The Retributive and Suffering God of the Book of Jeremiah: A Study of Yhwh's 'Azab-Complaints 9783161623318, 3161623312

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Corinna Körting (Hamburg) ∙ Konrad Schmid (Zürich) Mark S. Smith (Princeton) ∙ Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

140

Håkon Sunde Pedersen

The Retributive and Suffering God of the Book of Jeremiah A Study of YHWH’s ‘Āzab-Complaints

Mohr Siebeck

Håkon Sunde Pedersen, born 1980; 2007 master’s degree, and 2019 PhD, MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society; Associate Professor in Old Testament Studies, Fjellhaug International University College. orcid.org/0009-0002-5534-8947

ISBN 978-3-16-162331-8 / eISBN 978-3-16-162477-3 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-162477-3 ISSN 1611-4914 / eISSN 2568-8367 (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. © 2023  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 printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface The present study is a revised version of my dissertation at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion, and Society from 2018. In 2010 I designed a project to pursue and further develop the notion of divine pathos of Terence E. Fretheim and Walter Brueggemann. My goal was to contribute to the understanding of the character of YHWH as a suffering God in the book of Jeremiah. The project, however, took me on a long journey filled with twists and turns, and in the end, I ended up challenging my own starting point – that is, challenging Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s notions of divine pathos – as I do in this study. But even if I do so, it is done in deep appreciation of Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s thought-provoking contributions to the study of Jeremiah and Old Testament theology. I owe them both a lot! In fact, I very much owe them my love for the Old Testament. I was doing my master’s thesis in New Testament studies when Terje Stordalen (University of Oslo) introduced me to the works of Brueggemann and Fretheim. I was so inspired by their works that after submitting my master’s dissertation, I converted to Old Testament studies. In any study that has taken a long time to write and revise, one becomes indebted to many people. Most of all I am indebted to my supervisors Kristin Joachimsen and Corinna Körting – Corinna for encouraging me to let my original idea go when I got stuck and could not see a way forward for my original project, and Kristin for helping me pull my revised ideas together and make a dissertation out of them. Without your encouragement and patient guidance, I would never have made it. Further acknowledgements go to other colleagues at MF: Karl William Weyde, Gard Granerød, and my fellow PhD students Ingunn Aadland, Matthew Monger, and Hans Olav Mørk. Thanks for welcoming me aboard and for your generous sharing of knowledge and experience. It has been a pleasure! Special thanks go to the board and management at Fjellhaug International University College – thank you for believing in me and for giving me the opportunity to do a PhD: Jan Ove Selstø, Hans Aage Gravaas, Ketil Jensen, and Frank-Ole Thoresen. I would also like to thank my colleagues at Fjellhaug. Thank you for your encouragement! Special thanks to Harald Aarbakke for helping me with all kinds of technical issues and Tom Erik Hamre for invaluable help with finding needed literature.

VI

Preface

Finally, I want to thank my family. First, I would like to thank my parents, Jofrid and Knut Pedersen, for their encouragement and support. Thank you for being there for me and my family these past years. And finally, thanks to my wife Inger Elise. Thank you for your love and faith in me and for blessing me with our three children: Jonathan, Samuel, and Cornelia. Oslo, June 2022

Håkon Sunde Pedersen

Table of Contents Preface ......................................................................................................... V Abbreviations and Formalities ................................................................... XII

Chapter I: Introduction .................................................................................1 1. Context and Focus of the Study ................................................................. 1 2. Prevailing Readings and My Theses .......................................................... 5 2.1 The Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints: A Typical Deuteronomistic Explanation of the Defeat and Exile of Judah? ................................................ 5 2.2 The Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints: A Lament of a Forsaken and Victimized YHWH? ....................................................................10 2.3 Summing Up: The Theses of the Study ..............................................18 3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions ..............................19 3.1 The Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints: The Problem of Formulaic Prose Material....................................................................................19 3.1.1 The Prose–Poetry Problem .......................................................20 3.1.1.1 The Prose as Secondary to the Poetic Material ..................20 3.1.1.2 The Nature of Prose contra Poetry .....................................24 3.1.2 The Formulaic Character of the Prose Material ........................25 3.1.3 Tendencies of Deuteronomistic Redaction(s) ...........................27 3.1.4 Summary..................................................................................31 3.2 The Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints: Divine Lament and the Notion of Divine Pathos ................................................................................32 3.2.1 Divine Lament in the Book of Jeremiah ...................................34 3.2.2 Abraham Joshua Heschel and the Notion of Divine Pathos ......37 3.2.3 Terence E. Fretheim and the Notion of Divine Pathos ..............41 3.2.3.1 Contemporary Constructive Theology ...............................41 3.2.3.2 Traditional Biblical Scholarship ........................................42

VIII

Table of Contents

3.2.4 Walter Brueggemann and the Notion of Divine Pathos ............44 3.2.4.1 YHWH as a Fully Articulated Personal Agent ...................46 3.2.4.2 Bipolar Framework ............................................................47 3.2.5 Phenomenologies of Desire and Different Types of Lament.....48 3.2.6 Summary..................................................................................53 4. Approach and Outline of the Study ...........................................................54

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints ................................. 57 1. Introduction .............................................................................................57 2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 2:13 .....................................................58 2.1 Introductory Remarks ........................................................................58 2.1.1 Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s Readings ................................60 2.2 Literary Context.................................................................................62 2.2.1 YHWH’s Rîb as Punishment of Continuing Confrontation .......64 2.2.2 A Poem Filled with Irony .........................................................65 2.2.3 Divine Lament and YHWH’s Desire for Continuing Relationship...........................................................66 2.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint ...................................................67 2.3.1 An Accusation of Infidelity? ....................................................68 2.3.2 An Accusation of Foolishness ..................................................69 2.3.3 A Compassionate Lament ........................................................71 2.4 Conclusion .........................................................................................72 3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19 .....................................73 3.1 Introductory Remarks ........................................................................74 3.1.1 Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s Readings ................................76 3.2 Literary Context.................................................................................78 3.2.1 Situation of Distress .................................................................78 3.2.2 Rhetorical Questions ................................................................81 3.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaints..................................................83 3.3.1 Accusations of (Marital) Infidelity? .........................................83 3.3.2 Accusations of Foolishness ......................................................84 3.3.3 Compassionate Laments ...........................................................86 3.4 Conclusion .........................................................................................87

Table of Contents

IX

Excursus 1: Marital Imagery in Jer 2 ............................................................88 1. The Diversity of Marital and Sexual Metaphors.................................89 2. The Unidentified Female Figure in Jer 2 ............................................90 3. The Meaning and Function of vv. 2–3 in Jer 2 ...................................91 4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7 .......................................................93 4.1 Introductory Remarks ........................................................................93 4.1.1 Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s Readings ................................95 4.2 Literary Context.................................................................................97 4.2.1 The Train of Thought in Jer 5:1–9............................................98 4.2.2 Imperatives and Rhetorical Questions ......................................98 4.2.3 The Problem of Falseness and Lack of Integrity.....................100 4.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint .................................................101 4.3.1 An Accusation of Infidelity? ..................................................101 4.3.2 An Accusation of Foolishness ................................................104 4.3.3 A Compassionate Lament ......................................................105 4.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................107 5. Summary ................................................................................................108

Chapter III: YHWH’s Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints ............................ 111 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................111 2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 1:16 .........................................................112 2.1 Introductory Remarks ......................................................................112 2.1.1 The Formulaic Character of the ʻĀzab-Complaint ..................113 2.2 Literary Context...............................................................................114 2.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint .................................................118 2.3.1 The Foolishness of the People .................................................118 2.3.2 Total Judgment .......................................................................119 2.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................121 3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 5:19 .........................................................122 3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................122 3.1.1 The Question–Answer Scheme ..............................................123

X

Table of Contents

3.1.2 The ʻĀzab-Complaint and the Question–Answer Scheme in 5:19 ....................................................................................125 3.1.2.1 The Formulaic Character of the ʻĀzab -Complaint...........125 3.1.2.2 Distinctive Features of the Passage ..................................126 3.2 Literary Context...............................................................................128 3.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint .................................................130 3.3.1 The Foolishness of the People ................................................130 3.3.2 Total Judgment ......................................................................132 3.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................134 4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 9:12 .........................................................135 4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................135 4.2 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint .................................................136 4.2.1 The Formulaic Character of the ʻĀzab-Complaint ..................137 4.2.2 The Foolishness of the People ................................................138 4.2.3 Total Judgment ......................................................................141 4.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................142 Excursus 2: The Literary Context of Jer 9:11–15 ........................................142 1. Indications of Continuity .................................................................143 2. From a Weeping Prophet to a Weeping God? ..................................144 3. Jeremiah 8:8–9:2 and Divine Abandonment? ...................................147 4. Jeremiah 9:9, 16–21 and Total Annihilation ....................................148 5. Conclusion .......................................................................................150 5. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 16:11 .................................................150 5.1 Introduction .....................................................................................151 5.1.1 The Formulaic Character of the ʻĀzab-Complaints.................151 5.1.2 Distinctive Features of the Passage ........................................152 5.2 Literary Context...............................................................................154 5.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint .................................................157 5.3.1 Total Judgment ......................................................................157 5.3.2 The Foolishness of the People ................................................160 5.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................160 Excursus 3: The Question–Answer Scheme ................................................161

Table of Contents

XI

6. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 19:4 .........................................................165 6.1 Introduction .....................................................................................166 6.1.1 The Formulaic Character of the ʻĀzab-Complaint ..................167 6.2 Literary Context...............................................................................168 6.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint .................................................172 6.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................175 7. Summary ................................................................................................175

Chapter IV: Outlook: The Retributive and Suffering God of The Book of Jeremiah ......................................................................... 177 1. An Occasion to Recognize the Otherness of YHWH................................179 2. An Occasion for Divine Redemption ......................................................180

Bibliography...............................................................................................183 Index of References ....................................................................................193 Old Testament ........................................................................................193 Apocrypha .............................................................................................200 Ancient Authors .....................................................................................200 Index of Modern Authors ...........................................................................201 Index of Subjects ........................................................................................205

Abbreviations and Formalities BCP BIBAL BibCS BibLa CTP NIVAC OTM PES VSH

Blackwell Companion to Philosophy Berkeley Institute of Biblical Archaeology & Literature Bibal Collected Essays Biblical Languages Series Contributions To Phenomenology The NIV Application Commentary Oxford Theological Monographs Postmodern Ethics Series Vanderbilt Studies in the Humanities

All other abbreviations follow The SBL Handbook of Style, Second Edition. Quotations from the Hebrew Bible are taken from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Translations in this study are my own unless otherwise indicated

Chapter I

Introduction 1. Context and Focus of the Study 1. Context and Focus of the Study

Portraits of YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God appear side by side in the book of Jeremiah. My goal in this study is to contribute to the understanding of some of these portraits and of the problem of their juxtaposition in the book.1 In modern and contemporary scholarship, the contrast and conflict between portraits of YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God in the book of Jeremiah have often been emphasized.2 Traditionally, this has been done primarily by implication. Since the portraits tend to feature in different types of literary material (i.e. prose and poetry), the different portraits of YHWH have been ascribed to different authors and/or redactions. Put simply, the different portraits of YHWH illustrate the traditional distinction between Deuteronomistic prose and (Jeremianic) poetry.3 Although the idea of a clear-cut distinction between Deuteronomistic prose and (Jeremianic) poetry now, of course, is outdated, traces of the distinction still manifest themselves in current scholarship. Tensions and conflicts between different types of literary material are still being emphasized. But instead of trying to solve the problem by appealing to different authors and/or redactors behind the text, the tensions and conflicts now tend ——————————— 1 By “the book of Jeremiah” I mean the Masoretic text (MT) of Jeremiah. In other words, this is a study of MT, not the Septuagint text (LXX). As occasionally will become clear throughout the study, things would look somewhat different if LXX was made the focus of the study. Several observations important to my argument are manifest only in MT. In fact, in some cases, LXX seems to suggest quite opposite conclusions. Unfortunately, due to the limited scope of the study, I will not pursue the differences between MT and LXX. 2 The starting point of modern research on the book of Jeremiah is commonly dated to the publication of Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, KHC 11 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901). 3 See more below in I.2.1 and I.3.1. For good surveys of the history of modern research on the composition of the book of Jeremiah, see, for example, Leo G. Perdue, “Jeremiah in Modern Research: Approaches and Issues,” in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies, ed. Leo G. Perdue and Brian W. Kovacs (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984), 1– 32; Rüdiger Liwak, “Vierzig Jahre Forschung zum Jeremiabuch: Grundlagen,” TRu 76 (2011): 131–79; Liwak, “Vierzig Jahre Forschung zum Jeremiabuch: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte,” TRu 76 (2011): 265–95; Mary E. Mills, Jeremiah: Prophecy in a Time of Crisis, PGOT 20 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 17–46.

2

Chapter I: Introduction

to be considered essential to sound theological and ideological readings of the book in its present form. Accordingly, different portraits of YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God are seen to testify to the polyphonic character of the book, representing competing voices that leave the reader of the book with no unifying or finalizing voice.4 A major representative of the latter tendency is Walter Brueggemann – one of the most influential proponents of divine suffering in the book of Jeremiah. Characteristic of Brueggemann is that he tends to portray the suffering YHWH very much in contrast to the retributive YHWH and to consider the suffering YHWH almost as a different kind of God to the retributive YHWH.5 A significant exception to the current tendency represented by Brueggemann is Terence E. Fretheim – another major proponent of divine suffering in the book of Jeremiah and in that sense a close ally of Brueggemann. Fretheim mitigates the contrast and seeks the unity between the retributive and the suffering YHWH. Admittedly, Fretheim too may contrast the suffering YHWH with the retributive YHWH, but primarily then with common and, in Fretheim’s view, misleading portrayals of the retributive YHWH. By offering a different understanding of YHWH as a retributive God, Fretheim tends to emphasize the unity of the retributive and the suffering YHWH as both “[t]ears and anger are held together in God”.6 In this study, I provide a basis for pointing out trajectories for a new understanding of the relationship between the portraits of YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God in the book of Jeremiah, an understanding that is both very different and, at the same time, may be seen to negotiate between the positions of Fretheim and Brueggemann. In short, despite contrast and difference, I propose that portraits of YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God in the book of Jeremiah might in fact be seen to unite and connect in ways that ultimately contribute to highlighting central theological concerns of the book in its present form. This proposal follows from a reconsideration of common and well-established understandings of portraits of both the retributive and the suffering YHWH in the book of Jeremiah. Obviously, there is not just one image of YHWH as a retributive God in the book of Jeremiah, nor only one of YHWH as a suffering God. The well-recognized complexity of the book also manifests itself in this case. However, my focus of study is on what I prefer to call “the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH”. The complaint of YHWH that the people have forsaken him (‫עזב‬/ʻāzab) is ——————————— 4 See, for example, A. R. Pete Diamond and Louis Stulman, eds., Jeremiah (Dis)Placed: New Directions in Writing/Reading Jeremiah, LHBOTS 529 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011); Christl M. Maier and Carolyn J. Sharp, eds., Prophecy and Power: Jeremiah in Feminist and Postcolonial Perspective, LHBOTS 577 (New York: T&T Clark, 2013). 5 For a more detailed presentation of Brueggemann’s view, see I.3.2.4. 6 Terence E. Fretheim, “Theological Reflections on the Wrath of God in the Old Testament,” HBT 24 (2002): 7. For a more detailed presentation of Fretheim’s view, see I.3.2.3.

1. Context and Focus of the Study

3

among the most frequent accusations voiced by YHWH in the book of Jeremiah, occurring no less than 10 times in the book – in 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7, 19; 9:12; 16:11(2x); and 19:4.7 My primary research question is quite simply: How are the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH to be understood? What makes these complaints interesting is that in the ʻāzab-complaint the retributive and the suffering YHWH are brought together, so to speak. According to prevailing readings, in about half of the ʻāzab-complaints (i.e. 1:16, 5:19, 9:12, 16:11, and 19:4) we hear the voice of the Deuteronomistic YHWH of retribution. Taken as forming part of and reflecting a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah, these ʻāzab-complaints are commonly read as utterances of YHWH as a justified judge. The other half (i.e. 2:13, 17, 19, and 5:7), however, are quite different, and following the lead of Terence E. Fretheim and Walter Brueggemann, an increasing number of scholars argue that these ʻāzab-complaints are best understood as painful cries of lament of YHWH. In other words, in the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:13, 17, 19, and 5:7 YHWH is seen to be speaking as the forsaken one – that is, as a vulnerable victim of the people’s forsaking of him. Considering these common readings, I take as a point of departure that the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH basically appear in two variants in the book of Jeremiah – roughly speaking, one voiced by a retributive YHWH, the other by a suffering YHWH.8 For the sake of simplicity, I term them, respectively, the prosaic and the poetic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH, as the former feature in prose passages and the latter in poetic units.9 It must be admitted, however, that like all categories and clear-cut distinctions made by scholars, neither will mine, as will be seen, fit the material completely. However, the objective of my analysis of the ʻāzab-complaints is threefold. First, my fundamental objective is to challenge prevailing readings of the two types of ʻāzab-complaints by clarifying the profile of each type by means of a close reading of each individual ʻāzab-complaint in light of its literary context. Second, the analysis of the profile of the two types of ʻāzab-complaints is motivated by the conviction that common and well-established portrayals of YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God in relation to these ʻāzab-complaints need to be revised. The problem lies with the understanding of, respec——————————— 7 The primary focus of this study is the ʻāzab-complaints voiced by YHWH. Hence, those voiced by Jeremiah and the nations (‫ )גוים‬in 17:13 and 22:9, respectively – “they have forsaken (‫ )עזבו‬YHWH, the fountain of living water” (17:13) and “they have forsaken (‫ )עזבו‬the covenant of YHWH, their God” (22:9) – will be dealt with only secondarily, as part of my discussion of specific ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH. 8 This is also the reason why I have chosen to use the term “complaint”, as it can be used as a synonym for both “lament” and “accusation” in English. 9 It might be worth emphasizing that I here use “prosaic” and “poetic” in purely descriptive and not value-laden terms.

4

Chapter I: Introduction

tively, the character of the retribution and the nature of the suffering and lament. In other words, the central objective and driving force of the study is to provide new and convincing portrayals of YHWH as a retributive and suffering God in relation to the ʻāzab-complaints. Finally, I will argue that my readings of the ʻāzab-complaints invite us to reconsider the juxtaposition of portraits of YHWH as a retributive and suffering God in the book of Jeremiah. I seek to contribute to this endeavour by looking at my conclusions regarding the ʻāzab-complaints and their related portraits of YHWH from the perspective of the book as a whole. In short, by drawing attention to some interesting points of unity and connection between the different ʻāzab-complaints and portraits of YHWH I suggest that their juxtaposition in the book of Jeremiah ultimately contributes to highlighting central theological concerns in the book in its present form. Of course, given the complexity of the book of Jeremiah and the variety of images of YHWH as a retributive and suffering God in it, the exclusive focus on the ʻāzab-complaints limits somehow the force of my proposal. However, the choice of focus is not arbitrary. By focusing on the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH it means that we will be dealing with texts often considered to be key texts in the book of Jeremiah with respect to the themes of both divine retribution (especially 5:19, 9:12, 16:11) and divine suffering (especially 2:13, 17, 19). Moreover, as regards the poetic ʻāzab-complaints, one could argue that they serve as a test case for other parallel complaint expressions like, for instance: “they went far (‫ )רחק‬from me” (2:5), “they turned their back (‫)פנה ערף‬ to me” (2:27), “they have forgotten (‫ )שכח‬me” (2:32; 3:21; 13:25; 18:15), “you were treacherous (‫ )בגד‬to me” (3:20; 5:11), and “you have rejected (‫ )נטש‬me” (15:6). Therefore, the relevance of an in-depth study of the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH should not be underestimated. As might already be clear by now, the following study will be divided into two major and quite distinct parts. The poetic ʻāzab-complaints will be analysed in dialogue with scholars who read them as laments of a forsaken and victimized YHWH (ch. II), whereas the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints will be analysed in dialogue with scholars who take them to reflect a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah (ch. III). Based on my conclusions regarding the ʻāzab-complaints and their related portraits of YHWH, I finally (ch. IV) suggest trajectories for a new understanding of the relationship between the portraits of YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God in the present form of the book of Jeremiah. Before turning to my analyses, however, the context, theses, and approach of my study need some further clarification.

2. Prevailing Readings and My Theses

5

2. Prevailing Readings and My Theses 2. Prevailing Readings and My Theses

In the following, I will first introduce the texts to be analysed and present prevailing readings, and in doing so develop and formulate my theses (I.2). Then I will survey particularly relevant parts of the broader research context of the study in order to dig deeper into the rationale of the readings with which I will be dialoguing throughout, and to clarify the hermeneutical basis and working assumptions of my own readings (I.3). Finally, I will clarify the approach and outline of the study (I.4). 2.1 The Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints: A Typical Deuteronomistic Explanation of the Defeat and Exile of Judah? All the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 1:16, 5:19, 9:12, 16:11, and 19:4 form part of a rather fixed and formulaic pattern: the ʻāzab-complaint – in the perfect form – introduces a series of closely associated accusations of disobedience and worshipping of other gods, normally in the wayyiqtol form. To take 1:16 as an example: “they have forsaken me (‫ )עזבוני‬and burned incense (‫ )ויקטרו‬to other gods and worshipped (‫ )וישתחוו‬the works of their hands” (1:16b). Moreover, in their literary contexts, all the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints serve to justify acts and/or announcements of divine judgment. Again 1:16 may serve as a helpful case in point: “And I will speak my judgments on them, against all their evil, that they have forsaken me [...]” (1:16a). Considering this pattern, it is not surprising that scholars usually call attention to Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic History (DtrH) when reading the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH. As a matter of fact, with the exception of 2 Chronicles, the accusation that the people have forsaken YHWH is predominantly found in Deuteronomy, DtrH, and the book of Jeremiah.10 Indeed, it serves almost as a leitmotif in DtrH.11 Because of this, it is hardly disputed that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah are terminologically and conceptually at home in the Deuteronomistic covenant tradition and thus are to be understood in light of central tenets of this tradition – like the idea of exclusive loyalty, disobedience, and worship of other gods as the fundamental sin, and divine judgment as divine retribution. As a consequence,

——————————— 10 The accusation that (some of) the people have forsaken (‫ )עזב‬YHWH occurs 16 times in Deuteronomy and DtrH (Deut 28:20; 29:24; 31:16; Judg 2:12–13; 10:6, 13; 1 Sam 8:8; 1 Kgs 9:9; 11:33; 18:18; 19:10, 14; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:22; 22:17). Elsewhere we find it 10 times in 2 Chronicles (12:1; 13:10, 11; 21:10; 24:18, 20, 24; 28:6; 29:6; 34:26) as well as in Isa 1:4; Hos 4:10; Jonah 2:9; and Dan 11:30. 11 Erhard Gerstenberger, “ ‫עזב‬,” TDOT 10:590; see also H.-P. Stähli, “ ‫עזב‬,” TLOT 3:866– 68.

6

Chapter I: Introduction

the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints are commonly understood as legal indictments of disloyalty justifying the retributive judgment of YHWH.12 However, many scholars have taken a step further, arguing that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints reflect a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah and thus bear evidence of Deuteronomistic influence in the composition of the book of Jeremiah.13 Evidently, all the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints occur in the formulaic prose material of the book of Jeremiah. Or more precisely, they are found in the brief prose passages – 1:15–16; 5:(18–)19; 9:11–15; 16:10–13; 19:2b–9, 11b–13 – scattered throughout the first part of the book (Jer 1–25), and, notably enough, not in the characteristic prose sermons or so-called “C-material” of the book.14 Obviously, concerning the question of Deuteronomistic redaction in the book of Jeremiah, it is the latter material that has received the most attention from scholars through the years, but not to the neglect of the brief prose passages. Rather, the brief prose passages have often been closely associated with the prose sermons as they show close similarity in style, language, and theology. In support, one may also point to the fact that all the brief prose passages containing prosaic ʻāzab-complaints bear a close ——————————— 12 See, for instance, the commentaries of Ernest W. Nicholson, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 1–25, CBC 22a (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973); J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, MI: Fortress, 1986); William McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986); Walter Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 1–25, ITC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); Ronald E. Clements, Jeremiah, IBC (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988); Douglas Rawlinson Jones, Jeremiah, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992); Gunther Wanke, Jeremia 1,1–25,14, ZBK 20.1 (Zürich: TVZ, 1995); Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, AB 21a (New York: Doubleday, 1999); Georg Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, HThKAT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005); Louis Stulman, Jeremiah, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005); Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008); Tremper Longman III, Jeremiah, Lamentations, NIBCOT 14 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008); Werner H. Schmidt, Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 1–20, ATD 20 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008). 13 See, for instance, the commentaries of Nicholson, Jeremiah; Carroll, Jeremiah; Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25; Clements, Jeremiah; Jones, Jeremiah; Wanke, Jeremia; Stulman, Jeremiah; Schmidt, Jeremia. 14 To the so-called “C-material”, Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad, 1914), 31, originally assigned 7:1–8:3; 11:1–5, 9–14; 18:1– 12; 21:1–10; 25:1–11a; 32:1–2, 6–16, 24–44; 34:1–7, 8–22; 35:1–19; and 44:1–14. Although 16:1–13(15) and 19:2b–9(11b–13) have occasionally been counted among the prose sermons (e.g. Enno Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Judentums, FRLANT 69 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956], 105; Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia, HAT 12 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958], 100–02; Louis Stulman, The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with the Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research, SBLDS 83 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 67–70, 76–79), most often they have not.

2. Prevailing Readings and My Theses

7

resemblance to, and even parallel, passages in Deuteronomy, and DtrH. Jeremiah 1:16b closely parallels 2 Kgs 22:17a. Jeremiah 19:2b–9, 11b–13 are characterized by mixing several quotes from Deuteronomy (e.g. vv. 7, 9 parallel, respectively, Deut 28:26, 53), DtrH (e.g. v. 3b parallels 1 Sam 3:11 and 2 Kgs 21:12), and from formulaic prose material elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah (e.g. vv. 5–6 parallel Jer 7:31–34; 32:35). For many scholars, however, it is the case of Jer 5:19; 9:11–15; 16:10–13 that proves the point. Shaped in the form of an apparently rather fixed question–answer scheme, which indeed is paralleled in Deut 29:21–27; 1 Kgs 9:7–9; as well as in Jer 22:8–9, the theodicy question – the question with which the Deuteronomists are so fundamentally associated – takes centre stage in these passages: “Why has YHWH our God done all these things to us?” (5:19a); “Why is the land ruined?” (9:11b); “Why has YHWH announced all this great evil against us?” (16:10a). And the answer offered in response is basically the same in all three passages: because the people have forsaken YHWH and served other gods (cf. 5:19b; 9:12–13; 16:11– 12). So, in short, there seem to be good reasons for viewing these passages as “Deuteronomistic through and through”, as Ernst W. Nicholson puts it,15 and for taking the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints as representing a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah. However, there are also reasons to challenge this traditional view, as has already been done by some scholars. But instead of focusing on the style of language in the passages of which the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints form part and arguing that the style cannot be identified as Deuteronomistic,16 I would like to draw attention to the theological profile of the passages. And in connection with that, I would like to challenge some of the basic assumptions commonly associated with the expression “a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah” and their bearings upon the reading of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints and of the related portraits of YHWH. Admittedly, “Deuteronomistic” and “Deuteronomism” are elusive terms in contemporary scholarship.17 As Hermann-Josef Stipp notes, “[t]he demarcation ——————————— 15

Ernst W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study in the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970), 63. 16 Cf., for example, John Bright, “The Date of the Prose Sermons of Jeremiah,” JBL 70 (1951): 15–35; William L. Holladay, “Prototype and Copies: A New Approach to the Poetry–Prose Problem in the Book of Jeremiah,” JBL 79 (1960): 351–67; Holladay, “Fresh Look at ‘Source B’ and ‘Source C’ in Jeremiah,” VT 25 (1975): 394–412; Helga Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches, BZAW 132 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973). Of the commentaries consulted in this study, the following adhere to a similar line of reasoning: Thompson, Jeremiah; Holladay, Jeremiah 1; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20; Longman III, Jeremiah, Lamentations. See more below in I.3.1.2. 17 Cf. Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie, eds., Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, JSOTSup 268 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999). See more below in I.3.1.2–3.

8

Chapter I: Introduction

of Deuteronomism is ultimately a matter of definition and thus subject to negotiation and agreement among scholars”.18 Therefore, what various scholars mean by arguing that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints reflect a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah is not self-evident. Still, as will be further clarified below, the following assumption seems quite common: more than a mere explanation, a Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah tends to anticipate some sort of hope. As an explanation in service of the survivors – most often identified as the exiles or Babylonian Golah community – the explanation ultimately brings order to the chaos of the disaster and teaches the lesson to be learned from the disaster. Furthermore, when ascribed to the Deuteronomists, the passages containing the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints tend, as already mentioned, to be closely associated with other types of formulaic prose material in the book of Jeremiah, especially the parenetic discourses calling the people to repentance and pointing to alternatives to judgment (e.g. 7:1–8:3; 11:1–14; 18:1–12; 22:1–5).19 However, we need to be careful when transferring linguistic expressions from their present literary contexts into a more or less fixed frame of reference. The prosaic ʻāzab-complaints in the book of Jeremiah are good examples in that respect, as there seems to be a tension, as I will argue, between how the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints function in their immediate literary contexts and how they are assumed to function as a Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah – at least if the latter implies the assumptions just pointed out. For, as I attempt to demonstrate in this study, when read in light of their present literary contexts, the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints are characterized by justifying announcements and acts of divine retribution describing scenarios of what I would call “total judgment”. By “total judgment” I mean that the judgment announced is unconditional, applies to the entire people, and suggests that the YHWH–people relationship has come to an end – either because YHWH will annihilate the people or because YHWH rejects the people by alienating himself from the people and/or the people from himself. Here it may suffice to briefly point to the announcements of judgment in 9:15 and 16:13 as telling examples: I will scatter them among the nations [...], and I will send the sword after them until I have made an end to them (9:15). I will hurl you out of this land, into the land that you do not know, nor your fathers. There you shall serve other gods day and night, and I will show you no favour (16:13).

——————————— 18 Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Formulaic Language and the Formation of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Jeremiah’s Scripture: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid, JSJSup 173 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 164. 19 See more below in I.3.1.3.

2. Prevailing Readings and My Theses

9

More than “just” the defeat and exile of Judah, here YHWH seems to announce total annihilation and definitive rejection of the people, including those in exile. Intuitively, it is not easy to see how these announcements of judgments can be reconciled with the claim that the ʻāzab-complaints in 9:12 and 16:11 reflect an explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah that anticipates hope for the survivors of the catastrophe. Of course, attempts at reconciliation and harmonization have been made, but quite often the conflict is ignored. Ignored is also the fact that the other prosaic ʻāzab-complaints seem to justify similar words of judgment – if not as equally clear and dramatic as those in 9:15 and 16:13. For, as I will argue, in their present literary contexts, it is characteristic of all the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints that they serve to justify words of total judgment. It is against this background, I suggest, that we need to revise common portrayals of the retributive YHWH of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. For if YHWH justifies total judgment in the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, they are utterances not only of a justified judge but of a God who is done with his people. This is the central thesis of the present study of YHWH’s prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. However, while the character of the retributive judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaints will take centre stage in my analysis of YHWH’s prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, I would also like to draw attention to another feature characteristic of these ʻāzab-complaints. For in addition to the total judgment motif, the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints are characterized by featuring in literary contexts where, in some way or another, they contribute to highlighting the foolishness of people having forsaken YHWH. To clarify, let me briefly draw attention to the ʻāzab-complaints in 1:16. In 1:16 the people are being accused of having forsaken YHWH for “the work of their hands” (‫)למעשי ידיהם‬. Evidently, the contrast between YHWH and “the work of their hands” – a contrast that, as will be shown below, is further emphasized by the characterization of YHWH in the literary context of 1:1620 – highlights that the people have not only been disloyal to YHWH but have been foolishly so. To forsake YHWH for “the work of their hands” is foolishly absurd and reveals the people’s lack of good sense and judgment. Hence, in the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 YHWH addresses not only the disloyalty of his people, but the foolishness of their disloyal behaviour. In other prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, the foolishness is somewhat different and may be better defined as misconceptions or a lack of recognition and insight. Either way, my point is that it is characteristic of the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah that they feature in contexts in which, in some way or another, they contribute to highlighting the foolishness of people forsaking YHWH.

——————————— 20

See III.2.3.1.

10

Chapter I: Introduction

Of course, the features I define as characteristic of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints manifest themselves in different ways and with varying degrees of clarity in the different ʻāzab-complaints. In fact, I must even admit that on one occasion, the map I have been drawing in the preceding does not entirely fit the terrain, as one of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints (i.e. 19:4) seems not to highlight the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH. Despite this exception, I nevertheless think it is adequate to speak of a basic pattern and, ultimately, a common profile for the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints – that is, that the ʻāzab-complaints in 1:16; 5:19; 9:12; 16:11; and 19:4 are basically to be understood as quite formulaic indictments of disloyalty, characterized by justifying announcements of total judgment and highlighting the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH. As will be seen, this profile of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints involves points of both sharp contrast and interesting similarity to the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. 2.2 The Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints: A Lament of a Forsaken and Victimized YHWH? As we turn to the poetic ʻāzab-complaints in 2:13, 17, 19, and 5:7, we face a quite different picture. Certainly, the poetic ʻāzab-complaints also relate closely to accusations of turning to others than YHWH. Yet, in contrast to the formulaic patterns of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, the literary contexts of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints are filled with thought-provoking rhetoric and rich imagery. For instance, 5:7–8 speak of “no-gods”, whorehouses, and lusty stallions, while the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:13, 17, and 19 connect with accusations shaped in water imagery: “Me they have forsaken (‫)עזבו‬, the fountain of living water, to dig themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that do not hold water” (2:13); they are going “to Egypt to drink the water of the Nile” and “to Assyria to drink the water of the Euphrates” (2:18). However, the difference between the prosaic and the poetic ʻāzab-complaints cuts deeper than poetics. In sharp contrast to the total judgment motif of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, all the poetic ʻāzab-complaints feature in contexts suggesting that YHWH still desires relationship with the people. For instance, in 2:13, YHWH continues to refer to the people forsaking him as “my people”, whereas in 5:1, 7, YHWH’s willingness to forgive is emphasized. Furthermore, all the poetic ʻāzab-complaints connect with references to YHWH’s benevolence and generosity towards the people, e.g. “I brought you into the garden land” (2:7); “He was leading you in the way” (2:17); and “I fed them full” (5:7). We find no such elements in the literary context of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. Despite these observations, however, scholars have traditionally often sought to cast all the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH – the prosaic and poetic ones alike – into one fixed concept. Typically, given the particular association with Deuteronomy and DtrH noted above, the idea that the people are bound to

2. Prevailing Readings and My Theses

11

YHWH by means of a legal contract tends to serve as a controlling framework, which in turn leads to the result that all the ʻāzab-complaints – the poetic and prosaic alike – are read as legal indictments of disloyalty.21 In accordance with this, Thomas M. Raitt, for instance, argues that, in the book of Jeremiah, the ʻāzab-complaint in general forms part of “the language [that] epitomizes covenant breaking”.22 The claim also manifests itself in scholars’ portrayals of the YHWH of the ʻāzab-complaints: in the ʻāzab-complaints, be they prosaic or poetic, YHWH is speaking as a justified judge or plaintiff. As, for instance, Jack R. Lundbom puts it regarding the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13, YHWH is the justified plaintiff who “simply heap[s] up more evidence against the covenant people”.23 Over the past few decades, however, the traditional understanding of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints has been increasingly challenged. By appealing to the need to pay closer attention to the rhetoric and literary context of each individual text, a new reading has been proposed and widely accepted. The poetic ʻāzab-complaints, it is argued, are not only accusations, but accusations carrying strong notes of lament. While still basically taken as accusations of disloyalty and infidelity, the understanding of the speaker and setting of the accusation is radically changed. Rather than just legal indictments announced by a detached plaintiff or judge in the courtroom, they are seen to be uttered from within the intimate and emotion-filled relationship of marriage. That is, they are seen to be voiced by a betrayed and forlorn husband. Kathleen M. O’Connor’s and Louis Stulman’s readings of the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 are telling examples: “With confused hurt, God laments Israel’s infidelity”;24 “Israel’s unfaithfulness and betrayal leave the ill-treated party [i.e. YHWH] hurt and humiliated.”25 In other words, the poetic ʻāzab-complaints are to be understood ——————————— 21 See, for instance, the commentaries of Rudolph, Jeremia; Nicholson, Jeremiah; Thompson, Jeremiah; Carroll, Jeremiah; Holladay, Jeremiah 1; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25; Wanke, Jeremia; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20; Schmidt, Jeremia. 22 Thomas M. Raitt, A Theology of the Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 66. 23 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 268. 24 Kathleen M. O’Connor, Jeremiah: Pain and Promise (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 37. 25 Stulman, Jeremiah, 49. An increasing number of scholars, from quite different circles of scholarship, offer readings quite similar to those of O’Connor and Stulman, especially with respect to the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2, e.g. A. R. Pete Diamond and Kathleen M. O’Connor, “Unfaithful Passions: Coding Women Coding Men in Jeremiah 2–3 (4:2),” BibInt 4 (1996): 293–97; J. Andrew Dearman, Jeremiah/Lamentations, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 62; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 151, 177; Else K. Holt, “The Fountain of Living Water and the Deceitful Brook: The Pool of Water Metaphors in the Book of Jeremiah (MT),” in Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, ed. P. van Hecke, BETL 187 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), 105; Dirk Odendaal, “Yahweh in Jeremiah 1–25: The Canon and

12

Chapter I: Introduction

first and foremost as painful cries of lament voiced by a victimized and forsaken YHWH. Among the central arguments for the new reading are, first, the observation of the features pointed out just above, which indicate that the poetic ʻāzabcomplaints are uttered by a YHWH who still desires a relationship with the people. In other words, the relationship broken by the people’s forsaking of YHWH represents something not wanted or desired by YHWH – indeed something regrettable and lamentable. Second, it is argued that marital imagery permeates the literary contexts of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints (especially in Jer 2) and that the vulnerability and deep emotions allegedly involved in this imagery need to be taken seriously into account when reading the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. From these two arguments follows the conclusion of the new reading: more than just as an accuser of disloyal behaviour, YHWH speaks as a suffering victim of the people’s disloyal behaviour in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. In my view, while certainly onto something important, the new reading is ultimately unfortunately misleading. In accordance with the new reading, I will, on the one hand, argue that the poetic ʻāzab-complaints do indeed carry notes of lament and thus are best understood as mixed expressions of accusation and lament. But on the other hand, it is my conviction that the understanding of the nature of YHWH’s suffering and lament needs to be revised as it in fact seems to follow more from prevalent theological doctrines of our time than from convincing close readings of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints in their literary contexts. The latter, of course, is a bold and quite ironic claim. Hardly anyone has put more effort into criticizing theological doctrines and their influence on biblical scholarship than representatives of the new reading. To substantiate my claim, I will therefore analyse the poetic ʻāzab-complaints in close dialogue with the two Old Testament theologians and scholars of Jeremiah, Terence E. Fretheim and Walter Brueggemann. Fretheim and Brueggemann are very much the ones who introduced and hermeneutically paved the way for the new reading.26 To illuminate the irony implied in my claim above and further clarify my thesis, let us briefly broaden the perspective a little bit. For, to put it bluntly, the currency of the new reading should not be surprising as it evidently fits in nicely with the extensive theological interest in, and the attention paid to, the idea of divine suffering in the past century. Back in 1926, J. K. Mozley had already observed the emergence of an increasing interest in the idea of divine

——————————— Reading Scripture as Text,” in Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies, ed. J. Harold Ellens and John T. Greene, PTMS 111 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 108. 26 Since both Fretheim and Brueggemann approach theology from a Christian perspective I refer to them as “Old Testament theologians” – and to their theological works as “Old Testament theologies”. Otherwise, I use the term “Hebrew Bible”.

2. Prevailing Readings and My Theses

13

suffering among Christian theologians and philosophers of religion,27 and near the end of the twentieth century, Ronald Goetz concluded that the idea was established as a new and prevailing orthodoxy.28 Or as Paul S. Fiddes says, “the idea that God suffers hardly needs to be argued for any longer.”29 However, while the idea of divine suffering may be a matter of course today, the establishment of the idea as a new orthodoxy certainly did not just happen as a matter of course. Indeed, that God is a suffering God is a hard-fought idea that first had to conquer the classical doctrine of divine impassibility and the metaphysics behind it – a doctrine that, even if the meaning of it is not entirely clear,30 is commonly understood to state the deity’s incapacity for suffering.31 The doctrine was sharply pronounced by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE: the synod “deposes from the priesthood those who dare to say that the Godhead of the Only begotten is passible”.32 However, doctrines of the Church have rarely enjoyed much favour among biblical scholars. On the contrary, it has long been recognized – and emphasized – that there is a conflict between many of the renderings of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible and the classical theistic concept of God manifesting itself in the Church’s doctrines of God.33 Among the most renowned examples are probably the statements about YHWH’s repentance (e.g. Gen 6:6–7; Exod 32:14; 1 Sam 15:11; Jer 18:8, 10; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9–10; 4:2). Thus, ever since the rise of biblical studies as a discipline independent of doctrinal theology, the importance of distinguishing between “the god in the book [or of ancient Israel] and faith’s god of the book”34 has been a basic hermeneutical concern for biblical scholars to avoid biased, or even worse, apologetic readings of biblical texts. Doctrines of the Church are not allowed to control the reading of biblical ——————————— 27

J. K. Mozley, The Impassibility of God: A Survey of Christian Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926). 28 Ronald Goetz, “The Suffering God: The Rise of a New Orthodoxy,” ChrCent 103 (1986): 386. 29 Paul S. Fiddes, The Creative Suffering of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 1. 30 See, for example, Richard E. Creel, “Immutability and Impassibility,” in A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, 2nd ed., ed. Charles Taliaferro, Paul Draper, and Philip L. Quinn, BCP 9 (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 323–24. 31 Mozley, Impassibility, 1. 32 J. Stevenson and W. H. C. Frend, eds., Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents illustrating the History of the Church, AD 33–461, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 405. 33 This, however, is certainly not a new insight. The tension was well known already by the early Church fathers. For an easy-read introduction to this field, see Mark Sheridan, Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015). 34 A. R. Pete Diamond, “Interlocutions: The Poetics of Voice in the Figuration of YHWH and his Oracular Agent, Jeremiah,” Int 62 (2008): 50.

14

Chapter I: Introduction

scholars. Although these are basic hermeneutical principles accepted by most biblical scholars, they have been emphasized in particular by scholars who, in some way or another, have been working with the theme of divine suffering in the Hebrew Bible, like Fretheim, Brueggemann, and other advocates of the new reading of the poetic ʻāzab complaints of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah. For as it is often argued, despite well-established hermeneutical principles, much modern biblical scholarship has, more or less unconsciously, been heavily influenced by classical doctrines of God.35 Without denying any of this, I would nevertheless argue that the time may now be ripe for another perspective. For if the current situation is as changed as Goetz and Fiddes say, I suggest that we’d better also begin to question the influence of the “doctrines” of “the new orthodoxy” in current biblical scholarship. For even if biblical scholars often like to see themselves as significant contributors to the change with their close and critical reading of biblical texts, one may sometimes ask whether their readings do not just as much follow from the change as contributing to it. In my view, Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of YHWH’s poetic ʻāzab-complaints in the book of Jeremiah are indeed good examples of just that. For as I will argue, the readings of Fretheim and Brueggemann seem to follow more from their adoption of theological notions characteristic of “the new orthodoxy” than from convincing close readings of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints in their literary contexts. My argument follows along the lines of two basic observations that I will briefly introduce here. First, characteristic of “the new orthodoxy” is the claim that God is a God of pathos (or passion), a claim put in sharp contrast to the classical theistic notion of divine apatheia. In recent decades, the claim has been adopted and applied by an increasing number of biblical scholars. Probably no one, however, has defined and more consistently integrated the claim into a broader biblical theological framework than Fretheim and Brueggemann. While some may use the term “pathos” (or “passion”) simply as an expression of strong emotions, Fretheim and Brueggemann define divine pathos as relating to the character of YHWH and the nature of YHWH’s relationship with his people (and the world). As will be further clarified below, it basically means that YHWH is a loving and desiring God and thus also a vulnerable God in an intimate relationship with his people (and the world). In other words, God is not only ready to act but also to be acted upon and affected by the people (and the world).36 However, when such a perspective is applied to the poetic ʻāzabcomplaints, the new reading follows almost by necessity. YHWH is not only an agent who launches accusations against the people, but the forsaken one lamenting as a vulnerable victim of the people’s behaviour. ——————————— 35

See, for example, Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, OBT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), esp. 1–33. See more below in I.3.2. 36 See I.3.2.3–4.

2. Prevailing Readings and My Theses

15

Second, however, there are reasons to question whether the notion of divine pathos – at least as it is defined and applied by Fretheim and Brueggemann – is as helpful for the reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints as Fretheim and Brueggemann assume. For how appropriate is it to identify YHWH as a vulnerable victim of the people’s forsaking of him when YHWH in 2:13, for instance, is explicitly characterized as “the source of living water” ( ‫מקור מים‬ ‫ ?)חיים‬To illustrate my point, it might be helpful to take a brief comparative look at the parallel human ʻāzab-complaints in the Psalms (i.e. Pss 22:2; 27:9; and 38:22). In the new reading favoured by Fretheim and Brueggemann, YHWH actually ends up being portrayed as quite similar to the speakers of the human ʻāzab-complaints in the Psalms, especially if the latter are read as complaints against “YHWH’s failure to adhere to covenant”, as suggested by Brueggemann.37 In both cases, the speakers (both YHWH and the psalmists) are understood to be speaking from the perspective of being vulnerable victims of betrayal and infidelity, suffering from rejection by their partners. However, even if there may be interesting points of similarity between YHWH and the psalmists as speakers of ʻāzab-complaints, obvious points of difference should not be ignored. Even without a full comparative analysis, it seems quite clear, for instance, that the speakers of the human ʻāzab-complaints never are, or could be, characterized as “sources of living water” like YHWH. On the contrary, in Ps 22, the speaker, describes himself as being “poured out like water” (‫כמים נשפכתי‬, Ps 22:15). So, considering “the source of living water” metaphor, we should ask: to what extent does the new reading reflect that due attention has been paid to the rhetoric of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints in their literary contexts? By offering a close reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints in their literary contexts in close dialogue with the readings of Fretheim and Brueggemann, I will argue that the notion of divine pathos is actually quite foreign to their rhetoric, and that the new reading they represent seems to follow from an unfortunate tendency to read the notion of divine pathos into the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. However, the purpose of my study of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints is not just to offer a critique of Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings. As already noted, I think Fretheim and Brueggemann are onto something important when claiming that the poetic ʻāzab-complaints carry notes of divine lament. As pointed out above, a characteristic of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints is that they feature in literary contexts indicating a desire for a continuing relationship on YHWH’s part. The realization of this desire of YHWH, however, seems to be threatened – not to say ruined – by the people’s forsaking of him. If so, the claim that the poetic ʻāzab-complaints are to be understood as divine laments ——————————— 37 Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 273.

16

Chapter I: Introduction

seems reasonable. At least, this follows if we apply a phenomenological38 rather than form-critical approach to lament and define it broadly as an utterance elicited by an incident threatening or ruining the realization of a desired goal on the speaker’s part.39 This phenomenological and desire-focused approach to lament corresponds to a large extent with the approaches of Fretheim, Brueggemann, et al. But that is also where the similarities end. For as I will argue, the understanding of YHWH’s desire needs to be revised. Only a brief dig into the history of the concept of desire suffices to show that desire has been conceptualized differently by thinkers, and that some of the conceptualizations appear more fruitful than others for the understanding of the desire of YHWH in the poetic ʻāzabcomplaints.40 In short, I will argue that instead of understanding the desire of YHWH in terms of lack and need, as seems implied in the notion of divine pathos,41 the desire of YHWH in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints is better understood as a desire rooted in excess and abundance. And if so, it follows that the lament of YHWH is not so much a lament of a forsaken and victimized YHWH as a compassionate lament – that is, a lament on the other’s behalf. Such an understanding of the lament and suffering of YHWH, I will argue, fits the rhetoric of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints much better than the lament and suffering attributed to YHWH by Fretheim and Brueggemann. My main reason for arguing this relates to the accusatory aspect of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints and to what I will argue is another characteristic feature of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. Just like the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, all the poetic ʻāzab-complaints are characterized by featuring in literary contexts that highlight the foolishness of the people. The poetic ʻāzab-complaints, however, take it one step further. The foolishness of the people is more consistently defined and more directly related to the poetic ʻāzab-complaints – to such an extent, in fact, that the poetic ʻāzab-complaints seem better defined as complaints of foolishness than complaints of disloyalty. That is, the problem addressed in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints first and foremost involves a tragic and disastrous lack of recognition and insight as the people have failed to recognize ——————————— 38

For another study on the book of Jeremiah taking its departure from lament as a phenomenon – in contrast to a form-critical approach – see Dong Hyun Bak, Klagender Gott – klagende Menschen: Studien zur Klage im Jeremiabuch, BZAW 193 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990). Bak’s approach, however, is to focus on the occurrence of specific linguistic terms and expressions to identify lament. 39 In developing this definition, I have been especially influenced by Rebekka A. Klein’s analysis of the “expressive” and “responsive” character of lament in Klein, “The Phenomenology of Lament and the Presence of God in Time,” in Evoking Lament: A Theological Discussion, ed. Eva Harasta and Brian Brock (New York: Continuum Press, 2009), 15–19. 40 See more below in I.3.2.5. 41 See more below in I.3.2.2.

2. Prevailing Readings and My Theses

17

what kind of God YHWH is and thus ended up forsaking what cannot be forsaken, at least not without disastrous consequences for themselves. Again, a brief look at the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 may be helpful. The water metaphor suggests that abandoning YHWH is not only absurd but devastating. No one, of course, abandons “the source of living water” without devastating consequences for themselves. A similar point, I will argue, is highlighted in various ways in all the poetic ʻāzab-complaints and constitutes a characteristic feature of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. Moreover, it is against this background, I suggest, that we need to revise current portrayals of YHWH as a suffering God in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. For if the poetic ʻāzab-complaints first and foremost draw attention to the tragic foolishness of the people in their forsaking of YHWH, the point in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints is the victimization not of YHWH but of the people. The true victim of the people’s forsaking of YHWH is not YHWH but the people themselves. Therefore, I suggest, instead of interpreting the divine lament in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints as a painful cry of a forsaken and victimized God, it seems better understood as a compassionate lament and a lament on the true victims’ behalf. These are the central theses in my study of YHWH’s poetic ʻāzab-complaints, which may be summarized in the claim that all the poetic ʻāzab-complaints share a common basic profile: the poetic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah are mixed expressions of accusation and lament as they are characterized by both highlighting the foolishness of the people and carrying notes of compassionate lament. Finally, the contrast between the portraits of YHWH in the poetic and the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints is obvious and striking. While YHWH of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints is a compassionate God desiring continuing relationships, YHWH of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints is done with his people and announces total judgment against them. Nevertheless, despite the sharp contrast, there are signals of points of unity and connection between them. First, both the suffering YHWH of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints and the retributive YHWH of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints draw attention to, and highlight, the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH and thus unite in this claim. Moreover, just like the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, each of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints has its own characteristic features even if they share a common basic profile. Among the poetic ʻāzab-complaints, the ʻāzab-complaint in Jer 5:7 in particular, as we will see, stands out in a special way as it also shares characteristics with the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. The ʻāzab-complaint in Jer 5:7 thus appears like a connecting bridge or hinge between the poetic and the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, a connection that ultimately may be seen to shed new light on the juxtaposition of the obviously contrasting portraits of YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God in the present form of the book. At least, I would like to suggest so at the end of this study.

18

Chapter I: Introduction

2.3 Summing Up: The Theses of the Study There is certainly quite a leap from the discussion of Deuteronomistic influence in the book of Jeremiah to the notion of divine pathos found in Fretheim and Brueggemann. The leap, however, may not only reflect the diversity of current Jeremiah scholarship but also the complexity of the book of Jeremiah itself, in this case manifested in the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH. For as I have pointed out in the preceding, there seem to be two quite distinct types of divine ʻāzabcomplaints in the book of Jeremiah – that is, the prosaic and the poetic ʻāzabcomplaints of YHWH. My fundamental objective is to challenge prevailing readings of these two types of ʻāzab-complaints by clarifying their profile. What I will argue is that: 1. In addition to being quite formulaic indictments of disloyalty, the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints show two characteristic features: they justify announcements of total judgment and feature in contexts in which they contribute to highlighting the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH. 2. The poetic ʻāzab-complaints also show two characteristic features: as mixed expressions of accusation and lament they carry notes of compassionate lament and highlight the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH. However, as implied in these theses, there is not only a critique of prevailing readings but of well-established portrayals of YHWH as a retributive and suffering God in relation to the ʻāzab-complaints. The crucial point concerns the character of the judgment of YHWH justified by the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints and the nature of lament of YHWH in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. In other words, I will argue that: 3. In the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, YHWH speaks not only as a justified judge but as a God who announces total judgment and the end of the YHWH– people relationship. 4. In the poetic ʻāzab-complaints, YHWH laments as a compassionate God, not as a forsaken and victimized God. Finally, I suggest that my analysis of the ʻāzab-complaints and the portraits of YHWH related to them invites us to reconsider the relationship between the retributive and the suffering YHWH of the book of Jeremiah. For, despite the cutting contrast between the retributive YHWH of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints and the suffering YHWH of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints, there are points of unity and connection between them that ultimately seem to contribute to highlighting central theological concerns in the present form of the book.

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

19

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions 3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

As pointed out above, the reading of YHWH’s ʻāzab-complaints in current scholarship is inextricably linked to two larger and quite distinct fields of discussion: on the one hand, the discussion of the literary history of the book of Jeremiah, and on the other hand, the literary-theological discussion about divine suffering and the notion of divine pathos. These, of course, are broad and complex fields of discussion, and I cannot fully engage in all aspects involved. My focus in the following is to elaborate on, and further clarify, the background of two claims made in the preceding chapter. First, as regards the prosaic ʻāzabcomplaints, I maintained that prevailing readings tend to isolate the ʻāzab-complaints too quickly from their present literary context and put them into a Deuteronomistic frame of reference in which they do not seem to fit very well. Second, as regards the poetic ʻāzab-complaints, I claimed that the new reading seems to follow more from an unfortunate adoption of the notion of divine pathos than from convincing close readings of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints in their literary contexts. In addition to elaborating on these claims, I will in the following also clarify some of the hermeneutical considerations and working assumptions lying at the base of my reading of the ʻāzab-complaints. 3.1 The Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints: The Problem of Formulaic Prose Material Among the most critical issues in modern research on the book of Jeremiah has been the question of Deuteronomistic influence in the composition of the book. While it has been widely accepted that the influence is considerable, the date, scope, purpose, and nature of the influence continue to be disputed. As noted above, the focus of attention has primarily been on the prose sermons.42 In the second half of the last century, however, the prose narratives in chapters 26– 29 and 36–43 and many of the brief prose passages in chapters 1–25 – like our passages, 1:15–16; 5:19; 9:11–15; 16:10–13; and 19:2b–9, 11b–13 – became increasingly the subject of attention. As a result, in a recent discussion between Christl M. Maier and Thomas Römer concerning Deuteronomistic redaction of the book of Jeremiah, one of the few things they seemed to agree upon is that the brief prose passages in 5:19; 9:11–15; and 16:10–13 are Deuteronomistic – in a redaction-critical sense of the term. In support of this view, both argue that the accusations that the people have forsaken (‫ )עזב‬YHWH to serve other gods represent a “typical Deuteronomistic justification of Judah’s exile”.43 ——————————— 42

See I.2.1. Christl M. Maier, “The Nature of Deutero-Jeremianic Texts,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid, JSJSup 173 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 109. Cf. Thomas Römer, “The ‘Deuteronomistic’ 43

20

Chapter I: Introduction

In the following, I offer a closer look at the rationale behind this argument, what the argument tends to imply in current scholarship, and, not least, plausible reasons to challenge it. The following discussion is organized around three major issues: the poetry–prose problem (3.1.1), the formulaic language of the prose material (3.1.2), and finally, the tendencies of Deuteronomistic redaction(s) (3.1.3). 3.1.1 The Prose–Poetry Problem The difficulties encountered by biblical scholars in determining which elements are primary and which secondary may be modified by attending to the poetic sections as primary, with some poetic addition, and the rest as secondary. It is not a resolution of all the problems but it suggests a way of working. [...] An initial poetic tradition is built up over a period of time by further poetic additions [...]. Prose elements are added by way of explanation [...].44

What Robert P. Carroll here defines as a working assumption seems very much taken for granted by many current scholars. Almost a priori the prose material is considered both to be secondary to the poetic material and to serve some sort of explanatory function in relation to the poetic material. As regards the reading of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, Carroll’s working assumption is reflected in the common understanding that since most of them are surrounded by poetic units, the brief prose passages in which the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints feature are to be read as more or less self-contained literary units. In continuity with this understanding, the focus of scholars has primarily been on pointing out how the brief prose passages stand out from their literary contexts, and how, as later insertions, they serve to frame, interpret, and explain the adjacent poetic units. In this study, however, I would like to suggest a different approach. 3.1.1.1 The Prose as Secondary to the Poetic Material The idea that the prose material is secondary to, and therefore must be sharply distinguished from, the poetic material can be traced back to Bernhard Duhm’s study Das Buch Jeremia.45 Duhm drew a dichotomous distinction between the authentic oracles of the prophet Jeremiah and “Ergänzungen” of later post-exilic editors.46 The style and language of the poetic material, Duhm argued, testify to the originality of the prophet Jeremiah, whom Duhm praised for modelling a piety primarily characterized by spiritual and ethical qualities.47 As regards the prose material, on the other hand, Duhm described this material as ——————————— Character of the Book of Jeremiah: A Response to Christl M. Maier,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures, 126. 44 Robert P. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant: Uses of Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (London: SCM, 1981), 11. 45 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, KHC 11 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901). 46 Cf. Duhm, Jeremia, ix–xxii. 47 Cf. Duhm, Jeremia, xii–xiii.

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

21

repetitive and monotonous and considered it to reflect a later, degenerated, and legalistic religion.48 Certainly, much has changed since the beginning of the twentieth century. With the rising interest in “Redaktions-”49 and “Traditionsgeschichte”50 in the second half of the last century, the prejudices against the prose material and the dichotomy between prose and poetry began to break down.51 Yet, the understanding that the prose is secondary to, and therefore must be distinguished from, the poetic material continued being taken as a given by scholars and manifests itself even today in two of the theoretical models dominating current discussions of the composition of the book of Jeremiah.52 On the one hand, there is the hypothesis of large-scale Deuteronomistic redaction(s). While the date, purpose, and number of editorial layers may be disputed, several scholars maintain that the prose material (in particular) bears witness to a process of systematic, redactional reworking of pre-existing material (primarily poetry). According to this view, the book of Jeremiah is to be regarded as basically a Deuteronomistic product, shaped through various editorial stages, each serving specific concerns of the Deuteronomistic redactors.53 On the other hand, there ——————————— 48 Duhm, Jeremia, xviii: “Ihre Theologie ist die des Nomismus, die Thora ist ihr Ein und Alles.” 49 For example, J. Philip Hyatt, “The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah,” in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies, ed. Leo G. Perdue and B. W. Kovacs (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984), 247–67 (originally published as Hyatt, “The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah,” in VSH 1, ed. Beatty C. Richmond, J. Philip Hyatt, and Monroe K. Spears [Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1951], 71–95); Rudolph, Jeremia; Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25, WMANT 41 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973); Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45, WMANT 52 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981). 50 For example, Nicholson, Preaching; Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant. 51 Cf. Robert R. Wilson, “Poetry and Prose in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 414–17. 52 The following presentation is informed especially by Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E., trans. David Green, SBLStBL 3 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003), 302–12; Robert R. Wilson, “Exegesis, Expansion, and Tradition-Making in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Jeremiah’s Scripture: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid, JSJSup 173 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 8–11. 53 For example, Hyatt, “Deuteronomic Edition”; Thiel, Jeremia 1–25; Thiel, Jeremia 26– 45; Albertz, Israel in Exile, 312–45; Thomas Römer, “How Did Jeremiah Become a Convert to Deuteronomistic Ideology?” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of PanDeuteronomism, ed. Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie, JSOTSup 268 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 189–99; Römer, “The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah as a Supplement to the So-Called Deuteronomistic History,” in The Production of Prophecy:

22

Chapter I: Introduction

is the hypothesis of small-scale accretions, so-called “Fortschreibungen”. This hypothesis is developed most consistently in William McKane’s idea of “a rolling corpus”, which means that small pieces of pre-existing text are considered to trigger the production of new pieces of exegesis or commentary.54 Instead of a systematic process of editing, the prose material (in particular) is perceived to be the result of random attempts at exegetical-like “updating” of pre-existing material (primarily poetry) in light of new circumstances. Either way, what is most important for us is to recognize how fundamental the prose–poetry distinction – and thereby also the tendency to treat the brief prose passages containing the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints as secondary and thus more or less selfcontained literary units – has been, and continues to be, in much contemporary scholarship. The two models, however, though dominant, are not exclusive. And in several current studies, the distinction between prose and poetry appears far more blurred than it once was. One important impetus in that respect has been the literary theoretical reorientation that took place in biblical studies in the 1970s and 80s as the field was opened up for a variety of new methods and ways of approaching the text.55 In other words, over the past few decades the attempt to explain the literary diversity of the book of Jeremiah in diachronic terms has been supplemented by efforts to identify literary and theological “order amid the chaos”, to use the phrase of Louis Stulman.56 Essential to this strategy is the attempt to analyse the mixture of literary forms from a literary and rhetorical point of view. Another, and more interesting, impetus is McKane’s idea of a rolling corpus. Following the lead of McKane, several current scholars

——————————— Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud, ed. Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi (London: Equinox, 2009), 168–83. See also Nicholson, Preaching, although Nicholson prefers tradition over redaction as the vital mechanism in the compositional process of the book. Among the commentaries consulted for this study, especially Nicholson, Jeremiah, and Wanke, Jeremia, are associated with this model. 54 McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, lxxxiii. Among the commentaries consulted for this study, Carroll, Jeremiah; Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25; Jones, Jeremiah; Stulman, Jeremiah; and Allen, Jeremiah can be associated with this model. 55 See, for example, A. R. Pete Diamond, “The Jeremiah Guild in the Twenty-First Century: Variety Reigns Supreme,” in Recent Research on the Major Prophets, ed. Alan J. Hauser, RRBS 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 232–48. Among the first anthologies reflecting the change are A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, eds., Troubling Jeremiah, JSOTSup 260 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); Martin Kessler, ed., Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004). 56 Louis Stulman, Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry, BibSem 57 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998).

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

23

simply conclude that the literary history of the book of Jeremiah is so impenetrably complex that it is a “story [...] impossible to tell”.57 Instead of remaining agnostic, however, some have taken advantage of the growing agnostic atmosphere and used it as an opportunity to reshuffle the cards. Georg Fischer, for instance, has recently made a strong case for the view that the book of Jeremiah shows evidence of being “an obviously well-considered composition, most probably from late Persian times, and likely by one single author”.58 A significant part of his argument is to note points of connection and continuity between units of prose and poetry. According to Fischer, “the combination of prose and poetry gives coherence to Jeremiah and is an excellent medium for conveying its message more poignantly”.59 Undoubtedly, I am much influenced by Fischer in my understanding of the book of Jeremiah. In my view – serving at least as a working assumption in this study – the book of Jeremiah, in its present form (MT), seems best understood as a highly complex and yet, at least to some extent, carefully shaped literary work of theological reflection on the catastrophe of Judah and Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE, produced by (or reflecting a product of) scribes in the post-exilic period. As such, the book draws upon earlier and concurrent traditions and adopts and integrates earlier scripture.60 Following the lead of Fischer, I therefore suggest that instead of taking the prose passages containing the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints as secondary and self-contained literary units, we should pay attention to points of connection and continuity between these passages and their literary contexts. In other words, I do not consider the prose– poetry distinction to be a supreme guide to delimit literary units in the text – it seems more fruitful to focus on rhetorical patterns, structures, thematic changes, and the like. By suggesting this, I do not want to simply ignore the problem of literary diversity in the book of Jeremiah. Rather, my suggestion follows from the recognition that the problem is not easily solved and therefore needs to be analysed from various perspectives – and in my view, plausibly best from a more synchronically oriented perspective.

——————————— 57

Robert P. Carroll, “Century’s End: Jeremiah Studies at the Beginning of the Third Millennium,” in Recent Research on the Major Prophets, ed. Alan J. Hauser, RRBS 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 221. 58 Georg Fischer, “A New Understanding of the Book of Jeremiah: A Response to Robert R. Wilson,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 37. See also Fischer, “Mysteries of the Book of Jeremiah: Its Text and Formulaic Language. A Response to Hermann-Josef Stipp,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures, 166–85; Fischer, Jeremia: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007), 91–114. 59 Fischer, “A New Understanding,” 26. 60 Cf. Fischer, “A New Understanding,” 32–33.

24

Chapter I: Introduction

3.1.1.2 The Nature of Prose contra Poetry However, even for scholars offering a more synchronically oriented approach to the prose–poetry problem in the book of Jeremiah, the conclusion regarding how individual prose passages are related to, and function in, their present literary contexts tends to be quite traditional. In accordance with Carroll’s working assumption, the prose passages are considered to serve the function of clarification and explanation. As Stulman puts it: [T]he so-called ‘C’ material of Jeremiah 1–25 introduces equilibrium and stabilization into this messy world and witnesses univocally to order and nomos [...] fills in literary and symbolic ‘gaps of indeterminacy’ that present themselves in the poetry [...] reperforms the absonant language of the poetry by sublimating it with univocal prose. As a result, ‘C’ tames and ‘codifies’ the wild and multiphonic voices of the poetry [...].61

Central to this conclusion are common ideas of the literary nature of prose and poetry. As Robert R. Wilson has noted, prose and poetry are to be understood in terms of a continuum, “with ‘pure’ poetry at one end and ‘pure’ prose at the other, and mixed forms appearing somewhere in the middle”.62 Despite the idea of a continuum, however, the extreme points of the continuum tend to serve as points of orientation. So, while poetry tends to be perceived as “imprecise and for this reason [...] an ideal medium for expressing ambiguity”, prose is typically seen “to express precision and to resolve ambiguity”.63 Hence, when it is emphasized that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints are to be understood as explanations, it follows not only from the idea that they feature in passages assumed to be secondary to their literary contexts, but also from the simple fact that they are in prose. That is just how prose is assumed to function. However, two things intrigue me to seek beyond even this latter argument. First, thus far the focus of attention of more synchronically oriented studies analysing the function of the prose material in its current literary context has primarily been on larger blocks of prose material – that is, the prose sermons and narratives64 – and not so much on the brief prose passages in Jer 1–25. The latter, though, appears to be even more intertwined with their immediate literary contexts than the prose sermons and narratives, surrounded as they are by a miscellany of literary material – for instance, series or oracles of judgment, reports of visions, and reports of symbolic actions. We may therefore not a priori assume that the brief prose passages function in the same way as the prose sermons and narratives in relation to their literary contexts. Second, as Wilson underscores, the prose–poetry distinction is to be understood in terms of a continuum. Considering this, I suggest that instead of taking the extreme ——————————— 61

Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 52 (italics his). Wilson, “Poetry and Prose,” 419. 63 Wilson, “Poetry and Prose,” 419–20. 64 For example, Wilson, “Poetry and Prose”; Stulman, Order Amid Chaos. 62

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

25

points of the continuum as points of orientation, it might be worthwhile looking for new, and possibly better, ways of understanding the relationship between them. After all, to what extent, for instance, are passages 1:15–16 and 9:11–15 “‘pure’ prose”?65 And, on the other hand, where on the continuum are we to place the vision reports in 1:11–14 and symbolic actions in 16:1–9 and 19:1– 2a, 10–11a? To sum up, although prevailing readings of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints are rooted in well-established assumptions concerning the prose–poetry distinction in the book of Jeremiah, it seems plausible to question these assumptions and to suggest alternative approaches. Essential to my approach will be paying close attention to points of connection and continuity between the prose passages containing the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints and their immediate literary contexts and looking for new and possibly better ways of understanding the relationship between them. As noted above, the point is not to simply ignore the problem of literary diversity in the book of Jeremiah. After all, I argue that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints are distinct from the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. Rather, the point is to offer a new and more helpful approach to a highly complex problem. The success of my approach may be judged by the persuasiveness of my readings of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. 3.1.2 The Formulaic Character of the Prose Material The literary style of D [i.e. the Deuteronomist] is distinctive and easy to recognize. It shows a tendency to use a limited number of words and phrases over and over. [...] The style sometimes has great beauty, but is frequently repetitious and monotonous. [...] The ideas of D are likewise distinctive and very pervasive. Their most important ideas were the following. Yahweh alone is to be worshipped by Israel, and that with pure worship cleansed of pagan elements, with legitimate sacrifice only in the Jerusalem temple. Idolatry, the worship of foreign deities, is one of the greatest of sins. D had great interest in working out a theology of history, with special emphasis on the doctrine of divine retribution.66

Characteristic of much of the prose material in the book of Jeremiah is its formulaic language. While it has long been recognized that the language bears close resemblance to that of Deuteronomy and DtrH,67 Philip J. Hyatt and Win-

——————————— 65 See, for instance, John Bright, Jeremiah, AB 21 (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 68– 69; Thompson, Jeremiah, 311; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 553, on the discussion of poetic elements in 9:11b, 14b. 66 Hyatt, “Deuteronomic Edition,” 252. 67 For brief overviews that also include research from the nineteenth century, see, for example, Henri Gazelles, “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy,” in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies, ed. Leo G. Perdue and B. W. Kovacs, trans. Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984), 89–111; J. Philip Hyatt, “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy,” in A Prophet to the Nations, 113–14.

26

Chapter I: Introduction

fried Thiel were among the first to use the language as a criterion for identifying Deuteronomistic redaction in the book of Jeremiah.68 Fundamental to their argument was the assumption of a rather straightforward one-to-one relationship between diction, semantic meaning, theological concepts, and authors. Their influence was considerable, and as a result, the ʻāzab-complaints – along with several other linguistic terms and expressions – were long seen to represent stereotypic Deuteronomistic diction and thus to bear evidence of Deuteronomistic redaction.69 More recently, however, Hermann-Josef Stipp has advanced the discussion by coining the term “Deutero-Jeremianic”.70 As Stipp, and others, have observed, the formulaic language “occurs in texts from a remarkable variety of backgrounds, some of them outright non-Deuteronomistic”.71 In other words, the occurrence of formulaic language is not in itself sufficient as evidence of Deuteronomistic redaction. In accordance with this, it has been emphasized that the term “Deuteronomistic” must be reserved for “passages that share the ideology of the Deuteronomistic History”.72 Several important insights follow from Stipp’s observations. First, Stipp’s observations demonstrate the problem of too loose usage of the designation “Deuteronomistic”, both in general and in connection with the formulaic prose of the book of Jeremiah in particular. Evidently, the problem of “Pan-Deuteronomism” is still urgent more than thirty years after Norbert Lohfink73 put the problem on the agenda.74 Second, Stipp demonstrates the problem of lumping all the formulaic prose material together into one unified group of material and underscores the need to recognize the diversity of the formulaic prose material in the book of Jeremiah. In other words, it is crucial to analyse the formulaic language in the light of its current literary context and pay close attention to the theological intent of each passage.75 Finally, from the need to recognize the diversity of the formulaic prose material follows the need to pay close attention ——————————— 68

Hyatt, “The Deuteronomic Edition,” 247–67; Thiel, Jeremia 1–25. Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 341. 70 Cf. Hermann-Josef Stipp, Deuterojeremianische Konkordanz, ATSAT 63 (St. Otillien: EOS, 1998). 71 Stipp, “Formulaic Language,” 164. 72 Maier, “Deutero-Jeremianic Texts,” 106–07. 73 Norbert Lohfink, “Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?” in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung”, ed. Walter Groß and Dieter Böhler, BBB 98 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 313–82. 74 See, for example, Steven L. McKenzie, “The Still Elusive Deuteronomists,” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. Martti Nissinen, VTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 401–08. 75 This is indeed one of Weippert’s basic claims as, against Thiel’s approach, she argues: “Der Kontext ist es, der die individuelle Bedeutung eines Wortes oder einer Formel bei einem bestimmten Verfasser gegenüber anderen möglichen Bedeutungen in anderen Kontexten abgrenzt und festlegt” (Weippert, Die Prosareden, 24). 69

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

27

also to distinctive features and not only stereotypical features in passages employing formulaic language. As Fischer reminds us, the formulaic prose material may “combine commonly used phraseology with originality”.76 Of course, none of these insights are new. In the past few decades, they have been taken seriously into account by several scholars. Yet, again it is typical that the focus of scholars’ attention most commonly has been on larger blocks of prose material – that is, the prose sermons and narratives. This, however, is not very surprising given the fact that the brief prose passages in Jer 1–25 tend to be perceived as self-contained literary units and therefore are left without relevant literary contexts in light of which the formulaic language can be analysed. As an unfortunate result, the formulaic language in our passages continues to be treated as stereotypical Deuteronomistic language by most current scholars. Accordingly, our passages (esp., 5:19; 9:11–15; and 16:10–13) are often considered among the clearest evidence of Deuteronomistic influence in the composition of the book of Jeremiah.77 In this study, however, I seek to apply the insights following from Stipp’s observations on the brief prose passages containing the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints and combine these insights with my own suggestions regarding the prose–poetry distinction made above. For, as will be seen, in addition to being marked with stereotypical features, our prose passages are characterized by holding noteworthy distinctive features, features that in the light of their present literary context, in fact, seem to be quite deliberate. And it is based on those features I seek to challenge the common understanding that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints reflect a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah. However, the success of my argument depends not only on the persuasiveness of my reading of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints but also on the adequacy of my understanding of what is meant by the expression “a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah”. Above I have briefly pointed out what it usually seems to imply, and what I mean by the expression.78 But also in this case the larger picture is rather complex. Therefore, let me conclude this discussion of the broader research context of the prosaic ʻāzabcomplaints by clarifying the background for my understanding and use of the expression in this study. 3.1.3 Tendencies of Deuteronomistic Redaction(s) [T]he Jeremianic prose tradition took shape and developed in the exilic period in Babylon. [...] [T]he words of Jeremiah and his life as Yahweh’s faithful prophet were given contemporary relevance and those who had undergone judgment and found themselves scattered

——————————— 76

Fischer, “Mysteries of the Book of Jeremiah,” 179. See the discussion between Maier and Römer noted above (I.3.1). 78 See I.2.1. 77

28

Chapter I: Introduction

among the nations and far from the land of their fathers were assured that the Lord who had justly punished them for their sins was even now preparing to give them a future and a hope.79

In the seminal study Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien,80 Martin Noth developed the thesis that the corpus of Deuteronomy–2 Kings is the product of a single author written in the aftermath of the defeat of Judah to present a theological interpretation of the history of Israel from Moses to the exile. Noth’s Deuteronomist was a historian motivated by mainly one concern: to explain the downfall of Israel as an expression of YHWH’s rejection of the people. According to Noth, the Deuteronomist saw the defeat and exile of Judah as the final end of Israel. The judgment of YHWH was to be understood as something “Endgültiges und Abschließendes”.81 While Noth’s thesis of a unified and coherent redaction of Deuteronomy–2 Kings was broadly accepted, he was soon criticized for the claim that this long work was written simply to explain the downfall of Israel, without any hopes for the future.82 In line with this critique, Nicholson, from the perspective of the book of Jeremiah, transformed Noth’s Deuteronomist – as a single historian in Judah – into a group of teachers and preachers in Babylon serving the interests of the Babylonian Golah community.83 The kerygma of Nicholson’s Deuteronomists is “far from [...] only a word of judgment”.84 Just as DtrH calls to repentance and thus proclaims “the means whereby the breach between Yahweh and Israel could be healed so that they could once more realize their existence as his people”,85 Nicholson argues that the formulaic prose material of the book of Jeremiah calls for repentance and proclaims “the promise of a return from exile and a restoration to the land”.86 In accordance with his tradition-historical approach, Nicholson argues for development in the Deuteronomist’s proclamation of hope for salvation: from the call to repentance (7:1–8:3; 11:1–14; 17:19–27; 18:1–12), to the hope that the repentance of the people will be ensured by YHWH himself (24:4–7; 29:10–14), and finally, to the hope that YHWH will also endow them with the ability to live in accordance with the law (31:31–34; 32:36–41).87 ——————————— 79

Nicholson, Preaching, 134–35. Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1943). 81 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 108. 82 See, for example, Hans Walter Wolff, “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,” ZAW 73 (1961): 171–86. For a good survey of the history of research on DtrH, see Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 13–43. 83 Cf. Nicholson, Preaching, 116–35. 84 Nicholson, Preaching, 75. 85 Nicholson, Preaching, 75. 86 Nicholson, Preaching, 85. 87 See Nicholson, Preaching, 71, 80–93. 80

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

29

A similar criticism of Noth manifests itself in Thiel’s understanding of the Deuteronomistic redaction of the book of Jeremiah. Thiel argues against the view that the Deuteronomists understood the judgment of YHWH in terms of “die völlige Vernichtung”88 and suggests instead that Jer 1–45 reflect a single Deuteronomistic redaction in which both calls to repentance and various forms of oracles of salvation are included.89 However, quite a lot has happened in the field since Nicholson and Thiel presented their theses. As indicated above, the idea of a monolithic Deuteronomistic redaction of the book of Jeremiah has very much fallen out of favour in current scholarship.90 Several scholars have identified themes and tendencies in the formulaic prose material that seem to run counter to tenets usually associated with Deuteronomistic theology.91 Instead of arguing for a coherent line of development and expansion, elements of tension and conflict between themes in the formulaic prose material and Deuteronomistic theology have been emphasized. A classic case in point is the study of Karl Friedrich Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuch.92 Pohlmann draws attention to how Jer 21:1– 10 and 24:4–7, without further ado, simply apportion salvation and hope to the Babylonian Golah and unconditional and total judgment to Zedekiah and those left in Judah. In these texts there is no call for repentance: “[T]he criterion for judgment or salvation is not obedience to the law but belonging to a particular group.”93 Hence, rather than offering evidence of Deuteronomistic redaction, Pohlmann argues that these texts reflect a distinctive pro-Golah redaction.

——————————— 88

Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 302. See Thiel, Jeremia 1–25; Thiel, Jeremia 26–45. 90 However, see Albertz, Israel in Exile, 302–45; Römer, “How Did Jeremiah Become a Convert?” 189–99; Römer, “The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah,” 168–83. 91 For example, Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches, FRLANT 118 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978); Christopher R. Seitz, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah, BZAW 176 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989); Christl M. Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora: Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomium in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches, FRLANT 196 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002); Carolyn J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in Deutero-Jeremianic Prose, OTS (London: T&T Clark, 2003). The latter is especially interesting. Sharp argues that the formulaic prose material shows traces of an ideological conflict between a Judah-based fulldoom position and a Babylonia-based pro-Golah position. The former, Sharp argues, anticipates “a full, imminent, and inescapable doom approaching Judah and all the nations of the world” (Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, 158). Although Sharp examines different texts and her approach is quite different from my own – Sharp’s approach is more redaction-critically oriented – her findings encourage me to pursue my thesis about total judgment. 92 Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuch. 93 Konrad Schmid, The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 171. 89

30

Chapter I: Introduction

Others – like, for instance, Gunther Wanke, Rainer Albertz, and HermannJosef Stipp – have sought to distinguish between different Deuteronomistic redactions.94 Most interesting to us in that respect is the suggestion that Jer 1–25* reflect a distinct Deuteronomistic redaction. In contrast to other Deuteronomistic redactions, Jer 1–25*, it is argued, are almost exclusively focused on explaining the defeat and exile of Judah as a result of divine judgment.95 Obviously, according to this understanding, the Deuteronomists responsible for Jer 1–25* are closer to Noth’s historian than to Nicholson’s preachers. That is, the Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah is first and foremost an explanation of the disaster – not so much an explanation that anticipates hope. That said, however, not even these scholars seem to embrace Noth’s suggestion that the judgment of YHWH was understood as something “Endgültiges und Abschließendes”.96 At least, after having emphasized that “the redactors of JerD1 (i.e. the Deuteronomistic redactors of Jer 1–25*) were primarily occupied by the reasons for God’s judgment”,97 Albertz, for instance, goes on to argue: However, absolving Yahweh of all blame for the disaster was not the only reason the redactors of JerD1 stylized the catastrophe as criminal rejection of a chance of salvation. This explanation also gave them the chance to derive initial lessons for the future. If rejection of the word of God, as presented in the Torah and most recently in the prophecy of Jeremiah, had brought disaster (Jer 25:8–9), then the survivors of the catastrophe had a chance for the future only if they would finally hearken to this word. Therefore, the Deuteronomistic redactors, probably echoing their own preaching, urged those who had been left behind to turn from their evil ways (25:5) and to totally amend their religious and social conduct (7:3, 5–7). Then, as Yahweh had promised in the time of Jeremiah, they would be allowed to dwell in the land that God had given their ancestors ‘forever and ever’ (7:7; 25:5), as the redactors solemnly declared.98

With this statement, Albertz comes quite close to the classic – and highly influential – thesis of Thiel on the redactional tendencies in Jer 1–25. According to Thiel, the Deuteronomistic redaction of Jer 1–25 was motivated by a twofold concern: the interpretation of the defeat and exile of Judah and the future existence of the people of God.99 In Jer 1–25 this comes to expression in two rhetorical forms: the question–answer scheme (esp., 5:19; 9:12–15; 16:10–13), ——————————— 94 For example, Wanke, Jeremia; Albertz, Israel in Exile, 302–45; Herrman-Josef Stipp, “Das judäische und das babylonische Jeremiabuch: Zur Frage der Heimat der deuteronomistischen Redaktionen des Jeremiabuchs,” in Studien zum Jeremiabuch, FAT 96 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 325–47. 95 Cf. Wanke, Jeremia, 16–17; Albertz, Israel in Exile, 329–30; Stipp, “Das judäische und das babylonische Jeremiabuch,” 344–45. 96 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 108. 97 Albertz, Israel in Exile, 330. 98 Albertz, Israel in Exile, 330. 99 See Thiel, Jeremia 1–25.

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

31

which meets the need of a “Gerichtsbegründung”,100 and the so-called “Alternative Predigt” of the prose sermons (esp., 7:1–15; 17:19–27; 22:1–5), which calls the people to repentance and provides hope of a possible future.101 It is this tendency, which after all seems quite common, to somehow associate the passages of 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 (as well as 1:15–16 and 19:2b–9, 11b–13) with the calls to repentance of the prose sermons, that I seek to challenge in this study. As I will argue, read in the light of their current literary contexts, the prose passages in which the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints feature exclude any hope of a possible future. On the contrary, they announce the end of the story of YHWH and the people of Judah. Admittedly, this does not necessarily exclude the possibility that they reflect a Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah. In fact, my thesis seems to go well with Noth’s conception of the Deuteronomist. Not many, however, seem to have applied Noth’s conception on the formulaic prose material in the book of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah scholarship, Nicholson’s and Thiel’s construals of the Deuteronomist(s) have heavily influenced the field. It is against that background I argue that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints should not be understood as expressions of a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah. That the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints form part of passages announcing total judgment seems better counted as evidence of the diversity of the formulaic prose material. At least, the passages stand in sharp contrast to both the idea of “Alternative Predigt” and pro-Golah tendencies found in other parts of the formulaic prose material. 3.1.4 Summary The understanding that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints reflect a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah relates to a larger hermeneutical or rationale-providing framework well established in modern research on the book of Jeremiah. First, the framework provides reasons why the brief prose passages containing the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints are commonly treated as more or less self-contained literary units serving an explanatory function in relation to their immediate literary contexts. Second, by being defined as Deuteronomistic, the brief prose passages are considered part of a larger “network” of specific texts. As a result, the expression “typical Deuteronomistic explanation” tends to mean more than a mere explanation. It is an explanation that anticipates hope. However, it seems legitimate to challenge this framework and to approach our brief prose passages in a different way. Working from the assumption that the book of Jeremiah, in its present form (MT), is a highly complex and yet, at ——————————— 100 101

See Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 295–300. See Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 290–95.

32

Chapter I: Introduction

least to some extent, a carefully shaped literary whole, my close reading of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints in light of their literary context is characterized by: 1. paying close attention to the distinctiveness of each individual prose passage of which the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints form part. 2. paying close attention to points of continuity between the brief prose passages of which the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints form part and their immediate (poetic) literary contexts and thus looking for new ways of understanding the relationship between them. These characteristics contrast respectively the tendencies to focus on (stereo)typical features in our brief prose passages and to treat them as more or less self-contained literary units serving a fixed explanatory function in relation to their (poetic) literary contexts. By approaching our prose passages in this way, new light will be shed on how the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints function in their immediate literary contexts. 3.2 The Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints: Divine Lament and the Notion of Divine Pathos Just like the prevailing reading of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, the new reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints, represented in particular by the readings of Fretheim and Brueggemann, relates to a larger framework. Essential in the latter’s respect is the notion of divine pathos. The notion was introduced to biblical scholarship by Abraham Joshua Heschel in his classic study, The Prophets.102 Claiming that the God of the prophets is a God of pathos, in this study Heschel argues, for instance, that “God’s pain and disappointment ring throughout the book of Jeremiah”.103 According to the popular story, by introducing the notion of divine pathos Heschel helped biblical scholars to rid themselves of the unfortunate influence of classical theistic concepts of God inherited from Hellenistic philosophy, and to rediscover the passionate and emotional God of the Hebrew Bible. Heschel is thus often praised for contributing to a paradigm shift – a before and after – in biblical scholarship. As A. R. Pete Diamond puts it, the biblical scholar finally became “free to take the mediated myth of YHWH more seriously”104 and to distinguish more satisfactorily between “the god in the book and faith’s god of the book”.105 No doubt, the introduction of the notion of divine pathos does mark a change in biblical scholarship. A telling example of evidence is that while Heschel’s ——————————— 102 Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962). The book is a revised and expanded version of Heschel, Die Prophetie, AsPMCO 22 (Krakow: Librairie de l’Académie, 1936). 103 Heschel, Prophets, 109–10. 104 Diamond, “Interlocutions,” 50. 105 Diamond, “Interlocutions,” 50, n. 5.

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

33

claim about the book of Jeremiah just mentioned above was quite extraordinary in the 1960s when The Prophets was published, similar claims feature frequently in more recent studies on the book of Jeremiah. For instance, according to Stulman, “God is besieged by pain in the book”,106 whereas Fretheim argues: The relational God of Jeremiah is no aloof God, somehow present but detached. God is a God of great passions (pathos); deep and genuine divine feelings and emotions are manifest again and again.107

Accordingly, over the past few decades an increasing number of texts in the book of Jeremiah have been identified as divine laments, or in some way or another been seen to bear evidence of divine lament and suffering. Among these are the poetic ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2:13, 17, 19; and 5:7. To further elaborate my claim that the new reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints follows naturally from the notion of divine pathos, I offer in the following a closer look at Heschel’s notion of divine pathos (3.2.2) and how it is defined, applied, and integrated by Fretheim (3.2.3) and Brueggemann (3.2.4) into their larger theological frameworks, especially in relation to the book of Jeremiah and the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. However, although the number of texts being identified as divine laments has multiplied in the decades since the 1960s, this is not only due to the influence of Heschel. A survey of research (3.2.1) shows that Heschel’s role in the change should not be exaggerated and that the popular story about the notion of divine pathos needs to be somewhat revised. Besides, as will be seen, Heschel was certainly not the first scholar to identify laments of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah. My goal in the following reaches beyond just providing a fair presentation of a specific field of research. The presentation intends to serve a twofold purpose: both to pave the way for my claim that Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints follow more from an unfortunate adoption of the notion of divine pathos than from convincing close readings of the complaints in their literary contexts, and, on the other hand, to frame and clarify the theoretical basis of my thesis regarding the nature of YHWH’s lament in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. As regards the latter, both the survey of research and, paradoxically enough, Heschel’s definition of divine pathos offer interesting resources for reconsidering the nature of YHWH’s lament in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. I therefore conclude the current section with a brief presentation of the theoretical framework in the light of which I have developed my thesis: “3.2.5 Phenomenologies of Desire and Different Types of Lament”.

——————————— 106 107

Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 120. Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 33.

34

Chapter I: Introduction

3.2.1 Divine Lament in the Book of Jeremiah Evidently, lamentation in the book of Jeremiah has traditionally been associated with Jeremiah the prophet – “the weeping prophet”.108 But contrary to what the popular story about the notion of divine pathos may lead us to think, the traditional tendency to associate lament with Jeremiah did not necessarily imply a rejection of the idea that the book of Jeremiah also contained laments of YHWH. It is worth noting, for instance, that scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth century apparently had no problems with speaking of the poem in Jer 12:7–13 as a divine lament. Although the poem primarily was praised for its uniqueness,109 it is clear that scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth century were not alien to the idea that YHWH, in that poem, is portrayed as a suffering God – a God in pain because of his forsaking of his beloved people.110 What seems to have been alien to them, however, is the way current scholars understand the nature of the divine suffering. While Fretheim claims that YHWH in 12:7–13 speaks as a victim of his own abandonment and thus laments his own situation – “His displacement” and “His homelessness in the land, in the world”111 – scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth century identified the forsaken people as the victims and interpreted the suffering and lament of YHWH in terms of compassion. For instance, according to Carl Heinrich Cornill, “hier ist es Jahve selbst, der das Klagelied singt über seines Volkes Leid [...] weil er doch ein Gott der Liebe und dies Volk seiner Seelen Liebling ist”.112 The difference is noteworthy and corresponds to the line of difference I seek to draw with respect to the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. I will come back to this below.113 For now, the point is simply to bring a little nuance to the popular story about the notion of divine pathos. However, what was once praised for its uniqueness is today perceived to be just one out of several texts. A good part of the reason for the change is certainly the introduction of the notion of divine pathos to biblical scholarship. ——————————— 108 For a survey of the history of the reception of the portrait of Jeremiah as “the weeping prophet”, see Mary Chilton Callaway, “The Lamenting Prophet and the Modern Self: On the Origins of Contemporary Readings of Jeremiah,” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honour of Herbert B. Huffmon, ed. John Kaltner and Louis Stulman (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 48–62. 109 See, for example, Paul Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia, KAT 10 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1922), 143. 110 See esp. Carl Heinrich Cornill, Das Buch Jeremia (Leipzig: Tauchniz, 1905), 160–65; Volz, Jeremia, 142–45. A similar reading also seems partly implied in Ferdinand Hitzig, Der Prophet Jeremia (Leipzig: Weidmannsche, 1841), 99–102; Karl Heinrich Graf, Der Prophet Jeremia (Leipzig: Weigel, 1862), 191–94. 111 Fretheim, Suffering, 134. In fact, Fretheim actually quotes Heschel here, but he does so with consent. The quote is from Heschel, Prophets, 112. See also Stulman, Jeremiah, 128. 112 Cornill, Jeremia, 161 (italics his). See also Volz, Jeremia, 143–44. 113 See I.3.2.5.

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

35

But it is insufficient as the sole explanation. Among the factors involved is the view growing forth, especially from the 1960s and onwards, that earlier attempts to distinguish between the word of God and the word of man in prophetic literature should be abandoned.114 Especially noteworthy in that respect is Claus Westermann’s definition of the “basic forms of prophetic speech”.115 In contrast to his predecessors, Westermann included the accusation and not only the announcement of judgment in the basic prophetic speech form. This allowed Westermann to identify notes of divine lament in the accusations against the people, like, for instance, in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints.116 Another important factor behind the current situation is the introduction of more synchronic and text-oriented approaches to biblical studies in the 1970s and 80s. Scholars turned their interest to the variety of literary characters, speakers, and voices in texts while emphasizing that the identification of speaker and addressee in each unit had to be based exclusively on text-immanent criteria rather than form-critical criteria.117 This gave rise, or at least renewed force, to the discussion of the identity of the speaking “I” in the socalled “weeping poems” (e.g. 4:19–22; 8:18–9:2; 9:9–10, 16–21; 10:17–22; 13:15–17; 14:17–18).118 As a result of the understanding that the identification of the speaker had to be exclusively derived from text-immanent arguments, several “weeping poems” ended up being taken as laments of YHWH, rather ——————————— 114

Especially important in this respect was the claim that the prophets of ancient Israel first and foremost were messengers and mouthpieces of YHWH. Cf. James F. Ross, “The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1962), 98–107. For a survey of research, see, for example, David L. Petersen, “Ways of Thinking About Israel’s Prophets,” in Prophecy in Israel, ed. David L. Petersen, IRT 10 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 1–21. 115 Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, trans. Hugh Clayton White (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991). Originally published as Westermann, Grundformen prophetischer Rede, BEvT 31 (Munich: Kaiser, 1960). 116 See Westermann, Basic Forms, 202–03. The three units of 12:7–13; 15:5–9; and 18:13–17, identified as divine laments by Westermann, have been thoroughly examined by Jenö Kiss, Die Klage Gottes und des Propheten: Ihre Rolle in der Komposition und Redaktion von Jer 11–12, 14–15 und 18, WMANT 99 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003), 56–70, 119–36, 184–92. 117 See, for example, Mark E. Biddle, Polyphony and Symphony in Prophetic Literature Rereading Jeremiah 7–20, SOTI 2 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996), 1–13, esp. 8–11. 118 Joseph M. Henderson, “Who Weeps in Jeremiah VII 23 (IX 1)? Identifying Dramatic Speakers in the Poetry of Jeremiah,” VT 52 (2002): 191–206; Timothy Polk, The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self, JSOTSup 32 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 35–126; Kathleen M. O’Connor, “The Tears of God and Divine Character in Jeremiah 2–9,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress), 179–85; Biddle, Polyphony, 28–40.

36

Chapter I: Introduction

than – or, at least, just as much as119 – laments of Jeremiah.120 This conclusion has been further substantiated both by scholars drawing attention to the motif of weeping gods and goddesses in comparative material121 and by scholars focusing on how the identification between the characters of Jeremiah and YHWH serves as a literary device in the book, so that, for instance, the people’s rejection of the prophet is understood to imply a rejection of YHWH.122 From this brief survey, we may note two things. First, the survey reminds us of what I pointed out already at the beginning of the study: by focusing exclusively on the poetic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH, I will be dealing with just a piece of the material relevant for a full discussion of divine suffering and lament in the book of Jeremiah. And since one size hardly ever fits all, we need to be careful when drawing our conclusions from our analysis of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. This applies even if I will include a brief excursus on some of the “weeping poems” below.123 Second, and more importantly here and now, the change in modern scholarship from considering Jer 12:7–13 as a unique example of divine lament to seeing divine suffering as a central theme in the book of Jeremiah is closely related to significant hermeneutical changes in modern research on prophecy and prophetic literature in general – changes that I also presuppose and build on in this study.124 We should therefore be careful not to exaggerate the importance of Heschel and the notion of divine pathos. But this reminder of caution also works the other way around. That is, we’d better also be careful not to put too much blame on the influence of classical theism for why all the texts ——————————— 119 Several scholars, however, refuse to draw a sharp distinction between YHWH and Jeremiah in these texts; see, for example, Fretheim, Jeremiah, 147; Else K. Holt, “Word of Jeremiah – Word of God: Structures of Authority in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen, ed. John Goldingay, LHBOTS 459 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 174–82. 120 See, for example, O’Connor, Pain and Promise, 59–68; Pamela J. Scalise, “The Way of Weeping: Reading the Path of Grief in Jeremiah,” WW 22 (2002): 415–22. On these poems, see also Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25; Fretheim, Jeremiah; Stulman, Jeremiah. 121 For example, Mark S. Smith, “Jeremiah IX 9 – A Divine Lament,” VT 37 (1987): 97– 99; J. J. M. Roberts, “The Motif of the Weeping God in Jeremiah and Its Background in the Lament Tradition of the Ancient Near East,” OTE 5 (1992): 361–74; Ahida Calderón Pilarski, “A Study of the References to ‫ בת־עמי‬in Jeremiah 8:18–9:2(3): A Gendered Lamentation” in Why? How Long? Studies on Voice(s) of Lamentation Rooted in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. Leann Snow Flesher, Carol J. Dempsey, and Mark J. Boda, LHBOTS 552 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), 21–35. 122 For example, Mark S. Smith, The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of Jeremiah 11–20, SBLMS 42 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 43– 60; A. R. Pete Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama, JSOTSup 45 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 176–91; Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 120–36. 123 See Excursus 2. 124 See more below in I.4.

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

37

identified as divine laments today have not been so earlier. For instance, that earlier scholarship did not consider the poetic ʻāzab-complaints as carrying notes of divine lament, nor read the “weeping poems” as divine laments, is hardly simply because earlier scholars considered “a [weeping] deity” to be “too vulnerable, powerless, and embodied – or perhaps insufficiently macho”, as O’Connor suggests.125 As the example of 12:7–13 shows, scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth century had apparently no problems speaking of a lamenting YHWH. And yet, the example of 12:7–13 shows a noteworthy difference between current scholars and the scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth century regarding their understanding of the nature of YHWH’s suffering and lament. And with respect to that difference, the notion of divine pathos definitively seems to play an essential role. 3.2.2 Abraham Joshua Heschel and the Notion of Divine Pathos Time and again, Fretheim and Brueggemann acknowledge their debt to Abraham Joshua Heschel, the Jewish philosopher of religion – and of Judaism in particular – for the notion of divine pathos. Before turning to Fretheim and Brueggemann, I would therefore like to briefly highlight some characteristics of Heschel’s discourse on divine pathos. To begin with, it should first be noted that more than an exegetical study of the prophetic literature,126 The Prophets – in which he coins the notion – is an analysis of what characterized the biblical prophets as historical servants of God and what Heschel calls “the prophetic consciousness”.127 Or, as he puts it elsewhere, “[w]hat I have aimed at is an understanding of what it means to think, feel, respond, and act as a prophet”.128 Evidently, Heschel, as a philosopher of religion, pursues his aim not so much for the sake of biblical scholarship as to demonstrate the relevance of religion – particularly the Jewish religious tradition – to modern man. Essential to Heschel’s work is his conviction that, because of having become alienated from the fundamental questions to which religion is an answer, modern man is in danger of losing a true understanding of himself as a human being. Blinded by the illusion of self-sufficiency, the modern man tends to see himself as “an all-inclusive end to himself”,129 thereby ending up with no need for, or interest in, either God or the ——————————— 125

O’Connor, “Tears of God,” 183. Heschel is not very sympathetic to historical-critical scholarship of his own time. See, for example, Heschel, Prophets, 3–26. See also Jon D. Levenson, “Religious Affirmation and Historical Criticism in Heschel’s Biblical Interpretation,” AJSR 25 (2000–2001): 25–44. 127 Heschel, Prophets, xiii. 128 Heschel, Prophets, xv. 129 Abraham Joshua Heschel, Man Is Not Alone: A Philosophy of Religion (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1951), 193. 126

38

Chapter I: Introduction

other. Among the sources giving rise to this illusion, Heschel argues, is the classical theistic notion of divine self-sufficiency,130 which according to Heschel implies that “the entire world outside Him [God] can in no way be relevant to Him”.131 Heschel’s goal is to help and offer relief to modern man by drawing attention to the Jewish religious tradition in general and the biblical prophets in particular. In that tradition, Heschel finds resources to develop the basic theme of his thinking: the interrelation of God and man.132 In sharp contrast to any notion of self-sufficiency, Heschel claims that the relationship between God and human beings is to be understood in terms of mutual need. Man needs God and God needs man. The critical entry point into such an understanding of man and of man’s relationship with God is to realize that one is needed, not only by other humans but ultimately by God.133 And this, Heschel argues, is what the prophets – as the primary experiencers and communicators of this relationship of mutual need – help us realize. And this is also where the notion of divine pathos belongs in Heschel’s thinking. Never in history has man been taken as seriously as in prophetic thinking. Man is not only an image of God; he is a perpetual concern of God. The idea of pathos adds a new dimension to human existence. Whatever man does affects not only his own life, but also the life of God insofar as it is directed to man. The import of man raises him beyond the level of mere creature. He is a consort, a partner, a factor in the life of God.134

Obviously, for Heschel, the pathos of God implies far more than that strong emotions are attributed to God. First and foremost, it serves as an expression of God’s “perpetual concern” for his creatures. But Heschel does not stop there. God’s “perpetual concern” for human beings is significantly further defined. As a special object of God’s “perpetual concern”, the human being is “a factor in the life of God”, an indispensable factor that “affects [...] the life of God” by its behaviour and its destiny. The latter is important as it highlights Heschel’s principal idea: that God needs man. This idea sheds in turn interesting light on his reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints and other similar complaints of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah: “The heart of melancholy beats in God’s words: ‘My people have forgotten Me’ ([Jer] 18:15); ‘they have forsaken Me’ ——————————— 130

See, for example, Heschel, Prophets, 235. Heschel, Prophets, 232. 132 See Fritz A. Rothschild, “Introduction,” in Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism. From the Writings of Abraham Joshua Heschel, ed. Fritz A. Rothschild (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), 11. 133 See especially Heschel, Man Is Not Alone, 241–43. According to Shai Held, Abraham Joshua Heschel: The Call of Transcendence (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013), 8, “[t]he sentence that appears in Heschel’s writings more frequently than any other – one encounters it countless times in his vast corpus – is a simple one: ‘God is in need of man’”. 134 Heschel, Prophets, 226. 131

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

39

([Jer] 2:13; cf. 1:16; 2:17, 19; 3:21; 5:7; 13:25; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4).”135 Obviously, if it is presupposed that God needs man – and his people – God cannot but lament their forsaking and forgetting of him. However, before turning to Fretheim and Brueggemann, one interesting final point regarding Heschel’s definition of divine pathos should be noted. For time and again, Heschel emphasizes that the concern involved in God’s pathos is “transitive” and not “reflexive” in nature.136 That is, [w]hile man’s concern for others is often tainted with concern for his own self and characterized as a lack of self-sufficiency and a requirement for the perpetuation of his own existence [i.e. reflexive concern], God’s care for His creatures is a pure concern [i.e. transitive concern].137

How this distinction fits with what Heschel otherwise claims about the pathos of God is somewhat disputed.138 But the majority view seems to be that there is a conflict in Heschel’s thinking at this point, as it is not easy to see how Heschel’s rejection of a reflexive concern of God could be harmonized with his anchoring of God’s concern for man in God’s need for man.139 Nor is it easy to see how the distinction is related to many of Heschel’s concrete portrayals of God as a suffering and lamenting God. Evidently, Heschel portrays God several times as an afflicted and victimized God who laments his own fate.140 Not surprisingly, therefore, in the reception of Heschel’s notion of divine pathos, Heschel’s rejection of a reflexive concern in favour of a transitive concern of God plays virtually no role, at least not in Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s understanding of divine pathos.141 Still, the distinction between reflexive and transitive concerns is interesting, especially to us. For, used as a tool to distinguish between different types of suffering and lament, the distinction between reflexive and transitive concerns corresponds to a large extent with the distinction I am making with respect to the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. That is, while the new reading of Fretheim, Brueggemann, et al. seems to suggest that YHWH laments out of a reflexive concern for himself – as a victim of the people’s forsaking of him – I will argue that the lament of YHWH is better understood as compassionate lament motivated by a transitive concern for the people. One could therefore argue that Heschel, by his notion of divine pathos, has paved ——————————— 135

Heschel, Prophets, 110. See Heschel, Prophets, 225–26, and especially Man Is Not Alone, 142–43. 137 Heschel, Man Is Not Alone, 143. 138 See, for example, Thomas G. Weinandy, Does God Suffer? (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000), 64–68. 139 See, for example, Jeff B. Pool, God’s Wounds: Hermeneutics of the Christian Symbol of Divine Suffering, PTMS 100 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009), 170–71; Held, Abraham Joshua Heschel, 9, n. 37. 140 See, for example, Heschel, Prophets, 109–115. 141 See below in I.3.2.3–4. 136

40

Chapter I: Introduction

the way not only for the new reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints but, paradoxically enough, also for my reading. However, for Heschel himself, the purpose of distinguishing between reflexive and transitive concerns is not to provide a tool for distinguishing between different types of suffering and lament of YHWH. On the contrary, As indicated in the quote above, Heschel’s point is to emphasize the radical ontological difference between God and man, and to qualify the pathos attributable to God. Playing on Isa 55:8, Heschel emphasizes that God’s pathos should never be confused with man’s pathos: “My [God’s] pathos is not your [man’s] pathos.”142 Contrary to Heschel, it is not my intention to make any metaphysical or ontological claims about God. The claims I make about YHWH in this study are claims about a literary character: the YHWH of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2:13, 17, 19; and 5:7. Therefore, in order to develop a tool to distinguish between different types of suffering and lament of YHWH in this study, I have decided to pursue another route than that of Heschel’s distinction between reflexive and transitive concerns.143 Yet, the fact that there appears to be some overlap between Heschel’s distinction and my distinction is noteworthy. Moreover, with regard to the following presentation of how Fretheim and Brueggemann define and apply the notion of divine pathos, Heschel’s ontological interest and insistence on the radical difference between God’s pathos and man’s pathos is also noteworthy. For as will be seen, this point, which was obviously fundamental to Heschel, plays hardly any role in Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s understanding of divine pathos – especially not Brueggemann’s.144 A significant part of the reason, of course, is that both Fretheim and Brueggemann – just like me – are primarily oriented towards the literary world of the text and YHWH as a literary character.145 But it is also related to the language and categories they use to define divine pathos. In the following, we will look deeper into their understanding and use of the notion of divine pathos, and by doing so, also clear the ground for examining how appropriate their notions are for the reading of YHWH’s poetic ʻāzab-complaints in the book of Jeremiah.

——————————— 142

Heschel, Prophets, 276. See below in I.3.2.5. 144 See also Matthew R. Schlimm, “Different Perspectives on Divine Pathos: An Examination of Hermeneutics in Biblical Theology,” CBQ 67 (2007): 678–82. 145 See also Julie Woods, Jeremiah 48 as Christian Scripture. PTMS 149 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), esp. 100–04. Woods offers a nice presentation of the hermeneutical basis of Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s approaches to the book of Jeremiah. 143

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

41

3.2.3 Terence E. Fretheim and the Notion of Divine Pathos146 The intended effect of the book of Jeremiah, according to Fretheim, is “to bring to shamed and hurting exiles a clear word about the kind of God who is present and active on their behalf”.147 Essential for Fretheim in that respect is that this “kind of God” is “a God of pathos”.148 Indeed, Fretheim considers “God of pathos” to be the central unifying theme of the book.149 “The God of Jeremiah”, as Fretheim puts it, is “a God of great passions (pathos); deep and genuine divine feelings and emotions are manifest again and again”.150 However, just like Heschel, Fretheim conceives “pathos” to be more than just an umbrella term for strong emotions. It says something fundamental about the character of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah – and in the Hebrew Bible in general. Fretheim’s key term, however, is not so much “pathos” as “relatedness” or “relationality”,151 which seem to be more or less synonymous terms for Fretheim. In what appears to be like a programmatic statement, Fretheim claims: “Relationality is basic to the very nature of God.”152 Fretheim develops and shapes this thesis in dialogue with two different interlocutors. 3.2.3.1 Contemporary Constructive Theology Fretheim is clear that his “study of the theology in the text” is “undertaken within the context of a study of contemporary constructive (as well as more traditional) theologies”.153 Fretheim does so by continuing Heschel’s polemic against classical theistic categories and seeks to replace those categories with perspectives inspired by contemporary constructive theologies. In accordance ——————————— 146 My presentation of Fretheim is primarily based on reading his The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, OBT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); “The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament God-Talk,” HBT 10 (1988): 47–70; “Divine Dependence Upon the Human: An Old Testament Perspective,” ExAud 13 (1997): 1–13; Jeremiah, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2002); “The Character of God in Jeremiah,” in Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical Interpretation, ed. William P. Brown (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 211–29; “Theological Reflections on the Wrath of God in the Old Testament,” HBT 24 (2002): 1–26; God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005). For a nice presentation of Fretheim’s contribution to the field of Old Testament theology, see Bernt A. Strawn and Michael J. Chan, “Introducing Fretheim: His Theology and His God,” in What Kind of God? Collected Essays of Terence E. Fretheim, ed. Bernt A Strawn and Michael J. Chan, Siphrut 14 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 3–17. 147 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 5. 148 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 33. 149 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 33–34. 150 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 33. 151 See, for example, Strawn and Chan, “Introducing Fretheim,” 3–6. 152 Fretheim, God and World, 16. 153 Fretheim, “Repentance,” 48–49.

42

Chapter I: Introduction

with the so-called “relational turn” in constructive theology of the twentieth century,154 Fretheim makes the concept of relatedness or relationality the centre of his theological work.155 As a result, it is essential for Fretheim that the relationships into which YHWH freely enters must be understood as “real” and “genuine” relationships.156 That is, the relationships of YHWH are fundamentally reciprocal in character, in the sense that YHWH, as he enters into relationships, “will have to give up some things for the sake of the relationship”157 to the extent that YHWH is not only a powerful active agent but also vulnerable to, and in need of, those with whom he enters into relationships. In other words, Fretheim, not unlike Heschel, argues that as a God in relationships, YHWH not only acts but is also acted upon and constantly at risk and vulnerable to the situation and behaviour of the other part of the relationships. However, Fretheim’s argument for this understanding of the character of YHWH is a bit different from Heschel’s and reveals why Fretheim has occasionally been associated with process theology.158 According to Fretheim, the world of the Hebrew Bible is by nature an “interrelated world” – “a spiderweb of a world”.159 This means that each created entity is defined primarily by its relationships. This implies, in turn, that as YHWH enters a relationship with this interrelated world, he does so to the extent that “every movement in the web affects God as well; God will get caught up in these interconnections [of the created entities] and work within them”.160 3.2.3.2 Traditional Biblical Scholarship In addition to contemporary constructive theologies, Fretheim develops and shapes his thesis in dialogue with biblical scholarship. The relationship with the latter, however, tends to be one of opposition. Fretheim recognizes that “God is the subject of thousands of verbs in the OT [...] [and] one’s theistic perspective will often profoundly affect how those verbs and sentences will be interpreted”.161 Against the background of this claim, Fretheim laments how ——————————— 154 See, for example, F. LeRon Shults, Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Turn to Relationality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 11–38; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship, CSCD 18 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 112–24. 155 Cf. Fretheim, God and World, 16: “[R]elationship is so basic a category that it should be placed up front in any overarching consideration of Old Testament theological perspectives.” 156 Fretheim, Suffering, 36; Fretheim, God and World, 15–16. 157 Fretheim, Suffering, 36–37. 158 The extent to which it is appropriate to associate Fretheim with process theology is disputed. See, for example, Strawn and Chan, “Introducing Fretheim,” 4–5, esp. n. 6. 159 Fretheim, God and World, 19–20. 160 Fretheim, God and World, 20. 161 Fretheim, “Repentance,” 49–50.

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

43

traditional scholarship has been trapped by classical theistic perspectives in their exegesis.162 The problem, Fretheim argues, is that biblical scholars traditionally have locked their focus on covenant (‫)ברית‬, both as a term and as a theological idea, and have thereby been caught up in a monarchical image in their understanding of the nature of YHWH’s relationships. Fretheim, however, claims “[t]he inadequacy of covenant language in specifying the nature and range of the God-human or God-Israel relationship”.163 Instead, Fretheim argues that “the predominant OT perspective on this issue [the nature of YHWH’s relationships] is organismic”,164 not monarchical. The organismic imagery, Fretheim further argues, is to be found in the anthropomorphic metaphors of the Hebrew Bible, and especially, then, in the emotional love language and marital metaphors of the Hebrew Bible. This language, Fretheim argues, reveals that YHWH’s relationships are to be understood as intimate relationships of genuine reciprocity. It is against this background that we must understand Fretheim’s claim that the “God of pathos” constitutes a central theme in the book of Jeremiah.165 And, I would argue, it is against the background of this theological framework that we must understand his reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. For as a relational God, essentially defined by his “genuine relationships”, YHWH cannot but yearn for the restoration of broken relationships. YHWH simply cannot give it up since, to repeat from above, “[r]elationality is basic to the very nature of God”.166 YHWH is in need of, and dependent upon, his people. Therefore, a broken relationship is by necessity a loss to YHWH. It is important to recognize the implications of the fact that Fretheim makes the concept of relationality the centre of his theological thinking and of how he defines the YHWH–people relationship as a “genuine relationship”. It implies that categories like vulnerability, need, and dependence are almost definitional of the character of YHWH as a God of pathos. Although Fretheim appeals to metaphors suggesting an organismic understanding of the YHWH–people/world relationships, he is, praiseworthily enough, clear that his understanding of YHWH as a God of “genuine relationships” is developed in close dialogue with contemporary constructive theology – and in contrast to tendencies in traditional biblical scholarship and, not least, to the God of classical theism. ——————————— 162 Fretheim, Suffering, 17: “As one surveys the landscape of OT scholarship on the understanding of God, the portrait of God which normally emerges bears a striking resemblance to the quite traditional Jewish or Christian understanding of God regnant in synagogue or church. [...] Thus, for example, God is understood in terms of traditional categories: freedom, immutability, omniscience, and omnipotence; if not explicitly stated, they are commonly assumed.” 163 Fretheim, God and World, 15. 164 Fretheim, Suffering, 35. 165 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 35. 166 Fretheim, God and World, 16.

44

Chapter I: Introduction

The question, however, is how adequate Fretheim’s theological framework and his idea of “genuine relationship” is for the reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH. To what extent is the relationship that is broken by the people’s forsaking of YHWH to be understood as a “genuine relationship”? At least, given the fact that Fretheim’s understanding of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints as laments of loss follows so naturally from his notion of “genuine relationships”, we should pay close attention to how Fretheim anchors his reading in the rhetoric of the ʻāzab-complaints and their literary contexts and ask to what extent his reading follows from a plausible reading of ʻāzab-complaints in light of their literary contexts. 3.2.4 Walter Brueggemann and the Notion of Divine Pathos167 In his commentary,168 Brueggemann reads the book of Jeremiah as a theological interpretation of the last days of Judah and the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE and identifies “the pathos of Yahweh” as one of the central perspectives employed in this interpretation.169 Like Fretheim, Brueggemann anchors “the pathos of Yahweh” primarily in the emotional love language and the marital imagery in the book. This language and imagery, Brueggemann argues, keeps the YHWH–people relationship “from being a mere formal transaction and marks ——————————— 167 My presentation of Brueggemann is primarily based on reading his “A Shape of Old Testament Theology, I: Structure Legitimation,” in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text, ed. Patrick D. Miller (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 1–21; “A Shape of Old Testament Theology, II: Embrace Pain,” in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text, 22–44; To Pluck Up, To Tear Down: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 1–25, ITC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997); The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, OTT (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007); An Unsettling God: The Heart of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). For helpful introductions to, and presentations of, Brueggemann’s approach to Old Testament theology, see Leo G. Perdue, The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 263–98; Perdue, Reconstructing Old Testament Theology: After the Collapse of History, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 239–79. 168 The two-volume commentary Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 1–25, ITC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); Brueggemann, To Build, To Plant: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 26–52, ITC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) was reprinted with a new preface “Recent Jeremiah Study,” in Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). My references in the following are to the original two-volume version. 169 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 3, identifies three basic elements or perspectives on the disaster in the book of Jeremiah: “Israel’s covenant with Yahweh, rooted in the memories and mandates of the Sinai tradition”; “the pathos of Yahweh”; and “the royal-temple ideology of Jerusalem”. In accordance with his characteristic theology of imagination (cf., for example, Perdue, Collapse, 290–96), Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 2–7, 15–19, argues that the first two serve to “critique and reject the claims of the royal-temple ideology” and to “create a new alternative community” by means of imagination.

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

45

it instead by pathos and pain, deep infidelity and betrayal, and the capacity for newness”170 In contrast to Fretheim, Brueggemann does not speak of divine pathos as a theme in the book, even less a unifying theme. For Brueggemann, “the pathos of Yahweh” designates one specific (or a specific set of) “theological claim(s)”171 and interpretive voice(s), rooted in the Hosea tradition.172 In the present form of the text, however, this voice is juxtaposed with other competing voices. First and foremost, it is set “in deep tension” with “the Deuteronomic paradigm of covenant”.173 While the latter teaches that disobedience to the covenant stipulations results in sanctions of curse and death, YHWH’s “yearning pathos” is “a departure from and a critique of” this paradigm, claiming instead “God’s fundamental inclination toward Judah”.174 This tension and the dialectic between them is essential to Brueggemann’s reading of the book of Jeremiah. It makes clear that “God is, in the life of Judah, more complex, free, and less controllable”175 than is proclaimed by one single voice. However, Brueggemann sees divine pathos not only as a specific theological claim in the book of Jeremiah but also as an adequate category to unfold “the big idea of the Old Testament”, namely “that God of ancient Israel [...] is a God in relationship”.176 Before elaborating on this, however, I would first like to highlight a characteristic feature in Brueggemann’s approach to Old Testament theology that is important to understand his discourse on divine pathos. Fundamental to Brueggemann’s approach is that he makes speech – that is, speech about YHWH – the “reality to be studied” and the “proper subject” of theology.177 The ramifications of this point of departure are extensive. A significant consequence is that YHWH is to be perceived primarily as a linguistic construct, a “rhetorical articulation”.178 What is more, the character of YHWH ——————————— 170

Brueggemann, Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, 15–16. While the term “pathos” has no equivalent in biblical Hebrew, Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 5, n. 8 seems to suggest that the verb ‫ חשק‬may be close to it: “The verb suggests a passionate, craving physical grasping of another in powerful embrace. It is this dimension of passionate craving that is articulated in Jeremiah’s vivid imagery, and that gives his poetry such power and poignancy.” See also Brueggemann, Theology, 416–17. 171 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 4. 172 See, for example, Brueggemann, Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, 15–16, 149–54. 173 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 5. 174 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 5. 175 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 5. 176 Brueggemann, Unsettling God, xi (italics his). 177 Brueggemann, Theology, 117–18. 178 Brueggemann, Theology, 66: “I shall insist, as consistently as I can, that the God of Old Testament theology as such lives in, with, and under the rhetorical enterprise of this text, and nowhere else and in no other way.” However, Brueggemann does not argue that “God in the Old Testament is [...] a mere rhetorical construct”. His point is simply that ontological assumptions about God “depend on speech for their establishment as viable, credible claims” (Brueggemann, Theology, 65, n. 11).

46

Chapter I: Introduction

is considered fundamentally dependent upon this rhetorical articulation – in all its multivocality. From this Brueggemann develops a framework for his notion of divine pathos along two lines. 3.2.4.1 YHWH as a Fully Articulated Personal Agent First, the idea that YHWH is to be perceived as a “rhetorical articulation” implies that questions of historicity and ontology are bracketed. The focus of attention is on the world of the text – the drama(s) unfolding in the texts.179 Crucial for Brueggemann is that this dramatic rendering of YHWH must not be restricted by issues of “critical possibility or metaphysical essence”.180 The presentation of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible is to be considered a result of creative imagination, which, instead of seeking to represent and describe some reality behind the text, seeks to evoke alternative realities in front of the text.181 Characteristic of this type of dramatic and imaginative rendering of YHWH is precisely that it seeks beyond preconceived and conventional categories. And it is from this perspective that Brueggemann combats settled and conventional categories with respect to the divine. Time and again Brueggemann emphasizes the need to focus on the rhetoric of the text, arguing that “[i]n doing theology, one must be vigilant against importing claims from elsewhere”,182 especially not, it seems, from categories of classical theism. Just like Heschel and Fretheim, Brueggemann emphasizes that YHWH is quite different from the God of classical theism. However, it is important to note that Brueggemann’s insistence on focusing solely on the rhetoric does not go alone but is accompanied by a specific conceptualization of YHWH. For, as Brueggemann argues, “‘God’ as rendered in the Old Testament is a fully articulated personal agent, with all the particularities of personhood and with a full repertoire of traits and actions that belong to a fully formed and actualized person”.183 And just like the idea of “genuine relationship” for Fretheim, the idea of YHWH as a “fully articulated personal agent” has considerable consequences for Brueggemann’s understanding of the character of YHWH. As it behoves a person to be relational and in need of others and thus to combine subjectivity and objectivity, causality, and receptivity, etc., the same, Brueggemann argues, applies to YHWH as a “fully articulated personal agent”. In other words, as a “fully articulated personal agent”

——————————— 179

On the idea of “dramatic mode”, see Brueggemann, Theology, 69–70. Brueggemann, Theology, 118. 181 See Brueggemann, Theology, 64–66, 67–68, on his understanding of the evocative nature of language and of the significance of the idea of creative imagination. 182 Brueggemann, Theology, 65. 183 Brueggemann, Unsettling God, 2. 180

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

47

it behoves YHWH to be the forsaken one when abandoned by his beloved people. And the notion of divine pathos, Brueggemann argues, helps clarify and articulate this perspective: It [i.e. divine pathos] concerns the engagement of YHWH with Israel and with the world, and therefore YHWH’s vulnerability and readiness to be impinged upon. The particular focus of Heschel on God’s hurt in the traditions of Hosea and Jeremiah makes abundantly clear that the God of Israel is unlike the God of the scholastic theology. [...] The peculiar character of this God is as an available agent who is not only able to act but is available to be acted upon.184

3.2.4.2 Bipolar Framework The second line to be pursued to understand Brueggemann’s notion of divine pathos relates to his “thematization”185 of the speech of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible. In contrast to the monistic tendency of Fretheim, Brueggemann argues that “[a]ny theology must be bipolar to reflect the central tension of the literature”.186 This is so, according to Brueggemann, because in the Hebrew Bible we are offered a “disjunctive rendering of YHWH”.187 The idea of bipolarity is defined and applied in several ways and at various levels in Brueggemann’s Old Testament theology. The most basic and best-known expressions of pairs used by Brueggemann include, for instance: structure legitimation and embrace of pain; above the fray and in the fray; unlimited sovereignty and risky solidarity; core testimony and counter testimony, and so on. Within this framework, divine pathos is associated with the pole of embrace of pain, in the fray, risky solidarity, and so on. Accordingly, it is variously contrasted with divine covenant and divine self-regard,188 divine freedom,189 common theology, and divine sovereignty.190 The variety of terms and categories used by Brueggemann signals the complexity of his discourse on divine pathos. Nevertheless, one basic tendency seems clear enough. Within Brueggemann’s multifaceted framework, the notion of divine pathos highlights the relatedness, need, and vulnerability ——————————— 184 Brueggemann, Unsettling God, 9 (italics his). Brueggemann switches between the expressions “available agent” and “fully articulated personal agent”. The former seems to be preferred in his Old Testament theology of 1997; see, for example, Brueggemann, Theology, 407–12. 185 On Brueggemann’s use of the term “thematization”, see Brueggemann, Theology, 265–66. An essential point with respect to Brueggemann’s idea of “thematization” is that, given his understanding of YHWH as a “rhetorical articulation”, it must be understood in processive, not substantive terms (for more, see, for example, Perdue, Reconstructing, 251– 55). 186 Brueggemann, “Structure Legitimation,” 4. 187 Brueggemann, Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, 265–78. 188 Brueggemann, Theology, 296–02. 189 Brueggemann, Theology, 410–12. 190 Brueggemann, Unsettling God, 2–5.

48

Chapter I: Introduction

of YHWH in contrast to YHWH’s freedom and sovereignty, and YHWH’s intimacy and emotional involvement with his people in contrast to the idea of a formal, contractual relationship. The tension between relatedness and freedom, emotional and contractual, is reflected in Brueggemann’s reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints as he defines the people’s forsaking of YHWH as a betrayal against YHWH – a betrayal by which YHWH is affected and to which YHWH reacts as “a fully articulated personal agent”. In short, the people’s forsaking of YHWH leaves YHWH as a “scorned spouse”,191 and “a betrayed [and] shamed lover”192 in need of restoring his honour. To conclude, most important to us here is to realize the implications of Brueggemann’s understanding of YHWH as “a fully articulated personal agent”. Not unlike Fretheim’s idea of “genuine relationship”, the understanding of YHWH as “a fully articulated personal agent” makes categories like relatedness, need, and vulnerability almost definitional of the character of YHWH as a God of pathos.193 The crucial question, however, is how adequate and helpful Brueggemann’s conceptualization of YHWH really is for the reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. Does it, for instance, take sufficiently into account the distinctiveness of YHWH as a literary character, which was briefly illustrated above by pointing out the fact that YHWH – in sharp contrast to the speakers of the human ʻāzab-complaints in the Psalms – is characterized as “the source of living water” in 2:13?194 At least, in light of the fact that Brueggemann’s understanding of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints as laments of betrayal follows so naturally from his conceptualization of the YHWH of pathos, we should pay close attention to how Brueggemann anchors his reading in the rhetoric of the ʻāzab-complaints and their literary contexts – to what extent the reading follows from a plausible reading of ʻāzab-complaints in light of their literary contexts. 3.2.5 Phenomenologies of Desire and Different Types of Lament So far in this section (3.2), I have basically done two things. On the one hand, I have relativized the significance of the notion of divine pathos by pointing out that the claim that the book of Jeremiah contains portraits of YHWH as a suffering God may not be as dependent upon the (re)discovery of the notion of ——————————— 191

Brueggemann, Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, 81. Brueggemann, Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, 82. 193 Cf. Brueggemann, Unsettling God, xi–xii: “[T]he God of ancient Israel is a God in relationship who is ready and able to make commitments and who is impinged upon a variety of ‘partners’ who make a difference in the life of God. [...] The view taken here is that such relatedness is intrinsic to existence and definitional for all agents, including the agency of the God of ancient Israel.” 194 See I.2.2. 192

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

49

divine pathos as some might assume. Evidently, biblical scholars had apparently no problems with speaking of and identifying laments of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah even before Heschel introduced the notion of divine pathos.195 On the other hand, I have emphasized the significance of the notion of divine pathos by showing its significance for the new reading of the poetic ʻāzabcomplaints. For if the notion of divine pathos is presupposed – that YHWH somehow needs his people – the claim that YHWH laments as a forsaken and victimized God in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints follows almost by necessity. It is in the tension between these two observations, so to speak, that my thesis finds its place. As I will argue, the problem with the new reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH is not that it reads the ʻāzab-complaints as laments of YHWH. The problem is the type of lament the new reading attributes to YHWH. Instead of a lament of a forsaken and victimized YHWH I suggest that YHWH’s lament in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints is to be understood as a compassionate lament. In the following, I will clarify the theoretical framework in the light of which I have developed my thesis. Although both Cornill’s and Volz’s reading of Jer 12:7–13196 and Heschel’s distinction between reflexive and transitive concerns197 have served as important sources of inspiration, key to my thesis is the question of how YHWH’s desire for his people implied in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints is to be construed. For if, as I have argued above, the presence of divine lament in the poetic ʻāzabcomplaints is signalled by the fact that the poetic ʻāzab-complaints feature in literary contexts suggesting a desire for continuing relationships on YHWH’s part, our construal of this desire of YHWH becomes essential to our understanding of the lament of YHWH.198 Characteristic both of the notion of divine pathos defined by Heschel, Fretheim, and Brueggemann and of the new reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints is that YHWH’s desire for his people is perceived in terms of lack and need. The relationship broken by the people’s forsaking of YHWH is a relationship needed by YHWH. Thus, when the people forsake YHWH, YHWH becomes the forsaken one. Evidently, the tendency to define desire in terms of lack and need has a long and well-established history. In Socrates’s famous inquiring of Agathon about the nature of Eros in Plato’s Symposium,199 Socrates asks rhetorically: ——————————— 195

See I.3.2.1. See I.3.2.1. 197 See I.3.2.2. 198 This follows from the fact that above I (I.2.2) defined lament as “an utterance elicited by an incident threatening or ruining the realization of a desired goal on the speaker’s part” and argued that it is characteristic of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints that they feature in literary contexts suggesting a desire for continuing relationships on YHWH’s part. 199 Plato, Symp. 199C–201C (Lamb, LCL). 196

50

Chapter I: Introduction

Then such a person, and in general all who feel desire, feel it for what is not provided or present; for something they have not or are not or lack; and that sort of thing is the object of desire and love?200

The understanding of desire as a lack and something striving for fulfilment was later adopted by Augustine. In the famous opening of Confessions, for instance, speaking of man’s desire for God, Augustine indirectly defines God as something that fills a lack and satisfies a need: “[O]ur heart cannot be quieted till it may find repose in thee.”201 A similar understanding of desire also manifests itself in Augustine’s description of the sins of his youth. In Books II and III of Confessions Augustine describes how he was led astray by the “concupiscence (concupiscentia) of the flesh” so that he was no longer able to “discern the beauty of chaste affection, from a fog of impure lustfulness (libido)” and therefore ended up finding himself in places of “unchaste desires (cupiditas)”.202 Here, desire becomes a mark of sinfulness, particularly associated with sexual sins. Augustine develops a rich vocabulary for sexual desire (e.g. concupiscentia, libido, cupiditas)203 and characterizes it in various ways – for instance, as an unruly force, a slave driver, a necessity, and an obsessiveness.204 Common to most of the characteristics is that they are associated with some sort of lack and/or need. The influence of Augustine’s negative description of sexual desire can hardly be exaggerated and is well illustrated by Friedrich Nietzsche’s wellknown dictum: “Christianity gave Eros poison to drink – he did not die of it, to be sure, but degenerated into vice.”205 However, Nietzsche’s criticism of Augustine and the tradition after him is first and foremost related to the association of Eros with sin. The understanding of desire as lack and need was maintained, if not reinforced, by Nietzsche and his contemporaries. The classic representative in modern times is, of course, Sigmund Freud. For Freud, Eros represents man’s self-preserving life instincts, in contrast to the self-destructing death instincts (Thanatos).206 Without digging deep into Freud’s complex theory of instincts, it is important to note how Freud, by associating Eros with ——————————— 200

Plato, Symp. 200E (Lamb, LCL). Augustine, Conf. I.I.1 (Watts, LCL). 202 Augustine, Conf. II.II.2 (Watts, LCL). 203 See Johannes van Oort, “Sin and Concupiscence,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine’s ‘Confessions’, ed. Tarmo Toom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 102–05. 204 See, for example, Augustine, Conf. VI.XII.22, VI.XV.25 (Watts, LCL). 205 Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics, 1990), §168. 206 See Sigmund Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, trans. C. J. M. Hubback (London: The International Psycho-Analytical Press, 1922) where he introduces the opposition between life and death instincts. 201

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

51

survival and self-preservation, ultimately ends up associating Eros with fundamental biological needs like the need for food, sex, sleep, and so on.207 By doing so, Freud maintains and reinforces the tendency to understand desire in terms of lack and need. Obviously, Heschel, Fretheim, and Brueggemann are in good company when associating desire with lack and need. Indeed, in doing so, they reflect a dominant tendency in the Western philosophical and theological tradition. However, the dominant tendency has not gone undisputed. Another understanding or type of desire has been suggested, a type that I would argue is more helpful for the understanding of YHWH’s poetic ʻāzab-complaints in the book of Jeremiah. The roots of this type of desire can be traced back to Plato’s Symposium too. In his own speech about Eros, after his discussion with Agathon, Socrates tells the story of Eros’s birth – a story first told to him by Diotima.208 According to this story, Eros is a child of Poros (Resource) and Penia (Poverty) and thus a mix of both. By birth neither immortal nor mortal, in the selfsame day he is flourishing and alive at the hour when he is abounding in resource; at another he is dying.209

Pursuing the idea that Eros is a child of not only Penia but also of Poros, some philosophers and theologians throughout history have drawn attention to another type of desire – a desire associated with excess, gift, and grace. An early representative of this tradition is the Christian Neoplatonic theologian PseudoDionysius (fifth–sixth century CE). To the embarrassment of many later theologians,210 Pseudo-Dionysius names God Eros and, as Lisa Isherwood succinctly puts it, imagines “a God who lacks nothing but desires everything”.211 For, far from lack and need, the desire of God, according to Pseudo-Dionysius, is rooted in “the superabundance of his goodness” and defined as “Good seeking good for the sake of the Good”.212 It is a desire of excess, gift, and grace directed towards the other (i.e. the entire universe).213 The association of desire with excess and abundance has reappeared with renewed vigour among continental philosophers in the twentieth century, and especially among French phenomenologists for whom desire became essential to understanding the human condition – how we connect to the world and how ——————————— 207

See Freud, Beyond, 54–78. Plato, Symp. 203B (Lamb, LCL). 209 Plato, Symp. 203E (Lamb, LCL). 210 For example, Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson (London: SPCK, 1953). 211 Lisa Isherwood, “Impoverished Desire,” in The Poverty of Radical Orthodoxy, ed. Lisa Isherwood and Mark Zlomislić, PES 3 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 2. 212 Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names, 708B (Luibheid and Rorem, CWS). 213 For a helpful introduction to Pseudo-Dinoysius’s use of Eros as a name for God, see John M. Rist, “A Note on Eros and Agape in Pseudo-Dionysius,” VC 20 (1966): 235–43. 208

52

Chapter I: Introduction

the world appears to us.214 Especially important in this respect is the Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. As the central part of his programme – to demonstrate how the encounter “the face of the other” calls us to radical responsibility to and for the other215 – Levinas offers a phenomenological description of desire and develops the notion of “metaphysical desire.”216 By “metaphysical desire” Levinas does not mean what we might expect him to mean – for instance, some theoretical and abstract desire beyond experience. On the contrary, “metaphysical desire” is experienced in the encounter with “the face of the other”.217 This desire is called “metaphysical” because it is characterized by acknowledging the otherness of the other – of the desired. As directed “toward something else entirely, toward the absolutely other”218 – what exceeds that which can be fully grasped or totalized, – “metaphysical desire” is radically different from need. Unlike need, “metaphysical desire” does not intend to be satisfied. As Levinas himself puts it, “[t]he metaphysical desire has another intention; it desires beyond everything that can simply complete it. It is like goodness – the Desired does not fulfil it but deepens it”.219 The difference from need is crucial to Levinas as it means that “metaphysical desire”, rather than being met, filled, and satisfied by the other, ultimately intends to serve the other. In other words, “metaphysical desire” lives for the other rather than from the other.220 Obviously, there are several significant points of difference between Levinas’s “metaphysical desire” and the desire Pseudo-Dionysius attributes to God. One is that while Levinas’s “metaphysical desire” is initiated or caused by the object of the desire – the one desired221 – the desire of God, according to Pseudo-Dionysius, is unmotivated and follows from the nature of the desiring subject (God). Yet most interesting to us is the fact that both, each in their own way, identify a type of desire rooted in excess rather than lack and need, and in continuity with that, a desire that seeks good for the desired – a desire ——————————— 214

For a brief survey of the role of desire in French philosophy in the twentieth century, see Jason W. Alvis, Marion and Derrida on the Gift and Desire: Debating the Generosity of Things, CTP 85 (Cham: Springer, 2016), 7–13. 215 With regard to the “big idea” of Levinas, see, for instance, Simon Critchley, “Introduction,” in The Cambridge Companion to Levinas, ed. Simon Critchley and Robert Bernasconi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 1–32. 216 See esp. Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, trans. Alphonso Lingis (Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press, 1969), 33–52. 217 On Levinas’s use of the expression “the face of the other”, see Bernhard Waldenfels, “Levinas and the face of the other,” in The Cambridge Companion to Levinas, ed. Simon Critchley and Robert Bernasconi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 63–81. 218 Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 33 (italics his). 219 Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 34. 220 Cf. Corey Beals, Levinas and the Wisdom of Love: The Question of Invisibility (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 38. 221 See, for example, Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 50.

3. Broader Research Context and Working Assumptions

53

to give rather than to have and receive. As I will argue, it is along these lines that YHWH’s desire for his people in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints is best understood. Manifesting itself in accounts of gracious acts of salvation and blessing, YHWH seeks good and desires well-being for his people. From such a type of desire, when the desired goal is ruined by the people’s forsaking of YHWH, flows a compassionate lament – a lament on the people’s behalf. Or to use the terminology of Heschel, one may say: a transitive lament rooted in YHWH’s transitive concern for the people. For, as I will argue, the true victim of the people’s forsaking of YHWH is the people themselves, not YHWH. The point is not that YHWH needs the people – as the notion of divine pathos seems to imply – but that the people need YHWH. For the sake of clarity, by arguing this I am not making an absolute, even less a dogmatic, statement. I am not saying that a desire of lack and need is never attributed to YHWH in the Hebrew Bible.222 Neither would I argue that one type is typical biblical/Jewish and the other is typical Greek. To highlight the problem of oversimplified dichotomies characteristic of the popular story of divine pathos, I have deliberately drawn attention to Plato’s Symposium to define both types of desire and to both a Neoplatonic theologian and a committed Jew with respect to the desire of giving. My claim is simply that the distinction between a desire of need and lack and a desire of giving is a helpful tool to identify different types of lament, and that it proves especially helpful with respect to the discussion of the nature of the lament of the poetic ʻāzabcomplaints of YHWH. 3.2.6 Summary The popular claim that the new reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints follows from a simple and liberating turn of attention, away from preconceived and limiting concepts of God to an open-minded engagement with the rhetoric of the text itself, is obviously a gross oversimplification. First, that biblical scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries did not identify as many laments of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah as scholars do today follows to a large extent from different understandings of what prophecy is and how prophetic literature is to be read, not necessarily from some unfortunate theological prejudices and inclinations. In fact, biblical scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries apparently had no problem with speaking of and identifying laments of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah. Second, what really is new about the new reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints is the type of lament it attributes to YHWH. The new reading claims ——————————— 222

A good example where YHWH appears to be attributed a desire of lack and need is Isa 43:4 where YHWH’s love ( ‫ )אהב‬for Jacob/Israel is defined in terms of Jacob’s/Israel’s preciousness ( ‫ )יקר‬to YHWH. See also Ps 116:15.

54

Chapter I: Introduction

that YHWH laments as a victim of the people’s behaviour. This claim, however, follows naturally from the notion of divine pathos as the notion presupposes that YHWH, in some sense or another, needs his people. The idea that God needs man is key to Heschel’s notion of divine pathos and implied both in Fretheim’s definition of the YHWH–people relationship as a “genuine relationship” and Brueggemann’s conceptualization of YHWH as “a fully articulated personal agent”. The fact that the new reading follows so naturally from the notion of divine pathos highlights the importance of asking: what really is the exegetical basis of the new reading? Or put differently, how helpful is the notion of divine pathos for the reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints? Through a close dialogue with Fretheim and Brueggemann over the reading of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints I will argue below that the notion of divine pathos is not helpful but rather alien to the rhetoric of the complaints and their literary contexts. The problem both with the new reading and the notion of divine pathos is that they tend to presuppose that YHWH’s desire for his people is to be understood in terms of lack and need. Contrary to this, I suggest that the poetic ʻāzab-complaints are better understood if YHWH’s desire for his people implied in the complaints is understood in terms of excess and abundance.

4. Approach and Outline of the Study 4. Approach and Outline of the Study

It should be clear by now that this study will be divided into two quite distinct parts. In my analysis of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, I will be dialoguing with scholars who read them as expressions of a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah. My analysis of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints will in turn be framed by a close dialogue with the readings of Fretheim and Brueggemann. However, despite the different interlocutors, my approach to the text will be the same in both parts of the study. Based on my working assumption, i.e. that the book of Jeremiah, in its present form (MT), is a highly complex and yet, at least to some extent, a carefully shaped literary whole,223 and motivated by my basic research question – how the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH are to be understood – I offer a close reading of each ʻāzab-complaint in light of its literary context in the present form of MT.224 My reading is literary and synchronic in ——————————— 223

See I.3.1.1.1. This means that I seek to stay with MT’s reading even in cases where it proves difficult, and some scholars might have chosen other readings. In cases where elements central to my argument are involved, efforts will be made to clarify my understanding of MT’s reading. However, a couple of times I consider MT to be unreadable and different readings 224

4. Approach and Outline of the Study

55

character, focusing basically on “the world of the text”,225 which means that I read the ʻāzab-complaints in light of their narrative settings given in the book. This means that I read the ʻāzab-complaints as utterances of YHWH (ultimately) addressed to the people of Judah and/or Jerusalem before or just after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem.226 Thus it should be needless to say that both YHWH and the people are regarded as literary characters. The task will essentially consist in identifying the literary unit that can plausibly be considered as the immediate and primary literary context of each ʻāzab-complaint, analysing the form and structure of the unit, and, finally, clarifying how the ʻāzab-complaint functions as an utterance of YHWH to the people in this literary context. It is through such analyses that I seek to clarify the profile of the ʻāzab-complaints. The approach follows from my basic thesis that the readings to be challenged read the ʻāzab-complaints in light of frameworks that seem to be in tension with the rhetoric of the ʻāzab-complaints and their immediate literary contexts. The objective is basically to point out these tensions and argue for alternative readings along the lines of my own approach to the texts. In other words, my basic objective, strictly speaking, is simply to demonstrate the significance of the literary context for an understanding of the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH. Certainly, this is not to suggest that my reading – in contrast to the readings I will challenge – is free from a larger framework of assumptions and presuppositions. The most obvious and critical point in that respect – in addition to my distinction between, and favouring of, a desire of excess and abundance over a desire of lack and need – is my delimitation of the literary contexts of the ʻāzab-complaints. For instance, above I have rejected the prose–poetry distinction as a supreme guide to delimit literary units in the text and justified the rejection by appealing to my assumptions concerning the composition of the book of Jeremiah. Instead of literary forms, I give priority to rhetorical patterns, structures, and thematic changes. However, this choice has implications not only for what is allowed to be included as part of the literary contexts of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, but also for my understanding of what should not be included. The most critical examples are 1:10 and 16:14–15, which contain ——————————— will be chosen. Efforts to justify my choice will then be included. So, even if my default position is to read the present form of MT, some textual critical discussions will be included in my analyses of the texts. 225 For various methods associated with a literary approach, see, for example, Manfred Oeming, Contemporary Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction, trans. Joachim F. Vette (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 55–74; John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1996), 77–179. 226 Strictly speaking, the ʻāzab-complaints in 5:19 and 16:11 form part of discourses between YHWH and Jeremiah. In both cases, however, the people are the ultimate addressees as YHWH is prescribing a future dialogue between Jeremiah and the people.

56

Chapter I: Introduction

announcements of hope and salvation. Evidently, if these passages were to be included, respectively, as part of the literary contexts of the ʻāzab-complaints in 1:16 and 16:11, it would certainly be difficult to argue that these prosaic ʻāzab-complaints justify announcements of total judgment. Given the fact that they display a marked difference in theme, however, they are to be excluded from the literary contexts of 1:16 and 16:11. Admittedly, though, just as much as following from my criteria for delimiting literary units, the exclusion of these passages follows from my understanding of the book as a whole – that these announcements of salvation and hope are better understood as elements juxtaposed with announcements of total judgment than as elements mitigating and undermining words of total judgment. I return to this point in my final conclusions and outlook. In the final chapter, the conclusions of my analyses and discussions of the two types of ʻāzab-complaints will be brought together in an attempt to shed new light on the juxtaposition of portraits of YHWH as a retributive and suffering God in the book of Jeremiah. In this chapter the perspective is broadened, looking at my conclusions from the perspective of the book as a whole. In line with my working assumption concerning the composition of the book of Jeremiah,227 I do so under the assumption that the portraits of YHWH in the ‘āzab-complaints contribute to a post-exilic theological interpretation of, and reflection on, the disaster experienced by the people of Judah and Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE. I call this chapter an “outlook” as it both applies a broader perspective and, obviously, is more tentative in character. As regards the structure of the study, thus far my standard procedure has been to deal with the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints first and then the poetic ʻāzabcomplaints. This relates to the fact that I have been focusing on issues that concern the research context and that Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints are best understood in contrast to the readings I address with respect to the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. As indicated in the outline above, in the following the order will be reversed. I begin with the poetic ʻāzab-complaints as they appear first in the book (ch. II). My analysis of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints follows thereafter (ch. III). Finally, I offer a brief look at my conclusions from the perspective of the book as a whole by offering proposals on how the juxtaposition of portraits of YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God in the present form of the book may be seen to highlight central theological concerns of the book (ch. IV).

——————————— 227

See I.3.1.1.1.

Chapter II

YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints 1. Introduction 1. Introduction

My driving concern in this chapter is to argue for a new understanding of the portrait of YHWH as a suffering God in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH. I will do so by analysing and clarifying the profile of the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2:13, 2:17, 19, and 5:7. Through my analysis I attempt to demonstrate that the poetic ʻāzab-complaints show two characteristic features: they highlight the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH and carry notes of compassionate lament of YHWH. To achieve these goals, I offer close readings of the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2:13 (II.2); 2:17, 19 (II.3), and 5:7 (II.4) in light of their literary contexts. My readings are done in close dialogue with the readings of Fretheim and Brueggemann. Each chapter begins with a presentation of Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings, which is followed by an analysis of the literary context of the ʻāzab-complaint and concluded by an identification of the profile of the ʻāzab-complaint. My close dialoguing with Fretheim and Brueggemann follows from my attempt to demonstrate that their readings seem to follow more from their notion of divine pathos and larger theological frameworks than from convincing close readings of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints in light of their literary contexts. As regards my dialogue with Fretheim and Brueggemann, I focus primarily on the readings of Fretheim and Brueggemann found in their commentaries on Jeremiah.1 Occasionally, I will also bring up relevant discussions from some of their other, more theological studies.2 The latter seems justified by the fact that, after all, the difference between their commentaries and their theological studies is not that big. In both cases, they emphasize the need “to fully enter the literary world of the text”3 and to read the book in its present form. Moreover, it is noteworthy that both Fretheim and Brueggemann have written their commentaries in series that intend to be relevant to contemporary Christian faith ——————————— 1

Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25; Fretheim, Jeremiah. Especially Fretheim, Suffering; Brueggemann, Theology of the Book of Jeremiah; Brueggemann, Theology. 3 Woods, Jeremiah 48, 277. 2

58

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

communities.4 Finally, I will also offer a brief excursus on marital imagery in Jer 2 (Excursus 1). As will be seen, their understanding of the larger context of Jer 2*5 evidently plays a significant role in their readings of the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2:13, 17, 19. Thus, the excursus is included after my analysis of these ʻāzab-complaints both to do justice to Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s arguments and to substantiate my argument against them.

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 2:13 2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 2:13 For my people have done two evils: Me they have forsaken ( ‫)עזבו‬, the fountain of living water, to dig themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that do not hold water.

2.1 Introductory Remarks The ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 seems to be a favourite among scholars identifying divine lament in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH – as well as other parallel expressions in the book of Jeremiah. At least, it is in connection with this ʻāzab-complaint that scholars tend to be most explicit, and expound most fully on the suffering of YHWH related to the people’s forsaking of him.6 Telling examples are the comments of O’Connor and Stulman, which were also quoted above: “With confused hurt, God laments Israel’s infidelity”7 and “Israel’s unfaithfulness and betrayal leave the ill-treated party [YHWH] hurt and humiliated.”8 Although we may not find equally pointed formulations in the commentaries of Fretheim and Brueggemann, it is clear that they too see YHWH as the forsaken one, lamenting in the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13. The contrast to more traditional readings is quite striking. Ever since Hermann Gunkel identified the genre of “Gerichtsrede” – or lawsuit speech – the

——————————— 4

Fretheim has written for the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary, whereas Brueggemann has written for The International Theological Commentary. 5 I use the asterisk here since while Brueggemann focuses on 2:1–37 in his commentary, Fretheim focuses on 2:1–3:5. Cf. Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 31–38; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 59–77, respectively. 6 See Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 32–36; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 63–67; Stulman, Jeremiah, 48–49; O’Connor, Pain and Promise, 37. Indeed, together with the accusations that the people have forgotten (‫שכח‬, 2:32; 18:15), been treacherous (‫בגד‬, 3:20), turned away ( ‫שוב‬, 8:5), and rejected (‫נטש‬, 15:6) YHWH, the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 seems to be among the accusations in the book of Jeremiah most often taken to imply notes of divine lament. See, for example, Fretheim, Suffering, 109–20. 7 O’Connor, Pain and Promise, 37. 8 Stulman, Jeremiah, 49.

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 2:13

59

literary context of the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 (i.e. 2:4–13) has been considered among its primary examples.9 Clearly, the interest in strict form-critical categories has been waning over the past few decades, and even in the 1980s, the whole idea of a lawsuit genre had already been thoroughly challenged.10 Nevertheless, the metaphor of the courtroom still plays a central role in many scholars’ reading of the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 and its literary context. YHWH is seen to enact the role of a plaintiff heaping up evidence in a judicial process against the people.11 Traditionally, this forensic perspective has been almost totally dominant.12 Although the problem of the people’s forsaking of YHWH has been defined in terms of infidelity and disloyalty, the focus has traditionally been, quite exclusively, on how the people have failed in their relationship with YHWH, not on how this infidelity might be seen to affect YHWH, even less victimize him. In my view, Fretheim and Brueggemann are right – contrary to the traditional reading – in insisting that the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 carry notes of divine lament. In this ʻāzab-complaint, YHWH is not just heaping up evidence in a judicial process against the people. As I will argue in the following, the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 is best read as a mixed expression of accusation and lament. But on the other hand, Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s understanding of the nature of the accusation and lament of YHWH in the ʻāzab-complaint seems inadequate. Rather than highlighting the infidelity of the people and lamenting as a victim of the people’s disloyal behaviour, I will argue that YHWH highlights the foolishness of the people’s behaviour and laments compassionately over their foolishness and its tragic consequences for the people. But before clarifying and elaborating on my own reading, let us take a closer look at the readings offered by Fretheim and Brueggemann. For, as I will argue, the readings of Fretheim and Brueggemann seem to follow more from their notion of divine pathos than from convincing close readings of the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 and its literary context. ——————————— 9 See Hermann Gunkel and Joachim Begrich, Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, trans. James D. Nogalski (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 279–80. For a survey of the history of form-critical studies of the genre of lawsuit speech, see Kirsten Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge: An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rîb-Pattern), JSOTSup 9 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), 5–26. 10 See, for example, Michael DeRoche, “Yahweh’s Rîb Against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-Called ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ in the Preexilic Prophets,” JBL 102 (1983): 563–74; Dwight R. Daniels, “Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre?” ZAW 99 (1987): 339–60. 11 Cf. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 268; Wanke, Jeremia, 35–36; Schmidt, Jeremia, 66; Longman III, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 29–31. Some commentators even take the whole of Jer 2 as being shaped in terms of the lawsuit genre; see Nicholson, Jeremiah, 28; Thompson, Jeremiah, 159; Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, WBC 26 (Waco, TX: Word, 1991), 45–46; Jones, Jeremiah, 80. 12 For a noteworthy exception, however, see Gerhard von Rad, The Message of the Prophets, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (London: SCM, 1965), 162.

60

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

2.1.1 Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s Readings As regards Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13, the fundamental significance of the broader literary context of Jer 2*, and especially their understanding of the scope and significance of marital imagery in Jer 2*, should first be noted. Certainly, the tendency to emphasize continuity and unity in Jer 2*, not to say Jer 2–3* (i.e. 2:1–4:2[4]), is not unique to Fretheim and Brueggemann. Jeremiah 2–3* has long been taken as a macrounit in the book of Jeremiah – that is, a larger collection of units, thematically connected by a common focus on the infidelity and disloyalty of the people.13 Some scholars, however, including Fretheim and Brueggemann, tend to go a step further as they make marital imagery the central figure, or even the unifying principle, in Jer 2–3*.14 In an excursus below I will discuss the scope, significance, and, not least, the meaning of marital imagery in Jer 2. Here, I will concentrate on Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of the immediate literary context of the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13. To begin with Brueggemann, it should first be noted that he actually shows no hesitation in speaking of a lawsuit genre in 2:4–13, which he takes to be the immediate literary context of the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13.15 Accordingly, in his reading of vv. 4–13 in general, and the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13 in particular, Brueggemann emphasizes the legal and accusatory aspect of YHWH’s speech. And yet for Brueggemann, the lawsuit genre provides only the “skeletal structure” of the unit. It is the “poetic imagery and rhetorical delicacy” that “give flesh and life” to the poem.16 Essential for Brueggemann in that regard is “the metaphor of marriage”, which he takes to be implied, first, in the initial question in v. 5 – “What wrong did your fathers find (‫ )מצאו‬in me (‫ – ”?)בי‬in

——————————— 13

According to much modern scholarship, the unit of 2:1–4:2(4) contains the earliest preaching of the historical prophet Jeremiah, reflecting oracles originally directed towards the northern kingdom of Israel. For a survey of research, see Mark E. Biddle, A Redaction History of Jeremiah 2:1–4:2, ATANT 77 (Zürich: TVZ, 1990), 3–29. 14 See, for example, Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 37–41, 47–48; Moshe A. Zipor, “‘Scenes from a Marriage’ – According to Jeremiah,” JSOT 65 (1995): 86–90; Diamond and O’Connor, “Unfaithful Passions,” 291–93; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 61, 76–77; Gary E. Yates, “Jeremiah’s Message of Judgment and Hope for God’s Unfaithful ‘Wife’,” BSac 167 (2010): 145–48. 15 In fact, Brueggemann, Theology, 635, defines Jer 2:4–13 to be “[a]mong the clearest examples of the [lawsuit] genre”. Brueggemann’s definition of the lawsuit genre, however, is rather vague and comes close to Westermann’s idea of “legal procedure”, which “is nothing other than a dramatic description of what happened in every other JN [i.e. announcement of judgment against Israel] but was not just depicted in these words” (Westermann, Basic Forms, 199). Cf. Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 4, n. 6. 16 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 38.

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 2:13

61

which he sees an allusion to the divorce proceedings in Deut 24:1,17 and then in the water metaphor in v. 13,18 and not least in the very ʻāzab-complaint itself19 as “forsake”, according to Brueggemann, “is better understood in terms of marriage”.20 The latter, Brueggemann argues, follows from the fact that the term ‫ עזב‬functions as a technical term for marital divorce in Deutero-Isaiah (cf. Isa 49:14; 54:6; 60:15). Based on these arguments, Brueggemann concludes that in 2:4–13, the lawsuit takes the form of divorce proceedings21 ringing with the tone of “the hurt of a wounded lover”.22 For, as Brueggemann points out, while YHWH has been “utterly faithful” to his people, the people have betrayed their relationship with YHWH and engaged in “partner swapping”.23 Fretheim, on the other hand, dismisses the idea of a lawsuit genre in 2:4–13 altogether24 and laments how the idea misleads interpreters to “reduce this material to legal or formal categories or settings”.25 Presenting it as a sharp contrast to the concept of lawsuit, Fretheim claims that the broader literary context of v. 13 forms “a larger rhetorical pastiche [i.e. 2:1–3:5] in which divine lament is especially prominent”.26 The claim is based, first, on the observation that 2:1–3:5 employs several features “characteristic of human laments”, for instance “reflections, questions, accusations, [and] complaints about enemies”.27 Second, like Brueggemann, Fretheim emphasizes the significance of marital imagery in 2:4–13 and reads the unit “with the divine memory of the ‘honeymoon’ [i.e. 2:1–3] in view”.28 Accordingly, Fretheim defines the fundamental problem in 2:4–13 as a problem concerning “Israel’s forsaking the marriage to ‘marry’ other gods”.29 This is important to Fretheim as the marital imagery, in his view, provides evidence of the highly intimate and personal character of YHWH’s relationship with the people: “An intimate relationship has broken ——————————— 17

The point of connection between the question in Jer 2:5 and Deut 24:1 is basically the expression “find in” (‫)מצא ב‬, which in both instances relates to the motif of someone finding “something objectionable” ( ‫ערות דבר‬, Deut 24:1) or “wrong” (‫עול‬, Jer 2:5) in someone else. 18 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 35: “The metaphor is water, but behind it lies the metaphor of marriage.” 19 See Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 33, 35. 20 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 35. 21 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 33. For a similar view, see Jones, Jeremiah, 80–82; Diamond and O’Connor, “Unfaithful Passions,” 293–97. 22 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 33. Cf. Brueggemann, Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, 81–86. 23 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 34. 24 Like Brueggemann, Fretheim, Jeremiah, 63–67 takes 2:4–13 as the primary literary context of the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13. 25 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 61. 26 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 60. 27 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 61. 28 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 63. 29 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 64.

62

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

down, and this has engendered strong feelings of anger and hurt on God’s part. No legal analysis can begin to do justice to this situation for either God or Israel.”30 Despite points of difference between Fretheim and Brueggemann, it is clear that both read the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13 primarily as a painful cry of lament of YHWH as the forsaken one. In both readings YHWH is portrayed as a victimized God, suffering from the behaviour and loss of his beloved people. The governing factor in the readings of Fretheim and Brueggemann is the idea that 2:4–13 as a whole is controlled by marital imagery. In accordance with this understanding, the problem of the people’s forsaking of YHWH is defined in terms of marital infidelity and betrayal, which in turn serves as a key to identifying YHWH as a victim of the people’s forsaking of him. However, that marital imagery signals victimization seems simply assumed by Fretheim and Brueggemann. Of course, given the notion of divine pathos, the assumption may appear self-evident. As pointed out above, the notion presupposes that YHWH needs his people and that his marital desire and love for the people thus signal YHWH’s vulnerability. YHWH’s love for his people is basically a vulnerable love – a love of lack and need. Without the notion of divine pathos, however, the assumption proves less obvious. In fact, I will argue that the claim that YHWH is portrayed as a vulnerable and victimized God is quite alien to the rhetoric of the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 and its literary context. The foolishness of the people and divine concern for the people seem to be more appropriate interpretative categories than marital infidelity and divine victimization. 2.2 Literary Context I follow the common view that the poem of vv. 4–13 forms the primary literary context of the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13.31 Although the unit of vv. 4–13 connects closely to the broader literary context of Jer 2 (indeed the whole of Jer 2–3*),32 the unit has its own distinctive character within that larger context. It opens with a messenger formula and an appeal to attention in vv. 4–5a33 and follows up with addressing the people consistently as a male group (masculine ——————————— 30

Fretheim, Jeremiah, 62. For example, Bright, Jeremiah, 10–11; Nicholson, Jeremiah, 30–33; Thompson, Jeremiah, 165–71; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 30–35; Clements, Jeremiah, 27; Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 25–30; Wanke, Jeremia, 34–39; Stulman, Jeremiah, 48–49. 32 For a survey of recurring motifs and phrases in Jer 2–3*, see R. Abma, Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery (Isaiah 50:1–3 and 54:1–10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3), SSN 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 239–42. 33 For other views on the relationship between vv. 1–3 and vv. 4ff., see, for example, Heinz-Dieter Neef, “Gottes Treue und Israels Untreue: Aufbau und Einheit von Jeremia 2:2– 13,” ZAW 99 (1987): 47; Schmidt, Jeremia, 66. As regards my reading of vv. 1–3, see below in Excursus 1. 31

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 2:13

63

plural) throughout the whole of vv. 4–13. In v. 14, however, the addressee changes and the addressee of v. 3 is reintroduced, namely Israel (‫ )ישראל‬as a single male character (masculine singular).34 That the people are consistently referred to as a male group in the poem is noteworthy not only with respect to the question of delimitation. Indeed, it seems to undermine Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s identification of marital imagery in the poem. As Gerlinde Baumann reminds us regarding the identification of marital imagery, “YHWH, as a grammatically masculine figure in the context of ancient Israelite ideas, can only marry female figures”.35 Thus, although the term ‫ עזב‬might function as a technical term for marital divorce in Deutero-Isaiah,36 it is difficult to see how it could possibly function as an indicator of marital imagery here in Jer 2:4–13. Considering this, reading the poem as a scene of a (tragic) story of YHWH’s marriage with the people, as is done by Fretheim and Brueggemann, seems misleading.37 However, the preoccupation of traditional readings with the form-critical idea of lawsuit speech seems to be no less misleading. At least, Brueggemann’s favouring of the “poetic imagery and rhetorical delicacy” over the idea of a lawsuit genre is most welcome. Characteristic features of the poem reinforce Brueggemann’s point and make it clear that the poem mixes elements, features, and motifs typical of various traditions and genres. In the following, I will highlight three characteristic features that shed important light on what is going ——————————— 34

Jeremiah 2:1–4:2(4) is characterized by frequent and abrupt changes of addressees. Because of the consistency in 2:4–13, however, the unity of 2:4–13 has been considered “relatively easy to discern” (William L. Holladay, The Architecture of Jeremiah 1–20 [Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1976], 36). The many shifts of addressee in 2:1– 4:2(4) have occasioned much debate, however. For a brief survey of some typical understandings, see Christl M. Maier, “Reading Back and Forth: Gender Trouble in Jeremiah 2– 3,” in Interested Readers: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David J. A. Clines, James K. Aitken, Jeremy Clines, M. S., and Christl M. Maier (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013), 138–41. In my view the shifts function primarily as a rhetorical device in 2:1–4:2(4); first, as a springboard for the extensive use of poetic imagery, and second, to highlight various aspects of the identity and character of the people of YHWH and of their relationship with YHWH. As regards Jer 2, one may distinguish between four addressees: (i) Jerusalem as YHWH’s bride/wife (v. 2); (ii) Israel as a single male character (vv. 3, 14–15, 28); (iii) Israel as a male group (vv. 4–13, 26–27, 29–32); (iv) an unidentified female character (vv. 16–25, 33–37). While the latter most often is identified with YHWH’s bride/wife in v. 2, I will argue that the unidentified female character in vv. 16–25 and 33–37 should not uncritically be identified as YHWH’s wife (see Excursus 1). 35 Gerlinde Baumann, Love and Violence: Marriage as Metaphor for the Relationship Between YHWH and Israel in the Prophetic Books, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 110. 36 See, for example, Christl M. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 164. 37 For the sake of clarity: please note that the marital imagery in Jer 2* will be further discussed in Excursus 1.

64

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

on in the poem of vv. 4–13 in general, and in the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13 in particular. 2.2.1 YHWH’s Rîb as Punishment of Continuing Confrontation First to be considered is the term ‫ ריב‬and YHWH’s announcement in v. 9 that he is having a rîb (‫ )ריב‬with the people. Evidently, the use of this term in v. 9 is fundamental to the argument that the poem of vv. 4–13 is to be read as a lawsuit speech. But as Michael DeRoche has demonstrated, in the Hebrew Bible the term ‫ ריב‬features primarily in contexts that describe events of quarrel and contention between two parties taking place outside of, and/or prior to, the courtroom.38 In accordance with this, it is noteworthy that rather than initiating a process eventually leading up to final judgment, YHWH’s rîb with his people in v. 9 is presented as an act of divine judgment. This is indicated by the initial conjunction ‫( לכן‬v. 9a) and the subsequent oracle formula (‫נאם יהוה‬, v. 9a). Moreover, three details in the rhetoric of the announcement of YHWH shed further light on the character of the rîb. First, the phrase ‫( אריב אתכם‬v. 9a) stands in sharp contrast to ‫“( ואביא אתכם‬I brought you – [into the garden land]”) in v. 7a.39 This contrast highlights how YHWH, by initiating the rîb, has now turned himself against the people instead of acting in favour of them (cf. vv. 6– 7). Second, the adverb ‫ עד‬in v. 9a indicates at the same time some sort of continuity with the preceding. My suggestion is that the point of continuity relates to YHWH’s accusations against the people in vv. 5–6, 8, and that YHWH in v. 9 thus announces that, in contrast to previous deeds of benevolence, he is now bent on this course of accusation and confrontation in his relationship with the people. In other words, there is no way around this confrontation – the people are doomed to it. Finally, there is apparently no end to the rîb: “I will still contend with you [...] and with the children of your children I will contend” (‫[ ואת בני בניכם אריב‬...] ‫אריב אתכם‬, v. 9). However, instead of reading the statement in the sense of in perpetuity (i.e. no end), I suggest that this no-end perspective should be perceived in terms of lack of closure or open-endedness. Thus, rather than a final blow to YHWH’s relationship with the people, YHWH announces that he will be confronting the people as long as it takes him to achieve his ultimate goal with the rîb. How this goal is to be understood will be clarified below.

——————————— 38

Cf. DeRoche, “Yahweh’s Rîb,” 563–74. The contrast is highlighted by the fact that in the context of vv. 4–13 these are the only instances in which YHWH is the subject of finite verbs. 39

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 2:13

65

2.2.2 A Poem Filled with Irony That YHWH’s accusations against the people in vv. 4–13, including the ʻāzabcomplaint, are filled with irony is well recognized.40 The significance and scope of the irony, however, have not been taken sufficiently into account. Below I will discuss more specifically how irony manifests itself in the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13. Here and now, the focus is on the context of the ʻāzab-complaint and on how irony marks the entire poem of vv. 4–13. The ironic tone manifests itself in several ways, but two elements or features are worth mentioning. Near the end of the poem, serving as a preliminary point of culmination, YHWH appeals to the heavens: “Be appalled, O heavens, at this, be shocked, be utterly desolate” (v. 12). Most often, the appeal has been read as an appeal to the so-called “Gerichtsforum”, and thus as a parallel to the appeals to heavens and earth in Deut 32:1; Isa 1:2; and Mic 6:2.41 However, in contrast to the appeals in Deut 32:1; Isa 1:2; and Mic 6:2, the heavens in Jer 2:12 are not called upon as witnesses to hear (‫ )שמע‬and give ear (‫ )אזן‬but, as McKane notes, “to react emotionally”42 to the people’s behaviour – that is, to be “appalled” (‫)שמו‬, “shocked” (‫)ושערו‬, and “utterly desolate” (‫ )הרבו‬over the fact that the people of YHWH have changed their god (cf. esp. v. 11).43 Rather than pointing to a courtroom scene, the reaction of the heavens draws attention to the character of the people’s behaviour – that is, to its absurdity and tragedy. First of all, the reaction matches and underlines the abnormality of the people’s behaviour. As is made clear in v. 10, the people’s changing of gods is unheard of and unparalleled. The people’s changing of gods, therefore, calls for a reaction of shock. More than just abnormality and absurdity, the reaction also indicates the tragedy of the people’s behaviour. For the people’s behaviour is not just unparalleled but also disastrous. The tragedy of the people’s behaviour is indicated by the fact that the reaction of the heavens parallels the reaction of the passers-by (‫ )כל עבר‬featuring in the so-called “Katastrophenformel”.44 Just as the passersby (‫“ )כל עבר‬will be appalled” (‫ישם‬, 19:8b) when they see the catastrophic consequences of the people’s behaviour in 18:16; 19:8; 49:17; 50:13), so are the heavens in our poem summoned to be appalled (‫ )שמם‬over the behaviour of the people. In other words, the reaction of the heavens anticipates and connotes the disastrous effects of the people’s behaviour and thus also the absurdity and ——————————— 40 See, for example, Nicholson, Jeremiah, 30–33; Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 232– 36; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 275. 41 See, for example, Thompson, Jeremiah, 170; Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 29; Jones, Jeremiah, 87; Wanke, Jeremia, 37; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 267; Longman III, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 30–31; Schmidt, Jeremia, 77. 42 McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 34. 43 The phrase ‫ על זאת‬in v. 12a connects with ‫ כזאת‬in v. 10c, both referring to the description of the people’s behaviour in v. 11. 44 See Stipp, Konkordanz, 158–59.

66

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

tragedy of their behaviour. That this appeal features near the end of the poem and after a series of accusations against the people highlights the ironic tone of the poem as a whole. However, the ironic tone of the poem manifests itself not only at the end of the poem. Another feature characteristic of the poem is the four phrases, i.e. ‫( ויהבלו‬v. 5cβ), ‫( לא יועלו‬v. 8c), ‫( בלוא יועיל‬v. 11bβ), and ‫( לא יכלו‬v. 13cβ), which function almost as a refrain throughout vv. 4–13. All four phrases serve to make it utterly clear that turning to others than YHWH yields nothing but helplessness and emptiness. They therefore both pave the way and emphasize the point made in the appeal to the heavens in v. 12 that the people’s behaviour is both absurd and tragic. Together with the appeal in v. 12, the phrases of emptiness and helplessness make it clear that the poem of vv. 4–13 is filled with irony. And as we will see below, the irony of the poem reaches a final climax in the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13.45 2.2.3 Divine Lament and YHWH’s Desire for Continuing Relationship The final characteristic feature of the poem to which I would like to draw attention addresses more specifically the discussion of divine lament in vv. 4– 13. An interesting observation in that respect relates to Fretheim’s argument that the poem of vv. 4–13 is characterized by the fact that it contains elements so typical of human laments. Fretheim, however, seems to exaggerate the parallels, especially with respect to his claim that YHWH’s question in v. 5bα – “What wrong did your fathers find in me?” – represents “a genuine ‘why?’ question”46 similar to the “why?” questions found in many lament prayers in the Hebrew Bible. Fretheim’s reading of v. 5 fails to recognize the irony in the question.47 First, in v. 5, YHWH is contrasted with worthlessness (‫ההבל‬, v. 5cα) – that is, the people are said to have left YHWH for worthlessness. Moreover, it is commonly accepted that the “why?” question in v. 5 alludes to Deut 32:4, in which YHWH is praised for his integrity and faithfulness and for being “without guilt” (‫)אין עול‬. Read against that background, it seems clear that the question in v. 5 first and foremost is deeply ironic. That said, however, by drawing attention to parallels and similarities between vv. 4–13 and human laments, Fretheim helps us see how the question in v. 5 contributes to framing the poem of vv. 4–13 with the two complaints of remoteness (‫רחק‬, v. 5bβ) and forsaking (‫עזב‬, v. 13bα). Evidently, complaints of remoteness and forsaking form the central part of the typical language of lament prayers in the Hebrew ——————————— 45

See more below in II.2.3.2. Fretheim, Jeremiah, 64. 47 As Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 157, points out, in addition to Job 34:10, which also rejects the idea of divine injustice and deceit (‫)חללה לאל מרשע ושדי מעול‬, Deut 32:4 and Jer 2:5 are the only two instances in the Hebrew Bible where the term ‫ עול‬is related to the character of YHWH. 46

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 2:13

67

Bible (cf. Pss 22:2, 12, 20; 38:22; 71:9, 12, 18). The importance of this observation is reinforced by the additional frame established by the titles used to refer to the people, namely “house of Jacob” and “house of Israel” (v. 4), and “my people” (‫עמי‬, v. 13a). While the former two have often been read in historical-geographical terms, as referring to the northern kingdom,48 I will argue that, at least in the present form of the text, the names “Jacob” and “Israel” function together with ‫ עמי‬as ideal designations of the people, emphasizing their special status as the chosen people of YHWH.49 Of course, all three titles could be understood in ironic terms, especially in light of what we have seen just above. But taken together with the complaint pairs ‫ רחק–עזב‬and, not least, the no-end perspective of YHWH’s rîb in v. 9, the titles seem to indicate a desire for a continuing relationship on YHWH’s part, and that the ultimate goal of YHWH in vv. 4–13 is indeed to restore a broken yet desired relationship. Accordingly, then, Fretheim and Brueggemann seem right in emphasizing divine lament as a prominent feature in the poem as it is characterized by a conflict between the desire of YHWH and the behaviour of the people – even if there is no marital imagery in the poem. Given these observations, let us now finally turn to the complaint expression itself and the question of how it is to be understood. 2.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint In light of what has been pointed out above, the claim that the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 is best understood as a mixed expression of accusation and lament certainly makes good sense. The question, however, is how to understand the divine accusation and lament involved in the ʻāzab-complaint. Contrary to Fretheim and Brueggemann, I will argue in the following that the ʻāzab-complaint is best understood as a mixed expression of accusation of foolishness and compassionate lament. Let me begin by questioning the common understanding of the accusatory aspect.

——————————— 48

Many scholars have considered these names to indicate that parts of Jer 2:1–4:2(4) (or Jer 2–6) were originally “addressed to the northern kingdom of Israel” before being “reworked to address the southern kingdom of Judah” (Marvin A. Sweeney, “Structure and Redaction in Jeremiah 2–6,” in Troubling Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 260 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], 212). For surveys of scholarship related to this issue, see Biddle, Jeremiah 2:1–4:2, 3–29; Maier, “Reading Back and Forth,” 138–44. 49 YHWH refers twice to the people as “my people” ( ‫ )עמי‬in vv. 4–13 (i.e. vv. 11, 13). Moreover, in the book of Jeremiah, the use of the name “Jacob” is basically reserved for oracles of salvation, not least in the context of Jer 30–31 (30:7, 10, 18; 31:7, 11; see also 33:26; 46:27, 28).

68

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

2.3.1 An Accusation of Infidelity? As seen above, it is commonly argued that the problem of the people’s forsaking of YHWH in v. 13 concerns the people’s infidelity towards YHWH. The disputed issue relates to whether this infidelity implies divine suffering or not. In my view, the dispute seems a bit impertinent. First, the conclusion seems to stand on the question of whether some notion of divine pathos should be presupposed or not in the reading of the ʻāzab-complaint. In addition, I would argue, the dispute tends to ignore the core of the problem addressed by YHWH in the ʻāzab-complaint. Not to be misunderstood, let me first make it clear that I do not deny that the ʻāzab-complaint to some extent concerns the problem of infidelity. Obviously, the problem of forsaking YHWH in v. 13 is closely associated with the problem of turning to other gods, even if the latter comes to expression in rather metaphorical terms: “to dig [...] broken cisterns” (‫[ בארת נשברים‬...] ‫לחצב‬, v. 13cα). The unity between turning from YHWH and turning to others is also emphasized in v. 5: “they went far from me (‫ )רחקו מעלי‬and followed after worthlessness (‫”)וילכו אחרי ההבל‬. Most explicitly, this unity comes to expression in v. 11 where the problem is defined in terms of changing (‫ )ימר‬gods. Moreover, it also should be noted that the people’s forsaking of YHWH is defined as an evil and wrongdoing in v. 13: “For my people have done two evils ( ‫שתים‬ ‫)רעות‬.” That a legal aspect is implied in this claim seems indisputable.50 In continuity with this point, it is noteworthy how the terms ‫( עול‬v. 5bβ) and ‫רעה‬ (v. 13a) frame the poem with the categories of right and wrong, which is further accentuated by the references to the people’s defiling (‫ )טמא‬of the land (v. 7b)51 and to the leaders’ complete failure in conducting their callings (v. 8).52 However, my point is that we cannot leave the ʻāzab-complaint by just pointing out the features mentioned. In vv. 4–13, turning from YHWH and turning to other gods should not simply be lumped together and treated as a single concept of infidelity, apostasy, idolatry, or the like. In fact, such a reading requires that we ignore conspicuous elements and features in the poem. First, in v. 13a it is explicitly stated that to forsake YHWH and to “dig broken cisterns” represents “two (‫ )שתים‬evils”. Although, as will be argued below, the reference to “two evils” primarily seems to serve a rhetorical function in v. 13

——————————— 50

Against Fretheim, Jeremiah, 62–63. In the Hebrew Bible the problem of defiling (‫ )טמא‬the land is primarily associated with idolatry (e.g. Ezek 36:18) and improper sexual activity (e.g. Lev 18:25, 27). 52 As is commonly recognized, in v. 8 it is plausibly referred to the four offices: priests (‫)כהנים‬, scribes, (i.e. ‫תפשי התורה‬, cf. Jer 8:8), kings (i.e. ‫הרעים‬, cf. Jer 23:1–2), and prophets (‫)נביאים‬. 51

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 2:13

69

– highlighting the absurdity of the people’s turning away from YHWH to others (i.e. their disloyal behaviour)53 – it establishes a distinction between forsaking YHWH and turning to others as one thing distinct from another. This point is further emphasized by the fact that the verb describing the second evil is in the infinitive form, not in the wayyiqtol form. As Else K. Holt points out, “the infinitive with ‫[ ל‬i.e. ‫לחצב‬, v. 13bβ] points to a causal relation between the first and the second member”.54 In light of this, I would therefore suggest and argue in the following that in v. 13 the ʻāzab-complaint, YHWH draws attention to a problem in the people’s relationship with YHWH that is prior, at least logically, to their turning to others. 2.3.2 An Accusation of Foolishness Above I have argued that the poem is filled with irony as YHWH keeps drawing attention to the absurdity and the disastrous consequences of the people’s behaviour throughout the entire poem. In v. 13, however, this feature reaches a climax in the poem, and against that background I suggest that the ʻāzabcomplaint is better understood as an accusation of foolishness than of infidelity. Characteristic of the rhetoric of the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 is the fronting of the grammatical object: “Me, they have forsaken” (‫)אתי עזבו‬. Although Stulman might be right that the construction signals “the emphatic language” of the complaint,55 fronting is first and foremost used in Biblical Hebrew to clarify and highlight the focus of an utterance.56 With respect to the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13, this means that YHWH is the focus of the complaint; that is, in the complaint utterance YHWH is drawing attention to himself. YHWH does so, however, not in terms of being the forsaken one. On the contrary, the point is to draw attention to whom the people have forsaken. This understanding is substantiated by the fact that a similar strategy manifests itself in the question in v. 5, which opens and sets the tone for the poem as a whole: “What (‫[ )מה‬...] in me (‫ )בי‬that they went far from me?” In this question, YHWH draws attention to himself and to what he has been and done for the people. Significantly, in both v. 5 and v. 13, the point seems to be that of highlighting the absurdity of the people’s behaviour. The people have forsaken (‫“ )עזב‬the fountain of living water” (‫מקור מים חיים‬, v. 13bα) and gone far (‫ )רחק‬from the one who “brought us up from the land of Egypt” (‫המעלה אתנו מארץ מצרים‬, v. 6aβ); “led us in the ——————————— 53

See more below in II.2.3.2. Holt, “Fountain of Living Water,” 101. 55 Stulman, Jeremiah, 49. 56 On the grammatical function of fronting in biblical Hebrew, see Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, BibLa 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 346. 54

70

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

wilderness” (‫המוליך אתנו במדבר‬, v. 6bα); and “brought you into the garden land” (‫ואביא אתכם אל ארץ הכרמל‬, v. 7aα). It is primarily in this connection that the reference to the “two evils” ( ‫שתים‬ ‫רעות‬, v. 13a) should be understood. It serves to highlight the contrast between what the people have turned away from and what they have turned themselves to. For while YHWH is consistently characterized in positive and flattering terms throughout the poem (vv. 6–7a; 13bα), the opposite holds true for the gods to whom the people have turned themselves. The other gods are defined as “worthlessness” (‫ההבל‬, v. 5cα), “no-gods” (‫לא אלהים‬, v. 11aβ), and self-made “broken cisterns” (‫בארת נשברים‬, v. 13cα). Furthermore, the four refrain-like phrases mentioned above suggest that those following other gods become helpless (cf. ‫ויהבלו‬, v. 5cβ) as they have turned themselves to what “do[es] not profit” (‫לא יועלו‬, v. 8c; ‫לוא יועיל‬, 11bβ) or “hold water” (‫לא יכלו המים‬, v. 13cβ). In other words, more than just drawing attention to the infidelity of the people’s turning away from YHWH to others, in v. 13 – and in the poem as a whole – YHWH highlights the absurdity or foolishness of the people’s disloyal behaviour. However, the problem of foolishness addressed by YHWH in v. 13 seems to cut deeper than the lack of good sense and judgment regarding the choice of whom to follow. For as the water metaphor in v. 13 makes clear, the comparison between YHWH and other gods is a comparison of incomparable entities. As a matter of course, water is vital to life, and the people of YHWH are evidently as dependent on a stable source of water as anyone else. The water metaphor thus indicates that the people, by forsaking YHWH, have actually abandoned their source of life, the one upon whom they are completely dependent for life. Put differently, the water metaphor shows that YHWH is a kind of God who simply cannot be forsaken, nor replaced by others, without disastrous consequences.57 In other words, the problem addressed by YHWH in v. 13 is not only that the people have treacherously replaced him with others, nor only the absurdity of replacing YHWH with others. The core of the problem, I suggest, is the failure to recognize their complete dependence upon YHWH for life and thereby also the disastrous consequences of forsaking YHWH. This suggestion, I would argue, also gives meaning to the distinction and causal relation (cf. the infinitive ‫ )לחצב‬between “two evils” in v. 13. The people’s turning to ——————————— 57 The people’s dependence on YHWH as the true God of Israel is also highlighted in the prayer of Jeremiah in Jer 17:13, which connects closely with 2:13: “Jer 17,13bβ is semantically reminiscent of 2,13bβ, with its identification of Yahweh as ‫ מקור מים חיים‬and with the catchword of the offence ‫ ;עזב‬thus, it is the most obvious intertext of 2,13” (Holt, “Fountain of Living Water,” 107). Although scholars are somewhat divided about how 17:13 is to be read, especially in light of its connection to 17:12 (cf. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 500–02; Holt, “Fountain of Living Water,” 106–09), it is quite clear that the foolishness and disastrous consequences of forsaking YHWH are highlighted in 17:13 as well, especially through the motif of shame: “May all who forsake you be ashamed” (‫כל עזביך יבשו‬, v. 13aβ).

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 2:13

71

other gods follows from their lack of recognition of YHWH. It is in this sense, I argue, that the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13 is to be understood as an accusation of foolishness. This understanding also has important implications for the next point to be made. 2.3.3 A Compassionate Lament Above I argued that the poem as a whole rings with notes of divine lament. The poem is characterized by a conflict between the people’s behaviour and the desire of YHWH for a continuing relationship with the people. This conflict reaches its climax and manifests itself most emphatically in the rhetoric of the ʻāzab-complaint. The tension between the complaint expression and the fact that YHWH keeps holding on to his relationship with the people by addressing them with the ideal designation “my people” is striking. 58 And as noted above, the rhetoric is reminiscent of the rhetoric of human ʻāzab-complaints in the Psalms (e.g. Ps 22:2). However, in the poem of Jer 2:4–13, YHWH – in sharp contrast to the speakers of the human ʻāzab-complaints – is not portrayed as a victim in need of, and dependent upon, those having forsaken him. On the contrary, those having forsaken YHWH, as we just have seen, need YHWH and are completely dependent upon him. They have forsaken “the fountain of living water” – that is, their source of life. Hence, the true victim of the people’s forsaking of YHWH in vv. 4–13 is not YHWH but the people themselves. This point, however, goes unnoticed by Fretheim and Brueggemann. In fact, Fretheim and Brueggemann tend to turn the meaning of the water metaphor upside down. Instead of seeing how the water metaphor in v. 13 serves to emphasize the people’s need for YHWH in vv. 4–13, they take it to indicate YHWH’s vulnerability and need for the people. As noted above, Brueggemann, for instance, claims that behind the water metaphor there is a marital metaphor, a marital metaphor that implies divine vulnerability. It is difficult to see how such a claim could possibly be plausible. Rather, the claim demonstrates how marital imagery is read into v. 13 and how it is presupposed that the desire of YHWH allegedly implied in the marital imagery is a desire of lack and need. The assumption that YHWH’s desire for his people is a desire of lack and need follows naturally, of course, from the notion of divine pathos.59 But the assumption seems foreign to the rhetoric of v. 13 and its literary context. The central point in v. 13 is the people’s vulnerability and need for YHWH, not the other way around. ——————————— 58

The ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 is in fact the only divine ʻāzab-complaint in which the grammatical subject is identified as ‫עמי‬. The term ‫ עם‬is also used in connection with the ʻāzab-complaints in Isa 1:4 and 1 Sam 8:8, but then in either the more neutral form ‫( העם‬1 Sam 8:7) or the quite polemical and unflattering phrase ‫( עם כבד עון‬Isa 1:4). 59 See I.3.2.5.

72

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

A more helpful and appropriate approach, I would argue, is to understand YHWH’s desire for a continuing relationship with his people – which is certainly highlighted in the poem – as a desire of excess and abundance. Put more precisely, I suggest that the desire of YHWH in the poem is best understood in terms of YHWH’s benevolence and concern for the well-being of his people. This suggestion gains support, first and foremost, from the water metaphor in v. 13, which characterizes YHWH as the source of life and well-being of the people. The suggestion is further substantiated by the description of YHWH’s relationship with the people in vv. 6–7, which also highlights YHWH’s benevolence and concern for the people: YHWH brought them out of Egypt, through the wilderness, and into “the garden land to eat its fruits and good things” (v. 7a). YHWH’s desire is to give to, take care of, and do good to his people and thus ensure their well-being. And YHWH does so in ways that other gods cannot do. When this desire is ruined by the people’s forsaking of YHWH, YHWH laments, not on his own behalf as a victim of the people’s behaviour, but transitively and compassionately over the foolishness of the people. For, by forsaking YHWH and turning to other gods, the people are digging a grave for themselves. 2.4 Conclusion Above I have argued that the ʻāzab-complaint of YHWH in 2:13 is to be understood as a mixed expression of accusation of foolishness and compassionate lament over the foolishness of the people. By arguing this, I have challenged Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of the ʻāzab-complaint. One thing is that they read marital imagery into the poem of 2:4–13 even if there are no traces of marital imagery in the poem. Another is their interpretation of the purported marital imagery, which seems to follow more from their notions of divine pathos than from convincing close readings of the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13 and its literary context (i.e. 2:4–13). Or more precisely, their claim that YHWH is portrayed as a victim of a broken marital relationship, lamenting as a forsaken and victimized God in 2:13, is alien to the rhetoric of the ʻāzabcomplaint and its literary context. The poem of 2:4–13 is first of all characterized by a strong note of irony. The irony makes it clear that more than just providing legal indictments against his people, YHWH highlights the foolishness of their behaviour. The irony reaches its climax in the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13, indicating that more than just an accusation of disloyalty the ʻāzab-complaint is an accusation of foolishness. One thing is the absurdity of forsaking YHWH for gods offering nothing but helplessness. But the foolishness cuts deeper. As the water metaphor indicates, YHWH is a kind of God who simply cannot be forsaken as the peo-

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19

73

ple’s life and existence depend on their relationship with YHWH. By nevertheless forsaking YHWH, it is clear that the people have failed to recognize what kind of God YHWH is. A second characteristic of the poem is the notes of divine lament in it. The notes of lament are indicated by the sharp conflict between the people’s behaviour and YHWH’s desire, which is characteristic of the poem. Again, the ʻāzabcomplaint serves as a climax. The tension between the complaint expression and the fact that YHWH keeps holding on to his relationship with the people by addressing them with the ideal designation “my people” is striking. Contrary to Fretheim and Brueggemann, however, YHWH’s desire for a continuing relationship should not be understood as one of need and lack but as a desire rooted in excess and abundance, a desire manifesting itself in YHWH’s benevolence and concern for the well-being of his people. Such an understanding fits better the rhetoric of the poem and underscores the central point of the poem: the people themselves are the true victim of their forsaking of YHWH, not YHWH. This means that the suffering YHWH lamenting the broken relationship in v. 13 is not so much a vulnerable victim in need of the people as a God upon whom the people are entirely dependent for life and well-being, who laments compassionately over the foolishness of the people.

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19 3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19 Is not this what is working on you,60 your forsaking (‫ )עזבך‬of YHWH your God? as he was leading you in the way Your evil will chastise you and your apostasies will reprove you Know and see how evil and bitter it is to forsake ( ‫ )עזבך‬YHWH your God and no fear of me is in you says the Lord YHWH of hosts

——————————— 60 MT’s reading of the opening colon in v. 17 is difficult. The problem lies with the verb ‫תעשה‬, which is a third person masculine singular imperfect. All the subsequent pronominal suffixes are feminine (which also applies to vv. 16, 18–19). While BHS suggests ‫ – עשה‬third singular masculine perfect – many scholars read: “Have you not brought this upon yourself [...]?” (e.g. Carroll, Jeremiah, 127; Thompson, Jeremiah, 171). In the latter reading ‫ תעשה‬is changed to ‫ – תעשי‬second feminine singular. The related pronoun ‫ זאת‬is thus taken as grammatical object, in grammatical accordance with the pronominal suffixes. Another solution, which I follow, is to try to stay with MT’s reading and see ‫“ תעשה‬construed as third singular feminine with ‫ זאת‬as subject” (Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 51; see also Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 269).

74

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

3.1 Introductory Remarks What is implied in the ʻāzab-complaint in Jer 2:13 is made explicitly clear in the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:17 and 2:19: forsaking YHWH is indeed disastrous for the people. As is commonly noted, the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:17 and 2:19 form part of a poetic unit that highlights the terrible consequences of the people’s forsaking of YHWH (i.e. 2:14–19).61 As a consequence of having forsaken YHWH, the people have become a “slave” (‫ )עבד‬and a “prey” (‫בז‬, v. 14c), a subject of subjugation and affliction by “roaring lions” (‫עליו ישאג כפרים‬, v. 15aα) and by “the sons of Noph and Tahpanhes” (‫בני נף ותחפנס‬, v. 16a). So goes the train of thought in 2:14–19, which are most commonly taken to be the literary context of the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19. This means that the basic point I seek to highlight over against Fretheim and Brueggemann in this chapter is actually quite clear already from the beginning: the people themselves are the true victims of their forsaking of YHWH. This, in fact, is acknowledged even by Fretheim and Brueggemann: Israel’s own apostasies have turned back on them and made them the victim of plundering neighbors.62 This trouble of a historical kind has happened because Israel has forsaken and abandoned Yahweh, has refused the marriage relation of v. 2, has refused the exclusive belonging of v. 3a, has refused to be the Israel God intended. Such a refusal may seem like freedom, but in fact it is death.63

Indeed, that the people themselves suffer from their forsaking of YHWH seems to be the all-important point for Fretheim and Brueggemann with respect to the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19, at least as far as their commentaries are concerned.64 As will be seen below, however, in other studies Fretheim and ——————————— 61 E.g. Rudolph, Jeremia, 15: “14ff. führt das ‫ ויהבלו‬von 5 näher aus und ist gegensätzlich an 3 orientiert”; Thompson, Jeremiah, 172: “The apostasy described in vv. 4–13 had led to the description of the evil consequences referred to in vv. 14–19”; Carroll, Jeremiah, 128: “The metaphors and images change yet again but the message remains the same. Israel’s present state of ruin is due entirely to its [...] having forsaken Yahweh”; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 274–75: “Together with the two previous oracles of 2:4–9 and 10–13, this oracle [i.e. vv. 14–19] highlights the folly of forsaking Yahweh. With its introduction, which depicts the nation as enemy plunder, the audience is brought back to the oracle in 2:2b–3, which recalls a day when such a thing could not have happened.” 62 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 68. 63 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 36. 64 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 36: “Israel has not become a prey to the nations because it was fated for that by a bad birth. Israel is, rather, a much-loved heir and did not need to have this happen. The destruction has not happened for reasons of destiny, but for reasons of Israel’s choice. [...] The double use of the verb ‘forsake’ provides the reason.” Fretheim, Jeremiah, 67–68, employs here an exilic-reader perspective and reads 2:14–19 almost as a sort of mini-theodicy: “The devastation wrought by these nations on Israel is evidence that

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19

75

Brueggemann seem to understand the ʻāzab-complaints and their literary context somewhat differently. But first, in their commentaries they very much follow the prevailing tendency to read the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19 as statements of explanation and justification. That is, in the ʻāzab-complaints, YHWH is seen to explain and justify some past/present misery of the people in order to either demonstrate their self-infliction65 or to warn the people of what is about to come as they are “now” (‫ )עתה‬on their way “to Egypt to drink the water of the Nile” and “to Assyria to drink the water of the Euphrates” (v. 18).66 As in v. 13, the problem of the people’s forsaking of YHWH in vv. 17 and 19 is commonly understood in terms of infidelity – a “treacherous act of disloyalty against YHWH”67 – as the people have replaced YHWH with others (i.e. Egypt and Assyria). In the following, however, I would like to argue for a different understanding of the poem and of the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19. Rather than just explaining and justifying, I will argue that in the poem of 2:14–19 YHWH continues to confront his people with their behaviour, not unlike what we saw in 2:4–13. But in 2:14–19, YHWH does so from a different perspective and with slightly different purposes. YHWH confronts his people by drawing attention to their present situation in order to provoke recognition and reflection. In this context, the ʻāzab-complaints serve not only the function of explanation and justification. Although the verb ‫ עזב‬takes the non-finite form of the infinitive construct (‫ )עזבך‬and functions grammatically as a noun both in vv. 17 and 19, I will argue that more than just statements of facts, the ʻāzab-complaints function, at least indirectly, as mixed expressions of accusation and lament of YHWH. As mixed expressions of accusation and lament, I will argue, the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19 share the same basic profile as the ʻāzabcomplaint in v. 13. That is, in the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19, YHWH highlights the foolishness of the people and laments compassionately over their foolish behaviour and the tragic consequences of this behaviour. However, the suggestion that YHWH is portrayed as a suffering and lamenting God in vv. 14–19 is not new. Even though neither Fretheim nor Brueggemann mentions it in their commentaries, the poem still features as ev——————————— Yahweh has been forsaken [...]. Exilic readers are in view: ‘you’ have brought this upon ‘yourself’. [...] Verse 19 continues this note of self-infliction. Israel’s own wickedness/evil [...] has resulted in this chastisement – it has not been imposed by God from without” (italics his). 65 For example, Wanke, Jeremia, 38–39; Carroll, Jeremiah, 127–30; Stulman, Jeremiah, 49–51. 66 For example, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 93–97; J. Gordon McConville, Judgment and Promise: An Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 29–33; Allen, Jeremiah, 39, 42–44; Maier, “Reading Back and Forth,” 144–46. 67 Stulman, Jeremiah, 49–50.

76

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

idence of divine suffering in other studies of theirs. The arguments and discussions, however, are rather broadly brushed in those studies and depend heavily on their reading of Jer 2* as a whole, not to mention Jer 2–3*. Common to both of them, however, is that they understand YHWH being portrayed as a victimized God in vv. 14–19, victimized by the people’s forsaking of him. Before I turn to my own reading, let me briefly give an example of each. 3.1.1 Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s Readings In his Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, Brueggemann deals with the ʻāzabcomplaints in vv. 17 and 19 (including v. 13) in connection with his discussion of the portrait of YHWH as a “scorned husband” in the book of Jeremiah: The main point of indictment [in Jer 2], however, is constant: Israel has ‘forsaken’ YHWH (2:13–17, 19) – that is, Israel has walked out on the marriage. Israel did this by seeking other lovers, other loyalties both religious and political [...]. Such infidelity evokes scornful anger of YHWH, who is not only a sovereign but a betrayed, shamed lover who goes nearly berserk in rage. The punishment for such infidelity takes place in the public domain as the poetry moves beyond the primal metaphor. Hence, we hear that Egypt has invaded and abused the land (2:16).68

Although Brueggemann in this case seems primarily interested in how the people’s forsaking of YHWH occasions divine anger more than divine lament, the basic assumption is clear enough: all the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2 are to be understood within the framework of marital imagery – an imagery that apparently by necessity is understood to imply the idea of divine vulnerability and victimization. For, reacting as “a fully articulated personal agent” and a God of pathos in need of his people, YHWH’s anger, according to Brueggemann, is the painful anger of a “betrayed, shamed lover”.69 Without dealing directly with the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19, in The Suffering of God70 Fretheim touches on them in his discussion both of divine questions in the Hebrew Bible in general71 and in his more detailed discussion of the series of questions voiced by YHWH in Jer 2*.72 Among the questions to which Fretheim draws attention are the questions in 2:14, 17–18. Different readings are discussed and highlighted, but in short, Fretheim ends up counting all the questions of YHWH in Jer 2* as evidence of divine suffering; that is, Fretheim considers the questions as YHWH’s lament-filled response to the ——————————— 68

Brueggemann, Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, 81–82. A similar point is made by O’Connor, Pain and Promise, 37 who argues that in vv. 17– 25 YHWH’s complaints against “wife Judah [...] explode in heightened acrimony [as] she has betrayed her husband, her most intimate companion”. 70 Fretheim, Suffering. 71 See Fretheim, Suffering, 53–57. 72 Fretheim, Suffering, 115–16. 69

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19

77

people’s infidelity and forsaking of him. Key to Fretheim’s reading is his general claim that divine questions in the Hebrew Bible are better understood as real questions – that is, “questions seeking to elicit an answer”73 – rather than as purely rhetorical questions. Behind this claim lies the basic idea of Fretheim that the YHWH–people relationship is a real and genuine relationship. For, as Fretheim argues, if the YHWH–people relationship is really real, YHWH asks real questions, questions to which YHWH himself does not know the answer.74 This Fretheim applies in particular to YHWH’s “why?” questions, as for example in Jer 2:14. Thus, although Fretheim also suggests that YHWH’s “why?” questions might simply be read as “a poignant cry, with no specific answer being sought”, he emphasizes that they are probably best understood “to imply a genuine loss on God’s part as to what might explain the faithlessness of the people”75 – “it still makes no sense [...] there simply is no explanation available, nor will there ever be, even for God”.76 Either way, the questions, according to Fretheim, reveal the helplessness and pain of YHWH caused by people’s infidelity and forsaking of him. So, although both Fretheim and Brueggemann tend to focus exclusively on how the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19 function as explanatory accusations in their literary context in their commentaries, in other studies they argue that YHWH is portrayed as a suffering victim of the people’s forsaking of him in vv. 14–19. The key for Fretheim is his understanding of the divine questions in Jer 2*, whereas for Brueggemann it follows from the marital imagery he identifies in Jer 2 in general. However, just as with their readings of the ʻāzabcomplaint in v. 13, given their notion of divine pathos and larger theological frameworks, it follows quite self-evidently that YHWH is portrayed as a suffering victim in vv. 17 and 19. YHWH needs his people, either because YHWH is “a fully articulated personal agent” or because the YHWH–people relationship is a real and genuine relationship. In my view, however, both Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s portrayals of YHWH seem to be quite foreign to the rhetoric of the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19 and their literary contexts. In the following, I attempt to demonstrate this by clarifying my own understanding of the poem of 2:14–19 and the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19. Let me begin by highlighting some significant characteristics of the literary context of the ʻāzab-complaints.

——————————— 73

Fretheim, Suffering, 53. Fretheim sees the questions voiced by YHWH, especially in the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible, as evidence of “divine limitation with respect to God’s knowledge of the future” (Fretheim, Suffering, 45). 75 Fretheim, Suffering, 56. 76 Fretheim, Suffering, 57. 74

78

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

3.2 Literary Context Like most scholars, I take 2:14–19 to be the primary literary context of YHWH’s ʻāzab-complaints in 2:17 and 19,77 even if the unit obviously is closely connected to the broader literary context of Jer 2 (or Jer 2–3*).78 The poem of 2:14–19 has its own distinctive character, and its delimitation is indicated by the change of addressee between v. 13 and v. 14 – from Israel as a people (referred to in the plural) to Israel as a single male figure – and the expanded oracle formula at the end of v. 19: “says the Lord, YHWH of hosts” (‫)נאם אדני יהוה צבאות‬. However, the present form of the poem is complex, and the criterion of change of addressee is somewhat ambiguous. The change between v. 13 and v. 14 is followed by another change between v. 15 and v. 16 – that is, the change from Israel as a single male figure in vv. 14–15 to an unidentified female figure in vv. 16–19. The understanding of the latter change is disputed, but in my view, rather than disrupting the unity of vv. 14–19, the change serves significant rhetorical purposes in the poem. This suggestion relates to my understanding of the poem as a whole. In short, in the following I will argue that in vv. 14–19, YHWH, in order to provoke recognition and reflection, confronts his people with their behaviour by drawing attention to their present situation. Or, as Fischer puts it, the poem of vv. 14–19 forms a “Konfrontation Israels mit seiner Realität in Fragen, [welche] einmünden in die Erkenntnisaufforderung”.79 Essential to this understanding is the claims, first, that the poem of vv. 14–19 portrays one continuous and ongoing situation, not two distinct situations of distress, and second, that the questions voiced by YHWH are rhetorical questions serving to provoke recognition among the people. Let me begin with the situation of distress. 3.2.1 Situation of Distress The interpretation of the misery portrayed in the poem is disputed. The bones of contention are particularly the reference to, and identity of, Israel in vv. 14– ——————————— 77 For example, Rudolph, Jeremia, 15–17; Thompson, Jeremiah, 171–75; Carroll, Jeremiah, 127–30; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 35–39; Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 36; Wanke, Jeremia, 38–39; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 269–75; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 67–68; Schmidt, Jeremia, 81–84. Some scholars, however, read vv. 1–19 as one unit (see, for example, Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 31; Angela Bauer, Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading, StBibLit 5 [New York: Lang, 1999], 16, 23–24; Allen, Jeremiah, 39, 42–44). Others have read vv. 14–19 together with vv. 1–3 as a unit (see, for example, Bright, Jeremiah, 14, 17). 78 The connection to the broader literary context of Jer 2–3* is highlighted in particular by the water imagery (2:13, 18), the person of address (Israel as a single male character, cf. 2:3, 14–15, 28; 4:1–2; the unidentified female character, cf. 2:16–25, 33–37), several keywords and phrases like ‫( עזב‬2:13, 17, 19), ‫( דרך‬2:17, 18, 23, 33, 36; 3:2, 13, 21), and the names Egypt and Assyria (2:18, 36, cf. 2:16). 79 Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 153.

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19

79

15, the relationship between Israel (vv. 14–15) and the female figure in vv. 16– 19, and the references to the enemies in vv. 15, 16, and especially to Egypt and Assyria in v. 18. In other words, the discussion relates to the attempt to clarify the original historical setting of vv. 14–19 and to identify the specific event(s) in the history of Israel and Judah to which vv. 14–19 are supposed to refer. The different readings of Christl M. Maier and Robert P. Carroll may serve as good examples of the discussion, and ultimately as helpful dialogue partners to clarify my own reading of the present form of the poem. For instance, Christl. M. Maier, while reading the poem of vv. 14–19 as “a late preexilic piece of prophetic propaganda”,80 establishes a sharp distinction between vv. 14–15 and 16–19. According to Maier, vv. 14–15 “look back at the ‘enslavement’ of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians” and serve as “a comparison for the fate that awaits the [preexilic] people of Judah if they do not change their current policy”.81 In other words, Maier distinguishes between the description of a past situation in vv. 14–15 (i.e. “the ‘enslavement’ of the northern kingdom”) and the vision of a possible future situation in vv. 16–19 (i.e. “the fate that awaits the people of Judah”). Carroll, on the other hand, is hesitant to make a sharp distinction between vv. 14-15 and vv. 16–19 and argues instead that “the language of the unit is sufficiently general and abstract to require no precise identification with actual events”.82 Carroll thus reads the whole of vv. 14-19 as a sort of (post)exilic theodicy, offering a theological explanation of “a history of military invasions and a devastated land” in general. As regards the references to Egypt and Assyria in v. 18, for instance, Carroll argues that since Egypt and Assyria serve as typical “word pairs in biblical poetry” they help “the poet in the construction of poems but [...] are clichés and lack [specific] meaning”.83 In other words, in v. 18 the references to Egypt and Assyria serve as broadly applicable metaphors of imperial oppression, “of hopes that are doomed to disappointment because of the inalienably self-serving character of the overlord”.84 Although MT’s reading is difficult at some points,85 I would argue that neither Maier’s nor Carroll’s reading can be said to do justice to the complexity of the present form of the poem of vv. 14–19. Maier’s clear-cut distinction between two different situations – a past (vv. 14–15) and a future (vv. 16–19) situation – seems too simple. Although Maier’s main argument for a distinction ——————————— 80

Maier, “Reading Back and Forth,” 144. Maier, “Reading Back and Forth,” 145–46. 82 Carroll, Jeremiah, 129. 83 Carroll, Jeremiah, 129. 84 McConville, Judgment and Promise, 32. 85 The difficulty relates primarily to MT’s ‫ נצתה‬in v. 15bβ and ‫ ירעוך‬in v. 16b. Both are practically unreadable. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 50–51, however, convincingly argues that we’d better follow the reading of qǝrê in v. 15bβ – ‫נצתו‬, Niphal plural of ‫ יצת‬and the root ‫רעע‬ in v. 16b. 81

80

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

– the change of addressee between vv. 14–15 and vv. 16–19 – may be reasonable, her claim that the distinction is supported by the verb forms in vv. 14–19, that is, past tense in vv. 14–15 and present tense in vv. 16–19, is simply not correct. For instance, Maier generally claims “the Hebrew qatal forms” in vv. 14–15 as evidence in support of reading “lions roared against him” (v. 15aα) in the past tense,86 even though ‫ ישאגו‬is unmistakably in the imperfect form. Even though it certainly is possible to read ‫ ישאגו‬as a past tense,87 in this case it seems unnecessary and forced. In my view, a more promising approach to the present form of the poem is, first, to follow Carroll’s suggestion to take the names of enemies as metaphors of arch-enemies and imperial oppressors, and second, to take the different addressees as rhetorical devices referring to the one and the same people of YHWH throughout the whole poem. In light of these suggestions, I would argue that vv. 14–19 poetically describe a present and ongoing situation of the people of YHWH – a situation to which associations of events of the past and visions of the future are added to highlight its misery and hopelessness. The point of departure is that people of YHWH have become prey (‫ )בז‬and that “lions roar (‫ )ישאגו‬over him”88 (v. 15aα) after they have been “snarling” ( ‫נתנו‬ ‫ קולם‬v. 15aβ) at him and eventually “made his land a wasteland” ( ‫וישיתו ארצו‬ ‫לשמה‬, v. 15bα). The prospects for the future are no less tragic as “the sons of Noph and Tahpanhes” (v. 16a) too will prove their enmity and “break your skull (‫( ”)ירעוך קדקד‬v. 16b). This situation, in turn, serves as a basis and springboard for YHWH’s accusations against the people in vv. 17–18 and the final exhortation in v. 19b: “Know (‫ )ודעי‬and see (‫ )וראי‬how bad and bitter it is to forsake YHWH.” This is not to say that the specific place names and the different ways of addressing the people are arbitrary. Certainly, both the place names and the different ways of addressing the people serve significant rhetorical purposes in the poem as they contribute significantly to the characterization of both the people’s situation and their behaviour. Since the point here is to argue that vv. 14–19 poetically describe a present and ongoing situation of the people of YHWH, I focus here on the situation of the people, whereas below I will look more closely at the characterization of their behaviour. First, as J. Gordon McConville notes against Carroll, the place name metaphors “would be meaningless without a consciousness of the events in the background”.89 Hence, that the motifs of Israel, enslavement, wasteland, Assyria, etc. to some extent refer to the catastrophe of the northern kingdom, as ——————————— 86

Maier, “Reading Back and Forth,” 145. See Merwe et al., Biblical Hebrew, 149. 88 As Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 94 notes, “a lion roars over his catch when the catch is dying, or already dead. The lions are not threatening Israel, they have caught Israel. The bad news is not potential but actual”. 89 McConville, Judgment and Promise, 32. 87

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19

81

Maier emphasizes, seems clear. But, contrary to Maier, I suggest that, in the poem of vv. 14–19, the tragic history of the northern kingdom is only connoted and played on to highlight the hopelessness and helplessness of the addressed people’s situation. Put differently, by describing the situation of the people addressed in the poem in terms connoting the tragic history of the northern kingdom, the hopelessness and helplessness of their situation are emphasized. Second, as regards the different ways of addressing the people, the name “Israel” serves not only to highlight the hopelessness of the people’s situation. In addition to connoting a reference to the northern kingdom, it functions – just like in v. 4 – as an ideal designation of the people, emphasizing their special status as the chosen people of YHWH.90 As an ideal designation, the name “Israel” serves to highlight the ironic absurdity that these chosen people of YHWH now find themselves in the hopeless and helpless situation of having “a slave” and “prey” (v. 14). The point is emphasized by the broader literary context in Jer 2, and especially by v. 3, which emphasizes that Israel, as the people of YHWH, is “holy to YHWH, the first fruits of his harvest” and thus protected against all threats of devouring (‫ )אכל‬enemies.91 To conclude, in the poem of vv. 14–19, YHWH draws attention to the tragic situation in which his people find themselves and highlights the ironic absurdity and hopelessness of the situation. By doing so, YHWH establishes a basis and springboard to challenge the people’s behaviour. 3.2.2 Rhetorical Questions As with Jer 2 in its entirety, the poem of vv. 14–19 is characterized by containing a series of questions voiced by YHWH. The poem opens with the characteristic sequence [...] ‫[ מדוע‬...] ‫[ אם‬...] -‫ה‬, which is rather unique to the book of Jeremiah: “Is (-‫ )ה‬Israel a slave? Is (‫ )אם‬he a house-born slave? Why (‫ )מדוע‬has he become a prey?” (v. 14).92 The opening sequence is followed by another series of questions in vv. 17–18, respectively: “Is (-‫ )ה‬not this what is working on you?” (v. 17a); “What’s in it for you (‫ )מה לך‬of your journey to Egypt?” (v. 18aα); “What’s in it for you (‫ )מה לך‬of your journey to Egypt?” (v. 18bα). According to Fretheim, as noted above, the questions should be read as “real” questions of YHWH and thus as indicators of divine vulnerability. That they go without answers, Fretheim argues, suggests the bewilderment and helplessness of YHWH. However, although the driving force of the poem of vv. 14– 19 is a “why?” question – “Why has he become a prey?” (v. 14b) – the point ——————————— 90

See above in II.2.2.3. For the rhetorical function of addressing the people as a female figure, see more below in II.3.3.1. 92 Cf. Jer 2:14, 31; 8:19, 22; 14:19; 22:28. For a study of the tradition-historical roots and rhetorical function of this sequence of questions, see Walter Brueggemann, “Jeremiah’s Use of Rhetorical Questions,” JBL 92 (1973): 358–74. 91

82

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

in the poem is not that this question goes unanswered. On the contrary, the point is to answer the question – that is, to demonstrate that the people have “become a prey” because they have forsaken YHWH. In fact, as noted above, Fretheim recognizes this himself in his commentary. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the questions in vv. 14–19 are to be taken as rhetorical questions – as they commonly are – that is, as questions asked to make a point and drive home some idea of conviction.93 Moreover, Sharon Moughtin-Mumby has helpfully drawn attention to the “relentless ridicule and inexorable irony” of the rhetorical questions in vv. 14– 19 and in Jer 2 in general.94 According to Moughtin-Mumby, the questions “share the common cause of ruthlessly exposing the absurdity and irony pervading Judah’s actions”.95 Moughtin-Mumby’s observation is significant as she helps us to recognize the irony pervading vv. 14–19. First, and as already noted above, the situation described in the poem is itself absurd; Israel – the chosen people of YHWH, – has ended up as a “slave” and “prey”.96 Given this situation, how even more absurd, then, to turn to Egypt and Assyria for help – their arch-enemies of the people and the very perpetrators of their ruin.97 Egypt and Assyria, as is made explicitly clear in v. 36, offer nothing but shame (‫)בוש‬. However, there is more to the questions in vv. 14–19 than just taunts and mockery. As Fischer points out, the questions – and the poem as a whole – lead up to and culminate in the call to recognition in v. 19: “Know (‫ )ודעי‬and see (‫ )וראי‬how bad and bitter it is to forsake YHWH” (v. 19b). Hence, more than just exposing the absurdity of the people’s situation and behaviour, YHWH seeks to provoke recognition and reflection among the people. It is in the light of this context, I suggest, that we are to understand the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19.

——————————— 93 See Sharon Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 85: “[R]hetorical questions are ‘one of the most forceful and effectual ways employed in speech for driving home some idea or conviction’” (quoting C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament, POS 5 [Leiden: Brill, 1966], 23). 94 Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 84–89. 95 Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 86. See also Longman III, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 32 who defines the questions as “taunting questions”. 96 Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 86: “In the wake of the first two questions [i.e. v. 14a], the final question [i.e. v. 14b] stresses that Judah should never have become war spoils.” As regards the characteristic ‫ אם‬-‫ ה‬sequence, Brueggemann, “Rhetorical Questions,” 359 argues that “Jeremiah uses the rhetorical question to restate a traditional, generally accepted presupposition.” 97 As Egypt is evidently associated with “the sons of Noph and Tahpanhes” in v. 16, it seems plausible to associate Assyria with the lions (‫ )כפרים‬in v. 15.

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19

83

3.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaints Given what has been pointed out above, it seems clear that YHWH is not simply offering an explanation in the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:17 and 19. More than just explaining a situation, the situation of the people serves as a springboard for confrontation. In this confrontation, I will argue, the ʻāzab-complaints are to be understood as mixed expressions of accusation and lament – or more precisely, as mixed expressions of accusation of foolishness and compassionate lament. Let me begin with the accusatory aspect of the complaints. 3.3.1 Accusations of (Marital) Infidelity? Like the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13, the problem of forsaking YHWH in vv. 14– 19 is closely associated with that of turning to others. Between the two ʻāzabcomplaints in vv. 17 and 19, we find the questions: “What’s in it for you of your journey to Egypt, to drink the water of the Nile?” and “What’s in it for you of your journey to Assyria to drink the water of the Euphrates?” (v. 18). Hence, that the problem of infidelity – that is, of replacing YHWH with others – is thematized and addressed in vv. 17–19, just like in v. 13, seems clear. In continuity with this, several scholars – including Fretheim and Brueggemann – tend to identify the female figure in vv. 16–19 as the very antithesis of “bride Jerusalem” in v. 2. As a result, in vv. 17–19, YHWH is seen to confront his faithless bride/wife Jerusalem/Judah with her infidelity.98 However, just like in v. 13, although the problem of infidelity is certainly thematized in vv. 17–19, details in the rhetoric of vv. 17–19 indicate that the problem addressed in the ʻāzab-complaint cuts somewhat deeper. Put differently, there seems to be more going on in vv. 17–19 than just that of highlighting the people’s treacherous and disloyal behaviour of turning from YHWH to others. First, although the agent of the verb ‫ עזב‬in vv. 17 and 19 is a female figure,99 it should be noted the figure is not identified. Of course, since vv. 14– 15 connect with v. 3 as both units speak about Israel as a single male figure, it certainly makes sense to associate the female figure in vv. 16–19 with “bride Jerusalem” in v. 2. Nevertheless, the female figure in vv. 16–19 is not explicitly associated with “bride Jerusalem”. But even more importantly, neither YHWH nor the female figure are cast in typical roles of husband and wife in vv. 16–19. YHWH is identified as “your God” (‫אלהיך‬, vv. 17, 19), not “your husband”, and in v. 19 the ʻāzab-complaint is paralleled with a ‫פחד‬-complaint (‫)לא פחדתי‬. Evidently, the term ‫ פחד‬does not belong to the vocabulary typical of ——————————— 98 For example, Diamond and O’Connor, “Unfaithful Passions,” 293–97; Sarah J. Dille, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah, JSOTSup 398 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 155; Stulman, Jeremiah, 49–50; Yates, “Jeremiah’s Message,” 149–51. 99 In fact, among YHWH’s ʻāzab-complaints in the book of Jeremiah, the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:17 and 2:19 are the only two in which the agent of the verb ‫ עזב‬is identified as a female figure.

84

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

marital imagery in prophetic literature. Accordingly, as several studies of marital imagery in the prophetic literature point out, it is only in v. 2 that marital imagery is explicitly attested in Jer 2. Elsewhere in Jer 2 (i.e. vv. 16–19, 20– 25, 33–37), the female figure is better characterized as a prostitute and promiscuous woman than identified as YHWH’s bride/wife.100 As I will argue in my excursus on marital imagery in Jer 2 below,101 we should distinguish between characterizations of the people as YHWH’s bride/wife and as a prostitute in Jer 2. In Jer 2, the latter primarily serves to highlight the irony and tragedy, not the infidelity, of the people’s casual way of relating to others – a function that makes perfect sense in the context of vv. 16–19 and explains the change of addressee from Israel as a single male figure in vv. 14–15 to a female figure in vv. 16–19. To conclude, the rhetoric of vv. 16–19 indicates that one should be careful not to let the reading of the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19 be controlled by marital imagery. Second, one should not ignore the temporal distinction between v. 17 and v. 18. While v. 17 locates the people’s forsaking of YHWH temporarily “at the time he was leading you” (‫בעת מוליכך‬, v. 17c), v. 18 opens with the adverbial phrase “and now” (‫ועתה‬, v. 18aα). In other words, the people’s turning to Egypt and Assyria is presented as something distinct from their forsaking of YHWH – as something following upon their forsaking of YHWH. This distinction corresponds with the distinction between the “two evils” in v. 13 and is emphasized in vv. 14–19 by the fact that, as will be shown below, v. 17 indicates that the situation of the people in vv. 14–16 is occasioned by their forsaking of YHWH alone. Hence, in vv. 17–19 too, we should be careful not to simply lump together the people’s forsaking of YHWH and their turning to others and treat the two accusations as referring to one single concept of infidelity or the like. Instead, I would suggest that in the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19, just like in v. 13, YHWH draws attention to a problem in the people’s relationship with YHWH that is prior to their turning to others. 3.3.2 Accusations of Foolishness We have already seen above that the poem of vv. 14–19 is marked by strong notes of irony. The ironic absurdity of the people’s situation and their turning to Egypt and Assyria for help has been noted above. The final call to recognition in v. 19 indicates that the people have failed to recognize this absurdity and thus manifest themselves not only as a disloyal people but as a terribly foolish people. The portrait of the people as a terribly foolish people, I would argue, reaches its climax in the ʻāzab-complaints, especially in v. 17. ——————————— 100 See, for example, Abma, Bonds of Love, 245–47; Baumann, Love and Violence, 106– 07; Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 89–106. See also Bauer, Gender in the Book of Jeremiah, 16–43. 101 Excursus 1.

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19

85

Certainly, the irony that the misery of the people proves to be self-inflicted is well recognized. As even Fretheim notes, “Israel’s own apostasies have turned back on them and made them the victim of plundering neighbors. The irony is that by forsaking YHWH and seeking the gods of other peoples, they are thrown into exile among these very nations”.102 However, the foolishness of the people manifests itself not only in the point of self-infliction. Just as in v. 13, the forsaking of YHWH is presented as an inherently disastrous thing to do. This, at least, seems to be the implication if, contrary to many scholars, we stay with MT’s reading in v. 17a and read ‫ תעשה‬as a third person singular feminine with ‫ זאת‬as the grammatical subject.103 To clarify, let me contrast my reading of v. 17ab with the reading of NRSV, to which many scholars appear to adhere. My reading: “Is not this what is working on you – your forsaking of YHWH our God?”104 NRSV: “Have you not brought this upon yourself by forsaking the Lord your God?”

Of course, the basic meaning is the same. In both cases, the tragic situation of the people is occasioned by the people’s forsaking of YHWH. However, if we stay with MT’s reading, it is highlighted that the situation described in vv. 14– 16 follows inherently from the people’s forsaking of YHWH. It is “this” (‫)זאת‬ – that is, “your forsaking of YHWH your God” (‫ – )עזבך את יהוה אלהיך‬that “works on you” (‫)תעשה לך‬. A similar point is highlighted in v. 19, which emphasizes the harmfulness (‫ )רע‬and bitterness (‫ )מר‬of forsaking YHWH. Hence, more than highlighting the “reprisal for unfaithfulness to its covenant God”,105 the situation described in vv. 14–16 clarifies the inherent disaster of the people’s forsaking of YHWH. The point is thus the same as in v. 13: YHWH is the kind of God who simply cannot be forsaken without disastrous consequences for the people.106 Furthermore, that this is so – that is, the “impossibility” of forsaking YHWH – is something the people themselves are supposed to know. As the rhetorical question in v. 17 indicates, the consequences of forsaking YHWH are self-evident: “Is not this what is working on you?” Hence, when the people nevertheless abandon YHWH, the problem is not only infidelity, nor just absurd infidelity – that is, a lack of good sense and judgment. The people have failed to recognize what they should know: that they are completely dependent upon YHWH for life and that YHWH therefore cannot be forsaken without disastrous consequences for life and for themselves. It is in this sense I suggest that YHWH first and foremost confronts the people with their foolishness in the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19. And just as with the ——————————— 102

Fretheim, Jeremiah, 68. See above, footnote II.60 (ch. II.3). 104 For a similar reading, see Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 51. 105 Allen, Jeremiah, 43. 106 Cf. II.2.3.2. 103

86

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

ʻāzab-complaint in v. 13, this understanding has certain implications for the next point, the nature of the lament of the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19. 3.3.3 Compassionate Laments Although notes of divine lament may not be as strong and dominant in vv. 14– 19 as in vv. 4–13, I would argue that YHWH is portrayed as a suffering and lamenting God in vv. 14–19 too. Not, however, because the divine questions are to be understood as painful lament-filled questions, as argued by Fretheim, nor because of a marital metaphor implying divine vulnerability, as Brueggemann argues. Neither Fretheim’s nor Brueggemann’s reading proves convincing. One reason for this is the lack of a convincing exegetical basis for their claims about the divine questions and marital imagery in vv. 14–19. Another and even more important factor, however, is the conclusion they draw: that YHWH is portrayed as a victimized God in vv. 14–19, victimized by the people’s forsaking of him. While the conclusion certainly follows naturally from their notion of divine pathos and theological frameworks, it seems quite foreign to the rhetoric of vv. 14–19. As pointed out, the central point in vv. 14– 19 is the victimization of the people because of their forsaking of YHWH. Still, three features in vv. 14–19 suggest a desire for a continuing relationship with the people on YHWH’s part – a desire ruined by the people’s forsaking of YHWH. First, the adverbial clause in v. 17c is noteworthy: “at the time he was leading you in the way” (‫)בעת מוליכך בדרך‬. Obviously, that the people are accused of having forsaken YHWH “at the time” (‫ )בעת‬he was leading them serves to underline the gravity and rebellious character of the people’s forsaking of YHWH. This point is further emphasized by the fact that the people, instead of following YHWH’s guidance, are on their way (‫ )דרך‬to Egypt and Assyria. In addition to this, the clause indicates a divine concern for the people – a concern for their well-being – and an ideal situation. In v. 6, where we find a similar motif of divine guidance (‫)מוליך‬, YHWH’s concern for the people is the central point. Second, YHWH refers to himself as “your God” (‫ )אלהיך‬in both ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19. As Leslie C. Allen points out, this “echoes ‘my people’ in vv. 11 and 13 as the other side of the double covenant formula”.107 Just as in v. 13, this suggests that YHWH keeps holding on to his relationship with the people even in the midst of their violation of it. Finally, the poem of vv. 14–19 is open-ended, just like the poem of vv. 4– 13.108 As pointed out above, the driving force and goal of YHWH’s speech in vv. 14–19 is the call to recognition (esp. v. 19). As Fischer notes, the call to recognition indicates: “[d]ieser Gott gibt nicht auf”.109 ——————————— 107

Allen, Jeremiah, 42. Cf. II.2.2.1. 109 Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 177. 108

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaints in Jer 2:17 and 2:19

87

Taken together, these three features suggest that there is a desire on the part of YHWH for a continuing relationship with his people and that this desire is at stake in the people’s forsaking of him. Therefore, I agree with Fretheim and Brueggemann: the ʻāzab-complaints in vv. 17 and 19 carry notes of divine lament, and YHWH is portrayed as a suffering and lamenting God in vv. 14–19. Contrary to Fretheim and Brueggemann, however, I would argue that the lament of YHWH is better understood as a compassionate lament over the foolishness of the people’s behaviour than as a lament of a forsaken and victimized YHWH. Just as in vv. 4–13, it seems more helpful and appropriate to understand YHWH’s desire for a continuing relationship with his people as a desire of excess and abundance, a desire manifesting itself in YHWH’s concern for the well-being of his people as he leads and guides (hip. ‫ )הלך‬them “in the way” (‫בדרך‬, v. 17c). Such a reading also takes seriously the central point in the poem that the true victim of the people’s forsaking of YHWH is the people themselves, not YHWH. 3.4 Conclusion Above I have argued that there are good reasons to read the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:17 and 19 as mixed expressions of accusation of foolishness and compassionate lament over the foolishness of the people. By arguing this I have challenged Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of the ʻāzab-complaints. Both Brueggemann’s claims about marital imagery and Fretheim’s interpretation of the divine questions in the poem of 2:14–19 prove problematic and seem to follow more from their notion of divine pathos and larger theological frameworks than from convincing close readings of ʻāzab-complaints in 2:17 and 19 and their literary context (i.e. 2:14–19). Or more precisely, their claim that YHWH is portrayed as a victimized God suffering from the behaviour and loss of his people is foreign to the rhetoric of the ʻāzab-complaint and its literary context. In the poem of 2:14–19, YHWH confronts his people with their behaviour to provoke recognition and reflection. YHWH does so by drawing attention to their present helpless and tragic situation, which follows as a result of their behaviour. In other words, the central point of the confrontation is to highlight that the people’s tragic situation is foolishly self-inflicted. The ʻāzab-complaints in 2:17 and 19 play a key role in this respect. For just as in 2:13, the forsaking of YHWH is presented as an inherently disastrous thing to do. Again, YHWH is the kind of God who simply cannot be forsaken without disastrous consequences for the people. As the rhetorical question in 2:17 indicates, this is a self-evident fact that the people should know. Therefore, when the people nevertheless abandon YHWH, the problem is not only infidelity, nor just absurd infidelity – that is, a lack of good sense and judgment. The people have failed to recognize what they should know: that they are completely dependent

88

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

upon YHWH for life and that YHWH therefore cannot be forsaken without disastrous consequences for life and for themselves. However, this point is made not just for the sake of pointing out the foolishness of the people. Rather, it serves the purpose of inducing recognition on the people’s part. This purpose, I have argued, indicates a desire for restored relationship on YHWH’s part. Just as in 2:4–13, YHWH is portrayed as holding on to his relationship with the people, yearning for its restoration. The poem is open-ended and YHWH continues to refer to himself as “your [i.e. the people] God” throughout the poem. Contrary to Fretheim and Brueggemann, however, this desire of YHWH seems better understood as one rooted in excess and abundance, manifesting itself in YHWH’s concern for the well-being of the people, than as a desire of lack and need. Such an understanding fits better the rhetoric of the poem and underscores the central point of the poem: the people themselves are the true victim of their forsaking of YHWH, not YHWH. This means that the suffering YHWH, lamenting the broken relationship in v. 13, is not so much a vulnerable victim in need of the people as a God upon whom the people are entirely dependent for life and well-being, who laments compassionately over the foolishness of the people.

Excursus 1: Marital Imagery in Jer 2 Excursus 1: Marital Imagery in Jer 2

Obviously, the larger context of Jer 2* plays a significant role in Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:13, 17, and 19. The significance manifests itself first and foremost in the way they tend to treat marriage as a root metaphor in Jer 2* and thus read marital imagery into each and every poetic unit in Jer 2*.110 This tendency, combined with their specific interpretation of marital imagery, is in my view key to Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s reading of the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:13, 17, and 19 as laments of a forsaken and victimized YHWH.

——————————— 110 A similar tendency is found in, among others, Diamond and O’Connor, “Unfaithful Passions,” 292: the root metaphor of the broken marriage “formally, thematically, and narratively unifies the diverse materials collected in chs. 2–3”, and Renita J. Weems, Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 53: “[T]he marital and sexual imagery in Jeremiah functions rhetorically [...] to provide a framework for evaluating Israel’s behavior over a period of time.” See also Zipor, “‘Scenes from a Marriage’,” 86; Carroll, Jeremiah, 119.

Excursus 1: Marital Imagery in Jer 2

89

Above I have argued against the idea that the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:13, 17, and 19 are to be understood within the framework of marital imagery. However, that is not to say there is no marital imagery in Jer 2.111 That marital imagery is attested in Jer 2 is indisputable. The interesting question is the extent, meaning, and function of it in Jer 2. In attempting to do justice to the arguments of Fretheim and Brueggemann, I would like to offer some brief remarks on the marital imagery in Jer 2. I begin with some brief and basic theoretical reflections concerning the reading of marital imagery in prophetic literature in the Hebrew Bible in general. 1. The Diversity of Marital and Sexual Metaphors The study of marital and sexual metaphors in the prophetic literature in recent decades is characterized by considerable theoretical discussions concerning the nature of metaphors – of what they are and what they do. As a result, it has become standard practice to draw a sharp distinction between so-called “substitutionary” and “interactive” approaches to metaphors. Nevertheless, as Sharon Moughtin-Mumby has shown, proponents of either approach often fail to recognize the diversity of the sexual and marital metaphors in the prophetic literature. Moreover, they tend to end up harmonizing the language and indeed “substitute” the metaphors with rather fixed concepts. This, Moughtin-Mumby argues, is reflected, first, in the way the metaphors are generically referred to as “the prophetic marriage metaphor” in definite singular form.112 Second, and most interestingly to us, we see it in “the tendency to presume that a recognized storyline lies behind all prophetic sexual and marital metaphorical language”113 – that is, the story of the marriage between YHWH and his people. Both tendencies are clearly manifested in Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of Jer 2*. In addition to speaking of the marriage metaphor in singular definite form, they tend to reduce the rich metaphorical language to one fixed concept, namely marital infidelity. However, as I have shown above, with respect to the poems of 2:4–13 and 2:14–19, such an approach seems quite misleading. In addition, as Moughtin-Mumby has shown, the approach is indeed quite reductionistic in terms of metaphor theory, demonstrating nothing but an ——————————— 111

Since this is intended as nothing more than a brief excursus, I choose to concentrate on Jer 2, not Jer 2* or Jer 2–3*. However, the arguments to be offered in the following seem relevant quite independently of whether or not I expand the discussion to include Jer 2*/Jer 2–3*. 112 See Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 6–7, 23–25. 113 Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 26. The problem was to some extent also addressed by Nelly Stienstra, YHWH is the Husband of His People: Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993), 163, as she warned that “we have grown used to the idea that whenever Jerusalem or Israel is compared to a harlot, we must be dealing with an instance of the marriage metaphor, but this need not necessarily be true”.

90

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

inadequate recognition of the diversity of the marital and sexual metaphorical language in prophetic literature.114 In short, then, I will argue that instead of taking all marital and sexual metaphors as variants of “the marriage metaphor”, we must pay close attention to unique features and the specific literary context of each individual metaphor. 2. The Unidentified Female Figure in Jer 2 Given the preceding point, the question of the extent of marital imagery in Jer 2 needs to be raised. For the common claim that “the marriage metaphor” serves as the decisive and controlling metaphor in Jer 2 is based on the tendency of many scholars – including Fretheim and Brueggemann – to identify the unidentified female figure in vv. 16–25 and 33–37 as the wife of YHWH. But with the exception of v. 2, there really is no explicit evidence of marital imagery in Jer 2. The closest we come may be the term ‫ זנה‬in v. 20, a term that is certainly often considered among the best indicators of marital imagery in prophetic literature in the Hebrew Bible.115 But as has also been pointed out, “‫ זנה‬does not simply mean ‘commit adultery’”.116 A more apt rendering may be “prostitution” or “whoring”. Hence, when the female figure is accused of ‫ זנה‬in v. 20, the problem in focus may not necessarily be defined in terms of marital infidelity – that is, that “[t]he former bride has now broken free of her covenant relationship”.117 More plausibly, the problem primarily concerns the way the female figure relates herself to lovers. For as the literary context makes clear, at the same time as the female figure proclaims her independence and autonomy – “I will not serve (‫ – ”)לא אעבד‬she is “bending over (‫ )צעה‬to prostitute (‫ ”)זנה‬and thus gives herself to serve others.118 Apparently, then, the point is not so much the problem of marital infidelity, but the irony and tragedy of her promiscuous and casual way of relating to others.119 If so, the point made in v. 20 corresponds with that in vv. 4–13 and vv. 14–19, and, I may dare to suggest, in vv. 33–37, in which the unidentified female figure is envisioned as being left to shame and humiliation as a result of her relationship with Egypt and Assyria. Hence, as scholars have become increasingly aware, the unidentified female figure in vv. 16–25 and vv. 33–37 should not necessarily be identified as YHWH’s wife.120 For, more than the infidelity of the people, YHWH seems ——————————— 114

Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors. See Baumann, Love and Violence, 41. 116 Baumann, Love and Violence, 43. 117 Kathleen M. O’Connor, “Jeremiah,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (London: SPCK, 1992), 170. 118 Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 96. 119 See Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 96–98. 120 See footnote II.100 (ch. II.3.3.1). 115

Excursus 1: Marital Imagery in Jer 2

91

to point out the absurdity and tragedy of the people’s behaviour, both in turning away from him and in their search for others.121 3. The Meaning and Function of vv. 2–3 in Jer 2 Finally, a few remarks on the meaning and function of the poem of 2:2–3 are required. Undoubtedly, in vv. 2–3 we find explicit evidence of marital imagery. It is accompanied, though, by language and imagery drawn from the cult. YHWH begins by praising Jerusalem for her “faithfulness” (‫)חסד‬,122 her “bridal love” (‫)אהבת כלולתיך‬, and for following after (‫ )הלך אחר‬him (v. 2bc). Then YHWH praises Israel for being “holy” (‫ )קדש‬to him and “the first fruit of his harvest” (‫ראשית תבואתו‬, v. 3a).123 However, the poem of 2:2–3 is interesting not just because of the evidence of marital imagery. More importantly, as is commonly recognized, the poem pictures the ideal relationship between YHWH and his people,124 defined as an exclusive relationship of mutual love. Moreover, by being placed at the opening of the chapter, the poem is considered to serve as a contrasting foil to the subsequent speech of YHWH in the poems of Jer 2.125 In light of that, it is not difficult to understand why scholars make the problem of infidelity the prism through which they perceive the subsequent accusations of YHWH in Jer 2. Clearly, the common denominator of the images of Jerusalem as the bride of YHWH and Israel as “the first fruit of his harvest” is that of exclusive belonging, prohibiting any form of replacing YHWH with others.126 Moreover, it seems quite clear that Fretheim and Brueggemann are correct in emphasizing ——————————— 121

In v. 20 the demand for exclusive loyalty seems to be implied in the use of the formulaic phrase “on every high hill and under every green tree”. Thus, as in vv. 4–13 and vv. 14– 19, the problem of infidelity is not out of view. It is just not the problem in focus. 122 On the ‫ הסד‬of man in the prophetic literature, see Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry, HSM 17 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 168–93. 123 I follow the reading of qǝrê: ‫תּבוּאָ תוֹ‬. ְ See Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 49. 124 As Michael DeRoche, “Jeremiah 2:2–3 and Israel’s Love for God During the Wilderness Wanderings,” CBQ 45 (1983): 364–76, pointed out in response to the theory of the “desert ideal”, the ideal in v. 2 concerns the people’s attitude towards YHWH, not the setting of the desert. 125 Some, in fact, suggest that the entire book is to be read in light of these verses. See, for example, Yates, “Jeremiah’s Message”. Or, as argued by Fretheim, Suffering, 115: “Once again a prophetic work begins, not with hellfire and damnation, but with a picture of the pain and anguish of God. The memories of how good the marriage used to be makes the present, with its absence of devotion and love on the part of the bride, all the more painful. All the subsequent accusations and announcements of judgment can only be understood properly if seen as spoken out of the deeply pained heart of God. God’s memory-filled grief informs all that follows, making it clear that these developments are the last thing in the world God wanted.” 126 Cf. Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 32.

92

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

the emotional engagement and desire of YHWH in vv. 2–3.127 The reference to YHWH’s recalling (‫ )זכרתי לך‬in v. 2bα suggests a personal and relational activity.128 Moreover, Jerusalem herself (‫ )ך‬is indeed the object of YHWH’s recalling, not only her devotion. Hence, it seems clear that the relationship recalled is a desired relationship. Still, this, I would argue, does not mean that we should take for granted that the marital imagery in vv. 2–3 implies and signals divine vulnerability. That marital imagery implies divine vulnerability follows by necessity only to the extent that it is presupposed – as Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s notions of divine pathos do – that the desire and love of YHWH is rooted in lack and need. However, things become quite different if we assume that the desire and love of YHWH is rooted in excess and abundance. And in my view, the latter assumption proves far more appropriate to the rhetoric of vv. 2–3 than what follows from the notion of divine pathos. Put briefly, I would argue that vv. 2–3 basically anticipate the points made in vv. 4–13 and vv. 14–19 – that is, that forsaking YHWH is not just an act of infidelity but of foolishness and that the people themselves are to be understood as the true victim of their forsaking of YHWH. The key is the description of the setting of the YHWH–people relationship in vv. 2–3. Let me briefly highlight two aspects. First, the desert (‫ )מדבר‬where the people in the beginning faithfully followed YHWH is described as “a land not sown” (‫ארץ לא זרועה‬, v. 2cβ). This image of barrenness and emptiness stands in sharp contrast to the connotation of fertility implied in the definition of Israel as “the first fruit of his harvest” (‫ראשית תבואתו‬, v. 3aβ), indicating that the people owe their existence to YHWH. It is in belonging exclusively to YHWH that they are associated with life and fruitfulness. Second, the image of Israel as “the first fruit of his harvest” also serves as a springboard to the enemy motif in v. 3b. It is only in belonging exclusively to YHWH that they are protected against the threat of devouring (‫ )אכל‬enemies. ——————————— 127 Cf. Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 31–32; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 61–63. Against, for instance, Abma, Bonds of Love, 247: “With respect to the marriage imagery in Jeremiah 2:2, it may be pointed out that the emphasis lies entirely on the love of Israel towards Yhwh rather than on the love of Yhwh for Israel.” See also Baumann, Love and Violence, 57–66, who warns against reading too many emotional connotations into the prophetic marital imagery. In her arguments, however, Baumann seems to rely too heavily upon the outdated dichotomy between emotional and legal/political language of love established by William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background for the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25, no 1 (1963): 77–87. For more recent discussions of Moran’s thesis, see, for example, Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–69; Bill T. Arnold, “The Love–Fear Antinomy in Deuteronomy 5–11*,” VT 61 (2011): 551–69; Jon D. Levenson, The Love of God: Divine Gift, Human Gratitude, and Mutual Faithfulness in Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), 1–58. 128 See H. Eising, “ ‫זכר‬,” TDOT 4:65.

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7

93

In short, the image of the people as the faithful and loving bride of YHWH and the notions of mutual love and YHWH’s desire in vv. 2–3 are to be understood against the background of the people’s fundamental need for, and dependence upon, YHWH. The point is not the vulnerability of YHWH, but the people’s fundamental need to belong exclusively to YHWH. So, even if one may prefer to put more emphasis on the importance of vv. 2–3 as a foil in the reading of vv. 4–13 and vv. 14–19 than I have done above, it seems that not even the poem of vv. 2–3 justifies reading the notion of a vulnerable God into every subsequent accusation of YHWH.

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7 4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7 How should I pardon you? Your children have forsaken me (‫)עזבוני‬ and sworn by no-gods. When I fed129 them full, they committed adultery and to the whorehouse they throng.130

4.1 Introductory Remarks With the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 we enter a quite different literary universe than what we have been dealing with thus far. We are in the middle of the so-called “foe from the north cycle” of Jer 4:5–6:30, which differ from Jer 2 (or Jer 2– 3*) in several significant ways.131 Most apparently, here the judgment is sealed, and descriptions of impending doom and disaster take centre stage. In accordance with this, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 is commonly considered as forming

——————————— 129

Together with most scholars, I follow MT’s ‫ואשׂבע‬, not ‫ואשׁבע‬, against, for instance, McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 118. 130 MT’s reading of ‫ יתגדדו‬is difficult, and three alternative readings have been suggested. First, some follow LXX κατέλυον and read ‫ יתגוררו‬as “to haunt”, “to tarry”, or “to lodge” (e.g. Duhm, Jeremia, 58–59; Rudolph, Jeremia, 34; Bright, Jeremiah, 36; Schmidt, Jeremia, 140). Second, others hold on to MT’s reading but take ‫“( גדד‬cut oneself”) to be the root (e.g. McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 119; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 180). Finally, MT’s ‫ יתגדדו‬is considered a denominative of ‫( גדוד‬e.g. Carroll, Jeremiah, 178). In my view, the first alternative requires an unnecessary emendation of MT, whereas the second presupposes a cultic context and a metaphorical reading of vv. 7b–8, which I find unconvincing (see below). The third alternative, however, highlighting the intensity and scope of adultery and fornication, goes well with the literary context and is to be preferred, even if, admittedly, it requires a reading of ‫ יתגדדו‬attested nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. 131 Of course, there are also significant points of connection (see Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 59–62), and Jer 2:1–6:30 have long been treated as constituting a macro-unit in the book of Jeremiah (see, for example, Biddle, Jeremiah 2:1–4:2, 3–29).

94

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

part of an oracle of judgment in which YHWH speaks as a judge or, more precisely, as a justified judge.132 In Jer 5, and not least in the immediate literary context of the ʻāzab-complaint of v. 7, descriptions of the people’s sin claim the attention.133 The scene is set by an allusion to the Sodom tradition as YHWH in v. 1 organizes a search throughout the city of Jerusalem to find “a person” (‫)איש‬, “anyone (‫ )אם יש‬who does what is right (‫ )משפט‬and seeks honesty (‫”)אמונה‬ (v. 1b). Just like in Gen 18:16–33, the righteous appears to play “an apotropaic role [...] in the community” 134 – that is, the righteous “wards off evil”.135 However, like Sodom, Jerusalem does not pass the test; “the poor” (‫דלים הם‬, v. 4aα) and “the great ones” (‫הגדלים‬, v. 5aα) alike have all “broken the yoke, ripped apart the bonds” (‫שברו על נתקו מוסרות‬, v. 5c). Considering this context, the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 7 is traditionally understood to highlight the completeness of the people’s corruption and thereby to underline the appropriateness of harsh judgment.136 Again the problem of the people’s forsaking of YHWH tends to be understood in terms of infidelity and disloyalty – of turning away from YHWH in favour of other gods: “[Y]our children have forsaken (‫ )עזבוני‬me and sworn (‫ )וישבעו‬by no-gods” (v. 7a). According to this reading, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 is, in fact, quite similar to the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints to be discussed in the next chapter. Like the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 features in the perfect form (‫ )עזבוני‬and is followed by an accusation of worshipping other gods in the wayyiqtol form: ‫וישבעו בלא אלהים‬. Taken together, the accusations are read as accusations of disloyalty justifying divine judgment. However, in this case, Fretheim and Brueggemann also offer readings that stand out from the traditional reading. Just like the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2, the ʻāzab-complaints in 5:7, they argue, are best read as a mixed expression of accusation and lament. Nevertheless, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 is not quite like the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2. Given the different literary contexts, both Fretheim and Brueggemann are clear that in the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7, YHWH speaks not only as a husband but also as a judge. YHWH is not only ——————————— 132 For example, Wanke, Jeremia, 70; Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 87–88; Longman III, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 56; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 383–84. 133 Jeremiah 5 stands out in that respect from the broader literary context of 4:5–6:30. Wanke, Jeremia, 68: “Stehen in Kap. 4 die Ankündigung des Feindes und der kriegerischen Ereignisse im Vordergrund, so beschäftigen sich die Sprüche des Kap. 5 überwiegend mit der Frage nach Grund und Ursache des zu erwartenden Unheilgeschehens.” See also Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 235; Schmidt, Jeremia, 140. 134 Robert P. Carroll, “Theodicy and the Community: The Text and Subtext of Jeremiah 5:1–6,” in Prophets, Worship and Theodicy. Studies in Prophetism, Biblical Theology and Structural and Rhetorical Analysis and on the Place of Music in Worship, ed. A. S. van der Woude, OtSt 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 27. 135 Carroll, “Theodicy,” 27. 136 For example, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 173–82; Allen, Jeremiah, 71–74; Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 85–89.

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7

95

the forsaken one but also the forsaking one, so to speak – or more precisely, the not forgiving one. That is, in the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7, YHWH is seen to speak as an agonized judge suffering from a dual problem: both the infidelity of the people and the painful situation into which the infidelity of the people has put YHWH as a judge. In both respects, as we will see, Fretheim and Brueggemann take YHWH to be portrayed as a suffering victim in 5:7. But before I elaborate more on Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings, let me briefly anticipate my own conclusion. Again, I basically agree with Fretheim and Brueggemann. The ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 is best understood as a mixed expression of accusation and lament. There certainly is more to the portrait of YHWH in 5:7 than just the image of a justified judge. But just like in Jer 2, the critical issue is the understanding of the divine lament, and again I will argue for a different understanding than Fretheim and Brueggemann – that is, that YHWH suffers and laments compassionately rather than as a victim. The compassionate lament of YHWH, however, is, as we will see, somewhat different in 5:7 than in 2:13, 17, and 19. But before turning to my own reading, let us take a closer look at the readings offered by Fretheim and Brueggemann. 4.1.1 Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s Readings Key to both Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of 5:7 is the question preceding the ʻāzab-complaint: “How should I pardon you?” (v. 7aα). According to Fretheim and Brueggemann, this is not just a rhetorical question, as traditionally argued.137 It is a genuine and lament-filled question138 reflecting a real dilemma139 and a real problem for YHWH. Together with the marital imagery purportedly inherent in the ʻāzab-complaint, the question signals the fundamental desire of YHWH for a continuing relationship and therefore to pardon instead of announcing judgment. The problem, though, is that this desire cannot be realized without major costs for YHWH. Brueggemann140 unfolds the agony of YHWH as a conflict in the complex, interior life of YHWH between “YHWH’s inclination toward forgiveness” and “the need for [...] self-vindication”.141 What is more, Brueggemann seems to argue that what is at stake for YHWH in v. 7 is nothing less than the questions

——————————— 137

For example, Allen, Jeremiah, 73; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 380. See Fretheim, Jeremiah, 110. 139 See Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 61. 140 Of note, Brueggemann reads the ʻāzab-complaint in the context of vv. 7–13. This means that the tension in v. 10 is also included in the discussion. For my reading of v. 10, see III.3. 141 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 61. 138

96

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

of “how to be Yahweh and who to be as Yahweh”.142 In Brueggemann’s view, the alternatives are: a God of uncompromising self-regard or a God of pathos and relatedness.143 On the one hand, the question in v. 7 connects with v. 1 where “Yahweh is desperately seeking a way of forgiveness”.144 YHWH desires continuing relationships and therefore is “ready, willing, and yearning to forgive”.145 On the other hand, the question in v. 7 connects with the questions in v. 9, which makes it clear that “God shall now punish” as “forgiveness in such a city [Jerusalem] would be a mockery. It would make Yahweh appear to be a docile beggar and a helpless patron”.146 In other words, YHWH needs to avenge himself to restore or maintain his honour and self-regard. But at the same time, by avenging himself and restoring his honour, the relatedness of YHWH is put in jeopardy. This dilemma of YHWH is caused by the people’s forsaking of him. For, as Brueggemann argues, “[t]he governing word for the unit is ʻāzab (v. 7)”,147 of which the “primary allusion” is to “marital fickleness”.148 Accordingly, in Brueggemann’s reading, YHWH features as a deeply affected and agonized judge – that is, like a jealous husband, hurt and humiliated by betrayal, who at one and the same time yearns for both restoration of the broken relationship and self-vindication. For Fretheim, the picture looks somewhat different. In Fretheim’s view, there are not two inclinations opposing each other in YHWH. There is just the fundamental inclination toward an intimate relationship with his people. Therefore, just like in Jer 2, the people’s forsaking of YHWH is in itself a major problem to YHWH. But in addition to this, in Jer 5:7, YHWH is running out of options. That is, YHWH “does not have the option of pardoning Jerusalem or of not ‘judging’ them”.149 In Fretheim’s reading, YHWH is forced by the people’s forsaking of him to “meet out the punishment”, as Fretheim prefers to call it,150 even if it means a great loss to him. This is the agony of YHWH. For, as Fretheim argues elsewhere, “God mediates judgment so that sin and evil do not go unchecked in the life of the world. But God does so at great cost to the ——————————— 142 Brueggemann, Theology, 302. In his commentary, Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 61, simply states this by referring to the study of Gerald J. Janzen, “Metaphor and Reality in Hos 11,” Semeia 24 (1982): 7–44. 143 See Brueggemann, Theology, 296–302. 144 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 60. 145 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 60. 146 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 61. 147 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 60. 148 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 60. 149 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 110. 150 In his understanding of the divine judgment and the relationship between sin and judgment in the Hebrew Bible, Fretheim comes in fact quite close to Klaus Koch’s idea of the Hebrew’s “synthetische Lebensauffassung” (see Koch, “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?” ZTK 52 [1955]: 1–42). See, for example, Fretheim, “Wrath of God”; Fretheim, God and World, 157–98.

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7

97

divine life”.151 This is so because, as Fretheim argues, “God’s history with these people through the years means that they have been caught up into the divine life and indeed have shaped the divine identity”.152 Due to the different literary context, Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 differ in several ways from their readings of the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2. In short, the focus is not so much on the consequences of the broken relationship for YHWH as husband and the forsaken one as on its agonizing consequences for YHWH as judge and the not forgiving one. The two perspectives, however, are closely related in Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings. Their understanding of the lament of YHWH in 5:7, therefore, is not that different from their understanding of the divine lament in Jer 2. In both cases, YHWH is seen to lament as a victim. For, as both Fretheim and Brueggemann seem to presuppose in their reading of 5:7, even YHWH’s desire to forgive is a desire of lack and need as they ultimately anchor it in YHWH’s relatedness and need for his people. Thus, YHWH is not only a victim of the people’s forsaking of him but of his own not forgiving of Jerusalem. In my view, however, both Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s portrayals of YHWH seem to be quite foreign to the rhetoric of the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 and its literary context. In the following, I attempt to demonstrate this by clarifying my own understanding of 5:7 and its literary context. Let me begin by highlighting some significant characteristics of the literary context of the ʻāzab-complaints. 4.2 Literary Context Jeremiah 5 is a miscellany of loosely structured units, and the history of research illustrates the difficulty of delimiting units within the chapter.153 Nevertheless, in the following I will argue that vv. 1–9 form an integrated poetic unit, which serves as the primary literary context of the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 7.154 One argument in support is offered by William L. Holladay as he shows that clusters of imperatives and questions like those found in v. 1 and v. 9 typically

——————————— 151

Fretheim, Jeremiah, 165. Fretheim, Jeremiah, 165. 153 See, for example, Carroll, Jeremiah, 178–80; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 117–20; Schmidt, Jeremia, 139–45. 154 Indeed, Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 372, considers vv. 1–9 to be among the most wellstructured units in the book of Jeremiah. See also Nicholson, Jeremiah, 56–59; Thompson, Jeremiah, 233–41; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 173–82; Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 83–89; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 108–11; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 236–43. Others, however, take vv. 7–9 to be quite distinct from vv. 1–6 (e.g. Rudolph, Jeremia, 33, 35; Carroll, Jeremiah, 174–75; Wanke, Jeremia, 68). 152

98

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

occur, respectively, at the beginning and end of poetic units in Jer 4–10.155 Other and more important arguments are the signals of unity within the poem of vv. 1–9. Relevant in that respect are both features and points of connection between verses and elements within vv. 1–9 and the observation of a coherent argument developed throughout the whole of vv. 1–9. In light of observations of the former, I will argue in the following with respect to the latter that vv. 1– 9 contain a discussion about the prerogatives of Jerusalem, and that in this discussion – just like in 2:14–19, – YHWH develops an argument in order to provoke recognition among the people of Jerusalem. 4.2.1 The Train of Thought in Jer 5:1–9 To begin, v. 7 connects with v. 1 by picking up the term ‫ סלח‬and the motif of divine forgiveness. The connection is further highlighted by the fact that in both v. 1 and v. 7, the motif of divine forgiveness concerns the possibility of forgiving a female figure (‫ואסלח לה‬, v. 1c; ‫אסלוח לך‬, v. 7aα), identified as the city of Jerusalem in v. 1 and characterized as a mother in v. 7 (cf. “your children”, v. 7a). Although the female figure is not identified in v. 7, Jerusalemas-mother imagery is well established in the Hebrew Bible,156 and in both verses (i.e. vv. 1 and 7) the issue at stake is the possibility of divine forgiveness. It therefore seems reasonable to argue that v. 1 and v. 7 are connected and thus to identify the female figure in v. 7 as the city of Jerusalem. As will be seen below, the personification of Jerusalem as a mother with children (i.e. the people of Jerusalem) in v. 7 serves an important rhetorical function in the poem. However, the forgiveness motif in v. 1 is not simply repeated in v. 7. In v. 1, YHWH’s willingness to forgive Jerusalem is emphasized. In other words, divine forgiveness is offered as a possibility. Significantly, though, forgiveness is not granted. Rather, as a possibility it is made contingent upon the behaviour and character of the people of Jerusalem. YHWH will pardon only “if you find a person, if there is anyone who does what is right (‫)משפט‬, who seeks honesty (‫( ”)אמונה‬v. 1b) in Jerusalem. In v. 7, however, the possibility of forgiveness is rejected: “How should I pardon you? Your children have forsaken me and sworn by no-gods” (v. 7a). The argument, though, does not stop just with this rejection of forgiveness. For where the possibility of forgiveness has been rejected, judgment becomes inevitable. Verse 9, therefore, concludes: “Should I not punish?” In short, from a starting point highlighting the possibility of divine forgiveness, vv. 1–9 unfold an argument that refutes this possibility and concludes with the inevitability of divine judgment. ——————————— 155 See Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 55–124, esp. 85–86. As regards the cluster of imperatives and prohibitions, cf. 4:5; 5:1, 10, 20; 6:1, 9, 16; 8:14; 9:16; and 10:17. The questions in v. 9 reoccur in 5:29 and 9:8. 156 See, for example, Maier, Daughter Zion, 189–210.

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7

99

If this is the skeleton of the poem, two features should be highlighted to further clarify what is going on in it. 4.2.2 Imperatives and Rhetorical Questions Among the most critical issues with respect to the reading of vv. 1–9 is the identity of the addressee of the imperatives in v. 1a: “Go back and forth (‫)שוטטו‬ through the streets of Jerusalem. Look (‫)וראו נא‬, take note (‫)ודעו‬, and search (‫ )ובקשו‬in her squares.” Since Jeremiah is commonly identified as the speaker in vv. 3–5, most commentators take the addressee in v. 1 as some commissioned group of people that includes Jeremiah.157 Among other suggestions are “witnesses at a cosmic law court”158 and the divine council.159 I would suggest, however, that the people of Jerusalem – the children of Mother Jerusalem (v. 7a) – are the addressee in v. 1.160 Evidently, it is the people (of Judah, Jerusalem, and the like) that tend to be the addressee of such clusters of imperatives in Jer 4–10 (cf. 4:5–6; 6:1. 16; 8:14; 9:16; 10:17), not Jeremiah or some heavenly beings. Most interesting, however, is the parallel in 2:10–11. Quite similarly to 2:10–11, in which YHWH challenges the people to take note of the behaviour of other peoples, I suggest that in v. 1, YHWH challenges the people of Jerusalem to take note of their own behaviour and thus undertake a task of self-examination: “Go back and forth (‫[ )שוטטו‬...]. Look (‫)וראו‬, take note (‫)ודעו‬, and search (‫( ”)ובקשו‬v. 1a). Read as a challenge to self-examination, the point in v. 1 is not so much whether or not there might be a “sufficient number of righteous to constitute a critical mass that might (in time) turn the city back to faithfulness”, as Fretheim suggests.161 Rather, the conclusion is given (vv. 3–6), and the call to self-examination only serves a rhetorical purpose, which reaches its completion in the questions in vv. 7–9. Obviously, this implies that the questions in v. 7–9 are not – at least not primarily – to be read as genuine and lament-filled questions voiced by a YHWH “desperately seeking a way of forgiveness”,162 but as rhetorical questions. The point made by the questions is as harsh as it is simple: there is no forgiveness for Jerusalem, and judgment is inevitable. To make this point, YHWH draws attention, first, to the behaviour of the people of Jerusalem and the conditions for divine forgiveness – “How should I [...]?” (literally: “Where on this [‫ ]אי לזאת‬should I [...]?”), – and then to the status of the people: “Should I not [...] on a nation such as this (‫)בגוי אשר כזה‬.” By making his point in the form of a series of rhetorical questions, following a challenge to self——————————— 157

For example, Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 376; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 108. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 175. 159 Carroll, “Theodicy,” 22. 160 See Wanke, Jeremia, 68; Schmidt, Jeremia, 140–41. 161 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 108. 162 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 60. 158

100

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

examination, YHWH seeks to provoke recognition and reflection among the people (cf. 2:14–19). In short, through the imperatives and questions in vv. 1– 9, YHWH intends to guide the people (directly addressed in v. 1 and implied audience in vv. 7–9) to reconsider their thinking about YHWH’s stance towards Jerusalem and to force them to draw the self-evident conclusion of their own examination: there is no basis for forgiveness and no favourable status left for Jerusalem. In fact, because of their behaviour, the people of Jerusalem are to be reckoned among the nations (cf. ‫גוים‬, v. 9b). This reading of vv. 1–9, I would argue, is substantiated by the emphasis put on the people’s falseness and lack of integrity in the poem. 4.2.3 The Problem of Falseness and Lack of Integrity In vv. 3–5, the prophet Jeremiah enters the stage, so to speak, to offer his verdict on the people of Jerusalem.163 According to Jeremiah, the people of Jerusalem are without exception callous and stubborn (v. 3), helplessly foolish (v. 4), and rebellious (v. 5). They have refused to repent and turn back to YHWH (‫מאנו לשוב‬, v. 3cβ), and while the poor ones do not know better as “they do not know the way” (‫ )לא ידעו דרך‬and “the law of their God” (‫משפט אלהיהם‬, v. 4b), the rich ones have “broken the yoke” (‫ )שברו על‬and “burst the bonds” (‫נתקו מוסרות‬, v. 5b)” that tie them to YHWH. Jeremiah’s account is figurative and sweeping in character and goes without concrete and specific examples.164 But most importantly, in the poem Jeremiah’s account is put in contrast to what YHWH is looking for: “YHWH, do not your eyes look for honesty (‫”?)לאמונה‬ The term ‫אמונה‬, a derivative of ‫אמן‬, is a relatively broad and somewhat diffuse term in the Hebrew Bible and relates to the semantic fields of truth, faithfulness, reliability, genuineness, integrity, and honesty.165 In our poem, ‫ אמונה‬is both associated with ‫( משפט‬used here as an attribute of human beings: justice, right) and contrasted with ‫( שקר‬deception, falsehood). The latter in particular seems to be key in vv. 1–9.166 After having instructed the people to examine and test themselves to see if they can find anyone “who does what is right (‫)משפט‬, who seeks honesty (‫( ”)אמונה‬v. 1), YHWH adds a sort of thought-provoking nota bene: “And if

——————————— 163

Scholars commonly agree that the prophet Jeremiah is the speaker in vv. 3–5. See, for example, Allen, Jeremiah, 73; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 109; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 373. 164 See more below in II.4.3.1. 165 See, for example, Alfred Jepsen, “‫אמן‬,” TDOT 1:316–20; see also Hans Wildberger, “‫אמן‬,” TLOT 1:148–51. 166 Evidently, the term ‫“ אמונה‬is characterized by being contrasted relatively often with sheqer [ ‫]שקר‬, ‘falsehood’: Prov. 12:17, 22; 14:5; Jer. 5:1, 2; 9:2[3]; Isa. 59:4; Ps. 119:29, 30 (also 89:34[33]; 119:86)” (Jepsen, “‫אמן‬,” TDOT 1:318).

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7

101

they say, ‘By YHWH’s life (‫ ’!)חי יהוה‬Truly,167 they swear falsely ( ‫לשקר‬ ‫( ”!)ישבעו‬v. 2). The significance of this nota bene remark becomes clear in light of 4:1–2. In 4:1–2, swearing “by YHWH’s life (‫ ”)חי יהוה‬is defined as a sign of repentance. But to serve as a reliable sign of repentance, the swearing must be done “in truth (‫)באמת‬, in justice (‫)במשפט‬, and in righteousness (‫( ”)בצדקה‬4:2). In other words, it is not enough to simply utter the oath formula: ‫חי יהוה‬. And this seems exactly to be the point emphasized in 5:2. As Carroll puts it, “[t]he people are ostensibly Yahwists (they swear by Yahweh), but their Yahwism is merely vocal”.168 Hence, the test case for the people of Jerusalem is not just to find anyone swearing by YHWH. For, as a people who have refused to take correction and repent (cf. v. 3), their swearing by YHWH is not a sign of repentance but of falseness, deceit, and lack of integrity. Their behaviour exposes their true nature – that is, their falseness. To briefly sum up then: in the poem of vv. 1–9, YHWH’s concern is to make the people of Jerusalem realize their own falseness in their relationship with YHWH and thereby also their delusion with respect to YHWH’s stance towards Jerusalem. Based on self-examination, the people are forced to draw the conclusion for themselves: there will be no forgiveness for Jerusalem and judgment is inevitable. It is in light of this context, I suggest, that the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 7 is to be understood. 4.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint In light of what has been pointed out above with respect to the character of the poem of 5:1–9, it seems that there is not much exegetical basis left for Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s portrait of YHWH as an agonized judge, struggling with what to do with the people of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, I do agree with Brueggemann and Fretheim that there is more to the portrait of YHWH in the poem than just that of a justified judge. Like the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2, I will argue that the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 is best understood as a mixed expression of accusation and lament – or more precisely, as a mixed expression of accusation of foolishness and compassionate lament. Still, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 is somewhat different at least with respect to the notes of lament. Let me begin, however, in this case too with the accusatory aspect of the complaint.

——————————— 167

Admittedly, I do not follow MT’s reading here: ‫לכן‬. Instead, I read ‫אכן‬. The logical connection between the two cola of v. 2 suggested by the conjunction ‫“( לכן‬therefore”) appears to be meaningless. Therefore, together with most scholars, I read ‫ אכן‬instead of ‫לכן‬ (see, for example, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 173). 168 Carroll, Jeremiah, 175.

102

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

4.3.1 An Accusation of Infidelity? The ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 opens a series of accusations against the people of Jerusalem: they have forsaken (‫ )עזב‬YHWH, sworn (‫ )שבע‬by no-gods, committed adultery (‫)נאף‬, and thronged to the whorehouse (‫)בית זונה‬. In addition, in v. 8 these accusations are supplemented by a description of the people as lusty stallions,169 “each neighing for his neighbour’s wife” (v. 8b). That these accusations, especially those in v. 7, are related and belong together somehow seems clear enough. Thus, scholars have typically sought to identify a common denominator between them and name categories and headings under which all of them may best be subsumed. And the conclusion has been quite unanimous: the connection between the accusations in v. 7, it is argued, is that they address the people’s infidelity against YHWH – that is, that the people have turned from YHWH to others. This conclusion follows from the tendency, McKane points out, to “make ‘idolatry’ the key to the interpretation of v. 7”.170 The conclusion has been argued for by suggesting, first, that the first two accusations – that the people have forsaken YHWH (‫ )עזב‬and sworn (‫ )שבע‬by no-gods (v. 7a) – serve as explicit accusations of infidelity, and second, that the last two accusations – that the people have committed adultery (‫ )נאף‬and thronged to the whorehouse (‫( )בית זונה‬v. 7b) – should be read metaphorically as substituting expressions of idolatrous practice.171 However, this typical reading of v. 7 is not without problems. First and foremost, the reading seems to create an unfortunate break in the flow of the poem of vv. 1–9, between, in Carroll’s words, the “lack of justice in 1–5” and the “sexual and religious practices of an idolatrous behaviour in 7–8”.172 Although I think Carroll’s summary of vv. 1–5 may not be entirely adequate, he certainly demonstrates the point very well – that is, that if “idolatrous behaviour” is the problem addressed in v. 7, there seems to be a break between vv. 1–5(6) and v. 7(–9). In light of that, it is not surprising that some scholars therefore conclude that vv. 1–6 and vv. 7–9 should be read as two distinct poems.173 The

——————————— 169

MT’s reading in v. 8a – ‫ – סוסים מיזנים משכים היו‬is unclear, especially because of the hapax legomenon ‫ מיזנים‬which BDB, 402, based on an Arabic cognate, tentatively read as “furnished with weights, i.e. testicles”. But even if we may not know the metaphors in v. 8a as well as one may prefer, the general point seems clear enough: the sexual behaviour of the people of Jerusalem is like that of lusty stallions (cf. McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 119; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 381). 170 McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 119. 171 See, for example, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 180; Rudolph, Jeremia, 35; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 242; Schmidt, Jeremia, 144. 172 Carroll, “Theodicy,” 26. 173 See footnote II.154 (ch. II.4.2).

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7

103

majority of scholars, however, simply leave the break unnoted while otherwise arguing for the unity of vv. 1–9.174 I will argue, however, that there is a close connection between vv. 1–6 and vv. 7–9, but this requires a new reading of vv. 7–8, especially of v. 7. To begin with the last two accusations in v. 7, it is difficult to see how they can plausibly be read metaphorically as substituting expressions of idolatrous practice. There is no explicit marital or adulterous wife imagery in v. 7. First, as regards the term ‫נאף‬, Baumann has shown that this term “is the common term for the behavior of concrete Israelites”,175 not a signal of marital imagery in the book of Jeremiah. Second, the hypothesis of cult prostitution that scholars often seize upon in their reading of the “whorehouse” accusation has been seriously questioned over the past few decades and seems better abandoned.176 Third, the sexual images in v. 8 are animalic and purely profane in character as the people are accused of chasing their sexual desires like lusty stallions. In light of these observations, sexual promiscuity and moral corruption seem to be a more suitable heading for v. 7b than idolatry or infidelity against YHWH, in the sense of turning from YHWH to other gods. And if so, vv. 7b–8 seem to connect neatly to vv. 1–6 as vv.7b–8 seem to specify the rebellion against “the way of YHWH and the law of their God” in vv. 3–5. This connection is highlighted by the animal imagery explicitly used in v. 8 and connoted in the terms “yoke” (‫ )על‬and “bond” (‫ )מוסר‬in v. 5. In both cases, the people are portrayed as wild and untamed, rejecting discipline and regulation. But what about the first two accusations in v. 7, that the people have forsaken YHWH (‫ )עזב‬and sworn (‫ )שבע‬by no-gods? Obviously, elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, “no-gods” (‫ )לא אלהים‬is used as a polemical expression for other gods than YHWH (cf. Jer 2:11; Isa 37:19). So, even if there are no explicit references to other gods in Jer 5:1–9 (contrary to the literary contexts of Jer 2:11 and Isa 37:19), it seems clear that the same applies to the expression in Jer 5:7. Therefore, that the problem of infidelity, in the sense of turning from YHWH to other gods, is addressed in v. 7a seems clear enough. In addition, in contrast to what we have seen with respect to the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2, no distinction is made between the accusations of forsaking YHWH and swearing by no-gods in 5:7. In that respect, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 is more closely connected to the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints to be discussed in the next chapter, which undoubtedly are to be understood as accusations of infidelity in the sense ——————————— 174 See, for example, Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 372–85; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 108–11; Allen, Jeremiah, 72–74. 175 Baumann, Love and Violence, 116 (italics hers). 176 See, for example, Alice A. Keefe, Woman’s Body and the Social Body in Hosea 1–2, LHBOTS 338 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 36–65; Gale A. Yee, “‘She Is Not My Wife and I Am Not Her Husband’: A Materialist Analysis of Hosea 1–2,” BibIn 9 (2001): 354–57.

104

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

of turning to and worshipping other gods than YHWH. Having said that, however, let me nevertheless draw the attention to some observations leading me to suggest that in the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 too there seems to be more involved than just that of highlighting the infidelity of the people. Although ‫ שבע‬is occasionally used in terms of worshipping foreign deities,177 it is certainly rare in such contexts and should therefore not be taken too quickly as just another formulaic accusation of disloyalty. Rather, we should pay close attention to how the accusation of swearing by no-gods functions in the context of the poem of vv. 1–9. Two observations in particular, then, are worth mentioning. First, and as already mentioned, there are no other explicit references to worshipping other gods than YHWH in the poem. Indeed, as a reference to other gods, the expression “no-gods” in v. 7aβ seems almost to be a foreign element in the poem. The accusations against the people of Jerusalem in the poem are first and foremost characterized by their focus on how the people relate themselves to YHWH, and especially then in moral terms with respect to “the way of YHWH and the law of their God” (vv. 4, 5). Second, instead of connecting to accusations against worshipping other gods in the poem, with the term “swear” (‫ )שבע‬the accusation against swearing by no-gods connects in fact with the problem of false swearing by YHWH in v. 2. My suggestion, therefore, is that v. 7a should be read as not only addressing the infidelity of turning from YHWH to other gods but also the people’s false swearing by YHWH. That is, considering v. 2 – and the rest of the poem of vv. 1–9 as a whole – v. 7aβ points out that because of the people’s moral corruption and lack of integrity, their swearing by YHWH is not only doomed to be false (‫שקר‬, cf. v. 2) but as futile and ridiculous as swearing by no-gods. For as is made clear in the poem of vv. 1–9, no matter how much the people of Jerusalem may utter the oath formula, there will be no forgiveness for Jerusalem. This, I would argue, sheds new light too on the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 7a, to such an extent that in this case we may also better understand it as an accusation of foolishness. 4.3.2 An Accusation of Foolishness In the literary context of our poem, the people addressed by YHWH are explicitly characterized as a foolish people. In 4:22, YHWH complains that his people are “foolish” (‫)אויל‬, “stupid” (‫)סכלים‬, and “have no understanding” ( ‫לא‬ ‫)נבונים‬, whereas the “house of Jacob” is called a “stupid” (‫ )סכל‬and “senseless” (‫ )אין לב‬people in 5:21.178 In vv. 1–9, it is first and foremost the poor ones (‫דלים‬, v.4a) among the people who are explicitly said to be foolish (‫יאל‬, v. 4a) as they are ignorant of “the way of YHWH and the law of their God” (v. 4b). But indirectly the people of Jerusalem as a whole are portrayed as being helplessly foolish. This feature manifests itself especially in v. 7a and applies even if the ——————————— 177 178

We do find it in Josh 23:7, Jer 12:16, Amos 8:14, and Zeph 1:5. With regard to 5:10–19, see III.3.

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7

105

accusations in v. 7a are just taken as rather formulaic accusations against infidelity. In v. 7, YHWH is the grammatical subject of two verbs, namely “forgive” (‫ )סלח‬and “satisfy” (Hiphil of ‫)שבע‬, and both verbs highlight the benevolence of YHWH. Or to use the terminology of Westermann, they indicated that YHWH is both “der rettende Gott” (‫ )סלח‬and “der segnende Gott” (‫)שבע‬.179 The ironic contrast to the “no-gods” (‫ )לא אלהים‬is palpable and conspicuous.180 As noted above, the expression “no-gods” also occurs in 2:11 where it is associated with “worthlessness” (‫ההבל‬, 2:5cα) and self-made “broken cisterns” (‫בארת נשברים‬, 2:13cα). Obviously, turning from YHWH to no-gods is absurd and highlights the people’s lack of good sense and judgment. However, there seems to be more to the foolishness of the people of Jerusalem than just absurdity and a lack of good sense and judgment. Just as in 2:13, 17, and 19, I will argue that the poem of 5:1–9 as a whole and the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 7 in particular address a lack of understanding and insight, or better, a misconception held by the people of Jerusalem. In short, the people of Jerusalem have failed to recognize what kind of God YHWH is and have thus forsaken the true YHWH by making him into something he is not. This reading follows from the understanding of the imperatives and questions in vv. 1, 7–9 and the emphasis put on the problem of falseness pointed out above. It is a people completely deluded with respect to YHWH’s stance towards Jerusalem. The way the people are characterized in the poem – as swearing by YHWH and at the same time being entirely morally corrupt – gives further support to my reading, indicating that the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 7 is not only an accusation of infidelity but of foolishness. The people of Jerusalem have failed to recognize what kind of God YHWH is – a tragic and disastrous failure that has made their swearing by YHWH as futile and ridiculous as swearing by no-gods. 4.3.3 A Compassionate Lament Given my readings of the ʻāzab-complaints in Jer 2, one might now expect me to argue that YHWH laments compassionately over the foolish behaviour of the people of Jerusalem in 5:7. That, however, is not what I will argue. As repeatedly noted, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 is different. There is nothing but accusation and ridicule left for the people of Jerusalem. Contrary to what is argued by Fretheim and Brueggemann, there seems to be no question on YHWH’s part regarding what to do with Jerusalem because of her inhabitants. There is no yearning for a restored relationship with the people of Jerusalem. The latter is underlined by the fact that there is no open ending in 5:1–9. Unlike 2:4–13 and 2:14–19, in 5:1–9 the judgment is sealed. ——————————— 179 Claus Westermann, Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen, GAT 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). 180 The contrast is highlighted by the wordplay between ‫“( שׂבע‬be sated”) and ‫שׁבע‬ (“swear”).

106

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

Indeed, the poem concludes with YHWH referring to the people of Jerusalem as “a nation like this” (‫בגוי אשר כזה‬, v. 9b), which suggests YHWH’s rejection of the people. Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s portrayal of an agonized and victimized YHWH seems to follow more from a presupposing of YHWH’s pathos and need for the people than from a plausible and convincing close reading of the poem. Nevertheless, Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s observation and emphasizing of the desire of YHWH to forgive Jerusalem in the poem is noteworthy and important. As Fretheim and Brueggemann point out, YHWH’s offering of forgiveness in v. 1 suggests a readiness and willingness to forgive Jerusalem, a willingness that marks the entire poem. This willingness, not to say desire, on the part of YHWH is emphasized by the fact that YHWH has even made efforts himself to provide the basis upon which Jerusalem could be forgiven. By disciplining the people, YHWH has tried to make them repent (v. 3). Hence, Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s claim that this willingness and desire of YHWH needs to be taken seriously into account when reading vv. 1–9 as it suggests that there is more to the portrait of YHWH in the poem than just that of a justified judge is most welcome. Obviously, the realization of YHWH’s desire to forgive is ruined by the people’s forsaking of him and refusal to repent. This lack of realization – there will be no forgiveness for Jerusalem – marks the poem as a whole and suggests a note of divine lament. But how is this lament of YHWH best understood? Again, the understanding of the desire of YHWH is key, and again I will argue that the understanding advocated by Fretheim and Brueggemann is misleading. The point in the poem is not that YHWH needs to forgive and laments not being able to do so, as Fretheim and Brueggemann seem to presuppose. The presupposition follows naturally from their notion of divine pathos but seems foreign to the rhetoric of the poem. It is Jerusalem and her inhabitants who need and are dependent on YHWH’s forgiveness, not the other way around. Hence, again I will argue that the desire of YHWH is better understood as a desire of excess and abundance. However, to argue that YHWH laments compassionately over the tragic destiny of the people of Jerusalem would not be adequate either. As already noted, we find nothing but accusation, ridicule, and rejection left for the people of Jerusalem in the poem. What we do find, however, is an interesting distinction drawn between Jerusalem and her inhabitants – that is, between Mother Jerusalem and her children: “How should I pardon you? Your children have forsaken me [...]” (v. 7a). Noteworthy in that respect is that in vv. 1–9, Mother Jerusalem or the city of Jerusalem is never referred to in negative terms. Mother Jerusalem is exclusively associated with the motif of divine forgiveness: “I will forgive her” (v. 1c) and “How should I pardon you?” (7aα). Negative characteristics are reserved for the people of Jerusalem and the problem lies in its entirety with them. Of course, one could certainly challenge my claim of a

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 5:7

107

distinction between Mother Jerusalem and her children in the poem. The personified Jerusalem/Zion features several times within the broader literary context of Jer 4:5–6:30 (cf. 4:19–21, 29–31; 6:1–8, 22–26)181 and most often she is the object of strong reproach (see especially 4:29–31 and 6:1–8). Nevertheless, it is only in 5:1–9 that Jerusalem/Zion is portrayed as a mother with children. And not least, I would argue that a parallel to the distinction made between Mother Jerusalem and her children in our poem is found in Isa 50:1c: “for your transgressions your mother was sent away”. What is interesting about Isa 50:1c is not only that a distinction between Mother Jerusalem/Zion and her children is made in this verse. But just like in Jer 5:1–9, Mother Jerusalem/Zion is portrayed as a suffering victim of her children’s behaviour.182 In Isa 50:1c she is “sent away” (‫ )שלח‬and in Jer 5:7 there will be no forgiveness for her. In light of this observation, I would suggest that in Jer 5:1–9, and in the ʻāzabcomplaint in v. 7 in particular, YHWH laments the tragedy of Mother Jerusalem. In other words, while announcing judgment against, and rejection of, the people of Jerusalem, YHWH laments compassionately the fate of Mother Jerusalem as she has become a victim of the wicked and foolish behaviour of her children. The distinction between Mother Jerusalem and her children thus serves as a device for YHWH to announce at one and the same time both his rejection of the people and his love and desire for the well-being of Jerusalem. 4.4 Conclusion Above I have argued that although the ʻāzab-complaint of YHWH in 5:7 features in a literary context quite different from the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:13, 17, and 19, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 shares the same basic profile as the ʻāzabcomplaints in 2:13, 17, and 19. Also, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 seems best understood as a mixed expression of accusation of foolishness and compassionate lament. By arguing this I have challenged Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of the ʻāzab-complaint. The problem lies with their understanding of the agony of YHWH in the poem of 5:1–9 and the related underlying assumption that YHWH’s desire to forgive is a desire rooted in lack and need. This assumption, however, seems to follow more from their notion of divine pathos and larger theological frameworks than from convincing close readings of the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19 and its literary context. Indeed, their claim that YHWH is portrayed as a victimized God suffering from the behaviour and loss of his people is foreign to the rhetoric of the ʻāzab-complaint and its literary context. In the poem of 5:1–9, YHWH calls the people of Jerusalem to self-examination to make them realize their own falseness in their relationship with ——————————— 181 182

See Maier, Daughter Zion, 82–91. For a thorough analysis of Isa 50:1c, see, for example, Abma, Bonds of Love, 63–84.

108

Chapter II: YHWH’s Poetic ʻĀzab-Complaints

YHWH and thereby also their delusion with respect to YHWH’s stance towards Jerusalem. Based on this self-examination, the people are forced to draw the conclusion: there will be no forgiveness for Jerusalem and judgment is inevitable. In this context, the ʻāzab-complaint serves to highlight the people’s delusion and misconception. They have failed to recognize what kind of God YHWH is and have thus forsaken the true YHWH by making him into something he is not – a tragic and disastrous failure that has made their swearing by YHWH as futile and ridiculous as swearing by no-gods. While the accusatory aspect of the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 is quite similar to that in the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:13, 17, and 19, the lament is somewhat different. In sharp contrast to the poems of 2:4–13 and 2:14–19, there is no divine compassion for the people of Jerusalem in 5:1–9. Indeed, nothing but divine accusation, ridicule, and rejection are left for the people of Jerusalem. However, there certainly is a desire on the part of YHWH to forgive in the poem, a desire whose realization is ruined by the people’s forsaking of YHWH. But instead of being directed towards the people of Jerusalem, it is exclusively directed towards Mother Jerusalem in the poem. Seeing this desire of YHWH also as a desire rooted in excess and abundance rather than lack and need, I suggest that there is a note of divine lament in the ʻāzab-complaint, a compassionate lament over the fate of Mother Jerusalem as she has become a victim of the wicked and foolish behaviour of her children.

5. Summary 5. Summary

As I have sought to demonstrate, there are good reasons to concur with the basic claim of Fretheim, Brueggemann, et al. that the poetic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH in 2:13, 17, 19, and 5:7 are best understood not only as accusations but as mixed expressions of accusation and lament. This follows from the fact that they feature in literary contexts suggesting that the people’s forsaking of YHWH threatens or ruins the realization of a desired goal on YHWH’s part. However, the agreement with Fretheim and Brueggemann stops at this formal level. As I have argued, in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints, YHWH is not crying and lamenting as a victimized and forsaken YHWH. Certainly, Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings follow naturally if the notion of divine pathos is presupposed, and the desire of YHWH is defined as a desire of lack and need. But considering the rhetoric of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints and their literary contexts, Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings hardly seem appropriate. For in sharp contrast to what is argued by Fretheim and Brueggemann, the rhetoric and literary contexts of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints suggest that the true victim of the people’s forsaking of YHWH is not YHWH but the people themselves (2:13, 17, and 19) and Mother Jerusalem (5:7). This manifests itself in various ways but especially in the irony characteristic of the poetic ʻāzab-

5. Summary

109

complaints and their literary contexts. For more than accusations of infidelity and betrayal, the poetic ʻāzab-complaints highlight the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH. By forsaking YHWH, the people have forsaken “the source of living water” (2:13) and the God of their salvation and blessing (5:7), and disaster thus follows inherently from forsaking YHWH (2:17, 2:19). Therefore, instead of laments of a victimized and forsaken YHWH, in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints YHWH laments compassionately and transitively over the true and beloved victim of the people’s forsaking of him. Thus, instead of a lament rooted in a desire of lack and need, the desire of YHWH threatened and ruined by the people’s forsaking of him seems better understood as a desire rooted in excess and abundance – that is, a desire that seeks life and well-being for the beloved people and Mother Jerusalem. It is noteworthy, however, that although all the poetic ʻāzab-complaints can be said to share a basic common profile – that is, as being mixed expressions of accusation and lament that carry notes of compassionate lament and highlight the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH – they are not all the same. And as we have seen, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 stands out in particular. Most importantly, and in sharp contrast to the ʻāzab-complaints in 2:13, 17, and 19, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 appears in a context where the judgment of YHWH is presented as being sealed and inevitable. One thing is that this feature, as we have seen, puts its mark on the divine lament in 5:7, suggesting that in 5:7 YHWH laments not so much the fate of the people forsaking him as the fate of their Mother Jerusalem – the true victim of the people’s forsaking of YHWH in 5:7. Another thing is that this feature also makes the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:7 closely related to the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints as they, as will be seen in the next chapter, are characterized precisely by justifying inevitable and total judgment.

Chapter III

YHWH’s Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints 1. Introduction 1. Introduction

After having been occupied with texts portraying YHWH as a suffering and lamenting God, my analysis in this chapter is motivated by the question of how to understand the portrait of YHWH as a retributive God. My main interest lies in the character of the judgment justified by the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. My focus in this chapter is on clarifying the profile of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH in Jer 1:16, 5:19, 9:12, 16:11, and 19:4. In line with traditional readings, my point of departure is that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints form part of a rather fixed and formulaic pattern, and that they are to be understood primarily as indictments of disloyalty justifying the retributive judgment of YHWH. More importantly, however, I will argue that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints show two characteristic features: they justify announcements and acts of total judgment and contribute to highlighting the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH. Most important to us in this chapter is the point of total judgment as this point seems to challenge common readings of prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. As I have pointed out above, scholars have long seen the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints to represent a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah. My thesis that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints serve to justify announcements and acts of total judgment in their literary context challenges this understanding. In contrast to the idea that the Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah anticipates hope and is in service of the survivors of the disaster – most often identified as the exiles or Babylonian Golah community – I will argue that the announcements and acts of judgment justified by the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints indicate YHWH’s complete annihilation and/or rejection of the people as a whole. As regards the portrait of YHWH as a retributive God, this means that in the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, YHWH speaks not only as a justified judge but as a God who rejects his people and announces the end of them and/or of his relationship with them. The foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH plays a secondary and less important role in this chapter as it does not affect the understanding of the character of the divine judgment justified by the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. Be-

112

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

sides, it is clear that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints are primarily to be understood as indictments of disloyalty, not as accusations of foolishness like the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. Nevertheless, that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints also contribute in various ways to highlighting the foolishness of the people is noteworthy as it both adds depth to the rhetoric of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints and, not least, plays a significant role in my final conclusions regarding the relationship between the retributive YHWH of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints and the suffering YHWH of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. My argument in the following develops from a close reading of the individual prose passages containing the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints in light of their literary contexts. The standard procedure will be as follows: when analysing each ʻāzab-complaint on its own, I begin by pointing out its formulaic character, then I discuss the literary context of the prose passage of which it forms a part, after which I clarify its profile by pointing out the two features related to my thesis. Finally, it should also be mentioned that my analyses will be supplemented by two excurses: one on the literary context of 9:11–15 (Excursus 2) because of the so-called “weeping poems” in 8:18–9:2 and 9:9–10, 16–21 and their relevance for the portrait of YHWH as a suffering God in the book of Jeremiah, and another on the question–answer scheme attested in 5:19, 9:11– 15, and 16:10–13 (Excursus 3).

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 1:16 2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 1:16 15 For, look, I am calling all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north, says YHWH; and they will come and each will set his throne at the opening of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its surrounding walls and against all the cities of Judah. 16 And I will speak my judgments on them, against all their evil, that they abandoned me ( ‫ )עזבוני‬and burned incense to other gods and worshipped the works of their hands.

2.1 Introductory Remarks The literary context of the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 is special. The ʻāzab-complaint features in the opening chapter – the programmatic introduction1 – of the book. In this chapter, themes are introduced that, as Siegfried Herrmann puts it, “either continue through the following work or resonate again more dramatically in a subsequent sequence”.2 As will be seen, because of the special character of the literary context, the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 is somewhat different ——————————— 1

See, for example, Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 143–44. Siegfried Herrmann, “Overcoming the Israelite Crisis: Remarks on the Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah,” in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies, ed. Leo G. Perdue and Brian W. Kovacs, trans. Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984), 301. 2

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 1:16

113

from the other prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, especially with respect to the description of the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint. At the same time, just like the other prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 forms part of a brief prose passage that in many ways stands out from the literary context. In light also of the fact that 1:16b parallels 2 Kgs 22:17a, scholars have often argued that 1:(15–)16 reflects a later and typical Deuteronomistic addition.3 In accordance with this, Albertz, for instance, perceives 1:11–19, together with 25:1–13a*, to constitute the framework of the JerD1 redaction – a framework that defines Jeremiah as a prophet and servant of YHWH, called to prophesy judgment on, and ultimately the fall of, Judah and Jerusalem.4 However, in the following I will argue that the passage of 1:15–16 forms an integral part of the literary context in the present form of the text and that this understanding has noteworthy implications for the reading of the ʻāzab-complaint. Even if the announcement of judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint does not contain explicit pronouncements of YHWH’s complete annihilation and/or rejection of his people, I will argue that there is far more at stake than “just” the fall of Judah and Jerusalem. Before developing my argument, however, the basic formulaic character of the ʻāzab-complaint should briefly be noted. 2.1.1 The Formulaic Character of the ʻĀzab-Complaint In accordance with the formulaic pattern pointed out for the prosaic ʻāzabcomplaints in the introduction,5 the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 is closely associated with accusations of worshipping other gods (cf. ‫ ויקטרו‬and ‫)וישתחוו‬. The problem addressed is the disloyalty of turning from YHWH to other gods. As is made clear in v. 16a, this disloyal behaviour on the part of the people provides the basis upon which YHWH is about to announce his judgment: “And I will speak my judgments on them, against all their evil” ( ‫ודברתי משפטי אותם על‬ ‫)כל רעתם‬. The judicial imagery (cf. ‫)ודברתי משפטי‬, which indeed permeates vv. 15–16 (cf. “each will set his throne [‫ ]ונתנו איש כסאו‬at the opening of the gates of Jerusalem [‫”]פתח שערי ירושלם‬, v. 15bα) is noteworthy. It highlights the legal character of the problem involved in the people’s forsaking of YHWH. Moreover, the correspondence between sin and judgment, highlighted using the term ‫( רעה‬evil/disaster) in v. 14b (“from the north the disaster [‫ ]הרעה‬will be opened”) and v. 16a (“against all their evil [‫)”]כל רעתם‬, suggests an element of retribution. Hence, the siege against Jerusalem and “all the cities of Judah” (‫כל ערי יהודה‬, v. 15cβ) is presented as an appropriate retributive response by YHWH to the people’s forsaking of him in favour of others. In other words, it ——————————— 3 See, for example, Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 76; Wanke, Jeremia, 31–32; Schmidt, Jeremia, 62–63. 4 See Albertz, Israel in Exile, 327–28. 5 See I.2.1.

114

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

is quite clear that the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 is to be understood first and foremost as an indictment of disloyalty that justifies an announcement of the defeat of Jerusalem and Judah as an act of divine retribution. However, while acknowledging this formulaic pattern as a central part of the profile of the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16, my concern is to show that there is more to be said about the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16. The key is understanding how the passage of 1:15–16 relates to its literary context. 2.2 Literary Context The immediate literary context of the prose passage of 1:15–16 is the unit of 1:11–16. This follows from the rarely disputed understanding that Jer 1, while being shaped as a whole into a call narrative, nevertheless consists of three distinct units:6 the “call proper” (1:4–10); the vision reports (1:11–16); and the commission (1:17–19).7 In the context of the call narrative, the vision reports – shaped as a dialogue between YHWH and Jeremiah – clarify the message that Jeremiah is called and commissioned to proclaim. This is highlighted by the form of the vision reports. As has been noted, the visions in vv. 11 and 13 are characterized by functioning primarily as occasions or means of oracles of YHWH.8 Both visions are introduced by a so-called “Wortereignisformel” (‫ויהי דבר יהוה אלי‬, vv. 11, 13) and culminate in an oracle of YHWH (vv. 12, 14). This means that the aspect of legitimization, which is so typical for prophetic vision reports,9 recedes into the background in favour of that of proclamation.10 Achim Behrens takes this as an indication that the vision reports function as a “paradigmatische ——————————— 6 For alternative views, see Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 127–30; Albertz, Israel in Exile, 316; Allen, Jeremiah, 25. 7 In addition to traditional form-critical arguments (see N. Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” ZAW 77 [1965]: 297–323), the structure is suggested by the connection established between vv. 4–10 and 17–19 through the extensive reuse of central phrases, motifs, and form elements of vv. 4–10 in vv. 17–19. This connection serves in turn to mark off and establish a frame for vv. 11–16 as a unit: v. 6b: ‫[ אנכי‬...] ‫ הנה‬ v. 18a: ‫ואני‬ ‫ ;הנה‬v. 5c: ‫[ נתתיך‬...] ‫ ל‬ v. 18a: ‫[ ל‬...] ‫ ;נתתיך‬v. 7c: ‫ ואת כל אשר אצוך תדבר‬ v. 17b: ‫ודברת אליהם‬ ‫ ;את כל אשר אנכי אצוך‬v. 8a: ‫ לא תירא מפניהם‬ v. 17c: ‫ ;אל תחת מפניהם‬v. 8b: ‫כי אתך אני להצלך נאם‬ ‫ יהוה‬ v. 19b: ‫כי אתך אני נאם יהוה להצליך‬. 8 See Burke O. Long, “Reports of Visions Among the Prophets,” JBL 95 (1976): 357–59; Achim Behrens, Prophetische Visionsschilderungen im Alten Testament: Sprachliche Eigenarten, Funktion und Geschichte einer Gattung, AOAT 292 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002), 117–20. 9 See Burke O. Long, “Prophetic Call Traditions and Reports of Visions,” ZAW 84 (1972): 494–500. 10 See Behrens, Prophetische Visionsschilderungen, 117–20, esp. 118, against, for instance, Ellen Davis Lewin, “Arguing for Authority: A Rhetorical Study of Jeremiah 1:4–19 and 20:7–18,” JSOT 10 (1985): 109; J. L. Bergquist, “Prophetic Legitimation in Jeremiah,” VT 39 (1989): 132.

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 1:16

115

Zusammenfassung der Verkündigung des Buches”.11 Although I am not convinced about this claim by Behrens, the claim may help to draw our attention to a feature that I consider vital for understanding what is going on in 1:11–16, namely the open and general character of the vision report. Essential to my argument is the structure of the unit of 1:11–16. Certainly, the tripartite structure of the passage is easily recognized: the vision of an almond branch (v. 11) and its interpretation (v. 12); the vision of a boiling pot (v. 13) and its interpretation (v. 14); an oracle of judgment (vv. 15–16). The problem concerns the question of how the prose passage of vv. 15–16 relates to the preceding verses. Regardless of the question of whether the passage of vv. 15–16 is a Deuteronomistic addition or not, the passage is commonly taken as a sort of explanatory appendix to the second vision report (vv. 13–14)12 or, alternatively, as an additional, clarifying interpretation of the second vision (v. 13).13 This view is based on the observation of two features in particular in vv. 11–16. On the one hand, there is the difference in style between vv. 15–16 and vv. 11–14. As McKane notes, vv. 15–16 “have a style which marks off these verses from the compressed laconic character of vv. 11–14”.14 On the other hand, and despite the difference in style, points of connection between vv. 13–14 and vv. 15–16 are recognized. The introductory conjunction ‫כי‬ (“for”) in v. 15a and the keywords “north” (‫צפון‬, vv. 13bβ, 14b, 15a) and “evil”/“disaster” (‫רעה‬, vv. 13b, 16a) indicate a rather close relationship between vv. 15–16 and vv. 13–14. In the light of these observations, and in line with common understandings of the nature of prose,15 scholars conclude that the passage of vv. 15–16 is best understood as a sort of clarifying supplement to the second vision report (vv. 13–14). The problem, however, is that this understanding breaks up the neat parallel structure between the two vision reports (vv. 11–12 and vv. 13–14)16 and thus confuses the clear tripartite structure of vv. 11–16. Even more importantly, it fails to recognize that vv. 15–16 also show a connection with the first vision report (vv. 11–12). In contrast to common readings, I would therefore like to suggest that the passage of vv. 15–16 is better understood as a specific application of the message of both of the vision reports, and that the unit of vv. 11– 16 as a whole employs a so-called “rhetoric of descent” where the argument ——————————— 11

Behrens, Prophetische Visionsschilderungen, 119. See, for example, Carroll, Jeremiah, 106–07; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 21; Wanke, Jeremia, 31; Schmidt, Jeremia, 62–63. 13 See, for example, Nicholson, Jeremiah, 26–27; Thompson, Jeremiah, 154–55; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 52–53; Allen, Jeremiah, 30; Longman III, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 24. 14 McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 21. 15 See I.3.1.1.2. 16 For a clear presentation of the parallel structure between vv. 11–12 and vv. 13–14, see Behrens, Prophetische Visionsschilderungen, 110. 12

116

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

goes from the general to the specific.17 The two vision reports thus serve as a larger framework for vv. 15–16. To elaborate on my suggestion, let me begin with the relationship between vv. 15–16 and the first vision report (vv. 11–12). 1. Verses 15–16 and the first vision report (vv. 11–12). A close connection between vv. 15–16 and the first vision report (vv. 11–12) is established by the speech verbs in v. 15 (‫ )קרא‬and v. 16 (‫)דבר‬. Significantly, in vv. 15–16, the judgment against Judah and Jerusalem is effectuated by divine acts of speech alone: “For, look, I am calling” (‫כי הנני קרא‬, v. 15a); “I will speak” (‫ודברתי‬, v. 16a). This feature connects with the interpretation of the first vision, which concerns the effectiveness of the divine word: “For I am watching over my word (‫ )דבר‬to do it” (v. 12c). So, while in vv. 11–12 a general claim is made about YHWH and his word, in vv. 15–16 the focus is on the word of divine judgment exclusively. In other words, prior to the specific words of judgment against Judah and Jerusalem in vv. 15–16, there is a claim about the effectiveness of the divine word in general. 2. Verses 15–16 and the second vision report (vv. 13–14). My suggestion is that the relationship between vv. 15–16 and the second vision report (vv. 13– 14) should be understood in similar terms to that between vv. 15–16 and vv. 11–12. The critical point concerns the understanding of the phrase ‫כל ישבי‬ ‫ הארץ‬in v. 14c. Quite commonly, scholars read “all the inhabitants of the land (‫ ”)הארץ‬and understand it in terms of “all the inhabitants of Judah”.18 Just like vv. 15–16, v. 14 is thus read as an oracle of judgment against Judah. In my view, however, v. 14c is better read in universal terms – that is, “all the inhabitants of the earth (‫”)הארץ‬.19 There are good reasons for such a suggestion. As a point of departure, it should be noted that there is nothing in the preceding verses that indicates a particular focus on the land of Judah in vv. 13–14. On the contrary, in vv. 4–10 Jeremiah is appointed “a prophet to the nations” ( ‫נביא‬ ‫ לגוים‬v. 5c) to address “people” (‫גוים‬, v. 10b) and “nations” (‫ממלכות‬, v. 10b). In addition to this, it should also be noted, first, that although the term ‫ ארץ‬is frequently used with reference to the land of Judah in the book of Jeremiah and ‫ ישב‬to the inhabitants of Judah, the exact phrase ‫ כל ישבי הארץ‬occurs only five times in the book (1:14; 13:13; 25:29, 30; 47:2). In both 13:13 and 47:2 the phrase undoubtedly reads “all the inhabitants of the land”, but notably enough, only in 13:13 with reference to the people of Judah. In 47:2, the reference is the Philistines. In 25:29 and 30, however, the phrase is certainly to be rendered “all the inhabitants of the earth” – given the universal perspective applied in 25:15–33. In fact, on this there is no dispute among scholars. Hence, the phrase ——————————— 17

On the phenomenon of “rhetoric of descent”, see Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 150. 18 For example, Rudolph, Jeremia, 9–10; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 18–21; Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 16–17; Wanke, Jeremia, 30–31. 19 For a similar understanding, see Carroll, Jeremiah, 107.

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 1:16

117

‫ כל ישבי הארץ‬as such does not assume a particular focus on Judah. On the contrary, in the book of Jeremiah there is precedent for understanding it in universal terms. Second, just like the first vision report, the second vision report is rather non-specific in nature and concerns the coming of an enigmatic “foe from the north”: “From the north (‫ )מצפון‬disaster (‫ )הרעה‬will be opened against all the inhabitants of ‫( ”הארץ‬v. 14bc). Certainly, in the book of Jeremiah, it is first and foremost Judah that is haunted by the “foe from the north” (cf. 4:6; 6:1, 22; 10:22; 13:20). Moreover, in 25:9, “the foe from the north” is explicitly identified as Babylon. Nevertheless, although the most prominent, this instance represents only one of several applications of the motif of “the foe from the north” in the book. Also, Egypt (46:20, 24), the Philistines (47:2), and even Babylon (50:3, 9, 41; 51:48) are haunted by a “foe from the north”. In line with this observation, David J. Reimer notes that in the book of Jeremiah, “the foe from the north” represents “a motif announcing coming destruction applicable to different audiences”.20 In other words, just as with the phrase ‫כל ישבי הארץ‬, the motif of the “foe from the north” as such does not assume a particular focus on Judah. Also, in this case, there is precedent for understanding it in universal terms. In light of this, I will argue that 1:13–14 should be read in universal and general terms and that the change of focus towards the particular people of Judah first occurs in v. 15 with the explicit references to Judah and Jerusalem therein. Such a juxtaposition of a universal and particular perspective is not unique in the book of Jeremiah (cf., for example, 12:14–17; 18:1–12; 25:8–33; 27:1–15; 45:1–5).21 The problem consists in determining how the relationship between the two perspectives is to be understood. This also applies to 1:13–16. The relationship between the universal judgment and the judgment against Judah and Jerusalem is not clarified in explicit terms in vv. 13–16. In light of the relationship between vv. 15–16 and the first vision report, however, I suggest that the universal judgment should be understood as a larger framework for the second vision report. This will be further clarified below.22 here it suffices to note that instead of perceiving the passage of vv. 15–16 as an additional clarifying interpretation of the second vision (vv. 13–14), I perceive the passage to relate to both of the two vision reports as a specific application of either. In addition to having the advantage of ensuring the parallel structure of the two vision reports and the tripartite structure of 1:11–16, this understanding sheds interesting light on the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16.

——————————— 20

David J. Reimer, “The ‘Foe’ and the ‘North’ in Jeremiah,” ZAW 101 (1989): 230. See Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, 81–101. 22 See III.2.3.2. 21

118

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

2.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint In light of the understanding of 1:11–16 just pointed out, I will argue that the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 is more than just a formulaic indictment of disloyalty justifying announcements of the fall of Judah and Jerusalem. In accordance with my thesis, I attempt to demonstrate, first, that it is an accusation that contributes to highlighting the foolishness of the people, and second, that the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 comes close to what I define as total judgment, even if 1:11–16 do not speak explicitly of YHWH’s complete annihilation and/or rejection of his people. 2.3.1 The Foolishness of the People To begin with the issue of foolishness, the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 is marked with much of the same irony as the poetic ʻāzab-complaints, especially those in 2:13, 17, and 19. More precisely, the focus is on the absurdity and foolish disloyalty of forsaking YHWH for others. The tragedy that the people have failed to recognize what kind of God YHWH is and thus forsaken what cannot be forsaken, however, is not highlighted in 1:16, at least not to the same extent as in the poetic ʻāzab-complaints.23 The key to the irony in the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 is the phrase “the works of their hands” (‫למעשי ידיהם‬, v. 16c). The phrase is obviously somewhat formulaic (cf. Deut 4:28; 31:29; 1 Kgs 16:7; 2 Kgs 22:17; Jer 25:6, 7)24 but first and foremost highly polemical in character. As a description of gods other than YHWH, this type of polemical rhetoric reaches its climax in the ridiculing of idols and their producers and worshippers in Deutero-Isaiah (cf. 40:19–20; 41:6–7; 44:9–20; 46:6–7),25 regarding which John Barton notes: To rely on a foreign god is not to rely on another source of strength, not even one which is forbidden, but to rely on something which human beings have devised and which is therefore no stronger than they are. Thus there is no talk of cultic apostasy [...] but more of cultic stupidity.26

Certainly, Jeremiah is not Deutero-Isaiah. And as pointed out above, the primary concern in 1:16 is obviously to highlight the disloyalty – or “cultic apostasy”, to use Barton’s expression – of the people. But as seen in the preceding chapter, the problem of foolishness – or “cultic stupidity”, to use Barton’s expression – is far from foreign to the book of Jeremiah. In fact, other gods are ——————————— 23

Cf. II.2.3.2, 3.3.2, and 4.3.2. For example, Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 324; Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 74; Carroll, Jeremiah, 107–08. 25 See Knut Holter, Second Isaiah’s Idol-Fabrication Passages, BBET 28 (New York: Lang, 1995). 26 John Barton, “‘The Work of Human Hands’ (Ps 115:4): Idolatry in the Old Testament,” ExAud 15 (1999): 66 (italics his). 24

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 1:16

119

defined both as “no-gods” (‫לא אלהים‬, 2:11; 5:7) and handmade “broken cisterns” (‫בארת נשברים‬, 2:13). In the book of Jeremiah, this polemical rhetoric reaches its climax in the poem of 10:1–10 in which the uniqueness of YHWH – in contrast to other gods – is spelled out most extensively and in terms quite similar to Deutero-Isaiah. However, what makes the poem of 10:1–10 interesting to us are the echoes and parallels to 1:11–16. First, YHWH is identified as the “king of the nations” (‫מלך הגוים‬, 10:7a), in contrast to other gods that are nothing but “the work (‫ )מעשה‬of the craftsman and of the hand (‫ )וידי‬of the goldsmith” (10:9b). In addition, other gods are characterized by their inability to speak (cf. ‫דבר‬, 10:5a). The (contrasting) parallels to 1:11–16 are striking. In 1:11–16, YHWH is characterized as the sovereign judge over “all the inhabitants of the earth” (cf. vv. 13–14) and as the one who is capable not only of speaking but of calling upon “all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north” (v. 15) and of putting his words into effect (cf. vv. 11–12). In light of this, it is clear that more than just highlighting the disloyalty of the people, in the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16 YHWH also highlights the foolishness and absurdity of the disloyalty of the people. The people have replaced the powerful and sovereign YHWH with powerless products of their own hands. What pure stupidity! 2.3.2 Total Judgment Obviously, the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:15–16 is directed at Judah and Jerusalem. YHWH calls upon “all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north” (v. 15) to punish his people for their foolish disloyalty. As Nicholson notes, vv. 15–16 thus introduce a central theme in the book: “the judgment which God is to inflict upon his disobedient people at the hands of the Babylonians from the north”.27 While elaborating on this claim, Wanke argues: “Das herauszustellen, ist das Anliegen einer der deuteronomistischen Redaktionen des Jeremiabuches.”28 However, in light of my understanding of the unit of 1:11–16 as an integrated unit I would like to draw attention to four features that, when taken together, suggest that there is more at stake in vv. 15–16 than “just” the fall of Judah and Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians. First, in vv. 15–16, YHWH is portrayed not only as a justified judge but as an enemy of the people of Judah and Jerusalem. This follows from the rhetoric and course of events described. In v. 15, YHWH calls upon (cf. ‫“ )הנני קרא‬all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north” (‫ )לכל משפחות ממלכות צפונה‬to take seats “at the openings of the gates of Jerusalem” (‫ )פתח שערי ירושלם‬in order to pass judgment upon Judah and Jerusalem. The latter is indicated by the parallel in 39:1–10: Jerusalem is hidden text ——————————— 27 28

Nicholson, Jeremiah, 27 (italics his). Wanke, Jeremia, 32.

120

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

besieged (cf. ‫צור‬, v. 1) and invaded (cf. ‫ בקע‬and ‫בוא‬, vv. 2–3); the officials of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar “take seats in the middle gate” ( ‫וישבו‬ ‫בשער התוך‬, v. 3); then Nebuchadnezzar, eventually, passes judgment (cf. ‫וידבר‬ ‫[ משפטים‬...], v. 5) on Zedekiah. The parallel in 39:1–10 highlights a noteworthy feature in 1:16. Contrary to the course of events described in 39:1–10, in 1:16 it is not the enemies of the “kingdoms of the north” that pass the judgment on the people of Judah and Jerusalem but YHWH. In other words, in 1:16, YHWH all of a sudden intervenes and takes on the role of passing judgment himself: “I will speak my judgment” (‫)ודברתי משפטי‬. YHWH takes over the role as enemy of the people and completes the actions of the enemies of the people, Judah and Jerusalem. Thus, in the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 16, YHWH not only speaks as a justified judge but alienates himself from the people and addresses them as an enemy of the people. If not an explicit statement of rejection, it seems hard to come closer to it. Second, it is noteworthy that in vv. 11 – 16 there is no alternative scenario to YHWH’s judgment in vv. 15–16. Especially interesting in this respect is the contrast to 21:1–10. Not unlike 1:15–16, in 21:3–7 YHWH announces that he is about to side with the enemy in the destruction of the inhabitants of Jerusalem: “And I will bring them together (‫ )ואספתי‬in the midst of this city. And I myself will fight (‫ )ונלחמתי‬against you [...] and I will strike (‫ )והכיתי‬the inhabitants of this city” (vv. 4–6). In contrast to 21:3–7, however, the passage of 1:15– 16 is not followed by a presentation of an alternative scenario – a possibility of choosing life (cf. 21:8–9) – or references to a privileged group. In the literary context of 1:15–16 there simply is no alternative to divine judgment. This point is emphasized by the next two features to be pointed out. Third, the connection of the passage of vv. 15–16 to the first vision report in vv. 11–12 pointed out above underlines the no-alternative character of YHWH’s judgment. The proclamation of YHWH that he is “watching over” (‫[ על‬...] ‫ )שקד‬his word in order to do it (‫ )עשה‬in v. 12b suggests that YHWH’s calling (‫ )קרא‬on the enemies in v. 15 and his word (‫ )דבר‬of judgment in v. 16 are inevitable and definitive in character. The judgment of YHWH is conclusively sealed and the people of Judah and Jerusalem are left without alternatives. Finally, there is the relationship of vv. 15–16 to the second vision report in vv. 13–14. Above I suggested that the announcement of judgment against Judah and Jerusalem in vv. 15–16 is to be understood as a specific application of the announcement of universal judgment against “all the inhabitants of the earth” (v. 14b). If so, it means that the judgment against Judah in vv. 15–16 belongs to a vision of universal judgment. The plausibility of this suggestion is strengthened by the parallel between 25:9 and 1:15. In Jer 25:9, YHWH announces that he is about to send “all the tribes of the north” (‫כל משפחות צפון‬,

2. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 1:16

121

25:9a // ‫כל משפחות ממלכות צפונה‬, 1:15a) against Judah.29 Especially interesting is that the announcement in 25:9, although beginning with a particular focus on Babylon’s enslavement of Judah, subsequently broadens the perspective to include “all these nations around” (‫)כל הגוים האלה סביב‬. Thus, in accordance with my suggestion concerning the relationship of 1:15–16 to 1:13–14, the judgment against Judah in 25:9 is presented as forming part of a divine judgment of universal proportions. In 25:8–33, the universal perspective is developed to include, first, judgment against Babylon (25:12–14), then, ultimately, in the oracles against the nations in 25:15–33, judgment against “all the inhabitants of the earth (‫( ”)הארץ‬cf. vv. 29 and 30). Especially interesting is v. 29, which makes it clear that if the city of YHWH must perish, then “all the inhabitants of the earth” must perish. Admittedly, we do not find the latter point spelled out in 1:13–16. But in light of the structure of 1:11–16 and the phraseological links and parallels between 1:13–16 and 25:8–33 pointed out above, I would nevertheless suggest that 1:13–16 should be read along the lines of 25:9, 29. If so, it is clear that there is more at stake in the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 16 than just the fall of Judah and Jerusalem. The fall of Judah and Jerusalem forms a part of a universal divine judgment from which there is no escape. Thus, even if there is no explicit statement of complete annihilation of the people, it should be emphasized that the universal perspective puts YHWH’s judgment against Judah and Jerusalem into a framework that leaves the people with no room for escape – not even outside of the cities of Judah and Jerusalem. To sum up, when reading the passage of vv. 15–16 as an integrated part of the neatly structured unit of 1:11–16, a unit that in turn forms part of the opening chapter of the book of Jeremiah, rather than as a rather independent and formulaic explanatory appendix only to parts of the unit, that is, to the second vision report in vv. 13–14, obviously makes a difference. As an advocate of the former approach, I suggest that in the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16, YHWH speaks not only as a justified judge but as a sovereign judge justifying total judgment against the people of Judah and Jerusalem. YHWH enacts the role of an enemy of the people and leaves them with no alternatives to inevitable, inescapable judgment. 2.4 Conclusion To conclude, it is clear that in the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16, YHWH basically offers an indictment of disloyalty against his people, an indictment that justifies the defeat of Judah and Jerusalem as an act of divine retribution. In addition to this, however, it also seems clear that more than just highlighting the problem ——————————— 29

Jeremiah 25:9a, “I am ( ‫ )הנני‬going to send for all the tribes ( ‫ )משפחות‬of the north (‫”)צפון‬, parallels 1:15a: “For I am ( ‫ )הנני‬calling all the tribes (‫ )משפחות‬of the kingdoms of the north (‫)צפון‬.”

122

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

of disloyalty, the absurdity of this disloyalty is emphasized. Obviously, to replace the sovereign and powerful YHWH with powerless products of their own hands is nothing but absurd. More important, however, is the observation that more than “just” the defeat of Judah and Jerusalem seems to be at stake in the divine judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in 1:16. The rhetoric of the announcement of judgment in 1:11–16 is noteworthy. One thing is the number of links and points of connection that the unit of 1:11–16 establishes to other texts in the book of Jeremiah. Another thing is the structure of 1:11–16 itself. From these observations follows the understanding that 1:11–16 seem to present a scenario in which YHWH has become an enemy of the people of Judah and Jerusalem and where the people thus are facing inevitable and inescapable judgment. The judgment is inevitable because YHWH does as he says, and inescapable because it forms part of a universal judgment against “all the inhabitants of the earth”. Although 1:11–16 contain no explicit statements of YHWH’s complete annihilation and rejection of his people, the enemy motif and the universal perspective of the judgment certainly come close to suggesting total judgment for the people. At least, in the face of the claim that the ʻāzab-complaint reflects a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah, the total character of the judgment justified by the ʻāzabcomplaint in 1:16 should be emphasized. For it is clear that YHWH speaks not only as a justified judge in 1:11–16 but as an enemy of the people of Judah and Jerusalem who leaves the people with no alternatives and no room for escape.

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 5:19 3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 5:19 And when they30 say: Why has YHWH our God done all these things to us? You shall say to them: As you have forsaken me ( ‫ )עזבתם‬and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve strangers in a land that is not yours.

3.1 Introduction The ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19 is the first out of four ʻāzab-complaints (i.e. 5:19; 9:12; 16:11[2x]) featuring in passages (5:19; 9:11–15; 16:10–13) characterized by a common tripartite structure: 1. a “why?” question referring to the destruction of the land; 2. an explanatory answer to the question; 3. an announcement of judgment.31 The close relationship between the passages is further emphasized by the common linguistic and theological profile of the passages. The basic point in the passages is that YHWH has brought, or is about to bring, ——————————— 30

In accordance with common procedure, I read ‫ יאמרו‬as required by the subsequent ‫אליהם‬ instead of ‫תאמרו‬. See Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 190. 31 See Maier, “Deutero-Jeremianic Texts,” 108; Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 298–99.

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 5:19

123

destruction upon the land of Judah because the people have forsaken (‫)עזב‬ him/his law and served other gods. As noted in the introduction, these so-called “question–answer passages” are often considered among the clearest evidence of Deuteronomistic influence in the composition of the book of Jeremiah. They are seen to mirror a typical Deuteronomistic view of history and to parallel passages in Deut 29:21–27, 1 Kgs 9:7–9, and Jer 22:8–9 with which they are considered to share the same literary form. However, in the next three chapters (III.3, 4, and 5) I would like to suggest readings of 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 that challenge this traditional and common view. Indeed, in accordance with my thesis, I will argue that the ʻāzab-complaints of these passages, in addition to being rather formulaic indictments of disloyalty justifying announcements of divine retribution, also serve to justify announcements of total judgment and feature in contexts highlighting the foolishness of the people. Key to my argument is the observation that each passage has its own characteristic features and represents a unique variant of the basic structure of question–answer–announcement of judgment. Certainly, I acknowledge the similarity between Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, 16:10–13, 22:8–9, Deut 29:21–27, and 1 Kgs 9:7–9, and I will briefly touch upon the relationship between the passages in an excursus (Excursus 3) following my analysis of the ʻāzab-complaint in 16:11.32 But my key claim is that the passages first and foremost should be read in light of their present literary contexts rather than of the idea of a fixed form. Before turning to my own reading, however, let me briefly point out some basic elements of how the passages tend to be understood in current scholarship. This is intended to serve as a backdrop to my own analyses of Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13. 3.1.1 The Question–Answer Scheme The passages of 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 are commonly treated as more or less stereotyped and self-contained editorial comments – though some, more than others, emphasize that the passages “have been written for their current [literary] context”33 – looking back from exile in order to offer a theological explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah.34 This also applies to scholars who for various reasons may be hesitant to define the passages as Deuteronomistic. A case in point is McKane’s commentary on 16:10–13: “The point of departure ——————————— 32

See Excursus 3. Maier, “Deutero-Jeremianic Texts,” 110. 34 However, among scholars eager to trace as much as possible of the book of Jeremiah back to the historical prophet Jeremiah, we see attempts to root the form of the passages in the prophetic practice of divination (see Burke O. Long, “Two Question and Answer Schemata in the Prophets,” JBL 90 [1971]: 134–38) and thus to be originally Jeremianic (e.g. Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 91; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 190). 33

124

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

of vv. 10–13 is the fact of exile and the concern is to explain how [it] comes about that the Jews have been ejected [...] from their country.”35 The key to this understanding – and the problem, in my opinion – is the tendency to focus almost exclusively on the first two elements of the passages: the “why?” question and the immediately ensuing answer to that question. Behind this tendency lies the commonly agreed understanding that the tripartite structure of the passages represents a didactic form of question and answer, a so-called “question–answer scheme”, and that the passages thus are best taken as rather stereotypical, self-contained pieces of catechesis in service of teaching and instruction – teaching and instruction that brings some sort of order into the chaos in the aftermath of the destruction and exile of Judah. It is as part of this consensus McKane’s reading of 16:10–13 (see above) must be understood. Other examples could be Werner H. Schmidt’s commentary on 5:19 in which he argues that “[i]n dieser katechetischen Stilform von Frage und Antworten gestaltet sich ein Stück Glaubenslehre”,36 or Stulman’s claim that the passage of 9:11–15 “reflects the theology and focal concerns of survivors living in captivity, [...] [presented] in the form of a question accompanied by an answer and explanation”.37 However, that each of our three passages also includes a final announcement of judgment that, as I intend to demonstrate, speaks of the exile in ways unparalleled in the formulaic prose material of the book of Jeremiah seems more or less ignored by scholars.38 The reason why scholars have paid so little attention to the announcement of judgment in the passages is difficult to tell. But part of the answer is probably the influence of the studies of Thiel and Nicholson.39 A closer look at those studies will be offered in Excursus 3 below.40 Here it may suffice to note that Thiel identified the question and answer as “[d]er eigentliche Kern” of the passages41 and argued that the third announcement-of-judgment element is basically “unnötig”,42 as it simply reveals the historical setting of exile in light of which the question–answer dialogue is to be understood. That the third and final element is shaped in the form of an announcement of judgment just follows from the Deuteronomistic redactor’s intention to imitate Jeremianic prophecy, Thiel argues.43 Nicholson, on the other hand, simply ——————————— 35

McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 368. Schmidt, Jeremia, 149. 37 Stulman, Jeremiah, 102–03. 38 The exception may be the announcement of judgment in 16:13, which for various reasons, including its description of the exiles, appears confusing to many scholars. See more below in III.5.2 and 5.3.1. 39 Thiel, Jeremia 1–25; Nicholson, Preaching. 40 See Excursus 3. 41 Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 298. 42 Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 199. 43 See Thiel, Jeremia, 1–25, 299. 36

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 5:19

125

seems to ignore the fact that the third element in our passages has the form of an announcement of judgment and speaks of it as “a restatement of the circumstance which prompted the question”.44 In sharp contrast to this view, I read the passages of 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 in light of their literary contexts and argue that in these passages YHWH announces and justifies total judgment. 3.1.2 The ʻĀzab-Complaint and the Question–Answer Scheme in 5:19 Beginning with 5:19, I structure my discussion as follows. First, I will focus on the passage of 5:19 separately. After first having drawn attention to the formulaic character of the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19, I will briefly highlight some distinctive features of the passage with respect both to vocabulary and to the form of the passage. Then I seek to clarify the literary context of 5:19 and how it functions within this context. In light of that analysis, I seek to demonstrate my thesis regarding the profile of the ʻāzab-complaint. 3.1.2.1 The Formulaic Character of the ʻĀzab -Complaint In accordance with the formulaic pattern pointed out for the prosaic ʻāzabcomplaints in the introduction, the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19 is closely associated with an accusation of worshipping other gods – that is, “you have served foreign gods” (‫ותעבדו אלהי נכר‬, v. 19cβ). Obviously, the vocabulary is quite formulaic.45 Within the framework of the question–answer scheme, this disloyal behaviour of the people justifies divine judgment: first, that YHWH has done “all these things” (‫את כל אלה‬, v. 19a), and second, that “you shall serve strangers in a land that is not yours” (v. 19c). The references are obviously the defeat of Judah (v. 19a) and the exile of the people (v. 19c). While the first follows from the preceding literary context (vv. 10–17), which announces invasion and military defeat,46 the latter is given by the phrase “in a land that is not yours” (v. 19cβ). The correlation between sin and judgment – from serving foreign gods (‫ותעבדו אלהי נכר‬, v. 19bβ) to serving foreigners (‫תעבדו זרים‬, v. 19cα) – highlights the retributive nature of the judgment.47 So, that the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19 is basically an indictment of disloyalty justifying the defeat and exile of Judah seems clear enough. Indeed, these events are presented as appropriate acts of divine retribution for the people’s forsaking of YHWH in favour of others.

——————————— 44

Nicholson, Preaching, 59. See Stipp, Konkordanz, 99–100. 46 See more below. 47 See Patrick D. Miller, Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis, SBLMS 27 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 67, 108–10. 45

126

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

However, there is more to the rhetoric of v. 19 than just this basic formulaic pattern, features that tend to be ignored by scholars taking v. 19 as a stereotyped and self-contained piece of catechesis in service of the survivors of the destruction of the land. Let me draw attention to a couple of distinctive and interesting features of v. 19. 3.1.2.2 Distinctive Features of the Passage 1. Distinctive rhetoric. Amid the formulaic language of v. 19, two phrases claim the attention. First, there is the phrase “in a land that is not yours” ( ‫בארץ‬ ‫לא לכם‬, v. 19cβ). Obviously, the phrase refers to the exile of the people. But instead of the more common description of the land of exile – “that you do not know” (‫אשר לא ידעתם‬, cf. 16:13b)48 – 5:19cβ reads: “that is not yours” (‫)לא לכם‬. In light of the literary context of v. 19, the expression “that is not yours” does not appear arbitrary. As I will argue below, it contributes to an inclusio significant for understanding how v. 19 relates to, and functions in, its literary context. Second, there is the immediately preceding phrase in v. 19cα: “you shall serve strangers” (‫)תעבדו זרים‬. This phrase is noteworthy because of its ambiguity. Certainly, the setting is the exile in Babylon. But the term ‫ זר‬may refer to either political enemies or other gods. In the Hebrew Bible the term ‫ זר‬is used with the meaning of both “alien gods” (e.g. Deut 32:16; Isa 17:10; 43:2; Jer 3:13) and “alien political enemies” (e.g. Isa 1:7; 25:5; 29:5; Jer 30:8; Ezek 7:21; 11:9; 31:12; Hos 7:9; 8:7). The synonym ‫נכר‬, however, is basically used with the meaning of “foreign gods”, as in the preceding phrase “you have served foreign gods” (‫ותעבדו אלהי נכר‬, v. 19bβ; see also Deut 31:16; 32:12; Jos 24:20, 23; Judg 10:16; 1 Sam 7:13). However, instead of choosing just one, Holladay argues that here ‫ זר‬has “a nice double meaning”,49 thus suggesting that in v. 19cα the exile is described not only in terms of political captivity but also of religious captivity. As I will argue below, this suggestion gains support from the literary context and has significant implications both for the reading of v. 19 as such and for the understanding of the character of the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint. 2. The irony of the passage. The irony established by the correspondence between sin and judgment in v. 19 is well recognized – because the people have “served (i.e. ‫ )ותעבדו‬foreign gods” in their land (i.e. ‫)בארצכם‬, they are now to “serve (i.e. ‫ )תעבדו‬strangers” in a land that is not theirs (i.e. ‫)בארץ לא לכם‬. More interesting, however, is the irony created in the passage by putting the “why?” question in the mouth of the people. In addition to representing the people as a ——————————— 48 In addition to describing the “land” (‫)ארץ‬, the phrase is used several times to characterize other “nations” (‫גוים‬, cf. 9:15) and, not least, other gods (Deut 11:28; 13:3, 7, 14; 28:64; 29:25; Jer 7:9; 19:4; 44:3). See Stipp, Konkordanz, 55. 49 Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 191.

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 5:19

127

confused and perplexed people, the incongruity of the people’s appeal to YHWH as their God (i.e. “YHWH our God” [‫יהוה אלהינו‬, v. 19a]) and YHWH’s complaint that the people have forsaken him and violated their relationship with him suggests that the people are not only confused with respect to their situation but also terribly deluded with respect to the status of their relationship with YHWH. In other words, they are represented as a people holding on to a relationship that they themselves have broken. As I attempt to show below, the literary context of v. 19 adds further aspects to this portrait of the people. 3. The distinctive form of the question–answer scheme. Finally, and most importantly, the distinctive form of the question–answer scheme should be noted. In the parallels (Deut 29:21–27; 1 Kgs 9:7–9; Jer 9:11–15; 16:10–13; 22:8–9), the connection between question and answer is highlighted by the preposition ‫ על‬introducing both elements: ‫( על מה‬why?) and (‫( על )אשר‬because). This formal link underscores how the answer meets the question. In 5:19, however, things are different as 5:19 reads ‫( תחת מה‬why?)50 and ‫( כאשר‬as). The typical connecting preposition ‫ על‬is missing. Moreover, the answer is shaped in a comparative clause, ‫[ כן‬...] ‫( כאשר‬as [...] so), where the apodosis forms an announcement of judgment: “so you shall serve strangers in a land that is not yours”. Hence, rather than an occasion for an explanatory answer, even if this is implied, the “why?” question in v. 19 serves, first and foremost, as an occasion for an oracle of judgment: “as you have [...] so you shall”.51 In other words, rather than a catechesis, v. 19 is primarily an oracle of judgment. This is underscored by the distinctive rhetoric in v. 19c and the use of the term ‫זר‬. As the double meaning of this term makes clear, v. 19c is far more than a typical and “unnötig[e]” description of the exilic setting of the question–answer dialogue. The rhetoric highlights the double tragedy of exile. In exile the people are doomed to serve both political enemies and foreign gods. Notably, a similar announcement of judgment where the exile is described in terms of captivity in which the people are doomed to serve other gods is found in only one other instance in the book of Jeremiah, i.e. in 16:13, to which we will return below. The most important thing here and now, however, is to conclude that v. 19 seems best understood as an oracle of judgment, not as a piece of catechesis. And it is as such that I understand v. 19 to function in its immediate literary context. As will become clear in the following, this understanding makes a big difference for the understanding of the character of the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaints.

——————————— 50 51

This question form is unique in the Hebrew Bible; see Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 248. For a similar understanding, see Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 398–99.

128

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

3.2 Literary Context That v. 19 is closely related to the preceding oracles of judgment is clear enough. The phrase “all these things” (‫ )את כל אלה‬in v. 19a requires an antecedent. In line with general ideas of how prose functions,52 scholars tend to see v. 19 serving the function of clarification and explanation in relation to its immediately preceding literary context, though the boundaries of the context might be somewhat disputed.53 For instance, against the background of the poetic oracles of judgment in vv. 16–17, McKane argues that v. (18–)19 is “a comment on the experience of exile” and “a reflection of how events have turned out”.54 Implicit in McKane’s quote is the understanding that v. 19 provides a perspective of correction in relation to the preceding oracles of judgment. The key is the “less than a full end” statement in v. 18 – “I will not make a full end of you” (‫ – )לא אעשה אתכם כלה‬which quite commonly is taken to reflect a later and more realistic perspective on the destruction of the land than the preceding oracles of judgment.55 However, I would like to argue for a quite different reading. My point of departure is the claim that in the present form of the text, v. 19 forms part of, and completes, the unit of vv. 10–19. This unit, in the middle of the so-called “foe from the north cycle” (4:5–6:30), is dominated by oracles of judgment announcing impending disaster upon the people of Judah. YHWH commands an unknown agent to destroy his vineyard, Jerusalem (cf. ‫ושחתו‬, ‫הסירו‬, v. 10),56 makes his words a fire (cf. ‫[ לאש‬...] ‫ )הנני נתן דברי‬to consume “this people” ( ‫העם‬ ‫הזה‬, v. 14), and brings about (cf. ‫ )הנני מביא‬a foreign army against “the house of Israel” (‫בית ישראל‬, v. 15). In this context, I will argue that v. 19 serves as a final and climactic oracle of judgment against the people. Admittedly, vv. 10–19 constitute a rather complex unit and do not easily read as a unified composition. Problems concerning who is speaking, abrupt changes of addressee, and the variety of motifs are but some of the difficulties related to the argument of unity in vv. 10–19. Another, of course, concerns the change from poetry (i.e. vv. 10–17) to prose (i.e. vv. 18–19). Yet, despite the ——————————— 52

See I.3.1.1.2. For instance, while Carroll, Jeremiah, 185; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 123–27; Wanke, Jeremia, 72–74; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 392–99; and Schmidt, Jeremia, 147– 49 take 5:15–17 to be the antecedent, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 183–91; Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 89–93; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 243–48; and Allen, Jeremiah, 74–78 understand 5:10–17 to be the antecedent. 54 Carroll, Jeremiah, 185; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 126. 55 For example, Carroll, Jeremiah, 184–85; Wanke, Jeremia, 73–74; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 190–91; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 126–27; Schmidt, Jeremia, 148–49. 56 The identity of the female character about to be destroyed in v. 10 is unclear. In light of vv. 1–9, I read “Jerusalem”, although the character may very well also be identified as either “Judah” (e.g. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 388) or, especially in light of v. 11, as “Judah–Israel” (e.g. Clements, Jeremiah, 181). 53

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 5:19

129

complexity, it seems reasonable to view vv. 10–19 as a series of loosely integrated oracles of judgment linked together by means of root motifs and a sort of narrative continuity. Let me highlight three observations in support of this claim. 1. Clusters of imperatives. The delimitation of vv. 10–19 is suggested, first, by the observation of Holladay noted above that clusters of imperatives function as a structuring device in Jer 4–10 and in the “foe from the north cycle” in particular.57 In light of that observation, it is worth noting that both 5:10 and 5:20 contain such clusters of imperatives: ‫עלו‬, ‫ושחחו‬, and ‫ הסירו‬in v. 10, and ‫ הגידו‬and ‫ והשמיעוה‬in v. 20. 2. The “less than a full end” statements. The delimitation of vv. 10–19 is further suggested by the inclusio established by the “less than a full end” statements in vv. 10aβ and 18b, respectively: “do not make a full end” ( ‫וכלה אל‬ ‫ )תעשו‬and “I will not make a full end of you” (‫)לא אעשה אתכם כלה‬. While I will discuss the understanding of these statements in more detail below, here it suffices to suggest that they serve to bridge the gap, so to speak, between vv. 10– 17 and v. 19; that is, the statements grant that after the destruction of the land (vv. 10–17), there will still be survivors left to raise the question of “why?” in v. 19a. This suggestion may not be very different from the common view noted just above. But instead of seizing upon the assumption that the prose in v. 18– 19 must be understood as a secondary addition – reflecting a later and more realistic perspective on the destruction of the land than the preceding oracles of judgment in vv. 10–17 – I would argue that in the present form of the text, the statements first and foremost seem to bridge the gap and establish a sort of narrative continuity between vv. 10–17 and v. 19. As already noted, they grant that there will still be survivors left to raise the question of “why?” in v. 19a. 3. Alienation as a leitmotif. In addition to the “less than a full end” statements, a second set of parallel statements frames vv. 10–19 – that is, “[t]hey are not for YHWH” (‫לא ליהוה המה‬, v. 10bβ) and “in a land that is not yours” (‫בארץ לא לכם‬, v. 19cβ). In addition to the parallel constructions – ‫ לא ליהוה‬and ‫ – לא לכם‬it is noteworthy that both statements connote the motif of alienation. While in the statement in v. 10bβ the people are alienated from YHWH, in v. 19cβ the people are alienated from the land to which they are being exiled. However, by framing the unit as a whole, these two statements of alienation highlight a noteworthy feature. Verses 10–19 are indeed filled with terms, phrases, and clauses more or less closely associated with the motif of alienation. In vv. 15–17, it is accentuated that the attacking nation is a nation “from afar” (‫ממרחק‬, v. 15a), speaking a language “you do not know” (‫לא תדע‬, v. 15cα) and “you do not understand (literally: hear)” (‫ולא תשמע‬, 15cβ). And in v. 19bc, both “foreign gods” (‫ )אלהי נכר‬and, quite unusually, “strangers” (‫ )זרים‬are referred to. Thus, alienation, or foreignness and dissociation, serves as a leitmotif ——————————— 57

See II.4.2.

130

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

in vv. 10–19 and to interconnect otherwise distinct units. In light of this observation, I would argue that vv. 10–19 are better read as a loosely integrated unit of oracles of judgment than simply as a series of disparate fragments.58 If so, it also follows – in light of the narrative continuity between vv. 10–17 and v. 19 and the distinctive form of the question–answer scheme in v. 19 – that v. 19 serves as the climax and point of culmination for the unit, as an oracle of judgment addressed to the survivors of the destruction of the land. 3.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint In the following we will see that to read 5:19 as a climactic oracle of judgment addressed to the survivors of the destruction of the land instead of as a more or less self-contained piece of catechesis makes a big difference, especially with respect to the character of the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19. But reading 5:19 in the context of 5:10–19 also sheds interesting light on the people being accused of having forsaken YHWH. The confusion and delusion of the people noted above are further emphasized by the literary context of 5:10–19. I begin with the latter point. 3.3.1 The Foolishness of the People The foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH in 5:19 is admittedly not so much related to the absurdity and tragedy of forsaking YHWH (for other gods) as in 1:16, 2:13, 17, 19, and 5:7. In fact, in 5:19 the foolishness of the people is not specifically related to the people’s forsaking of YHWH, and one may therefore question whether it makes sense to speak of it as part of the profile of the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19. Having said that, however, it is noteworthy that this ʻāzab-complaint also features in a literary context portraying those forsaking YHWH not only as a disloyal people but as a foolish people. And the irony in 5:19 pointed out above contributes to underscoring this point. Above I pointed out the mismatch between the people’s appeal to YHWH as “our God” (‫ )אלהינו‬and the ʻāzab-complaint, and how this mismatch gives the impression of a people quite deluded concerning the status of their relationship with YHWH – not unlike what we saw in 5:1–9. However, when the literary context of 5:10–19 is taken into consideration, the delusion and misconception of the people, I will argue, is further emphasized. For as I will argue, in 5:10–19 the people are associated with the classic, self-confident, but deluded fool (‫ )נבל‬who, because of his false speech and thinking about YHWH, is on his way to disaster (cf. Isa 32:6, Pss 14:1, 53:2; Job 2:10).59 The key is ——————————— 58

See, for example, Carroll, Jeremiah, 180–86, esp. 181. On the use of the term ‫ נבל‬for the self-confident but deluded “blasphemer”, see J. Marböck, “ ‫נבל‬,” TDOT 9:163–67, esp. 164. See Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Eric Zenger, Psalms 59

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 5:19

131

vv. 11–14, which in fact is the only other section in 5:10–19 – in addition to v. 19 – where accusations are being raised against the people. In vv. 11–14, YHWH sets forth three accusations against the people: “they have been utterly treacherous to me” (‫בגוד בגדו בי‬, v. 11a); “they have denied YHWH and said: ‘He will not! Disaster will not come upon us, and sword and famine we will not see’” ( ‫כחשו ביהוה ויאמרו לא הוא ולא תבוא עלינו רעה וחרב ורעב‬ ‫לוא נראה‬, v. 12); “because you have spoken this word” (‫יען דברכם את הדבר הזה‬, v. 14aβ). Admittedly, vv. 11–14 appear somewhat fragmentary, and there is no consensus on how to read these verses. The difficulty consists in deciding “who is saying what to whom”, as Carroll puts it.60 Among the most critical issues is the question of who is being quoted in v. 12: “‘He will not! Disaster will not come upon us, and sword and famine we will not see’.” On the one hand, the statement that YHWH “will not” (‫ )לא הוא‬echoes the self-confident proclamation of the classic fool (‫)נבל‬: “There is no God” (‫אין אלהים‬, Pss 14:1; 53:2).61 The rest of the quote, on the other hand, has, as McKane notes, “a marked similarity with [the words] elsewhere attributed to ‫ שלום‬prophets”62 (cf. 6:14; 8:11; 14:13, 15; 23:17). Due to the latter, v. 12 is often read as a quote of the so-called “peace prophets”. The reference to “the prophets” (‫ )הנביאים‬in v. 13 is seen to substantiate this claim.63 Contrary to the traditional reading, however, I will argue that v. 12 should be read as a quote of the people and that there is continuity between the accusation implied in this quote and the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 19. Instead of indicating that v. 12 is a quote by the peace prophets, I suggest that the reference to “the prophets” (‫ )הנביאים‬in v. 13 simply identifies and highlights the source of inspiration of the quoted speech of the people in v. 12.64 The key argument for seeing the people being quoted in v. 12 is the connection between v. 11 and v. 12 established by the semantic fields of the keywords ‫“( בגד‬act treacherously”) in v. 11a and ‫“( כחש‬deny”) in v. 12a. For, according to my argument, if v. 12 continues the accusation in v. 11, the quote in v. 12 must be a quote of ——————————— 2, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 41, on the term ‫נבל‬ in Ps 53:2. 60 Carroll, Jeremiah, 182. 61 Despite discussions concerning the exact meaning of the phrase, the basic meaning seems clear enough: “‘nichter’ bezieht sich auf Gott und verneint seinen Einfluß oder seine Wirksamkeit” (Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 244 [italics his].) For various translations and understandings, see Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 186. 62 McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 121. 63 See, for example, McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 121; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 389. Another view takes vv. 12–13b as a quote of the people. The prophets (‫ )הנביאים‬in v. 13a, then, are identified as a group of prophets associated with Jeremiah and rejected by the people (e.g. Rudolph, Jeremia, 35). But as Allen, Jeremiah, 76, notes, “elsewhere in the book the plural term ‘prophets’ with reference to Jeremiah’s contemporaries regularly signifies his rivals who prophesied ‘peace’ (šālôm)” (italics his). 64 For a similar view, see Thompson, Jeremiah, 243–44.

132

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

the people as the accusation of treachery in v. 11 obviously concerns the people – that is, “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (‫)בית ישראל ובת יהודה‬. Two observations indicate semantic overlap between the terms ‫ בגד‬and ‫כחש‬. First, both ‫ בגד‬and ‫ כחש‬are used with reference to infidelity towards YHWH several times in the Hebrew Bible (‫בגד‬: e.g. 1 Sam 14:23; Isa 48:8; Jer 3:8, 11, 20; Hos 5:7; 6:7; ‫כחש‬: e.g. Josh 24:27; Isa 59:13). The observation, of course, is especially relevant to the reading of our verses (i.e. Jer 5:11–12) as the infidelity of the people evidently is emphasized in the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 19. In addition, however, the terms ‫ בגד‬and ‫ כחש‬also meet in the concept of falseness. Both terms, each in its own way, are associated with the problem of falsehood and false speaking in the Hebrew Bible. In Isa 59:13, ‫ כחש‬is associated with “false words” (‫)דברי שקר‬, while “band of traitors” (‫ )עצרת בגדים‬in Jer 9:1–2 is associated with those who “bend their tongue like a bow” (‫)וידרכו את לשונם קשתם‬ and spread “falsehood, not truth” (‫ )שקר ולא לאמונה‬in the land. In light of that, it thus seems reasonable to suggest that the people’s treachery (‫ )בגד‬in v. 11 is basically a treachery of false speaking of YHWH – that is, their denial (‫)כחש‬ of YHWH as a God of judgment – as they proclaim: “He will not! Disaster will not come upon us, and sword and famine we will not see’” (v. 12). If so, the point in vv. 11–14 seems to be to display the delusion and misconception of the people. Just like the classic fool (‫)נבל‬, the peace prophets, and, one may add, the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 5:1–9,65 the people in vv. 11–14 are portrayed as a people terribly mistaken about YHWH and his stance towards them. For as v. 14 makes clear, “because you [i.e. the people] have spoken this word” (‫יען דברכם את הדבר הזה‬, v. 14aβ), YHWH announces: “I will make my words in your [i.e. Jeremiah’s] mouth a fire, and this people wood, and it shall consume them” (‫הנני נתן דברי בפיך לאש והעם הזה עצים ואכלתם‬, v. 14b). The ʻāzab-complaint in v. 19 goes well with such a reading of vv. 11–14. In both cases the people are quoted, and in both cases the quote displays the delusion of the people. What is then highlighted in 5:10–19 is that the people have failed to read the situation and have been completely mistaken about YHWH and their relationship with him. They have not realized that they have broken their relationship with YHWH and that YHWH therefore is acting against them. So, even if the absurdity of the people’s forsaking of YHWH may not be emphasized so much in the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19, it is noteworthy that this ʻāzab-complaint also features in the context where it contributes to highlighting the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH. 3.3.2 Total Judgment A noteworthy byproduct of the preceding discussion is the reinforcement of what I have argued above, namely the unity of vv. 10–19. Above I argued that ——————————— 65

See above in II.4.

3. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 5:19

133

v. 19 is to be understood as a climactic oracle of judgment in the context of vv. 10–19. In the following, I will elaborate on this and argue that v. 19, as an oracle of judgment, is in continuity with the judgment described in vv. 10–17 and thus describes a scenario of total judgment. Let me begin with the oracles of judgment in vv. 10–17. These oracles are characteristically marked with terms and images connoting complete destruction and annihilation, especially those in vv. 14, 15–17. In v. 14, YHWH proclaims that he makes his words a fire (‫ )אש‬and the people into pieces of wood (‫ )עץ‬to be consumed (‫)אכל‬. In vv. 15–17, “your harvest and your bread” ( ‫קצירך‬ ‫)ולחמך‬, “your sons and daughters” (‫)בניך ובנותיך‬, and “your flocks and your herds” (‫ )צאנך ובקרך‬are to be consumed (‫)אכל‬. Moreover, also in v. 10, the image seems to be that of complete destruction – of YHWH’s vineyard: “Her rows” (‫ )שרותיה‬are to be destroyed (‫ )שחת‬and “her branches” (‫ )נטישותיה‬to be stripped away (‫)סור‬.66 Apparently, the judgment is inevitable and inescapable. The people are offered no alternatives. However, in sharp contrast to this picture of complete annihilation, there are the “less than a full end” statements in vv. 10aβ and 18b. The former (i.e. vv. 10aβ) in particular has troubled many scholars.67 While most scholars seem to consider it a mitigating gloss,68 it has also been argued that v. 10 is better understood in terms of a pruning motif.69 Either way, together with the parallel in v. 18, the statement in v. 10aβ is seen to balance terms and images connoting complete destruction and, thereby, to offer a glimpse of hope for the future of the people.70 In fact, Fretheim takes them to indicate that “God would be there throughout the devastation, making sure that there would be a remnant with which to begin again”.71 In this reading, the “less than a full end” statements are regarded as the central point in vv. 10–19 under which the theme of divine judgment is to be subordinated. What is often ignored, however, is that the motifs of destruction and annihilation are supplemented by another motif in the description of the judgment in vv. 10–19, namely the motif of alienation. Above it was pointed out that the ——————————— 66

See Carroll, Jeremiah, 181. The problem of the juxtaposition of the two phrases “but make not a full end” ( ‫וכלה אל‬ ‫ )תעשו‬and “they are not for YHWH” ( ‫ )לוא ליהוה המה‬has long been recognized. While I will clarify my own understanding below, here I would like to make it clear that I do not consider MT’s reading unreadable. I therefore prefer to stay with that reading, against, for instance, Rudolph, Jeremia, 34 and McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 120. 68 For example, Rudolph, Jeremia, 34–35; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 183; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 119–20; Wanke, Jeremia, 70–71. 69 Cf. Thompson, Jeremiah, 243: “All rank growth is to be torn away, although the vine itself is not to be completely destroyed.” See also, for instance, Bright, Jeremiah, 40; Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 90, 92; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 388–89; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 244, 247. 70 Indeed, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 61, argues in light of 30:11 that v. 18 in particular is to be understood as “a brief proclamation of salvation (Heilsankündigung)” (italics his). 71 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 106. 67

134

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

motif of alienation serves as a leitmotif in vv. 10–19. In that connection it was emphasized how central the motif of alienation is in the description of exile in v. 19bc – “so you shall serve strangers (‫ )זרים‬in a land that is not yours ( ‫בארץ‬ ‫ – ”)לא לכם‬and, not least, how the description of exile thus further connects with the statement in v. 10bβ: “they are not for YHWH” (‫)לא ליהוה המה‬. The observation of the alienation motif and the connection between statements of alienation in vv. 10bβ and 19bc sheds new light on the “less than full end” statements. For it is important to note that each of the statements of alienation (i.e. vv. 10bβ and 19bc) follows immediately after a “less than full end” statement. As a result, even though the “less than full end” statements suggest a survival motif that modifies the image of complete destruction and annihilation found elsewhere in vv. 10–19, the “less than full end” statements do not serve as springboards to new beginnings in vv. 10–19. On the contrary, they lead to statements highlighting that YHWH alienates the people from himself. This becomes explicitly clear in v. 10bβ by YHWH denying that the people belong to him: “They are not for YHWH.” A similar point seems implied in v. 19. Given what I have pointed out above with respect to the distinctive character of v. 19 and its relationship to the literary context, it seems clear that the survivors raising the question of “why?” do not “live to tell the tale and thereby point up the moral lesson of the disaster”, as Carroll argues.72 Rather, the survivors live to serve foreign rulers and foreign gods. In other words, they live to witness YHWH’s rejection of them! This is obviously a sort of total judgment – a total judgment justified by the people’s forsaking of YHWH. 3.4 Conclusion To conclude, it is clear that in the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19 YHWH basically offers an indictment of disloyalty against the people, an indictment justifying the defeat and exile of Judah as an act of divine retribution. In addition to this, however, it is noteworthy that the ʻāzab-complaint features in a literary context in which the people are portrayed as terribly deluded with respect to the status of their relationship with YHWH and YHWH’s stance towards them. The ʻāzab-complaint contributes significantly to this portrait, even if the absurdity of the people’s forsaking of YHWH, as such, is not thematized in this case. As regards the disaster and the announcement of judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19, the description of the exile needs to be highlighted. In the context of the formulaic prose of the book of Jeremiah, it is quite unique that the exile serves as an expression of YHWH’s rejection of the people as a whole. The idea that the reference to the exile simply reflects the historical setting, in light of which 5:19 is to be understood, fails to recognize this point. This failure relates to the common understanding that 5:19 is to be read as a ——————————— 72

Carroll, Jeremiah, 185.

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 9:12

135

stereotypical, self-contained piece of catechesis in service of survivors of the destruction and exile of Judah. In sharp contrast to this understanding, however, I have argued that 5:19 is better understood in continuity with 5:10–18 and thus functions as a climactic oracle of judgment addressed to survivors of the land’s destruction. This means that more than an explanation of the destruction of the land, the survivors are met with a word of divine rejection. Instead of finally having some order introduced into the chaos of the destruction of the land and the exile, the chaos is reinforced. The survivors live to witness YHWH’s rejection of them. Certainly, this observation challenges the traditional claim that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19 reflects a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah. In 5:19, any hope for the future of the exiles and for the YHWH–people relationship is excluded. In other words, it seems clear that in the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19, YHWH speaks not only as a justified judge, but as a God who rejects his people and announces the end of his relationship with them.

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 9:12 4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 9:12 11 Who is the wise man? Let him understand this and let him to whom the mouth of YHWH has spoken declare it.73 Why is the land ruined, laid waste like the wilderness with no one passing through? 12 YHWH answered: Because they have forsaken ( ‫ )עזבם‬my law that I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice and not walked in accordance with it. 13 They have followed their stubborn heart and the Baals as their fathers taught them. 14 Therefore, thus says YHWH of hosts, God of Israel: Behold, I am feeding this people with wormwood, and I will give them poisoned water to drink. 15 I will scatter them among nations that neither they nor their fathers know. And I will send the sword after them until I have made an end to them.

4.1 Introduction With the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12 we have come to the second and the longest one of the three question–answer passages – that is, 9:11–15. The ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12 stands out somewhat from the others. First, the object of the people’s forsaking is the law (‫ )תורה‬of YHWH, not YHWH himself. As we will ——————————— 73 I follow Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 306–07 in my translation of 11a. However, more than the linguistic and form-critical arguments of Holladay, which indeed have their own merits, my translation follows from my exegesis of vv. 11–13 as a unit. In contrast to most other scholars, I do not assume a structure of two parallel questions in v. 11a – like, for instance, Bright, Jeremiah, 68: “Who is he that is wise enough [...]? Who is he to whom Yahweh’s own mouth has spoken [...]?” Instead, I consider the opening question – “Who is the wise man?” – to be the driving question in vv. 11–15. My suggestion is that this question is followed by a summons (in jussive) and a double challenge to understand (‫ )בין‬and declare (‫)נגד‬ the crisis befallen (v. 11b).

136

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

see below, however, this difference need not be very significant. Secondly, and more importantly, to a greater extent than the other quest–answer passages, the passage of 9:11–15 appears as a self-contained literary unit. Contrary to 5:19 and 16:10–13, the passage of 9:11–15 clarifies for itself the occasion of the “why?” question: “Why is the land ruined, laid waste like the wilderness with no one passing through?” Here, no antecedent in the preceding literary context is required. Therefore, in this case I am turning directly to the task of clarifying the profile of the ʻāzab-complaint, without first analysing the literary context of 9:11–15. However, this does not mean that I intend to simply ignore the literary context of 9:11–15. In an excursus below, I will offer a proposal as to how the passage of 9:11–15 might be seen to relate to, and function in, its literary context. One reason for this excursus is that I consider the literary context to substantiate my reading of 9:11–15; another is the character of the context. Given my discussion with Fretheim and Brueggemann over the suffering of YHWH in the preceding chapter, the fact that 9:11–15 are surrounded by “weeping poems” (i.e. 8:18–9:2; 9:9–10; 9:16–21) cannot be passed over without comment. As already noted in the introduction, these “weeping poems” tend to be taken as divine laments evidencing divine pathos by an increasing number of scholars.74 Some words about these poems are therefore in order, although a full analysis would take us too far afield from my concern both in this chapter in particular and in this study in general. But first we need to concentrate on our primary concern in this chapter, namely the understanding of the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12. 4.2 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint As already noted, in the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12 the object of the people’s forsaking is the law (‫ )תורה‬of YHWH, not YHWH himself. However, YHWH and the law (‫ )תורה‬of YHWH often feature as more or less interchangeable entities in the Hebrew Bible. To some extent, this also seems to apply to our passage. As we will see just below, the formulaic pattern noted for the ʻāzab-complaints in 1:16 and 5:19 also applies to the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12. Having said that, however, the reference to the law (‫ )תורה‬in the passage seems by no means arbitrary. Below I will argue that the reference contributes significantly to portraying the people as a terribly foolish people. But before doing so, let me begin by pointing out the formulaic character of the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12.

——————————— 74

See above in I.3.2.1.

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 9:12

137

4.2.1 The Formulaic Character of the ʻĀzab-Complaint In accordance with the formulaic pattern pointed out for the prosaic ʻāzabcomplaints in the introduction, the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12 is closely associated with accusations of disobedience and worshipping other gods: “they have not obeyed (‫ )ולא שמעו‬my voice (‫ )בקולי‬and not walked (‫ )ולא הלכו‬in accordance with it but followed (‫ )וילכו אחרי‬their stubborn heart (‫ )שררות לבם‬and the Baals (‫ )הבעלים‬as the fathers taught them” (v. 12b–13). The phraseology is quite formulaic and frequently attested in Deuteronomy, in DtrH, and in the formulaic prose of the book of Jeremiah.75 In sum, the series of accusations highlights the disloyalty of the people – for having disobeyed and turned themselves away from YHWH to the Baals. Within the framework of the question–answer sequence, this disloyal behaviour of the people explains why the land is ruined (‫ )אבדה‬and laid waste (‫נצתה‬, v. 11b). In contrast to 5:19, here the answer serves a clear explicative function, as is highlighted by the connection between the “why?” question ( ‫על‬ ‫מה‬, v. 11b) and the answer ([...] ‫על עזבם‬, v. 12a). In addition to this explicative function, however, the series of accusations in vv. 12–13 also lead up to and form the basis of a final announcement of judgment: “Therefore (‫)לכן‬, thus says (‫ )כה אמר‬YHWH of hosts [...]: I will scatter them among nations (‫)והפצותים בגוים‬ that neither they nor their fathers know (‫( ”)אשר לא ידעו המה ואבותם‬vv. 14–15a). Here, the reference is obviously to the exile. For the description of exile in vv. 14–15 quite formulaic phraseology is employed.76 So that the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12 is to be understood basically as an indictment of disloyalty, justifying the defeat and exile of Judah is clear enough. However, like the ʻāzab-complaints in 1:16 and 5:19, there is more to the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12 than just this formulaic pattern. As I will argue in the following, it contributes to highlighting the foolishness of the people and justifies total judgment. Keys to arguing this are the understanding of the question–answer sequence in vv. 11–13 and the description of the exile in v. 15. As we will see, the traditional understanding of 9:11–15 as just another piece of ——————————— 75

While the expression “stubborn heart” (‫ )שררות לב‬primarily occurs in the book of Jeremiah (e.g. 3:17; 7:13; 9:13; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17), the accusations that the people have not walked in the law (‫ )לא הלך בתורה‬and have not obeyed the voice of YHWH ( ‫לא שמע‬ ‫ )בקולי‬are widely attested in the Deuteronomistic History as well as in other parts of the Hebrew Bible (see Stulman, Prose Sermons, 33, 39, 40; Stipp, Konkordanz, 42, 137–38, 144). The phrase “(walk) after the Baals” ( ‫)]הלך[ אהרי הבעלים‬, however, is less common, but see 1 Kgs 18:18, 21; Jer 2:23. For the motif of the fathers (‫ )אבות‬in the book of Jeremiah, see Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition, OBO 99 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 395–491. For the so-called “Promulgationssatz” ( ‫)אשר נתתי לפניהם‬, see Stipp, Konkordanz, 95. 76 Parallels to the phrase “I will scatter them among the nations” ( ‫ )הפצותים בגוים‬are found in particular in Deut 4:27; 28:64; 30:3; Jer 30:11.

138

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

catechesis in service of the exiles and survivors of the destruction of the land ignores several characteristic features of the passage. Let me begin with the point of foolishness and the rhetoric of vv. 11–13. 4.2.2 The Foolishness of the People Obviously, in accordance with the traditional view, vv. 11–13 provide an answer to the question of why the land is ruined and laid waste. However, contrary to the traditional view, the answer provided seems to be presented as an obvious matter of fact, as something that should be known. Indeed, it seems that the question–answer sequence (especially vv. 11–13) is shaped to ridicule the people for not knowing the answer – for not understanding what has happened to them. This claim is based on the observation of three features characteristic of vv. 11–13. 1. A search for someone wise enough. In v.11, the “why?” question standard in all question–answer passages (i.e. Deut 29:23; 1 Kgs 9:8; Jer 5:19; 9:11; 16:10; 22:8) is preceded and introduced by another question, a question calling for a wise man – that is: “Who is the wise man?” (‫מי האיש החכם‬, v. 11aα). This question is then followed by summonses to understand (‫ )בין‬and declare (‫)נגד‬ what has happened to the land (v. 11aβ).77 Only after these summonses does the “why?” question follow. Thus, more than just a search for an answer to the “why?” question, v. 11 suggests a search for someone wise enough to answer the “why?” question. 2. YHWH as speaker. Instead of anticipating a future dialogue between Jeremiah and the survivors of the disaster as in 5:19, YHWH appears to be the speaker throughout the whole of 9:11–15. At least, there are no speech markers suggesting otherwise. One could, of course, argue that the speech marker introducing the answer in v. 12a – “YHWH answered” (‫ – )ויאמר יהוה‬implies a different speaker in v. 11, especially since there are no examples of YHWH being the speaker of the “why?” question(s) in the other question–answer passages. However, this lack of parallels is hardly an adequate argument. The passage of 9:11–15 stands out from the other question–answer passages in so many ways, including in not identifying the speaker of the “why?” question(s).78 In all the other question–answer passages the identity of the speaker of the question(s) is explicitly given. Moreover, as already noted, unlike the other question–answer passages, the passage of 9:11–15 is not just about a people seeking explanation and understanding. What is sought is someone wise enough to understand and explain what has happened. So, to argue against YHWH being ——————————— 77

See footnote III.73 (ch. III.4). For this reason, many scholars refrain from identifying the speaker in v. 11 (e.g. Schmidt, Jeremia, 207). Others, however, have suggested that Jeremiah (e.g. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 553) or some “interpreter of the tradition” (Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 306) might be the speaker. 78

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 9:12

139

the speaker of the questions in v. 11 by pointing to the lack of parallels is not convincing. What then about the speech marker in v. 12a? Instead of introducing a new speaker, I suggest that it simply highlights that YHWH, while searching for someone wise enough, eventually has to provide the explanation himself; that is, the speech marker highlights that the inquiry for someone wise enough ultimately has proven futile. Accordingly, the point in the passage is not, as sometimes argued, to denounce the wise man and/or the prophet as a social-religious group,79 nor to highlight the enigmatic character of the ruined and empty land.80 On the contrary, it seems indeed presupposed that the truly wise man should know the answer to the “why?” question – that is, why the land is ruined.81 This is suggested by the fact that v. 11 bears close resemblance to the wisdom-theological conclusions of the book of Hosea (14:10) and Ps 107 (107:43) in both of which the wise man represents the ideal – the one who is truly wise and does understand – not just some parodical figure of inadequacy and helplessness.82 Therefore, the point in vv. 11–13 seems to be to highlight that there are actually no wise men left among the people. Thus, more than serving as a catechesis of question and answer, the question and answer in vv. 11–13 function as a strong divine rebuke and ridicule of the people. This understanding of vv. 11–13 also sheds light on the reference to the law (‫)תורה‬ of YHWH in the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12. 3. The law of YHWH. More than just a “Maßstab rechten Verhaltens”,83 it is noteworthy that the law of YHWH is associated with wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬in vv. 11– 13. Behind the scenes there seems to be a dispute over the relationship between law (‫ )תורה‬and wisdom (‫)חכמה‬, with YHWH confronting some popular idea of the law as a source and guarantee of wisdom and well-being. This understanding gains support from the fact that a similar dispute is reflected in 8:8–9. In these verses, the people are quoted as saying: “We are wise (‫ )חכמים‬and the law

——————————— 79 Against, for instance, Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 556, who argues that the questions in v. 11a basically function as a “set-up” for the wise man and the false prophet who otherwise are “loath to explain the nations’ destruction, or else cannot explain it”. 80 Against, for instance, Stulman, Jeremiah, 103, who argues that “[t]he questions [in v. 11] treat the destruction of the country as an enigma, beyond the grasp of the sage”. Stulman is representative of what seems to be the most common reading of v. 11 (cf. Wanke, Jeremia, 106; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 206–07; Allen, Jeremiah, 116–17). 81 See Carroll, Jeremiah, 243; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 307. 82 For a nice survey of the history of research on Hos 14:10, see Willem Boshoff, “‘Who is Wise?’ Interpretations of the Postscript of the Book Hosea (14:10),” OTE 18 (2005): 172– 88. 83 Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer, 336.

140

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

of YHWH (‫ )ותורת יהוה‬is with us” (8:8a). In 8:9, however, this self-understanding of the people is ridiculed: “The wise shall be put to shame [...] since they have rejected the word of YHWH, and what wisdom is in them?”84 Even more importantly, however, vv. 11–13 seem to form a sharp and ironic contrast to Deut 4:5–10. That Jer 9:11–13 connect with Deut 4:5–8(10) is well recognized. The focus on wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬and understanding (‫ )בין‬in Jer 9:11a, the teaching motif in v. 13b (‫)למדום אבותם‬, together with the so-called “Promulgationssatz” (‫ )אשר נתתי לפניהם‬and the reference to the law (‫ )תורה‬in v. 12a signal the connection. In Deut 4:5–10, observance of “this law (‫ )התורה הזאת‬that I set before you (‫ )אשר אנכי נתן לפניכם‬today” (v. 8b) is associated with teaching, wisdom, and understanding: “Keep them and do them, that is your wisdom (‫ )חכמתכם‬and your understanding (‫ )ובינתכם‬in the eyes of the peoples [...] and they will say: ‘Surely, a wise (‫ )חכם‬and understanding (‫ )ונבון‬people is this great nation’” (v. 6); “The day you stood before YHWH your God at Horeb, YHWH said: [...]: I will let them hear my words, so that they may learn (‫ )ילמדון‬to fear me [...] and teach (‫ )ילמדון‬their children so” (v. 10).85 This ideal of Deut 4:5–10 sheds interesting light on the problem of the people in Jer 9:11–13. Instead of being taught the statutes and ordinances of YHWH, the people have been taught to follow the Baals (v. 13b). And rather than being admired as a “great nation” (‫ )גוי גדול‬because of the wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬and understanding (‫ )בין‬yielded by their observance of the law, in vv. 11–13 there is a futile inquiry about a wise man (‫ )האיש החכם‬in the land ruined and laid waste because of the people’s forsaking of the law (‫)תורה‬. So, in short, instead of being a law-observant people admired for their wisdom, the people have become a terribly foolish and miserable people incapable of understanding their own tragedy by forsaking the law (‫ )תורה‬of YHWH. By forsaking what should be their source of wisdom and well-being, the people have brought disaster and foolishness upon themselves.86 ——————————— 84 Certainly, the reading of 8:8–9 is disputed (see, for example, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 281–83.) Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of the Old Testament Law, trans. Allan W. Mahnke (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 26, however, convincingly argues that 8:8–9 confront the idea that the law (‫ )תורה‬guarantees wisdom and well-being. 85 Certainly, the understanding of the relationship between law (‫ )תורה‬and wisdom ( ‫)הכמה‬ in Deut 4 is debated. See, for example, Georg Braulik, “Wisdom, Divine Presence and Law: Reflections on the Kerygma of Deut 4:5–8,” in The Theology of Deuteronomy, trans. Ulrika Lindblad, BibCS 2 (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1994), 1–25; Thomas Krüger, “Law and Wisdom According to Deut 4:5–8,” in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of Torah in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period, ed. Bernd Schipper and Andrew D. Teeter, JSJSup 163 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 35–54. 86 To clarify, I do not suggest that vv. 11–13 reflect some sort of Torah wisdom where law (‫ )תורה‬equals wisdom, as we see, probably for the first time, in the book of Sirach (cf. Sir 15:1; 24:23). The law (‫ )תורה‬in Jer 9:11–13 should not be interpreted as instruction for a successful life. A comparison with Bar 3:12–13 might be helpful in this respect. Bar 3:12–

4. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 9:12

141

4.2.3 Total Judgment Obviously, reading vv. 11–13 as a divine rebuke and ridicule of the people rather than a catechesis makes a big difference also for the understanding of the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 12. For if vv. 11–13 are to be understood as a divine rebuke, it is clear that the announcement of judgment in vv. 14–15 forms the point of culmination of the passage and not just a more or less superfluous description of the exilic setting in light of which the question– answer sequence in vv. 11–13 is to be understood. However, this follows not only from my reading of vv. 11–13. It is also indicated by the rather unique description of the exile in v. 15: “I will scatter them among nations that neither they nor their fathers know. And I will send the sword after them until I have made an end to them.” True, the phraseology is quite formulaic, and, as Thiel notes, parallels are to be found in 24:10 and 29:17.87 However, in sharp contrast to Thiel’s argument, the parallels in 24:10 and 29:17 underscore the unique, not the stereotypical, character of 9:15. In both 24:10 and 29:17, the address is one specific group of the people in sharp contrast to another group of the people. In 24:10, the address is “the bad figs”, that is: “Zedekiah, king of Judah, his officials, and the remnants of Jerusalem who remain in this land or dwell in the land of Egypt” (v. 8b). As regards “the good figs” – that is, the Babylonian Golah community (‫גלות יהדה‬, v. 5bα) – YHWH announces: “I will set my eyes on them for good (‫( ”)לטובה‬v. 6aα).88 A similar distinction manifests itself in 29:1–20, between the Babylonian Golah community (v. 1) and “the king who sits on the throne of David and [...] all the people who dwell in this city, your brothers who did not go with you into exile” (v. 16).89 In light of this, it is clear that the announcement of judgment in 9:15 is quite extraordinary. In the context of vv. 11–15, v. 15 connects with the empty land motif in v. 11b – “ruined, laid waste like the wilderness (‫ )כמדבר‬with no one passing through (‫”)מבלי עבר‬ – and describes the exile as a place of complete annihilation – “als eine Ort von Gottesferne, Hoffnungslosigkeit und Untergang.”90 In other words, in addition to emptying the land, v. 15 makes it clear that YHWH will hunt down the exiles ——————————— 13 also contains an answer to the question of why: “Why is it (τί ἐστιν), O Israel, why is it that (τί ὅτι […] εἶ) you are in the enemies’ land” (3:10a). The answer in 3:12–13 reads: “You have forsaken (ἐγκατέλιπες) the spring of wisdom (τὴν πηγὴν τῆς σπφίας). If in the way of God (τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ θεοῦ) you had gone, you would be living in peace forever” (translation from NETS). In contrast to the categories of wisdom in Bar 3:12–13, the problem in Jer 9:12 is first and foremost defined in terms of disloyalty and disobedience. What I do suggest is basically that Jer 9:11–13 presuppose that the law (‫ )תורה‬offers insight into the cause-andeffect relationship between sin and punishment to those who know and observe the law. 87 See Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 138. 88 On Jer 24, see Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuch, 20–31. 89 On Jer 29, see Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, 105–11. 90 Stipp, “Das judäische und das babylonische Jeremiabuch,” 345. Stipp finds a similar description of the exile in 8:3, 13:1–11, and 15:1–4.

142

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

and make a full end (‫ )כלותי‬even of them. Hence, contrary to 24:1–10 and 29:1– 20, in 9:11–15 there are no alternatives and no privileged group. Rather, because of the people’s forsaking of YHWH, even the survivors of the ruined land are doomed to annihilation in a land “that neither they nor their fathers know”. Surely, it would be difficult to find a clearer expression of total judgment. 4.3 Conclusion To conclude, although it is clear that the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12 is characterized by the same formulaic and basic pattern as the ʻāzab-complaints in 1:16 and 5:19, it is also clear that the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12 is somewhat different. More than just pointing out the disloyalty – or absurd disloyalty – of the people, YHWH ridicules the people as by forsaking what should be their source of wisdom and well-being, that is, the law (‫)תורה‬, the people have brought disaster and foolishness upon themselves. The divine judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12 resembles the divine judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19. But instead of divine rejection, YHWH announces complete annihilation of the people. The land is ruined and empty, and the exiles will be annihilated. The fact that the exile is associated with total annihilation of the people in 9:15 should be emphasized, as it is quite unique to the formulaic prose material of the book of Jeremiah and certainly runs counter to the claim that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12 reflects a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah. In 9:11–15, any hope for the future of the exiles and the YHWH–people relationship is excluded. Thus, in the ʻāzab-complaint in 9:12, YHWH speaks not only as a justified judge, but as a God announcing the end of his relationship with them.

Excursus 2: The Literary Context of Jer 9:11–15 Excursus 2: The Literary Context of Jer 9:11–15

As noted above, I would like to offer some words on the literary context of Jer 9:11–15. While this excursus is primarily motivated by the “weeping poems” surrounding our passage, it also touches upon the prose–poetry problem. To begin with the latter, it is clear that as a prose passage surrounded by series of brief poems (cf. 8:4–9:10, 16–21), 9:11–15 are commonly taken as a rather distinct unit, relating to the literary context primarily as a theological commentary or exegetical amplification.91 More precisely, 9:11–15 are seen to elaborate ——————————— 91

See, for example, Rudolph, Jeremia, 61; Carroll, Jeremiah, 242–44; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 205–07; Wanke, Jeremia, 106–07; Stulman, Jeremiah, 102–03; Schmidt, Jeremia, 207–08.

Excursus 2: The Literary Context of Jer 9:11–15

143

on the poem of 9:9–10 and to clarify the meaning of that poem from a later (i.e. [post-]exilic) perspective. Certainly, 9:11–15 relate closely to 9:9–10. Most apparently, the “why?” question in 9:11b picks up almost verbatim the description of the disaster in 9:9bα: “the pastures of the wilderness [...] are laid waste (‫ )נצתו‬with no one passing through (‫)מבלי איש עבר‬.” However, as pointed out above, the “why?” question in 9:11b serves as more than an occasion for explanation in 9:11–15. It serves to ridicule the people and, ultimately, to introduce an announcement of total judgment. The empty land (9:11b) is just the beginning. As 9:14–15 make clear, YHWH is about to make a full end to the people, including the exiles. In light of this, I would like to sketch an alternative understanding of the function of the passage of 9:11–15 in its literary context, proposing that the whole of 9:9–21, in fact, might be read as a loosely integrated unit. A critical point in this respect, though, is the understanding of the utterances of weeping and lament in 9:9, 16–21. For if they are best understood as divine laments evidencing YHWH’s vulnerable and conflicted heart, as is currently argued by several scholars, it certainly seems somewhat difficult to argue for continuity with the mockery and uncompromising words of total judgment in 9:11–15. Not surprisingly, therefore, I would like to propose an alternative understanding of the “weeping poems” of 9:9, 16–21. But before doing so, let me begin by pointing out some indications of continuity between 9:9–10, 11–15, and 16– 21. 1. Indications of Continuity Despite the distinctiveness of each unit, there are several cross-connections between 9:9–10, 11–15, and 16–21. First, and as noted just above, 9:11–15 connect to 9:9–10 by picking up the description of the disaster in v. 9bα. Second, 9:9–10 connect to 9:16–21 through the lamentation language, especially “wailing” (‫נהי‬, vv. 9aα, 17a, 18a, 19bα) and “dirge” (‫קינה‬, vv. 9aβ, 19bβ; see also v. 16b: ‫)למקוננות‬. Third, 9:11–15 connect to 9:16–21 through motifs of wisdom (cf. ‫חכם‬, vv. 11a, 16c), understanding (‫בין‬, vv. 11a, 16a), and teaching (‫למד‬, vv. 13b, 19bα). Finally, the three units are bound together by the theme of total judgment and complete annihilation of the people. Like a refrain throughout the whole of 9:9–21, there are the three phrases: “with no one passing through” (‫מבלי איש עבר‬, vv. 9bα, 11bβ); “without inhabitants” (‫מבלי יושב‬, v. 10b); “and no one gathering” (‫ואין מאסף‬, v. 21bβ). The latter relates to the image of grain left on the ground by the reapers as the reapers got what they want and need. Contrary to usual procedure, however, there are no gleaners in v. 21b. Just as with the human corpses in v. 21a, the grain is left to rot on the ground. As there will be none to bury all the dead ones (v. 21a), there will be none to gather the grain. Apparently, as Lundbom notes, “the slain are too

144

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

many and the survivors too few”.92 Thus, just like the parallel phrases in vv. 9bα, 10b, and 11bβ, the phrase in v. 21bβ suggests complete annihilation – that YHWH will indeed make a full end to the people (cf. v. 15b). In continuity with this, it is also noteworthy how each unit of 9:9–10, 11–15, and 16–21 culminates and concludes with an announcement of judgment: “I will make Jerusalem a heap of ruins [...]” (v. 10); “Therefore, thus says YHWH of hosts, God of Israel: Behold I am feeding this people with wormwood [...]” (vv. 14– 15); “Speak! Thus says YHWH: Human corpses shall fall like dung on the field [...]” (v. 21). Considering these points of continuity, I suggest that 9:9–21 might be read as a loosely integrated unit, rather than as a disjointed sequence of three distinct units. Indeed, I suggest that 9:9–21 is to be read as a massive word of total judgment, announcing complete annihilation of the people. However, although the basic framework just pointed out seems clear enough, the argument for continuity throughout 9:9–21 depends to a large extent on how the lamentation language in vv. 9 and 16–21 is to be understood. Therefore, in the following I will discuss this language. I would like to begin with some hermeneutical reflections related to the “weeping poems” in the book of Jeremiah in general. 2. From a Weeping Prophet to a Weeping God? As noted above, an increasing number of scholars argue that YHWH, not the prophet Jeremiah, should be identified as speaker in many of the “weeping poems” of the book of Jeremiah, including 9:9, 16–21.93 As regards 9:9, Mark E. Biddle, for instance, presents the argument quite well: […] MT’s straightforward intention is difficult to gainsay. Throughout Jeremiah 9, MT indicates YHWH as speaker. The oracular formulae in vv 2, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, God’s repeated charge that the people have failed or refused to “know me” (vv 2, 6), and the formula, “therefore thus says the Lord” (v 6) leave no doubt concerning the speaker’s identity, at least not from MT’s perspective.94

——————————— 92

Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 567. For example, Polk, Prophetic Persona, 117–18; Smith, “Jeremiah IX 9,” 97–99; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 303–05; Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 143–45; Roberts, “Weeping God,” 361– 74; Biddle, Polyphony, 28–39; Scalise, “The Way of Weeping,” 418–19; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 159–62; Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 354–55; Stulman, Jeremiah, 98–104; O’Connor, Pain and Promise, 59–68; Pilarski, “Jer 8:18–9:2(3),” 21–35. 94 Biddle, Polyphony, 31. Apparently, scholars have traditionally considered only two options: either to identify Jeremiah as speaker (e.g. Duhm, Jeremia, 94; Bright, Jeremiah, 72; Thompson, Jeremiah, 312; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 549–50; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 248–52; Schmidt, Jeremia, 204–07) or to follow the reading of LXX: “Take up (λάβετε) lamentation (κοπετὸν) [...] a dirge (θρῆνον)” (e.g. Cornill, Jeremia, 125; Volz, Jeremia, 116; Rudolph, Jeremia, 61; Carroll, Jeremiah, 241–42; Allen, Jeremiah, 115–16). 93

Excursus 2: The Literary Context of Jer 9:11–15

145

So, with respect to 9:9, instead of arguing that “Jeremiah is lamenting his ravaged land, the country where he has grown up and which he knows so well”,95 it is argued that “[i]n view of the wholesale destruction of life God weeps, wails, and raises a dirge”, because “God’s involvement has demanded vulnerability and vulnerability has led to suffering”.96 However, a basic hermeneutical question seems in order: to what extent is it satisfactory to assume that the lamentation language functions the same regardless of the identity of the speaker? Evidently, to change the speaker is no little change – no matter how intimate the relationship between YHWH and Jeremiah might be.97 Let me highlight just one significant implication, namely the issue of which texts the “weeping poems” are to be associated with. I would argue that the change of speaker from Jeremiah to YHWH, first, means that we need to examine the extent to which current readings of the “weeping poems” as divine laments are influenced by the idea of Jeremiah as the “weeping prophet” and by modern readings of the so-called “Confessions of Jeremiah”.98 Second, it means that we need to take into account poems in the prophetic literature where YHWH evidently is identified as the speaking subject of lamentation language. It has long been noted that elements, motifs, and features typical of funeral dirges and/or city laments are well represented in the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible – often with YHWH as speaker.99 Without going into a detailed discussion of these texts here, it seems reasonable to conclude that in most of them, the elements, motifs, and features of lament do not serve to highlight the vulnerable heart of YHWH. Rather, they occur in oracles of judgment that announce impending death and often seem filled with overtones of satire and irony. This applies in particular, but not exclusively, to many of the oracles against foreign nations in Isa 13–23 and Ezek 25–32. As regards dirges (summoned to be) taken up against Israel and Judah, the best known are Amos 5:1–2 and Ezek 19:1–14. Both of these are introduced by variants of the formula found in Jer 9:9: “I will take up [...] a dirge” ( [...] ‫נשא‬ ——————————— 95

Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 550. Stulman, Jeremiah, 102. 97 The question is certainly no less significant in face of the idea of dual identity of the speaker in the “weeping poems” (cf., for example, Fretheim, Jeremiah, 148, 155; Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 87). On the contrary, the problem with the idea of dual identity is that it simply takes it for granted that the language functions in the same way. 98 For interesting analyses of modern readings of the so-called “Confessions of Jeremiah”, see Callaway, “Lamenting Prophet,” 48–62; Callaway, “Peering Inside Jeremiah: How Early Modern English Culture Still Influences Our Reading of the Prophet,” in Jeremiah (Dis)Placed: New Directions in Writing/Reading Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond and Louis Stulman, LHBOTS 529 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 279–89. 99 See, for example, Hedwig Jahnow, Das Hebräische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung, BZAW 36 (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1923), esp. 162–231; F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible, BibOr 44 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993),100–54. 96

146

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

‫)קינה‬.100 Whether Amos 5:1–2 and Ezek 19:1–14 contain notes of satire and irony or notes of lament is disputed.101 Yet it is hardly disputed that YHWH first and foremost announces total judgment and death to the people in these texts.102 In light of this, I would propose that the “weeping poems” in the book of Jeremiah, at least Jer 9:9, 16–21,103 first and foremost are also to be read as announcements of total judgment. Of course, my proposal does not exclude the possibility that the poems – as announcements of judgment – still might be seen to carry notes of divine lament. But significantly, it opens the discussion of whether they should be understood instead to carry notes of irony and satire. And below I will argue that this in fact might be the case, at least as regards in 9:9, 16–19. The point, however, is not that I just “do not want a weeping God”, as some might object.104 What I do want, though, is to challenge the increasing tendency to treat the “weeping poems” as windows into the inner life of YHWH in just the same way as they were earlier considered to be windows into the inner life of the prophet Jeremiah.105 In other words, my point is simply that the identity of the speaker matters. However, before turning to Jer 9:9, 16–21 I would like to make one final detour by briefly drawing attention to 8:18–9:2. The reason is twofold. One thing is the prominent position this poem enjoys as a divine lament in current scholarship. Most important to us, though, is its close relationship in terms of location to 9:9, 16–21. Admittedly, it would be difficult to argue that the lamen-

——————————— 100

Amos 5:1: “I take up (‫ )נשא‬a dirge (‫ )קינה‬over you, house of Israel”; Ezek 19:1: “And you, take up ( ‫ )שא‬a dirge (‫ )קינה‬for the princes of Israel.” For other examples and variants of the formula, see Jer 7:29; Ezek 26:17; 27:2, 32; 28:12; 32:2. 101 With respect to Amos 5:1–2, compare, for instance, the commentaries of Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, WBC 31 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 344–45, 350; Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos, AB 24A (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 472–75; Shalom M. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 159–60. With respect to Ezek 19:1– 14, compare, for instance, the commentaries of William H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, WBC 28 (Waco, TX: Word, 1986), 296–98, 305–06; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, AB 22 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 354–59; Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, trans. Ronald E. Clements, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 391–93. 102 See Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 473: The message of Amos 5:1–2 is “tantamount to death sentence”. 103 Of course, the “weeping poems” constitute a rather heterogeneous group of poems and one should probably be careful not to assume that they are all the same. 104 See, for example, O’Connor, Pain and Promise, 65: “I am suspicious of commentators who do not want a weeping God, a poetic character with human-like emotions. Perhaps such a God may not appear godly or macho enough. Perhaps a weeping deity is too vulnerable.” 105 See, for example, Gerhard von Rad, “The Confessions of Jeremiah,” in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Edited by Leo G. Perdue and B. W. Kovacs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1984), 339–48.

Excursus 2: The Literary Context of Jer 9:11–15

147

tation language in 9:9, 16–21 is filled with irony and satire and serves to announce an uncompromising word of total judgment if it obviously functions in a completely different way in 8:18–9:2 – that is, to portray YHWH as a benumbed and helpless God, grief-stricken by the tragic fate suffered by his beloved people.106 In light of this potential difficulty, I would like to point out, in brief, how even this poem might be read as an announcement of total judgment. 3. Jeremiah 8:8–9:2 and Divine Abandonment? In 8:18–9:2, the speaker’s weeping and lament (8:18, 21, 23) is closely related to the speaker’s abandonment of the people (9:1). Most scholars seem to assume a sharp tension between these two elements in the poem. Interestingly enough, the identity of the speaker seems to make little or no difference in that respect. What is seen to manifest itself is the tension between the speaker’s (be it YHWH or Jeremiah) love for the people (weeping and lament) and his anger toward the people (abandonment).107 If YHWH is the speaker in 8:18–9:2, however, another reading seems just as reasonable. As regards the motif of abandonment, it should, first, be noted how divine abandonment forms a well-established motif of judgment in the prophetic literature.108 Second, it is noteworthy that the act of abandoning the people is defined as something desired by YHWH in 9:1, not just something that follows by some sort of necessity: “Oh that there was for me a wayfarers’ lodging place in the desert, then I would forsake (‫ )ואעזבה‬my people and go away from them (‫( ”)ואלכה מאתם‬9:1a).109 Finally, it should be noticed that the poem culminates in YHWH’s proclamation of this desire of his. This is especially important as it highlights how the weeping and complaints in 8:18–9:2 feature in a context that, rather than bringing comfort and hope to the people, ——————————— 106

See for example, Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 87–91; Stulman, Jeremiah, 99–101; O’Connor, “Tears of God,” 179–83. 107 For instance, on the one hand, Thompson, Jeremiah, 309, argues: “However deeply Jeremiah may have entered into the impending agony of Judah’s suffering [...], he did not attempt to hide the people’s great wickedness. This was so deep that escape to a wilderness refuge seemed preferable to the degradations of Jerusalem” (italics mine). On the other hand, Stulman, Jeremiah, 100–101, argues: “In uncontrollable sorrow, Yahweh wishes he could cry his eyes out for his poor people [...]. God’s mourning, however, is juxtaposed with rage. The people’s corruption inflames Yahweh. [...]. No longer able to tolerate abject rejection and corruption, God imagines a far-away place to escape” (italics mine). 108 See, for example, Raitt, A Theology of the Exile, 59–82; Samuel E. Balentine, The Hidden God: The Hiding Face of God in the Old Testament, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 65–79, against, for instance, Stulman, Jeremiah, 100–101, who reads 9:1 in terms of a motif of escape. 109 Against, for instance, Roberts, “Weeping God,” 372, who sees in 8:18–9:2 the portrait of “a God who weeps over the people he must punish”.

148

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

emphasizes judgment and hopelessness for the people.110 The YHWH–people relationship is broken and YHWH desires nothing but judgment for the people. In light of this context, I propose that the elements of weeping and lament therefore might be understood to reinforce the tone of hopelessness and thus to be in continuity, rather than in conflict, with YHWH’s desire to abandon the people. An indication of this is the way the I-complaints of YHWH in vv. 18 and 21 relate to the complaints of the people in vv. 19b and 20: “Is YHWH not in Zion, her king in it?” (v. 19b); “The harvest is past, the summer is over, and we have not been saved” (v. 20). In both complaints of the people (i.e. vv. 19b, 20), divine abandonment and helplessness of the people are implied. This is highlighted by the way they are introduced in v. 19a: “Behold, the cry (‫)שועת‬ of my poor people!” Certainly, usually in the Hebrew Bible YHWH hears and draws attention to such cries (‫ )שועת‬of the people (cf. Exod 2:23; 2 Sam 22:7; Pss 18:7; 34:16; 40:2; 145:9). So, in some way, v. 19a seems to build up the expectation that YHWH will intervene and deliver the people from their misery. In 8:18–9:2, however, these expectations are not fulfilled. In this poem, YHWH offers nothing but weeping and wailing in response to the cries of the people. Based on these observations, I thus propose that YHWH’s weeping and wailing in 8:18–9:2 first and foremost serve to highlight YHWH’s abandonment of the people and to reinforce the tone of hopelessness in the poem. In other words, rather than disclosing YHWH’s pathos and vulnerable love for the people, the lamentation language serves to emphasize that this is indeed the end of YHWH’s relationship with the people and, consequently, of the people as such. I will argue that this function of the lamentation language manifests itself even more clearly in 9:9, 16–21. 4. Jeremiah 9:9, 16–21 and Total Annihilation To begin with 9:9, the critical question concerns the relationship between the language of lament in v. 9 and the announcement of judgment in v. 10. For scholars taking YHWH to be the speaker throughout both verses, the relationship tends to be understood in terms of a tension-filled juxtaposition of divine grief and wrath.111 However, as Holladay has noted, 9:9–10 form a unity where each verse complements another: “Verse 9 speaks of rural destruction, v. 10 of urban destruction, and they are nicely parallel in the two expressions ‘without’ (‫)מבלי‬, ‘without a man’ in v. 9 and ‘without inhabitant’ in v. 10.”112 In light of ——————————— 110 Against, for instance, Fretheim, Jeremiah, 163–64, who argues that “the juxtaposition of grief and wrath [...] enables the readers to see that the internal side of divine anger is grief”. 111 See, for example, O’Connor, “Tears of God,” 183–85; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 159–60, 164–66; Stulman, Jeremiah, 110. 112 Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 303–04.

Excursus 2: The Literary Context of Jer 9:11–15

149

this observation, I would argue that rather than presenting two radically different portraits of YHWH,113 or seizing upon the idea that the juxtaposition of divine grief and wrath “enables readers to see that the internal side of divine anger is grief”,114 the lamentation language in v. 9 primarily serves the basic concern of 9:9–10 as a whole – that is, to announce uncompromising words of complete destruction of the land and annihilation of the people. My suggestion gains support in light of the literary context of 9:11–21. One supportive aspect is that it makes v. 9 contribute to the unifying theme of 9:9– 21, which is YHWH’s total destruction and annihilation of the people. Another interesting point is the continuity it creates between v. 9 and vv. 16–21. Indeed, there seems to be a sort of narrative continuity throughout the whole of 9:9– 21. The key is the introduction in v. 16a: “Be prudent (‫ )התבוננו‬and call for the mourning women (‫ )למקוננות‬to come, send for the skilled women (‫ )החכמות‬to come.” First of all, the opening exhortation – “Be prudent (‫ – ”)התבוננו‬connotes the idea of being prepared for what is about to come,115 indicating that the subsequent summons to mourn are to be read as an announcement of judgment and anticipated disaster, not as a response to a disaster that has already occurred.116 This is also in line with how summons to take up dirges and lamentation function elsewhere in the prophetic literature.117 In addition to this, the exhortation indicates that the summons to mourn in vv. 16–21 and, in fact, in the whole of 9:9–21 are marked with sharp notes of irony. First, in the context of vv. 16–21, the prudence of the addressee seems to manifest itself in their ability to organize their own wake.118 What is more, as noted above, the exhortation to be prudent (‫ )התבוננו‬and the subsequent call for skilled mourning women (cf. the parallel expressions ‫ מקוננות‬and ‫ החכמות‬in v. 16bc) create a connection to YHWH’s search for someone wise (‫ )חכם‬enough to understand (‫ )בין‬what has happened to the land in v. 11a. In light of this, I would like to suggest that vv. 16–21 are to be read in continuity with, and as an ironic contrast to, vv. 11–13. Such a ——————————— 113

See, for example, O’Connor, “Tears of God,” 183–85. Fretheim, Jeremiah, 164–65. See also Stulman, Jeremiah, 102. 115 Although the imperative expression ‫ התבוננו‬can be rendered in several different ways (see Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 312), it seems to assume some element of preparation. 116 See, for example, Allen, Jeremiah, 119–21; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 208–12, against, for instance, Fretheim, Jeremiah, 161: “The effects of the divine judgment are now broadened to include the recollection of divinely commissioned mourning rites associated with the fall of Jerusalem.” 117 See, for example, Isa 13:6; 14:31; 23:1, 6, 14; Jer 4:8; 7:29; 25:34; 48:20; 49:3; 51:8; Ezek 21:17; 27:2; 28:12; 30:2; 32:2; Joel 1:5, 11, 13; Zeph 1:11; Zech 11:2. 118 It seems reasonable to assume the addressee of the imperatives in v. 16 to be implicitly included among the “us” in v. 17. For Fretheim, O’Connor, and others, it is essential that YHWH is also implicitly included among the “us” in v. 17, “both as one who mourns and is mourned for” (Fretheim, Jeremiah, 162; see also O’Connor, Pain and Promise, 66–67). What Fretheim and O’Connor do not recognize, however, are the sharp notes of irony in vv. 16–21. 114

150

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

reading would imply that in vv. 16–21 the people who have been taught (‫)למד‬ by their fathers to follow the Baals (cf. v. 13b) and demonstrated their foolishness by not understanding what has befallen their land are now exhorted to be prudent and to call for the skilled mourning women, for there is only one thing left to learn (cf. ‫ למד‬in v. 19bα), namely how to wail and sing dirges over themselves (cf. v. 19b).119 And finally, given the strong emphasis put on associating the mourning women with the act of hearing the word of YHWH’s mouth in v. 19a (cf. ‫[ דבר יהוה‬...] ‫)ותקח אזנכם דבר פיו ;שמענה‬, one may also suggest that, in the context of 9:9–21, it is implied that the dirge taken up by YHWH in v. 9 serves as a model for the dirge the mourning women are to teach the people in v. 19. 5. Conclusion My proposal is that 9:11–15 form part of the loosely integrated unit of 9:9–21. As a unit, 9:9–21 announce complete annihilation of the people, and do so with a sharp sarcastic tone. According to this reading, the “weeping poems” in vv. 9 and 16–21 do not so much serve as windows into the vulnerable heart of YHWH as to announce total judgment.

5. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 16:11 5. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 16:11 10 When you tell this people all these words and they ask you: “Why has YHWH announced all this great evil against us? What is our iniquity? What is our sin that we have committed against YHWH our God? 11 Then you shall answer them: Because your fathers forsook me ( ‫)עזבו‬, says YHWH, and followed other gods, served them and worshipped them. Me they forsook (‫)עזבו‬, and my law they did not keep. 12 And you have done even worse than your fathers. Every one of you is following the stubbornness of his evil heart by not listening to me. 13 I will hurl you out of this land, into the land that you do not know, nor your fathers. There you shall serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no favour.

5.1 Introduction With the ʻāzab-complaint in 16:11 we have come to the last of our three question–answer passages. In this passage we are back to the model from 5:19 where YHWH anticipates a future dialogue between Jeremiah and the people. In 16:10–13, however, there are not one but two ʻāzab-complaints. For the most part I will treat them as one as they carry the same meaning and serve the same function in their literary context. Another feature initially worth noting is that those being accused of having forsaken YHWH in 16:11 are identified as “your fathers” (‫)אבותיכם‬. However, ——————————— 119 It seems reasonable to identify the women addressed in v. 19 (‫ )כי שמענה נשים‬as the skilled mourning women in v. 16bc.

5. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 16:11

151

as Römer notes, the point of introducing “the fathers” into the discourse is not to distinguish but to identify the present generation of the people with past generations.120 Therefore, that “the fathers” and not the people otherwise referred to in 16:10–13 are identified as the grammatical subject of the verb ‫עזב‬ makes no difference to my study. In the following, I begin by pointing out that the formulaic pattern noted for the previous prosaic ʻāzab-complaints also applies to the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11. My main claim, however, is that the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11 also feature in a context in which they justify total judgment and contribute to highlighting the foolishness of the people. To argue this claim, I follow much the same procedure as I did with respect to the ʻāzab-complaint in 5:19; that is, after having pointed out the formulaic character of the ʻāzab-complaints, I will highlight some distinctive features in 16:10–13 and then clarify what I take to be the immediate literary context of the passage. In light of what is thereby established, I will attempt to demonstrate my thesis regarding the profile of the ʻāzab-complaints. 5.1.1 The Formulaic Character of the ʻĀzab-Complaints In accordance with the formulaic pattern pointed out for the prosaic ʻāzabcomplaints in the introduction, the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11 are closely associated with accusations of worshipping other gods ( ‫וילכו אחרי אלהים אחרים‬ ‫ויעבדום וישתחוו להם‬, v. 11b), disobedience against YHWH (‫תורתי לא שמרו‬, v. 11c; ‫לבלתי שמע אלי‬, v. 12c), and stubbornness (‫הנכם הלכים איש אחרי שררות לבו הרע‬, v. 12b). The phraseology is quite formulaic and is frequently attested in Deuteronomy, in DtrH, and in the formulaic prose of the book of Jeremiah.121 Obviously, the series of accusations in sum point out the disloyalty of the people – that is, the people have disobeyed and turned themselves away from YHWH in favour of other gods. Within the framework of the question–answer sequence, the ʻāzab-complaints first justify why YHWH has “announced all this great evil against us” (v. 10b). As in 9:11–15, the explicative function of the answer is highlighted by the formal connection between the “why?” question (‫על מה‬, v. 10b) and the answer ([...] ‫על אשר עזבו‬, v. 11a). But just as in 9:11–15, the series of accusations in 16:11–12 also lead up to and form the basis of a final announcement of judgment: “I will hurl you out of this land, into the land that you do not know” (v. 13a). Obviously, what is in play is the defeat of Judah and exile of the people. While the latter is clearly indicated in v. 13a just quoted, the former

——————————— 120

See Römer, Israels Väter, 417. See Stipp, Konkordanz, 41, 99, 146. With regard to the “stubborn heart” phrase, see footnote III.75 (ch. III.4.2.1). 121

152

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

follows from the preceding literary context (vv. 1–9).122 So, that the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11, as traditionally argued, are to be understood basically as indictments of disloyalty justifying the defeat and exile of Judah is clear enough. However, like the other prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, there is more to the ʻāzabcomplaints in 16:11 than just this formulaic pattern. As I will argue in the following, the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11 contribute to highlighting the foolishness of the people and justifying total judgment. Key to arguing this is the observation of distinctive features in the passage of 16:10–13 and the passage’s connection to the literary context. For as I will argue, rather than treating the passage as a stereotypical and self-contained piece of catechesis in service of the survivors and exiles, the passage is better seen to announce a sort of total judgment that includes the survivors and exiles. I would like to begin my argument by drawing attention to some noteworthy distinctive features in 16:10– 13. 5.1.2 Distinctive Features of the Passage 1. Distinctive rhetoric. Among the extensive use of formulaic phraseology in 16:10–13,123 one statement in particular stands out: “for I will show you no favour” (‫אשר לא אתן לכם חנינה‬, v. 13bβ).124 In fact, the term ‫ חנינה‬is an hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. In light of the literary context of 16:10–13, however, the statement seems not to be arbitrary. As I will argue below, it contributes significantly both to the understanding of how 16:10–13 relates to its literary context and to the clarification of what is at stake in the people’s forsaking of YHWH in 16:11, namely total judgment. 2. The irony of the passage. Just as in 5:19, the question–answer scheme in 16:10–13 is characterized by having the people voicing the “why?” question. And just as in 5:19, this feature serves to represent the people as a people terribly deluded with respect to the status of their relationship with YHWH.125 While the people appeal to YHWH as their God (cf. ‫יהוה אלהינו‬, 16:10cβ), ——————————— 122

See more below. Also v. 13 is marked with formulaic phraseology. Indeed, v. 13 is very much mixing motives and phraseology known from the covenant curses in Deut 28. Cf. v. 36: “there you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone” (‫ ;)עובדת שם אלהים אחרים עץ ואבן‬v. 64: “there you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone, that you do not know, nor your fathers” ( ‫ועבדת‬ ‫ ;)שם אלהים אחרים אשר לא ידעת אתה ואבתיך עץ ואבן‬v. 66: “you shall tremble night and day” ( ‫)ופחדת לילה ויומם‬. 124 However, some scholars prefer LXX’s reading: “They will show you no favour” (οἳ οὐ δώσουσιν ὑμῖν ἔλεος), having the other gods showing the people no favour (e.g. Maier, “Deutero-Jeremianic Texts,” 109). MT’s readings are certainly somewhat awkward, especially due to the opening ‫אשר‬. But instead of a relative pronoun pointing back to “other gods” ( ‫אלהים אחרים‬, v. 13bα), it seems reasonable to take it as the conjunction “for” (cf. McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 371). 125 See III. 3.1.2.2. 123

5. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 16:11

153

YHWH complains that the people have forsaken him and violated their relationship with him. In other words, the people are portrayed as appealing and holding on to a relationship they themselves have broken. However, the irony of the passage and the delusion of the people are even more emphasized in 16:10–13 than in 5:19. For as the questions in 16:10 suggest, the people are not only seeking an explanation – an answer to a “why?” question. They seem to pose a challenge to YHWH – that is, a challenge to bring forth evidence in support of the explanation: “What is our iniquity ( ‫ומה‬ ‫ ?)עוננו‬What is our sin that we have committed (‫( ”?)ומה חטאתנו אשר חטאנו‬v. 10c). The irony, then, comes to the fore in the lengthy series of accusations offered in response to the challenge (vv. 11–12). Obviously, there were no problems to meet the challenge. Rather, the extensive series of accusations makes the questions and challenge of the people look ridiculous. The “fathers” (‫ )אבות‬motif brought into the discourse reinforces the point. For as Römer notes, the motif makes it clear that the apostasy of the people is far from new126 and emphasizes, to use the words of Stulman, “[t]he incessant and obdurate nature”127 of the people’s sin. By this irony it is highlighted that the people are not only terribly deluded with respect to the status of their relationship with YHWH but also foolishly ignorant about their own sinful behaviour. 3. The distinctive form of the question–answer scheme. Finally, it is noteworthy that the question–answer dialogue in 16:10–13 is placed in a pre-disaster setting. In contrast to 5:19 and 9:11–15, the “why?” questions in 16:10–13 are not voiced in response to, or in the aftermath of, a disaster already befallen. Rather, they are presented as an anticipated response to an oracle of judgment: “Why has YHWH announced against us [...]” ([...] ‫על מה דבר יהוה עלינו‬, v. 10bα). Thus, instead of identifying the people in 16:10–13 as survivors yearning for understanding in the aftermath of a disaster, as the traditional reading tends to do by reading the passage as a piece of catechesis, I suggest – especially in light of the irony pointed out above – that the people are better taken as a rather self-confident people challenging the legitimacy of an announcement of judgment. However, the challenge and questions of the people are not only met and answered in 16:10–13. Like the passages of 5:19 and 9:11–15, the passage of 16:10–13 ends with an announcement of judgment: “I will hurl you out of this land [...]” (v. 13). Thus, in 16:10–13 it also seems that the “why?” question serves not so much as an occasion for an explanation and “didactic exposition”128 as an occasion for announcement of judgment. Thus, in response to the people’s attempt to challenge the legitimacy of an announcement of judgment (v. 10), the people are met with yet another word of judgment (v. 13). And as ——————————— 126

Römer, Israels Väter, 417. Stulman, Prose Sermons, 47. 128 Carroll, Jeremiah, 342. 127

154

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

will be seen below, this “another word of judgment” is a word of total judgment. Before unfolding the implications of these observations and suggestions for the understanding of the ʻāzab-complaint, I would like to clarify what I take to be, and how I read, the literary context of 16:10–13. For, just as in 5:19, the passage of 16:10–13 demands a preceding literary context to clarify the occasion of the “why?” question. 5.2 Literary Context That the prose passage of 16:10–13 connects closely with the preceding passage of 16:1–9 is hardly disputed, not even among scholars preferring to treat them separately as two distinct units.129 As regards the relationship between them, the passage of 16:10–13 is commonly seen as a sort of clarifying supplement to 16:1–9. For instance, Carroll argues: “A formal question-and-answer unit from the Deuteronomistic redaction follows vv. 2–9 as a didactic exposition of their meaning.”130

——————————— 129 Cf., for example, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 466–75; Carroll, Jeremiah, 337–43; Wanke, Jeremia, 157–59; Schmidt, Jeremia, 285–92. Among the major reasons for treating 16:1–9 and 16:10–13 as two distinct units are the opening phrase “and it will happen” (‫ )והיה‬in v. 10, which seems to introduce a new passage, and the change of addressee from the people in v. 9 to Jeremiah in v. 10. The unit of 16:1–13 has also been seen by some scholars to contain a change from poetry to prose, to a lesser extent though than 5:10–19 (and 9:9–21). Others, however, have argued that 16:1–13 constitute a prose unit and should be reckoned among the prose sermons of the book of Jeremiah (e.g. Rudolph, Jeremia, 100–02; Stulman, Prose Sermons, 67–70). For just like vv. 10–13, vv. 1–9 are evidently marked by extensive usage of formulaic, or at least conventional, phraseology. Most prominent are language and imagery, well known from the covenant curses in Deuteronomy and other suzerain treaty texts of the ancient Near East. For instance, first, there is the motif of no burial and the phrases: “they shall not be bewailed, nor shall they be buried; they shall become like dung on the earth” (‫לא יספדו ולא יקברו לדמן על פני האדמה יהיו‬, vv. 4aβ, 6b; cf. 2 Kgs 9:37; Jer 8:2; 25:33); “their corpses shall become food for the birds of the air and for the wild animals of the earth” ( ‫ והיתה נבלתם למאכל לעוף השמים ולבהמת הארץ‬4bβ; cf. Deut 28:26; 1 Kgs 14:11; 16:4; 21:24; 2 Kgs 9:37; Jer 7:33; 19:7; 34:20). On this motif in suzerain treaty texts, see Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament, BibOr 16 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 68–69; Saul M. Olyan, “Some Neglected Aspects of Israelite Interment Ideology,” JBL 124 (2005): 603–11. Second, there is the motif of removal of joyful sound and the phrase “the sound of joy and the sound of gladness, the sound of the bridegroom and the sound of the bride” (‫קול ששון וקול שמחה קול חתן וקול כלה‬, v. 9c; cf. Jer 7:34: 25:10; 33:11). On this motif in suzerain treaty texts, see Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 57–58. 130 Carroll, Jeremiah, 342. See also, for example, Wanke, Jeremia, 159; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 764–65; Stulman, Jeremiah, 162–63; Allen, Jeremiah, 190–91.

5. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 16:11

155

The passage of 16:1–9 comprises a symbolic action report structured into three subsections. Each consists of a prohibition addressed to Jeremiah concerning his social life (vv. 2, 5a, 8) and an interpretation (vv. 3–4, 5b, 9) clarifying the meaning and function of the prohibition: 1. Do not marry and have children (v. 2) “For thus says YHWH concerning the sons and daughters born in this place [...]” (v. 3–4). 2. Do not perform mourning customs (v. 5a) “For I have taken my peace away from this people says YHWH [...]” (v. 5b). 3. Do not participate in celebrations (v. 8) “For thus says YHWH of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I am going to let cease from this place, before your eyes and in your days, the sound of joy [...]” (v. 9).131 As regards the relationship of vv. 1–9 to vv. 10–13, a major issue has been the change of addressee in vv. 1–13. For while YHWH primarily addresses Jeremiah in vv. 1–9, the “why?” question in v. 10 seems to presuppose an oracle of judgment addressed directly to the people: “Why has YHWH announced all this great evil against us?” The key to solving the problem, however, seems to be v. 9. In contrast to the rest of vv. 1–9, in v. 9 the people, not Jeremiah, are being directly addressed (cf. “before your eyes [‫ ]לעיניכם‬and in your days [‫ )”]ובימיכם‬by YHWH. As Allen notes, the interpretation of the third and final prohibition to Jeremiah in v. 9 “stands out from the earlier ones as a climax”, indicating that in all three prohibitions Jeremiah “was to testify to the people’s fate”;132 that is, v. 9 indicates that what is said to Jeremiah in vv. 1–8 ultimately concerns “this people” (‫העם הזה‬, v. 5, ) “in this place” (‫במקום‬, vv. 2, 3, 9) and “in this land” (‫בארץ‬, vv. 3, 6).133 Thus, v. 9 shows that more than a report of specific symbolic actions, vv. 1–9 are to be understood as a word of judgment against the people, and thereby as the antecedent to “all these words” ( ‫כל‬ ‫ )הדברים האלה‬and “all this great evil” (‫ )כל הרעה הגדולה הזאת‬in v. 10. However, more than just a piece of clarification and exposition of the “unerfindlichen Inhalt[s]”134 of vv. 1–9, I suggest that vv. 10–13 are to be understood as a climax and point of culmination of a unified word of judgment, not unlike 5:19 in relation to 5:10–18. One reason for this, of course, is the ——————————— 131

Kelvin G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication, JSOTSup 283 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 83. 132 Allen, Jeremiah, 188, 190. See also Friebel, Sign-Acts, 96: “In all three prohibitions, Jeremiah functioned in the role of the people representing to them what their future life would be like when the judgment came.” 133 This understanding runs against the tendency, especially in earlier modern scholarship, of focusing on the portrait of the prophet Jeremiah himself in readings of 16:1–9 – either as a historical prophet (e.g. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 472; Craigie et al, Jeremiah, 218) or as a literary character (e.g. O’Connor, Pain and Promise, 72–73). For a survey of earlier modern scholarship, see Friebel, Sign-Acts, 85–87. 134 Rudolph, Jeremia, 101.

156

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

distinctive form of vv. 10–13 pointed out above – that vv. 10–13 seem better understood as an oracle of judgment than as a “didactic exposition”.135 Another reason is the thematic continuity between vv. 1–9 and vv. 10–13. As I will point out in detail below, divine abandonment serves as a central unifying theme in vv. 1–13.136 The key is the two statements in vv. 5b and 13bβ, respectively: “For I have taken away my peace (‫ )שלומי‬from this people, says YHWH, the steadfast love (‫ )החסד‬and mercy (‫“ ;”)הרחמים‬for I will show you no favour (‫”)חנינה‬.137 In the so-called “Gnadenformel”, cognates of ‫( חנינה‬v. 13bβ) and ‫( רחמים‬v. 5bβ) occur together with ‫ חסד‬in a hymnic praise of the character of YHWH, “a God merciful (‫ )רחום‬and gracious (‫)וחנון‬, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love (‫ )ורב חסד‬and faithfulness” (cf. Exod 34:6; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Neh 9:17). In our passage, however, the terms ‫שלום‬, ‫חסד‬, ‫רחמים‬, and ‫ חנינה‬are used to announce YHWH’s withdrawal from, and rejection of, the people. Hence, more than just two distinct units more or less closely related to one another, I perceive 16:1–9 as part of a unified word of judgment to which 16:10–13 serve as the climax and point of culmination. 5.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint As with the reading of 5:19 in the context of 5:10–19, reading 16:10–13 as a climactic oracle of judgment in the context of 16:1–13 rather than as a selfcontained piece of catechesis makes a big difference, especially with respect to the character of the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11. But reading 16:10–13 in the context of 16:1–13 also sheds interesting light on the people being accused of having forsaken YHWH. The problem of the delusion and ignorance of the people noted above is further emphasized by the literary context. Contrary to my standard procedure thus far, here I will begin with the ——————————— 135

Carroll, Jeremiah, 342. It might be worth mentioning that some scholars take foreign worship as the unifying theme of 16:1–13 (e.g. Allen, Jeremiah, 191). While it certainly plays a central role in vv. 10–13 (cf. v. 11b), the discussion concerns its presence in vv. 1–9. Although there are no explicit claims about foreign worship in vv. 1–9, it has been argued that it is implied in the references to “the house of mourning” (‫ )בית מרזח‬in v. 5a and the mourning rites of selflaceration and shaving one’s head in v. 6bβ: “no one shall cut himself (‫ )יתגדד‬or shave one’s head (‫ )יקרח‬for them”. The background for this claim is the attack on the “cry of revelry” (BDB, 931) or “revelry of the loungers” (NRSV) in Amos 6:7 (‫ )מרזח סרוחים‬and the prohibitions against types of self-laceration and shaving one’s head in, for instance, Lev 19:27–28; 21:5; Deut 14:1. However, as Friebel, Sign-Acts, 88–92, n. 19, 28, has shown, in the context of Jer 16:1–13, the practices mentioned in vv. 5–6 function not as undesirable but as customary practices involving neither condemnation nor approval; that is, they are presented as normal practices that will cease in the land as a result of divine judgment. 137 This connection between v. 5 and v. 13 is often missed as many scholars follow LXX rather than MT in their reading of v. 13. See footnote III.124 (ch. III.5.1.2). 136

5. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 16:11

157

point of total judgment and not the foolishness of the people, as observations made in connection with the former are essential for my argument regarding the foolishness of the people. 5.3.1 Total Judgment The judgment of YHWH in 16:1–13 has been characterized as extremely harsh.138 It is more than harsh, however. As I will argue, it is a word of total judgment in which YHWH announces unconditional and definitive rejection of the people. 1. The end of the community “in this land”. In vv. 1–9, the judgment of YHWH is described in terms of a collapse of social institutions and practices vital to a living community. First, the prohibition not to marry and have children (v. 2) assumes the elementary family – the basic social unit of ancient Israel – being subverted. What is more, the prohibition represents “a fundamental reversal of the natural order of life”, to quote Stulman.139 For, as the motivation of the prohibition indicates (vv. 3–4), there is no future for family life “in this place” (‫ )במקום הזה‬or “in this land” (‫)בארץ הזאת‬. In fact, instead of life and blessing, birth and giving birth have become symbols of death and curse. The sons and daughters “born (‫ )הילודים‬in this place”, “their mothers who bore (‫ )הילדות‬them”, and “their fathers who begot (‫ )המולדים‬them” shall all die and suffer the fate of the accursed (cf. v. 4). The second prohibition not to enter “the house of mourning” ( ‫אל תבוא בית‬ ‫)מרזח‬, not to “lament” (‫ )ואל תלך לספוד‬or “console” (‫)ואל תנד‬,140 points in much the same direction. In addition to showing respect for the dead, 141 the mourning customs normally concern that of giving comfort to the bereaved.142 This function of giving comfort is explicitly referred to in v. 7: “No one shall break bread ——————————— 138 See Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, 144; Stulman, Jeremiah, 161; Schmidt, Jeremia, 286. A similar point seems implied in the suggestion that 16:14–15, which duplicate 23:7– 8, have been placed after 16:1–13 for the sake of mitigating the strong words of judgment in 16:1–13 (see, for example, Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 199; Carroll, Jeremiah, 344–45; Wanke, Jeremia, 160). A brief discussion of 16:14–15 is left for the conclusion and outlook of this study (see V.2). 139 Stulman, Jeremiah, 161. 140 See Friebel, Sign-Acts, 91, n. 21 who argues that even if ‫ תנד להם‬is ambiguous and might be rendered “mourn them”, that is, the dead person, “in numerous places, ... ‫נוד ל‬ means ‘console, condole, comfort the one(s) mourning: // ‫ חמל‬in Jer 15:5; // ‫ נחם‬in Isa 51:19; Nah 3:7; Job 2:11; 42:11; Ps 69:21”. Therefore, “[i]n light of v. 7 where the emphasis is on acts of comfort and consolation to the bereaved, and the use of ‫נחם‬, a frequent synonym of ‫נוד‬, the latter meaning of ‘console’ is preferable here”. See also Allen, Jeremiah, 186; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 752; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 362; Wanke, Jeremia, 157–58. 141 On the shamefulness connected to not being buried in ancient Israel, see Olyan, “Interment Ideology,” 603–11; Christopher B. Hays, Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah, FAT 79 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 154–66. 142 Cf. Friebel, Sign-Acts, 90, 93.

158

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

for the mourner to comfort him (‫ )לנחמו‬for the dead. No one shall give him a cup of consolation (‫)תנחומים‬, for his father or his mother.”143 Notably, to comfort (Piel of ‫ )נחם‬someone obviously includes more than just that of caring and expressing sorrow for them. Indeed, there is an element of encouragement144 in it – that is, an attempt to influence the situation for the benefit of the affected one.145 Thus, the prohibition of giving comfort implies that there is no prospect of relief, that there is no end to the mourning, grief, and lament occasioned by YHWH’s judgment. Even the third and final prohibition may be interpreted as underscoring the point that there is no future for the people. The references to “bride” (‫ )כלה‬and “bridegroom” (‫ )חתן‬in v. 9 specify the kind of celebrations in which it is prohibited to participate and define the “voice of joy (‫ )קול ששון‬and voice of gladness (‫ ”)קול שמחה‬banished by YHWH. The third prohibition thus connects back to the first prohibition and makes it clear that there will be no new marriage celebrations in the land. In other words, and in accordance with the first prohibition, there will be no new beginnings in the land as YHWH is banishing “the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride”. In short, the three prohibitions of YHWH in vv. 1–9 describe the same scenario from three different perspectives, namely the end of the community of the land. What is more, the images used – birth, funeral, and marriage – suggest that the collapse is conclusive. Any hopes of restoration and new beginning are denied. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that in vv. 1–9 there are no references to external enemies or specific events causing the collapse. No reason other than YHWH’s withdrawal of his peace (‫)שלום‬, steadfast love (‫)החסד‬, and mercy (‫ )הרחמים‬is given for the collapse (v. 5). The collapse simply follows from, and is presented as, the other side of the coin of YHWH’s withdrawal. So, the collapse is not just the end of a community but bespeaks conclusive divine abandonment of the people. This total character of YHWH’s judgment of the people is reinforced by the climactic announcement of judgment in v. 13. 2. Exile as YHWH’s definitive rejection of the people. As v. 13 makes clear, the collapse of the community of the land will be followed by exile: “I will hurl you out of this land, into the land that you do not know, nor your fathers” ——————————— 143

It is very difficult to make sense of MT’s reading of v. 7. I therefore suggest, together with a number of scholars, that it requires three emendations. First, I read ‫ לחם‬instead of MT’s ‫( להם‬v. 7aα; see, for example, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 467; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 365–66). Second, I read the adjective ‫ אָ ֵבל‬instead of MT’s noun ‫( אֵ ֶב ל‬v. 7aβ; see, for example, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 467; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 365–66). Finally, I read singular ‫אתו‬ instead of MT’s plural ‫( אתם‬v. 7bα; see, for example, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 467; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 365–66). 144 See Horacio Simian-Yofre, “ ‫נחם‬,” TDOT 9:342. 145 See Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 2, trans. Mervyn E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 1994–99), 689.

5. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in Jer 16:11

159

(v. 13a). The continuity between the collapse of the community (vv. 1–9) and exile (v. 13) is highlighted by the reference to “this land” (‫הארץ הזאת‬, vv. 3, 6, and 13). However, the exile is not just exile in 16:13, even less a springboard for reflection, restoration, and new beginnings. On the contrary, just as in 5:19, the exile is associated with alienation and divine rejection. First, and just as in 5:19, exile means that the people are banished into a foreign land – “the land that you do not know (‫)לא ידעתם‬, nor your fathers” (v. 13aβ) – where they are doomed “day and night” (‫ )יומם ולילה‬to serve other gods (v. 13bα). However, in 16:13, the association of exile with alienation and divine rejection is taken one step further as YHWH concludes that to the exiles, “I will show [...] no favour (‫[ חנינה‬...] ‫( ”)לא אתן‬v. 13bβ). As already noted, this statement connects closely with the withdrawal statement in v. 5 and functions almost as a reversal of the “Gandenformel”, emphasizing that this is really the end not only of the community in the land but of the YHWH–people relationship – an end that includes, and in fact is especially addressed to, the exiles. Certainly, it is difficult to find a clearer expression of total judgment. However, although this has often been recognized,146 scholars have often been quick to moderate the rejection statement in v. 13, either by pointing to the subsequent unit in vv. 14–15147 or, like Lundbom, by pointing to the fact that “elsewhere in Jeremiah exiles are spoken of in a favorable light”.148 However, Lundbom is certainly right. YHWH’s statement to the exiles in 16:13 is quite unique in the book of Jeremiah. But instead of ignoring or “correcting” it, as Lundbom seems to suggest, it should be noticed that it actually testifies to a pattern – that is, the pattern that all three of our question–answer passages announce total judgment to the people as a whole, including the exiles. And that this pattern forms part of another pattern – that is, that the prosaic the ʻāzab-complaints in the book of Jeremiah serve to justify words of total judgment. 5.3.2 The Foolishness of the People The description of the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11, however, is noteworthy to us for another reason too, in addition to that of being presented as a total judgment. As I will argue, the description of the judgment highlights the foolishness of the people and their forsaking of YHWH. As pointed out above, the passage of 16:10–13 is characterized by a strong note of ——————————— 146 See, for example, Carroll, Jeremiah, 344; Wanke, Jeremia, 159; Allen, Jeremiah, 191. See also Maier, “Deutero-Jeremianic Texts,” 109 who follows LXX – “They [other gods] will show you no favor” – and suggests that 16:13 “presents a Judean viewpoint because the Babylonian Golah would never consider cultic assimilation to be in accordance with God’s will” (italics hers). 147 See just above, footnote III.124 (ch. III.5.1.2). 148 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 764.

160

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

irony as the people are represented as a people both terribly deluded with respect to the status of their relationship with YHWH and foolishly ignorant about their own sinful behaviour. In addition to this, however, I would like to draw attention to one more feature that might be seen to highlight the foolishness of the people and their forsaking of YHWH. For just like the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13, the latter of the two ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11 is characterized by fronting the grammatical object: “Me they forsook” (‫ואתי עזבו‬, v. 11cα). The question, however, is how this fronting in 16:11 is to be understood. The fact that we find a similar fronting in the subsequent utterance – “My law they did not keep” (‫ואת תורתי לא שמרו‬, v. 11cβ) – should perhaps warn us not to make too much of them. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that this fronting appears in a context that, just as in 2:4–13, seems to highlight the people’s complete dependence on YHWH. For as pointed out above, in vv. 1–9 there is mention of no other reason for the collapse of the community of the land but YHWH’s withdrawal of his peace (‫)שלום‬, steadfast love (‫)החסד‬, and mercy (‫ )הרחמים‬from the people (cf. v. 5b). In other words, the description of the divine judgment in vv. 1–9 implicitly suggests that the life and well-being of the community in the land depends on YHWH and a well-functioning YHWH–people relationship. Given this context, I suggest that the fronting in the ʻāzab-complaint in 16:11cα may therefore serve the same function as in 2:13 – that is, to clarify and highlight the focus of an utterance149 and thereby also to underscore the absurdity and tragedy of forsaking YHWH. Just as in 2:13, the people are being accused of having foolishly forsaken what cannon be forsaken. 5.4 Conclusion To conclude, it is clear that in the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11, YHWH basically offers indictments of disloyalty against his people, indictments that justify the defeat of Judah and Jerusalem as an act of divine retribution. In addition to this, however, it is noteworthy that the ʻāzab-complaint features in a literary context in which the people are portrayed as terribly deluded with respect to the status of their relationship with YHWH. The ʻāzab-complaints contribute significantly to this portrait. Moreover, given the emphasis put on the people’s dependence upon YHWH as their source of life and well-being in the literary context of the ʻāzab-complaints, a tragic tone of irony seems to be implied in the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11, not unlike the ʻāzab-complaint in 2:13. YHWH simply cannot be forsaken without disastrous consequences for the people. The divine judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11 resembles the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaints in 5:19 and 9:12. Just as in 5:19, the exile is associated with divine rejection. While this was only implied in 5:19, it is made explicit in 16:10–13. In addition to being doomed to serve other ——————————— 149

See II.2.3.2.

Excursus 3: The Question–Answer Scheme

161

gods in a foreign land, as in 5:19, in 16:13 it is emphasized that “no favour” will be shown to the exiles by YHWH. In other words, there is no hope for the YHWH–people relationship, the divine rejection is definitive. Evidently, this observation runs counter to the claim that the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11 reflect a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah. Rather, in the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11 YHWH speaks not only as a justified judge, but as a God who rejects his people and announces the end of his relationship with them. Since 16:10–13 is the last of our three question–answer passages, I would like to continue with a brief excursus on the question–answer scheme before turning to the ʻāzab-complaints in 19:4.

Excursus 3: The Question–Answer Scheme Excursus 3: The Question–Answer Scheme

Certainly, my reading of 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 differs significantly from the reading prevalent in contemporary scholarship. In short, while most scholars take the “why?” question in these passages as an occasion for explanation, I have basically argued that it is more appropriately seen as an occasion for an announcement of judgment. Thus, in my reading the passages are treated more like judgment oracles than as pieces of didactic catechesis offering “ein Stück Glaubenslehre”, as Schmidt, for instance, puts it.150 Obviously, the difference is not just based on different exegetical observations in the texts. Deeper issues related to perspectives and approaches employed are involved, and in this excursus I would like to highlight some of these in order both to challenge the way the passages tend to be treated by scholars and to further clarify and justify some assumptions essential to my own reading. Characteristic of my reading of the passages is a strong interest in the particulars of each individual passage and an attempt to read the passages as integrated parts of their current literary contexts. Behind this approach, of course, lies my working assumption regarding the composition of the book of Jeremiah and the suggestions related to the prose–poetry problem and the formulaic character of the prose material in the book.151 The contrast to the more traditional approach is obvious. Given the position Redaktions- and Traditionsgeschichte have enjoyed in modern research, it is no surprise that scholars traditionally have been more interested in the similarities – the typical and common features – between the passages and the relationship between the passages as more or less self-contained literary units. Undoubtedly, the similarity in structure, language, and content between the passages of 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 is obvious and striking. Furthermore, ——————————— 150 151

Schmidt, Jeremia, 149. See I.3.1.

162

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

the number of passages characterized by sharing these points of similarity is not restricted to our three passages but also includes the passages of Deut 29:21–27, 1 Kgs 9:7–9, and Jer 22:8–9. But, as already seen above and as will be further pointed out below, there are also noteworthy differences between the passages, and some of them are more similar than others. The problem arises when unique features are ignored in favour of the idea that all passages share the same form. The basic hermeneutical distinction between the concrete, individual text and the form or type of text is then being blurred.152 This problem manifests itself every time scholars and commentators treat one of our passages as just another example of a stereotypical and fixed question–answer passage. Among the best examples in that respect are the influential studies of Thiel and Nicholson. Since their studies also shed interesting light on the tendency among scholars to hardly pay any attention to the announcement of judgment element in the passages of 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13, I offer a brief look at Thiel’s and Nicholson’s analyses of the “question–answer passages”.153 As noted above, Thiel argues that the passages of Deut 29:21–27, 1 Kgs 9:7– 9, Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, 16:10–13, and 22:8–9 share the same form where “[d]er eigentliche Kern”154 consists of a “why?” question and an immediately following explanatory answer. Accordingly, the form of the passages is defined as a type of didactic catechesis. According to Thiel, the form represents a fixed speech pattern mirroring “eine bestimmte Form der dtr. Verkündigungspraxis der Exilszeit”.155 The view that the question and explanatory answer constitute the core of the form common to all the question–answer passages also manifests itself in Nicholson’s study. Nicolson, however, broadens the perspective a little and includes Exod 12:26-27; 13:14-15; Deut 6:20–25; and Josh 4:6–7, 21–24 among the question–answer passages.156 Against that background, Nicholson suggests that the form “originated within the context of instruction of a catechetical nature”.157 Certainly, with respect to Deut 29:21–27, 1 Kgs 9:7–9, and Jer 22:8–9, it seems reasonable to highlight the question and explanatory answer as the central elements of the passages. The “purest” passage in that respect – if we dare use such words – is probably Jer 22:8–9, which hardly comprises any more than a question and explanatory answer: ——————————— 152 For the distinction between the concrete, individual text and the type of text, see Erhard Blum, “Formgeschichte – A Misleading Category? Some Critical Remarks,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud ben Zvi (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 33–35. 153 See Thiel, Jeremia 1 –25, 295–300; Nicholson, Preaching, 57–63. 154 Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 298. 155 Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 295. 156 Nicholson, Preaching, 62. 157 Nicholson, Preaching, 64.

Excursus 3: The Question–Answer Scheme

163

And many nations will pass by this city, and all of them will say to one another, “Why has YHWH dealt in this way with that great city?” And they will answer, “Because they abandoned (‫ )עזבו‬the covenant of YHWH their God, and worshipped other gods and served them.”

However, Deut 29:21–27 and 1 Kgs 9:7–9 are not very different. In addition to a clarification of the setting and circumstance of the question at the beginning of the passages, they end with what Nicholson calls a “restatement of the circumstance that prompted the question”.158 Therefore the anger of YHWH was kindled ( ‫ )ויחר אף יהוה‬against this land, bringing upon it every curse written in this book. YHWH uprooted them from their land in anger, fury, and great wrath, and threw them into another, as is now the case. (Deut 29:26–27) therefore YHWH has brought (‫ )על כן הביא יהוה‬this disaster upon them. (1 Kgs 9:9b)

In both cases, this final element simply serves to frame and highlight the two preceding questions and explanatory answers as the focus of attention. So, that the questions and answers are the key elements in the passages of Deut 29:21– 27, 1 Kgs 9:7–9, and Jer 22:8–9 seems clear enough. What is equally clear, however, is that the passages of Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 differ from the pattern of Deut 29:21–27, 1 Kgs 9:7–9, and Jer 22:8–9. Instead of a concluding “restatement”, as Nicholson calls it, Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 end with an announcement of judgment. Of course, this is not a new observation.159 Thiel even points out this difference between Deut 29:21–27, 1 Kgs 9:7–9, and Jer 22:8–9, on the one hand, and Jer 5:19, 9:11– 15, and 16:10–13, on the other.160 However, this observation by Thiel does not make him change his thesis, that all the passages of Deut 29:21–27, 1 Kgs 9:7– 9, Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, 16:10–13, and 22:8–9 share the same form where “[d]er eigentliche Kern” consists of a “why?” question and an immediately following explanatory answer. Rather, Thiel adapts Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 to a sort of reconstructed prototype of the question–answer scheme by arguing that the announcement-of-judgment elements in Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 are best understood as variants of the concluding “restatement” elements – to use Nicholson’s term – in Deut 29:26–27 and 1 Kgs 9:9b, variants that only reveal the Deuteronomistic redactor’s intention to imitate Jeremianic prophecy in order to adapt the question–answer scheme to the context of the book of Jeremiah.161 Thus, the announcement-of-judgment elements in Jer 5:19, 9:11– 15, and 16:10–13 are basically superfluous as they simply reveal the historical setting of exile in light of which the questions and explanatory answers are to be understood. As a result, Thiel ends up like Nicholson, who strikingly enough ——————————— 158

Nicholson, Preaching, 59. See, for example, Long, “Question and Answer Schemata,” 129–39. 160 Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 296–97. 161 Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 299. 159

164

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

simply ignores the fact that Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 – unlike Deut 29:21–27, 1 Kgs 9:7–9, and Jer 22:8–9 – end with an announcement-of-judgment element. Without further discussion, Nicholson just concludes that the passages testify to the same tripartite form of question, answer, and restatement.162 There is no discussion of how the announcements of judgment might be understood as restatements. Nicholson’s concern is that the passages “in both phraseology and form [...] are Deuteronomistic through and through”.163 Apparently, for the sake of this conclusion, the points of similarity between the passages simply trump those of difference. In sharp contrast to this, in my reading of Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 I have been trying to take seriously what form critics have wisely reminded us: The structure governing a text-entity can be discovered only on the basis of close textual analysis which demonstrates the inherent framework from evidence in the text itself. This does not exclude the search for patterns, types, schemes, or genres. But it makes sure that the identifiable patterns are those indicated by the structure of text-entities, and not those imposed on them by partial association. Form criticism has been interested in typical structures and has generally tended to relegate the interpretation of the uniqueness of texts to subsequent exegesis. However, it seems necessary to reverse this approach: Not only must the structural analysis of the individuality of texts be included into the form-critical method, it must, in fact, precede the analysis of the typical structure if the claim that such a typicality inherently determines an individual text is to be substantiated.164

My claim has basically been that even though the passages show traces of typical patterns and elements, we should not too quickly let these govern our understanding of the passages in their entirety. In other words, even though Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13 certainly bear close resemblance to and parallel the catechetical style of question and answer manifesting itself in other passages, we should not too easily ignore the unique features of each passage. As a result of this, I have argued that Jer 5:19, 9:11–15, and 16:10–13, instead of ——————————— 162

Nicholson, Preaching, 59–61. For the influence of Nicholson on this, see, for instance, Stulman, Jeremiah, 162 who argues with respect to the passage of 16:10–13: “In view of these ‘apocalyptic’ portents, the people yearn for understanding, and Yahweh commands Jeremiah to provide it (16:10–13). To give greater insight into the ominous events, the poet uses a question–answer–restatement form that is attested elsewhere in Jeremiah (5:19; 9:12– 16; 22:8–9) and in other parts of the Old Testament (Exod 13:14–15; Deut 6:20–25; 29:22– 29). The didactic form is used to teach children about the significance of religious practices. It serves to explicate the meaning of past events for those who did not participate in them.” 163 Nicholson, Preaching, 63. 164 Rolf Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” Int 27 (1973): 461 (italics his). This point was first seriously put on the agenda by James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18. For more recent discussions, see Antony F. Campbell, “Form Criticism’s Future,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the TwentyFirst Century, ed. Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud ben Zvi (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 15–31; Roy F. Melugin, “Recent Form Criticism Revisited in an Age of Reader Response,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism, 46–64.

6. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 19:4

165

being stereotypical pieces of catechesis in service of teaching and instruction, are better understood as oracles of judgment in which YHWH announces total judgment against his people. In this context, the catechetical style of question and answer serves – in addition, of course, to justifying the divine judgment – to ridicule the people and highlight their foolishness.

6. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 19:4 6. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 19:4 2b Proclaim there the words I will tell you 3 You shall say: Hear the word of YHWH, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says YHWH of hosts, God of Israel: Look, I am bringing disaster upon this place such that the ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. 4 Because they have forsaken me ( ‫)עזבני‬, made this place foreign, and made offerings in it to other gods that they do not know, nor their fathers, nor the kings of Judah. They have filled this place with the blood of the innocents. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come to my mind. 6 Therefore, look, days are coming, says YHWH, when this place will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of Ben-Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter. 7 And I will make void the plans of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and make them fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of those who seek their life. I will give their corpses to be food for the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the earth. 8 And I will make this city a horror and a hissing. Everyone who passes by her will be horrified and will hiss because of her blow. 9 And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters. Each shall eat the flesh of his neighbour in the siege and in the distress their enemies and those who seek their life press upon them [...]. 11b And in Topheth they shall bury until there is no more place to bury. 12 Thus I will do to this place, says YHWH, and to its inhabitants, making this city like Topheth. 13 And the houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of Judah shall be defiled165 like the place of Topheth – all the houses upon whose roof offerings have been made to all the hosts of heaven and poured out libations to other gods.

6.1 Introduction Finally, there is the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4, the last voiced by YHWH in the book of Jeremiah and the final one to be analysed in this study. Compared with the others, this ʻāzab-complaint features in a rather long prose passage, i.e. 19:2b–9, 11b–13, which occasionally has been counted among the prose sermons of the book of Jeremiah.166 Characteristic of this passage is the number of quotes from other contexts, mainly from Deuteronomy (e.g. vv. 7 and 9 parallel, respectively, Deut 28:26 and 53), DtrH (e.g. v. 3b parallels 1 Sam 3:11 ——————————— 165

MT’s reading of ‫ הטמאים‬creates a syntactical difficulty as it cannot function as an attributive adjective to ‫התפת‬. Following scholars like, for instance, Rudolph, Jeremia, 116; Bright, Jeremiah, 131; and Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 535, I take it as a predicative adjective (‫ )טמאים‬or, alternatively, a Pual participle ( ‫)מטמאים‬. 166 For example, Stulman, Prose Sermons, 76–79.

166

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

and 2 Kgs 21:12), and from other prose sermons in the book of Jeremiah (e.g. vv. 5–6 parallel Jer 7:31–34 and 32:35).167 However, the parenetic elements so characteristic of the prose sermons in the book of Jeremiah are conspicuously absent from the passage of Jer 19:2b– 9, 11b–13.168 In fact, and particularly relevant for us, the passage features in a literary context characterized by strong expressions of unconditional and conclusive divine judgment: “I will break this people and this city [...] so that it can never be mended (‫( ”)לא יוכל להרפה עוד‬v. 11a). As Schmidt puts it, in v. 11a, YHWH announces a judgment, “unbedingt und uneingeschränkt ohne Wenn und Aber”.169 Intuitively, this word of divine judgment in v. 11a seems to hammer home my thesis: the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4 justifies total judgment. However, in light of current readings of 19:2b–9, 11b–13, the conclusion may not be that straightforward. In fact, quite recently it has been argued that in the present form of the text, the divine judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4 serves as a counter voice to the divine judgment announced in v. 11a.170 Behind this claim lies a well-established understanding of the passage of vv. 2b–9, 11b–13 as representing a later and more or less mitigating supplement to the symbolic action report in vv. 1–2a, 10–11a. In the following, I would like to challenge this understanding by suggesting a somewhat different reading of vv. 2b–9, 11b–13, one emphasizing the continuity of vv. 2b–9, 11b–13 with the immediate literary context (vv. 1–2a, 10– 11a). My intention, of course, is to argue that the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4 – just like the other prosaic ʻāzab-complaints in the book of Jeremiah – really does serve to justify total judgment in the present form of the text. However, the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4 differs from the other (prosaic) ʻāzabcomplaints on one significant point: it does not contribute to highlighting the foolishness of the people. The foolishness of the people seems simply not to be thematized, either in the prose passage of vv. 2b–9, 11b–13 or in the symbolic action report in vv. 1–2a, 10–11a. Thus, the final ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4 stands out from the others and, admittedly, does not completely fit the profile characteristic of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. My goal in the following is therefore limited to demonstrating the point of total judgment. But, first, in accordance with standard procedure in this chapter, let me begin by pointing out the formulaic character of the ʻāzab-complaint in the context of the prose passage of 19:2b–9, 11b–13. ——————————— 167 See Rudolph, Jeremia, 117; Thiel, Jeremia 1–25, 219–29; Stulman, Prose Sermons, 76–79. 168 As regards the form of the prose sermons and their parallels in Deuteronomy and DH, see, for example, Janssen, Exilszeit, 105–15; Nicholson, Preaching, 32–37. 169 Schmidt, Jeremia, 328. 170 See Rachelle Gilmour, “Reading Jeremiah 19:1–13: Integrating Diachronic and Synchronic Methodologies,” JHebS 17.5 (2017): 1–27, esp. 18.

6. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 19:4

167

6.1.1 The Formulaic Character of the ʻĀzab-Complaint In accordance with the formulaic pattern pointed out for the prosaic ʻāzabcomplaints in the introduction, the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4 is closely associated with accusations of worshipping other gods. However, apart from the expression “made offerings to other gods” (i.e. ‫[ לאלהים אחרים‬...] ‫ויקטרו‬, v. 4a),171 the accusations associated with the ʻāzab-complaint in vv. 4–5 are not among the most typical ones. The first one, “they have made this place foreign (‫וינכרו‬, v. 4a)”, is in fact unique in the Hebrew Bible. It echoes, though, the more frequent phrase “foreign gods” (‫ )אלהי נכר‬and clearly implies the problem of worshipping other gods.172 Much the same problem seems to be addressed in v. 4b: “they have filled this place with the blood of the innocents (‫)דם נקים‬.” Usually, shedding innocent blood refers to the miscarriage of justice (cf., for example, Deut 19:10; 21:8; 27:25; Jer 7:6; 22:3; 26:15). Here, however, the plural “innocents” (‫ )נקים‬is used and the description of child sacrifice in v. 5a suggests that “the familiar language is applied to the innocents who were the victims of the child sacrifice practised in Hinnom”.173 So, in short, even if the rhetoric might appear somewhat peculiar,174 it seems clear enough that the problem addressed is basically the same as in the other prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, namely that of disloyalty and of turning from YHWH to other gods. As is made clear in vv. 3b, 6–9, and 11b–13, this disloyal behaviour of the people justifies divine judgment: “Look, I am bringing disaster upon this place” (‫הנני מביא רעה על המקום הזה‬, v. 3b);175 “Therefore, look, days are coming, says YHWH” (‫לכן הנה ימים באים נאם יהוה‬, v. 6a); “Thus I will do to this place” ( ‫כן‬ ‫אעשה למקום הזה‬, v. 12a). While v. 7a indicates that the judgment will affect the whole of Judah and Jerusalem in accordance with the specific address of the speech – “the kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem” (v. 3a), – the focus of attention is first and foremost on Jerusalem, both as a city (e.g. “this city”, v. 8a, 12b) and as a cult centre (e.g. “this place”, vv. 3b, 4a). Thus, that the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4 is to be understood basically as an indictment of disloyalty justifying the fall of Jerusalem and, implicitly, the defeat of Judah seems clear enough. However, it is the way this fall is described in vv. 3b, 6–9, and 11b–13 and how this description further relates to the literary context of vv. 1–2a, 10–11a that is most interesting to us. For as I will ——————————— 171

See Jer 1:16; 44:3, 5, 8; also 2 Kgs 22:17. See, for example, Deut 31:16; 32:12; Josh 24:20, 23; Judg 10:16; 1 Sam 7:13; Jer 5:19; also 8:19. 173 Jones, Jeremiah, 266. 174 Actually, if the use and combination seem peculiar, much of the vocabulary and phraseology in vv. 4–5 is in itself quite formulaic. I have already noted the term ‫ נכר‬and the accusations of burning incense to other gods and shedding innocent blood. For more, see Stulman, Prose Sermons, 76–79. 175 See also the conjunction ‫ יען‬in v. 4a. 172

168

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

argue, in the present form of the text, the fall of Jerusalem is described as an event of total judgment. 6.2 Literary Context In the present form of the text it is clear that 19:2b–9, 11b–13 form a more or less integrated part of 19:1–13.176 The critical question, as noted, is how the relationship of vv. 2b–9, 11b–13 to the symbolic action report in vv. 1–2a, 10– 11a is to be understood.177 The report briefly describes how YHWH commands Jeremiah to buy a “potter’s earthenware flask” (‫בקבק יוצר חרש‬, v. 1a) and break it (v. 10a) in front of some of the elders of the people and the priests (v. 1, 10b) while proclaiming: “So I will break (‫ )אשבר‬this people and this city as one breaks (‫ )ישבר‬a potter’s vessel and it can never be mended (‫”)לא יוכל להרפה‬ (v. 11a). The prevalent view in current scholarship is that vv. 2b–9, 11b–13 represent a secondarily interwoven supplement to the symbolic action report.178 More precisely, the prose passage is read as a Deuteronomistic interpretation of the symbolic action report in light of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. The passage is thus considered to contribute with a justification and clarification of the message of the symbolic action report. In other words, in vv. 2b–9, 11b–13, the symbolic action report is seen to have been transformed into a Deuteronomistic description and justification of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. In continuity with this understanding, Rachelle Gilmour has recently argued: “The message has gained some ‘flesh’ in its horrors but [...] [t]he complete shattering implied by the jug at the climax to this section is now joined by a picture of devastation [i.e. vv. 7–9] but not complete and lasting annihilation.”179 In other words, the picture of devastation in vv. 7– 9 is added with a specific purpose – that is, to alleviate the picture of complete shattering implied by the original symbolic action report. For, Gilmour argues, contrary to the original symbolic action report, the prose passage allows for the ——————————— 176 Admittedly, the prose narrative in 19:14–20:6 may be seen as a continuation of 19:1– 13. However, Friebel Sign-Acts, 115–20 argues convincingly for a break after 19:13. Among other things, the clear change from an extended symbolic action report to a prose narrative indicates that 19:1–13 form a self-contained literary unit. 177 For a survey of modern research on 19:1–13, see Gilmour, “Reading Jeremiah 19:1– 13,” 13. 178 For example, Carroll, Jeremiah, 385–89; Stulman, Jeremiah, 194; Schmidt, Jeremia, 327–29; Allen, Jeremiah, 225–26; Nicholson, Jeremiah, 162–63. 179 Gilmour, “Reading Jeremiah 19:1–13,” 18. Actually, Gilmour is closer to the view of McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 443–59 (see also Wanke, Jeremia, 178–83), arguing that vv. 1–13 reflect a gradual growth in several stages. In her view, it is the first expansion (i.e. vv. 2b– 4, 7–9) of the original symbolic action report that provides this mitigating perspective. However, Gilmour does not see any of the subsequent expansions as challenging the mitigating perspective of the first expansion (see Gilmour, “Reading Jeremiah 19:1–13,” 24–27).

6. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 19:4

169

idea of survivors. Gilmour even suggests that through the prose passage “a voice of hope” is introduced into the present form of the text.180 Certainly, Gilmour’s reading is not one required by taking the prose passage of vv. 2b–9, 11b–13 as a Deuteronomistic interpretation of the symbolic action report. In fact, the idea that the covenant curses181 echoed in the description of the judgment in the prose passage represent a voice of hope seems quite foreign to the readings offered by most other scholars. Still, Gilmour’s basic concluding claim, that the Deuteronomistic interpretation to some extent corrects and mitigates the judgment of the symbolic action report, seems broadly accepted. At least, it is not easy to find scholars explicitly arguing that the prose passage of vv. 2b–9, 11b–13 speaks of a conclusive and total judgment and a disaster beyond repair. The focus of attention tends to be on how the passage describes the destruction of Jerusalem as an event of siege and defeat. While the harsh rhetoric of, in particular, vv. 7–9 might be highlighted, the focus is commonly on the formulaic character of the language and how this provides evidence for the thesis that the prose passage of vv. 2b–9, 11b–13 mirrors a Deuteronomistic description and justification of the fall of Jerusalem.182 However, Fischer, among others, has challenged and offered a noteworthy alternative to the prevalent reading of 19:1–13, arguing that the present form of the unit shows a neatly structured, twofold “Dynamike von Anweisungen [i.e. vv. 1–2, 10] hin auf Verkündigung [i.e. vv. 3–9, 11–13]”.183 Admittedly, it is not immediately apparent how vv. 1–13 may be argued to form a neatly structured unit. In addition to the mixture of forms and styles, the unit contains, among other things, a change of audience/addressee, from “some of the elders of the people and some of the elders of the priests” (v. 1b) to “the kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem” (v. 3a), a focus changing between Jerusalem (vv. 3–4, 7–9, 11–13) and Topheth (vv. 6, 11b–12), and because of this, a rather ambiguous use of the expression “this place” (‫המקום הזה‬, cf. vv. 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13). Therefore, a relevant objection to Fischer’s suggestion is that his observation of a nice twofold dynamic in vv. 1–13 only works at a superficial and surface level of the unit. For, although the relationship between the two instructions in vv. 1–2 and v. 10 may be clear enough, it is not evident how the relationship between the two speeches in vv. 3–9 and vv. 11–13 is to be understood. Still, I consider Fischer’s suggestion worth pursuing, and in the following I seek to substantiate his basic suggestion by looking deeper into the relationship between vv. 3–9 and vv. 11–13. In fact, I will argue that the two sections are ——————————— 180

Gilmour, “Reading Jeremiah 19:1–13,” 18. Cf. Deut 28:26, 37, 53, 55. 182 For example, Carroll, Jeremiah, 387–89; Wanke, Jeremia, 182–83; Stulman, Jeremiah, 194; Schmidt, Jeremia, 238–39. 183 Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 594. See also Allen, Jeremiah, 225. 181

170

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

closely connected as the former paves the way for the interpretations of the symbolic action given in vv. 11–13. First, the section of vv. 3–9 does so by justifying (esp. vv. 4–5) the symbolic action and the divine judgment announced through it. In addition, I will argue, the section of vv. 3–9 paves the way for vv. 11–13 by clarifying the larger context in light of which the announcement of divine judgment in vv. 11–13 is to be understood. By arguing this, I not only offer a new reading of 19:1–13, a reading in continuity with the reading offered by Fischer, but more importantly, by reading vv. 11–13 in light of vv. 3–9, new light is shed on the nature of the divine judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4. In short, instead of implying a “voice of hope”, the divine judgment announced in 19:1–13 is a dramatic and forceful example of total judgment. Before showing this, three brief clarifying remarks regarding my understanding of the unit of 19:11–13 should be made. 1. Two interpretations of the symbolic action. Not unlike the prevalent reading, I will argue that there are basically two, and somewhat different, interpretations of the symbolic action in vv. 1–13. The key to this understanding, though, is not the difference in style and form, etc., but the parallel structure of v. 11a and v. 12a: “Thus I will break” (‫ככה אשבר‬, v. 11a); “Thus I will do” ( ‫כן‬ ‫אעשה‬, v. 12a). Thus, in vv. 11–13, there are two parallel interpretations of the symbolic action in, respectively, v. 11a and vv. 12–13. However, instead of conflict, as the prevalent reading tends to argue, I will argue for correspondence between the two interpretations as the latter seems to elaborate on the former. Key to this view is the understanding that the section of vv. 11–13 is climactic to the announcements of judgment in vv. 3–9 and that v. 11b serves as a unifying hinge between v. 11a and vv. 12–13. This will be further clarified below.184 2. The announcements of judgment in vv. 3b, 6–9. Certainly, the section of vv. 3–9 is complex and somewhat confusing. One thing is the movement from announcement of judgment (v. 3b) to justification of judgment (vv. 4–5) and back to announcement of judgment again (vv. 6–9). More important, however, are the location of the announcements of judgment (vv. 3b, 6–9) in the context of vv. 1–13 and the juxtaposition and change in focus between Topheth (v. 6) and Jerusalem (vv. 7–9) in vv. 6–9. To begin with the issue of location, it is admittedly somewhat puzzling that the announcements of judgment in vv. 3b, 6–9 – which obviously form part of the interpretation of the symbolic action – occur before the description of the symbolic action (v. 10) they serve to interpret and are thus also isolated from the two interpretations in vv. 11–13. The effect, however, is forceful. By letting vv. 3b, 6–9 introduce the clusters of motifs central to vv. 11–13 and thus setting the tone and clarifying what is at stake in the symbolic action, vv. 11–13 are highlighted as a brief and intense climax of the unit of vv. 1–13. First of all, by referring to a disaster upon “this ——————————— 184

See more below.

6. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 19:4

171

place” (‫ )המקום‬of such a character that “ears will tingle” (‫)תצלנה אזניו‬, v. 3b indicates that the symbolic action is about “the destruction of a major cult centre”185 (cf. 1 Sam 3:11; 2 Kgs 21:12). Verses 6–9 then take a step further and elaborate on the event of destruction by introducing and juxtaposing the places of Topheth (v. 6) and Jerusalem (vv. 7–9). Although this juxtaposition at first sight may appear somewhat confusing, it paves the way for the climactic interpretations of the symbolic action in vv. 11–13 as will be seen below. Key in that respect are the points of connection established between Topheth and Jerusalem in vv. 6–9. First, both Jerusalem and Topheth are referred to as “this place” (‫המקום הזה‬, cf. v. 6a and v. 7a, respectively), which serves to highlight the common denominator between Jerusalem and Topheth – that is, that both are cult places. Jerusalem is the place of YHWH’s presence (v. 3b) whereas Topheth is the place of child sacrifice (v. 5). Second, in addition to being cult places, vv. 6–9 unite Jerusalem and Topheth through the theme of slaughter and death. Topheth shall be renamed “the Valley of Slaughter” (‫גיא ההרגה‬, v. 6b) whereas Jerusalem, and Judah, shall “fall by the sword before their enemies [...] those who seek their life” (v. 7aβ); indeed, there will be corpses (v. 7b) and even cannibalism (v. 9) in Jerusalem. As already noted, these points of connection between Jerusalem and Topheth in vv. 6–9 play a central role in the interpretation of the symbolic action in vv. 11–13. 3. Audience/addressee. Finally, a brief remark on the change of audience/addressee in vv. 1–13 should be added. In my view, the change might not be as problematic as often argued.186 In light of the whole of vv. 1–13, the various audiences/addressees might in fact be seen to clarify and highlight what is going on in the unit. First, above I noted the significance of Jerusalem as a cult place in vv. 1–13. It is clear, however, that Jerusalem is more than a cult place in vv. 1–13. Jerusalem is a city (vv. 8a, 11a, 12b) with inhabitants (vv. 3a, 12a) and houses (v. 13). In vv. 1–13, the distinction between Jerusalem as a city and a cult place is not clear-cut. On the contrary, in v. 12a, for instance, the expression “this place” (‫ )המקום הזה‬obviously carries the meaning “the city of Jerusalem”. Second, the city of Jerusalem is obviously not just one among other cities in Judah. Jerusalem is the centre of Judah. Thus, the fall of Jerusalem affects not only the people of Jerusalem but the people of the whole of Judah (cf. v. 7a, 11a). In the unit of vv. 1–13 all these three dimensions of Jerusalem are brought together. And it is from that perspective that the changes between different audiences and addressees in the unit are to be understood. The “elders of the ——————————— 185

Carroll, Jeremiah, 388. Traditionally, the change of audience/addressee has been among the key arguments for distinguishing sharply between the symbolic action report and the prose passage in vv. 1– 13. 186

172

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

priests” highlight the cultic significance of Jerusalem in accordance with the cultic connotations of the expression “this place”.187 The “elders of the people (‫ ”)העם‬represent the people as a whole and connect with the reference to Judah in v. 7a and “this people” (‫ )העם הזה‬in v. 11a. So also does the reference to “the kings of Judah” in v. 3a, even if they, together with “the inhabitants of Jerusalem”, first and foremost probably draw attention to the city of Jerusalem.188 This means that even if the focus in vv. 1–13 is primarily on Jerusalem, the judgment announced by YHWH in vv. 1–13 ultimately seems to concern the people of Judah as a whole. 6.3 The Profile of the ʻĀzab-Complaint After the preceding remarks regarding the unit of 19:1–13, we are finally ready to look more closely into the two interpretations of the symbolic action and thereby also into the character of the judgment justified by the ʻāzab-complaint in v. 4. Or, to put it more straightforwardly, my goal in the following is to demonstrate that this ʻāzab-complaint also serves to justify total judgment. The critical point in that respect is, as suggested above, the understanding of the second interpretation, which comes to expression in vv. 12–13 and its relationship both to the first interpretation in v. 11a and to the announcements of judgment in vv. 3b, 6–9. Let’s begin with some words regarding the first interpretation in v. 11a. 1. The first interpretation: Broken beyond repair. Certainly, the symbolic action speaks very much for itself. Jeremiah is commanded to break (‫שבר‬, v. 10a) “a potter’s earthenware flask” (‫בקבק יוצר חרש‬, vv. 1a, 10a) at “the entry of the Potsherd Gate” (‫פתח שער החרסות‬, v. 2a). As is often noted, “breaking of vessels” is a common ancient Near Eastern motif, denoting the curse and destruction of enemies.189 According to the first interpretation of the symbolic action, however, the central point is not the very act of breaking. As is already suggested by the type of vessel used, namely a “potter’s earthenware flask” (‫)בקבק‬,190 and the specific location of the event, Potsherd Gate (‫)שער החרסות‬, the focus is on the irreversible result of the breaking. This is also the point made explicitly clear in the first interpretation of the symbolic action. For, just as Jeremiah is commanded to break (‫שבר‬, v. 10a) “a potter’s earthenware flask”, so will YHWH break (‫“ )שבר‬this people and this city” ( ‫את העם הזה ואת‬ ——————————— 187

See Gilmour, “Reading Jeremiah 19:1–13,” 16. For more arguments on the unity of vv. 1–13, see Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 536–38; Friebel, Sign-Acts, 117–18, n. 101; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 836–38; Fischer, Jeremia 1– 25, 593–94. 189 See Friebel, Sign-Acts, 119–20, n. 106. See also Ps 2:9: “You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel” (NRSV). 190 As Friebel, Sign-Acts, 123, points out, this type of flask, “once broken, could not be repaired”. 188

6. YHWH’s ʻĀzab-Complaint in 19:4

173

‫ )העיר הזאת‬so that they “can never be mended” (‫לא יוכל להרפה‬, v. 11a). Thus, according to the first interpretation, it is clear that the judgment of YHWH is conclusive and irreversible and that this is the end of the people and city of Jerusalem.191 2. The second interpretation: Like Topheth. As noted above, the second interpretation of the symbolic action is presented as a parallel to the first one. The transition between them, however, is interrupted by a brief and somewhat puzzling statement: “And in Topheth they shall bury until there is no more place to bury” (v. 11b). For McKane, the statement simply serves to highlight the “disjointed appearance” of the Topheth theme in vv. 1–13 and thus bear evidence of the complex and multi-stage growth of the unit.192 In my view, however, the statement signals the unity of vv. 1–13 as it serves both as a unifying hinge between the two interpretations of the symbolic action and as key to their climactic position in vv. 1–13. The statement in v. 11b obviously serves as an introduction to vv. 12–13 by introducing the central vehicle of the second interpretation of the symbolic action in vv. 12–13 – that is, Topheth. The basic point in vv. 12–13, of course, is that Jerusalem shall become like Topheth. The question, however, is what that means. What is Topheth? McKane is certainly right that the Topheth theme in vv. 1–13 is somewhat mixed. Topheth is a cult place (“this place”, v. 6a), a battlefield (“the Valley of Slaughter”, v. 6b), and an overfilled burial ground (v. 11b). But instead of gazing oneself blind at the difference between these motifs of Topheth, we should recognize the points of connection and continuity between them and how they are brought climactically together in vv. 12–13. First, v. 11b plays on the evident continuity between the images of battlefield and burial ground. The latter follows as a result of the former. Thus, the climactic position of the burial ground motif seems not to be arbitrary. This emphasizes an interesting point of connection between the burial ground motif and the image of the broken and unrepairable flask in vv. 10–11a. Both images point to a state of an irreversible end result. While the image of Topheth as a battlefield and “Valley of Slaughter” may possibly leave the door open for hope, a hope of survivors, the burial ground motif slams the door and ruins every hope of survivors and new beginnings. So, when YHWH in v. 12 announces that he will make “this city (‫ )העיר הזאת‬like Topheth (‫ ”)כתפת‬the point is clearly that Jerusalem, too, shall become an overfilled burial ground, a final and irreversible result of the scenes described in vv. 7–9. However, Jerusalem shall not only become “like Topheth” (‫כתפת‬, v. 12b) as a location and city. Also as a cult place Jerusalem shall become like Topheth – ——————————— 191 Notably, as a symbolic action report announcing conclusive and irreversible judgment, 19:1–13 connects closely with 13:1–11 and 16:1–13 (as well as the one against Babylon in 51:59–64). 192 McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 443–59, esp. 446.

174

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

that is, “defiled (‫ )טמאים‬like the place (‫ )כמקום‬of Topheth” (v. 13a). Verse 13 thus connects back to the opening announcement of judgment in v. 3b, which, as noted above, implicitly announces “the destruction of a major cult centre”.193 In other words, what is implicit in v. 3b is made explicit in v. 13: the cult centre of Jerusalem shall be “defiled like the place of Topheth”. The defilement of Topheth follows first and foremost, of course, from the kind of cult practised there. But the defiled Topheth also seems to connect with the burial ground motif in v. 11b. In 2 Kings 23, Josiah defiles (‫ )טמא‬Topheth (v. 10) along with the high places (vv. 8, 13) precisely by filling “the places with human bones” and making them into burial grounds (v. 14, cf. v. 16). However, the essential and radical point in Jer 19:13 is not the defilement of Topheth nor how Jerusalem shall be defiled like Topheth, but simply that Jerusalem shall be defiled. In other words, the point is that Jerusalem will see a radical change in her ritual state. From being the place of YHWH’s presence, Jerusalem shall be transformed into a place of divine abandonment, just like “the place of Topheth”. That the expression “defiled like Topheth” implies divine abandonment is suggested by the fact that in the two other texts in the book of Jeremiah that employ the so-called “Topheth theme” (7:29–34; 32:26–35), the theme features together with explicit statements of divine abandonment: “For YHWH has rejected (‫ )מאס‬and abandoned (‫ )ויטש‬the generation of his wrath” (7:29); “This city has so aroused my anger and wrath [...] that I will remove it from my sight (‫( ”)להסירה מעל פני‬32:31). Furthermore, it corresponds to the sin of the people: “they have forsaken me (‫ )עזבני‬and made this place (‫ )המקום הזה‬foreign (‫וינכרו‬, v. 4a).” In response to the people’s forsaking of YHWH and “alienation” of Jerusalem, YHWH abandons Jerusalem and changes her ritual status. Finally, that this abandonment is connected both to the image of Jerusalem as a burial ground and to the image of a broken and unrepairable flask suggests that YHWH’s abandonment is conclusive and irreversible. So, just as in v. 11a, the divine judgment announced in vv. 12–13 is presented as a sort of total judgment – that is, YHWH is about to abandon Jerusalem, conclusively and irreversibly. 6.4 Conclusion To conclude, it is clear that in the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4, YHWH basically offers an indictment of disloyalty, an indictment that justifies an announcement of retributive judgment. In contrast to the others, however, the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4 seems not to highlight the foolishness of the people. Another characteristic feature relates to the focus on Jerusalem in 19:1–13. Even if the people of Judah as a whole are in view, the focus of attention is on Jerusalem, both as a city and as the place of YHWH’s presence. But most importantly, in 19:1–13 ——————————— 193

Carroll, Jeremiah, 388.

7. Summary

175

it is made clear, and more strongly emphasized than in any other announcements of judgment justified by a prosaic ʻāzab-complaint, that the YHWH– people relationship has come to a definitive end. Contrary to the idea that the prose material modifies the symbolic action report in 19:1–13, I have argued for the unity of the unit and shown how YHWH, in response to the people’s disloyal behaviour, announces that he is about to abandon Jerusalem and leave the city in ruins beyond repair. Thus, in the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4, YHWH speaks not only as a justified judge, but as a God who rejects Jerusalem and announces the end of his relationship with the people of Judah. Here, any hope for the future is certainly excluded.

7. Summary 7. Summary

In the introduction to the study, attention was drawn to scholars who highlight the diversity of the formulaic prose material of the book of Jeremiah. Considering my analysis of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH, these complaints and their literary contexts may better be taken into account as further evidence of the diversity. On the one hand, it is clear that all the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints feature in brief prose passages marked with formulaic language. Furthermore, all of them testify to the same basic, formulaic pattern as all of them are basically to be understood as indictments of disloyalty justifying announcements of the defeat and exile of Judah as acts of divine retribution. Yet, on the other hand, the rhetoric in the announcements of judgment and the description of the judgments justified by the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints stands out from much of what is found elsewhere in the formulaic prose material of the book. Indeed, in one way or another, all the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints justify acts and/or announcements of divine retribution indicating total judgment. As a response to the people’s forsaking of him and turning to other gods, YHWH announces, in various ways, that the YHWH–people relationship has now come to an end. YHWH turns himself into an enemy of the people, includes them in his inevitable and inescapable judgment against “all the inhabitants of the earth” (1:11–16), rejects them as belonging to him (5:10–19), and announces their complete annihilation (9:11–15) and that there will be no favour (16:1– 13) and no restoration (19:1–13) for them. The observation of these features suggests tension and contrast with the understanding that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints reflect a typical Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah. Of course, the pertinence of this claim depends on what is meant by the expression “a typical Deuteronomistic explanation [...]” Given the understanding clarified in the introduction,194 how——————————— 194

See I.2.1 and 3.1.3.

176

Chapter III: YHWH’S Prosaic ʻĀzab-Complaints

ever, the claim seems pertinent enough. In contrast to the idea that the Deuteronomistic explanation of the defeat and exile of Judah anticipates hope and is in service of the survivors of the disaster – most often identified as the exiles or Babylonian Golah community, – I have shown how the rhetoric of the announcements of judgment justified by the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints suggests that the YHWH–people relationship has come to a definitive end. Rather than hope, the literary contexts of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints anticipate total judgment. Thus, in the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, YHWH speaks not only as a justified judge, but as a God who announces the end of his relationship with the people of Judah. Admittedly, not all our texts paint this picture equally clearly (cf. especially 1:11–16). Most noteworthy, however, are the words of judgment related to the ʻāzab-complaints in 5:19, 9:12, and 16:11. The descriptions of the exile in 5:19b, 9:14–15, and 16:13 are quite extraordinary and stand out from what is found elsewhere in the formulaic prose of the book of Jeremiah. Considering these words of judgment to represent nothing but a more or less superfluous element in the form of a question–answer catechesis appears to be an oversimplification and ignores the distinctiveness of these words of judgment. Finally, while the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints constitute a group of ʻāzab-complaints radically different from the poetic ones, there is a point of connection and similarity between the two types of ʻāzab-complaints. Just like the poetic ʻāzab-complaints, it is characteristic of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints that in their literary contexts they contribute to highlighting the foolishness of the people forsaking YHWH. Admittedly, the picture is somewhat more complex with respect to the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, even if the ʻāzab-complaints in 1:16 and 16:11 first and foremost also seem to highlight the absurdity of the people’s behaviour. First, it seems clear that the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints, to a greater extent than the poetic ʻāzab-complaints, are primarily to be understood as indictments of disloyalty. Accordingly, with the exception of the ʻāzab-complaints in 16:11, it is not so much the foolishness of the very act of forsaking YHWH that is highlighted in the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints. Rather, the foolishness of the people manifests itself in the people’s deluded understanding of YHWH (cf. 5:10–19, 16:1–13) and the tragic consequence of their behaviour (cf. 9:11–15). Nonetheless, with the exception of the ʻāzab-complaint in 19:4, it seems that all the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH in the book of Jeremiah, formulaic and poetic alike, contribute in one way or another to portraying the people forsaking YHWH as a terribly foolish people. It is on the basis of these observations of both radical difference and points of similarity between the prosaic and the poetic ʻāzab-complaints that I would like to offer some concluding remarks with respect to the juxtaposition of portraits of YHWH as a retributive and suffering God in the book of Jeremiah.

Chapter IV

Outlook: The Retributive and Suffering God of The Book of Jeremiah Outlook Outlook

I began this study by drawing attention to the fact that portraits of YHWH as a retributive and suffering God appear side by side in the book of Jeremiah. As also noted, modern and contemporary scholarship tends to emphasize the contrast and tension between these portraits of YHWH. Traditionally this has been done primarily by implication, by ascribing different portraits of YHWH to different authors and/or redactions since they feature in different types of literature in the book of Jeremiah. From the 1980s onwards, however, the tension has been thematized and emphasized more explicitly, as a result both of a renewed interest in the present form of the text and, at the same time, of an increasing theological interest in the suffering God in biblical scholarship. In addition to the studies of Brueggemann, a telling example of the latter is O’Connor’s discussion of the theological potential of portraits of YHWH as a suffering God in the book of Jeremiah. According to O’Connor, “[l]anguage of divine tears offsets language of the divine punisher and wrathful judge. [...] [It] provides glimpses of another kind of deity [...] who vacates sovereignty and hierarchical transcendence, at least temporarily, and relates in vulnerability to the other”.1 Notably, O’Connor’s point here is not to reject or silence the voice of “the divine punisher”. Rather, by employing trauma theory as a hermeneutical lens, O’Connor embraces the conflicting portraits of YHWH, as they, when juxtaposed, are seen to offer a complex, multifaceted, and robust theological response to devastating catastrophes like the fall and exile of Jerusalem.2 That said, it is nevertheless clear that for O’Connor, the retributive and the suffering YHWH of the book of Jeremiah are so contrastingly different that they almost represent different kinds of deities. However, as mentioned in the introduction, Fretheim represents an exception from the general tendency. According to Fretheim, “[t]ears and anger are ——————————— 1

O’Connor, “Tears of God,” 185. See esp. Kathleen M. O’Connor, “Surviving Disaster in the Book of Jeremiah,” WW 22 (2002): 369–77; O’Connor, Pain and Promise; O’Connor, “Terror All Around: Confusion and Meaning-Making,” in Jeremiah (Dis)Placed: New Direction in Writing/Reading Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond and Louis Stulman, LHBOTS 529 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 67–79. 2

178

Chapter IV: Outlook

held together in God”.3 Fretheim reaches this conclusion by arguing that the suffering YHWH sheds new light on and modifies the retributive YHWH. Fretheim’s approach is to argue that the judgment of YHWH is characterized by an intrinsic rather than forensic relationship between sin and judgment.4 This means that even though “God mediates judgment”, God always does so “at great cost to the divine life”.5 Thus, the juxtaposition of motifs of divine “tears and anger” in the book of Jeremiah makes it clear that “God’s judgment is not matched by an inner harshness”.6 There is no divine judgment without divine suffering. This, according to Fretheim, is the message of the book of Jeremiah to the “shamed and hurting exiles”.7 However, in light of my analysis of the ʻāzab-complaints of YHWH I would like to conclude this study by pointing out trajectories for yet another understanding of the relationship between the portraits of YHWH as a retributive and suffering God in the book of Jeremiah, an understanding that is both very different and, at the same time, may be seen to negotiate between the positions of O’Connor and Fretheim. My point of departure is, on the one hand, the radical difference between the portraits of YHWH in the prosaic and the poetic ʻāzab-complaints. While YHWH of the poetic ʻāzab-complaints desires a continuing relationship with, and well-being for, his people, YHWH of the prosaic ʻāzab-complaints rejects his people and seeks their end. In other words, the contrast is as sharp as it could possibly be. On the other hand, however, we’d better not simply dissolve the contrast and tension by distinguishing between two different kinds of deities. In contrast to current tendencies to play them off against each other, it should be noted how the retributive and the suffering YHWH of the ʻāzab-complaints unite in the claim about the foolishness of the people. Moreover, in 5:7, the retributive and the suffering YHWH are evidently held together – the retributive YHWH laments. Therefore, instead of separating and playing them off against each other, it seems worthwhile to consider how the radically different portraits of YHWH in the prosaic and poetic ‘āzab-complaints may in fact be seen to unite and function together in the present form of the book. Let me contribute to this endeavour by offering a brief look at my conclusions regarding the āzab-complaints from the perspective of the book as a whole. For if, in line with my working assumption regarding the composition of the book of Jeremiah, we assume that the ‘āzab-complaints and the related portraits of YHWH contribute to a post-exilic interpretation of the disaster experienced by the people of Judah and Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE,8 I suggest that they contribute to an interpretation that perceives the disaster as ——————————— 3

Fretheim, “Wrath of God,” 7. See also Stulman, Jeremiah, 22–23. Fretheim, Jeremiah, 34. 5 Fretheim, “Wrath of God,” 7. 6 Fretheim, “Wrath of God,” 8. 7 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 5. 8 See I.3.1.1.1. 4

1. An Occasion to Recognize the Otherness of YHWH

179

an occasion both for divine redemption and to recognize the otherness of YHWH.

1. An Occasion to Recognize the Otherness of YHWH 1. An Occasion to Recognize the Otherness of YHWH

As I have shown, a central claim of YHWH in nearly all the ‘āzab-complaints is that the people forsaking him are terribly foolish. Certainly, the observation of irony and motifs of foolishness in the book of Jeremiah is not new. As has long been noted, conflicts between the people’s beliefs and the realities manifest themselves frequently in the book.9 The conflicts have been interpreted and unfolded in various ways by scholars. Overholt, Brueggemann, and Stulman, for instance, have respectively drawn attention to how the book addresses problems of “falsehood”,10 failed “royal-temple ideology of Jerusalem”,11 and failed “symbolic universe”.12 However, given the book as a whole, it is clear that the point is not only to highlight misconceptions but to guide the readers to new and better understandings of YHWH and of the YHWH–people relationship. And it is within this framework, I suggest, that the emphasis put on the foolishness of the people in the ‘āzab-complaints ultimately serves its purpose. And if so, interesting light is shed on the portraits of YHWH in the ‘āzab-complaints. For even if the prosaic and poetic ‘āzab-complaints offer radically different portraits of YHWH, the retributive and the suffering YHWH seem to unite, so to speak, in highlighting the otherness of YHWH. Briefly put: 1. The confrontation with the people’s deluded understanding of YHWH and the YHWH–people relationship makes it clear that YHWH is a God beyond the people’s control and manipulation (cf. 5:1–9; 5:10–19; 16:1–13). 2. By emphasizing the foolishness of turning from YHWH to others, it is highlighted that YHWH is a God fundamentally different from other gods. Compared with YHWH, other gods are nothing but helpless no-gods (cf. 1:11– 16; 2:4–13; 5:1–9). 3. By emphasizing the foolishness of turning away from YHWH as the people’s source of life, it is emphasized that YHWH is a God who simply cannot be forsaken by the people as their life and well-being completely depend upon YHWH (cf. 2:4–13; 2:14–19; 16:1–13).

——————————— 9

See Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 115. Thomas W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood: A Study in the Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, SBT 16 (London: SCM, 1970). 11 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 1–25, esp. 5–7. 12 Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 23–55. 10

Chapter IV: Outlook

180

Admittedly, to use the term “otherness” here is somewhat risky as it might mislead some of my readers into thinking of the transcendent God as, for instance, “the wholly other” of dialectical theology. However, my point is not that the retributive and suffering God of the book of Jeremiah is presented as a God beyond human grasp and perception. My point is simply that the retributive and suffering YHWH is presented to the readers of the book of Jeremiah as different from how the pre-exilic people of Judah and Jerusalem allegedly perceived YHWH as YHWH is fundamentally different from other gods and simply cannot be either manipulated and controlled or forsaken without devastating consequences. The term “otherness” seems capable of embracing all these aspects, and thus highlights the unity that portrays YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God better than alternative terms like “uniqueness”, “incomparability”, “sovereignty”, and so forth. Having said that, I readily admit that my choice of the term “otherness” also has another and more polemical motivation as it intends a subtle highlighting of the contrast between my and Fretheim’s and Brueggemann’s readings of the poetic ‘āzab-complaints. Central to my critique of Fretheim and Brueggemann is that by defining the YHWH–people relationship as a “genuine relationship” and YHWH as “a fully articulated personal agent”, they end up reading the poetic ‘āzab-complaints very much like the human ‘āzab-complaints in the Psalms – that is, as laments of the victimized and forsaken one. As I have argued, however, the poetic ‘āzab-complaints of YHWH are different from the human ‘āzab-complaints. For while the speaker of the human ‘āzab-complaints is characterized as being “poured out like water” (Ps 22:15), YHWH is “the source of living waters” (Jer 2:13). This otherness of YHWH is ignored by Fretheim and Brueggemann. To emphasize this point, I use the term “otherness”.

2. An Occasion for Divine Redemption 2. An Occasion for Divine Redemption

My second proposal concerning the unity and connection of the portraits of YHWH as a retributive and a suffering God in the ‘āzab-complaints relates to the so-called “two-stage theology”13 of the book – the idea that the book in its present form evinces a judgment–promise pattern.14 The proposal firstly follows from the observation that in 5:7, the retributive YHWH and the suffering ——————————— 13

Brueggemann, Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, 125. See, for example, Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 342–54; Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 23–98; Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, Siphrut 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 223–52. 14

2. An Occasion for Divine Redemption

181

YHWH are held together. The retributive YHWH laments and desires to forgive. But it also follows from a reading of the book of Jeremiah as a whole and the obvious fact that despite announcements of total judgment, the defeat and exile of Jerusalem and Judah did not mean the end of the people and of the YHWH–people relationship. Evidently, in the book of Jeremiah the announcements of total judgment are contradicted. One thing is that several texts testify to so-called “differentiated judgment”15 rather than total judgment; another is all the oracles of salvation – especially in the so-called “Book of Comfort”. The latter was briefly touched upon in the introduction of the study in connection with the discussion of the problem of delimiting the immediate literary contexts of the ‘āzab-complaints.16 The problem was particularly actualized by 1:10 and 16:14–15, which, while containing promises of salvation, are closely located next to passages where, as I argue, YHWH announces total judgment (i.e. 1:11–16; 16:1–13). While I excluded them as parts of the literary contexts of the ‘āzab-complaints in 1:16 and 16:11, here I would like to use them as a point of departure for making the point that the book of Jeremiah interprets the fall and exile of Judah as an occasion for divine redemption. For while 1:10 testifies programmatically to the “two-stage theology” of the book of Jeremiah, 16:14–15 envision a “new exodus” – an unconditional act of divine redemption and a new beginning for the people. Against this background, I would like to make two suggestions. First, within the framework of the “two-stage theology” of the book of Jeremiah I suggest that YHWH’s announcement of the end of his relationship with the people contributes – paradoxically enough – to an interpretation of the defeat and exile of Judah that sees the disaster as an occasion for divine redemption and a new beginning. Evidently, even if the oracles of salvation in the book of Jeremiah show great variety of character, divine redemption seems to be a central theme in the book.17 According to McConville, “redemption theology [...] goes beyond the call to repentance [...] to assert that hope for the future reposes in the readiness of YHWH himself to take a new initiative in forging a satisfactory covenantal relationship with his people”.18 Jeremiah Untermann, in his turn, defines redemption as a “spiritual act of God’s mercy in reaccepting Israel, which is accompanied by [...] physical acts of God”.19 From these definitions, it follows that the redemption theology of the book of Jeremiah, to a ——————————— 15

See R. J. R. Plant, Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah, LHBOTS 483 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008). 16 See I.4.1. 17 See Raitt, A Theology of the Exile; Jeremiah Untermann, From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah’s Thought in Transition, JSOTSup 54 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987); McConville, Judgment and Promise; Boda, A Severe Mercy, 223–52. 18 McConville, Judgment and Promise, 20. 19 Untermann, From Repentance to Redemption, 11.

182

Chapter IV: Outlook

greater or lesser extent, assumes discontinuity and a break in the YHWH–people relationship.20 In light of this, I suggest – from the perspective of the book as a whole – that oracles of divine redemption, like 16:14–15, should not be seen to mitigate and undermine oracles of total judgment but to function together with the oracles of total judgment as a paradoxical unity in service of redemption theology. After first having rejected his people, YHWH will eventually reaccept the people and establish “a new covenant” (Jer 31:31–34). My second suggestion is that the YHWH of redemption is closely associated with the suffering YHWH of the poetic ‘āzab-complaints, as both divine redemption and divine suffering are rooted in gratuitous love and a desire for giving; that is, just as the redemption theology obviously portrays YHWH as a God who desires life and well-being for the people, so, I have argued, do the poetic ‘āzab-complaints of YHWH. Admittedly, Fretheim, Brueggemann, et al. also argue for a close relationship between the redemptive and suffering YHWH. As Stulman puts it: In some respects, gratuitous love – that is, love that is an unguarded, open-handed gift and thus wholly independent of merit or virtue – begins where suffering love ends.21

However, it is difficult to see the connection between Stulman’s portrayal of YHWH as a victimized God – “hurt and humiliated”22 – in the poetic ‘āzabcomplaints and his portrayal of YHWH as a God of gratuitous love. Put differently, the hope evoked by portrayals of YHWH as the forsaken one seems first and foremost to be that “the spurned lover is taken back again”,23 to borrow the words of Mark S. Smith. In contrast, if, as I have argued, the suffering YHWH is the source of life and desires life and well-being for his people, the hope is that YHWH himself realizes his own desire and takes a new initiative towards his people – a hope that receives a yes and amen in the announcements of divine redemption. In short, then, my suggestion is that the retributive YHWH of the prosaic ‘āzab-complaints and the suffering YHWH of the poetic ‘āzab-complaints are held together and contribute significantly, each in its own way, to the redemption theology of the book of Jeremiah.

——————————— 20

See Raitt, A Theology of the Exile, 134–35. Stulman, Jeremiah, 25. 22 Stulman, Jeremiah, 49. 23 Smith, Laments of Jeremiah, 64. 21

Bibliography Abma, R. Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery (Isaiah 50:1–3 and 54:1–10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3). SSN 40. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Albertz, Rainer. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. Translated by David Green. SBLStBL 3. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003. Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Alvis, Jason W. Marion and Derrida on the Gift and Desire: Debating the Generosity of Things. CTP 85. Cham: Springer, 2016. Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Amos. AB 24A. New York: Doubleday, 1989. Arnold, Bill T. “The Love–Fear Antinomy in Deuteronomy 5–11*.” VT 61 (2011): 551–69. Augustine of Hippo. St. Augustine’s Confessions, vol. 1. Edited by T. E. Page and W. H. D. Rouse. Translated by William Watts. LCL 26. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912. Bak, Dong Hyun. Klagender Gott – klagende Menschen: Studien zur Klage im Jeremiabuch. BZAW 193. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990. Balentine, Samuel E. The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1996. –. “‘The Work of Human Hands’ (Ps 115:4): Idolatry in the Old Testament.” ExAud 15 (1999): 63–72. Bauer, Angela. Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading. StBibLit 5. New York: Lang, 1999. Baumann, Gerlinde. Love and Violence: Marriage as Metaphor for the Relationship Between YHWH and Israel in the Prophetic Books. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Beals, Corey. Levinas and the Wisdom of Love: The Question of Invisibility. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. Behrens, Achim. Prophetische Visionsschilderungen im Alten Testament: Sprachliche Eigenarten, Funktion und Geschichte einer Gattung. AOAT 292. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002. Bergquist, J. L. “Prophetic Legitimation in Jeremiah.” VT 39 (1989): 129–39. Biddle, Mark E. A Redaction History of Jeremiah 2:1–4:2. ATANT 77. Zürich: TVZ, 1990. –. Polyphony and Symphony in Prophetic Literature Rereading Jeremiah 7–20. SOTI 2. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996. Blum, Erhard. “Formgeschichte – A Misleading Category? Some Critical Remarks.” Pages 32– 45 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Boda, Mark J. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Siphrut 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Boshoff, Willem. “‘Who is Wise?’ Interpretations of the Postscript of the Book Hosea (14:10).” OTE 18 (2005): 172–88.

184

Bibliography

Braulik, Georg. “Wisdom, Divine Presence and Law: Reflections on the Kerygma of Deut 4:5– 8.” Pages 1–25 in The Theology of Deuteronomy. Translated by Ulrika Lindblad. BibCS 2. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1994. Bright, John. “The Date of the Prose Sermons of Jeremiah.” JBL 70 (1951): 15–35. –. Jeremiah. AB 21. New York: Doubleday, 1965. Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown–Driver– Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Brownlee, William H. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC 28. Waco, TX: Word, 1986. Brueggemann, Walter. “Jeremiah’s Use of Rhetorical Questions.” JBL 92 (1973): 358–74. –. To Pluck Up, To Tear Down: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 1–25. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. –. To Build, To Plant: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 26–52. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. –. “A Shape of Old Testament Theology, I: Structure Legitimation.” Pages 1–21 in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. –. “A Shape of Old Testament Theology, II: Embrace Pain.” Pages 22–44 in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. –. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. –. A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah. OTT. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. –. An Unsettling God: The Heart of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Callaway, Mary Chilton. “The Lamenting Prophet and the Modern Self: On the Origins of Contemporary Readings of Jeremiah.” Pages 48–62 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honour of Herbert B. Huffmon. Edited by John Kaltner and Louis Stulman. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. –. “Peering Inside Jeremiah: How Early Modern English Culture Still Influences Our Reading of the Prophet.” Pages 279–89 in Jeremiah (Dis)Placed: New Directions in Writing/Reading Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond and Louis Stulman. LHBOTS 529. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Campbell, Antony F. “Form Criticism’s Future.” Pages 15–31 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Carroll, Robert P. From Chaos to Covenant: Uses of Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. London: SCM, 1981. –. “Theodicy and the Community: The Text and Subtext of Jeremiah 5:1–6.” Pages 19–38 in Prophets, Worship and Theodicy: Studies in Prophetism, Biblical Theology and Structural and Rhetorical Analysis and on the Place of Music in Worship. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. OtSt 23. Leiden: Brill, 1984. –. Jeremiah. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. –. “Century’s End: Jeremiah Studies at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.” Pages 217–31 in Recent Research on the Major Prophets. Edited by Alan J. Hauser. RRBS 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Clements, Ronald E. Jeremiah. IBC. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988. Cornill, Carl Heinrich. Das Buch Jeremia. Leipzig: Tauchniz, 1905. Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard. Jeremiah 1–25. WBC 26. Waco, TX: Word, 1991.

Bibliography

185

Creel, Richard E. “Immutability and Impassibility.” Pages 322–28 in A Companion to Philosophy of Religion. 2nd ed. Edited by Charles Taliaferro, Paul Draper and Philip L. Quinn. BCP 9. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Critchley, Simon. “Introduction.” Pages 1–32 in The Cambridge Companion to Levinas. Edited by Simon Critchley and Robert Bernasconi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Crüsemann, Frank. The Torah: Theology and Social History of the Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Daniels, Dwight R. “Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre?” ZAW 99 (1987): 339–60. Dearman, J. Andrew. Jeremiah/Lamentations. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. DeRoche, Michael. “Jeremiah 2:2–3 and Israel’s Love for God During the Wilderness Wanderings.” CBQ 45 (1983): 364–76. –. “Yahweh’s Rîb Against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-Called ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ in the Preexilic Prophets.” JBL 102 (1983): 563–74. Diamond, A. R. Pete. The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama. JSOTSup 45. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. –. “Interlocutions: The Poetics of Voice in the Figuration of YHWH and His Oracular Agent, Jeremiah.” Int 62 (2008): 48–65. –. “The Jeremiah Guild in the Twenty-First Century: Variety Reigns of Supreme.” Pages 232– 248 in Recent Research on the Major Prophets. Edited by Alan J. Hauser. RRBS 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008. Diamond, A. R. Pete, and Kathleen M. O’Connor. “Unfaithful Passions: Coding Women Coding Men in Jeremiah 2–3 (4:2).” BibInt 4 (1996): 288–310. Diamond, A. R. Pete, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, eds. Troubling Jeremiah. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Diamond, A. R. Pete, and Louis Stulman, eds. Jeremiah (Dis)Placed: New Directions in Writing/Reading Jeremiah. LHBOTS 529. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Dille, Sarah J. Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah. JSOTSup 398. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible. BibOr 44. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jeremia. KHC 11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901. Eising, H. “‫זכר‬.” TDOT 4:64–82. Fiddes, Paul S. The Creative Suffering of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Fischer, Georg. Jeremia 1–25. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005. –. Jeremia: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007. –. “A New Understanding of the Book of Jeremiah: A Response to Robert R. Wilson.” Pages 22– 43 in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation. Edited by Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid. JSJSup173. Leiden: Brill, 2016. –. “Mysteries of the Book of Jeremiah: Its Text and Formulaic Language. A Response to Hermann-Josef Stipp.” Pages 166–85 in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation. Edited by Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid. JSJSup 173. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Fretheim, Terence E. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. OBT. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. –. “The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament God-Talk.” HBT 10 (1988): 47– 70. –. “Divine Dependence Upon the Human: An Old Testament Perspective.” ExAud 13 (1997): 1– 13.

186

Bibliography

–. Jeremiah. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. –. “The Character of God in Jeremiah.” Pages 211–29 in Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by William P. Brown. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. –. “Theological Reflections on the Wrath of God in the Old Testament.” HBT 24 (2002): 1–26. –. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Freud, Sigmund. Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Translated by C. J. M. Hubback. London: The International Psycho-Analytical Press, 1922. Friebel, Kelvin G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication. JSOTSup 283. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Gazelles, Henri. “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy.” Pages 89–111 in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Edited by Leo G. Perdue and B. W. Kovacs. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. “‫עזב‬.” TDOT 10:584–92. Gilmour, Rachelle. “Reading Jeremiah 19:1–13: Integrating Diachronic and Synchronic Methodologies.” JhebS 17.5 (2017): 1–27. Goetz, Ronald. “The Suffering God: The Rise of a New Orthodoxy.” ChrCent 103 (1986): 385– 389. Graf, Karl Heinrich. Der Prophet Jeremia. Leipzig: Weigel, 1862. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. AB 22. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Gunkel, Hermann, and Joachim Begrich. Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel. Translated by James D. Nogalski. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998. Habel, N. “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives.” ZAW 77 (1965): 297–323. Hays, Christopher B. Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah. FAT 79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Held, Shai. Abraham Joshua Heschel: The Call of Transcendence. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013. Henderson, Joseph M. “Who Weeps in Jeremiah VII 23 (IX 1)? Identifying Dramatic Speakers in the Poetry of Jeremiah.” VT 52 (2002): 191–206. Herrmann, Siegfried. “Overcoming the Israelite Crisis: Remarks on the Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 299–311 in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Edited by Leo G. Perdue and Brian W. Kovacs. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Die Prophetie. AsPMCO 22. Krakow: Librairie de l’Académie, 1936. –. Man Is Not Alone: A Philosophy of Religion. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1951. –. The Prophets. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Hillers, Delbert R. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament. BibOr 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. Hitzig, Ferdinand. Der Prophet Jeremia. Leipzig: Weidmannsche, 1841. Holladay, William L. “Prototype and Copies: A New Approach to the Poetry-Prose Problem in the Book of Jeremiah.” JBL 79 (1960): 351–67. –. “Fresh Look at ‘Source B’ and ‘Source C’ in Jeremiah.” VT 25 (1975): 394–412. –. The Architecture of Jeremiah 1–20. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1976. –. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Holt, Else K. “The Fountain of Living Water and the Deceitful Brook: The Pool of Water Metaphors in the Book of Jeremiah (MT).” Pages 99–117 in Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by P. van Hecke. BETL 187. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005.

Bibliography

187

–. “Word of Jeremiah – Word of God: Structures of Authority in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 172–89 in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen. Edited by John Goldingay. LHBOTS 459. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Holter, Knut. Second Isaiah’s Idol-Fabrication Passages. BBET 28. New York: Lang, 1995. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Eric Zenger. Psalms 2. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Hyatt, Philip J. “The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah.” Pages 71–97 in VSH 1. Edited by Beatty C. Richmond, J. Philip Hyatt, and Monroe K. Spears. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1951. –. “The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah.” Pages 247–67 in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Edited Leo G. Perdue and B. W. Kovacs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984. –. “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy.” Pages 113–27 in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Edited by Leo G. Perdue and B. W. Kovacs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984. Isherwood, Lisa. “Impoverished Desire.” Pages 1–12 in The Poverty of Radical Orthodoxy. Edited by Lisa Isherwood and Mark Zlomislić. PES 3. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012. Jahnow, Hedwig. Das Hebräische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung. BZAW 36. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1923. Janssen, Enno. Juda in der Exilszeit: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Judentums. FRLANT 69. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956. Janzen, Gerald J. “Metaphor and Reality in Hos 11.” Semeia 24 (1982): 7–44. Jepsen, Alfred. “‫אמן‬,” TDOT 1:292–323. Jones, Douglas Rawlinson. Jeremiah. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Keefe, Alice A. Woman’s Body and the Social Body in Hosea 1–2. LHBOTS 338. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Kessler, Martin, ed. Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2004. Kiss, Jenö. Die Klage Gottes und des Propheten: Ihre Rolle in der Komposition und Redaktion von Jer 11–12, 14–15 und 18. WMANT 99. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. Klein, Rebekka A. “The Phenomenology of Lament and the Presence of God in Time.” Pages 14– 24 in Evoking Lament: A Theological Discussion. Edited by Eva Harasta and Brian Brock. New York: Continuum Press, 2009. Knierim, Rolf. “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered.” Int 27 (1973): 435–68. Koch, Klaus. “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?” ZTK 52 (1955): 1–42. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 2. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1994–99. Krüger, Thomas. “Law and Wisdom According to Deut 4:5–8.” Pages 35–54 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of Torah in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd Schipper and Andrew D. Teeter. JSJSup, 163. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament. POS 5. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 65 (2003): 350– 69. Levenson, Jon D. “Religious Affirmation and Historical Criticism in Heschel’s Biblical Interpretation.” AJSR 25 (2000–2001): 25–44. –. The Love of God: Divine Gift, Human Gratitude, and Mutual Faithfulness in Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.

188

Bibliography

Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press, 1969. Lewin, Ellen Davis. “Arguing for Authority: A Rhetorical Study of Jeremiah 1:4–19 and 20:7– 18.” JSOT 10 (1985): 105–19. Liwak, Rüdiger. “Vierzig Jahre Forschung zum Jeremiabuch: Grundlagen.” TRu 76 (2011): 131– 79. –. “Vierzig Jahre Forschung zum Jeremiabuch: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte.” TRu 76, (2011): 265–95. Lohfink, Norbert. “Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?” Pages 313–82 in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung”. Edited by Walter Groß and Dieter Böhler. BBB 98. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Long, Burke O. “Two Question and Answer Schemata in the Prophets.” JBL 90 (1971): 129–39. –. “Prophetic Call Traditions and Reports of Visions.” ZAW 84 (1972): 494–500. –. “Reports of Visions Among the Prophets.” JBL 95 (1976): 354–65. Longman III, Tremper. Jeremiah, Lamentations. NIBCOT 14. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. –. Jeremiah 1–20. AB 21a. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Maier, Christl M. Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora: Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches. FRLANT 196. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. –. Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. –. “Reading Back and Forth: Gender Trouble in Jeremiah 2–3.” Pages 137–50 in Interested Readers: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David J. A. Clines. Edited by James K. Aitken, Jeremy Clines, M. S., and Christl M. Maier. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013. –. “The Nature of Deutero-Jeremianic Texts.” Pages 10 –23 in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation. Edited by Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid. JSJSup 173. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Maier, Christl M., and Carolyn J. Sharp, eds. Prophecy and Power: Jeremiah in Feminist and Postcolonial Perspective. LHBOTS 577. New York: T&T Clark, 2013. Marböck, J. “‫נבל‬.” TDOT 9:157–71. McConville, J. Gordon. Judgment and Promise: An Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993. McKane, William. Jeremiah 1–25. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. McKenzie, Steven L. “The Still Elusive Deuteronomists.” Pages 401–08 in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010. Edited by Martti Nissinen. VTSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Melugin, Roy F. “Recent Form Criticism Revisited in an Age of Reader Response.” Pages 46–64 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Merwe, Christo H. J. van der, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. BibLa 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Miller, Patrick D. Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis. SBLMMS 27. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Mills, Mary E. Jeremiah: Prophecy in a Time of Crisis. PGOT 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015. Moran, William L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background for the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25, no 1 (1963): 77–87. Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon. Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Bibliography

189

Mowinckel, Sigmund. Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia. Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad, 1914. Mozley, J. K. The Impassibility of God: A Survey of Christian Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926. Muilenburg, James. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18. Neef, Heinz-Dieter. “Gottes Treue und Israels Untreue: Aufbau und Einheit von Jeremia 2:2–13.” ZAW 99 (1987): 37–58. Nicholson, Ernest W. The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 1–25. CBC 22a. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. –. Preaching to the Exiles: A Study in the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. Nielsen, Kirsten. Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge: An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rîb-Pattern). JSOTSup 9. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics, 1990. Noth, Martin. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1943. Nygren, Anders. Agape and Eros. Translated by Philip S. Watson. London: SPCK, 1953. O’Connor, Kathleen M. “Jeremiah.” Pages 169–77 in The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe. London: SPCK, 1992. –. “The Tears of God and Divine Character in Jeremiah 2–9.” Pages 172–85 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. –. “Surviving Disaster in the Book of Jeremiah.” WW 22 (2002): 369–77. –. Jeremiah: Pain and Promise. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. –. “Terror All Around: Confusion and Meaning-Making.” Pages 67–79 in Jeremiah (Dis)Placed: New Direction in Writing/Reading Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond and Louis Stulman. LHBOTS 529. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Odendaal, Dirk. “Yahweh in Jeremiah 1–25: The Canon and Reading Scripture as Text.” Pages 82–130 in Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies. Edited by J. Harold Ellens and John T. Greene. PTMS 111. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Oeming, Manfred. Contemporary Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Translated by Joachim F. Vette. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Olyan, Saul M. “Some Neglected Aspects of Israelite Interment Ideology.” JBL 124 (2005): 601– 16. Oort, Johannes van. “Sin and Concupiscence.” Pages 92–106 in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine’s ‘Confessions’. Edited by Tarmo Toom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Overholt, Thomas W. The Threat of Falsehood: A Study in the Theology of the Book of Jeremiah. SBT 16. London: SCM, 1970. Paul, Shalom M. Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Perdue, Leo G. “Jeremiah in Modern Research: Approaches and Issues.” Pages 1–32 in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Edited by Leo G. Perdue and Brian W. Kovacs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984. –. The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. –. Reconstructing Old Testament Theology: After the Collapse of History. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Petersen, David L. “Ways of Thinking About Israel’s Prophets.” Pages 1–21 in Prophecy in Israel. Edited by David L. Petersen. IRT 10. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

190

Bibliography

Pilarski, Ahida Calderón. “A Study of the References to ‫ בת־עמי‬in Jeremiah 8:18–9:2(3): A Gendered Lamentation.” Pages 21–35 in Why? How Long? Studies on Voice(s) of Lamentation Rooted in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Edited by Leann Snow Flesher, Carol J. Dempsey, and Mark J. Boda. LHBOTS 552. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014. Plant, R.J.R. Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah. LHBOTS 483. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Plato. Lysis. Symposium. Gorgias: English Text. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. LCL 166. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches. FRLANT 118. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Polk, Timothy. The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self. JSOTSup 32. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Pool, Jeff B. God’s Wounds: Hermeneutics for the Christian Symbol of Divine Suffering. Vol 1. PTMS 100. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009. Pseudo-Dionysius. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works. Edited by John Farina. Translated by Colm Luibheid and Paul Rorem. CWS. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1987. Rad, Gerhard von. The Message of the Prophets. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. London: SCM, 1965. –. “The Confessions of Jeremiah.” Pages 339–48 in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Edited by Leo G. Perdue and B. W. Kovacs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1984. Raitt, Thomas M. A Theology of the Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Reimer, David J. “The ‘Foe’ and the ‘North’ in Jeremiah.” ZAW 101 (1989): 223–32. Rist, John M. “A Note on Eros and Agape in Pseudo-Dionysius.” VC 20 (1966): 235–43. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Motif of the Weeping God in Jeremiah and Its Background in the Lament Tradition of the Ancient Near East.” OTE 5 (1992): 361–74. Ross, James F. “The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger.” Pages 98–107 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1962. Rothschild, Fritz A. “Introduction.” Pages 7–32 in Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism. From the Writings of Abraham Joshua Heschel. Edited by Fritz A. Rothschild. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997. Römer, Thomas. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. OBO 99. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. –. “How Did Jeremiah Become a Convert to the Deuteronomistic Ideology?” Pages 189–99 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. –. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. –. “The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah as a Supplement to the So-Called Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 168–83 in The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. London: Equinox, 2009. –. “The ‘Deuteronomistic’ Character of the Book of Jeremiah: A Response to Christl M. Maier.” Pages 124–31 in Jeremiah’s Scripture: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation. Edited by Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid. JSJSup 173. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Jeremia. HAT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958. Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob. The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry. HSM 17. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978.

Bibliography

191

Scalise, Pamela J. “The Way of Weeping: Reading the Path of Grief in Jeremiah.” WW 22 (2002): 415–22. Schearing, Linda S., and Steven L. McKenzie, eds. Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Schlimm, Matthew R. “Different Perspectives on Divine Pathos: An Examination of Hermeneutics in Biblical Theology.” CBQ 67 (2007): 673–94. Schmid, Konrad. The Old Testament: A Literary History. Translated by Lind M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Schmidt, Werner H. Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 1–20. ATD 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Seitz, Christopher R. Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah. BZAW 176. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989. Sharp, Carolyn J. Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in Deutero-Jeremianic Prose. OTS. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Sheridan, Mark. Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015. Shults, F. LeRon. Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Turn to Relationality Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Simian-Yofre, Horacio. “‫נחם‬.” TDOT 9:340–55. Smith, Mark S. “Jeremiah IX 9 – A Divine Lament.” VT 37 (1987): 97–99. –. The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of Jeremiah 11–20. SBLMS 42. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Stähli, H.-P. “‫עזב‬.” TLOT 3:866–68. Stevenson, J., and W. H. C. Frend, eds. Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents illustrating the History of the Church, AD 33–461. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Stienstra, Nelly. YHWH is the Husband of His People: Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. Deuterojeremianische Konkordanz. ATSAT 63. St. Otillien: EOS, 1998. –. “Das judäische und das babylonische Jeremiabuch: Zur Frage der Heimat der deuteronomistischen Redaktionen des Jeremiabuchs.” Pages 325–347 in Studien zum Jeremiabuch. FAT 96. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. –. “Formulaic Language and the Formation of the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 146–165 in Jeremiah’s Scripture: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation. Edited by Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid. JSJSup 173. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Strawn, Bernt A., and Michael J. Chan. “Introducing Fretheim: His Theology and His God.” Pages 3–17 in What Kind of God? Collected Essays of Terence E. Fretheim. Edited by Bernt A. Strawn and Michael J. Chan. Siphrut 14. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. WBC 31. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Stulman, Louis. The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with the Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research. SBLDS. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. –. Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry. BibSem 57. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. –. Jeremiah. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Structure and Redaction in Jeremiah 2–6.” Pages 200–18 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Thiel, Winfried. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25. WMANT 41. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973.

192

Bibliography

–. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45. WMANT 52. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Thompson, J. A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Untermann, Jeremiah. From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah’s Thought in Transition. JSOTSup 54. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship. CSCD 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Volz, Paul. Der Prophet Jeremia. KAT 10. Leipzig: Deichert, 1922. Waldenfels, Bernhard. “Levinas and the face of the other.” Pages 63–81 in The Cambridge Companion to Levinas. Edited by Simon Critchley and Robert Bernasconi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Wanke, Gunther. Jeremia 1,1–25,14. ZBK 20.1. Zürich: TVZ, 1995. Weems, Renita J. Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Weinandy, Thomas G. Does God Suffer? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Weippert, Helga. Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches. BZAW 132. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973. Westermann, Claus. Grundformen prophetischer Rede. BEvT 31. Munich: Kaiser, 1960. –. Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen. GAT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. –. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Translated by Hugh Clayton White. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Wildberger, Hans. “‫אמן‬.” TLOT 1:133–57. Wilson, Robert R. “Poetry and Prose in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 413–27 in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine. Edited by Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. –. “Exegesis, Expansion, and Tradition-Making in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 3–21 in Jeremiah’s Scripture: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation. Edited by Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid. JSJSup 173 Leiden: Brill, 2016. Woods, Julie. Jeremiah 48 as Christian Scripture. PTMS 149. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Wolff, Hans Walter. “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks.” ZAW 73 (1961): 171–86. Yates, Gary E. “Jeremiah’s Message of Judgment and Hope for God’s Unfaithful ‘Wife’.” Bsac 167 (2010): 144–65. Yee, Gale A. “‘She Is Not My Wife and I Am Not Her Husband’: A Materialist Analysis of Hosea 1–2.” BibInt 9 (2001): 345–83. Zimmerli, Walter. Ezekiel 1. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Zipor, Moshe A. “‘Scenes from a Marriage’ – According to Jeremiah.” JSOT 65 (1995): 83–91.

Index of References Old Testament Old Testament Genesis 6:6–7 18:16–33

13 94

Exodus 2:23 12:26–27 13:14–15 32:14 34:6

148 162 162, 164 13 156

Leviticus 18:25 18:27 19:27–28 21:5

68 68 156 156

Deuteronomy 4 4:5–8(10) 4:27 4:28 6:20–25 11:28 13:3 13:7 13:14 14:1 19:10 21:8 24:1 27:25 28 28:20 28:26 28:36

140 140 137 118 162, 164 126 126 126 126 156 167 167 61 167 152 5 7, 154, 165, 169 152

28:37 28:53 28:55 28:64 28:66 29:21–27 29:23 29:24 29:25 29:26–27 30:3 31:16 31:29 32:1 32:4 32:12 32:16

169 7, 165, 169 169 126, 137, 152 152 7, 123, 127, 162– 164 138 5 126 163 137 5, 126, 167 118 65 66 126, 167 126

Joshua 4:6–7 4:21–24 23:7 24:20 24:23 24:27

162 162 104 126, 167 126, 167 132

Judges 2:12–13 10:6 10:13 10:16

5 5 5 126, 167

1 Samuel 3:11 7:13

7, 165, 171 126, 167

194

Index of References

8:7 8:8 14:23 15:11

71 5, 71 132 13

2 Samuel 22:7

148

1 Kings 9:7–9 9:8 9:9 11:33 14:11 16:4 16:7 18:18 18:21 19:10 19:14 21:24

7, 123, 127, 162– 164 138 5, 163 5 154 154 118 5, 137 137 5 5 154

2 Kings 9:37 17:16 21:12 21:22 22:17

154 5 7, 166, 171 5 5, 7, 113, 118, 167

Nehemiah 9:17

156

Job 2:11 34:10 42:11

130, 157 66 157

Psalms 2:9 14:1 18:7 22:2 22:12 22:15 22:20 27:9 34:16 38:22

172 130–131 148 15, 67, 71 67 15, 180 67 15 148 15, 67

40:2 53:2 69:21 71:9 71:12 71:18 86:15 103:8 107:43 116:15 145:8 145:9

148 130–131 157 67 67 67 156 156 139 53 156 148

Proverbs 12:17 12:22 14:5

100 100 100

Isaiah 1:2 1:4 1:7 13–23 13:6 14:31 17:10 23:1 23:6 23:14 25:5 29:5 32:6 37:19 40:19–20 41:6–7 43:2 43:4 44:9–20 46:6–7 48:8 49:14 50:1 51:19 54:6 55:8 59:4 59:13 60:15

65 5, 71 126 145 149 149 126 149 149 149 126 126 130 103 118 118 126 53 118 118 132 61 107 157 61 40 100 132 61

Index of References Jeremiah 1–25 1–45 1:4–10 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:10 1:11 1:11–12 1:11–14 1:11–16

1:11–19 1:12 1:13 1:13–14 1:13–16 1:14 1:15 1:15–16 1:16

1:17 1:17–19 1:18 1:19 2(*)

2–3(*) 2–6 2:1–3 2:1–19 2:1–37 2:1–3:5 2:1–4:2[4] 2:1–6:30 2:2 2:2–3

2:3 6, 19, 24, 27, 30 29 114 114, 116 114 114 114 55, 181 114–116 115–116, 119–120 25, 115, 131–132 114, 115, 117–119, 121–122, 175–176, 179, 181 113 114–116, 120 114–115 115–117, 119–121 117, 121 113–117, 120 113, 115–117, 119– 121 6, 9, 25, 31, 113– 117, 119–121 3, 5, 7, 9–10, 39, 56, 112–122, 130, 136–137, 142, 167, 176, 181 114 114 114 114 11–12, 58–60, 62– 63, 76–78, 81–82, 84, 88–91, 93–97, 101, 103, 105 60, 62, 76, 88–89 67 61–62, 78 79 58 58, 61 60, 63, 67 93 63, 74, 83–84, 90– 92 91–93

2:4 2:4–5 2:4–9 2:4–13

2:5 2:5–6 2:6 2:6–7 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:10–11 2:10–13 2:11 2:12 2:13

2:13–17 2:14 2:14–15 2:14–16 2:14–19

2:15 2:16 2:16–19 2:16–25 2:17

2:17–18 2:17–19 2:17–25 2:18

195 63, 74, 78, 81, 83, 91–92 81 62 74 59–68, 71–72, 74– 75, 86–93, 105, 108, 160, 179 4, 60–61, 66, 68– 70, 105 64 69–70, 86 64, 70, 72 10, 64, 68, 70, 72 64, 66, 68, 70 64, 67 65–66 99 10–13 65–66, 68, 70, 86, 103, 105, 119 65–66 3–4, 10–11, 15, 17, 33, 39–40, 48, 57– 62, 64–78, 83–89, 95, 105, 107–109, 118–119, 130, 160, 180 76 63, 74, 76–78, 81, 83 63, 78–80, 83–84 84–85 74–84, 86–87, 89– 93, 98, 100, 105, 108, 179 73–74, 78–80, 83 76, 78–79 70–80, 83–84 63, 78, 90 3–4, 10, 33, 40, 57– 58, 73–78, 81–89, 95, 107–109, 118, 130 76, 80–81 83–84 76 75, 78–79, 81, 83– 84

196 2:18–19 2:19

2:20 2:20–25 2:23 2:26–27 2:27 2:28 2:29–32 2:31 2:32 2:33 2:33–37 2:36 3:2 3:8 3:11 3:13 3:17 3:20 3:21 4–10 4:1–2 4:2 4:5 4:5–6 4:5–6:30 4:6 4:8 4:19–21 4:19–22 4:22 4:29–31 5 5:1 5:1–5 5:1–6 5:1–9 5:2 5:3 5:3–5 5:3–6 5:4 5:5

Index of References 73 3–4, 10, 33, 39, 40, 57–58, 73–78, 80, 82–89, 95, 105, 107–109, 118, 130 90–91 84 78, 137 63 4 63, 78 63 81 4, 58 78 63, 78, 84, 90 78, 82 78 132 132 78, 126 137 4, 58, 132 4, 39, 78 98–99, 129 78, 101 101 98 99 93–94, 107, 128 117 149 107 35 104 107 94 10, 94, 96–100, 105–106 102 97, 102–103 97–108, 128, 130, 132, 179 100–101, 104 100–101, 106 99–100, 103 99 94, 100, 104 94, 100, 103–104

5:7

5:7–8 5:7–9 5:7–13 5:8 5:9 5:10 5:10–17 5:10–18 5:10–19 5:11 5:11–12 5:11–14 5:12 5:12–13 5:13 5:14 5:15 5:15–17 5:16–17 5:18 5:18–19 5:19

5:20 5:21 5:29 6:1 6:1–8 6:9 6:14 6:16 6:22 6:22–26 7:1–8:3 7:1–15 7:3 7:5–7 7:6

3, 10, 17, 33, 39– 40, 57, 93–99, 101– 109, 119, 130, 178, 180 10, 102–103 97, 99–100, 102– 103, 105 95 102–103 96–98, 100, 106 95, 98, 128–129, 133–134 125, 128–130, 133 135, 155 128–134, 154, 156, 175–176, 179 4, 129, 131–132, 137 132 131–132 131–132, 137 131 131–132 127, 131–133 128–129 128–129, 133 128 128–129, 133–134 128–129 3–5, 7, 10, 19, 27, 30–31, 55, 107, 111–112, 122–138, 142, 150–156, 159– 164, 167, 176 98, 129 104 98 98–99, 117 107 98 131 98 117 107 6, 8, 28 31 30 30 167

Index of References 7:7 7:9 7:13 7:29 7:29–34 7:31–34 7:33 7:34 8:2 8:3 8:4–9:10 8:5 8:8 8:8–9 8:9 8:11 8:14 8:18 8:18–9:2 8:19 8:20 8:21 8:22 8:23 9:1 9:1–2 9:2 9:6 9:8 9:9 9:10 9:9–10 9:9–21 9:11 9:11–13 9:11–15

9:11–21 9:12

30 126 137 146, 149, 174 174 7, 166 154 154 154 141 142 58 68, 140 139–140 140 131 98–99 148 35, 112, 136, 146– 148 81, 148, 167 148 147–148 81 147 147 132 100 144 98, 144 143–150 143–144, 148 35, 112, 136, 143– 144, 148–149 118, 143–144, 149– 150, 154 7, 25, 135, 138– 141, 143–144, 149 7, 135, 137–141, 149 6–7, 19, 25, 27, 31, 122, 125, 127, 135– 138, 141–144, 150– 151, 153, 161–164, 175–176 149 3–5, 9–10, 111, 122, 132, 136–142, 144, 160, 176

9:12–13 9:13 9:14 9:14–15 9:15 9:16 9:16–19 9:16–21 9:17 9:18 9:19 9:21 9:22 9:23 9:24 10:1–10 10:5 10:7 10:9 10:17 10:17–22 10:22 11:1–5 11:1–14 11:8 11:9–14 12:7–13 12:14–17 12:16 13:10 13:13 13:15–17 13:20 13:25 14:13 14:15 14:17–18 14:19 15:1–4 15:5 15:5–9 15:6 16:1–8 16:1–9

197 7, 137 137, 140, 143, 150 26, 144 137, 141, 143–144, 176 8–9, 137, 141–142, 144 98–99, 143–144, 148, 150 146 112, 136, 142–144, 146–150 143, 150 143 143–144, 150 143–144 144 144 144 119 119 119 119 98–99 35 117 6 8, 28 137 6 34, 35–37, 49 117 104 137 116 35 117 4, 39 131 131 35 81 141 157 35 4, 58 155 25, 152, 154–160

198 16:1–13 16:2 16:2–9 16:3 16:3–4 16:4 16:5 16:5–6 16:6 16:7 16:8 16:9 16:10 16:10–13

16:11

16:11–12 16:12 16:13

16:14–15 17:12 17:13 17:19–27 18:1–12 18:8 18:10 18:12 18:13–17 18:15 18:16 19:1 19:1–2 19:1–13 19:2 19:2–4 19:2–9 19:3 19:3–4

Index of References 6, 154–157, 176, 179, 181 155, 157 154 155, 159 155, 157 154, 157 155–156, 158–160 156 154–156, 159 157–158 155 154–155, 158 7, 138, 151–155 6–7, 19, 27, 30–31, 112, 122–125, 127, 136, 150–156, 159– 164 3–5, 9–10, 39, 55– 56, 111, 122–123, 150–152, 156, 159– 161, 176, 181 7, 151, 153 137, 151 8–9, 124, 126–127, 151–153, 156, 158– 159, 161, 176 55, 157, 159, 181– 182 70 3, 39, 70 28, 31 8, 28, 117 13 13 137 35 4, 38, 58 65 168–169, 172 25, 166–169 168–175 172 168 6–7, 19, 31, 165– 166, 168–169 7, 165, 167, 169, 170–172, 174 169

19:3–9 19:4

19:4–5 19:5 19:5–6 19:6 19:6–9 19:7 19:7–9 19:8 19:9 19:10 19:10–11 19:11 19:11–12 19:11–13 19:12 19:12–13 19:13 19:14–20:6 21:1–10 21:3–7 21:4–6 21:8–9 22:1–5 22:3 22:8 22:8–9 22:9 22:28 23:1–2 23:7–8 23:17 24 24:1–10 24:4–7 24:5 24:6 24:8 24:10 25:1–11 25:1–13

169–170 3, 5, 10, 39, 108, 126, 161, 165–167, 169–170, 172, 174– 176 167, 170 167, 171 7, 166 167, 169–171, 173 167, 170–172 7, 154, 165, 167, 169, 171–172 168–171, 173 65, 167, 171, 174 7, 171 168–170, 172 25, 166–168, 173 166, 168–174 169 6–7, 19, 31, 165– 171 167, 169–171, 173 170, 172–174 159, 168–169, 171, 174 168 6, 29, 120 120 120 120 8, 31 167 138 17, 123, 127, 162– 164 3 81 68 157 131, 137 141 142 28–29 141 141 141 141 6 113

199

Index of References 25:5 25:6 25:7 25:8–9 25:8–33 25:9 25:10 25:12–14 25:15–33 25:29 25:30 25:33 25:34 26–29 26:15 27:1–15 29 29:1 29:1–20 29:10–14 29:16 29:17 30–31 30:7 30:8 30:11 31:7 31:31–34 32:1–2 32:6–16 32:24–44 32:26–35 32:31 32:35 32:36–41 33:11 33:26 34:1–7 34:20 35:1–19 36–43 39:1–10 39:2–3 39:3 39:5 44:1–14 44:3 44:5 44:8

30 118 118 30 117, 121 117, 120–121 154 121 116, 121 116 116, 121 154 149 19 167 117 141 141 141–142 28 141 141 67 67 126 133, 137 67 28, 182 6 6 6 174 174 7, 166 28 154 67 6 154 6 19 119–120 120 120 120 6 126, 167 167 167

45:1–5 46:20 46:24 46:27 46:28 47:2 48:20 49:3 49:17 50:3 50:9 50:13 50:41 51:8 51:48

117 117 117 67 67 116–117 149 149 65 117 117 65 117 149 117

Ezekiel 7:21 11:9 19:1 19:1–14 21:17 25–32 26:17 27:2 27:32 28:12 30:2 31:12 32:2 36:18

126 126 146 145–146 149 145 146 146, 149 146 146, 149 149 126 146, 149 68

Daniel 11:30

5

Hosea 4:10 5:7 6:7 7:9 8:7 14:10

5 132 132 126 126 139

Joel 1:5 1:11 1:13 2:13

149 149 149 156

200 Amos 5:1 5:1–2 6:7 7:3 7:6 8:14 Jonah 2:9 3:9–10 4:2

Index of References

146 145–146 156 13 13 104

5 13 13, 156

Micah 6:2

65

Nahum 3:7

157

Zephaniah 1:5 1:11

104 149

Zechariah 11:2

149

Apocrypha Apocrypha and Ancient Authors Sirach 15:1 140 24:23 140

Baruck 3:10 3:12–13

141 140–141

Ancient Authors Apocrypha and Ancient Authors Plato Symp. 199C–201C 49 200E 50 203B 51 203E 51 Augustine Conf.

I.I.1 II.II.2 VI.XII.22 VI.XV.25

50 50 50 50

Pseudo-Dionysius The Divine Names 708B 51

Index of Modern Authors Abma, R. 62, 84, 92, 107 Albertz, R. 21, 29–30, 113–114 Allen, L. C. 6, 22, 36, 75, 78, 85–86, 94–95, 100, 103, 114–115, 128, 131, 139, 144, 149, 154–157, 159, 168– 169 Alvis, J. W. 52 Andersen, F. I. 146 Arnold, B. T. 92 Bak, D. H. 16 Balentine, S. E. 147 Barton, J. 55, 118 Bauer, A. 78, 84 Baumann, G. 63, 84, 90, 92, 103 Baumgartner, W. 158 Beals C. 52 Begrich, J. 58–59 Behrens, A. 114–115 Bergquist, J. L. 114 Biddle, M. E. 35, 60, 67, 93, 144 Blum, E. 162 Boda, M. J. 181–182 Boshoff, W. 139 Braulik, G. 140 Briggs, C. A. 102, 156 Bright, J. 7, 25, 62, 78, 93, 133, 135, 144, 165 Brown, F. 102, 156 Brownlee, W. H. 146 Brueggemann, W. 2–3, 6, 12, 14–18, 22, 32–40, 44–49, 51, 54, 57–63, 65, 67, 71–78, 81–83, 86–99, 101, 105– 108, 136, 145, 147, 157, 177–182 Callaway, M. C. 34, 145 Campbell, A. F. 164 Carroll, R. P. 6, 11, 20–24, 73–75, 78– 80, 88, 93–94, 97, 99, 101–102,

115–116, 118, 128, 130–134, 139, 142, 144, 153–154, 156–157, 159, 168–169, 171, 174 Chan, M. J. 41–42 Childs, B. S. 180 Clements, R. E. 6, 62, 128 Cornill, C. H. 34, 49, 144 Craigie, P. C. 59, 62, 65, 78, 94, 97, 116, 123, 128, 133, 144, 155 Creel, R. E. 13 Critchley, S. 52 Crüsemann, F. 140 Daniels, D. R. 59 Dearman, J. A. 11 DeRoche, M. 59, 64, 91 Diamond, A. R. P. 2, 11, 13, 22, 32, 36, 60–61, 83, 88 Dille, S. J. 83 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 145 Drinkard, J. F. 59, 62, 65, 78, 94, 97, 116, 123, 128, 133, 144, 155 Driver, S. R. 102, 156 Duhm, B. 1, 20–21, 93, 144 Eising, H. 92 Fiddes, P. S. 13–14 Fischer, G. 6, 11, 23, 27, 66, 78, 82, 86, 94, 97, 102, 112, 127–128, 131, 133, 144, 169–170, 172, 179 Freedman, D. N. 146 Frend, W. H. C. 13 Fretheim, T. E. 2–3, 12, 14–18, 32–49, 51, 54, 57–63, 66–68, 71–78, 81–83, 85–101, 103, 105–108, 115, 133, 144–145, 148–149, 177–182 Freud, S. 50–51 Friebel, K. G. 155–157, 168, 172

202

Index of Modern Authors

Gazelles, H. 25 Gerstenberger, E. S. 5 Gilmour, R. 166, 168–169, 172 Goetz, R. 13–14 Graf, K. H. 34 Greenberg, M. 146 Gunkel, H. 58–59 Habel, N. 114 Hays, C. B. 157 Held, S. 38–39 Henderson, J. M. 35 Herrmann, S. 112 Heschel, A. J. 32–34, 36–42, 46–47, 49, 51, 53–54 Hillers, D. R. 154 Hitzig, F. 34 Holladay, W. L. 6–7, 11, 63, 70, 73, 75, 79–80, 85, 91, 93–94, 97–99, 101– 102, 122–123, 126, 128–129, 131, 133, 135, 138–140, 144, 148–149, 154–155, 158, 165, 172 Holt, E. K. 11, 36, 69–70 Holter, K. 118 Hossfeld, F.-L. 130 Hyatt, P. J. 21, 25–26 Isherwood, L. 51 Jahnow, H. 145 Janssen, E. 6, 166 Janzen, G. J. 96 Jepsen, A. 100 Jones, D. R. 6, 22, 59, 61, 65, 167 Keefe, A. A. 103 Kelley, P. H. 59, 62, 65, 78, 94, 97, 116, 123, 128, 133, 144, 155 Kessler, M. 22 Kiss, J. 35 Klein, R. A. 16 Knierim, R. 164 Koch, K. 96 Koehler, L. 158 Kroeze, J. H. 69, 80 Krüger, T. 140 Labuschagne, C. J. 82 Lapsley, J. E. 92

Levenson, J. D. 37, 92 Levinas, E. 52 Lewin, E. D. 114 Liwak, R. 1 Lohfink, N. 26 Long, B. O. 114, 123, 163 Longman III, T. 6–7, 59, 65, 82, 94, 115 Lundbom, J. R. 6–7, 11, 25, 59, 65, 73– 74, 78, 94–95, 97, 99–100, 102–103, 114, 116, 127–128, 131, 133, 138– 139, 143–145, 154, 157, 159, 172 Maier, C. M. 2, 19–20, 26–27, 29, 63, 67, 75, 79–81, 98, 107, 122–123, 139, 152, 159 Marböck, J. 130 McConville, J. G. 75, 79–80, 181 McKane, W. 6, 11, 22, 62, 65, 78, 93, 97, 102, 115–116, 123–124, 128, 131, 133, 139, 142, 144, 149, 152, 157–158, 168, 173 McKenzie, S. L. 7, 26 Melugin, R. F. 164 Merwe, C. H. J. van der 69, 80 Miller, P. D. 125 Mills, M. E. 1 Moran, W. L. 92 Moughtin-Mumby, S. 82, 84, 89–90 Mowinckel, S. 6 Mozley, J. K. 12–13 Muilenburg, J. 35, 164 Naudé, J. A. 69, 80 Neef, H.-D. 62 Nicholson, E. W. 6–7, 11, 21–22, 28– 31, 59, 62, 65, 97, 115, 119, 124– 125, 162–164, 166, 168 Nielsen, K. 59 Nietzsche, F. 50 Noth, M. 28–31, 45 Nygren, A. 51 O’Connor, K. M. 11, 22, 35–37, 58, 60–61, 76, 83, 88, 90, 144, 146–149, 155, 177–178 Odendaal, D. 11 Oeming, M. 55 Olyan, S. M. 154, 157

Index of Modern Authors Oort, J. van 50 Overholt, T. W. 179 Paul, S. M. 146 Perdue, L. G. 1, 44, 47 Petersen, D. L. 35 Pilarski, A. C. 36, 144 Plant, R. J. R. 181 Pohlmann, K.-F. 29, 141 Polk, T. 35, 144 Pool, J. B. 39 Rad, G. von 59, 146 Raitt, T. M. 11, 147, 181–182 Reimer, D. J. 117 Rist, J. M. 51 Roberts, J. J. M. 36, 144, 147 Ross, J. F. 35 Rothschild, F. A. 38 Römer, T. 19, 21, 27–29, 137, 151, 153 Rudolph, W. 6, 11, 21, 74, 78, 93, 97, 102, 116, 131, 133, 142, 144, 154– 155, 165–166 Sakenfeld, K. D. 91 Scalise, P. J. 36, 144 Schearing, L. S. 7 Schlimm, M. R. 40 Schmid, K. 29 Schmidt, W. H. 6, 11, 59, 62, 65, 78, 93–94, 97, 99, 102, 113, 115, 124, 128, 138, 142, 144, 154, 157, 161, 166, 168–169 Seitz, C. R. 29 Sharp, C. J. 2, 29, 117, 141 Sheridan, M. 13 Shults, F. L. 42 Simian-Yofre, H. 158 Smith, M. S. 36, 144, 182 Stähli, H.-P. 5 Stamm, J. J. 158 Stevenson, J. 13 Stienstra, N. 89

203

Stipp, H.-J. 7–8, 23, 26–27, 30, 65, 125, 137, 141, 151 Strawn, B. A. 41–42 Stuart, D. 146 Stulman, L. 2, 6, 11, 22, 24, 33–34, 36, 58, 62, 69, 75, 83, 124, 137, 139, 142, 144–145, 147–149, 153–154, 157, 164–169, 177–182 Sweeney, M. A. 67 Thiel, W. 21, 26, 29–31, 113, 118, 122, 124, 141, 157, 162–163, 166 Thompson, J. A. 6–7, 11, 25, 59, 62, 65, 73–74, 78, 97, 115, 131, 133, 144, 147 Untermann, J. 181 Vanhoozer, K. J. 42 Volz, P. 34, 49, 144 Waldenfels, B. 52 Wanke, G. 6, 11, 22, 30, 59, 62, 65, 75, 78, 94, 97, 99, 113, 115–116, 119, 128, 133, 139, 142, 154, 157, 159, 168, 169 Weems, R. J. 88 Weinandy, T. G. 39 Weinfeld, M. 26, 118 Weippert, H. 7, 26 Westermann, C. 35, 60, 105 Wildberger, H. 100 Wilson, R. R. 21, 23–24 Woods, J. 40, 57 Wolff, H. W. 28 Yates, G. E. 60, 83, 91 Yee, G. A. 103 Zenger, E. 130 Zimmerli, W. 146 Zipor, M. A. 60, 88

Index of Subjects accusation 3, 5, 10–14, 17–19, 35, 59, 64–72, 75, 77, 80, 83–85, 87, 91–95, 101–109, 112, 113, 118, 125, 131– 132, 137, 151, 153, 167 – indictment 6, 10–11, 18, 72, 76, 111–114, 118, 121–125, 134, 137, 152, 160, 167, 174–176

disloyalty 6, 9, 11, 16, 18, 59, 60, 72, 75, 94, 100, 111–114, 118–125, 134, 137, 142, 151–152, 160, 167, 174– 176 – infidelity 11, 15, 45, 58–62, 68–70, 75–77, 83–95, 102–105, 109, 132 doctrine 12–14

Babylon/-ian(s) 27–28, 55, 117, 119– 121, 126

exile 3–9, 19, 27–28, 30, 54, 85, 111, 122–128, 134–135, 137, 141–142, 151–152, 158–163, 175–177, 181

clusters of imperatives 97, 99, 129 compassion 16–18, 34, 39, 49, 53, 57, 59, 67, 71–75, 83, 86–88, 95, 101, 105–109 confessions – of Augustine 50 – of Jeremiah 145 Council of Chalcedon 13 covenant 3, 11, 15, 43–45, 47, 85, 90, 163, 181 – curses 152, 154, 169 – formula 86 – new 182 desire 10, 12, 15, 16, 48–55, 66–67, 108–109, 147–148 – lack/need 16, 50–55, 62, 92–93, 95– 97, 108–109 – excess/abundance 16, 51–55, 71–73, 86–88, 92–93, 106–109, 178, 181– 182 deuteronomistic – explanation 3–9, 27, 30–31, 111, 122, 135, 142, 161, 175–176 – history 5, 7, 10, 25–26, 28, 137, 151, 165 – redaction(s) 6, 19–21, 26–31, 154

falseness/falsehood 100–101, 104–105, 107, 130–132, 179 foolishness 9–10, 16–1857, 59, 62, 67, 69, 70–73, 75, 83–88, 100–101, 104– 109, 111–112, 118–119, 123, 130– 132, 136–138, 140, 142, 150–153, 159–161, 165–166 – absurdity 9, 17, 65–66, 69–70, 72, 81–82, 84–85, 87, 91, 105, 118–119, 122, 130, 132, 134, 160, 176 – delusion 101, 105, 108, 127, 130, 132, 134, 152–153, 156, 160, 176, 179 – ignorance 104, 153, 156, 160 – tragedy 16, 18, 59, 65–66, 75, 80– 81, 84–85, 87, 90–91, 105–108, 118, 127, 130, 140, 147, 160, 176 forgiveness 10, 95–108, 181 genre 58–61, 63, 164 Golah – community 8, 28–29, 111, 141, 176 – redaction 29, 31 hope 8–9, 28–31, 56, 111, 133, 169, 170, 176, 181–182

206

Index of Subjects

– hopelessness 28, 31, 80–81, 135, 142, 147–148, 158, 161, 173, 175– 176 imagery/metaphor 10, 43, 59, 79, 80, 88–93, 98, 103, 113 – marital 12, 43–44, 58, 60–63, 67, 71– 72, 76–77, 84, 88–93, 95, 102–103 – water 10, 15,17, 61, 68, 70–72 impassibility 13 irony 12, 65–66, 69, 72, 82, 84–85, 90, 108, 118, 126–127, 130, 145–147, 149, 152–153, 160, 179 Jerusalem 23, 25, 44, 55–56, 94–102, 104–108, 112–122, 128, 132, 141, 144, 160, 165–175, 177–181 – Mother 98–99, 106–109 – Wife/Bride 83, 91–92 Judah 3–0, 19, 27–31, 44–45, 54–56, 79, 82, 99, 111–125, 128, 132–135, 137, 141–142, 145, 151–152, 160– 161, 165, 176, 178–181 – Wife/Bride 76, 83 judge – agonized 95–96, 101 – justified 3, 9, 11, 18, 94–95, 101, 106, 111, 119–122, 135, 142, 161, 175–176 – sovereign 119, 121 – wrathful 177 lament – divine 3–4, 10–18, 32, 37, 39–44, 48–49, 53–54, 57–62, 66–67, 71–76, 82, 86–88, 94–95, 97, 99, 101, 105– 109, 111, 136, 142–150, 178, 181 – human 15, 34, 36, 157–158, 180 law 28–29, 100, 103–104, 123, 135– 142, 150, 160 lawsuit 58–64 “less than a full end” 128–129, 133– 134 love – gratuitous 182 – mutual 91–93 – steadfast 156, 158, 160 – vulnerable 14, 62, 93, 143, 145, 148, 150

mourning 155–158 – women 149–150 new orthodoxy 13–14 “no-gods” 10, 70, 93–94, 98, 102–105, 108, 119, 179 otherness 52, 179–180 pathos/passion 14–16, 18–19, 32–49, 53–54, 57, 59, 62, 68, 71–72, 76–77, 86–87, 92, 96, 106–108, 136, 148 poetry 1, 20–25, 27, 55, 76, 79, 128, 142, 161 prose 1, 20–25, 55, 115, 128–129, 142, 161, 175 – formulaic 6–8, 19, 25–31, 124, 134, 137, 142, 151, 175–176 – narratives 19, 24, 27 – passages 3, 6, 19, 20–27, 31–32, 112–115, 142, 154, 165–169, 175 – sermons 6, 19, 24, 27, 31, 165–166 question–answer scheme 7, 20, 112, 123–125, 127, 130, 135, 137–138, 141, 150–153, 159, 161–165, 176 recognition/insight/understanding 9, 16–17, 70–71, 73, 75, 78, 82, 84–88, 98, 100, 105, 108, 118, 179–180 redemption 179–182 reflexive concern/lament 39–40, 49 repentance 8, 28–29, 31, 100–101, 106, 181 retribution 1–6, 8–9, 17–18, 25, 56, 111–114, 121–125, 134, 160, 174– 182 rhetorical question(s) 77–78, 81–82, 85, 87, 95, 98–100 rolling corpus 22 symbolic action report 24–25, 155, 166–169, 170–175 suffering 1–4, 12, 19, 33–34, 36–37, 39–43, 48, 57–58, 62, 68, 73–77, 86–88, 95, 107, 111–112, 136, 145, 147, 176–182 Topheth 165, 169–174

Index of Subjects total judgment 9–10, 17–18, 29, 31, 56, 109, 111, 118, 121–123, 125, 132– 134, 137, 143–144, 146–147, 150– 152, 154, 157, 159, 165–166, 168– 170, 172, 174–176, 181–182 – annihilation 8–9, 111, 113, 118, 121–122,133–134, 141–144, 148– 150, 175 – rejection/abandonment 8–9,28, 98, 106–108, 111, 113, 118, 120, 122, 134–135, 156–161, 174–175, 178, 182

207

transitive concern/lament 39–40, 49, 53, 72, 109 victim 3, 4, 10, 12, 14–18, 34, 39, 49, 53–54, 59, 62, 71–77, 85–88, 92, 95, 97, 106–109, 180, 182 vision report(s) 25, 114–117, 120–121 weeping poems 34–37, 112, 136, 142– 150