of a text situated between JerMT and the shared ancestor of JerG and JerMT. See LANGE, Texts of Jeremiah, 296–300. 3 Already in 1986, CARROLL wrote: “The developing consensus of scholarship now is that the shorter text on which G* is based, represents the more original and superior textual tradition of the book of Jeremiah” (Jeremiah, 51). It is important to note that the text form of JerG has relative – i. e. not absolute – priority over JerMT; in some cases, it represents a later version of the text than JerMT, cf. STIPP, Sondergut, 145–65. 4 See, e. g., FISCHER, ROFÉ, LUNDBOM, SEITZ, HARAN. On the other hand, a large majority of scholars follows the opposite view of JANZEN, BOGAERT, GOSSE, LUST, SCHENKER, GOLDMAN, HUWYLER, STIPP, TOV and others. For summaries of the Forschungsgeschichte, see FISCHER, Stand, 31–45, BACKHAUS  / MEYER, Buch Jeremia, 549–51, GESUNDHEIT, Question, 29–36, WEISS, Textual History, 499–504, and LANGE, Textual History, 519–20. 2

60

Eric Peels

the collection’s original position. One of the main arguments of this view is that Jeremiah 25 provides a fitting context for the OAN, since 25:1–13(14) can be read as the collection’s introduction and the Cup of Wrath-passage in 25:15–38 as its conclusion.5 Both versions of Jeremiah not only have the OAN at different positions, but also in different orders. Scholars who regard the collection’s position in JerMT as more original, also maintain the priority of the MT-order.6 Moreover, even among those who hold the priority of the oracle’s position in JerG, some nevertheless regard the order of JerMT as more original.7 Their argument is not particularly thorough, however, as in general they just adduce that the order in JerMT is more correct and logical. For the same reason, others regard the MTorder as the result of a later, theologically driven redaction, and it is this view that, in recent literature, is prevailing. Thus, a growing number of contemporary scholars believe that the priority of the text form of JerG not only applies to the position, but also to the order of the OAN. In the present contribution, I would like to make some critical comments to this increasingly dominant view on the order of the OAN.8 Due to the complexity of the issue, I have to limit myself to making some comments, hoping that they may stimulate further discussion. I start by summarizing opinions on the idea behind each of the orders of the OAN (§ 2). Subsequently, I discuss the arguments of those who hold the priority of the order in JerG (§ 3). These sections are followed by my (four) critical comments to this view (§§ 4–7). The first two comments are rather general; my argument for the priority of the MTorder is especially made in the third and the fourth comments. By way of con-

5 AEJMELAEUS, Turning-point, 479. According to some, the Cup of Wrath-passage originally was the introduction of the OAN-collection (see the scholars mentioned by HUWYLER, Völker, 366–67). Cf., however, ROFÉ, Arrangement, 397, who argues that the text of JerG 25 shows evidence of a secondary insertion of the OAN-collection at this place. 6 See, e. g., FISCHER, Fremdvölkersprüche, 498; HARAN, Place, 700; ROFÉ, Arrangement, 392; SCHMIDT Jeremia, 279, 281. 7 See, e. g., RUDOLPH, Jeremia, 265; FOHRER, Vollmacht, 46; LUNDBOM, Jeremiah 37–52, 181; VOLZ, Prophet, 382; HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 1, 5; Jeremiah 2, 313; WEISER, Jeremia, 381; MCKANE, Jeremiah 2, 1110; as well as HUWYLER, Völker, 368–69. 8 It has occasionally been maintained that the different structures reflect the independent development of two (Hebrew) versions of the book, one in Babylon (JerMT) and the other in Egypt (JerG), cf. LUNDBOM, Jeremiah 1–20, 100. According to BRUEGGEMANN, Jeremiah, 419, the collection of OAN was “something of a free-floating collection,” which originally existed independent from the rest of the book; when it was added to the book, this was done in different ways and with different redactional intentions by the editors of JerMT and JerG (cf. also MASTNJAK, “Collection”, 25–44). However, the vast majority of scholars assumes that one of both versions of the book (and orders of the OAN) is original and the other a revision. Cf. HUWYLER, Völker, 349: “Es ist davon auszugehen, dass (…) eine der beiden möglichen Reihenfolgen jeweils die ältere und die andere entsprechend sekundär ist, d. h. eine Neubearbeitung darstellt.”

From Egypt to Babylon, or from Elam to Moab?

61

clusion, I present my own hypothesis on the issue, which focuses on the possible reason of why, in JerG, the collection opens with the oracle against Elam (§ 8). JerG

JerMT

Cup of Wrath-passage (25:15–38)

Elam (25:14–19) Egypt (26) Babylon (27–28) Philistea (29:1–6) Edom (29:8–23) Ammon (30:1–5) Kedar/Hazor (30:6–11) Damascus (30:12–16) Moab (31)

Egypt (46) Philistea (47) Moab (48) Ammon (49:1–6) Edom (49:7–22) Damascus (49:23–27) Kedar/Hazor (49:28–33) Elam (49:34–39) Babylon (50–51)

(Jerusalem / Judah) Egypt / Uz Filistea Edom Moab Ammon Phoenicia Arabia Elam / Media (Persia) (Babylon)

Fig. 1: Order of OAN-Jer

2. The Idea behind the Orders of the OAN Scholars have given various answers to the question of what the idea behind each of the different orders of the OAN in JerMT and JerG is. As regards JerMT, it has been argued that the oracles are in a chronological or geographical order.9 The first of these options is (partly) dependent on the date of the individual oracles, which is, however, a debated issue. The collection presents itself as prophecies that are uttered between the fourth year of King Jehoiakim (Jer 46:2) and the fourth year of King Zedekiah (Jer 51:59), that is, between 605 and 594 BCE, the period of the expansion of the Neo-Babylonian empire. We cannot know for sure, however, in which year each of the oracles is to be dated. Scholars who argue for a geographical arrangement suppose that the collection evidences a movement from the south to the west, and then from the east to the north.10 This view is, however, not very persuasive. More compelling is the view that the order in JerMT is driven by literarytheological factors. The placement of the oracles against Egypt and Babylon at the beginning and end of the collection reflects the fact that these nations were the two main antagonists of Jeremiah’s days.11 Moreover, JerMT shows a development towards the apotheosis of the entire book  – the ultimate collapse of  9 Cf. PEELS, Place and Significance, 82–83. A unique view on the MT-order is held by ALLEN, Jeremiah, 458–460, according to whom the central placement of the oracle against Ammon is fundamental to this order. 10 See, e. g., PFEIFFER, Introduction, 509; FOHRER, Vollmacht, 44–52, and, partially, HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 313. According to FISCHER, Fremdvölkersprüche, 491, JerMT evidences a movement from nations nearby to nations that are far away, combined with a placement of the oracle against Babylon as the book’s climax; for this view, cf. KESSLER, Battle, 167–68 and R AABE, Israel’s God, 232. 11 ROFÉ, Arrangement, 392 and KESSLER, Battle, 166.

62

Eric Peels

Babylon. At the end of the book, the collapse of the superpower is presented as the climax of God’s judgment of all nations, which is paired with notions of hope for Israel. The idea behind the order of the OAN in JerG is less obvious. Does the collection start with Elam (= Persia), Egypt and Babylon, because these nations were stronger and more important nations than the nations that follow?12 Or do these nations, which are geographically far apart, indicate the borders of God’s judgment, within which each of the smaller nations undergoes its punishment?13 In the latter case, one would rather expect one of the well-known nations Babylon or Egypt at the beginning of the collection. Equally speculative is the view that the final position of the oracle against Moab can be explained from the notion of “drunkenness” in 31:26, which would make a good connection with the Cup of Wrath-passage in chapter 32 (JerG).14 One thing is sure, however, namely that, within the OAN-collection of JerG, the oracle against Babylon has not the same pivotal function as in JerMT. While, then, a clear idea can be seen behind the MT-order, such is not the case for the order in JerG.15 This observation cannot immediately lead to a conclusion about which order is more original, however, since the meaningful arrangement in JerMT can reflect either the original design of the collection or a later reworking.16 In order to settle this issue, scholars have looked for evidence of reworking within the collection of OAN, but, on that basis, they have reached opposite conclusions concerning the priority of one of the both text forms.17 Critics increasingly recognise, therefore, that the issue of the different orders of the OAN should be studied within the wider context of the (final) redaction of the entire book. Most believe that, seen from that perspective, the order of JerG is more likely to be original than that of JerMT.

3. Priority of the Order of JerG? Thus, there is a developing consensus on the priority of the OAN-order of JerG. The main arguments for this view are as follows.18 12

RUDOLPH, Jeremia, 266; WEISER, Jeremia, 389; FISCHER, Fremdvölkersprüche, 494. WOODS, Jeremiah 48, 45. 14 See the discussion by WOODS, Jeremiah 48, 45–46. 15 Cf. CARROLL, Jeremiah, 759: “No discernible order can be detected in G.” The same view is held by KESSLER, Jeremiah 25, 66: “The G listing fails to exhibit any thoughtful design here.” 16 See HUWYLER, Völker, 369. 17 See the opposite interpretations by WATTS, Text and Redaction, and HUWYLER, Völker, 370–81, on the one hand and FISCHER, Fremdvölkersprüche, on the other. 18 I do not discuss less important arguments. Among them is the argument that the present position of JerMT 46:27–28 (at the end of the oracle against Egypt) is secondary, because this promise of salvation for Israel originally was an introductory gloss to the oracle against Babylon 13

From Egypt to Babylon, or from Elam to Moab?

63

First, it is widely recognised that JerG is a faithful translation of its Hebrew Vorlage. According to Aejmelaeus, for example, “it is impossible to attribute to the translator any conscious changes in the text, not to speak of editorial activity. The translator of Jeremiah can be characterized as one of the most literal in the whole Septuagint.”19 If this was the translator’s approach, one would not expect him to have made a major change like a rearrangement of the OAN. Secondly, there is a clear relationship between the collection of OAN and the Cup of Wrath-passage in 25:15–38 [32:1–24]. Both announce God’s worldwide judgment and, for the most part, mention the same nations. As can be seen in Table 1 above, the order of the OAN in JerMT agrees with the order in which the nations are mentioned in the Cup of Wrath-passage. It can be argued, therefore, that the OAN-order in JerMT is a secondary adjustment to the order to the nations in the Cup of Wrath-passage.20 This seems a more likely scenario than the opposite, that the OAN were rearranged in JerG in a way that contradicts the order in the Cup of Wrath-passage. Note, in this connection, that, in JerG, the latter passage functions as the conclusion of the collection of OAN, following immediately after it.21 The third and most important argument is that JerMT exhibits a more streamlined structure. It highlights the role of Babylon as the executor of God’s judgment,22 as well as the expectation that, ultimately, Babylon itself will be punished. This structure is consistent with another characteristic of JerMT, namely that, at various points, this text form gives more explicit attention to Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar than JerG. Moreover, the relocation of the collection of OAN to the end of the book yielded a logical arrangement of the second part of the book. In agreement with the announcements in the Cup of Wrath-passage (25:15–38), JerMT first describes God’s judgment of Judah (Jer 26–45), which is followed by his judgment of the nations (Jer 46–49) and, finally, Babylon (Jer 50–51).23 The rearrangement of the OAN gives the book a more positive conclusion – the great enemy is punished, and Judah is called to leave Babylon. The order of the OAN

(in JerG, these verses are found in 26:27–28 and immediately precede the oracle against Babylon in chs. 27–28). It is supposed that, when the order of the OAN was changed, this gloss was mistakenly connected to the oracle against Egypt in JerMT 46, not to the oracle against Babylon in JerMT 50–51. On this issue, see FISCHER, Fremdvölkersprüche, 474–77 and PEELS, But Fear Not. 19 AEJMELAEUS, Turning-point, 461, see also COOK, Difference, 189; STIPP, Sondergut, 7–58; FINSTERBUSCH / JACOBY, Völkergericht, 36, and WEIS, Textual History, 496. A different view is held by, e. g., FISCHER, Textual History, 546–552, and GESUNDHEIT, Question, 30–36. 20 CHAE, Intentions, 588, and WATTS, Text and Redaction, 446. 21 At the same time, this raises the question of why, in the Cup of Wrath-passage (JerG 32), the nations occur in a different (more or less historical) order than in the preceding collection of OAN. 22 GOSSE, Malédiction, 396; CARROLL, Jeremiah, 757. 23 STIPP, Legenden; CHAE, Intentions, 588; CROUCH, Introduction, 68–69, 103–15.

64

Eric Peels

in JerMT can be understood, therefore, as part of a larger revision of the book, which reflects a particular interest in Babylon.24 Given the streamlined structure of JerMT and the functional place of the order of the OAN within this structure, it seems that the order in JerG is the lectio difficilior.25 If the structure of JerMT were original, it is difficult to see a reason why a later editor of the Vorlage of JerG or the Greek translator would have created the much less clear structure (and OAN-order) of JerG. In the light of this, it is understandable that more and more scholars opt for the priority of the order of the OAN in JerG, regarding the variant order in JerMT as the result of a later revision. However, this view still leaves open some questions, which I will formulate in my critical comments below.

4. Comment (1): Superscriptions, Subscriptions and Chronology A striking difference between JerG and JerMT is the variant systems of superscriptions and subscriptions of the OAN. These systems have been investigated by both Fischer and Huwyler, who have reached opposite conclusions.26 According to Fischer, the collection of OAN in JerMT has a twofold system of superscriptions/subscriptions. Within the collection, Jer 46–49 form a literary block with similar superscriptions for the oracles against Egypt and Philistea (the first two nations), similar subscriptions for the subsequent oracles against Moab and Ammon, and both a superscription and a subscription for the final oracle against Elam (which are similar to the superscriptions/subscriptions for the preceding oracles). The additional oracle against Babylon (Jer 50–51), on its turn, has a superscription similar to that of 46:13 and a subscription like that in 48:47b. This twofold system is an indication of the compositional process of the OAN-collection. In JerG, the twofold system is no longer extant. According to Fischer, this indicates a secondary development – why would a uniform system (as found in JerG) have been replaced by a twofold system?27 Huwyler’s analysis leads him to a completely different conclusion. He argues that the system of superscriptions/subscriptions of JerMT shows traces of later editing, which correlate with the relocation of the OAN to the end of the book and the oracles’ rearrangement. According to Huwyler, such traces can especially be seen in 48:47b and 51:64, indicating the priority of the OAN-order in JerG.

24

WATTS, Text and Redaction, 432–47. See already JANZEN, Studies, cf. CHAE, Intentions, 587; see also MASTNJAK, “Jeremiah as Collection”, 27. According to FISCHER, on the other hand, JerMT is the lectio difficilior (Fremdvölkersprüche, 495–99; Textual History, 173–74). 26 FISCHER, Fremdvölkersprüche, 488–99, and HUWYLER, Völker, 371–81. 27 FISCHER, Fremdvölkersprüche, 498. 25

From Egypt to Babylon, or from Elam to Moab?

65

It seems difficult to draw clear conclusions from the different systems of superscriptions and subscriptions. For example, 48:47b is not necessarily to be understood as the conclusion of the original collection of OAN (in its entirety); this subscription can simply be seen as a fitting conclusion to the remarkably extensive oracle against Moab.28 In a similar way, the subscription in 51:64 may have been the original conclusion of the entire book, which was omitted when the collection of OAN was relocated to the center of the book in the Vorlage of JerG. Much remains uncertain here. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the system of superscriptions and subscriptions of JerG is due, at least partially, to secondary editing, which may correlate with a rearrangement of the OAN. I’d like to note two indications of this, found in the superscriptions of the oracles against Elam (49:34–39 [25:14– 20]) and Philistea (47:1–7 [29:1–7]). At the beginning of the OAN-collection, JerG has a hybrid superscript: ἃ ἐπροφήτευσεν Ιερεμιας ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ Αιλαμ  – “what Jeremiah prophesied against the nations of Elam” (25:14).29 The formulation “the nations of Elam” is unique; it combines JerMT 25:13b (“what Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations”) with 49:34 (“[what came to the prophet Jeremiah as the word of YHWH] against Elam”). Thus, JerG or already its Vorlage takes 25:13b as the superscription of the entire collection of OAN (v. 14 is lacking in JerG) and mistakenly connects this superscription with that of the oracle against Elam, putting “Elam” in apposition to “the nations.” The historical note in the superscription of the oracle against Elam (JerMT 49:34) is also found in JerG, but, remarkably enough, at the end of the oracle (26:1 ἐν ἀρχῇ βασιλεύοντος Σεδεκιου τοῦ βασιλέως ἐγένετο ὁ λόγος οὗτος περὶ Αιλαμ  – “In the beginning when King Sedekias reigned, this word came concerning Elam”).30 These observations concerning the superscription and subscription of the oracle against Elam in JerG give rise to the supposition that this oracle originally held another position within the collection of OAN. The editor who relocated the oracle may have considered the end of the oracle to be a more appropriate place for the historical note than its original context in the superscription.31

28

FINSTERBUSCH / JACOBY, Völkergericht, 49–50. As regards this superscription, see the discussion by FISCHER, Fremdvölkersprüche, 483 note 28, FINSTERBUSCH / JACOBY, Völkergericht, 41–42, and HUWYLER, Völker, 374–76. 30 Cf. FISCHER, Fremdvölkersprüche, 492. In other OAN, such historical notes are always found in the superscription (i. e. at the beginning of the oracle). GOSSE, Place primitive, 29, suggests that the remarkable subscription in JerG is evidence of a later addition of this oracle to the OAN-collection: “La datation de 25,20 (LXX) … a pu avoir pour fonction la justification de l’introduction de cet oracle dans le recueil.” This does not explain, however, why the oracle against Elam occurs at the head of the collection. 31 Contra HUWYLER, Völker, 375, according to whom a later editor of JerMT combined the superscription and subscription of the oracle against Elam into one superscription. 29

66

Eric Peels

The superscription of the oracle against Philistea contains, in JerMT, the cryptic historical note ! Oš 4¡= ™ !œ ˜ 3:’ 6! ™ V˜ ™'-:˜ &˜ C’ (“before Pharaoh seized Gazah”; 47:1). As I have argued elsewhere, this note must have been part of the text from a very early stage, since it only has a meaningful function against the background of the historical events of 601 BCE.32 The absence of the historical note in JerG can be explained from a secondary omission – this concise piece of information was clear to the first hearers/readers of the oracle, but a mystery for readers in later ages. Significantly, however, the long superscription (including the historical note) creates a connection to the preceding oracle against Egypt. This means that the omission of the note made it easier to separate the oracles against Egypt and Philistea (in JerG) and to give each of them its own position in the collection of OAN. It is noteworthy, finally, that, in JerMT, the superscriptions and subscriptions create a logical chronology, from 605 BCE (the battle of Carchemish; 46:2) to 594 BCE (the fourth year of King Zedekiah; 51:59). The year 605 marks a turningpoint in the history of the ancient Near East, namely the breakthrough of the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar. In JerMT, the entire collection of OAN stands under the sign of this turning-point (46:1)  – the “hammer” Nebuchadnezzar imposes his will on all nations. The fact that the collection concludes by the announcement of the collapse of Babylon itself coheres with the narratological and theological dynamics of the book. In JerG, on the other hand, the OAN-collection has no consistent chronology, as it goes from the fourth year of Jehoiakim (25:1) to the first year of Zedekiah (25:20), back to the fourth year of Jehoiakim (26:1), and then to the fourth year of Zedekiah (28:50). The above points do not lead to a necessary conclusion concerning the priority of the order of the OAN in either JerMT or JerG. Nevertheless, these points should be taken into account when the various arguments are weighted.

5. Comment (2): The Position of the Oracle against Egypt The OAN-collection in JerMT begins with a (double)33 oracle against Egypt (46:2–28). In JerG, however, this oracle occupies the second position (26:2–28), after the oracle against Elam (25:14–26:1). Unmistakably, the oracle’s position in JerMT is more meaningful and functional than its position in JerG, in three respects. In the first place, this oracle, which can be dated around 605 BCE (46:2), presumably is the earliest oracle of the collection. The next prophecies together give a portrait of the period of Babylon’s expansion after 605; most likely, they 32 33

Cf. PEELS, Reappraisal, 308–22. Cf. PEELS, Slachtoffer, 1–7.

From Egypt to Babylon, or from Elam to Moab?

67

date from a later moment than the oracle against Egypt. In the second place, this oracle links up with the events described in the preceding chapters. According to Jer 40:1–43:7, the so-called “remnant of Judah” fled to Egypt after the assassination of Gedaliah. This narrative is followed by an announcement of the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar (43:8–13) and a disputation between the prophet Jeremiah and the Judeans who lived in Egypt (44:1–30). YHWH’s judgment on “all flesh” (45:5) starts nearby, namely in Egypt, that is, in the place of refuge of the remnant of Judah. This agrees with the order found in the Cup of Wrath-passage (25:15–29), according to which, after Judah, Egypt is the first of the nations that must drink the cup of wrath. In the third place, the position of the oracle against Egypt at the beginning of the OAN-collection seems to have theological significance. Throughout the book, the prophet Jeremiah warns against relying on Egypt, and this trajectory reaches its climax at the beginning of the OAN. The double oracle in Jer 46 once again makes clear that absolutely no hope can be derived from Egypt. The evaluation of Egypt in the book of Jeremiah is predominantly negative, and this is underscored by the fact that the OAN-collection starts with the oracle against Egypt. Das Gericht, mit dem JHWH seine unangefochtene Oberherrschaft über die Nationen demonstriert, „muss‟ bei Ägypten beginnen, weil die Judäer auf es ihre Hoffnungen gesetzt und es zu einer quasi-göttlichen theo-politischen Alternative gemacht haben.34

Again, it must be admitted that the meaningful position of the oracle against Egypt in JerMT does not necessarily imply the priority of this position, and, consequently, the priority of the OAN-order in JerMT. What should be noted, however, is that even in JerG, where the OAN-collection is found in the center of the book, it would have been a reasonable choice to start the collection with the oracle against Egypt. Apparently, the editor responsible for this text form had a good reason not to do so, but to place the oracle against Elam at the head of the collection.

6. Comment (3): The Position of the Oracle against Elam The oracle against Elam (49:34–39) occupies the first position in the OANcollection in JerG (25:14–26:1). In contrast to the other nations addressed in the 34

MAIER, Ägypten, 277. According to BRUEGGEMANN, Jeremiah, 424, there are two reasons why the OANcollection starts with the oracle against Egypt: “In the pro-Babylonian tendency of the Jeremiah tradition, Egypt is the main diplomatic alternative to Babylon, and is considered a deathly alternative. Thus on political grounds Egypt most needs to be brought under the aegis of Yahweh. Moreover, Egypt has come to be a primal metaphor for worldly power that is organized against the purposes of God. For both political and metaphorical-theological reasons, Egypt is named first in the list of nations, for when Egypt is brought under the rule and purpose of Yahweh, in effect Yahweh’s governance will be fully established.”

68

Eric Peels

Old Testament OAN, Elam never had much direct relevance to Israel or Judah, neither in political nor in economical terms.35 Within the Hebrew Bible, it is only in Jeremiah one finds an oracle against this nation.36 What is the point of an oracle of divine judgment against a nation living at the edge of Israel’s horizon, both literally and figuratively? Another feature that sets the oracle against Elam apart from the other OAN in Jeremiah is its vagueness – it lacks any geographical or historical reference. Even though the oracle uses the name Elam in every verse (seven times in total, which is a remarkable fact in itself ), a clear picture of the nation cannot be obtained. The oracle against Elam puts particular emphasis on the divine subject who announces judgment. The way in which the divine “I” dominates every single verse of the oracle is without parallel; within the oracle’s five verses, one finds no less than ten occurrences of a first-person singular subject. Moreover, for the first time in the OAN-collection in Jeremiah God’s wrath is explicitly mentioned as the driving force behind the judgment of the nations (49:37). Equally unique is the metaphor of God’s throne set in Elam, which gives expression to YHWH’s irresistible sovereignty in judging Elam. The only parallel of the expression -'g 2) is found in Jer 43:10, according to which YHWH will call Nebuchadnezzar to set his throne in Egypt. Perhaps this parallel creates a link between what YHWH will do to the nations through Babylon and what He himself will do to Babylon, the nation near Elam (see below). In several respects, then, the oracle against Elam is unique among the other oracles in the OAN-collection of Jeremiah. Moreover, this oracle has a special function within JerMT 46–51. On the one hand, it is the climax and conclusion of Jer 46–49. YHWH punishes the world through Babylon; Egypt is the first nation that must bow, to be followed by the other nations, seven in total. Subsequently, the oracle against Elam brings this series of oracles to a climax. First, this oracle highlights the extent of God’s judgment – the distant nation of Elam functions as an exclamation mark after the seven preceding nations. The storm of judgment, which no nation will escape, goes from the Nile to far beyond the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. Secondly, the oracle against Elam intensifies the message of the preceding OAN through its emphasis on the divine subject. The threatening cadence of first-person singular perfecta consecutiva accentuates the inescapabil35 Apart from Gen 14:1,9 (which mentions “Chedorlaomer king of Elam”), a direct confrontation between Elam and Israel is only mentioned in Isa 22:6, according to which there were Elamite auxiliary forces among the Assyrian army attacking Jerusalem. Another relevant text is Isa 21:2, which calls Elam and Media to come up against Babylon; this text is often linked to Persian maneuvres against Babylon in the time of Nabonidus. In addition, Jer 25:25 and Ezek 32:24 f. imply that Elam fell victim to Nebuchadnezzar’s expansion. Finally, it appears from Isa 11:11 and several texts in 1 Chr (8:24, 26:3), Ezra (2:7, 31; 8:7; 10:2, 26) and Neh (1:1; 7:12, 34; 10:15; 12:42) that there were Jewish exiles in Elam (cf. Dan 8:2 and Esth 1:2). 36 For the following, see PEELS, Elam, 216–29.

From Egypt to Babylon, or from Elam to Moab?

69

ity and seriousness of God’s judgment. Through Babylon’s imperial power, it is YHWH himself who judges the world. Behind the throne that Nebuchadnezzar sets from Egypt (43:10) to Elam (49:38), one should see the throne of God. On the other hand, the special function of the oracle against Elam lies in preparing the large oracle against Babylon in Jer 50–51. Babylon is God’s hammer (50:23; 51:20) and Nebuchadnezzar is his servant (25:9; 27:6; 43:10), but the true šar šarrāni is not Nebuchadnezzar, but the God of Israel. He is the King who sets his throne in Elam, near Babylon. All elements of the oracle against Elam reoccur in the oracle against Babylon – the breaking of the bow (49:35–51:56); the destructive wind (49:36–51:1); the scattering of the people (49:36–50:2); the anguish for the enemy (49:37–50:43; 51:30); the sword of God (49:37–50:35–38); the extermination of the princes by the divine King (49:38–51:57). Thus, the oracle against Elam functions as a hinge between the collection of seven OAN in 46:2–49:33 and the oracle against Babylon in 50–51. Speaking about “God’s throne in Elam”, the oracle emphasizes the intensity and inescapability of YHWH’s judgment and indicates its nature and worldwide scope. Both in literary and theological terms, therefore, the oracle against Elam has a pivotal place in the OAN-collection of JerMT. In JerG, however, the oracle is placed at the beginning of the collection and separated from the oracle against Babylon. Since its first position gives the oracle a special emphasis, it must have been given this position for a good reason.37 According to many scholars, indeed, this position can be explained from the assumption that, in JerG, the name Elam alludes to Persia (see below), which could be a plausible explanation. It seems unlikely, however, that the original OAN-collection already had this special interest in the collapse of Persia – there is every reason to believe that, long after the Babylonian exile, the sentiment towards Persia remained positive (note, in this connection, that no biblical book contains an oracle against Persia). Moreover, one should remember that, in JerG, the superscription and subscription of the oracle against Elam shows evidence of reworking (see above). All this indicates that the position of the oracle against Elam at the head of the collection of OAN is secondary. While from a literary, structural, and theological viewpoint its position in JerMT is best understood as being original, its place in JerG is better understandable in a late historical context, when Elam had since long disappeared from the course of history, and Persia had lost its positive image. This poses a serious problem for the view that JerG has preserved the original order of the OAN.

37 Moreover, in JerG, the oracle against Elam is the only one of the OAN to include a promise of salvation (25:19).

70

Eric Peels

7. Comment (4): The Position of the Oracle against Babylon My last comment concerns the position of the large oracle against Babylon in JerG 27–28. First, this position separates the oracle against Egypt (26) from that against Philistea (29). These two nations have strong geographical and historical ties. Moreover, the oracles against these nations share several linguistic, literary and thematic features (e. g. the rising waters, the panic of the people, the enemy from the North, the coming day of judgment, and the personified sword).38 The direct connection between the oracles against Egypt and Philistea, as found in JerMT (chs. 46 and 47), is more obvious, therefore, then their separation in JerG. Secondly and even more importantly, the oracle against Babylon itself simply stands between the other OAN in JerG. In terms of both extent and contents, however, the oracle against Babylon is of a different character than the other OAN. Its structure, which does not exhibit a clear development, tend to a maximal accentuation of this particular enemy of God’s people  – the enemy which brought about the collapse of Judah, Jerusalem and the temple of YHWH. Babylon becomes ennemi par excellence, transcending time and place; chiffre of supreme evilness. Elsewhere in the OAN-collection, Babylon is the “enemy from the North”, a threat to all nations, but in 50–51 [27–28] Babylon itself falls victim to a new “enemy from the North”  – the Medes (51:11, 28). The oracle against Babylon is the only one of the OAN that explicitly mentions violence against God’s people, and only here one finds prophecies about Israel’s restoration and a return from exile. In all possible ways, the oracle sketches the collapse of the archenemy of Israel and its God. It contains many quotes from other passages in the book of Jeremiah, as well as from other biblical books. Scholars widely agree that the oracle against Babylon was composed after the other OAN and originally existed independent from them.39 When the oracle against Babylon, with its distinct character compared to the other OAN, was composed later, one may expect that, when it was added to the OAN-collection, it was placed at the end of it (JerMT), rather than in the center (JerG). This is another point questioning the priority of the order of the OAN in JerG.

38

Cf. PEELS, Gaza. Cf. HARAN, Place, 700–1. Even REIMER, according to whom there is more similarity between the oracle against Babylon and the other OAN than often is supposed, writes that the oracle against Babylon “stands towards the end of the process [of composition] rather than the beginning (…) The final form of these oracles is at least exilic, and possibly later” (Horror, 260). See also SALS, Biographie, 400–2. 39

From Egypt to Babylon, or from Elam to Moab?

71

8. Conclusion and Hypothesis The above comments do not have all the same force, but together they give reason to take a critical stance towards the developing consensus on the priority of the OAN-order of JerG and to leave open the possibility that the original order has been preserved by JerMT. Even more so because, as noted above, the order in JerMT is more consistent with the overall dynamics of the book concerning Egypt (the object of Judah’s false hope) and Babylon (the instrument of YHWH’s judgment). According to Haran, every explanation of the different orders in JerMT and JerG “is based upon pure conjecture,”40 for which reason he refrains from proposing such an explanation. Stipp, on the other hand, maintains that, if one assumes that one of the orders is secondary, one has to explain the reasons for the rearrangement.41 With all cautiousness, therefore, I’d like to propose an explanation of why an original order as found in JerMT might have been changed in that of JerG.42 My hypothesis is that the original OAN-collection of the book of Jeremiah, with the oracle against Egypt at the beginning and that against Babylon at the end, was changed in the fourth or third century BCE, in order to update the collection’s significance for people living in that period. The geo-political situation of Jeremiah’s days, with its “balance of power” between Egypt and Babylon, was something of the past. Babylon no longer played an important role, as, since 539 BCE, the superpower was Persia. Exegetes have rightly assumed that the name Elam in JerG 25:14–19 alludes to Persia.43 The Cup of Wrath-passage in JerG mentions the kings of Elam and Persia (JerMT: Media) in the same breath (32:25).44 From a historical perspective, indeed, these two nations are one. Sixth-century Persian kings had adopted the ancient Elamite title “king of Anšan,” thus presenting themselves as legitimate heirs of the kings of Elam. In addition, Elamite was one of the official languages of the Persian Empire. In a 40

HARAN, Place, 700. “Methodisch ist zu beachten, dass die originale Komposition eines Buches keiner strengen Logik zu folgen brauchte; so konnten etwa weitere Stücke einem älteren Bestand einfach angehängt werden. Dagegen bedurfte eine Neuordnung eines expliziten Motivs. Deshalb müssen Theorien über die Richtung eines nachträglichen Umbaus notwendig ein überzeugendes Ziel des Eingriffs benennen” (STIPP, Legenden, 500). 42 My proposal is mainly based on the position of the oracle against Elam. It is difficult to derive persuasive arguments from the position of the other oracles (first the three “large” empires and subsequently the smaller nations). 43 E. g. RUDOLPH, Jeremia, 266; WEISER, Jeremia, 381; MCKANE, Jeremiah 1, 645; SCHMIDT, Jeremia, 281; FINSTERBUSCH / JACOBY, Völkergericht, 41. According to REITZSCHEL, Urrolle, 82 and HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 314, the position of the oracle against Elam in JerG can be understood in the light of the rise of the Parthian Empire, in the time of the Maccabees. This view has found little support. 44 See also JerG 21:3, cf. 49:12. 41

72

Eric Peels

world dominated for centuries by the Persians, therefore, the oracle against Elam (i. e. Persia) could no longer have a subordinate place among those against the other nations. Finsterbusch / Jacoby assume that the oracle against Elam was relocated to the beginning of the OAN-collection already in the Persian period (in a Hebrew version of the book similar to the Vorlage of JerG). This was done for “diplomatic” reasons – the oracle against Elam is the only one of the OAN (in JerG) that concludes with a promise of salvation (25:19: καὶ ἔσται ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀποστρέψω τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν Αιλαμ λέγει κύριος – “and it will be at the end of days, (that) I will turn the captivity of Elam, says the Lord”). The implicit message of the oracle’s new position would be that, unlike Babylon, Persia would not suffer a total collapse.45 A major problem with this view is, however, that the main emphasis of the oracle is still on YHWH’s judgment against Elam / Persia, which in JerG is even the first of all nations to be punished. Notwithstanding the concluding promise, therefore, it seems difficult to regard diplomacy as a reason of the oracle’s placement at the head of the OAN-collection. It is more likely to date the relocation of the oracle against Elam in the OAN a bit later: the time of the collapse of the Persian Empire, in the second half of the fourth century or later. It is a reasonable assumption that, at that time, an editor of Jeremiah gave Elam / Persia the first position – this was the largest of all empires, which had dominated all peoples of the ancient Near East till recent times. The Greek translator of the book found this order in his Vorlage. He lived in Ptolemaic Egypt, which, in a sense, could be seen as an heir of the Persian Empire. In his time, Persia’s collapse was still fresh in the people’s memory. The first position of the oracle against Elam underscores the relevance of the OAN for his Hellenistic-Egyptian contemporaries. Israel’s God has a controversy with the whole world – all empires must bow before Him, even Elam / Persia. In this way, the oracle against Elam gets a paradigmatic function. The nation is judged by YHWH, but not without hope. This fate of Elam is indicative of God’s dealing with all nations of the world of that time. Perhaps one may even assume that the hybrid superscription ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ Αιλαμ – “against the nations of Elam” in JerG 25:14 was created on purpose, as all nations in the OAN-collection had been part, for a longer or a shorter period, of this “Elam” (i. e. the Persian Empire). While formerly the emphasis of the OAN-collection was on Babylon (at the end of the collection), the oracles’ changed order in JerG clarified for later readers the essence of YHWH’s judgment of the world. In the memory of those living in Ptolemaic Egypt, the Persian Empire was much more prominent than 45 “Der Gedanke ist naheliegend, dass in der Perserzeit lebende Autoren und Redaktoren die für sie aktuell wichtigste Großmacht an die erste Stelle der Spruchsammlung gesetzt haben und dass bei der textlichen Gestaltung des Spruches ‘Diplomatie’ eine gewisse Rolle gespielt hat: YHWH wird die Perser anders als Babel keinesfalls dem Untergang preisgeben” (FINSTERBUSCH / JACOBY, Völkergericht, 44).

From Egypt to Babylon, or from Elam to Moab?

73

the Babylonian Empire.46 Accordingly, the oracle against Elam / Persian was put at the head of the collection, in order to indicate God’s worldwide sovereignty and judgment over all nations, starting with the greatest empires.

Bibliography AEJMELAEUS, ANNELI, Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History. The Function of Jer. XXV 114 in the Book of Jeremiah, VT 52 (2002), 459–82. ALLEN, LESLIE C., Jeremiah. A Commentary, OTL, Louisville (KY ) 2008. BACKHAUS, FRANZ-JOSEPH / MEYER, IVO, Das Buch Jeremia, in: ERICH Zenger / CHRISTIAN FREVEL et al. (Ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Studienbücher Theologie 1,1, Stuttgart 2012, 548–77. BRUEGGEMANN, WALTER, A Commentary on Jeremiah. Exile and Homecoming, Grand Rapids (MI) 1998. CARROLL, ROBERT P., Jeremiah. A Commentary, OTL, London 1986. CHAE, MOON KWON, Redactional Intentions of MT Jeremiah Concerning the Oracles against the Nations, JBL 134 (2015), 577–93. COOK, JOHAN, The Difference in the Order of the Books of the Hebrew and Greek Versions of Jeremiah – Jeremiah 43 (50): A Case Study, OTE 7 (1994), 175–92. CROUCH, CARLEY L., An Introduction to the Study of Jeremiah. London / New York (NY ) 2017. FINSTERBUSCH, KARIN  / JACOBY, NORBERT, Völkergericht und Fremdvölkersprüche. Kommunikationsebenen in (der hebr. Vorlage von) LXX-Jer 25–32, MT-Jer 46–51 und MT-Jer 25, JAJ 6 (2015), 36–57. FISCHER, GEORG, Jer 25 und die Fremdvölkersprüche. Unterschiede zwischen hebräischem und griechischem Text, Bib. 72 (1991), 474–99. –, Jeremia 26–52, HThKAT, Freiburg i. Br. 2005. –, Jeremia. Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion, Darmstadt 2007. –, Septuagint, in: ARMIN LANGE / EMANUEL TOV (Ed.), THB 1B, Leiden / Boston (MA) 2017, 543–555. FOHRER, GEORG, Vollmacht über Völker und Königreiche (Jer 46–51), in: IDEM, Studien zu alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen (1966–1972), BZAW 155, Berlin 1981, 44–52. GESUNDHEIT, SHIMON, The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool for Literary-Critical Analysis, VT 62 (2012), 29–57. GOSSE, BERNARD, La malédiction contre Babylone de Jérémie 51,59–64 et les rédactions du livre de Jérémie, ZAW 98 (1986), 383–99. –, Jeremie xlv et la place du recueil d’oracles contre les nations dans le livre de Jeremie, VT 40 (1990), 145–51. –, La place primitive du recueil d’oracles contre les nations dans le livre de Jérémie, BN 74 (1994), 28–30. HARAN, MENAHEM, The Place of the Prophecies against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah, in: SHALOM M. PAUL  / ROBERT A. KRAFT  / LAWRENCE H. SCHIFFMAN  /

46 HILL (Friend or Foe, 164) rightly points out that the figure of Babylon does not receive any particular attention or place in JerG.

74

Eric Peels

WESTON W. FIELDS (Ed.), Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, Leiden / Boston (MA) 2003, 699–706. HILL, JOHN, Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremia MT, Biblical Interpretation Series 40, Leiden 1999. HOLLADAY, WILLIAM L., Jeremiah 1. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia, Minneapolis (MN) 1986. –, Jeremiah 2. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia, Minneapolis (MN) 1989. HUWYLER, BEAT, Jeremia und die Völker. Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49, FAT 20, Tübingen 1997. JANZEN, GERALD J., Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, HSM 6, Cambridge 1976. KESSLER, MARTIN, Jeremiah 25:1–29. Text and Context. A Synchronic Study, ZAW 109 (1997), 44–70. –, Battle of the Gods. The God of Israel Versus Marduk of Babylon. A Literary / Theological Interpretation of Jeremiah 50–51, SSN 42, Assen 2003. –, The Scaffolding of the Book of Jeremiah, in: IDEM, Reading the Book of Jeremiah. A Search for Coherence, Winona Lake (IN) 2004, 57–66. LANGE, ARMIN, Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Texts, in: IDEM  / EMANUEL TOV (Ed.), THB 1B, Leiden / Boston (MA) 2017, 514–42. –, Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library’, in: JACK R. LUNDBOM / CRAIG A. EVANS / BRADFORD A. ANDERSON (Ed.), The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, VTSup 178, Leiden / Boston (MA) 2018, 280–302. LUNDBOM, JACK R., Jeremiah 1–20. A New Translation With Introduction And Commentary, AB 21A, New York (NY ) 1999. –, Jeremiah 37–52. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21C, New York (NY ) 2004. LUNDBOM, JACK R./ CRAIG A. EVANS  / BRADFORD A. ANDERSON (Ed.), The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, VTSup 178, Leiden  / Boston (MA) 2018. MAIER, MICHAEL P., Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick. Studie über einen theopolitischen Zentralbegriff im hebräischen Jeremiabuch, ÖBS 21, Frankfurt a. M. 2002. MASTNJAK, NATHAN, Jeremiah as Collection. Scrolls, Sheets, and the Problem of Textual Arrangement, CBQ 80 (2018), 25–44. MCKANE, WILLIAM, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremia. Vol. 1, Jeremiah I–XXV, ICC, Edinburgh 1986. –, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremia. Vol. 2, Jeremiah XXVI–LII, ICC, Edinburgh 1996. MCCONVILLE, GORDON J., Judgment and Promise. An Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah, Leicester 1993. PEELS, HENDRIK G. L., God’s Throne in Elam. The Historical Background and Literary Context of Jeremiah 49:34–39, in: JOHANNES C. DE MOOR  / HARRY F. VAN ROOIJ (Ed.), Past, Present, Future. The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets, OTS 44, Leiden 2000, 216–29. –, “You Shall Certainly Drink!” The Place and Significance of the Oracles against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah, EJT 16 (2007), 81–92. –, Before Pharaoh Seized Gaza. A Reappraisal of the Date, Function, and Purpose of the Superscription of Jeremiah 47, VT 63 (2013), 308–22.

From Egypt to Babylon, or from Elam to Moab?

75

–, Een slachtoffer heeft JHWH in het Noorderland (Jer 46:10), IDS 50/3 (2016), a1999, http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v50i3.1999 [11. 01. 2019]. –, “Gaza is kaal geschoren”. Tekst en intentie van de gerichtsprofetie over Filistea (Jer. 47), in: ARNOLD HUIJGEN / HENDRIK G. L. PEELS / CEES-JAN SMITS (Ed.), Schuld en vrijheid. Opstellen aangeboden aan prof. dr. G. C. den Hertog, Zoetermeer 2017, 225– 38. –, “But Fear not, o Jacob My Servant!” The Place and Function of the Salvation Oracle Jeremiah 46:27–28 MT, in: KOERT VAN BEKKUM  / GERT KWAKKEL  / WOLTER ROSE (Ed.), Fs prof.dr. J. P. Lettinga, OTS 74, Leiden 2018, 114–29. –, De volgorde van de volkenprofetieën in het boek Jeremia, AcT(V ).s 26 (2018), 136–54. PEELS, HENDRIK G. L. / STEPHANUS D. SNYMAN (Ed.), The Lion Has Roared. Theological Themes in the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament, Eugene (OR) 2012. PFEIFFER, ROBERT H., Introduction to the Old Testament, New York (NY ) 1948. R AABE, PAUL, What is Israel’s God Up To Among the Nations? Jeremiah 46, 48, and 49, in: JACK R. LUNDBOM / CRAIG A. EVANS / BRADFORD A. ANDERSON (Ed.), The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation,V TSup 178, Leiden  / Boston (MA) 2018, 230–52. REIMER, DAVID J., The Oracles against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51. A Horror Among the Nations, San Francisco (CA) 1993. REITZSCHEL, CLAUS, Das Problem der Urrolle. Ein Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Jeremiabuches, Gütersloh 1966. ROFÉ, ALEXANDER, The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah. ZAW 101 (1989), 390–98. RUDOLPH, WILHELM, Jeremia, HAT, Tübingen 31968. SALS, ULRIKE, Die Biographie der “Hure Babylon”. Studien zur Intertextualität der Babylon-Texte in der Bibel, FAT II/6, Tübingen 2004. SCHMIDT, WERNER H., Das Buch Jeremia. Kapitel 21–52, ATD, Göttingen 2013. STIPP, HERMANN-JOSEF, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches. Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte, OBO 136, Göttingen 1994. –, Legenden der Jeremia-Exegese (I). Das eschatologische Schema im alexandrinischen Jeremiabuch, VT 64 (2014), 484–501. VOLZ, PAUL, Der Prophet Jeremia, KAT 10/2, Leipzig 1922. WATTS, JAMES W., Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Nations, CBQ 54 (1992), 432–447. WEIS, RICHARD D., Textual History of Jeremiah, in: ARMIN LANGE / EMANUEL TOV (Hg.), THBi 1B Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, Leiden / Boston 2017, 495–513. WEISER, ARTUR, Das Buch Jeremia, ATD 20/21, Göttingen 1977. WOODS, JULIA, Jeremiah 48 as Christian Scripture, Princeton Theological Monograph Series 149, Eugene 2011.

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations MATTHIJS J. DE JONG 1. Introduction The Oracles against the Nations (OAN) are often regarded as a distinct type of prophecy, and Jer 28:8–9 is considered as the proof that this type of prophecy already existed in the monarchic era. In this paper I will investigate this claim. A closer look at Jer 28, in particular verses 8–9, will show that this text does not refer to a specific type or genre of prophecy. Instead, Jer 28:8 testifies to the fact that foreign nations often appear in prophetic oracles in the role of “the enemy” who will be trampled down by divine power. Although we may sense that the OAN are somehow related to these oracles, the relationship is not a direct one. The OAN constitute a secondary, literary development, not a subclass of prophecy as an oral phenomenon, but a literary phenomenon extending from it. Our survey of Jer 28:1–14* also sheds light on the confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah. Contrary to common scholarly opinion, it is Hananiah who prophesies “war”, namely for Babylonia, and it is Jeremiah who prophesies “peace,” similarly for Babylonia. In this text, probably one of the earliest written traditions concerning Jeremiah, YHWH’s dealings with Babylonia, are the central theme. Whereas in the early traditions Jeremiah announced Babylonia’s good fortune – which meant that Judah’s well-being and survival depended on submission to Babylonia – in the much later redactional reworking, Babylonia’s ruination also became part of Jeremiah’s prophetic message. The redactional development indicates the relative lateness of the OAN.

2. The text of Jer 28* Jer 28 MT contains several traces of expansion and development. First, there are traces of textual development.1 A comparison of Jer 28 MT with the Old Greek text (Jer 35) shows a range of small differences that can be explained in part as pre-Masoretic expansions of the Hebrew text. Following the work by Hermann1 I follow the position that JerOG reflects a Hebrew version of the book that, compared to JerMT, grosso modo represents an earlier stage in the book’s development.

78

Matthijs J. de Jong

Josef Stipp and others,2 I have placed in the text of Jer 28* (below) the preMasoretic expansions between square brackets. Furthermore, I have underlined those elements deviating from MT, preserved within the OG, that probably were original to the ancestor text. Secondly, we can identify traces of redactional development, most clearly within 28:15–17. These verses, which now end the episode, probably were added to the core text of 28:1–14* at a secondary stage. They add a new theme – a sharp polemic against prophecy of falsehood – that forms a clearly recognizable redactional layer throughout Jer 27–29.3 Whereas 28:12–14 forms the conclusion to the core text of Jer 28*, 28:15–17 produces a secondary ending, in which Hananiah is unmasked as a prophet of falsehood and in which his fate is sealed.4 Scholars often have pointed out the discrepancy between Jeremiah’s sensitive response to Hananiah in 28:6–9 and the uncompromising criticism in 28:15–17.5 Whereas Jer 28:1–14* aims to vindicate Jeremiah as the prophet “truly sent,” a defamation of Hananiah lies beyond its scope of interest. This, however, is what the redactional expansion aimed to add: a defamation of Jeremiah’s opponent from the broader standpoint of the theme of prophecy of falsehood and its punishment. In Jer 28:1–14*, Hananiah’s prophecy contains the time indication “within two years …” (28:3). Since verse 9 implies that the realization of a prophecy indicates the prophet’s divine commission, the logical conclusion is that the outcome of the events will be decisive in indicating who had been right, Jeremiah or Hananiah. Verses 15–17, however, do not wait for this moment. Explicitly, they deal with Hananiah’s punishment within this year. The “wait and see” is overruled deliberately by the accusation of falsehood and immediate punishment. The reference to the seventh month in verse 17 forms an inclusion with the – similarly redactional – reference to the fifth month in verse 1. The redactional addition of 28:15–17 (and of “the fifth month” in verse 1) does not stand in isolation, but is part of a secondary redactional layer that runs through Jer 27–29.6 In the text of Jer 28* (below), I have presented these redactional additions in italics. This also includes the words “to me” in verse 1, which are part of the redactional connections with Jer 27.7 This leads to the following text of Jer 28: 2 E. g. STIPP, Sondergut; Zur aktuellen Diskussion; Jeremia-Erzählungen; JANZEN, Studies; PLANT, Good Figs; WELLS, Dislocations. 3 Jer 27:9–10, 14–15; 28:15–17; 29:8–9, 15, 20–23, 30–32. This has been recognised by many authors, including MCKANE, Jeremiah, 695–708, 716–25, 735–48; GRAUPNER, Auftrag, 61–97; HOSSFELD and MEYER, Prophet, 90–111; SEITZ, Theology, 208–14; AEJMELAEUS, Nebuchadnezzar, 1–18. For the broader redactional framework, STIPP, Prosaorakel, 309–45. 4 So also STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 323–24. 5 In addition to the names mentioned in note 3, see also CARROLL, Jeremiah, 540–41, and OSUJI, Where is the Truth, 194–95, who argues for the unity of 28:1–17 but admits that the disparity between verses 13–14 and verses 15–16 is undeniable. 6 DE JONG, Fallacy, 19–26. 7 STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 322–23.

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations

79

1 It happened [in that same year, at the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah]8 in the fourth year of Zedekiah, king of Judah, in the fifth month,9 that the prophet10 Hananiah son of Azzur, from Gibeon, spoke to me11 in the house of the LORD, in the presence of the priests and all the people, saying, 2 “Thus says the LORD [of hosts, the God of Israel]12: I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. 3 Within two years I will bring back to this place [all]13 the vessels of the LORD’s house, [which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, took away from this place and carried to Babylon.]14 4 and [I will also bring back to this place] Jeconiah [son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah,] and [all] the exiles from Judah [who went to Babylon, says the LORD,]15 for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.” 5 Then [the prophet]16 Jeremiah spoke to [the prophet] Hananiah in the presence of the priests and all the people who were standing in the house of the LORD; 6 and [the prophet] Jeremiah said, “Amen! May the LORD do so; may the LORD fulfill the words that you have prophesied, and bring back to this place from Babylon the vessels of the house of the LORD, and all the exiles. 7 But listen [now]17 to this word18 that I speak in your hearing and in the hearing of all the people.19 8 The prophets who preceded you and me20 from ancient times prophesied war, [famine, and pestilence]21 against many countries22 and great kingdoms. 9 As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when his word [of that prophet]23 comes true, it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet.” 10 Then [the prophet] Hananiah24 took the yoke-pegs25 from the neck of [the prophet] Jeremiah, and broke it. 11 And Hananiah spoke in the presence of all the people, saying,  8 STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 322–25; Sondergut, 70, 78, 98; JANZEN, Studies, 15; PLANT, Good Figs, 105.  9 STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 324. 10 The OG depicts Hananiah as ψευδοπροϕήτης, but presumably its Vorlage had '– š1; DE JONG, Jeremiah Not Among the Prophets, 487. 11 STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 322. 12 JANZEN, Studies, 75–76. 13 JANZEN, Studies, 65–67. 14 STIPP, Sondergut, 102; JANZEN, Studies, 48 15 For the various additions in verse 4 MT, JANZEN, Studies, 48. 16 The title '– š1 has been added twelve times in Jer 28 MT; DE JONG, Jeremiah Not Among the Prophets, 488–89; JANZEN, Studies, 103. 17 STIPP, Sondergut, 81. 18 OG has τόν λόγον κυρίου, which is probably secondary; STIPP, Sondergut, 152. The same holds true for the plural imperative form ἀκούσατε. 19 It is possible that 28:6–7 for the greater part are a later addition to the core-text of 28:1–14*, lying on the same level as 29:10; cf. MCKANE, Jeremiah, 724. 20 OG has πρότεροι ὑμῶν, “preceding [all] of you (pl.),” which is probably secondary; DE JONG, Fallacy, 8; STIPP, Sondergut, 14; Jeremia-Erzählungen, 328, fn 19; the same holds true for the switch from singular to plural in 28:9, ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοῖς, for MT L%+š f. ’ 21 DE JONG, Fallacy, 8; STIPP, Sondergut, 101. 22 OG has γῆς πολλῆς, “much land,” which is probably secondary; STIPP, Sondergut, 54–55. 23 JANZEN, Studies, 103. 24 OG plus “for the eyes of all the people” is probably secondary; JANZEN, Studies, 64; STIPP, Sondergut, 146. 25 For MT !&L/, š OG has the plural κλοίοι in verses 10, and 12 and 13 (in verses 10 and 12 MT vocalises a singular, in verse 13 a plural; cf. also the plural =L&œ/ in 27:2). Jer 27–28 distinguishes between the yoke (+œ3, ζυγός), functioning as a symbol in the text, and the pegs (=L&œ/, κλοίοι), referring to the concrete object Jeremiah is carrying and Hananiah is breaking. This prob-

80

Matthijs J. de Jong

“Thus says the LORD: This is how I will break the yoke of [Nebuchadnezzar]26 the king of Babylon from the neck of all the nations [within two years]27.” At this, [the prophet] Jeremiah went his way. 12 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah sometime after [the prophet] Hananiah had broken the yoke-pegs from his neck [of the prophet Jeremiah]: 13 Go, tell Hananiah, Thus says the LORD: You have broken wooden yoke-pegs only to forge28 iron yoke-pegs in place of them! 14 For thus says the LORD [of hosts, the God of Israel]: I have put an iron yoke on the neck of all [these]29 nations so that they may serve [Nebuchadnezzar] the king of Babylon, [and they shall indeed serve him; I have even given him the wild animals.]30 15 And [the prophet] Jeremiah said to [the prophet] Hananiah, “[Listen, Hananiah,]31 the LORD has not sent you, and you made this people trust in a lie. 16 Therefore thus says the LORD: I am going to send you off the face of the earth. Within this year you will be dead, [because you have spoken rebellion against the LORD.]”32 17 [In that same year,]33 in the seventh month, he [the prophet Hananiah] died.

28:1–14* implies the situation of Jer 27 – according to Stipp mainly the notice of 27:2*34  – where Jeremiah is depicted as publicly carrying yoke-pegs on his shoulders.35 28:1–14* narrates how this symbolic statement provoked a counterprophecy from Hananiah. At a public scene in the temple, Hananiah delivers a prophecy which directly and sharply contradicts the message of Jeremiah: “thus says YHWH: I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon.”36 The proof of this lies in the return of the temple vessels and the deportees within two years. Jeremiah, after agreeing that this indeed would be the best thing to happen, speaks his famous words of 28:8–9, to be discussed below. Hananiah reacts to ably were (wooden) pegs which normally are put into holes through the yoke beam on both sides of the neck of the animal and joined together with straps; ZWICKEL, Jochhaken, 37–40; DEURLOO, Yoke. 26 STIPP, Sondergut, 101–2. 27 JANZEN, Studies, 48; STIPP, Sondergut, 128, fn 47. 28 OG has a first-person singular (“I will make”), MT a second person singular (“you have made”). According to STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 329, fn 22, OG is secondary. PLANT, Good Figs, 105, however argues that OG here is original, emphasizing YHWH’s judicial role. In either case the meaning is the same: either as an act of YHWH (OG) or as the consequence of Hananiah’s deed but still directed by YHWH (MT), a wooden yoke is replaced by an iron one. 29 STIPP, Sondergut, 55, 78, 118–19. 30 For the MT additions in this verse, see JANZEN, Studies, 48; STIPP, Sondergut, 63, 102, fn 17. 31 STIPP, Sondergut 81. 32 STIPP, Sondergut, 105–6; JANZEN, Studies, 48; PLANT, Good Figs, 105, cf. Jer 29:32, and Deut 13:6 from where the addition is taken. 33 JANZEN, Studies, 48. 34 STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 322–23. The earliest layer of 27* is usually confined to 27:2–4, 11, see e. g. HUWYLER, Völker, 309–11. 35 Cf. note 25. Although technically speaking Jeremiah probably is carrying only part of a yoke – the pegs and straps, but not the beam – for convenience sake I will refer to this as to a “yoke” throughout. 36 The perfect form in verse 2 is usually translated as “I have broken,” and the imperfect form in verse 4 as a future, “I will break.” The two belong together, and imply that YHWH’s decision to break the yoke of the king of Babylon has been taken.

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations

81

Jeremiah’s speech by a symbolic act: he takes the yoke from Jeremiah’s neck, breaks it, and solemnly declares: “Thus says YHWH: This is how I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon from the neck of all the nations.” At this, Jeremiah leaves the scene without a word. This is how the confrontation ends, but in the earliest written account an epilogue follows: after some time, YHWH addresses Jeremiah again, ordering him to go to Hananiah to tell him the final word of YHWH on the matter (“You have broken a wooden yoke only to forge an iron one in its place!”). The second meeting with Hananiah is not narrated,37 but for the reader / hearer the point of 28:12–14 is clear: the word of YHWH as proclaimed by Jeremiah will prevail.

3. Jer 28:8–9 What does Jer 28:8–9 say? Some years ago I have devoted a lengthy article to this issue.38 Here, I will restrict myself to the main points of discussion, and respond to several critical reactions to my reading.39 Verse 8 refers to “the prophets” in the plural. It gives a summarising view of the prophecies delivered from time immemorial, presenting the prophets as prophesying against many countries and kingdoms. This does not mean that each individual prophecy referred to many nations, but is instead an overview of a long history of prophets who prophesied against other countries and kingdoms. The word !/š %š +’ /– is the shortest possible description of misfortune, that may include all sorts of disaster, destruction, and military defeat. To prophesy war against a kingdom is to declare that YHWH has decided to ruin it. What verse 8 seems to imply is that this happened as these prophets had foretold. Prophets prophesied against mighty kingdoms, and everything they predicted, happened. With the plural “the prophets” and the reference to “from ancient times,” verse 8 depicts a common practice. Verse 9 points to a different situation, referring to a prophet in the singular. Whereas verse 8 describes the rule, verse 9 describes the exception.40 Since the same term “prophet” is used, the difference is not between two types of prophets. The categories of “prophet of doom” and “prophet of peace” therefore are not applicable here. The text only deals with one category, that of '– š1. The issue 37 From a formal point of view this makes for an open-ended story, of which the redactional addition of verses 15–17 made use at a later stage. From the intent of 28:1–14* however the account is not open-ended, since YHWH’s word is the final verdict on the matter. 38 DE JONG, Fallacy, 1–29, esp. 6–14. 39 STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 331, fn 25; MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, 71–75. 40 MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, 72, accepts this interpretation, but not what follows from it: that the context of Jer 28* itself provides sufficient explanation for the shift from plural (verse 8) to singular (verse 9), so that there is no need to attribute this to a supposed borrowing from Deut 18:21–22.

82

Matthijs J. de Jong

at stake is the content of their prophecies.41 The prophet in verse 9 announces “peace”, not “war”. The crucial, but often ignored, question is: Peace for whom? The contrastive parallel between verse 8 and verse 9, with the opposing pair of “war” and “peace”, suggest that the foreign countries and kingdoms of verse 8 are still being referred to. Thus the prophet of verse 9 prophesies peace for an entity that is part of the group mentioned in verse 8, that is, for a foreign country. Verse 9 describes a prophet who, contrary to the usual practice, proclaims something unexpected with regard to a foreign kingdom: not its downfall, but its success. When his announcement comes true, it will be known that this prophet was truly sent by YHWH. This is what Jeremiah 28:8–9 appears to say. It has an inner coherence and makes sense in the context of Jer 28:1–14*. Hananiah’s prophecy (“YHWH will break the Babylonian yoke” = divine war for Babylonia) seems to have tradition on its side, but Jeremiah’s prophecy (“accept Babylonia’s supremacy” = divine peace for Babylonia) will prove him to be the prophet truly sent. This interpretation however runs counter to scholarly consensus, for it is generally held that !/š %š +’ /– in verse 8 denotes Jeremiah’s “prophecy of doom,” whereas -L+fš in verse 9 relates to Hananiah’s “prophecy of peace,” despite the fact that scholars have often sensed that this scheme does not really fit the text.42

4. Dependency on Deut 18:21–22? The alleged dependency of Jer 28:9 on Deut 8:21–22 plays a major role in this discussion. It is often supposed that Jeremiah in 28:9 applies the rule of Deut 18:21–22 to Hananiah, thereby indirectly exposing him as a false prophet.43 If true, verse 9 refers to Hananiah, and hence verse 8 to Jeremiah. However, the claim of dependency on Deut 18 is problematic.44 First of all, the shared terminology is very general.45 Besides, there are notable terminological differences,46 although, against this one might argue that an 41

MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, 73, agrees with this. For examples, DE JONG, Fallacy, 12. 43 MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, 71–75, referring to other authors as well (71, fn 119). According to MASTNJAK, 72, “Jeremiah 28:8–9 specifies that this criterion applies only to a prophet who prophesies peace.” However, neither MASTNJAK nor others taking this view explain how is it possible given two opposite oracles to put one to the test regarding its outcome, but not the other. See further on this my fifth remark in the next section. 44 SHARP, Prophecy, 152–55; DE JONG, Fallacy, 11–13. 45 The shared wording consists of '– š1, :š Gš (in Deut 18:21–22 as :š Gš !, ™ with focus on “the word,” but in Jer 28:9 '– š^!: ™ ™ ,’ with focus on the prophet), 3' (in Deut 18:21 in the sense of “discern,” but in Jer 28:9 in the sense of “acknowledge”), and # (only in Deut 18:22 combined with !'!). DE JONG, Fallacy, 11–12. 46 E. g. -#9 versus %+f for the prophetic commission, and 1 versus : for prophesying. 42

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations

83

allusion may very well transform its source.47 This means that on the basis of vocabulary, an allusion cannot be ruled out, but is not highly likely either. An argument against taking 28:9 as an allusion is that both texts deal with quite different topics. Deut 18:21–22 does not relate to the difference between “peace” and “war,” the difference between the positive or the negative content of prophecy. Its theme is how to discern whether a “word” spoken by a prophet is really spoken “in the name of YHWH” or is spoken presumptuously by the prophet. For this a criterion is given: if the word does not come true, it was not spoken in the name of YHWH. Jer 28:8–9 deals with quite another matter: when an unexpected, perhaps unwanted, prophecy nevertheless comes true, it has to be acknowledged that the prophet who spoke it was truly sent by YHWH. In 28:8–9 the standard is not “spoken in YHWH’s name,” but “prophecy of old.” Precedent sets the norm, and this norm is: war for the enemy. This makes the opposite, peace for a foreign nation, the exception. But, as verse 9 argues, when such an irregular oracle nevertheless comes true, the conclusion that this prophet was truly sent by God is inescapable. The most important argument in this discussion is that 28:9 does not deal with a condition or a criterion regarding the validation of prophecy. That it is often read this way, is because this verse is, by circular reasoning, read through the lens of Deut 18:21–22. But there is no condition formulated in the text. The phrase '– š^!™ :™ ’ œC’ means “when the word of the prophet comes true,” not “if it comes true;” œC’ is a temporal clause, indicating the moment of this happening.48 The positive formulation of 28:9, and the final word, =/˜ “ C˜ “truly,” in particular, shows that a positive outcome is implied.49 Taking 28:9 as an assertion that aims to tackle Hananiah’s “prophecy of salvation” by putting it under the criterion of its fulfilment, thereby implying its exposure over time as being false, requires a forced reading of the text. Reading Jer 28:8–9 through the lens of Deut 18:21–22 obfuscates the interpretation rather than serving it.50

47

MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, 72. E. g. JENNI, Präposition Beth, 316–27; JOÜON  / MURAOKA, Grammar, § 166 l; DE JONG, Fallacy, 11. MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, does not discuss this. 49 MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, 74, accepts this and abandons the conventional reading of verse 9 as an assertion implying the negative outcome of Hananiah’s prophecy and his exposure as a false prophet. However, instead of accepting my proposal that verse 9 indicates the positive outcome of Jeremiah’s prophecy, Mastnjak suggests that the verse aims to distinguish between two different prophecies of peace: Hananiah’s announcement of a restoration within two years versus Jeremiah’s announcement of a restoration after seventy years (29:10). It is however difficult to see how the announcement of Jer 29:10 can be supposed to be implied in 28:9. Besides, it seems far-fetched to read 28:9 as aiming to make a distinction between two different “peace prophecies,” one that will be falsified and one that will be verified. 50 MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, 75, concludes that 28:8–9 is as a deliberate restriction of the rule of Deut 18:21–22: verse 8 is an explicit denial of the applicability of Deuteronomy’s verification criterion for prophecies of judgement aiming to promote Jeremiah’s prophetic autonomy over 48

84

Matthijs J. de Jong

That we must not read Jer 28:8–9 in the light of Deut 18:21–22 is confirmed by Jer 28:15–17. This redactional addition deals with the unmasking of Hananiah as “not being sent” and “letting the people trust in falsehood,” and with his punishment. But this passage does not allude to Deut 18:21–22.51 These verses echo the terminology of verse 9, concerning the prophet that is “truly sent” (namely Jeremiah), adding that Hananiah was “not sent” by YHWH. Furthermore, they introduce a new theme, “he made the people trust in falsehood,” for which he is punished. Had Jer 28 been inspired by Deut 18, we would expect the judgement to come after his word had been falsified by the events. But the addition makes clear that he was punished before this. He died before the non-fulfilment of his words exposed him as a liar.52 So, I conclude that Jer 28:9 is not to be taken as an allusion to Deut 18:21–22.53

5. Difficulties of Interpretation of 28:8–9 However, even scholars who reject influence from Deut  18:21–22 on Jer  28:9, still regard 28:8 as depicting Jeremiah and 28:9 as depicting Hananiah.54 The common explanation is that verse  8 refers to prophecy of doom in general: doom to foreign nations and to Judah itself. Verse 9, then, refers to prophecy of salvation in general. Since prophesying doom was the rule in Judah (as is then supposed), Jeremiah is right to place Hananiah’s prophecy of salvation under an extra criterion, the criterion of fulfilment. However, each step of this explanation is problematic.55 First, it is a mistake to take “prophecy of salvation versus prophecy of doom” as a tool for interpreting 28:8–9. As we saw above, 28:8–9 uses the same term, '– š1, for both sides, and with the phrase “prophets before me and you,” Jeremiah includes both Hananiah and himself in one and the same group of the -'' – – ’1.

against prophetic regulations in Deuteronomy. In my view, this is far removed from what Jer 28:8 actually says. 51 For the pre-Masoretic plus in verse 16 (“because you have spoken rebellion against the LORD”), cf. note 32 above. 52 SHARP, Prophecy, 152, 155. Against this MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, 72, brings in that the criterion of Deut 18:21–22 is primarily aimed at judging the prophecy, and not the prophet himself. In Jer 28:9 however the focus is on the prophet himself. So, Sharp’s argument holds firm. 53 Various scholars have recently argued that Deut 18:15–22 is a late, composite text, which is based on the prophetic tradition, containing echoes from Jer 1, Jer 28, and other texts. This increases the unlikelihood of finding in Jer  28:9 a reference to Deut 18:21–22. See e. g. SCHMIDT, Prophetengesetz, 55–69; Wahrhaftigkeit, 145–60, esp. 158 with fn 63; KÖCKERT, Prophetengesetzes, 80–100; NICHOLSON, Deuteronomy, 151–71. 54 Notably STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 330–32. 55 DE JONG, Fallacy, 13–14.

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations

85

Second, there is no indication in the text that “war against many countries and great kingdoms” also includes prophecy of doom in its biblical sense as directed against YHWH’s own people. Third, prophecy of doom, the supposed hallmark of Jeremiah’s prophecy, was not the rule in Judah from time immemorial. As far as it existed,56 it was and remained the exception. The biblical prophetic books agree with this, presenting their protagonists as swimmers against the stream. Prophecy, generally speaking, was supportive of the status quo. It is Hananiah’s oracle that represents the common prophetic practice. He has tradition on his side.57 It would be surprising to see Jeremiah in this text blatantly turning reality upside down. Stipp, who acknowledges this problem, supposes that this is done for rhetorical purposes: to rewrite history so to speak.58 In my view, this is unconvincing, since Jeremiah is elsewhere consistently depicted as the exception.59 Fourth, the term !/š %š +’ /– was not a standard term for prophecy of doom in the biblical sense, i. e. as doom against YHWH’s own people. In the Hebrew Bible !/š %š +’ /– is not used a label for prophecy of doom.60 Furthermore, although the term -L+fš is elsewhere connected with the message of peace of the socalled false prophets, the phrase that is used here, -L+f1, š is nowhere in the book of Jeremiah used for the activity of the lying prophets, which is elsewhere -L+f:/ š / :.61 So there is not much ground to apply the device of “true prophecy of doom” versus “false prophecy of peace” to the depiction of 28:8–9. Fifth, verse 9, as we saw above, does not deal with a criterion of fulfilment to put Hananiah’s oracle to the test. Furthermore, the suggestion that Jeremiah in 28:8–9 claims that his prophecy with its doom-laden content follows the norm and therefore needs no testing but has to be believed at once, whereas Hananiah’s oracle because of its cheerful content has to be put under the condition of its outcome, is highly implausible. Apart from the fact that such a strange claim would not be likely to be accepted, it is also quite impossible. If Jeremiah’s message is to be immediately taken as being true, by implication Hananiah’s message is not true. There is no point in waiting two years to see that proven. In the case of two 56

For this issue, DE JONG, Isaiah, 323–33; Scribal Enterprise, 39–70. STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 328–29, agrees with this. 58 STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 329. 59 According to STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 332, 28:8–9 cleverly turns the relation between “innovation” and “tradition” upside down. By broadening the scope of the “Oracles against the Nations” in such a way that “doom for Judah” becomes part of it, Jeremiah aims to use the weight of tradition for strengthening his position. In my view, Jer 28:1–14* does not seek to present Jeremiah as the one who has tradition on his side, but as the prophet who against all odds was the one truly sent by YHWH. 60 There is only Mic 3:5, concerning prophets “who cry ‘Peace’ when they have something to eat, but declare war (!/š %š +’ /) – against those who put nothing in their mouths.” This is part of a description that blames the prophets for their deceitful behaviour. 61 E. g., Jer 6:14; 8:11; 14:13; 23:17. 57

86

Matthijs J. de Jong

competing oracles, it is practically impossible to judge one of them, but not the other, by the criterion of fulfilment. With the one, the other is being put to the test as well. So, finally, we come back at what we saw above: verse 9 does not deal with a criterion of fulfilment. Instead, the positive outcome is implied, as the words “truly sent” indicate. The verse works towards its conclusion: no matter how unexpected or how unwanted his word is, the conclusion that this prophet (Jeremiah) was truly sent will be unavoidable.

6. Jer 28:8–9 in its Broader Context Stipp contests my interpretation by saying that 28:1–14* itself defines Hananiah’s prophecy as one of salvation (in 28:2–4) and that of Jeremiah as doom (the yoke, representing submission).62 I do not think this is the case. Hananiah speaks of YHWH’s war against a great kingdom. It is the first thing he says: “Thus says YHWH: I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon” (verse 2). It is both the opening statement of his oracle and its closing line (verse 4), and it is cited again in verse 11. This shows the violent breakdown of Babylonia’s imperial supremacy to be the core of his message. Surely, YHWH’s war against Babylonia has beneficial consequences for Judah – the return of the temple vessels and the exiles – but this does not alter the fact that Jer 28* presents Hananiah’s prophecy as disaster (“war”) for Babylonia.63 Furthermore, Hananiah acts this out symbolically by breaking the yoke-hooks Jeremiah is bearing. This action forms the climax of the confrontation and is therefore highly significant.64 As the yoke-hooks represent Babylonia’s supremacy, breaking them stands for YHWH’s destruction of Babylonia’s power.65 So, Hananiah, by his words and deeds makes clear how we have to understand his message: YHWH will cause Babylonia’s downfall, as a blessing for Judah. Hananiah thus seamlessly fits in the description of verse 8.

62

STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 331, fn 25. MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, 73, argues that since Hananiah addresses a Judean audience, his prophecy must be labelled as a “prophecy of peace” rather than as a “prophecy of war against Babylonia.” What he overlooks is that Jer 28:8 itself speaks of a prophecy of war against foreign nations and kingdoms. Evidently, Hananiah’s prophecy can be qualified both as an oracle of salvation for Judah and as an oracle of war against Babylonia. 64 Hananiah’s action shows that his message is framed chiefly as a divine declaration of war against Babylonia. The relation between Hananiah’s message and his symbolic act is often overlooked, due to a one-sided focus on the beneficent aspect of Hananiah’s prophecy; e. g. OSUJI, Where is the Truth, 238. 65 It is often suggested that Hananiah committed an act of violence against Jeremiah, but this is not explicitly stated in Jer 28:10. We only read that he “took” (%9+) the yoke from Jeremiah’s neck and broke it (:f). Explicit violence is only mentioned with regard to the yoke, i. e. Babylonia. 63

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations

87

As for Jeremiah, his message is visible all the time: he walks around wearing yoke-hooks. This stands for the yoke of the king of Babylon, in other words, for š in the sense of good fortune, Babylonia’s supremacy.66 So, he prophesies -L+f, 67 Whereas Hananiah’s oracle depicts the Babylonians for a mighty kingdom. as “the enemy,” to be trampled down by God, Jeremiah’s message does not present them as the enemy, but as the recipient of YHWH’s peace, not because there was something inherently good in Babylonia’s supremacy (as if it were a reward), nor because YHWH wanted to punish Judah or the other subjugated nations. It is simply what YHWH in his sovereignty decided and what Jeremiah reveals, thereby serving his nation. The claim that Jeremiah’s message implies doom for Judah is unfounded. What his message aims at is Judah’s survival and well-being. It reveals that YHWH has granted Babylonia supremacy for the time being. Thus, to follow YHWH’s will is to seek survival and welfare in accepting Babylonia’s rule. Serving Babylonia is the path of survival and well-being for Judah. The earliest layer of Jer 27, closely related to our text, states this clearly: “But any nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him, I will leave on its own land, says the LORD, to till it and live there” (27:11). This is not prophecy of doom, but divine guidance for finding a modus vivendi under circumstances that are divinely decreed. This is also the picture in Jer 29*. In Jer 29:4–7*, a passage commonly considered to be part of the literary core of Jer 29 and closely related to the core-text of Jer 27–28, the term -L+fš is used, relating to Babylon and to the community in exile: “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (29:7). In his address to the exilic community, Jeremiah speaks about the -L+fš of Babylon. The implication is, again, that YHWH has granted the Babylonians good fortune for the time being. The Judeans in exile should commit themselves to this, for Babylonia’s fortune is the very key to their well-being. Note that it is Jeremiah, not his opponent Hananiah, who uses the word -L+f! š Besides, the core text of 28:1–14* does not label Hananiah as a (false) prophet of peace. The defamation of prophets as liars and deceptive figures associated with falsehood (cf. 28:15– 17) did not play a role in the early stage of the Jeremiah tradition to which Jer 27–29* belong. 66 The yoke metaphor stands for political order and cannot be explained in terms of “doom for Judah.” Rather than preaching Judah’s downfall, Jeremiah here points out the way of Judah’s survival. According to SILVER, Performing Domination, 186–216, the “yoke” here stands for a reorientation on Judah’s social and political organisation. 67 MASTNJAK, Deuteronomy, 73, refutes this on the grounds that in 27:3 Jeremiah addresses a range of foreign nations with the message that they must submit to Babylonia. In his estimation this makes it impossible to associate Jeremiah’s message with “peace.” This criticism is however beside the point, since the foreign nation that according to Jeremiah’s prophecy will enjoy divine peace is Babylonia. This is what Jer 28:9, in my view, refers to and this applies to Jeremiah’s message in ch. 27* and ch. 29* as well.

88

Matthijs J. de Jong

In Jer 27–29*, Jeremiah consistently reveals YHWH’s decision of granting good fortune to Babylonia. His prophetic disclosure of the imminent future offers guidance for the political decision-makers: for Judah and the surrounding nations it means that survival and well-being depend on accepting the yoke of Babylonia; for the exilic community in Babylon it means that well-being depends on commitment to Babylonia’s well-being. Even though Jeremiah’s message may have been unexpected or unwelcome to his fellow Judeans, his message is not adequately described by either “doom” or “war.” Just as Hananiah fits in to the description of 28:8, so Jeremiah’s message can be summarized as proclaiming YHWH’s granting of “peace” for a mighty kingdom, i. e. Babylonia. Of course, Hananiah’s oracle implies more than merely Babylonia’s downfall (see 28:3b–4), and Jeremiah’s message implies more than just Babylonia’s good fortunes (namely, the urge to accept this in order to survive and to be prosperous). But the crucial point is that the message of Jeremiah as it is presented in Jer 27–29* can be adequately summarized by YHWH’s -L+fš for Babylonia and that of Hananiah as YHWH’s !/š %š +’ /– for Babylonia, and not the other way around. It stands to reason that Jeremiah’s message was less welcome than that of his opponent. The heroic words spoken by Hananiah were appealing: this is how the Judeans preferred their God to act. Terror for the enemy. This is how they preferred to celebrate their past, remembering the great divine rescues and the accompanying prophetic promises. This is what they liked to hear. Verse 9 however tells us: when the less desirable and therefore rejected message nevertheless happens to come true, one has to face the fact that the prophet who proclaimed it was truly sent by YHWH.

7. Prophecy of “War” as an Age-Old Phenomenon In verse 8, Jeremiah concedes that Hananiah’s oracle proclaiming war for Babylonia has the support of tradition. From time immemorial prophecies dealt with the violent downfall of other nations and kingdoms. This is indeed what we see when looking at prophecy in the ancient Near East at large. Divine promises of the downfall of enemies is one of the most frequent topics in ancient Near Eastern prophecy. In the archives of Mari we find prophetic oracles against a range of enemies and foreign powers, such as Eshnunna, Elam, Ekallatum, and Babylon, and the Yaminite tribes.68 War for the enemy at the same time implies good fortune for Zimri-Lim, king of Mari, the recipient of the oracles. The divine promises of 68 NISSINEN, Ancient Prophecy, 276. For an example, taken from NISSINEN, Prophets and Prophecies, 44: “Babylon, what are you constantly doing (evil)? I will gather you into a net, and

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations

89

defeating the enemy go hand in hand with promises of salvation or supremacy for the recipient. This kind of divine announcement was part of the prophetic repertoire from time immemorial. The oracles for the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal also testify to this. Many of these contain the promise of the god or goddess to annihilate the enemy, and a range of countries and kingdoms are mentioned by name, such as Elam, Ellipi, Egypt, and the Cimmerians.69 Such oracles were known in the Greek world as well.70 The Hebrew Bible also contains many traces of prophecy dealing with “war” against other nations. We find prophetic announcements, or at least prophetic involvement, in many accounts of military defeat of enemies and accounts of YHWH’s saving actions.71 Furthermore, texts with a royal outlook, such as 2 Sam 7 (v. 9) and Ps 2 and 110, contain echoes of this kind of prophetic announcement.72 Long before Jeremiah, the prophet Isaiah had prophesied war for Samaria and Damascus, Judah’s enemies at that time (e. g. Isa 8:1–4).73 It is commonly agreed that this oracle proclaiming “war” at the same time functioned as an oracle of salvation for the Judeans, the oracle’s recipients. So, as far as precedent sets the norm, Hananiah stood on the right side. His words – “I will break the yoke of Babylon” – verbally echo the prophetic past: both Nah 1:13 and Isa 9:3 express YHWH’s statement of his breaking the yoke of Assyria.74 These kinds of announcement were a well-known and long-standing part of prophecy.75 This is what prophecy could be and often was about. Prophecy was part of political affairs, and at times of crisis the divine promise of the enemy’s defeat was a most welcome message. Its background was a generally shared belief: “God will protect us and support us.” Jeremiah thus rightly concedes that Hananiah had tradition on his side.

… The dwellings of the seven accomplices and all their wealth I give into the hand of ZimriLim” (ARM 26 209). 69 NISSINEN, Ancient Prophecy, 276. For the material from seventh century Assyria, see NISSINEN, Prophets and Prophecies, 97–177. Furthermore in NISSINEN, Das kritische Potential, 23–24. 70 HAGEDORN, Die Anderen, 14–15, citing Herodotus, Histories 6.19, concerning bad fate of Milete. 71 E. g. Exod 15:20–21; Judg 5, 1 Kgs 20:13; 22:6, 12; 2 Kgs 3:16–19; 14:25–28; 19:6–7; DE JONG, Isaiah, 334–35, with note 253 (for Exod 15:20–21 and Judg 5) and 343, with note 313 (for the passages from 1 and 2 Kgs). 72 HILBER, Cultic Prophecy, 43, 76–101; see also HUWYLER, Völker, 277. 73 DE JONG, Isaiah, 193–214. 74 Although these texts presumably are examples of written prophecy rather than of spoken oracles, they nevertheless predate the clash between Hananiah and Jeremiah. The core of the book of Nahum is to be dated around the fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE (HAGEDORN, Die Anderen, 13), whereas Isa 9:1–6 presumably belongs to the seventh century Josiah-redaction of the Isaiah tradition; DE JONG, Isaiah, 373–94. 75 See further in DE JONG, Fallacy, 18.

90

Matthijs J. de Jong

8. The Aim of the Written Account of 28:1–14* The way in which the core text of 28:1–14* is structured is revealing.76 It is structured as an account of a public scene (verses 1–11), followed by an epilogue containing a new oracle (verses 12–14). We can distinguish two levels: a historical incident in the temple and the written version of 28:1–14* which gives a new twist to this incident. Although the supposed historical incident remains conjectural, the basic elements seem to be the following. At a public scene in the temple, Hananiah confronted Jeremiah  – who was symbolically carrying yoke-hooks – with a counter-prophecy, proclaiming the violent downfall of Babylonia. Hananiah underscored his words by taking off the yoke from Jeremiah’s shoulders and crushing it. At this, Jeremiah left the scene, humiliated and outwitted, perhaps chased away by public scorn. Without any doubt Hananiah was the winner in the eyes of the public, and his prophecy therefore the more credible.77 This public confrontation must have been disastrous for Jeremiah’s reputation as a prophet.78 28:1–14* does not merely report the incident – although the facts, including Jeremiah’s infamous withdrawal, were not altered – but is a written version in which the outcome of the contest is turned upside down. In the written account Jeremiah is the winner. The fact that Hananiah won the public contest is not removed, but it is modified in two ways. First, verses 6–9* add a speech – put in Jeremiah’s mouth – from a meta-perspective, which makes clear that although Hananiah seems to have right on his side (verse 8), it is nevertheless Jeremiah who will be vindicated as the prophet that is truly sent (verse 9). And second, in the epilogue, YHWH adds the winning oracle: Hananiah has broken the yokehooks of wood, only to replace them by iron ones. YHWH’s decision to grant the Babylonians worldwide supremacy cannot be thwarted. Jer 28:1–14* is written from the conviction that the historical events have proved Hananiah’s announcement to be false and verified Jeremiah’s message. From an ex eventu perspective the account was written with the speech of Jeremiah (28:6–9*) and YHWH’s final message (28:12–14) as the main new elements. This account may have been one of the earliest stories about Jeremiah to be written down. Stipp may be right to date Jer 28:1–14* before 587  BCE.79 The account does not refer to the disasters of 587 BCE.80 Furthermore, the re76

With regard to the issues dealt with in this section, I agree to a great extent with STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 322–32. 77 See DE JONG, Prophetic Authority, for public persuasion as the decisive factor for prophetic credibility. 78 STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 327. 79 STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 325–26. 80 According to STIPP, Jeremia-Erzählungen, 325–26, after 587 BCE the story would not have been told this way.

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations

91

alistic picture of the confrontation and the reminder of the fact that Jeremiah lost the prophetic contest seem to support an early dating. One further detail is revealing: verse 9 focuses not on the message, but on the prophet. When the prophecy comes true, the verse asserts, it must be acknowledged that this prophet was truly sent by YHWH, not merely that his message was true. The focus on the figure of Jeremiah suggests that the purpose of the written version was to enhance the prophetic reliability of Jeremiah. This was an issue of great relevance during the final stage of Zedekiah’s reign, when the decision on whether or not to revolt against Babylonia was being considered. The text promotes the credentials of Jeremiah as a reliable prophet, urging the Judeans to take him seriously.

9. Relevance for the OAN What do we learn from Jer 28:8–9 on the topic of the OAN? We have seen that in prophetic oracles foreign nations are often cast in the role of “the enemy” to be dealt with violently by the divine power. If a foreign nation figures in a prophetic oracle, there always is a direct relevance for the recipient at home. There are no examples of ancient Near Eastern prophecies that deal with far-away countries for their own sake; the prophecy always relates to the addressees at home, implying their victory or deliverance. Such oracles are de facto oracles of salvation. The divine declarations of war against the enemy formed a prominent part of the prophetic repertoire, but did not constitute a distinct prophetic genre. It is simply what prophecy in the ancient Near East could be, and often was, about. How do these (common) prophetic oracles of war relate to the OAN as found in the biblical prophetic books? Many scholars have sensed a relationship between the two. It is often supposed that the OAN initially had their Sitz im Leben in situations of war, and that these prophecies were originally “war oracles” of the type referred to in Jer 28:8.81 In this case the OAN, at least initially, indirectly proclaimed salvation for Judah.82 This view, however, has been criticised in past decades, and for good reason. The OAN, as we have them in the biblical prophetic books, are not, at least not primarily, concerned with Judah’s salvation. Rather, they serve the theme of the equal treatment in terms of judgement and punishment of both Judah and the foreign nations.83 Within the collection of OAN in Jeremiah (MT 46–51; OG 25:14–31:44)84 it is only in the prophecy against Babylonia that Judah evidently benefits from 81

E. g., HAYES, Usage, 81–92. E. g., WESTERMANN, Grundformen, 147. 83 For this perspective, e. g. LEE, Mapping Judah’s Fate, 4; BALOGH, Stele, 54; PEELS, Place and Significance, 88; HUWYLER, Völker, 388–89. 84 For the difference in position and order of the OAN within MT and OG, see the contribution by ERIC PEELS in this volume. 82

92

Matthijs J. de Jong

the ordeal over the enemy (Jer 50–51).85 In the other prophecies, Judah / Israel figures marginally at most, and these references appear to be secondary elements (46:27–28; 48:27; 49:1–2).86 Furthermore, in the prophecies dealing with Philistia, Edom, Damascus, Kedar and Elam, Judah is not mentioned at all, and there are no reasons to think that the divine war declared on these nations in any way benefits Judah. Besides, these nations are not depicted as Judah’s enemies. The collection includes nations faraway whose fate hardly affected that of Judah at all.87 Several others, such as Egypt and the Philistines, were Judah’s allies rather than enemies. So, the relevance of the OAN in Jeremiah lies not primarily in the beneficial consequences for the Judeans, and these prophecies therefore cannot be equated with the (common) prophetic oracles of war of 28:8. The collection of the OAN in Jeremiah forms a thematic and editorial unity,88 which shows traces of literary development. Huwyler differentiates between a series of prophecies against seven nations, representing the entire world trampled down by Babylonia, which predated the prophecy of Jer 50–51, dealing with the violent downfall of Babylonia. The prophecy concerning Elam was probably added at a later stage, when the two main blocks were joined.89 However, it is in their connection that these two complexes are meaningful.90 The thematic and editorial construction  – which in MT looks remarkably different from OG  – is what characterizes the OAN. These prophecies are marked by stereotypical language and hardly contain references to specific historical events.91 In these respects, the OAN are far removed from the (common) prophetic oracles of war of 28:8. At this point it is helpful to distinguish between primary oracles (orally delivered and written down) on the one hand and secondary prophecies (literary texts) on the other. The OAN presumably belong to the second category. Primary oracles, such as the ones spoken by Jeremiah (“accept the yoke of Babylonia and live”) and Hananiah (“YHWH will break the yoke of Babylon”) had a direct and very practical relevance. They functioned as divine guidance for the deci85 Jer 50–51, however, is not in formal terms a “war oracle” that de facto proclaims salvation for the Judeans, but a long and complex prophetic exposé in which terror for Babylonia and liberation of the Judeans are intertwined. 86 HUWYLER, Völker, 388. 87 PEELS, Place and Significance, 85, notes that various of these prophecies relate to nations with whom Judah was not at war or could not even go at war with. 88 PEELS, Place and Significance, 82. 89 HUWYLER, Völker. 262–68, 392–93. For a similar view, see BALOGH, Stele, 50–52. 90 The fact that the prophecy concerning Elam (= Persia) is part of the collection, is indicative of the late date of the collection, since it forms a prelude to the Persian takeover of the Babylonian empire. In the OG, of all foreign nations mentioned, it is only Elam whose fate will be changed to a good outcome by YHWH (Jer 25:19 OG). 91 GOSSE, L’usage rédactionnel, 219–21. As HUWYLER, Völker, 278–79, points out, in the OAN against the seven nations, the enemy forces of the Babylonians are only described in very vague and general terms.

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations

93

sion-making of the day. The OAN – presumably written compositions from the outset  – had a quite different relevance. They are part of a grand theological design revealing how YHWH governs the world of the nations. They reveal YHWH’s righteous order in the chaotic world of the nations. Even though the written prophecies were probably meant to be performed orally, the order is different. In the case of the primary prophecies, orally delivered messages are kept on record, and afterwards were preserved within written traditions. In the case of secondary prophecy, the writing comes first, and the oral performance follows. I use the terms primary oracles and secondary prophecies not as a value judgement, but as descriptive terms. The OAN as literary compositions are no less prophetic than the primary oracles, but in a different way. They do not serve the decision-making of the day as is characteristic of oral prophecy, but they reveal how YHWH in his sovereign justice, over the years and decades leads the world of the nations. Primary prophecy belongs to the sphere of divination, secondary prophecy seems rather to be part of the sphere of reflection. Whereas primary prophecy aimed to prevent the catastrophe, secondary prophecy responded to it. Regular oracles of war, which cast foreign nations in the role of the enemy, always imply a beneficial outcome for the oracles’ recipients at home. This is different in the OAN in Jeremiah, as we saw above. The reason that these nations are judged is not to be sought in their oppression of Judah. These nations – except for Babylonia – are not depicted as Judah’s enemies, but seem to be dealt with for other reasons.92 YHWH threatens them with his judgement, which will be implemented by the Babylonians, whose destructive power is functionally one with YHWH’s sword in these texts. The offence, as far as one is mentioned, is arrogance against God. The nations do not take him into account but take pride in themselves. The judgement of the nations does not hold a promise of salvation for Judah, but rather shows how the divine judgement that strikes Judah is part of a worldwide judgement in which all nations are confronted with YHWH’s anger. The exception to this is Babylonia (Jer 50–51). In the prophecy against Babylon the brutal acts of violence against Judah play a central role. Furthermore, Babylonia’s destruction goes hand-in-hand with the liberation of the Judeans. All this suggests that there is a relation between the regular oracles of war and the collection of the OAN, but the relation is anything but direct. The OAN have been modelled on the oracles proclaiming divine war against foreign nations, but as literary texts they stand at distance from the oracular practice.93 Whereas primary oracles originated as oral proclamations at public places, such as the 92

PEELS, Place and Significance, 87. There is a similar distance between Jer 27*, dealing with the warning of Judah’s neighbours that survival and good fortune depend on accepting the Babylonian yoke, and the redactional frame of Jer 25 and 46–51, dealing with YHWH’s worldwide judgement involving the ruination of the nations. 93

94

Matthijs J. de Jong

one by Hananiah discussed in this article, the OAN presumably originated as written prophecy. A decisive difference between the divinatory oracles and literary prophecies is their difference in scope. Divinatory oracles relate to the present and imminent future and betray a very practical concern: how to act, what to do. Literary prophecies usually reflect on a larger time scale and betray a broader perspective. Divinatory prophecy offers guidance for the day-to-day decision making. Literary prophecies provide insight into history. To this, the OAN in Jeremiah are no exception.

10. Redactional Development The interest and intent of the OAN is different from that of the primary oracles belonging to the sphere of divination. YHWH’s dealing with the world of the nations is given a meaning of its own: it is God’s sovereign intervention establishing a just order for his own sake, and indirectly for the sake of his people.94 Since the judgement of the nations extends from the judgement of Judah, the collection is integrally connected to the book at large.95 The OAN probably became part of the developing book of Jeremiah at a relatively late stage. It has been suggested that Jer 1:4–10, a secondary addition to the introduction of Jeremiah, functions as the preface to a redactionally enlarged book of which the OAN had become a part.96 In 1:5 Jeremiah is commissioned by YHWH to be “prophet to the nations.” He will speak the words of YHWH, and thereby destroy and restore nations and kingdoms (1:10). Jeremiah’s commission as a prophet here has a worldwide scope, very different from the earlier portrayal of Jeremiah as a figure in conflict with his own society in 1:11–19.97 The OAN probably were included in the book as part of an overarching book redaction in the post-exilic period.98 Of interest are the two short prose pas94

PEELS, Place and Significance, 87. PEELS, Place and Significance, 88. 96 DE JONG, Jeremiah Not Among the Prophets, 490–95; MCKANE, Jeremiah, 14; CARROLL, Jeremiah, 94–101; SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 3, 336; AEJMELAEUS, Turning-Point, 481. The title “prophet to the nations” (1:5) presupposes the Oracles against the Nations as part of the book. 97 I distinguish between three main literary levels. (a) The earliest written traditions concerning Jeremiah, such as Jer  28:1–14*, which circulated probably in small collections in the early sixth century. (b) The first redactional “book” of Jeremiah, which combines a redactional version of the early saying materials and a redactional version of the early narrative material. In this “book,” Jeremiah, introduced in 1:11–19, is presented as a figure against Judean society, who brings YHWH’s message of irrevocable doom over Judah and Jerusalem. (c) A second redactional “book” of Jeremiah, of which the OAN had become part, which places the punishment of Judah in a worldwide frame of YHWH’s judgement of the nations, culminating in Babylonia’s downfall. Jeremiah is now introduced as a prophet to the nations (1:5). 98 E. g. GOSSE, L’usage rédactionnel. 219–21. 95

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations

95

sages, 45:1–5 and 51:59–64, that surround the collection of OAN in MT. 45:1–5 also concludes the second book-part of Jer 36–45, whereas 51:59–64 concludes the third book-part, Jer 46–51, and thereby the book as a whole (apart from the appendix of Jer 52). In OG, 28:59–64 [MT 51:59–64] follows the prophecies against Babylon, whereas 51:31–35 [MT 45:1–5] follows the prophecies relating to the Judeans in Egypt. In addition, 51:31–35 concludes the book as a whole (apart from the appendix of ch. 52). In both versions, 45:1–5 and 51:59–64 are indicative of attempts to lay out a macro-structure of the redactionally expanding book.99 The texts of 45:1–5, focusing on Baruch, and 51:59–64, focusing on (his brother) Seraiah, are closely related.100 The dating in Jer 45:1 connects this passage with 25:1, 36:1, and 46:1, all of which mention “the fourth year of Jehoiakim.” This dating refers to 605 BCE and the decisive Babylonian victory over Egypt at Carchemish. The reference to 605 is a particular feature of the book of Jeremiah in its enlarged edition, which presents the divine judgement of Judah in the wider framework of YHWH’s worldwide judgement. What has been built will be destroyed (45:4), not only Judah, but also Egypt, all the nations – and Babylonia itself.101 Jer 51:59–64 mentions in its dating formula the fourth year of Zedekiah (594 BCE). The only other text that mentions this year is 28:1. And there is a further connection between these two texts. In 28:11, at the climax of the confrontation of Hananiah and Jeremiah, the former, after breaking the yoke-hooks Jeremiah is wearing, exclaims: “This is how (!)š V) š YHWH will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.” Here, in 51:64, again as the climax of the passage, we find another instance of a “this-is-how” exclamation. After the scroll with the judgement against Babylonia has sunk in the Euphrates, Seraiah exclaims: “This is how (!)š V) š Babylon will sink, to rise no more, because of the disasters that I am bringing on her.” 28:1–14*, which represents the earliest stage of the Jeremiah tradition, depicts Babylonia’s hegemony as being granted by YHWH and urges Judah to accept this, in order to survive. 51:59–64, representing a much later, redactional, stage, adds a new perspective to this: Jeremiah also announced, far in advance, the eventual destruction of Babylonia. In contradistinction to the false prophecy concerning the fall of Babylonia by Hananiah (28:2–4, 11), there now stands the true prophecy by Jeremiah (51:60–64). Seraiah is instructed by Jeremiah to effectuate this by a symbolic action (51:63–64). 1:4–10; 45:1–5, and 51:59–64 belong to a macro-redactional framework in which the OAN have received a place. These texts present Jeremiah as a prophet on an international scene, announcing a worldwide judgement (45:1–5) that will  99

SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 305–9; ALBERTZ, Israel in Exile, 320. SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 319–22; CARROLL, Jeremiah, 745–50; WANKE, Baruchschrift, 133–43. 101 For this wider perspective on the historical events of 605, see AEJMELAEUS, TurningPoint, 464–81. 100

96

Matthijs J. de Jong

culminate in the judgement of Babylonia (51:59–64).102 In the earliest stage of the Jeremiah tradition, represented by 28:1–14*, both Jeremiah and Hananiah figure as prophets, belonging to one and the same group. This reflects the historical situation. The first redactional reworking of the early materials presents Jeremiah as the one true spokesman of YHWH, with his opponents deposed as false and deceiving prophets (e. g. 28:15–18); this first redaction focused on the judgement of Judah and Jerusalem. The OAN belong to a later stage, a second redactional frame, which depicts Jeremiah as the only prophet on the scene, who delivers a message with an international perspective. His commission is expressed in terms that emphasize his divine appointment (1:4–10), corresponding to an almost divine authority attributed to Jeremiah.103 Jeremiah’s ministry now encompasses a wide perspective, both in time and space. His message now relates to the rise and fall of Babylonia, the destruction of Judah, and restoration after the time of wrath. The punishment of Judah is broadened to a worldwide judgement, with the destruction of Babylonia as its culmination. As part of this perspective, Jeremiah is presented as the prophet to the nations.

Bibliography AEJMELAEUS, ANNELI, “Nebuchadnezzar, My Servant”: Redaction History and Textual Development in Jer 27, in: FLORENTINO GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ / MARC VERVENNE (Ed.), Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, BEThL 192, Leuven 2005, 1–18. ALBERTZ, R AINER, Israel in Exile. The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E., SBL  3; Atlanta 2003 (transl. of R AINER ALBERTZ, Die Exilszeit, Stuttgart 2001, by D. Green). BALOGH, CSABA, The Stele of YHWH in Egypt. The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush, OTS 60, Leiden 2011. CARROLL, ROBERT P., Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL, London 1986. DE JONG, MATTHIJS J., Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets. A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies, VTSup 117, Leiden 2007. –, Biblical Prophecy  – A Scribal Enterprise. The Old Testament Prophecy of Unconditional Judgement considered as a Literary Phenomenon, VT 61/1 (2011), 39–70. –, Rewriting the Past in Light of the Present. The Stories of the Prophet Jeremiah, in: BOB BECKING / HANS M. BARSTAD (Ed.), Prophecy and Prophets in Stories, OTS 65, Leiden 2015, 132–39. –, The Fallacy of “True and False” in Prophecy Illustrated by Jer 28:8–9, JHS 12/10 (2012), 1–29. 102 Indicative of this redactional framework is the refrain “to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant” (1:10; 45:4, and elsewhere); ALBERTZ, Israel in Exile, 335. 103 Cf. 45:1–5 and 51:59–64 where Jeremiah directly speaks the words of YHWH.

Jeremiah 28:8–9 and the Oracles against the Nations

97

–, Why Jeremiah is Not Among the Prophets: An Analysis of the Terms '1 and -'1 in the Book of Jeremiah, JSOT 35/4 (2011), 483–510. –, Jeremiah and Prophetic Authority, in: EDWARD SILVER  / LOUIS STULMAN (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Jeremiah, Oxford 2021, 267–81. DEURLOO, KAREL A., !&œš /, &L/ pole, carrying frame, yoke, PDF downloaded from: http:// www.otw–site.eu/KLY/kly.php [03–01–2019]. FISCHER, GEORG, Jeremia 26–52, HThK.AT, Freiburg i. Br. 2005. GOSSE, BERNARD, L’usage rédactionnel des oracles contre les nations à l’époque post-exilique, BLE 96 (1995), 219–221. GRAUPNER, AXEL, Auftrag und Geschick des Propheten Jeremia. Literarische Eigenart, Herkunft und Intention vordeuteronomistischer Prosa im Jeremiabuch, BThSt 15, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991. HAYES, JOHN H., The Usage of Oracles against Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel, JBL 87 (1968), 81–92. HAGEDORN, ANSELM C., Die Anderen im Spiegel: Israels Auseinandersetzung mit den Völkern in den Büchern Nahum, Zefanja, Obadja und Joel, BZAW 414, Berlin 2012. HERMISSON, HANS-JÜRGEN, Kriterien “wahrer” und “falscher” Prophetie im Alten Testament. Zur Auslegung von Jeremia 23,16–22 und Jeremia 28,8–9, ZTK 92 (1995), 121– 39. HIBBARD, J. TODD, True and False Prophecy: Jeremiah’s Revision of Deuteronomy, JSOT 35 (2011), 339–58. HILBER, JOHN W., Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms, BZAW 352, Berlin  / New York (NY ) 2005. HOLLADAY, WILLIAM L., A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah 2: Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia, Minneapolis (MN) 1989. HOSSFELD, FRANK-LOTHAR  / MEYER, IVO, Prophet gegen Prophet. Eine Analyse der alttestamentlichen Texte zum Thema: Wahre und falsche Prophetie, Biblische Beiträge 9, Fribourg 1973. HUWYLER, BEAT, Jeremia und die Völker. Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49, FAT 20, Tübingen 1997. JANZEN, J. GERALD, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, HSM 6, Cambridge Mass 1973. JENNI, ERNST, Die Präposition Beth, Die hebräische Präpositionen 1, Stuttgart 1992. JOÜON, PAUL, S. J. / MURAOKA, TAKAMITSU, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Vol. II, Subsidia Biblica 14/II, Rome 1991. KÖCKERT, MATTHIAS, Zum literargeschichtlichen Ort des Prophetengesetzes Dtn 18 zwischen dem Jeremiabuch und Dtn 13, in: REINHARD G. KRATZ / HERMANN SPIECKERMANN (Ed.), Liebe und Gebot. Studien zum Deuteronomium, FRLANT 190, Göttingen 2000, 80–100. LEE, LYDIA, Mapping Judah’s Fate in Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations, ANEM 15, Atlanta (GA) 2016. LEUCHTER, MARK, The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45, Cambridge 2008. LUNDBOM, JACK R., Jeremiah 21–36, AB 21B, New York (NY ) 2004. MASTNJAK, NATHAN, Deuteronomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority in Jeremiah, FAT II/87, Tübingen 2016. MCKANE, WILLIAM, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II. Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII, ICC, Edinburgh 1996. MOBERLY, R. WALTER L., Prophecy and Discernment, Cambridge 2006.

98

Matthijs J. de Jong

MÜNDERLEIN, GERHARD, Kriterien wahrer und falscher Prophetie. Entstehung und Bedeutung im Alten Testament, Europäische Hochschulschriften, Theologie XXIII/33, Frankfurt a. M. / Bern 1974. NICHOLSON, ERNEST W., Deuteronomy 18.9–22, the Prophets and Scripture, in: JOHN DAY (Ed.), Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel, LHBOTS 531, New York 2010, 151–71. NISSINEN, MARTTI, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, SBL Writings from the Ancient World 12, Atlanta (GA) 2003. NISSINEN, MARTTI, Ancient Prophecy. Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, Oxford 2017. OSUJI, ANTHONY C., Where is the Truth? Narrative Exegesis and the Question of True and False Prophecy in Jer 26–29 (MT), BEThL 214, Leuven 2010. PEELS, HENDRIK G. L., “You shall Certainly Drink!”. The Place and Significance of the Oracles against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah, EuroJTh 16/2 (2007), 81–91. PLANT, ROBIN J. R., Good Figs, Bad Figs. Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah, LHBOTS 483, New York (NY ) 2008. SCHMID, KONRAD, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches. Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsund Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches, WMANT 72, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996. SCHMIDT, WERNER H., Das Prophetengesetz Dtn 18,9–22 im Kontext erzählernder Literatur, in: MARC VERVENNE / JOHAN LUST (Ed.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic Literature. Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, BEThL 133, Leuven 1997, 55–69. SCHMIDT, WERNER H., “Wahrhaftigkeit” und “Wahrheit” bei Jeremia und im Jeremiabuch, in: FRIEDHELM HARTENSTEIN / JUTTA KRISPENZ / AARON SCHART (Ed.), Schriftprophetie. Festschrift für Jörg Jeremias, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004, 145–60. SEITZ, CHRISTOPHER R., Theology in Conflict. Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah, BZAW 176, Berlin 1989. SHARP, CAROLYN J., Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah. Struggles for Authority in the Deutero–Jeremianic Prose, Old Testament Studies, London / New York (NY ) 2003. SILVER, EDWARD, Performing Domination  / Theorizing Power. Israelite Prophecy as a Political Discourse beyond the Conflict Model, JANER 14 (2014), 186–216. STIPP, HERMANN-JOSEF, Zwei alte Jeremia-Erzählungen. Jeremia 28 und 36. Fallstudien zum Ursprung der Jeremia–Erzähltradition, Biblica 96/3 (2015), 321–50. –, Die individuellen Prosaorakel des Jeremiabuches, in: CARMEN DILLER  / MARTIN MULZER  / KRISTINN ÓLASON  / R ALF ROTHENBUSCH (Ed.), Studien zu Psalmen und Propheten. Festschrift für H. Irsigler, HBS 64, Freiburg i. Br. 2010, 309–45. –, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches. Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte, OBO 136, Göttingen 1994. –, Zur aktuellen Diskussion um das Verhältnis der Textformen des Jeremiabuches, in: IDEM, Studien zum Jeremiabuch. Text und Redaktion, FAT 96, Tübingen 2015, 50–82. TREMBLAY, HERVÉ, Comment Comprendre les Oracles contre les Nations chez les Prophètes?, Science et Esprit 67/1 (2015), 51–68. WELLS, ROY, Dislocations in Time and Ideology in the Reception of Jeremiah’s Words. The Encounter with Hananiah in the Septuagint Vorlage and the Masoretic Text, in: JOHN GOLDINGDAY (Ed.), Uprooting and Planting. Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen, LHBOTS 459, New York (NY ) 2007, 322–50. WESTERMANN, CLAUS, Grundformen prophetischer Rede, München 1964. ZWICKEL, WOLFGANG, “Mōtāh = Jochhaken,” BN 57 (1991), 37–40.

A Prophet to the Nations ELSE K. HOLT In Jeremiah 1, the protagonist is called to be a prophet to the nations and kingdoms, not only to Judah. How does this particular aspect of the call narrative surface in the rest of the book? This article will trace the subject of the nations as figures of comparison for Israel and as receivers of God’s mercy and wrath. What is the theology behind, and which theology is conveyed by these comparisons (e. g. Jer 2:10–11) and the promises to the nations? Why is Jeremiah called to be a prophet to the nations, and how does this affect the overall message of the book? From the outset, the call narrative in the book of Jeremiah, Jer 1:4–10, seems pretty straightforward. It fits well into the genre “prophetic call narrative,” with elements well known from the callings of especially Moses and Isaiah: the divine call, the prophet’s refusal or reluctance to comply to the commissioning, the reference to the prophet’s mouth  / speaking, and God’s final assurance and closing command to prophesy in his name. One feature, however, sets the call of Jeremiah apart from other call narratives, the enigmatic call of Jeremiah to be a prophet to the nations in Jer 1:5. 10: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations. … See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.1

Except for Jonah and Nahum who prophesy against Nineveh, and the book of Obadiah which belongs to the genre of Oracles against the Nations, prophets in general are called to be prophets primarily to their own people. Why does Jeremiah’s call narrative then emphasize the “universal” part of his vocation so vehemently – and then apparently immediately continue with his relationship to his homeland, Judah, as if nothing happened? This question is not only interesting from a tradition- or redaction critical perspective, it is also literary and theological: how does the call to be a prophet to the nations affect the overall message of the book? 1

All translations are from the New Revised Standard Bible if nothing else is indicated.

100

Else K. Holt

1. Harry P. Nasuti’s Synchronic Reading The question was already posed by Harry P. Nasuti in his important article from 1986 “A Prophet to the Nations: Diachronic and Synchronic Readings of Jeremiah 1.”2 By and large, Nasuti’s article answers my initial question. Therefore, I shall begin with a brief presentation of his overall understanding of the literary and theological influence of Jer 1 on the rest of the book; in his own words, “the inevitable synchronic question of how the final form of the chapter functions both on its own terms and within the book.”3 From there, I shall proceed to an exegetical reading of the book of Jeremiah with special emphasis on the presentation of the roles of the nations in Jeremiah as figures of comparison for Israel. This theme is under-represented in the scholarly literature as compared to the role of the nations in the book as instruments in YHWH’s punishment of his people or contrarily as victims of his wrath for the good of Israel (especially in the Oracles against the Nations). Finally, I shall return to my initial question: Why is it that Jeremiah is called to be a prophet to the nations? Nasuti shows how Jer 1 in its final form bears the mark of universalism with its repeated “international references” in 1:5–14. The references to the nations are not only present in the opening and closing of the call narrative, v. 5 and 10, but also in the central v. 8, where the personal suffix “them” (’al-tîrāh mippĕnêhem) has the nations in v. 5 as its only natural antecedent. In v. 14, the sufferer of the evil out of the north is kol-yōšĕbê hāʾāreș, all the inhabitants of this land; but hāʾāreș is not specified as Judah per se, it might as well refer to the earth.4 In all its ambiguity then, Jeremiah 1, especially v. 14, is more about Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations, and less as a prophet to Judah, Nasuti claims. Furthermore, he continues, “the tribes of the kingdoms of the north” in v. 15 “should not be identified with Babylon or any other historical nations but are rather indicative of a more general hostility of the nations against Israel, already known as the genre of the ‘Völkersturm.’”5 This leads Nasuti to the very interesting exposition that Jer 1 mirrors a hope among Jeremiah’s fellow Judeans that God will act in accordance with the myth of the Völkersturm, i. e. that God will deliver Jerusalem from its enemies, but that in the end v. 16 shows that “the summoning of the nations to Jerusalem is not part of a Völkersturm after all, but rather the means of God’s judgment upon that city.”6 This leads Nasuti to the next important point: When God calls Jeremiah in v. 18 to be a fortified city, an iron pillar, and a bronze wall against the kol hāʾāreș, “the international tone of chapter 1” again suggests a certain ambiguity of the 2

NASUTI, Prophet, 249–66. NASUTI, Prophet, 252 with note 9. 4 NASUTI, Prophet, 253. 5 NASUTI, Prophet, 256. 6 NASUTI, Prophet, 257–58. 3

A Prophet to the Nations

101

meaning of kol hāʾāreș – does it mean the world or the nation of Judah? Moreover, in 1:15–16, 17–19 Jeremiah is described as a city of salvation, the literary counterpart to the fallen city of Jerusalem. His walls are of bronze, in contrast to the walls of Jerusalem which are soon to be broken down (see Jer 39:8; 52:14). He is a pillar of iron, in contrast to the pillars of bronze in the temple which are soon to be taken away to Babylon (see Jer 52:17). In short, he is a city whom God is with in the way that God used to be with Jerusalem and its temple. As such, the outcome of the Völkersturm, the onslaught of kol hāʾāreș which will surround him, will be radically different from the outcome of the Völkersturm which is to surround Jerusalem.7 The motif of Völkersturm is also the reason for the repeated command to the prophet not to be afraid which was already part of the assurance in v. 8, but which in v. 17 is “joined with a threat (‘lest I dismay you’).” Jeremiah is the new fortified city, and as such, he must have confidence in the promises by which he is protected. Sadly, Jerusalem has joined “the nations who fight against God’s new chosen city, Jeremiah himself.”8 This, however, is not the end of the story. For like God once saved the chosen city from the Völkersturm, Jeremiah as the new Jerusalem will save everyone who will have the right relationship with the prophet himself: As the new Jerusalem, Jeremiah is to perform the special mission to the nations which Judah and Jerusalem have in Jeremiah’s time failed to perform. In other words, it is Jeremiah’s status as the new Jerusalem which finally explains his status as a prophet to the nations.9

Thus, according to Nasuti, Jeremiah must be a prophet to the nations to be a prophet to Judah. Nasuti’s understanding is substantiated by the composition of the book of Jeremiah. It is not the introductory chapter 1 alone that presents Jeremiah as a prophet both to Judah and to the Nations. The concordance between the following chapters, Jer 4–6, and the Oracles against Babylon (and the rest of the nations as well) in the closing of the MT, Jer 50–51, point unequivocally in this direction. In chapters 4–6, Jeremiah speaks to Judah in a discourse that corresponds with the Oracles against the Nations, especially with the oracles against Babylon. The fate of Judah is comparable to that of the nations. Thus, the inclusio that frames the book of Jeremiah indicates the congruence between Judah and the nations.10 In the following, we shall track certain parts of the trail of the nations throughout the book of Jeremiah. The discourse about and directed to the nations in  7

NASUTI, Prophet, 259. NASUTI, Prophet, 260.  9 NASUTI, Prophet, 262. 10 HOLT, Meaning, 185, note 22.  8

102

Else K. Holt

Jeremiah can be divided into four different functions: 1) as instruments in YHWH’s punishment of his people; 2) as victims of his wrath, especially in the Oracles against the Nations; 3) as figures of comparison for Israel; and 4) as receivers of God’s mercy. As mentioned above, I shall primarily concentrate on one specific function, namely the nations as figures of comparison for Israel (2:10–12; 12:14–17; 18:6–10; 33:9), but with a view to the nations as victims of God’s wrath and as receivers of his mercy.

2. To Pluck up …, Jer 1:10; 18:6–12; 12:14–17 First, we shall return to our point of departure, Jeremiah’s call to be a prophet to the nations in chapter 1. See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down (lintoš wĕlintoṣ), to destroy and to overthrow (ûlha’ӑbîd wĕlahӑros), to build and to plant (libnôt wĕlinṭôah).

Jer 1:10 is one of the most famous and significant verses in the book of Jeremiah. Here, we shall not go deeper into the meaning of this little poem proper; that has been done over and again.11 It suffices to say that in chapter 1, the six verbs, lintoš wĕlintoṣ ûlha’ӑbîd wĕlahӑros libnôt wĕlinṭôah serve as a marker for the prophet’s commissioning “over nations and over kingdoms.” The verbs return seven times in the book, 1:10 being the only instance where all of the six verbs are used.12 and constitute the backbone of two pericopes in which the fate of Judah is seen on the backdrop of the foreign nations in general, 18:6–12; 12:14–17. An analysis of these pericopes will lead on to our main subject, the nations as examples for Judah. The most uncomplicated text is 18:6–12: 6 Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the LORD. Just

like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9 And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. 11 Now, therefore, say to the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus says the LORD: Look, I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you from your evil way, and amend your ways and your doings. 11 For my reading of the call narrative and especially Jer 1:10 as the backdrop for understanding the book of Jeremiah, see HOLT, Portraits of the Prophet in the Book of Jeremiah. 12 Jer 12:14–17; 18:7–9; 24:6; 31:28, 38–40; 42:10; 45:4; in 45:2–5 the nations are not mentioned and the pericope will not be treated in this article.

A Prophet to the Nations

103

The pericope is part of the narrative of the prophet’s symbolic visit to the potter’s workshop, Jer 18:1–12 (13–17). In v. 6–12, the fate of the foreign nations or kingdoms serve as a warning to Judah; YHWH can save or punish, plant or pluck up according to his free will and to the attitude of any nation in the world, and from this perspective Israel / Judah is but one of many nations. There is no guarantee in being the chosen people – the covenant is not even mentioned in the text. The only thing that will save Israel from demolition and reworking as a broken pot, as indicated in the report of Jeremiah’s visit to the potter, is that they turn from their evil way and amend their doings (18:11). The condition for God’s good will, that they turn from their evil and listen to his voice, is shared by Judah and the nations (cf. v. 8.10). There is no difference between Judah and the nations; the message is that God is the universal God who demands obeisance to his teaching from the nations of all the world, but most of all from Judah. In 12:14–17, the comparison is aimed against the foreign nations: 14b

I am about to pluck them up (notĕšām) from their land, and I will pluck up (’ittôš) the house of Judah from among them. 15 And after I have plucked them up, I will again have compassion on them, and I will bring them again to their heritage and to their land, everyone of them. (Jer 12:14b–15)

The fate of God’s chosen people, Israel, which has earlier been planted among the nations (cf. 14bβ) serves as a warning to “the evil neighbors who touch the heritage that I have given my people Israel to inherit: I am about to pluck them up from their land” (12:14a). Interestingly, v. 14bβ uses the verb NTŠ in the positive as an indication of the fall of the nations as the salvation for Judah; subtly, Judah plays the role of the model example. 12:16 indicates more directly that God’s people shall be teachers and examples for the nations: And then, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, as the LORD lives (ḥay-YHWH), as they taught my people to swear by Baal, then they shall be built up in the midst of my people.

In 12:14–17 Judah is apparently already saved. In my opinion, this convoluted text is a vaticinium ex eventu, probably from the Persian period with its focus on YHWH as a universal God, whom all nations in the world are supposed to swear by. There is a difference of accent from the universalism of chapter 18, however. In Jer 18, the focus is on the acts of Judah and her connection to her God, while the acts of the nations only serve as an example; the message is that God has annulled their special relationship. Judah is but one of many nations, and YHWH will treat her no different from the others. Here in chapter 12, the focus is “missionary;” the nations can be included as part of God’s heritage. We could speculate13 that Judah here denotes the faith community of returnees in Jerusalem. If that is so, then the nations are understood as dependent on Is13

Cf. KRATZ, Historisches und biblisches Israel, 44.

104

Else K. Holt

rael  / Judah – an ideology we recognize from a totally different textual corpus, namely Psalm 2.14 Based (probably) on earlier traditions, this psalm depicts YHWH as the universal sovereign over the foreign nations and their rulers who conspire against “the LORD and his anointed” (Ps 2:2), i. e. the Davidic king in Jerusalem who is portrayed as a viceroy over God’s universal empire: “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (Ps 2:8). The description of how this king is supposed to suppress the kings of the nations is mythological rather than realistic; the king in Jerusalem “shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel” (Ps 2:9). The aim of this suppression is the global worship of YHWH in fear and trembling. The position of the psalm as one of the two introductory psalms in the Psalter, Psalms 1–2, points to the importance of this imagery. This introduction is generally considered one of the latest, if not the latest part of the Psalter. Gerstenberger sees Psalms 2 and 110 as examples of Persian period eschatologism and Messianism.15 The nations belong to the Lord, the God of Israel.16 Thus, in Jer 12:14–17 the nations are not examples for Israel, it is vice versa. The nations are supposed to acknowledge YHWH as their God and follow his instruction and swear by his name. This universalism is characteristic of the Persian period as appears from the book of Psalms and from Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah.

3. See If There Has Ever Been Such a Thing; Jer 2:10–11 in Context The question of who is the better example for whom is discussed in detail in Jer 2:10–11. Jeremiah compares the attitude of Israel – here to be understood as the religious, not an ethnic, name – to the attitude of foreign countries to their gods: Cross to the coasts of Kittim17 and look, send to Kedar and examine with care; see if there has ever been such a thing. Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for something that does not profit. (Jer 2:10–11)

The peoples of Kittim and Kedar serve as the good guys as opposed to the perpetrators, ʿammî, “my people.” They keep themselves to their gods, even though 14 The date of this psalm is contested. For the post-exilic date, I refer to HOSSFELD / ZENGER, Psalmen, 50. 15 GERSTENBERGER, Israel in der Perserzeit, 490–92. 16 This theme is also important in Deutero-Isaiah. 17 NRSV: Cyprus.

A Prophet to the Nations

105

they are not (proper) gods, while God’s own people has changed his glory (kĕbôdô), that is their God, for useless gods. As representations of the far West and East, Kittim and Kedar are metonymic for the whole world. The comparison, then, covers God’s people as opposed to the whole world, which of course intensifies the accusation against them. The whole world is more righteous than God’s people. One can speculate about the dating and especially the theology of this piece. Traditionally it has been counted among the earliest parts of the book of Jeremiah, even the so-called Urrolle, which for almost a century was considered to be part of Jeremiah’s original oracles.18 This is no longer the case, the historical figure of the prophet having virtually disappeared from the scholarly firmament; the pericope is rather a representation of the universalistic outlook in parts of the book of Jeremiah, so different from the Deuteronomistic focus on the fate of Judah as we know it especially from chapters 26–45. The world serves as a positive example. The noun “their glory,” (kĕbôdô) in v. 11 is interesting as a designation of YHWH. It is not only a divine epithet, it also implies the impact of this God on the people who belong to him. They were supposed to be blameless, honorable, undefeatable. But since they have been stupid enough to leave their mighty God and follow non-gods (lô’ ’ĕlohîm) who do not profit (lô’ yôʿil), they themselves will be blamable, ignominious, and destructible. Whereas the larger pericope, Jer 2:1–37, is termed in a core metaphor of fertility – water // no water, plentiness // land of drought etc. – the subtext here in 2:11–18 also suggests military defeat (cf. 2:14–18) which, maybe surprising in a modern context, is seen as shameful in the Hebrew Bible. The noun bôš (shame) is often applied to a situation of military defeat in the book of Jeremiah and in the Psalms.19 The antithesis between the glory of God which could have been their glory as well and the punishment as a military defeat is thus indirectly indicated in the divine name. So, the foreigners apparently serve as good examples in contradistinction to the foolishness of the people in Jer 2:10–11. However, the shameful foolishness is further illuminated and enforced when the accusation is read on the backdrop of the satirical chapter 10 where the gods of the foreigners are ridiculed as ineffective and powerless: Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, nor is it in them to do good. (Jer 10:5)

18

See e. g. the short introduction to the study of Jeremiah in CROUCH, Introduction, 39–55. Jer 2:36; 6:15, 8:12; 9:18; 17:18; 20:10; 46:24 [Egypt]; 48:1, 13, 20, 39 [Moab]; 50:2, 12; 51:47 [Babylon]. In the Psalms, the defeated people are often said to be blamed, e. g. Ps 6:11; 25:2; 44:8; 127:5; 129:5; cf. also Ps 97:7) along with the shame of stupidity (cf. lots of other instances in Psalms). 19

106

Else K. Holt

These are the foreign gods whom there is no need to fear – and thus no need to worship, either. As in chapter 2, they are portrayed as powerless and thus their worshippers are stupid to worship them. The prophet warns the people against following them (Jer 10:1), in this case not with reference to God’s demand of exclusivity (Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch) but simply because the foreign gods are of no use – as opposed to YHWH who is incomparable to anything in the world of the foreigners as emphasized in the confession, Jer  10:6–8. The message is repeated over and again in the unit Jer 10:1–16, culminating in 10:15–16: 15

They [the foreign gods] are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall perish. 16 Not like these is the LORD, the portion of Jacob, for he is the one who formed all things, and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance; the LORD of hosts is his name.

Thus, the foreigners do not simply serve as good examples of God-fearing peoples; they are also painted as serving inefficient gods, who – according to Jeremiah 10 – are comparable to the broken cisterns of 2:13, the center of the pericope Jer 2:10–18. In contrast, the powerful God is YHWH, the fountain of living water (Jer 2:13), king of the nations (Jer 10:7), the creator of heaven and earth (Jer 10:7–12), and Israel’s glory (Jer 2:10). From the outset, he has been Israel’s God, but now they have changed their allegiance to him into shameful idolatry. Thus, very interestingly, when used in connection with the comparison of Israel and the nations, universalism can take one of two directions in the book of Jeremiah, the positive as in Jer 2:10, or the negative as in 18:6–12 and 10:1–17. It is in the light of this universalism that we read Jer 33:9: And this city shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and a glory before all the nations of the earth who shall hear of all the good that I do for them; they shall fear and tremble because of all the good and all the prosperity I provide for it.

The nations are called to be fearing and trembling witnesses in awe of the good times for the once downcast Jerusalem, given to them (the Israelites) by their powerful, glorious God. This is in direct contrast to the role they have in Jer 19:8 as slanderers of Jerusalem’s bad fate: And I will make this city a horror, a thing to be hissed at; everyone who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss because of all its disasters.20

The nation’s awe-inspired fear of God as the powerful king of the universe is identical in both cases and so is their role in the divine economy, as witnesses to his demonstration of divine power. But in 33:9 the response of the nations to 20

Cf. the parallel fates of Edom, Jer 49:17, and Babylon, Jer 50:13.

A Prophet to the Nations

107

Israel’s fate has changed from horrification to jubilation, underscoring the message of salvation to Israel – they will no longer be covered in shame but in praise and glory.

4. YHWH as the King of the Universe This leads to a closing, brief reference to a group of texts which explicitly present YHWH as the sole, sovereign God. The most outstanding is the ranting diatribe in Jer 25:15–38 (MT) against the nations including Judah, the ferocious “cupof-wrath-text,” where all the nations are mentioned in a monotonous and scary list, followed by a global threat that YHWH will destroy the nations as a vicious lion and an overpowering storm from the end of the world, ending in a veritable inferno.21 The beginning of chapter 25 (v. 1–14, MT) focuses on Judah’s relation to Babylon as God’s servant, whom he will destroy after seventy years as a punishment for “their sins,” thus presenting a message of hope for Judah, which compares well with the overall message of the Oracles against the Nations in Jeremiah as such.22 The theme of horror is expanded in Jer 25:15–38 (MT), so that God’s control over Judah and Babylon is enhanced to cover the whole world. The initial gruesome fate of Judah in the first half of chapter 25 is followed by an even more gruesome fate for the rest of the world in the second. But the chapter ends in the total annihilation of Judah. The universal outlook is complete; Judah and the nations serve as each other’s models. In Jer 27 the horrendous fate of the nations serves as a prequel to the fate of Judah. God sends Jeremiah to the envoys of the kings of Moab and Edom, Tyrus and Sidon, who participate in an international summit in Jerusalem, to inform them about his plans: He will give them into the hands of Babylon. The message begins with a self-presentation: “It is I who by my great power and my outstretched arm have made the earth, with the people and animals that are on the earth, and I give it to whomever I please” (Jer 27:5).23 Then follows the command to King Zedekiah of Judah: “Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live” (Jer 27:12 NRS). The creator of the universe is the universal sovereign who decides the political fortune for the nations, Judah included. We find the same image of God in Jeremiah’s prayer, 32:16–25, which is set during the second siege of Jerusalem when Jeremiah is confined in the 21

On Jer 25, see HOLT, Nebuchadnezzar, 209–18; THELLE, Doppelgänger. The position of the Oracles against the Nations in the Septuagint and Masoretic books of Jeremiah are different; the Septuagint is often considered the original. For a discussion of the theological implications of the different compositions in the LXX and MT, see e. g. FRETHEIM, Jeremiah, 574–80; STULMAN, Jeremiah, 7–9. 23 A corresponding identification is given in 32:17, 27. 22

108

Else K. Holt

court of the guard (32:1–5). God commands Jeremiah: “Buy my field that is at Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, for the right of possession and redemption is yours; buy it for yourself ” (Jer 32:8). The deeper meaning of the command is a promise of future recovery of the land. Jeremiah’s astounded response, the prayer in v. 16–25, is introduced by an invocation with a formulation along the lines of Jer 27:5: “Ah Lord GOD! It is you who made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you” (Jer 32:17). The prayer continues with a reference to both creation and divine salvation of the people (32:17–23a) before the reference to the people’s disobedience (32:23b–25) and the prophet’s concluding uncomprehending question why he is sent to make a sign-act of promise. Here, the object of God’s wrath and mercy is Judah. The formulaic language is repeated in the divine self-presentation and message in 32:27–35: “See, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too hard for me?” (Jer 32:27). Again, it is the universal God who is in charge, and Judah’s fate depends on her obeisance to God. In continuance of Jeremiah’s prayer, Jer 32:27–36 serves as yet another threat of destruction from the universal God. In the closing of the chapter, 32:37–44, however, he is the God of salvation in perfect accordance with the wavering but promising message of the chapter. The creator God will reinstate the eternal covenant (cf. 31:31–34), but this time he is named “the LORD, the God of Israel” (Jer 32:36), not of the world or of creation: 37 See, I am going to gather them from all the lands to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation; I will bring them back to this place, and I will settle them in safety. 38 They shall be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for all time, for their own good and the good of their children after them. 40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them, never to draw back from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, so that they may not turn from me. (Jer 32:37–40)

In this pericope all the good gifts of the divine sovereign are promised: land, unbreakable covenant, divine goodwill, and prosperity, but only to the chosen people. In the so-called Book of Consolation (Jer 30–33) the overall focus is on the salvation of Israel / Juda, not on the fate of her enemies. The closing formulations in Jer 33:25–26 confirm that the promise is made by the universal king: 25

Thus says the LORD: Only if I had not established my covenant with day and night and the ordinances of heaven and earth, 26 would I reject the offspring of Jacob and of my servant David and not choose any of his descendants as rulers over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes, and will have mercy upon them.

A Prophet to the Nations

109

5. Closing Remarks I began by concurring to Harry P. Nasuti’s conclusion, that “as the new Jerusalem, Jeremiah is to perform the special mission to the nations which Judah and Jerusalem have in Jeremiah’s time failed to perform.” That, according to Nasuti, is the reason why Jeremiah is given the status as a prophet to the nations in the (expanded) call narrative.24 In consequence of my analyses, I would like to add to Nasuti’s reading that Jeremiah being a prophet to the nations is a logic outcome of YHWH being a God to the nations in the book of Jeremiah. This is not a trivial inference, since the theology of Jeremiah is often identified as mostly Deuteronomistic with its emphasis on theodicy after the disaster, the repetition of the culpability of the people. This is an important step in the literary and theological growth of the book of Jeremiah. In its final form, however, the book is global in its orientation, presenting the nations in different roles, not only as enemies, and the people not only as perpetrators but as models for its neighbors. Most importantly however, God is not only the Lord of the covenant; he is also the ruler of the whole world, and thus his prophet must be a prophet to the nations. What this universalistic, almost monotheistic, theology means for the understanding of the theology of the book of Jeremiah and its social and historical situation is a matter to be discussed in another connection.

Bibliography CROUCH, CARLY L., An Introduction to the Study of Jeremiah, T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies, London 2017. FRETHEIM, TERENCE, Jeremiah, Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary 15, Macon (GA) 2002. GERSTENBERGER, ERHARD S., Israel in der Perserzeit. 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Biblische Enzyklopädie 8, Stuttgart 2005. [English translation: Israel in the Persian Period. The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E., SBL Biblical Encyclopedia 8, transl. by SIEGFRIED S. SCHATZMANN, Atlanta (GA) 2011.] HOLT, ELSE K., King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, My Servant, at the Cup of Wrath: Jeremiah’s Fantasies and the Hope of Violence, in: A. R. PETE DIAMOND  / LOUIS STULMAN (Ed.), Jeremiah (Dis)placed. New Directions in Writing / Reading Jeremiah, LHBOTS 529, New York (NY ) 2011, 209–18. –, The Meaning of an Inclusio. A Theological Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah MT, SJOT 17 (2003), 183–205. –, Portraits of the Prophet in the Book of Jeremiah, in: EDWARD SILVER  / LOUIS STULMAN (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Book of Jeremiah, Oxford 2021, 343–57.

24

NASUTI, Prophet, 262.

110

Else K. Holt

HOSSFELD, FRANK-LOTHAR  / ZENGER, ERICH, Die Psalmen. Psalm 1–50, NEB.AT 29, Würzburg 1993. KRATZ, REINHARD G., Historisches und biblisches Israel. Drei Überblicke zum Alten Testament, Tübingen 2013. [English translation: Historical & Biblical Israel. The History, Tradition, and Archives of Israel and Judah, transl. by PAUL MICHAEL KURTZ, Oxford 2015.] NASUTI, HARRY P., A Prophet to the Nations. Diachronic and Synchronic Readings of Jeremiah 1, HAR 10 (1986), 249–66. STULMAN, LOUIS, Jeremiah. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries, Nashville (TN) 2005. THELLE, R ANNFRID, Babylon as Judah’s “Doppelgänger”. The Identity of Opposites in the Book of Jeremiah (MT), in: ELSE K. HOLT / HYUN CHUL / PAUL KIM / ANDREW MEIN (Ed.), Concerning the Nations. Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, LHBOTS 612, London 2015, 77–94.

Moab as a Mirror for Judah? Echoes of Jeremiah 1–20 in Jeremiah 48 R ANNFRID I. LASINE THELLE In the opening lines of the oracle against Moab in Jeremiah 48 readers encounter a poetic description of violent devastation and hear the raw cries of its victims. The air resounds with the sounds of deep lament and mourning, in what is clearly the aftermath of utter destruction, as one city after another is broken and crushed. Terror and shock set the tone that runs on throughout the chapter. These voices of lament also resonate with the faint sounds of mourning and cries of terror which readers have experienced in earlier chapters. As far as I am aware, with the exception of Sharp, past approaches to the Jer 48 have not explored the effect that the shared features between Jer 48 and earlier parts of the book might have on readers.1 Even when similarities between the oracle against Moab and the earlier speeches against Judah (mainly in chapters 1–20) have been acknowledged, scholars have not tended to pursue the issue. Holladay, for example, acknowledges the kinship between the words against Judah and Moab, but he does not follow this observation to any logical consequence.2 Carroll, faced with the affinities, is forced to apply a different reading strategy to Jer 48 than the one he uses for Jer 1–20, rejecting any possible identification between Judah and Moab as absurd.3 Even commentators who have considered the audiences and the impact the oracle may have made, have not focused on readers of the final 1 SHARP, Embodying Moab, 95–108; Sharp’s essay explores a number of specific “semantic links” between Jer 48 and oracles against Judah, and points toward the effect that these have in ways similar to this paper, and I will be interacting with her observations in the following. Sharp’s focus is on understanding the implications for Judean identity formation and the purpose for which the texts were created, seeing the addressees as post-exilic Judeans (96, 98), whereas my focus is on the exploring the effects of the language in Jer 48 on readers of the book of Jeremiah MT, who identify with Judah / Judeans. I have previously explored the effects of the similarities between the speeches against Judah and the oracle against Babylon in Jer 50–51; see THELLE, Babylon, 77–94; see also AMESZ, God, 99–116; and HOLT, Meaning, 183–205. 2 HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 365–66. 3 CARROLL, Jeremiah, 796. Specifically, Carroll rules out that the language of lament in Jer 4; 8; and 10 represents the prophet’s self-identification with the people of Judah, because that would require the same for Moab. Rather, the language is conventional lament language, he claims.

112

Rannfrid I. Lasine Thelle

text. For example, Jack Lundbom’s commentary considers individual elements of Jer 48 in the context of specific original audiences.4

1. Moab among the Jeremiah Oracles against the Nations Among the Jeremian OAN, the oracle against Moab is the second longest, consisting of 47 verses. The longest in the set is the oracle against Babylon (Jer 50–51), with almost half of the total number of verses in the collection, at 104 verses (see Fig. 1).5 That Babylon is an empire could be one explanation for its prominence, although this does not explain why Egypt only receives 27 verses.6 More likely, the length and severity of the oracle against Babylon is due to Babylon’s prominent position as a power in the book of Jeremiah – historically and ideologically  – in both the poetry and particularly in the narrative. This prominence is even more highlighted in the MT tradition than in the Septuagint, although Babylon is emphasized throughout both textual traditions.7 While it makes sense that Babylon would stand out in the Jeremian OAN, it is more puzzling that the oracle against Moab is so lengthy. In contrast to the Moab oracle’s 47 verses, other smaller kingdoms receive only 7–16 verses. This emphasis on the Moab oracle invites readers to explore how it functions within the book as a whole.

4 In this exploration I do not attempt to determine any dating of an original audience or setting. I read the whole speech as one literary unit, in the context of the book of Jeremiah MT as a whole. In LUNDBOM, Jeremiah 37–52, Lundbom considers the message and audience for each section of Jer 48. He considers specific historical occasions, such as “the Jerusalem conference of 594 B.C.” – presumably what is reflected in Jeremiah 27 – or the aftermath of the defeat at Carchemish in 604 (250). He basically follows Holladay’s dating of what he determined to be authentic Jeremian material (HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 354). The set-up for Lundbom’s commentary is to date each of the proposed rhetorical units and suggests discrete audiences for each unit. In a more recent article, Lundbom lists phrases and rhetorical figures in Jer 46–51 that are also found in Jeremiah’s “Judah poetry,” (213), LUNDBOM, Language and Rhetoric, 211–29 (212–19). 5 CARROLL, Jeremiah, 781, bemoans the fact that we know so little about Moab, and that we do not know the reason why the oracle is of such disproportionate length; see also KAISER, Isaiah, 62. 6 Perhaps it can be said that Egypt receives due prominence by its initial position in the collection, but the Septuagint has a different ordering (Fig. 1), so the MT placement could o be a function of the context, with MT Jer 44, set in Egypt, preceding it closely. See further discussion on the ordering of the nations, in, R AABE, Israel’s God, 230–52 (231–32). 7 On the place of Babylon in the book of Jeremiah, see THELLE, Babylon, 187–232, and literature cited there.

Moab as a Mirror for Judah? MT Collection Recipient Egypt Philistines Moab Ammon Edom Damascus Kedar/Hazor Elam Babylon LXX Collection Recipient Elam Egypt Babylon Philistines Edom Ammon Kedar Damascus Moab

Number of verses 27 7 47 6 16 5 6 6 104 Number of verses 6 26 104 7 16 5 6 5 44

113

Restoration 46:26 — 48:47 49:6 — — — 49:39 — Restoration 25:39 no equivalent of MT 46:26

no equivalent of MT 49:6 no equivalent of MT 48:47

Fig. 1. The Order and Number of Verses of the OAN in Jeremiah MT and LXX

2. Judah, What do You See? Pronouncements of shame and destruction mark the opening of the speech against Moab, framed as a call to lament, with the interjection '#!, and descriptions of lamentation and anguish in 48:3 (!938+#9, “a voice of distress”), 48:4 (!':#38 !93$, a cry all the way to Zoar), and 48:5 (!), “weeping” and :f=938, “cry of destruction”). Nebo is !f, destroyed; Kiryataim is !f'!, shamed; Misgav is also !f'! and !=%, shattered. There is violence (f) and great destruction (+#:f) for Horonaim, a great cry rising up (!938+#9). This piling up of language of destruction, lament, and shame in the first verses sets the tone of the whole poem. Readers of MT Jeremiah will have encountered this language already in the first part of the book, in chapters 1–20. The speech of destruction in Moab strikes a chord with the destruction and lament for Judah. For example, the expression +#:f (great destruction / disaster or great wound/fracture) occurs already in 4:6; 6:1, in reference to the threat from the north that is coming to destroy Judah as YHWH’s punishment. Another occurrence is in 14:17, in which Jeremiah is offering up a lament for the wound of the people, for which there appears to be

114

Rannfrid I. Lasine Thelle

no healing.8 The sorrowful tone of this passage invites readers to identify with and feel pity and compassion for the people. Thus, the expression +# :f prompts readers to identify with the sufferers and is as such one specific example of language that triggers this experience of identification. Judah was impacted by these words earlier, now the victim is Moab.9 In addition to these occurrences regarding Judah the expression +#:f also appears twice in the oracle against Babylon (50:22; 51:54). Compounding, strengthening, and adding to this identification, the intersection of the semantic fields of lament, destruction, and shame in the opening verses of Jeremiah 48, and the concentration of these descriptors in the space of a few verses has a cumulative effect that amplifies such specific shared language. In addition to the construct +#:f, the noun :f occurs by itself also in 4:20; 8:21 and 10:19. In each case a first-person speaker expresses lament, grief, and pain on behalf of the people of Judah, in the face of violent disaster, as in the aftermath of war.10 Thus, from the very outset of the poem in Jer 48, some of the most emotionally potent examples of Jeremiah’s language against Judah are echoed here, in reference to Moab (see Fig. 2 for a tabulation of shared phrases and words). The verb :f appears in the niphal as :f1, “broken,” “fractured,” “wounded,” in 48:17 (Moab’s scepter is broken) and 25 (Moab’s arm is broken). In Jer 8:21 we find :f appearing in the statement “for the wound (:f) of the daughter of my people, I am broken ('=:f!)” an expression of the first-person speaker of the poem internalizing the pain caused by the wound. In 14:17 we find the construct +# :f combined with :f1, as: '/3¡= =+#= !:f1 +# :f ') (“for the daughter of my people is struck with a great wound / crushing blow”). Readers of Jeremiah 48 will likely recall these highly evocative expressions from their previous reading of Jeremiah 1–20. We begin to see that the same language of lament, destruction and shame that is so prevalent in the oracle against Moab also clusters in the same sections of Jeremiah 1–20 to which I have already referred. For example, the root ==% (to be shattered, broken, cracked), appears in Jer 48:1, 20, and 39, forming clear frames for sections of the poem. ==% occurs elsewhere in 8:9 in parallel with the hiphil of f# (see below), though in the sense of “dismay.” It also occurs in 14:4,  8 The book of Jeremiah portrays Jeremiah the prophet as one who not only pronounces speeches of divine judgment, but who offers up intercessory laments on behalf of the people, at times identifying with them to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish the voice of the prophet and his suffering as an individual. This identification of the prophet with the plight of the people, led astray by poor leadership and left to suffer divine punishment, is characteristic of the book of Jeremiah. See BALENTINE, Jeremiah, 331–44; THELLE, God, 167–84.  9 Sharp begins with the phrase +#:f when she builds her case that post-exilic Judeans were the implied audience for the Oracles against the Nations, see SHARP, Embodying Moab, 97, 101. 10 MUILENBURG, Terminology, 42–63.

115

Moab as a Mirror for Judah? Figure or expression +#:f

Jeremiah 48 48:3

:f :f (qal)

48:5 48:11–12; 38–39

:f (ni.) f f (qal, pu.)

48:4, 17, 25, 42 48:3 48:1, 8, 15, 18, 20, 32

==% (qal)

48:1, 20, 39

93$ !93$ !938

48:20, 31 48:4 48:3, 5, 34

++' (hi.)

48:20, 31, 39

fL (qal)

48:13, 39

fL (hi.)

48:1, 20 (hi.)

Jeremiah 2–20 4:6; 6:1; 14:17 50:22; 51:54 4:20; 6:14; 8:11, 21; 10:19 19:10, 11 (chap. 28=break the yoke) 2:13; 8:21; 14:17 6:7; 20:8 4:13, 20, 30; 5:6; 6:26; 9:18; 10:20; 12:12; 15:8 (49:3, 10, 28; 51:53, 55, 56) 8:9; 14:4 50:2, 36 11:11, 12; 20:8 25:34 47:2 4:8; 25:34 47:2; 49:3; 51:8 2:36; 6:15; 8:12; 9:18; 12:13; 14:3, 4; 15:9; 17:13, 18; 20:11 49:23; 50:12; 51:47, 51 2:26; 6:15; 8:9, 12; 10:14 50:2; 51:17

Fig. 2. Language “Echoes” of Jeremiah 2–20 in 48

in reference to the cracked ground as the result of a drought causing distress to the community.11 Another example of recurring language is the hiphil of f# (“to be / fell ashamed”), a form that rarely appears outside the book of Jeremiah. In the oracle against Moab, the proclamation that Moab has been shamed frames the first twenty verses, together with the language of lament. The hiphil of f# also appears in 2:26, charging that the House of Israel and its leadership are shamed. In 6:14 the charge is against the prophets and the priests, accusing them of not knowing shame. They are in fact also accused of not healing “the wound (:f) of my people” (6:14), providing yet another example here of the overlaps in language we recognize from Jer 48. Then, in 8:9 “the wise” will be shamed, and in 8:12 they are charged with having acted shamefully. In 10:14 it is those who make idols who are put to shame; they are contrasted with God who creates by his wisdom. The main thrust of the usage of f# takes the form of accusations against the leadership, who bring shame upon themselves because the leaders did not treat the people fairly. This is yet another instance of Jeremiah 48 echoing those portions of chapters 1–20 in which Jeremiah had pronounced judgment on the leadership of Judah and sympathized with the plight of the people. 11

See also Jer 50:2, and 36, in the oracle against Babylon.

116

Rannfrid I. Lasine Thelle

The language of mourning, lament, and destruction featured in the opening of Jeremiah 48 continues throughout the poem. We see this language developed in 48:15–20, in the context of lament over defeat in war, and further on in the poem, in v. 31–32. Verse 46 repeats the opening cry of woe from v. 1, pronouncing destruction, defeat, and captivity once more. This brief survey demonstrates that the Moab oracle is saturated with the language of lament and destruction, making this feature one of the main characteristics of this poem, in contrast to the oracles against Babylon and Egypt, as well as the shorter oracles.12 I have also shown that it is precisely these characteristic and salient features that reverberate with the words of divine judgment on Judah heard earlier in the book. Readers who have identified with Judah in reading Jeremiah 1–20 and have read the words of judgment with pity for the people upon whom YHWH pronounces this judgment – whether guilty or not – will hear the echoes of this language when s/he encounters the cries of Moab’s cities.

3. Self-Recognition of Judah in Moab Jeremiah 48:7–9 bring threats of exile and depopulation. Here, an imminent attack is described, the outcome of which is known: devastation, destruction, fall, depopulation, and exile of a deity. These are threats which Judah has faced and endured, and therefore knows all too well, and which are reflected in earlier chapters of Jeremiah, such as: “Flee for safety, do not delay, for I am bringing evil from the north, and a great destruction … to make your land a waste; your cities will be ruins without inhabitant …” (4:6–7; see also 4:29). Words describing refugees fleeing Heshbon and expressing the woes of captivity appear at the closing of the oracle on Moab as well (v. 45–46). The mention of Sihon in 48:45 recalls Num 21 (see more on this connection, below). A key difference is that YHWH is not being threatened with exile, as the Moabite deity Chemosh in Jer 48:7; in fact, YHWH is the sovereign in charge of all the destruction. We find another related cluster of images in 48:11–12. Moab is described as a vessel containing good, old wine, which if decanted – implying that it is disturbed – runs the risk of going bad.13 An idyllic past is conjured up here, using this metaphor of stable, aging wine. Then the pronouncement of judgment follows, YHWH will send tilters who will tilt him (decanters who will decant), and they empty his vessels and smash his jars (niphal of 761). In 22:28 Coniah is described as a broken pot, a vessel who is despised and that no one cares 12 The lamentation and mourning in Jer 48 constitutes the core of lament elements in Jer 46–51, cf. KEGLER, Leid, 271–87. The main feature of the Babylon oracle is God’s retribution and will to punish Babylon, while the Egypt oracle is characterized mainly by war language. 13 Various interpretations are listed in MCKANE, Critical, 1166–67; CARROLL, Jeremiah, 783.

Moab as a Mirror for Judah?

117

for, a leader who has no future.14 The idyllic stability will be shattered, with the imagery of decanting, turning upside down, and smashing. This imagery of vessel smashing in Jer 48:11–12 further evokes the sign act of Jeremiah in chap. 19. Following a speech condemning the Judeans of idolatry and pronouncing siege and disaster in great detail, Jeremiah is to break (:f) an earthen vessel in front of them to demonstrate that YHWH will break (:f) the people and the city so that they can never be mended (!6:, hiphil). The same pain of YHWH’s punishment, expressed as his striking down of his people was expressed in 14:19: “Why have you struck us down so that there is no healing (6:/#1+0') for us? We look for peace but find no good; for a time of healing (6:/=3), but there is terror instead.” Here, the vessel smashing imagery intersects with the motif of the incurable wound, the breach that will not heal, and the looming “terror all around.” Terror (%6) is another Jeremian trigger word that connects Jer 48 with other parts of the book (6:25; 8:15; 14:19; 15:8; 17:17, 18; and 20:3, 4, 10, where “terror all around” is personified). In Jer 48:43 and 44 the terminology of terror wellknown from earlier in Jeremiah is concentrated further by the addition of similar phrases from Isa 24:17–18 (%6#=%6#%6), and readers will appreciate the alliterative artistry of these verses. Language with %6 is found also in the oracles against Egypt (46:5) Ammon (49:5), Kedar (49:29), and Babylon (50:2, 36, 38). Edom is accused of causing terror (49:16). As we have already seen, the language of shattering and fracturing is very much in the forefront in the oracle against Moab and has brought forth echoes from previous oracles against Judah. The explicit connection between this language, the language of exile, and the image of a vessel is made in 48:11–13. Returning to the imagery of decanted jars of wine, Jer 48:11–12 and the pot smashing sign act episode (Jer 19) inevitably also connects with Jer 18. The metaphors of this key chapter – where a potter is throwing pots of clay that can still be molded and changed, and thus mended if need be – involve a different set of metaphorical vehicles associated with wine and storage, namely those involved in the production process of the storage vessels, rather than the decanting and pouring out of the wine. The images may thus rotate on a different axis, so to speak, from the metaphor of decanting wine jars. But the recollection of Jer 18 is relevant. In fact, ch. 18 (particularly 18:7–11) is also evoked in Jer 48, because it presents an ideology of YHWH’s interaction with any nation, including Judah, and thus also Moab, one would presume. As the clay in the potter’s hand can still be shaped, a nation which YHWH holds in his hand can still turn away from evil and repent –

14

Nowhere is shattering/breaking imagery employed more strikingly than in the so-called club / hammer-poem in Jer 51:20–23, however, where the verb 761 appears nine times. On the text of 22:28, see the suggested emended reading, in CROUCH, Jehoiachin, 234–46.

118

Rannfrid I. Lasine Thelle

though they will reject it (Jer 18:12).15 As Israel can return, change its ways, so can also Moab, presumably. The comparison between Judah and Moab is further solidified in v. 13. In what could be read as an ominous warning for Judah, a direct comparison is made between Moab and Israel. Moab trusted in Chemosh, just as Israel was trusting in Bethel. And just as Israel was made ashamed of Bethel, Chemosh will not be able to protect Moab. Bethel likely refers to the cult site and the narrative traditions associated with Jeroboam’s cult statues – ignominious in the eyes of the biblical authors (1 Kgs 13). In Jer 48:13, the wisdom of putting trust in God (Jer 17:7; Ps 1) is cast in reverse. Just as Israel was destroyed for following wrong worship, so Moab cannot be saved by its god. Instead, this trust will turn to shame (fL). Moab will be decanted, emptied, in rhetoric that combines the motifs of depopulation, reversal of fortune as represented by good, old wine, and shattering of the vessel. The direct comparison is here with Israel and Bethel, not Judah; however, read with the “Temple Sermon” of Jer 7 in mind there is a connection to that Jeremian accusation of trusting in the temple and its leadership.16 Magnified by the many accusations of idolatry and abandoning their god, implications resonate for Judah. Clearly, the first part of Jer 48 is dominated by motif clusters such as lamentation or calls to lament and mourning, the threat of depopulation or exile, and shattering/breaking/destruction combined with the metaphor of a vessel. And we find all of these elements in the judgments on Judah in Jer 2–20. Other features of Jer 48 also strike a chord which sets in motion the sympathetic strings of the judgments against Judah. Jeremiah’s earlier laments on Judah’s behalf also reverberate along with this chord. Jer 48:14–20 contains war language, similar to the oracles describing the threat from the north in Jer 4–6, even as language of lament and mourning continues. 48:18 features touch on imagery of Dibon personified as a humiliated woman, as is the case with Jerusalem in Lam 2 and with Jerusalem and Babylon in Isa 47. Jer 48:20 forms a frame to this portion of the oracle. Then, following an enumeration of the towns and places in Moab that will receive judgment, v. 26–27 bring in the motif of drunkenness, an echo of Jer 25, which also points forward to the oracle against Babylon. Also introduced in 48:26–27 are the twin images of the laughingstock and drunkenness, which are related to the theme of shaming. Moab is accused of arrogance, of “magnifying himself against LORD.” For this, Moab will “wallow in his vomit” and become a laughingstock. Then, immediately following, there 15 Carroll claims that the idea of possible repentance or turning in 18,10–13 is merely a “theoretical” idea developed by editors (CARROLL, Jeremiah, 372–74). I think these verses, and the recollection of them for readers of Jer 48, may reflect an ongoing discourse, now preserved in the texts, over how to understand and interpret YHWH’s attitude toward the nations he judges, Israel / Judah or other nations. 16 See also SHARP, Embodying Moab, 103, citing Lundbom in note 19.

Moab as a Mirror for Judah?

119

is a second direct comparison between Moab and Israel in v. 27. Israel had been the butt of a joke in the past, apparently one that Moab “shook [its] head at”, but now Moab is the recipient of that shame. The comparison works similarly to the one in v. 13, discussed above. The comparison is with Israel, yet Judah can be implicated by analogy, as with v. 13. Although many interpreters read v. 27 as vindication for Israel (and by analogy, Judah), and that Israel is not like Moab in this case, however, Israel has shamed, and Judah has been accused of being “caught among thieves,” specifically the leaders, in 2:26. In Jer 20 it was Jeremiah himself who felt the threat of becoming a laughingstock (Jer 20:7).17 In an ironic twist, the images of wine and wine press that had been remembered as symbols of wealth earlier in the poem (48:11) become inverted in v. 26–27 to an image of drunkenness as a curse and as a metaphor of shame.18 Language of lamentation and shame (above, v. 11–13) is connected to the image of a shattering vessel also toward the end of the oracle against Moab: 48:37–39 tie together the motifs of lamentation, mourning, breaking, and shattering, also with imagery of broken vessel. The accusation of arrogance, or of magnifying himself, is made against Moab in v. 26, as well as in v. 29 and 42. This is one of the very few specific accusations made against Moab, and it is also shared with Babylon (50:15, 30–31) and Edom (49:16), although it is not quite clear with Moab who the target of this offense may be. Even after all this, however, Moab’s fortunes will be restored at some point in the future (48:47). This is yet another feature that Judah will recognize. Also, for Judah, a reversal is promised, even as judgment seems thrust upon her (Fig. 1). This survey, albeit incomplete, begins to establish the deep interconnection between Jer 48 and the judgment on Judah in the first part of the book. Whatever the process that led to this version of Jer 48, whether quotations or duplications of material, intentional artistry, or conventional expressions used in different context, the effect that they have is powerful and significant. The echoes cannot be ignored, they urge an identification between Judah and Moab. I have also pointed to the close links between themes and motifs in the first half of Jer 48 (v. 1–27) and the second half (v. 28–46). The second part of the oracle against Moab is thus very well integrated into the language of Jeremiah. Despite the fact that Jer 48:28–43 is often observed to be composed of quotes or borrowed material from other biblical texts, including Isa 15–16 and 24, it is clear from the above survey that the whole oracle, in its present shape, has become integrally “Jeremian.”19 This is not to deny the echoes also from other books of the canon, 17

LUNDBOM, Jeremiah, 283–84. In v. 11–12 and also in v. 33, which parallel motifs from both Isaiah and Joel. Stulman discusses the inversions of symbols of privilege; see STULMAN, Jeremiah, 363. 19 I am using the term “Jeremian” not as any reference to ipsissima verba, but as a reminder that the primary context for these verses is in the book of Jeremiah. What has been termed 18

120

Rannfrid I. Lasine Thelle

and prophetic oracles from Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Zephaniah. Therefore, in order to take the wider biblical context into account as an intertextual reality, I will expand the view to include a survey of Moab in the biblical traditions.

4. Who is Moab to Readers of the Hebrew Bible? All parts of the canon refer to Moab. Beginning with Genesis, Moab and Judah’s ancestries are intertwined, with the birth narratives of the eponymous ancestors of these nations. As Lot’s son (Gen 19:36), Moab is the second cousin of Jacob and Esau. Further, Moab is simultaneously third cousin to Jacob’s children, including Judah, since Moab’s mother, as Lot’s daughter, is also the second cousin of Jacob. Moab is also associated with sexual transgression, taboo, and drunkenness through Gen 19, though this motif is also shared more universally with other descendants of Noah (Gen 9). In the Song of the Sea in Exod 15, celebrating YHWH as warrior following the divinely assisted crossing of the sea to escape Pharaoh’s armies, the “mighty” of Moab are described as trembling, alongside the inhabitants of Philistia and Canaan, as well as the chiefs of Edom (Exod 15:14–16). Moab may be closely related to the tribes of Israel, yet is one who is intimidated by YHWH, god of the Israelites. Moab is connected to the Israelites from their origin, yet is also other. The book of Numbers thematizes Moab’s ambivalent status as an outsider, yet one who is intertwined with Israel, in a couple of classic narrative traditions.20 According to Num 21, the Israelites settle in Moabite territory when it is occupied by “Amorites” under the rule of Sihon. The narrative includes a poem of lament over Moab (Num 21:27–30) after the Israelites have defeated king Sihon and the Amorites, intimating an ancient tradition of Moab’s destruction in a way that benefitted Israel, yet the event was also memorialized with a lament. The defeat of Sihon’s Moab comes back to haunt the Israelites, however, leading to apostasy and YHWH’s anger in Num 25. Moab (Moabite women, specifically) is here the source of contamination for Israel, with YHWH commanding Moses to impale the chiefs (Num 25:4), in an apotropaic act to appease YHWH. Moses instead orders the judges to kill those who have “yoked themselves to Peor” (Num 25:5). The narrative is then hijacked by Phineas’ killing of the Midianite woman Cozbi and her Simeonite lover Zimri, with the Midianites, not Moabites, now blamed “borrowings” from the words uttered against Moab in Isa 15–16 has been a focus of some commentators (LUNDBOM, Jeremiah, 244; STULMAN, Jeremiah, 361; KEOWN / SCALISE / SMOTHERS, Jeremiah 26–52, 308–310). Even if borrowings can be established, this does not finish accounting for the effect that they have in the present context. Further on Isa 15–16, see JONES, Moab; COUEY, Evoking, 19–31. 20 The commentaries on Jeremiah occasionally lament the fact that we know so little about Moab, see, e. g. CARROLL, Jeremiah, 781; see literature on the historical Moab cited below.

Moab as a Mirror for Judah?

121

for the entrapment of the Israelites (Num 25:22), eventually leading to Moses’ excessive revenge on the Midianites in Num 31. The significance of this narrative, in the present context, relates to the association of Moab, in particular Peor, with Israelite apostasy and wrongdoing, and the idea that Moabites need to be avoided and blamed.21 The other narrative tradition involving Moab is the Balaam Cycle in Num 22– 24, placed between the successful Israelite settling of the formerly Moabite land of Sihon, and then, of King Og of Bashan (21:33–35), and the disastrous longterm outcome of the settling of this land in Num 25.22 The Balaam narrative is told partially from the Moabite king’s point of view; however, it reads mostly as satirical, and is not a sympathetic “seeing with” Moab perspective, but instead makes Balak look impotent, and it ends up favoring Israel. The narrative illustrates an instance in which God / YHWH works through a non-Israelite prophet to bless Israel, even as the Moabite king is commanding him to curse Israel.23 In his last oracle, Balaam prophecies that at a time in the future, a leader of Israel will strike the “corners” of Moab (Num 24:17). In ways quite different from Num 21, the Balaam composition seems to be mustering traditions that justify Israel’s control of specific territories. Even though the Israelites do not appear to have directly threatened his territory, Balak wants to preempt any attack. His plan to have Israel cursed by Balaam backfires, however. The narrative traditions in Numbers and their themes appear also in other portions of the canon, picking up the themes of contested territory and Moab as a place of apostasy. Moses’ recapitulation of the events in Deut 2:26–37 provides the argument that Sihon refused to allow the Israelites passage through his territory because his heart was hardened by YHWH (Deut 2:30–31), thus providing justification for the taking of territory. In Judg 11:15–27 Jephthah incorporates Moab-traditions into his longwinded pitch to negotiate a peace (or provoke a war?) with the Ammonites. He embellishes with the allegation that Sihon did not trust the Israelites (Judg 11:20), and that the Israelite God displaced the Amorites for the Israelites to take possession of that land. This 21 The Midianites are distinct from Moabites, both in the biblical traditions and in historical sources. The conflation in Num 22 and 25 between Moabites and Midianites has been explained as Midian representing a tribal confederation that included Moab (MENDENHALL, The Tenth Generation, 108, 164; DUMBRELL, Midian, 323–37; MILGROM, Numbers, 212, 218). 22 In Numbers, the two traditions merge when Moses blames Balaam for advising the Midianite women to seduce the Israelites and sin against God (Num 31:16) and Balaam is killed, for that reason, we assume (Num 31:8). Josephus expands on this melded tradition in Antiquities IV, 131. Even without accounting for all their intricacies, these narratives support the emerging picture of textual negotiations over Moab as contested territory and a place of mixed blessing for Israel. 23 This is true at least on one level, although the larger context complicates matters tremendously. Perhaps we might even be able to say that the narrative as a whole rehabilitates Balak, since the Israelites are annihilated by their God for their interaction with the Moabite women. For more on intricacies of this text, see SHARP, Irony, 134–51.

122

Rannfrid I. Lasine Thelle

becomes the reason why the Ammonites now should not resist in the present situation of war. They should not expect the outcome to be any different than what it was for Sihon’s land (Jephthah refers to Ammon’s god as Chemosh, when it is Milcom).24 Once again, and for a different time period in Israel’s history, the textual traditions construct portions of Moabite territory as a contested space geographically, even in negotiations with a different neighboring kingdom, namely Moab’s brother Ammon. For Jephthah, the last judge before the anomalous Samson, Israel’s history of interaction with Moab becomes an argument he marshals in his favor. Earlier in Judges, Moab is the first oppressor of Israel after they settle the land, leading a coalition that included Amalekites and Ammonites (Judg 3:12–30). This text records a period of eighteen years of Moabite occupation of Israelite territory, before YHWH puts an end to it through military deliverance, a text in which Moab is clearly the enemy of Israel. In Sam and 1 Kgs Moab appears as both an enemy and also an ally. Thus, a list of Saul’s enemies in 1 Sam 14:47 includes Moab. The Moabite king offers refuge for David’s parents in 1 Sam 22:3–5 (much like David seeks refuge among the Philistines later); but, David ruthlessly and indiscriminately massacres Moabites in 2 Sam 8:2, in what amounts to a campaign of sheer terror in order to subdue Moab into becoming a vassal. The context is in a list of David’s accomplishments designed to exaggerate his power. As the tale of the “United Monarchy” unfolds, Moab continues to appear on the fringes of Israel. Apostasy appears prominently as a frame to the books of Kings’ presentation of the kings of Israel and Judah and the assessment of their cultic allegiance to YHWH. In this context, the theme of Moab as a cause of apostasy shows up once again, when the beginning of the downfall is portrayed as Solomon sets up a cult for Chemosh, among other foreign gods, in 1 Kgs 11:8. This act becomes the stated reason for the removal of the ten tribes from the kingdom (1 Kgs 11:33). The final attempt to reform the cult has Josiah smashing these altars that Solomon had erected (2 Kgs 23). In 2 Kgs 3:4–26, a coalition of the kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom win a victory over king Mesha of Moab with the help of YHWH’s prophet Elisha, in a fairly straightforward account. As a last resort, Mesha sacrifices his first-born son, causing Israel to withdraw (v. 27). This appears to be another example of the intriguingly complex canonical picture of Moab. Moab is contested territory, in this case a vassal who has rebelled. The God of Israel restores Moab to Israel through battle. What leads Israel to withdraw in spite of their victory, however, is the chain of reactions set in motion by Mesha’s sacrifice of his son and heir: “a great wrath” (+#589) comes upon Israel, and they depart “from him” and return to their own land (2 Kgs 3:27). The nature of the “great wrath” is left am24

See the various explanations for this listed in SASSON, Judges, 430, 432, 434–35.

Moab as a Mirror for Judah?

123

biguous, yet the mention of cultic practices that official Israel abhorred, play into our field of associations, and point toward some type of divine act of punishment.25 2 Kgs 3 may reflect historical relations between Moab, Edom, Israel, and Judah, with shifting power constellations within the paradigm of vassal and suzerain.26 The smaller kingdoms of Israel, Judah, Edom and Moab were subject to Assyrian power, and the relations between these minor kingdoms as vassals of Assyria influenced their decisions. The Moabite Mesha Stele shows an example of how Moab’s rulers sought to legitimize the taking of land and prisoners of war in ways quite similar to biblical texts.27 The book of Deuteronomy introduces the series of speeches that Moses gives as “words that [he] spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan … in the land of Moab” (Deut 1:1 and 5). The speeches include a recapitulation of events that the Israelites experienced at Horeb and various other points along their forty-year long journey, including a revisionist account of the encounter with Moab (Deut 2:9–3:17) and a restatement of covenant laws (Deut 4–26). Moses is presented as standing in Moab, on the threshold before the entry into the land. Moab is outside the land, but is also a place of covenant (28:69) – and the place of Moses’ death (Deut 34). Yet the people of Ammon and Moab may not enter the assembly of YHWH (Deut 23:4–7); here the text invokes the tradition that the Moabites hired Balaam to curse the Israelites. The book of Ruth elaborates on the legacy of intertwined ancestries. Moab is a place of refuge for Judahites fleeing famine. The Moabite Ruth is a foreigner, yet she pledges allegiance to the God of Naomi, serving as a crucial link between the descendants of Judah (Gen 38) and the future king, David, melding the lines of the distant cousins once again. Within the prophetic literature, judgment is pronounced on Moab in Isa 15–16, Ezek 25,8–11, Amos 2:1–3, and Zeph 2:8–11 (with Ammon). Jer 48 is longer than all of these combined, but the number of these oracles shows that Moab is a customary recipient of judgment in biblical literature. The Amos oracles show no real distinction between the “nations.” Thus, the Moab oracle does not stand out from the others; in fact, only the one against Israel stands out, in being longer and standing at the end. Structurally, the set-up in Amos serves to corroborate the idea that God treats Judah and Israel just as he treats Damascus, Gaza, etc. 25

Jer 48 does not mention child sacrifice specifically, but does accuse Moab of sacrificing on high places, bamot. In the sign act of the pot in Jer 19, the accusations of apostasy and illicit worship that Jeremiah is instructed to speak against Judah and Jerusalem include both high places and child sacrifice (19:5; see also 7:31 and 32:35, where the god Moloch is mentioned). 26 Such traditions are also memorialized in several Psalms: Ps 60:8 (=108:9), and 83:6. 27 See LEVIN  / MÜLLER (Hg.), Herrschaftslegitimation, in particular the essay on the Mesha Stele by BECKING, Voice, 125–45, and the literature cited there; DION / DAVIAU, Moabites, 205– 24; FINKELSTEIN / RÖMER, Early North Israelite, 711–27; ROUTLEGDE, Moab.

124

Rannfrid I. Lasine Thelle

and Moab. In Isa 15–16 we have a taunt, with material that may be the source for much of Jer 48:32–43 as mentioned already. Ezekiel is relatively general in its wording of the accusation: “Moab said, ‘The House of Judah is like all other nations’” (Ezek 25:8), and the punishment is like the one for Ammon, who is accused of gloating over the temple’s destruction and the exile of Judah (Ezek 25:3–4). In Zephaniah the charge is pride and taunts against God’s people. These prophetic texts contribute to the perspective that Judah / Israel is like Moab and the other nations, in the sense of being a recipient of God’s wrath and judgment. The picture that emerges establishes Moab’s status as Other, but a closely related Other; one who is much more than a foreign enemy, and who has a history of involvement with Judah, Israel, and their relationship to YHWH.28 In short, Moab is implicated in Judah’s history, and what happens to Moab matters to Judah.

5. Moab in the Book of Jeremiah Within the book of Jeremiah, Moab is mentioned four times before we come to chapter 48. In 9:26 Moab appears in a list of nations, including Judah, who are accused by YHWH of being uncircumcised and on whom punishment is pronounced.29 This implies identification, with both Judah and Moab facing the same accusation. In 25:21, Edom, Moab, and Ammon are mentioned together with all other nations of the earth, including Judah, as nations who must drink the cup of God’s wrath.30 And in 27:3, in a narrative text, Moab is one of several nations who are summoned to Jerusalem by Jeremiah, in order to submit together to the “yoke of Babylon.” Finally, in 40:11, Moab, Ammon, and Edom are mentioned as countries in which Judeans may be living. All of these mentions support a view of Moab in the book of Jeremiah as a close associate of Judah and as like Judah. While it may seem scandalous that Judah is so casually included among lists of foreign nations in the first two of these examples, it certainly fits in with the message of future doom that is the overall thrust of Jer 1–20.31 A similar technique is used in Amos 1–2 to spring judgment on both Judah and Israel and to caution any audience against getting too comfortable with judgment on enemies that they perceive to be deserving of such punishment. The option of identification with Moab is definitely being prepared in the narrative of Jer 27, in which Judah is only one of several nations 28 Quite a different reading is presented by WAFULA, Biblical Representations, 111–19, who sees the Moabites as totally other, and the promise of restoration in Jer 48:47 as sarcastic. 29 The list also includes the other cousin-kingdoms Ammon and Edom as well as superpower Egypt. 30 Babylon is not mentioned in this list, but the MT includes Sheshach, a cryptogram for Babel / Babylon. 31 SHARP, Embodying Moab, 105.

Moab as a Mirror for Judah?

125

who Jeremiah urges to submit to Babylon, thus bolstering the idea that Judah is on the same plane as these other nations, including Moab. The ambivalence of the stance toward Babylon has been heightened by the succeeding chapter, in the contest between Jeremiah and Hananiah about the duration of Babylon’s control of Judah. But this does not lessen the strong connection that is established between Judah and Moab here, namely, that they share the same fate vis-àvis the Babylonians. Finally, the fact that -'#!' even live in Moab (40:11) and other surrounding territories brings in the complicated element of the fate of the Diaspora, and the often ambivalent identity of Judeans living outside Judea.

6. Moab as a Mirror for Judah When read in light of the book as a whole, the motifs of lament, disaster, and destruction in Jer 48 appear not only as salient features of the oracle against Moab but are clearly also prominent in the pronouncements of divine judgments against Judah in chapters 1–20. In addition to lament and disaster, further shared motifs include threats of depopulation and exile, the shaming of the deity and people, and being made a laughingstock. One of the results of this shared language is that the image of Moab in Jer 48 reflects the reality facing Judah. Judah is deeply intertwined with Moab. When we factor in the complex relationship between Israel / Judah and Moab as expressed throughout the biblical canon, the effect of the shared language in Jer 48 is to move readers who identify with the plight of Judah toward identification with Moab, and thus to experience sympathy with Moab as well. This suggestion assumes that readers who identify with Judah have been distressed by the descriptions of anguish, horror, and humiliation, as destruction and judgment was passed on Judah earlier in the book. Such readers would experience recognition. In other words, they would see themselves, as in a mirror. Upon seeing that image, that recognition may move readers to react not only with sympathy, but perhaps even with solidarity, rather than to gloat in an enemy stranger’s fate. Moab cannot simply be written off as an unknown foreigner, a hostile enemy whose fate does not concern them. Readers may even discover a feeling of foreignness about themselves, meaning that recognizing oneself in the stranger can contribute to a view of oneself from the outside, looking in, as if seeing oneself with another’s eyes. Rather than painting Moab just as an enemy “other” whose fate at the hands of a tormentor is being lamented, the oracle against Moab holds up a mirror in which readers might recognize Judah and contemplate on her place among the nations. These effects of the resonance of judgment on Judah, when heard in Jer 48 and combined with a consideration of the canonical composite figure of Moab, are hard to ignore in reading Jer 48, once these facets have been acknowledged.

126

Rannfrid I. Lasine Thelle

There is always the chance that readers who come to Jer 48 with the stance that Moab is simply an enemy of Israel / Judah will approach the oracle a priori as deserved judgment, and relish in those punishments, as YHWH does. Such readers will probably not see their own reflection in the mirror of this text but will see an entirely other in spite of the similarities in language and motifs. Without that identification, the violence against Moab may be experienced as justified and unproblematic. There are elements within the text of Jer 48 that run counter to the mechanism of identification and that support a more “conventional” reading that sees the destruction of Moab as justified and good for YHWH’s people. For example, the comment in v. 10, “Accursed is the one who is slack in doing the work of YHWH; and accursed is the one who keeps back the sword from bloodshed,” aids readings that see the destruction of Moab as laudatory.32 The identity of the one who is cursed in this verse is not clear, and throughout the poem, the agent who destroys Moab is not clearly identified, but could be read as referring to Babylon. If that is the case, however, it could be another argument for the identification of Judah with Moab, since Judah suffered the same fate of YHWH using Babylon as his weapon of punishment (Jer 21). Alternatively, there is also the possibility that readers who consider the judgment on Judah as just will recognize the destruction of Moab as similar to its own, and understand it as similarly deserved. “The work of YHWH” (48:10) is right, and requires bloodshed. However, readers who reacted to the judgment on Judah with distress and pity are required to react differently to those very same words if they see the destruction of Moab as justified, deserved and right. Such a reading implies that God’s punishment and judgment on Moab is positive for Judah and reflects a coping mechanism that is often recognized.33 As far as human psychology is concerned, it is even understandable.34 Further, the ambivalent and intricately complex relationship between Judah and Moab that the biblical texts weave leaves Jer 48 open to contradictory interpretations. Relevant to mention at this point is the element of irony in reading Jer 48. Reading the lament in the oracle against Moab as ironic can create the distance necessary in order to not take seriously Moab’s cries of pain and suffering.35 Read 32

CARROLL, Jeremiah, 783. For example, according to Allen, the allegation that Moab had mocked Israel (48:27) contributes to a pattern throughout the OAN that achieves the effect that “all the Oracles against the Nations function as implicit pronouncements of salvation for Yahweh’s own people, inasmuch as they involved disaster for Israel’s foreign enemies,” ALLEN, Jeremiah, 459. 34 The mechanism reflects a basic rationale of “what is bad for my enemy is good for me.” As Carroll observes, “the fall of one [nation] would have been an occasion of great joy for the other (the OAN reflect the nationalistic envy in a most thorough-going fashion),” CARROLL, Jeremiah, 788–89. 35 SHARP, Embodying Moab, 102; LUNDBOM, Jeremiah 37–52, 272; KEOWN   / SCALISE   / SMOTHERS, Jeremiah 26–52, 310. But see STULMAN, Jeremiah, 364, who sees ambivalence in regard to the lament, and thinks that God, even in his vengeance and taunt against Moab, 33

Moab as a Mirror for Judah?

127

as irony, the identification with Moab can be deflected, since it implies taking into account an additional layer of interpretation that distances readers from the subjects of the lament; YHWH (the speaker) does not really mean for anyone to lament Moab, it is just a taunt. However, when read as identification with a nation experiencing a similar fate as Judah, the question of whether this text should be read ironically becomes less relevant. Read through the mirror of recognition, any irony would also function as a bitter sort of self-condemnation.36 Even in antiquity there seems to be at least two ways in which Moab was viewed by the editors / transmitters of this text, reflected specifically with respect to the issue of future restoration or hope. The MT tradition includes a promise of reversal of fortunes for Moab, which is not found in the Septuagint, as mentioned above.37 Only Elam is to be shown mercy in the Septuagint tradition. What seems significant, is that it is not only Judah who will be shown mercy (e. g. Jer 30–33). The MT tradition of Jeremiah seems to pull in a different direction also from that of the OAN collection in Isa 13–23, which is followed by the total devastation of all nations in Isa 24, and then the eschatological vindication of “all people,” that explicitly excludes Moabites (25:10). On the other hand, the late text Dan 11:40–45 contains an eschatological vision of destruction in which Edom, Moab, and parts of Ammon will escape this destructive power, which will not spare Egypt. Might MT Jeremiah reflect a tradition that accords with the later Daniel traditions? The Septuagint emphasizes the judgment on the nations more than the MT in another way as well, by the placement of the oracles in the middle of the book (following MT 25:13). Stulman thinks that the MT in this regard shows Judah a much more hopeful future, in that the judgment on the nations is at the very end of the book.38 But this is only partially true, because the book of Jeremiah itself undermines this hope, tempering it by the fact that the book does not actually end with the OAN in Jer 51, but rather brings readers back to the eve of the destruction of Jerusalem, with Jer 52. Further, ambivalence is increased by the oracles of salvation for Egypt, Ammon, and Moab. Things are more muddled here, not clearer.

is also sorrowful, and Holladay, who sees “no gloating over Moab, just tragedy,” HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 355. 36 In spite of emphasizing the enemy status of Moab toward Israel (360–61), Stulman’s reading of Jer 48:1–20 allows for several voices to come through in his reading of the text as representing a cacophony of the voices of “the faithful.” Stulman is able to make sense of the text’s inconsistencies, as he sees them, by assigning different sections to different voices in the community and to YHWH, STULMAN, Jeremiah, 360–66; for a different categorization of speakers, see R AABE, Israel’s God, 239–40. 37 As is Ammon, and Egypt as well, in more convoluted way, see Fig. 1. 38 STULMAN, Jeremiah, 353. A similar structure that Stulman argues for is seen on a smaller scale in the book of Joel, in my opinion, where it works more cleanly.

128

Rannfrid I. Lasine Thelle

A reading of Jer 48 such as the one I present is interested in the ways in which this text might affect its readers, in terms of the issues of identity and the understanding of the enemy other. Perhaps this approach can contribute to seeing the option of responding with solidarity rather self-righteousness when seeing the “other” who is suffering. The OAN can be read as an “equalizer,” in the sense that YHWH inflicts his punishment on his own people and their enemies alike.39 Reading Jer 48 as a mirror for self-reflection provides room for the mechanisms by which defeated and suffering figures/groups can show solidarity with one another, rather than inflict on another one of the victims the rage that should rightfully be directed at the power responsible for the suffering. At another level, the book of Jeremiah as a whole can be said to represent the efforts of one stratum of the community to come to terms with, negotiate, and overcome an experience of trauma, one that includes a path toward healing. In that endeavor, the text as it now stands is open to a consideration of the similarly traumatized cousin, not simply to relish in their suffering. Perhaps further comparison of similar material in other prophetic books and the role that those OAN play in their respective contexts, will be able to teach us more about the connections between different prophetic collections’ understandings of the foreigner, the enemy, and the reflection in the mirror.

Bibliography ALLEN, LESLIE C., Jeremiah, OTL, Louisville / London 2009, 459. AMESZ, J. G., A God of Vengeance? Comparing YHWH’s Dealings with Judah and Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah, in: MARTIN KESSLER (Ed.), Reading the Book of Jeremiah. A Search for Coherence, Winona Lake (IN) 2004, 99–116. BALENTINE, SAMUEL E., Jeremiah. Prophet of Prayer, RevExp 78 (1981), 331–44. BECKING, BOB, A Voice from Across the Jordan. Royal Ideology as Implied in the Mesha Stele, in: CHRISTOPH LEVIN  / REINHARD MÜLLER (Ed.), Herrschaftslegitimation in vorderorientalischen Reichen der Eisenzeit, ORA 21, Tübingen 2017, 125–45. CARROLL, ROBERT, Jeremiah, OTL, Philadelphia (PA) 1986. COUEY, J. BLAKE, Evoking and Evading. The Poetic Presentation of the Moabite Catastrophe in Isaiah 15–16, Concerning the Nation, London 2015. CROUCH, CARLY, Jehoiachin. Not a Broken Vessel but a Humiliated Vassal (Jer 22,28–30), ZAW 129/2 (2017), 234–46. DION, PAUL-EUGÈNE  / DAVIAU, P. M. MICHÈLE, The Moabites, in: ANDRÉ LEMAIRE  / BARUCH HALPERN (Ed.), The Books of Kings. Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, VTSup 129, Leiden 2010, 205–24. DUMBRELL, WILLIAM J., Midian: A Land or a League? VT 25/2 (1975), 323–37. FINKELSTEIN, ISRAEL / RÖMER, THOMAS, Early North Israelite “Memories” of Moab, in: JAN CHRISTIAN GERTZ et al. (Ed.), The Formation of the Pentateuch. Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, FAT 111, Tübingen 2016, 711–27. 39

R AABE reaches a similar conclusion, in What is Israel’s God Up To, 251.

Moab as a Mirror for Judah?

129

HOLLADAY, WILLIAM L., Jeremiah 2, Hermeneia, Minneapolis 1989, 365–66. HOLT, ELSE K., The Meaning of an Inclusio. A Theological Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah, SJOT 17 (2003), 183–205. JONES, BRIAN C., Howling over Moab: Irony and Rhetoric in Isaiah 15–16, SBLDS 157, Atlanta 1996. KAISER, OTTO, Isaiah, OTL, Philadelphia, 1983. KEGLER, JÜRGEN, Das Leid des Nachbarvolkes. Beobachtungen zu den Fremdvölkersprüchen Jeremias, in: R AINER ALBERTZ et al. (Ed.), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments, Festschrift für Claus Westermann, Göttingen 1980, 271–87. KEOWN, GERALD L.  / SCALISE, PAMELA J.  / SMOTHERS, THOMAS G., Jeremiah 26–52, WBC 27, Dallas 1995. LEVIN, CHRISTOPH / MÜLLER, REINHARD (Ed.), Herrschaftslegitimation in vorderorientalischen Reichen der Eisenzeit, ORA 21, Tübingen 2017. LUNDBOM, JACK R., Jeremiah 37–52, AB, New York 2004. –, Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah’s Foreign Nation Oracles, in: JACK LUNDBOM  / CRAIG A. EVANS  / BRADFORD A. ANDERSON (Ed.), The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, FIOTL / VTSup 178, Leiden 2018, 211–29. MCKANE, WILLIAM, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah Vol. 2, The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh 1996. MENDENHALL, G. E., The Tenth Generation, Baltimore 1973. MILGROM, JACOB, Numbers Bemidbar, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia 1990. MUILENBURG, JAMES, The Terminology of Adversity in Jeremiah, in: HARRY THOMAS FRANK / WILLIAM L. REED (Ed.), Translating and Understanding the Old Testament. Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon May, Nashville / New York 1970, 42–63. R AABE, PAUL R., What is Israel’s God Up To among the Nations? Jeremiah 46, 48, and 49, in: JACK LUNDBOM / CRAIG A. EVANS / BRADFORD A. ANDERSON (Ed.), The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, FIOTL / VTSup 178, Leiden 2018, 230–52. ROUTLEGDE, BRUCE, Moab in the Iron Age, Philadelphia 2004. SASSON, JACK, Judges, AB 6d, New York 2014. SHARP, CAROLYN, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, Bloomington (IN) 2009. –, Embodying Moab. The Figuring of Moab in Jeremiah 48 as Reinscription of the Judean Body, in: ANDREW MEIN / HYUN CHUL PAUL KIM / ELSE K. HOLT (Ed.), Concerning the Nations. Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, LHBOTS 304, London 2015, 95–108. STULMAN, LOUIS, Jeremiah, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries, Nashville (TN) 2005. THELLE, R ANNFRID I., Ask God. Divine Consultation in Literature of the Hebrew Bible, Frankfurt a. M. 2002. –, Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah. Negotiating a Power Shift, in: HANS M. BARSTAD  / REINHARD G. KRATZ (Ed.), Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah, BZAW 388, Berlin  / New York 2009, 187–232. –, Babylon as Judah’s Doppelgänger. The Identity of Opposites in the Book of Jeremiah, in: ANDREW MEIN  / HYUN CHUL PAUL KIM  / ELSE K. HOLT (Ed.), Concerning the Nations. Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, LHBOTS 304, London 2015, 77–94. WAFULA, ROBERT SAMMY, Biblical Representations of Moab: A Kenyan Postcolonial Reading, New York (NY ) 2014.

When, How, and Why Did Jeremiah Become a “Prophet to the Nations”? Jer 46:2–12 (MT) as a Test Case HANNES BEZZEL 1. The “Prophet to the Nations” in Jer 11 In Jer 1:5 Jeremiah is called, with a singular expression, a “prophet for the nations” (-'#+'1).2 A few verses later (1:10), YHWH designates him “over – or against – the nations and the kingdoms” (=#)+//!¡+3#-'#!¡+3). To the reader of the book of Jeremiah this designation must seem enigmatic,3 at least for the first 25 chapters (– but, of course, there are 12:14–17 and 18:7–10). Only then (and in chapters 27–28MT) do the “nations” come into view as those to whom the prophet’s message is addressed. In 46:1MT (lacking in Jer 26LXX), the narrator (“Bucherzähler”)4 wants to make it clear to whom exactly this expression refers. The superscription over the so-called oracles concerning foreign nations (OAN) states that what follows is to be read as YHWH’s word to “Jeremiah the prophet over / against the nations” (-'#!¡+3'1!#!'/:'¡+). Correspondingly, in 1:10 Jeremiah is set “over the nations and over the kingdoms” (=#)+//!¡+3#-#'!¡+3). There has been an intense debate about what the dative connection -'#+'1 in 1:5 might mean.5 To my mind the best explanation is that, together with 1:10, it reflects a hint about the oracles concerning foreign nations in Jer 46–51MT and their embedding in the story of Jeremiah’s prophetic calling.6 1 I would like to cordially thank my dear friend and colleague Paul Keim Goshen (IN), for correcting and improving my English. All remaining mistakes are, of course, my own. 2 Parts of the LXX tradition read the singular form ἔθνος, though. “This is a deliberate, exegetical modification” (MCKANE, Jeremiah I, 7). 3 But note that, for example, Georg Fischer reads the book as entirely putting special emphasis on the nations, especially on Egypt and Babylon, cf. FISCHER, Blick, 99. 4 FINSTERBUSCH/JACOBY, Völkergericht, 46. 5 See HERRMANN, Jeremia, 59 f. Herrmann himself does not read the designation as a direct reference to Jer 46–51, but favours a more complex interpretation: According to 1:5, Jeremiah was a “prophet for his own people” (“Prophet für sein eigenes Volk”, ibid., 60), but his words would have had exemplary meaning for the nations around (cf. ibid., 61). Perhaps it is not without reason that Herrmann recognises here a universal perspective which reminds him of Deutero-Isaiah and Ezekiel (cf. ibid.). 6 Cf., among others, DE JONG, Jeremiah, 491.

132

Hannes Bezzel

From a literary-critical perspective, however, this special part of Jeremiah’s call narrative bears indications of redactional activity. With the imperative !— :’ in v. 10, the verse looks like a secondary explanation of v. 9, ! —^!,– and intends that the “word of YHWH” put into the prophet’s mouth (v. 9) should be understood in reference to the entire book of Jeremiah, including the OAN corpus.7 Regarding the “prophet to the nations”, Christoph Levin, among others, has made it plausible to understand not only v. 10, but also v. 5b as a secondary expansion, commenting “it has been added”.8 Additionally, one may take into account that even a basic layer of Jeremiah’s call narrative in 1:1–10* appears, on the whole, to be a secondary introduction9 to a scroll that, according to its oldest superscription, originally contained (only) “the words (or matters)10 of Jeremiah” (#!'/:'':).11 If this is the case, and the motif of the -'#+ '1 is secondary to the call narrative, which itself serves as a kind of prelude or overture to the prophetic book and its several parts, then there are some implications involved for the analysis of the oracles concerning foreign nations in chapters 46–49MT and 50– 51MT. Jeremiah’s designation as a “prophet to the nations” in 1:5b and this prophet’s installation “over the nations and over the kingdoms” in 1:10 would appear to be an addition to an addition. Taken together with the interpretation of the singular designation of v. 5b as referring to the corpus of oracles concerning foreign nations found in Jer 46–51MT, the question arises how the redactional status of these texts within a growing Book of Jeremiah may be discerned. Put another way: When, how, and why was Jeremiah made a “prophet to the nations”? Based on the observations of Jer 1:4–10, three options seem possible to determine the interrelation between the amended call narrative and the corpus of oracles concerning foreign nations which in the masoretic version of the book are situated in Jer 46–51*:12 a) At the same time that a corpus of oracles concerning foreign nations was added to the Jeremiah scroll, this new facet of what was understood as Jeremiah’s prophetic office became anchored in the prophet’s call narrative.

 7

Cf. WANKE, Jeremia 1,1–25,14, 30; LEVIN, Verheißung, 150; LEVIN, Wort Jahwes, 259. “Sie ist nachgetragen” (LEVIN, Wort Jahwes, 259); cf. LEVIN, Verheißung, 150.  9 Cf. MCKANE, Jeremiah, 14; SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 336; DE JONG, Jeremiah, 491. 10 Cf. HERRMANN, Jeremia, 4 – but cf. Am 1:1. 11 The LXX reading “the word of God which came to Jeremiah” is a secondary accommodation with Hos, Mic, Zeph and Joel (cf., among others, MCKANE, Jeremiah I, 2; HERRMANN, Jeremia, 4). 12 The issue, whether the disposition of the oracles concerning foreign nations in the MT or in the LXX represents the older structure of the Book of Jeremiah, is only slightly if at all affected by our question. However, the obvious movability of the texts as an entire corpus as well as among themselves separates them characteristically from the other texts of the book and has been used as a point of argument for their dating.  8

When, How, and Why Did Jeremiah Become a “Prophet to the Nations”?

133

b) The prophecies concerning the nations, or some part of them, had already belonged to the Jeremiah scroll for some time when someone sensed the need to highlight this aspect of the book by inserting a reference to it into the call narrative. c) Or, the other way around, it was the addition of 1:5b which triggered the even later incorporation of Jer 46–51MT into the book. Of these three options, I would tend to perceive option “a” as the most likely scenario. However, a short glance at the history of interpretation of Jer 46–51MT during the course of the last one hundred years or so, may again illustrate two points: First, giving a – plausible – answer to the three questions of when, how, and why is anything but easy. Second, all attempts to do so have been heavily dependent on the respective author’s estimation of the nature of “genuine” prophecy in general and of the “historical Jeremiah” in particular.

2. The Oracles Concerning the Nations and the Changing Images of Jeremiah If one starts with Bernhard Duhm’s epoch-making commentary of 1901, one will see that this doyen of prophetic studies devoted little to no attention to the oracles concerning foreign nations. In his introduction, where he sketches his idea of the literary formation history of the book, the oracles of Jer 46–51, which constitute “[b]y word count […] 15 % of the book”,13 are not even mentioned. Later in the commentary, when he arrives at chapter 46 and cannot avoid the topic any longer, he declares these texts in toto to belong to “the latest creations of scribal activity within the book of Jeremiah”.14 Furthermore, he declares them to be literarily dependent on Ezek 25–32. Accordingly, he understood all of the oracles eschatologically and dated them to the 2nd century (BCE, that is). Mowinckel could not warm to these passages either. They did not fit his famous source model nor his image of the historical prophet Jeremiah. Therefore, he attributed Jer 46–51 to a separate booklet which had once been passed down independently (the two kernels being the oracle against Babylon on the one hand and against Egypt on the other).15 The main reason for both Duhm and Mowinckel to separate the oracles concerning the nations from the material that would have gone back to the “real” or “historical” Jeremiah was their image of the prophet. As a real and true prophet 13

R AABE, Israel’s God, 230. “[D]en jüngsten Erzeugnissen der Schriftgelehrsamkeit im Jeremiabuch”, DUHM, Buch Jeremia, 337. 15 Cf. MOWINCKEL, Komposition, 14–16. The idea that the OAN in Jer would stem from a “separate collection” (“in der separaten Sammlung”) -nevertheless being of protojeremianic origin – has been revived by STIPP, Jeremia 25–52, 628. 14

134

Hannes Bezzel

of YHWH he had to have been pronouncing doom, destruction, and God’s wrath against Israel. He would not have degraded himself by prophesying the evil fate of Judah’s neighbours and enemies – which would have implied a salvific undertone. That, in their scholarly determination, would have been Hananiah’s job. In contrast, Jeremiah would not have been “a nabi by profession but by spirit and truth”.16 The two obvious presuppositions underlying this interpretation are: 1. Israelite prophecy in the proper meaning of the word is a) prophecy of doom and b) concerned with Israel and Judah. 2. The announcement of disaster for Judah’s neighbours would have to be understood as implicitly salvific from a Judahite point of view. Needless to say, that both presuppositions are not necessarily selfevident. But this image of the prophet Jeremiah began to change remarkably. In a 1935 essay Hans Bardtke attributed Jer 46–51 once again to the prophet himself. He interpreted the texts as documents of Jeremiah’s early career, “poems of his youth”, his “Jugendgedichte”,17 before the man from Anathoth would have become a mature and earnest Yahwistic prophet of doom. Through this lens, the texts which, according to Duhm, had been the latest of the book, now came to be among its earliest – albeit immature – traditions. In so doing, Bardtke had sounded the bell for a re-evaluation of the OAN in the book of Jeremiah that continues to this day. Knowingly or not, this led to a reassessment of the image of the historical prophet as well as of the nature of Judahite prophecy as a whole. In 1964, J. H. Hayes modified Bardtke’s approach form-critically against the backdrop of the newly discovered corpora of Ancient Near Eastern prophecies and their assumed Sitz im Leben in (cultic) warfare.18 Thus, the image of Jeremiah the prophet changed slowly but remarkably. At least for certain periods of his activity he was now estimated to have been not in fundamental opposition to his “conventional”19 ANE colleagues but in continuity with their views and techniques. The oracles concerning the nations would not have been developed secondarily out of the prophecies of doom and as their quasi-salvific counterpart (so Duhm), but the other way around: The Jeremianic prophecies of doom were to be interpreted as having developed out of the “traditional” Oracles against the Nations, as a, “goyimisation” if you will of Judah in the eyes of YHWH. The latter is, for example, Robert Carroll’s interpretation in his 1986 commentary.20

16

“nicht Nabi aus Geschäft, sondern in Geist und Wahrheit”, MOWINCKEL, Komposition,

66. 17

BARDTKE, Jeremia, 218. Cf. HAYES, Oracles; HAYES, Usage. 19 CARROLL, Jeremiah, 751. 20 Cf. ibid; cf. also HOLT, Meaning, 204 f. 18

When, How, and Why Did Jeremiah Become a “Prophet to the Nations”?

135

This Re-Jeremianisation also characterises the monographs of Konrad Schmid (1996) and Beat Huwyler (1997). Schmid – in a way similar to Carroll – counts a kernel of Jer 46–49 among the oldest “book forms”, “Buchgestalten”, corresponding to the words about the enemy from the North in chapters 4–6; 8–10*, with the latter regarded tentatively as shaped on the basis of the former. According to Schmid, one may ask “whether the announcements of disaster for the foreign nations had in fact motivated and stimulated those pronouncing disaster for the own people in the face of the approaching catastrophe”.21 Schmid’s points are that a) in both cases the coming of the invader from the North is not justified with any reasons but is simply stated. And b) the genre of oracles against foreign nations would fit the common Ancient Near Eastern prophetic practice quite well.22 Huwyler, in his 1997 monograph, stresses the first point as well: No rationale is given for YHWH’s action against the foreign nations in the core texts of the oracles. But on the other hand, Huwyler vehemently rejects the second point: According to him, the “original” oracles would differ significantly from conventional prophecy of salvation insofar as a) Jeremiah would prophesy the destruction of the neighbours by means of YHWH using a third party (the Babylonians), and b) the evil fate of the foreign nations would not imply any salvific aspects for Judah at all: “In the Jeremianic texts it is obviously not a salvation prophet who speaks, proclaiming Israel’s salvation by means of another nation’s misery”.23 Instead, these texts would simply mirror the historical Jeremiah’s estimation of the international situation soon after the battle of Carchemish in 605. After all, as one might learn from Jer 27, the prophet was well acquainted with international politics. As a consequence, nearly everything in Jer 46–49, except for the oracle concerning Elam in 49:34–39, would hark back to the historical prophet himself.24 I think that Huwyler’s observation regarding the different communicative situation, or rather the pragmatics of the Jeremianic OAN compared with extrabiblical ANE prophecy, is very important and should not be underestimated. A thorough look at the preserved material, mostly from the archives of Mari and Nineveh, clearly shows that what we have in the OAN of the book of Jeremiah is far from being “conventional” divination. As far as I can see, a pattern whereby the diviner of a party A predicts – or comments on – the defeat of a party B in a conflict with a party C can be found nowhere in the tablets.25 21

“[O]b die Unheilsaussagen über die Fremdvölker allererst diejenigen über das eigene Volk angesichts der nahenden Katastrophe motiviert und ausgelöst haben” (SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 337). 22 Cf. ibid., 334 f. 23 “In den jeremianischen Texten spricht offensichtlich kein Heilsprophet, der das Heil Israels durch das Unheil der Völker verkündigt” (HUWYLER, Jeremia und die Völker, 273). 24 Cf. ibid., 267; cf. STIPP, Jeremia 25–52, 629. 25 Cf., correspondingly, STÖKL, Fremde Völker, and BEZZEL, Gerichtsprophetie, 237–39.

136

Hannes Bezzel

This brief and eclectic outline of some prominent positions in the history of research of the past one hundred years does illustrate one point. The interpretation of Jer 46–51 depends heavily on how one interprets Jer 1–25, especially chs. 4–10. Most of all, the understanding of the OAN depends on which image of the “historical Jeremiah” one derives from the exegesis of the other parts of the book – or which a priori are taken as a basis for any exegesis. Jeremiah, the exceptional poetic prophet of doom, cannot have anything to do with oracles against foreign nations as long as they are understood to be implicitly salvific. Jeremiah, the Ancient Near Eastern court prophet, can be brought together with them quite well – at least in some phases of his biography. And this holds true for Huwyler’s Jeremiah as well. He does not act as an (implicit) prophet of salvation but as a far-sighted analyser of international politics. However, it must also be noted that the narrative of this eclectic presentation of the last one hundred years of research history as a seemingly linear movement from Duhm’s late dating of the OAN to Huwyler’s and Stipp’s adscription of the OAN to a Jeremiah of the late 7th century falls a bit short. There have been other sceptical voices as well, even in the last decades. Wanke’s commentary in the ZBK series is a case in point. Based on the above-mentioned observations on Jer 1:5, 10, Wanke counts the OAN among “the latest larger reworkings of the book of Jeremiah”.26 At first glance this might look like a simple revival of an outdated early 20th century position. But this would be misleading. Wanke’s estimation has more to do with recent modifications of theories about how the origins of the Jeremianic tradition should be understood. Again, the argumentative basis is a reinterpretation of what are likely the oldest traditions in Jer 4–10 which consequently leads to a re-evaluation of Jer 46–49. In her 2017 monograph, Sarah Köhler undertakes such a modification of the common view of the origins of the Book of Jeremiah. In the wake of the studies by Levin,27 Pohlmann,28 and Schmid,29 she finds the oldest material of the book in some of the lamentations within Jer 4–10. Levin had noted that “measured against the common conceptions about the classic pre-exilic prophecy, this collection of prophetic sayings gives a peculiar impression. The predominating style is the lament.”30 Differing from her predecessors, however, Köhler finds the strongest analogies to these texts not in any Ancient Near Eastern “prophecy” or divination, but in Mesopotamian cultic lamentations. Köhler demonstrates 26

“Zu den jüngsten umfangreicheren Bearbeitungen des Jeremiabuches” (WANKE, Jeremia 1,1–25,14, 17). 27 Cf. LEVIN, Verheißung, 153 f. 28 Cf. POHLMANN, Ferne, 129–42. 29 Cf. SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 331–33. 30 “Gemessen an den üblichen Vorstellungen über die klassische vorexilische Prophetie, bietet diese Sammlung von Prophetenworten ein eigentümliches Bild. Der vorherrschende Sprachgestus ist die Klage.” (LEVIN, Verheißung, 154).

When, How, and Why Did Jeremiah Become a “Prophet to the Nations”?

137

that the Sitz im Leben of these genres was the pacification of the angry Deity in the context of a cultic ritual after a catastrophe had happened. In other words, it was the job of the kind of a religious specialist we would call a “priest”, not the duty of an expert for divination, which we would call a “prophet”. “In a cultural comparison, it can be seen that the Jeremiah-texts in Jer 4, 6, 8, and 10 display a special affinity with the balaĝ-lamentations of the first millennium BCE”.31 Thus, Köhler’s oldest “Jeremiah”32 has little or nothing to do with a “prophet of doom”, nor with a “conventional” Ancient Near Eastern prophet of salvation, nor with a political specialist at the royal court. Sharpening her point, she asserts that this “Jeremiah” even has nothing to do with “oracles” at all – and, if possible, still less with oracles concerning foreign nations. Perhaps it might be a generally good idea for our purpose to put the category of “authenticity” and the quest for a “historical Jeremiah” aside, at least for the moment, and treat the texts as what they are: parts of a prophetic book that is named after some Jeremiah, stemming from the priests (!) of Anathoth. This can hardly be called a methodologically radical or revolutionary statement but is a commonplace if ever there was one. However, the question whether a passage could be regarded as “genuinely” Jeremianic still seems to be an important matter in the discussion.33 I doubt that this question leads anywhere other than a continuation of the circular argumentation which, from the distance of some decades, appears to be so obviously underlying early 20th century scholarship. Instead, for those parts of the prophetic book that are likely the oldest, Köhler’s study demonstrates what Reinhard Kratz illustrates by analysing the parabiblical Jeremianic tradition, namely “that in the case of Jeremiah – as in the case of Homer  – the conception has produced the person rather than the other way around.”34 In our case, this is, again, the question of when, how, and why Jeremiah became a prophet to the nations. This question deserves an exhaustive study, covering Jer 46–51 as a whole, investigating their connection with the other parts of the Book of Jeremiah as well as their intertextual connections with the corpus of the Latter Prophets. In what follows, I cannot achieve more than a small test drilling. Accordingly, I will take care not to extrapolate major hypotheses from minor observations. For this test case, I will take a brief look at the first oracle concerning Egypt in Jer 46:2–12. It can serve a kind of exemplary function since it belongs to those 31

“Die Jeremia-Texte in Jer 4, 6, 8 und 10 zeigen im kulturellen Vergleich eine besondere Affinität zu den Balaĝ-Klagen des 1. Jt. v. Chr.” (KÖHLER, Jeremia, 156). 32 It is important to note that the name of the speaker is not mentioned at all in the context of the lamentations themselves. 33 Cf. MAIER, Völkerprophet, 272, who emphasises that there were to be found “authentic kernels” (“authentische Kerne”) in Jer 46–49. 34 KRATZ, Why Jeremiah, 209; cf. STEWART, Question, 224, highlighting the “cyclical relationship between person and conception.”

138

Hannes Bezzel

parts whose “originality” for Huwyler, as well as for several other recent commentators, is beyond doubt.

3. A Test Case: Jer 46:2–12 3.1 Observations The first oracle against Egypt can be subdivided into two strophes (v. 3–6, 7–12), both beginning with imperative plural forms challenging a group of warriors to take arms (v. 3–4, 9). Both end with the statement that a military defeat has happened or is about to happen (v. 6, 12). Apart from the superscription of v. 2,35 which is most likely secondary, it is only the second strophe which identifies the defeated army with Egypt. It does so implicitly in the riddle of v. 7 (with its secondary expansion in v. 8),36 and then more explicitly in v. 9 with the mentioning of Kush, Put, and Lud. Finally, the most explicit identification comes with the direct address of the “daughter Egypt” in v. 11. The important catchword “Northern” (0#68) is mentioned in both strophes (v. 6 and 10), both times connected with the “Euphrates” (=:6). According to Huwyler we have here the starting point of the entire “foe from the North” motif in Jer.37 Further parallels are the defeated “heroes” (-':#) in v. 5 and 12, who have stumbled and fallen (roots +