The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation 9004373268, 9789004373266

Citation preview

The Book of Jeremiah

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Editor in Chief Christl M. Maier Editorial Board H.M. Barstad – N. Calduch-Benages – D.M. Carr – R.P. Gordon – L.C. Jonker J. Joosten – G.N. Knoppers – A. van der Kooij – S.L. McKenzie – C.A. Newsom M. Nissinen – H. Spieckermann – N. Wazana – S.D. Weeks – H.G.M. Williamson

Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature Editors Craig A. Evans Peter W. Flint †

volume 178

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vts

The Book of Jeremiah Composition, Reception, and Interpretation Edited by

Jack R. Lundbom Craig A. Evans Bradford A. Anderson

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lundbom, Jack R., editor. Title: The Book of Jeremiah : composition, reception, and interpretation /  edited by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, Bradford A. Anderson. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2018. | Series: Supplements to Vetus  Testamentum, ISSN 0083-5889 ; volume 178 | Includes bibliographical  references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018021658 (print) | LCCN 2018022972 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004373273 (E-Book) | ISBN 9789004373266 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Jeremiah—Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS1525.52 (ebook) | LCC BS1525.52 .B659 2018 (print) |  DDC 224/.206--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018021658

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0083-5889 isbn 978-90-04-37326-6 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-37327-3 (e-book) Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface ix Abbreviations x List of Contributors xviii

Part 1 General Topics 1 The Pen of Scribes: Writing, Textuality, and the Book of Jeremiah 3 Mark Leuchter 2 Jeremiah Among the Prophets 26 Marvin A. Sweeney 3 Jeremiah – “The Prophet like Moses”? 45 Georg Fischer

Part 2 Issues in Interpretation 4 Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin (Tell en-Naṣbeh): The Archaeological Setting 69 Jeffrey R. Zorn 5 Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah? The Productive Memory of David 93 Bob Becking 6 Sagacious Divine Judgment: Jeremiah’s Use of Proverbs to Construct an Ethos and Ethics of Divine Epistemology 113 Samuel E. Balentine 7 Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah 126 Catherine Sze Wing So

vi

Contents

8 Reconsidering the “New Covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31–34 149 Magnar Kartveit 9 Yet Another New Covenant: Jeremiah’s Use of Deuteronomy and ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬in the Book of Consolation 170 Amanda R. Morrow and John F. Quant 10 The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah and Their Historical Roots in Israel 191 Herbert B. Huffmon 11 Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah’s Foreign Nation Oracles 211 Jack R. Lundbom 12 What is Israel’s God Up To among the Nations? Jeremiah 46, 48, and 49 230 Paul R. Raabe

Part 3 Textual Transmission and Reception History 13 The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX) 255 Andrew G. Shead 14 Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library 280 Armin Lange 15 Jeremiah in Jesus and the New Testament 303 Craig A. Evans 16 Jeremiah in Targum 320 Robert Hayward 17 Jeremiah in the Peshitta 340 Gillian Greenberg 18 Jeremiah in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 359 Sean A. Adams

Contents

19 Jeremiah and His Book in Josephus’s Writings 379 Michael Avioz 20 Jeremiah in the Latin 394 David L. Everson 21 Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah 414 Joy A. Schroeder

Part 4 Jeremiah and Theology 22 Jeremiah as Mediator of the Covenant 437 Jack R. Lundbom 23 Jeremiah’s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future 455 Terence E. Fretheim 24 God and Place in Jeremiah 476 David J. Reimer Index of Modern Authors 499 Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 508

vii

Preface The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation contains twenty-four essays on Jeremiah in four sections: (1) General Topics, (2) Issues in Interpretation, (3) Textual Transmission and Reception History, and (4) Jeremiah and Theology. This is the eighth volume in the series Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature (FIOTL), which appears in the Supplements to Vetus Testamentum (VTSup). The purpose of the FIOTL series is to explore the prehistory, contents, and themes of the books of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, along with their transmission and reception in Jewish and Christian tradition. The editors wish to thank a number of people. To begin with, sincere thanks to the contributors to the volume, who were diligent with deadlines and patient with the editorial process. Second, thanks to Prof. Dr. Christl M. Maier and the editorial board at VTSup for their continued support of the FIOTL volumes. Finally, we thank the team at Brill Academic Publishers, including Liesbeth Hugenholtz, for their guidance and assistance in bringing this project to production. The editors also wish to express their condolences to the family of Prof. Dr. Peter W. Flint, who passed away unexpectedly in November 2016. Peter was co-founder and co-editor of the FIOTL series. Peter was a well known scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls and was especially known for his contributions to critical study of the text and formation of the Psalter. His enthusiasm for his field of study was infectious and made him a very popular classroom lecturer and graduate supervisor. He will be sorely missed. The present volume on Jeremiah is the first FIOTL volume to appear since Peter’s passing. We offer it in Peter’s memory. Jack R. Lundbom

Kennebunk, Maine

Craig A. Evans

Houston Baptist University

Bradford A. Anderson Dublin City University January 20, 2018

Abbreviations For terms, sigla, and abbreviations for titles of ancient texts, see The SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: SBL, 2014). AASOR AB ABD ABRL AbrN ABS ACCS AcOr AAE AIL AnBib ANE ANES ANET ANF AOAT AOTC ApC APOT ArBib AS ATANT ATD AV BA BAGD

BAR BASOR BBB

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible (Commentary Series) Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Anchor Bible Reference Library Abr-Nahrain Archaeology and Biblical Studies Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Acta Orientalia Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Ancient Israel and Its Literature Analecta Biblica Ancient Near East(ern) Ancient Near Eastern Studies Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3rd edn, 1969 Ante-Nicene Fathers Alter Orient und Altes Testament Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries Apollos Commentaries Charles, R.H., ed. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913 The Aramaic Bible Aramaic Studies Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Authorized Version Biblical Archaeologist Bauer, W., W. Arndt, F. Gingrich, and F. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958 Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beiträge

Abbreviations BBC BDB BE BETL BeO BHS Bib BibInt BibLeb BibOr BiGe BIOSCS BJS BJSUCSD BKAT BLS BMT BN BO BR BTB BWAT BZ BZABR BZAW CBC CBET CBQ CC CCCM CCSL CHANE CJ CLJ ConBOT

xi

Blackwell Bible Commentaries Brown, F., S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. Biblische Enzyklopädie Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bibbia e Oriente Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Biblical Interpretation Series Bibel und Leben Biblica et orientalia Biblische Gestalten Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Brown Judaic Studies Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Bible and Literature Series The Bible in Medieval Tradition Biblische Notizen Berit Olam Biblical Research Biblical Theology Bulletin Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Cambridge Bible Commentary Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Continental Commentaries Corpus Christianorum: Continuatio Mediaevalis Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Conservative Judaism Cambridge Law Journal Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series

xii COS CRINT CSCD CTJ CurBS CWS DBSup DCH DCLS DDD DJD DMOA DSD EBR EdF EDSS EncJud EvT EstBib ET ETL ExAud FAT FB FOTL FRLANT GBSOT GKC GRBS GSANE HAL

Abbreviations Hallo, William W., ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine Calvin Theological Journal Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Classics of Western Spirituality Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément Clines, David J.A., ed. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2016. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Toorn, K. van der, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible Leiden: Brill, 1999 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui Dead Sea Discoveries Römer, Thomas, et al., eds. Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009– Erträge der Forschung Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 Encyclopaedia Judaica Evangelische Theologie Estudios Biblicos English Translation(s) Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Ex Auditu Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to Biblical Scholarship: Old Testament Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, revised and trans. A.E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910 Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Gorgias Studies in the Ancient Near East Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, eds. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1995, 2004

Abbreviations HALOT

HAT HB HeBAI HBT HCOT HistTh HNTC HS HSM HThKAT HTR HUCA HVTSt IBC Int ICC IDB IEJ JAJS JANEH JANES JBL JBQ JBS JC JCTS JDT JEA JES JHS JJS JNES JNSL JPS JPSTC JQR

xiii

Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. and trans. M.E.J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999 Handbuch zum Alten Testament Hebrew Bible Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel Horizons in Biblical Theology Historical Commentary on the Old Testament History and Theory Harper’s New Testament Commentaries Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Hervormde Teologiese Studies Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching Interpretation International Critical Commentary Buttrick, George A., ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962 Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Biblical Quarterly Jerusalem Biblical Studies Judaica et Christiana Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies Series Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Publication Society Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Jewish Quarterly Review

xiv JSJ JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSS JSSSup JTISup JTS KAI KAT KHC KJV LASBF LCBI LCC LCL LHBOTS LNTS LS LSAWS LSTS LXX MdB MLBS MPIL MSU MT NEAEHL

NechtB NIB NIBCOT NICNT NICOT NIDOTTE NovT NRSV

Abbreviations Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement Series Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplements Journal of Theological Studies Donner H., and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament King James Version Liber annuus studii biblici franciscani Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation Library of Christian Classics Loeb Classical Library Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies The Library of New Testament Studies Louvain Studies Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic Library of Second Temple Studies Septuagint Le Monde de la Bible Mercer Library of Biblical Studies Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens Masoretic Text Stern, Ephraim, ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993 Neue Echter Bibel The New Interpreter’s Bible New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament VanGemeren, W.A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997 Novum Testamentum New Revised Standard Version

Abbreviations NT NVBS OBO ÖBS OBT OCA OL OT OTE OTG OTL OTM OTP OTR OTS OtSt PAT PBM PEQ PL PLO PS PTMS RB RBén RBL REJ RHR RQ RSPT RSV RTL RTP SAA SAAS SAM SBAB SBLCS SBLDS

New Testament New Voices in Biblical Studies Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Österreichische biblische Studien Overtures to Biblical Theology Orientalia Christiana Analecta Old Latin Old Testament Old Testament Essays Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library Oxford Theological Monographs Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985 Old Testament Readings Old Testament Studies Oudtestamentische Studiën Die Propheten des Alten Testaments Paternoster Biblical Monographs Palestine Exploration Quarterly Patrologia Latina. Edited by J.P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris 1844–64 Porta Linguarum Orientalium Patrologia Syriaca Princeton Theological Monograph Series Revue biblique Revue bénédictine Review of Biblical Literature Revue des études juives Revue de l’histoire des religions Revue de Qumran Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques Revised Standard Version Revue théolgique de Louvain Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Studies Sheffield Archaeological Monographs Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

xv

xvi SBLEJL SBLMS SBLSymS SBLTT SBLWGRW SBS SBT SCS SEL SemeiaSt SEPT SFSHJ SHBC SHCANE SJSJ SKC SNTSMS SOTSMS SSN SSU STDJ ST STI SubBi Syr. TA TDNT

TDOT

Text THAT TLOT TLZ

Abbreviations Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplement Series Stuttgarter biblische Mongraphien Studies in Biblical Theology Septuagint and Cognate Studies Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico Semeia Studies Septuagint Commentary Series South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Serie Kamper Cahiers Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studia Semitica Upsaliensia Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia Theologica Studies in Theological Interpretation subsidia biblica Syriac Tel Aviv Kittel G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976 Botterweck, G.J. and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, trans. J.T. Willis, G.W. Bromiley, and D.E. Green; 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Textus Jenni E., and C. Westermann, eds. Theologisches handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971–1976 Jenni E., and C. Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. M.E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997 Theologische Literaturzeitung

Abbreviations TMJ TOTC TQ Transeu TRE TSAJ TThSt TTZ TU TWAT

TWOT TynBul TZ VAB VC VT VTSup Vulg. WBC WC WMANT WO WW YNER ZABR ZA ZAW ZDPV ZKT ZRGG

xvii

Torah U-Madda Journal Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologische Quartalschrift Transeuphratène Krause, Gerhard, and Gerhard Müller, eds. Theologische Realenzyklopädie. 36 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976–2004 Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum/Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Trierer theologische Studien Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Texte und Untersuchungen Botterweck, G.J., Ringgren, H. and Fabry, H.-J., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum alten Testament. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1970–2000 Harris, R.L., G.L. Archer Jr., B.K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1980 Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeischrift Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Vigiliae Christianae Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Vulgate Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Commentaries Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Die Welt des Orients Word and World Yale Near Eastern Researches Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtgeschichte Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte

List of Contributors Sean A. Adams University of Glasgow Bradford A. Anderson (editor) Dublin City University Michael Avioz Bar Ilan University Samuel E. Balentine Union Presbyterian Seminary, Richmond Bob Becking Utrecht University Craig A. Evans (editor) Houston Baptist University David L. Everson Bethel Seminary, St Paul Georg Fischer Innsbruck University Terence E. Fretheim Luther Seminary, St Paul Gillian Greenberg University College London Robert Hayward Durham, England Herbert B. Huffmon Drew University, Madison, New Jersey

List of Contributors

Magnar Kartveit VID Specialized University, Stavanger, Norway Armin Lange University of Vienna Mark Leuchter Temple University, Philadelphia Jack R. Lundbom (editor) Kennebunk, Maine Amanda R. Morrow University of Wisconsin-Madison John F. Quant Las Vegas, Nevada Paul R. Raabe Concordia Seminary, St Louis David Reimer University of Edinburgh Joy A. Schroeder Trinity Lutheran Seminary, Columbus Andrew G. Shead Moore Theological College, Sydney Catherine Sze Wing So Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Marvin A. Sweeney Claremont School of Theology Jeffrey R. Zorn Cornell University, Ithaca

xix

part 1 General Topics

∵

chapter 1

The Pen of Scribes: Writing, Textuality, and the Book of Jeremiah Mark Leuchter 1

Scribalism in Israel and the Ancient Near East

In 1970, James Muilenburg penned an influential article entitled “Baruch the Scribe.”1 In that article, Muilenburg emphasized the paramount role played by Baruch b. Neriah in the production of the book of Jeremiah, noting that Baruch lived in what he termed a “scribal age.”2 That is, the book of Jeremiah (and Baruch’s great contribution to it) emerged from an era when scribes had emerged as figures of tremendous prestige and numinous power. To refer to the late seventh–mid sixth centuries BCE as a “scribal age,” however, is somewhat misleading. Surely it was, but so too was every era among the centers of power in the ancient near east from roughly the mid-third millennium BCE down to the rise of Hellenism in the fourth century BCE and beyond.3 Archaeology enables the scholar to recover some sense of an ancient society’s economy, population density, and even their ritual world to some degree, but is only through the written artifacts of scribes surviving from these periods that we are privy to the intricacies of their intellectual and social worlds, value systems, religious beliefs, concepts of history, and other traditions enshrined in the textual record. We know what we know of these ages because they were all, in a way, scribal ages. Over the last few decades, scholars have placed a high premium on the study of scribalism across the ancient near east – especially in Mesopotamia, which exerted the strongest influence over the west Semitic world during the latter half of the Iron Age, the period that provides us with the greatest number 1  James Muilenburg, “Baruch the Scribe,” in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, ed. J. Durham and J.R. Porter (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983 [original, 1970]), 215–38. 2  Muilenburg “Baruch the Scribe,” 217. 3  David W. Baker, “Scribes as Transmitters of Tradition,” in Faith, Tradition and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context, ed. A.R. Millard, James K. Hoffmeier, and David W. Baker (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 65–78.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_002

4

Leuchter

of textual records (biblical and extra-biblical) from Israel and Judah.4 As in other cultures such as Greece and Egypt, scribes in Mesopotamia were trustees of myth, masters of wisdom and statecraft, and mediators of past events who guarded the knowledge they possessed as esoteric and secret (though, notably, they made no secret of their penchant for secrecy).5 The texts they manufactured were thus not ancillary reflections of a vibrant culture but centrifugal and valued features of that culture, ranging from iconic to didactic to ceremonial to apotropaic to cosmic in nature.6 The practice of writing among scribal guilds was also part of a dynamic that deeply engaged oral culture shard across different corners of society. Written works were part of a stream of tradition believed to have divine origins, transmitted in oral form (through memorized performance and teaching) as much as through textual copying; scribes were the primary gatekeepers to these works in both forms.7 Identifying parallels between Israelite/Judahite scribalism and that found in Mesopotamia must be done with all due caution. Mesopotamian scribes produced tablets while Israelite/Judahite scribes produced papyrus (or parchment) manuscripts and scrolls;8 Mesopotamian texts were composed in cuneiform Sumerian and Akkadian while Israelite/Judahite texts were composed in alphabetic Hebrew. And while Mesopotamian scribes (of the Iron Age) worked primarily under the auspices or influence of native Mesopotamian kings, the 4  It is to the Iron II period that we should trace the substantial origins of many biblical texts on linguistic, socio-linguistic, and tradition-historical grounds. The oft-postulated view that neither kingdom could have boasted significant textual output before ca. 800–700 BCE rests on highly questionable assumptions. I have addressed this in greater detail in Mark Leuchter, The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 20–24. See also the recent, thorough, and compelling evaluation of the issue by Matthieu Richelle, “Elusive Scrolls: Could Any Hebrew Literature Have Been Written Prior to the Eight Century B.C.E.?,” VT 66 (2016): 556–94. Insofar as scope, history, and diversity of Mesopotamian scribalism is concerned, a comprehensive overview of the state of the field of research is that of Alan Lenzi, “Mesopotamian Scholarship: Kassite to Late Babylonian Periods,” JANEH 2 (2015): 145–201. 5  Lenzi, “Mesopotamian Scholarship,” 171–72. 6  On the first three categories, see James W. Watts, Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 198 and passim. On the matter of scribal works as cosmic, see discussion in Leuchter, The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity, 172–77. On apotropaism, see William M. Schniedewind, How The Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 24–34. 7  Lenzi, “Mesopotamian Scholarship,” 156, 186–87; Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 210–11. 8  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 19–23.

The Pen of Scribes

5

Israelite/Judahite literary traditions emerged in a culture with an ethos for the decentralization of power even alongside the emergence of kingship and a royal scribal tradition.9 Finally, and contrary to the view still held by many scholars that Israelite/Judahite scribal culture only developed by the mid-late ninth/eighth centuries BCE (respectively) or later,10 a good deal of evidence points to literary activity much earlier independent of the mechanisms of a monarchic state in some ways and concurrent with it in others.11 Nevertheless, significant methodological commonalities between textual products of Israel/Judah and Mesopotamia are evident in the spaces between these differences.12 To be sure, scribal tradition in Israel and Judah was distinct, and genotypes from eras before the encounter with Mesopotamian 9  See Lenzi, “Mesopotamian Scholarship,” 184, for the relatively late loss of native kingship in the Mesopotamian scribal tradition. On decentralized contexts for the production of Israelite and Judahite texts, see Daniel Fleming, The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 309–20; see also Aren Maeir and Itzhaq Shai, “Reassessing the Character of the Judahite Kingdom: Archaeological Evidence for Non-Centralized, Kinship-Based Components,” in From Sha’ar Ha-Golan to Shaarayim: Essays in Honor of Professor Yosef Garfinkel, ed. Saar Ganon et. al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2016), 323–40, for a decentralized social world in Judah as well that must have affected, in some way, the production of Judahite texts. 10  David W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach, JSOTSup (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); N. Na’aman, “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History,” in Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 320. On Persian-period origination of substantial scribal products, see Philip R. Davies, Scribes and Schools (Louisville: Westminster John Knox), 60–61, 65–71. 11  Orly Goldwasser, “An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms,” TA 18 (1991): 248–53; Ryan Byrne, “The Refuge of Scribalism in Iron I Palestine,” BASOR 345 (2007): 1–31; Sarah Malena, “Fertile Crossroads: The Growth and Influence of Interregional Exchange in the Southern Levant’s Iron Age I–II Transition, Examined through Biblical, Epigraphic, and Archaeological Sources” (PhD diss., University of California San Diego, 2015), 214–34. 12  David Carr, especially, has demonstrated the shared methodological heritage binding biblical writers to ancient Near Eastern (and especially Mesopotamian) scribal tradition and practice. See his monograph Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). For the sociolinguistic and syntactical influence of Mesopotamian scribal convention especially on biblical compositions from the late eighth century BCE onward, see Frank M. Polak, “The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics, and the Development of Biblical Prose Narrative,” JANES 26 (1998): 92–96, 101–05. Polak’s view that the complexity of syntax is sufficient grounds for relative dating is open to question (the differences may speak more to social context than temporal setting in important ways), but his observations regarding the complex-nominal

6

Leuchter

imperialism persisted.13 But distinctiveness does not demand isolation or a lack of strong influences across cultural and political boundaries. Even in their distinctiveness, Israelite and Judahite scribes were still part of a league of professional elites whose products and methods crossed geographical and cultural borders, especially in the wake of the Neo-Assyrian control of the region. The scribes of the Israelite/Judahite kingdoms shared significantly in the literary conventions of the era, and the texts they produced invariably carried common cultural imprimaturs with centuries-old roots that long pre-dated the age in which Baruch b. Neriah or his peers were active. 2

Texts as the Substance of Revelation

In one important respect, however, the scribal culture of the late seventh–mid sixth centuries BCE was somehow unique as Muilenberg opined. At roughly the turn of the first millennium, scribes in Mesopotamia took on a role that did not characterize their earlier traditions, namely, they became the transmitters of revelation. Karel van der Toorn has noted that a shift can be discerned when comparing the scribal role in Old Babylonian prophecy vs. Neo-Assyrian prophetic literature.14 In the former, the role of the scribe occupies a less pronounced position, as the recording of prophetic messages in textual form depends upon the oral performance of a prophetic oracle. The moment of revelation was brief and temporally unique, taking place as a prophet spoke on behalf of the patron deity in question, delivering a particular message for a particular audience (often someone of high social rank within the royal court). Scribes would be recruited to produce a document that could convey the substance of the prophet’s performance to the audience if they were not present during the performance; the role of scribes and texts simply reinforced revelation as unique to prophetic performance.15 But in Neo-Assyrian prophetic literature, texts are no longer simply the record of earlier moments of revelation; they become the substance of revelation. The actual physical shape and locus of those words (even in the calligraphic strokes) on a tablet become the point of origin for renewed communication style as a function of late monarchic and post monarchic encounters with foreign scribal convention are compelling. 13  Richelle, “Elusive Scrolls,” 585–87. So also Goldwasser’s insights regarding the persistence of Hieratic into the late monarchic period (“The Hieratic Tradition”). 14  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 206–21. 15  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 206.

The Pen of Scribes

7

from the divine. The reproduction of these texts orchestrated in particular catalogues and collections created new revelatory significance via the physical relationship of one oracular text to another within the same catalogue.16 The divine voice was embedded within the materiality of the texts as earthly parallels to heavenly texts written by the gods themselves; both the composition and study of these textual artifacts were vehicles for revelation every bit as potent as observing and hearing the performance of a prophetic oracle. This created a meta-textual dimension to the artifact itself, obscuring the actual physical and conceptual boundaries between the divine message transmitted by a scribe and the very act of writing it/preserving it. Some aspects of this view of textuality are found in works commonly associated with Jerusalem’s priestly tradition – in both Pentateuchal and prophetic literature. An example of the former is evident in a passage grafted into the Golden Calf narrative: And it came to pass the following day that Moses said to the people: “you have sinned a great sin; and now I will go up to Yhwh, so that I might make atonement for your sin.” And Moses returned to Yhwh, and said: “Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold. Indeed forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray you, out of your book which you have written.” And Yhwh said to Moses: “whoever has sinned against me, I will blot him out of my book …” Exod 32:31–331 7

This passage likely derives from a post-monarchic context,18 but preserves an idea of writing fostered among the Jerusalem priesthood that Israel’s fate depends upon its place in a heavenly book written by Yhwh. The deity himself affirms that erasure from that book is the punishment for sin. The act of writing is potentially cosmic, and so are textual media. Scholars have often wondered why the Golden Calf episode was included in the Pentateuch, as it appears to

16  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 207–09; Lenzi, “Mesopotamian Scholarship,” 175–76. 17  Unless noted otherwise, all translations are my own. 18  Many commentators assign these verses either to an exilic or post-exilic writer drawing from existing priestly language. The arguments for or against dating such texts to the exile is not immediately relevant to the present study. It will suffice to say that accretions such as these draw from myths, ritual conventions, liturgical formulations, narratives, legal rulings and other sources (written and oral) originating in the monarchic era.

8

Leuchter

work against the interests of the Aaronide Pentateuchal redactors.19 One possible answer for this is that the inclusion of this episode and its reference to a heavenly text contributes to the presentation of the Pentateuch as the earthly parallel to the heavenly text referenced in the verses above. The ritual reading of this very episode creates a link between the divine book in which sinner’s names will be blotted out (Exod 32:33) and the expiatory rites of the Aaronide cult which could obviate that threat.20 The book of Ezekiel exhibits a similar quality as an esoteric textual model for conceiving of the cosmos. Its contents are highly literary in character, not adaptations or citations of oral teachings; as Menahem Haran has noted, they can only be encountered as a textual collection.21 Yet it is in encountering that textual collection that the fullness of the divine chariot is revealed (Ezek 1), the battle with a cosmic foe is dramatized (Ezek 38–39), and a new social universe for Israel is provided (Ezek 40–48).22 These different priestly compositions present themselves as holy writs, yet they do not call attention to their textuality. While highly sophisticated literary works, they never identify their textual boundaries or the process of their composition. This is suggestive of the ideology of their authors, namely, that a priestly elite privy to texts was part of a revelatory process that ends with priestly (oral) teaching. In Ezekiel, for instance, a heavenly scroll is consumed (Ezek 2:8–3:4), but never read. Its contents are described, but nowhere in the book of Ezekiel are they disclosed or identified in a manner that would allow an audience to discern a beginning or ending to any literary unit of divine discourse. The sole point of access to the scroll’s revelatory power is through the figure of the prophet who has consumed it. The prophet’s own written oracles serve the same purpose for those who “consume” them (i.e., through reading 19  James W. Watts, “Aaron and the Golden Calf in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch,” JBL 130 (2011): 419–21. 20  This carries implications well beyond the question of individual sin and the blotting out of an individual’s name from this heavenly book; see Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 121–24. 21  Menahem Haran, “Observations on Ezekiel as a Book Prophet,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 3–19. 22  With the majority of scholars, I accept the view that Ezek 40–48 was primarily a postexilic literary product, but one cultivated by a circle of disciples deeply schooled in Ezekiel’s teachings and manners of expression. The literary character of the oracles encountered earlier in the book thus extends to the literary character of these latter chapters as well, which constitute a vision expressed solely in textual form, not as a transcribed oral proclamation.

The Pen of Scribes

9

them on a scroll), ingesting their contents so as to be the mouthpiece for the divine words they contain. The book of Ezekiel is a priestly curriculum that empowers priestly authority by maintaining the textual dynamic experienced by the prophet as a character within his own book, where only priests encounter the divine contents of cosmic texts. The very opposite, however, obtains within Deuteronomy, whose contents are regularly (and self-referentially) presented as material texts to be read or studied in the public domain.23 The closing chapters of the work in its preexilic form identify its substance as the full textual expression of Moses’ ‫תורה‬, passed along to the Levites whose scribal authority ensures that subsequent iterations of the document will similarly serve as the full expression of Moses’ ‫ תורה‬transmitted to the Levites (Deut 31–32).24 Yet Moses’ ‫תורה‬, in written form, is presented as the very essence of the divinely-authored laws given at Horeb.25 Both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy function as divine texts on Earth, but while revelation occurs through the teaching of priests who ingest the contents of the former, revelation occurs through the very textualizing of the latter and its public display or reading (Deut 27; 31:9–13); the text itself is the totality of its own revelation. And significantly, this divine document regularly highlights that it is accessible to the ordinary Israelite – even if wrought and taught by Levite scribes, Deuteronomy presents itself as a material product of the divine that all Israelites could encounter and even possess (Deut 6:9; 17:18–20 [cf. v. 15]).

23  E.g., ‫( התורה הזאת‬Deut 31:9, 11, 12, 24; 32:46), ‫( ספר התורה הזה‬Deut 31:26); see also Deut 6:9; 11:20; 17:18–19; 27:3, 8, 26; 31:9–13. 24  I have argued elsewhere for the pre-exilic edition of Deuteronomy (or perhaps one such edition) demarcated by Deut 5–32 in some form; see my article “Why is the Song of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy?,” VT 57 (2007): 295–317. I allow, of course, for the addition of specific units to this earlier framework during post-monarchic development of the book. In Deut 31–32 especially, note the repeated ‫“ – עד תמם‬thoroughly” or “completely” (lit: “until their full end”) in 31:24 and 31:30 (in relation to the poem in Deut 32). These terms call attention to a finite work with material boundaries. 25  Deuteronomy 5:4–5 places Moses between Israel and Yhwh at the revelation of the Decalogue, a departure from the earlier dynamic in Exodus 20 where Moses’s intercession is initiated after the Decalogue is given (Exod 20:14–17). This makes Moses’ teaching of the Sinai/Horeb revelation throughout the book of Deuteronomy an extension of the “direct” revelation at the mountain itself.

10 3

Leuchter

Scribes, Texts, and Revelation in the Jeremiah Tradition

Though the book of Jeremiah evidences a knowledge of the sources that comprise the P stratum of the Pentateuch, virtually all commentators agree that its contents fall firmly within the parameters of the Deuteronomistic tradition.26 This qualification is usually offered on the basis of formal/lexical similarities in the book to Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History.27 However, the conceptual underpinnings of the book of Jeremiah are also consistent with the foregoing observations regarding scribes and writing in the book of Deuteronomy. The material within Jer 1–25 (presented within the book as the collection of Jeremiah’s pre-exilic oracles to Israel and Judah) persistently makes references to written processes and materials (Jer 3:8; 11:1–13;28 17:1, 13; 22:30; 25:13), and utilizes the forms of scribal conventions (Jer 25:1–13 as a colophon, for example).29 It is in the latter half of the book (chapters 26–51 in the MT), however, where scribes and writing become explicit subjects of discourse. In what follows, we will consider three episodes that presuppose and amplify 26  For Jeremiah’s knowledge of P or its precursor sources, see Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “‘On the day I took them out of the land of Egypt’: A Non-Deuteronomic Phrase Within Jeremiah’s Concept of Covenant,” VT 65 (2015): 621–47; Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “‘How can you say “I am not defiled …”?’ (Jeremiah 2:20–25): Allusions to Priestly Legal Traditions in the Poetry of Jeremiah,” JBL 133 (2014): 757–75. 27  The diversity of understandings of this connection, however, is daunting. See Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktions von Jeremia 1–25, WMANT (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973); Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktions von Jeremia 26–45, WMANT (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981); Thomas Römer, “How Did Jeremiah Become a Convert to Deuteronomistic Ideology?,” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Linda S. Schearing, JSOTSup 268 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 189–99; Richard Elliot Friedman, “The Deuteronomistic School,” in Fortunate The Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Astrid B. Beck, et. al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 70–80; Siegfried Hermann, Jeremia: Der Prophet und das Buch (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990) 66–87. 28  Though writing is not explicitly mentioned in Jer 11:1–13, these verses strongly allude to Deut 27, which emphasizes the textualizing of Moses’ teachings at the hands of the Levites. 29  The foil to the claim that Jeremiah was steeped in scribalism is Jer 8:8, which is often cited as an example of the prophet’s allergy to written revelation. However, this view depends upon a reading that sees Jer 8:8b (the portion of the verse that denigrates scribes) as the prophet’s own words, when it is more likely that in 8:8b, Jeremiah is still quoting his adversaries; it is they, not the prophet, who criticize scribalism. I discuss this in detail in Boundaries of Israelite Identity, 192–93.

The Pen of Scribes

11

Deuteronomy’s concept of scribal authority and the place of texts as loci of revelation in their material forms. 3.1 Jeremiah 36 No discussion of scribes and writing in the book of Jeremiah can avoid dealing with Jer 36, the chapter that has received the most scholarly attention within the book, and arguably one of the most studied historiographic narratives in the entirety of the Hebrew Bible. Previous studies have emphasized the process of the textualization of Jeremiah’s oracles into the (so-called) Urrolle, the role of scribal characters within the narrative, the depiction of Jehoiakim’s destruction of the Urrolle and, of course, its re-construction including the elusive “many similar words” added to it (Jer 36:32). All of these issues remain paramount in the understanding of the chapter, its place within the unit of discourse spanning Jer 26–45, and the role of that large unit within the Jeremianic corpus (especially the developing MT tradition).30 But in addressing these perennially pressing issues, we must pay attention to features that often go unnoticed which deal directly with the materiality of the textual work narrated within that chapter. First, a word about the characterization of scribes as agents of revelation in Jer 36. I have argued elsewhere that it is not simply a matter of dramatic characterization that positions the scribes in the chapter as stand-ins for the prophet and, therefore, as transmitters of revelation; the qualification is very much a phenomenological matter.31 Several times in the chapter, Baruch is reported to have written or copied Jeremiah’s oracles: first, in the account of the Urrolle’s construction (v. 4), followed by his confirmation of this event to his scribal peers (vv. 16–17) and then finally in v. 32, with the reconstruction of the Urrolle’s contents and the notice of further additions – all three are accompanied by the phrase ‫מפי ירמיהו‬/‫מפיו‬. The most common reading of this language is “at Jeremiah’s dictation” or “at his dictation,” and indeed we find similar formulations in Mesopotamian records describing the transcription of oral performances. However, the notice ‫ עד היום הזה‬in v. 2 – a trope carrying a decidedly Deuteronomistic pedigree – is strongly suggestive that the ‫מפי ירמיהו‬/‫מפיו‬ language should be understood according to Deuteronomistic criteria.32 30  Mark Leuchter, The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 145–65. 31  Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 102. 32  On this trope as Deuteronomistic, see Jeffrey C. Geoghegan, The Time, Place, and Purpose of the Deuteronomistic History: The Evidence of “Until This Day,” BJS 347 (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006), 149–52.

12

Leuchter

In this case, the language recalls Deut 18:18 and Jer 1:9, where the divine word is in the mouth (‫פיך‬, ‫ )פיו‬of the prophet. In Jer 36, the divine word issuing from the scribe’s pen is the very same word placed by Yhwh in the prophet’s mouth. Scribal revelation is prophetic revelation; there is no phenomenological or theological differentiation. What, then, are the implications of this for the materials of the scribal craft? A major clue is found in Yhwh’s opening command to Jeremiah in Jer 36:2: “Take a ‫מגלת־ספר‬, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations …” The phrase ‫ מגלת־ספר‬stands out in this directive as somewhat awkward – a ‫ מגלה‬is, after all, a type of scroll. R.L. Hicks argued that the term carries a technical meaning for a parchment scroll of a particular, pre-set, conventional size.33 This is significant because the term ‫ספר‬, on its own, is too indeterminate a descriptor: a single sheet of papyrus or parchment could constitute a ‫ספר‬, which could be folded or left flat for consultation. But the author of Jer 36 clearly has in mind an object of sufficient length to accommodate “all the words” Jeremiah had proclaimed to a variety of audiences both domestic and international – hardly capable of being reproduced onto a single sheet or an otherwise limited material medium. Because the prophet is commanded to “take” a ‫מגלת־ספר‬, a ready resource is implied, something that would have been a familiar commodity to the literati among the ancient audiences of Jer 36. The phrase ‫( מגלת‬from the root ‫גלל‬, “turn” or “roll”) ‫ ספר‬should thus be translated idiomatically as “a [large] prepared scroll,” that is, an assembly of many sheets carefully stitched together and stored in a rolled format for the purpose of recording a lengthy written work. The divine directive to first obtain materials for a lengthy literary project is significant, for it highlights that the prophet’s earlier, shorter oracles were to take on a new meaning through their comprehensive reproduction.34 The abundant identification of independent texts assigned to the prophet or mentioned by him (Jer 3:8; 11; 25:13; 29:4–7; 30:2; 51:59–64a) gives the impression that some of his oracles had already been set down in writing at various points in the prophet’s career. Unlike Ezekiel, whose oracles are never identified within the book as textual works, the Jeremiah tradition routinely associated his teachings with material texts. Jeremiah’s own familiarity with scribal terminology and methods in some of these oracles (if they are to be traced in 33  R.L. Hicks, “Delet and Megillah: A Fresh Approach to Jeremiah xxxvi,” VT 33 (1983): 46–66. 34  This, we should note, is also a matter of scribal convention, as the cataloging of earlier oracles in Mesopotamian archives produced documents that carried renewed meaning in and of themselves; see Lenzi, “Mesopotamian Scholarship,” 151–53, 168–70.

The Pen of Scribes

13

some way to the prophet’s genuine teachings) suggests that he was involved in their textualization, a fact made more likely by virtue of (a) his enculturation in the Deuteronomistic tradition and its emphasis on sacral textuality, and (b) his Levite heritage. The latter likely provided him with scribal training characteristic of priestly groups in antiquity, but in a manner (perhaps even self-consciously) distinct from the Jerusalemite priestly concept found in texts noted above.35 While Jeremiah charges Baruch to write out the contents of the Urrolle (v. 4), YHWH’s directive to the prophet to write them out himself (v. 2) presupposes that the prophet was known to have written down some of his own oracles. Jeremiah 36 clearly navigates between historical experience and mythopoesis: it is probably connected in some way to memories regarding the textualization and reading of Jeremiah’s oracles in the twilight of the Judahite monarchy.36 But the account of the Urrolle’s construction, destruction, and reconstruction also provides insight into the difficulties in obtaining, preserving, and transmitting these written sources during the turbulence of exile. The hermeneutical construct of Jeremiah committing “all” his oracles to a single and lengthy prepared scroll may itself be a reference to the scribes in exile who sought to do the same. Jeremiah becomes somewhat of a cipher for the Deuteronomistic scribes in exile, since they too were concerned with collecting and re-textualizing traditions associated with the prophet – an enterprise certainly requiring a prepared, lengthy scroll. It is therefore significant that the first thing Yhwh commands is for Jeremiah to secure the prepared scroll: prophecy is predicated upon a material component of the scribal craft. It is for this very reason that Jehoiakim eventually slices up the Urrolle before burning it (v. 23) – the act affirms that the scribal craft which brought together various independent units is as powerful as the words of the units themselves. Burning the latter requires the undoing of the former, which presupposes that the scribal craft is not incidental to the transmission of divine revelation but essential to it (and, in the case of Jehoiakim, to its refutation).37

35  Mark Leuchter, “The Medium and the Message, or, What is ‘Deuteronomistic’ about the Book of Jeremiah?,” ZAW 126 (2014): 215–16. 36  Carolyn Sharp suggests that this may well be the hermeneutical purpose of Jer 36, which speaks to the plurality of Jeremianic documents circulating around the various corners of the early Jewish world during the era of the exile (“‘Take Another Scroll and Write’: A Study of the LXX and the MT of Jeremiah’s Oracles Against Egypt and Babylon,” VT 47 [1997]: 508–09). 37  Mark Leuchter, “Jehoiakim and the Scribes: A Note on Jer 36,23,” ZAW 127 (2015): 320–25.

14

Leuchter

3.2 Jeremiah 32 within the “Book of Comfort” Jeremiah 32 occurs within the “Book of Comfort,” a self-contained literary unit spanning Jer 30–33 characterized by oracles of redemption and restoration within a larger unit concerned with the disaster of the fall of Judah (Jer 26–45).38 Within this Book of Comfort, one encounters notable references to scribal practice and textuality, not the least of which is the famous “New Covenant” of Jer 31:31–34, where the human heart is to be the textual medium of the new terms of Yhwh’s relationship with Israel (‫על־לבם אכתבנה‬, v. 33). However, this future condition is related in a material text (the Book of Comfort itself, as per Jer 30:2) – revelatory writing in the future (the New Covenant) is itself revealed through writing in the present.39 As with the relationship between the Pentateuch and the heavenly texts in Exod 32:32–33 noted above, a material scribal product is made a conduit to the cosmic realm: it is through a material book that one is made privy to the terms of the future that Yhwh has already determined and declared. The place of Jer 32 at the heart of the Book of Comfort is no coincidence, and the centerpiece of the chapter is the first-person narrative of Jeremiah’s 38  Jeremiah 30–33 possesses a remarkably complicated redaction history. Konrad Schmid has laid out a different model for the development of these texts, finding much fifth-fourth century BCE material in the Book of Comfort bound to the expansion of the book of Jeremiah more generally during this time (Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches, WMANT [Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996], 27 and passim). However, even though there are passages in this unit that are reasonably assigned to the Persian period, much of this network of material is better seen as part of a scribal project of the exilic period, and draws from pre-exilic sources. Portions of Jer 30–31 and a brief fragment in Jer 33:14–26 (vv. 19–21) appear to possess pre-exilic origins (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 72–81, where the post-exilic setting for most of vv. 14–26 is also discussed; see also further below). The oracle in Jer 32:1–5 possesses features that suggest the exilic literary development of an episode with a point of origin in the final years of the monarchy, as do the events narrated in Jer 32:6–15 (see further below), probably alongside the construction of 32:16–44. Dalit Rom-Shiloni argues for non-Deuteronomistic exilic redaction in this material (“The Prophecy for ‘Everlasting Covenant’ (Jeremiah xxxvi 36–41): An exilic addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction?” VT 53 [2003]: 201–23). I am more inclined to view Deuteronomistic redactors incorporating a diversity of traditions and sources within their overall enterprise, “making” these works Deuteronomistic while retaining their distinct lexical and conceptual characteristics. 39  The locution of Jer 30:2 is probably a relic of the original, pre-exilic version of an oracular unit as it was transmitted in literary form. On the earlier form of this material, see Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 225–33.

The Pen of Scribes

15

redemption of ancestral land from his cousin Hanamel (vv. 6–15). In an influential article, Jack Lundbom made the case that these verses are in fact an expanded version of the actual scribal colophon that accompanied the transaction deed depicted within the narrative.40 As Lundbom noted, this was part of a pattern within the book of Jeremiah where “expanded colophons” were utilized to convey prophetic messages.41 In the case of Jer 32:6–15, what was once part of an independent transaction record has been retooled and retrofitted to support the broader aims of the book of Jeremiah, and this carries implications for the transaction record itself. Like the later use of administrative documents in Ezra-Nehemiah, a common text has been transformed into a revelatory one.42 Yet unlike the administrative sources woven into Ezra-Nehemiah, the transaction record is only referenced within vv. 6–15, its actual contents remaining external to the book. We are not privy to its words, nor are they made the subject of commentary or study (as is the case with the Aramaic letters embedded within Ezra 4–6, the Artaxerxes Rescript in Ezra 7, or the lists/registers in Nehemiah 11–13).43 The narrative reports that the transaction record is brought “before all the men of Judah” in what appears to be an administrative space (‫ בחצר המטרה‬in 32:12), where it is declared by the prophet to be a sign that socio-economic life in the land will eventually be restored. Whether this 40  Jack R. Lundbom, “Baruch, Seraiah and Expanded Colophons in the book of Jeremiah,” JSOT 36 (1986): 89–114 (here, pp. 97–98). 41  Lundbom, “Expanded Colophons,” 99. 42  The authenticity of some of these documents in Ezra-Nehemiah remains disputed, central among them being the Artaxerxes Rescript in Ezra 7. See David Janzen, “The ‘Mission’ of Ezra and the Persian Period Temple Community,” JBL 119 (2000): 624–30. Sebastian Grätz finds Hellenistic resonances in the Rescript and dates it to Ptolemaic period (Das Edikt des Artaxerxes: Eine Untersuchung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Ezra 7,12–26, BZAW 337 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004], 134 and passim). However, it is also possible to read these resonances as accruing during the process of scribal transmission in the Hellenistic period rather than dating the Rescript in its entirety to this era. In any case, even if Ezra 7 presents a problem with authenticity, a good number of other passages seem to be drawn from genuine lists, correspondence and archival records that were subsequently worked into the book and thus made subject to exegetical development. See Mark J. Boda, “Redaction in the Book of Nehemiah: A Fresh Proposal,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric and Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and Paul Redditt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 25–54; Richard C. Steiner, “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4–6,” JBL 125 (2006): 641–85. 43  On this last point, see especially Boda, “Redaction in the Book of Nehemiah,” 51–54.

16

Leuchter

space is in Jerusalem or closer to the Benjaminite locale of the narrated event is unclear, but what is clear is that for an exilic audience in Mesopotamia encountering this narrative, neither the space nor the transaction record stored therein are accessible. Regardless of the command to place the transaction document into a clay vessel “so that it may last a long time” (32:14), the only access the audience has to this now-prophetic text is the narrative conveyed through the expanded colophon. It is through the redactional expansion of the colophon, however, that several important rhetorical and theological points are made. First, it affirms that textual artifacts (such as the transaction document’s colophon) are witnesses to history, but that the study, exegesis, and redactional recasting of those artifacts elucidate the sacral dimensions of historical events – this constitutes an actualization of the New Covenant’s claim in the previous chapter that revelation will be a matter of human intellectual endeavor (Jer 31:33). Second, the expansion of the colophon forges continuity between different audiences enduring exile. One must account for the division between the exiles of 597 BCE and those of subsequent captivities, those exiled to large urban settings versus remote and economically strained camps, and exiled residents of Judah whose lineage roots were Judahite versus those whose ancestry derived from Ephraimite refugee circles.44 The redactional expansion of the colophon works an Ephraimite transaction document (vv. 6–11) into a Judahite social universe (v. 12), and then goes on to extend that decidedly landed interaction into a divine decree applicable to groups who were exiled at different times (v. 15). Even if the expanded colophon derives from a transaction specific to Jeremiah’s ancestral estate in Benjamin, its rhetoric is deliberately inclusive by declaring that restoration will be experienced throughout “this land” (Jer 32:15), a reference to the entirety of the land attested elsewhere in the book (Jer 7:7). Finally, and most significantly, the expansion of the colophon connects it to what follows in vv. 16–44, which contains both a penitential prayer (vv. 17–25) and a second, fuller prophetic oracle (vv. 26–44).45 Prayer is a recurring motif in the Jeremiah oracles, and is presented as a foundational feature of his 44  On the 597 communal divide, see Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology,” HUCA 76 (2005): 1–45. On rural vs. urban settings for exile, see Casey L. Strine, “Was the Book of Ezekiel Written in a Refugee Camp?” (forthcoming in HeBAI). 45  Rom-Shiloni notes the clearly redactional character of vv. 42–44 (“Everlasting Covenant,” 206–07); the verses should be viewed as secondary to the preceding material even if they derive from the same compositional layer due to their distinct rhetorical function as a closing frame.

The Pen of Scribes

17

prophetic status.46 This may have contributed to the arrangement of one of the prophet’s laments/complaints into a penitential prayer (Jer 14:1–15:4), as Mark Boda has noted.47 The presence of a penitential prayer in Jer 32 is thus consistent with the image of the prophet throughout the book, but the sequence of material in the chapter makes it dependent upon the expanded colophon; within the world of the chapter’s narrative, v. 16 clarifies that the prayer was offered after the transaction document was given to Baruch. In the world of the intended audience, however, the prayer addresses uncertainties arising from the now-expanded colophon and its bold declaration of restoration to the homeland. This is made abundantly clear within the closing verse of the prayer itself: “yet you have said to me, my lord Yhwh: ‘buy the field for money, and call witnesses’; though the city is given to the hand of the Chaldeans?!” (v. 25). What troubles the character Jeremiah in the narrative resonates with the concerns of those now living in captivity – a sign that the prayer is substantially a product of the exilic scribes who expanded the colophon (drawing, no doubt, from traditions of prayer already associated with the prophet). With Jerusalem destroyed and its population firmly under the thumb of Babylon, the question asked at the end of the prayer carries tremendous gravity. The prayer, however, is the pretext for what follows: a prose response from Yhwh steeped in the Deuteronomistic idiom. This oracle shares so much in common with prose oracles elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah that the argument could be made that it is a compilation or adaptation of the prophet’s actual preaching as remembered and re-textualized in exile. This is possible, since there are good reasons to seeing significant prose passages in Jer 1–25 as deriving substantially from the prophet in some way (even if they were transmitted and reconstructed by a circle of later scribes).48 Another possibility, though, is that the response is a scribal construct in toto, drawing from conventional language to convey a theological explanation for the present exile that dovetails with extant Deuteronomistic concepts of cause and consequence. Two factors favor the latter explanation. First, and as we have already seen, the closing verse of Jer 36 specifies that the “many similar words” from later 46  References to Jeremiah as a prayer-intercessor include Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11; 15:1; 37:3, 42:2–4, 20. Mark Boda further notes that one of the prophet’s complaints has been redacted into a penitential prayer (“From Complaint to Contrition: Peering through the liturgical window of Jer 14,1–15,4,” ZAW 113 [2001]: 186–97). 47  Boda, “From Complaint to Contrition.” 48  Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 9–11. This does not mean, of course, that prose material originating with Jeremiah himself was not subsequently stereotyped according to later Deuteronomistic convention. See Carr, Tablet of the Heart, 148–49.

18

Leuchter

scribes which entered the written Jeremiah tradition are equivalent in revelatory power to the prophet’s original oracles first set down in the Urrolle. Though Jer 32:6–44 appears earlier than Jer 36 in the book’s literary sequence, it is unlikely that ancient literati read these materials in a strictly linear manner (or only read it that way). Rather, the disparate units orchestrated into the book of Jeremiah carry a curricular character, folding back onto each other in a cross-referential manner.49 In this case, the finale of Jer 36 licenses the addition of oracles such as that in Jer 32:26–44, which are then re-read with an awareness of the scribal imprimatur they carry. The second factor – dependent upon the first – is that the oracle in Jer 32:26–44 is the final strophe in an episode that argues for the vitality of the scribal office in exile and its consistency with Jeremiah’s prophetic office.50 The literary topography of the chapter is governed by the evolution of prophetic authority into scribal authority: 1. 2. 3. 4.

A unit presented as the prophet’s ipsissima verba (vv. 1–5) inaugurates the chapter. The following unit (vv. 6–15) relates an event from the prophet’s life, though it is accessible only through the expansion of a scribal document deriving from that event (the colophon). This leads into a prayer that draws from a Jeremiah prayer tradition, but whose content is the result of heavy scribal arrangement (vv. 16–25). The chapter culminates in an oracle affirming that Deuteronomistic language and ideology explains history and provides an avenue toward restoration (vv. 26–44).

In this way, Jer 32 deftly advances the contribution of scribes from the recording of an oracle to the composition of an oracle – an example of the “many similar words” in Jer 36:32 which enjoy equal authority to those originally deriving from the prophet. The scribal office is thus emphasized at the heart of the Book of Comfort: Israel and Judah’s restoration rests in the hands of scribes.

49  One such example of this is noted by Christopher Seitz in relation to Jer 36:2 and Jer 45 (“The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah,” ZAW 101 [1989]: 22–23). Seitz’s observation pertains to Jer 25 as well, which is also hermeneutically tied to Jer 36:2; the same inter-textual/inter-curricular dynamic appears in Jer 26:4–6 in its reference to the Temple Sermon in Jer 7. 50  Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 62–65.

The Pen of Scribes

19

3.4 Jeremiah 51:59–64a In this textual unit, we encounter another example of the “expanded colophon,” originating not with a common economic transaction record (as with Jer 32:6–15) but with a text that carried a weightier significance from the outset: an early version of Jeremiah’s oracle against Babylon (Jer 50–51). This passage is found at the end of the Babylon oracle in both the MT and lxx versions of the book of Jeremiah, pointing to the antiquity of its association with that oracle and its function as a colophon.51 And like the oracle to which it is affixed in both versions, the passage shows evidence of significant scribal reshaping.52 In its current form, the passage carries locution that aligns it with other oracles throughout the book of Jeremiah and important texts in the book of Deuteronomy as well.53 Dimensions of the earlier colophon may still be embedded within these verses, but they have been reformulated according to Deuteronomistic lexical convention. However the original colophon may have been subsequently reshaped, the outstanding feature of the current passage – that Seraiah is to read the Babylon oracle and then submerge it in the Euphrates – cannot be an invention of the subsequent redactors. Nowhere else in the book of Jeremiah is such an act depicted, and it is likewise pedestrian to the Deuteronomistic tradition: neither Deuteronomy nor the Deuteronomistic History feature the submerging of texts in bodies of water. The directive’s idiosyncrasy is evidence of its authenticity to the original colophon, and the historical likelihood that the scroll was indeed submerged in the Euphrates, though a copy of the original oracle and its colophon must have been retained (as Lundbom notes) and utilized by the later scribes who shaped the book into a more comprehensive form.54 Underneath the elements that point to Deuteronomistic stereotyping, the

51  Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21c (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 504. 52  On the redactional units discernible within the current form of the anti-Babylonian oracle, see Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia (Tübingen: Mohr, 1968), 297–316; Georg Fohrer, “Vollmacht über Volker und Königreiche (Jer 46–51),” in Studien zu alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen, BZAW 155 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981), 50–52; Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 364–501. 53  Like Moses, Jeremiah writes the oracle before giving it to a scribal trustee (51:60; cf. Deut 31:19, 22), and the oracle itself is characterized in Deuteronomistic terms (51:60: ‫ ;כל־הדברים האלה‬cf. Deut 32:45; Jer 43:1). 54  Lundbom, “Expanded Colophons,” 103.

20

Leuchter

colophon most likely contains indications of original features (or at least very early features) of the oracle itself.55 Many commentators have viewed the submergence of the oracle-scroll in the Euphrates as a prophetic sign-act or as a type of apotropaic ritual.56 But what is asked of Seraiah is categorically different from the sign-acts elsewhere described in the book carried out by the prophet himself (Jer 13:1–7; 28). In Jer 51:59–64a, the symbolic act is carried out by Seriaiah, not the prophet, and nowhere else in the book of Jeremiah do scribes carry out symbolic sign-acts on the prophet’s behalf.57 The possibility of the oracle-scroll functioning as the centerpiece of an apotropaic ritual is unlikely too, despite the popularity of this theory. The only other apotropaic moment involving a text in the book of Jeremiah is that narrated in Jer 36:23–24, where Jehoiakim slices and burns the scroll to “undo” the scroll’s potency. But the viability of such an apotropaic mindset is discredited both within the chapter and beyond it: Jer 36 ends with the scroll’s immediate reconstruction (v. 32), and the “Via Dolorosa” chapters immediately following thereafter (Jer 37–44) make clear that the king’s actions yielded no benefit. Indeed, the implication is that to believe in apotropaism in relation to the written divine word is, in fact, to fall prey to the threat of ‫שקר‬ informing so many of the prophet’s oracles, securing Yhwh’s wrath.58 There can be little doubt that the very materiality of the oracle-scroll that Seraiah submerges is an important part of its function, especially in light of the focus on the materiality of written media in the examples adduced above. In contradistinction to the options of a sign-act or apotropaic ritual, however, I have recently proposed another option: that the submergence of the oraclescroll in the Euphrates adapted the conventions of Mesopotamian foundation 55  On colophons as barometers of earlier forms of texts received by the scribes responsible for the colophons, see Michael Fishbane, “On Colophons, Textual Criticism and Legal Analogies,” CBQ 42 (1980): 438–49. 56  See the review of scholarship by Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 503–04. See also Kelvin G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, JSOTSup 283 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 154–69 (see especially pp. 161–62 nn. 197–98 for scholarship on the apotropaic aspects of the episode). 57  A possible exception would be the charge to Baruch to read the scroll in the temple in Jer 36, but to my knowledge, no scholar has argued that this is a sign-act akin to the symbolic acts identified elsewhere in the book. However, Joachim Schaper does see legalhermeneutical significance in the depiction of Baruch’s reading of the scroll and the manner of its reception by its scribal audience. See his essay “On Writing and Reciting in Jeremiah 36,” in Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah, ed. Hans Barstad and Reinhard G. Kratz (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 137–47. 58  Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 103–04.

The Pen of Scribes

21

deposit inscriptions and their function in transforming sacred space.59 The submergence of the anti-Babylon oracle in the Euphrates demarcates the entirety of Mesopotamia bounded by that cosmic river as the realm of Yhwh the same way that foundation inscriptions deposited in the base-work of Mesopotamian temples demarcated those temples as portals to the realm of the gods.60 The act depicted in Seraiah’s colophon served the same purpose on Yhwh’s behalf, but up-ended the traditional dedicatory ideology of its Babylonian and Assyrian textual counterparts and declared the ultimate end of Babylonian hegemony. Through the depositing of this oracle-scroll in the Euphrates, Mesopotamia became the new cosmic center from which Yhwh was to direct history, an idea informing Ezekiel’s worldview and, later, that expressed in Ezra-Nehemiah as well.61 But a crucial aspect of this event as narrated in the expanded colophon is that the original colophon attached to the oracle-scroll would have been part of this ritual act; it, too, would have been submerged in the waters of the Euphrates.62 As such, a major feature of this dedicatory act is that scribal phenomenology is made part of the terms of Yhwh’s hegemony in Mesopotamia. The expanded version of the original colophon, replete with language found elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah and drawing from Deuteronomistic lexical tradition, provides additional clarification as to which scribal group or tradition is empowered by this turn of events. The appearance of this language in the expanded colophon, coupled with the placement of the oracle/colophon unit at the end of the MT sequence of the book,63 further makes the case that 59  Mark Leuchter, “Sacred Space and Communal Legitimacy in Exile: The Contribution of Seraiah’s Colophon (Jer 51:59–64a),” in The Prophets Speak on Forced Migration, ed. Mark J. Boda, et. al. (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 77–99. Lundbom draws similar parallels between Seraiah’s act and the deposition of documents in temples (Jeremiah 37–52, 508). 60  Richard S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968); Sandra L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakken šemo šam in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, BZAW 318 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002) 144–53; Barbara N. Porter, Images, Power Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1993) 50–68. Porter identifies several texts as foundation inscriptions, while other texts are identified as being deposited in the sancta of certain temples (p. 68). In either case, foundation inscriptions served ritual as well as political purposes. 61  Leuchter, “Communal Legitimacy,” 92–93. See also P.R. Bedford, “Diaspora: Homeland Relations in Ezra-Nehemiah,” VT 52 (2002): 147–65. 62  Lundbom, “Expanded Colophons,” 103–04. 63  I have discussed elsewhere that while the MT version of Jeremiah possesses textual units that are demonstrably later and more expansive in character than what we find in the

22

Leuchter

Deuteronomistic scribes have been entrusted with Jeremiah’s prophetic legacy, carving out an authoritative place for them and their textual products among populations now residing in Mesopotamia. 4 Conclusion We will recall from the foregoing discussion that the actual material boundaries of a text are part of its revelatory character. The book of Jeremiah itself therefore transforms the scribal artifacts it preserves by reproducing them and calling attention to their place within its own textual boundaries. A scroll submerged in the Euphrates river is also submerged within the text through the process of redaction; the colophon to a transaction document-turnedprophetic sign itself becomes a portent for written prophecy; and the Urrolle read in the ears of the scribes and the king in Jerusalem is reproduced within the rhetorical expanse of the written Jeremiah tradition (e.g., the ‫ דברי ירמיהו‬of Jer 1:1/51:64b that must have opened and closed an early version of the book similar to the MT).64 One might view this as the sign of a literary work functioning as a sort of archive, but archives are simply places where texts are stored. Something else is at work in the scribal reproduction and presentation of these textual sources. Geoffrey Parke-Taylor’s detailed study of recurring phrases and doublets in the book of Jeremiah revealed that these doublets and repeated lemmas spawn new compositions or redefine the meaning and context of existing ones.65 We have also seen that the book of Jeremiah carries a curricular, even didactic, dimension in its hermeneutical cross-referencing from one unit to another. In the book of Jeremiah, texts are not just stored but consulted, questioned, studied, retransmitted and expanded, and scribal personalities are highlighted as figures central to this process (Baruch, Seraiah, members of the Shaphan faction, and the prophet himself). The book, in short, is not a textual archive but a surrogate sanctuary, for it is in such sanctuary spaces that these same processes took place.66 lxx, the sequence of units currently preserved in the MT is itself quite ancient and is best viewed as obtaining already during the period of the Babylonian exile, while the structure/sequence of the lxx is subsequent (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 146–50, 163–65). 64  Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 142–44. 65  Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Themes, SBLM (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000). 66  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 63–73.

The Pen of Scribes

23

While there is little doubt that a robust oral tradition persisted during the era of the Babylonian exile,67 textual works like the book of Jeremiah became the only material objects that Jewish audiences in exile could approach to encounter the sort of writings that were once so vital to Israelite sanctuary spaces. Entering sacred sanctuary space was replaced by an entry into the texts, where the sources once used by priests to empower their own revelatory proclamations were now embedded in texts that modelled how revelation could be facilitated in the absence of temple structures and faculties. Antecedents to this can, to some degree, already be found in pre-exilic sources in the biblical record and in epigraphic remains from that era: monumental inscriptions were transmuted into textual works, and liturgical traditions associated with landed institutions and structures are given new meaning through their incorporation into literary settings.68 But the degree to which these sources become portents of their own esoteric meaning in the book of Jeremiah – inspiring new revelatory texts actually grafted onto them and even into them – points ahead to new understandings of what a text could be. The book of Jeremiah sees the beginning of what develops in subsequent eras, where written documents and those who wrote them began to emerge from within temples and ritual settings to develop new myths of revelation, new understandings of the divine, new collections of writing and enduring ways of approaching these works.69

67  Carr notes that exilic scribes most likely reproduced texts from memory (Tablet of the Heart, 167–68), which must have involved an oral-performative component. See also above in relation to Ezekiel as a text geared for priestly digestion leading to oral instruction, as well as that text’s presentation of Ezekiel himself as engaged in oral performances to the audience of Judahite elders (Ezek 8:1; 14:1; 20:1). 68  Jeremy Smoak has suggested that the Priestly benediction in Num 6:24–26 represents one such transmuted work, drawing an instructive parallel to the similar benediction in a public inscription at the Ekron temple of the seventh century BCE and the implications of the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription (The Priestly Blessing in Inscription and Scripture: The early history of Numbers 6:24–26 [New York: Oxford University Press, 2016] 113–32). See also Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 141, 204–07, who argues for a royal display inscription as the source for the details found in 2 Sam 8. 69  See Leuchter, Boundaries of Identity, ch. 7, for a fuller discussion of this phenomenon in relation to Neh 8 and the Book of the Twelve.

24

Leuchter

Select Bibliography Baker, David W. “Scribes as Transmitters of Tradition.” Pages 65–78 in Faith, Tradition and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context. Edited by A.R. Millard, James K. Hoffmeier, and David W. Baker. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Byrne, Ryan. “The Refuge of Scribalism in Iron I Palestine.” BASOR 345 (2007): 1–31. Carr, David. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Fishbane, Michael. “On Colophons, Textual Criticism and Legal Analogies.” CBQ 42 (1980): 438–49. Fleming, Daniel. The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Hicks, R.L. “Delet and Megillah: A Fresh Approach to Jeremiah xxxvi.” VT 33 (1983): 46–66. Lenzi, Alan. “Mesopotamian Scholarship: Kassite to Late Babylonian Periods.” JANEH 2 (2015): 145–201. Leuchter, Mark. The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Leuchter, Mark. “The Medium and the Message, or, What is ‘Deuteronomistic’ about the Book of Jeremiah?” ZAW 126 (2014): 208–27. Leuchter, Mark. “Sacred Space and Communal Legitimacy in Exile: The Contribution of Seraiah’s Colophon (Jer 51:59–64a).” Pages 77–99 in The Prophets Speak on Forced Migration. Edited by Mark J. Boda. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. Leuchter, Mark. “Jehoiakim and the Scribes: A Note on Jer 36,23.” ZAW 127 (2015): 320–25. Leuchter, Mark. The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Lundbom, Jack R. “Baruch, Seraiah and Expanded Colophons in the book of Jeremiah.” JSOT 36 (1986): 89–114. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21c. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Muilenberg, James. “Baruch the Scribe.” Pages 215–38 in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies. Edited by J. Durham and J.R. Porter. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983 (original, 1970). Polak, Frank M. “The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics, and the Development of Biblical Prose Narrative.” JANES 26 (1998): 59–105. Richelle, Matthieu. “Elusive Scrolls: Could Any Hebrew Literature Have Been Written Prior to the Eight Century B.C.E.?” VT 66 (2016): 556–94. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology.” HUCA 76 (2005): 1–45.

The Pen of Scribes

25

Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “‘On the day I took them out of the land of Egypt’: A NonDeuteronomic Phrase Within Jeremiah’s Concept of Covenant.” VT 65 (2015): 621–47. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “‘How can you say “I am not defiled …”?’ (Jeremiah 2:20–25): Allusions to Priestly Legal Traditions in the Poetry of Jeremiah.” JBL 133 (2014): 757–75. Schaper, Joachim. “On Writing and Reciting in Jeremiah 36.” Pages 137–47 in Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. Edited by Hans Barstad and Reinhard G. Kratz. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Sharp, Carolyn. “‘Take Another Scroll and Write’: A Study of the LXX and the MT of Jeremiah’s Oracles Against Egypt and Babylon.” VT 47 [1997]: 487–516. Van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Watts, James W. Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

chapter 2

Jeremiah Among the Prophets Marvin A. Sweeney 1 One of the great advances of modern scholarship on the prophets was Gerhard von Rad’s recognition that each of the Major Prophets of the HB was based in a distinctive theological tradition that defined its theological message.1 Isaiah was rooted in the Davidic/Zion tradition;2 Jeremiah was based in the tradition of Mosaic Torah;3 and Ezekiel was rooted in the Zadokite priestly tradition.4 Von Rad did not posit any such foundational theological tradition for the Book of the Twelve Prophets – he followed Protestant tradition in reading the Twelve as twelve discrete prophetic books, but similar proposals might be posed in relation to the Twelve.5 A second great advance has now emerged in the early twenty-first century, that is, the concern with intertextuality and the inherently dialogical character of biblical literature. Such work is based in the perspectives of literary theorists, such as Mikhail Bakhtin, who pointed to the intertextual character of all literature, whether such intertextuality be defined in relation to the deliberate authorial citation of one piece of literature in another; the intertextual relationship between two pieces of literature that are put into relationship by later readers of the texts; or the inherent intertextual relationship among all literature.6 Emanuel Levinas refines contemporary understanding of intertextuality 1  Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Volume II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, tr. D.M.G. Stalker (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 33–49. 2  Von Rad, Old Testament Theology II, 147–75, 238–62, 278–300. 3  Von Rad, Old Testament Theology II, 188–219. 4  Von Rad, Old Testament Theology II, 220–37. 5  Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, BO (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000), esp. xv–xlii; Sweeney, “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve,” in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, FAT 45 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 175–88. 6  M.M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, ed. M. Hulquist, tr. C. Emerson and M. Homlmquist (Austin: University of Texas, 1981). For introductions to intertextuality in the field of biblical studies, see Patricia Tull, “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality,” in To Each its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticism and their Application, ed. S.L. McKenzie and S.R. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 156–80; Barbara Green, Mikhail

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_003

Jeremiah Among the Prophets

27

by pointing to the dialogical character of all literature, that is, any literary work may be read in conversation with any other work of literature, whether such dialog is recognized by later readers or not.7 Each prophetic book has its own distinctive outlook, but they address common sets of concerns. This paper focuses on the book of Jeremiah and its intertextual and dialogical relationship with itself and with the other prophetic books. Insofar as Jeremiah appears in two major forms in the Bible, discussion begins with a comparison of the very different MT and LXX forms of the book. Discussion then turns to Jeremiah’s dialog with the other major books, including Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Prophets. Issues include the hermeneutical perspective of each prophetic book; their understandings of the relationship between Yhwh and the nations Israel and Judah; the status of the Davidic monarchy; the role of the Jerusalem Temple; and the role of foreign nations. 2 Jeremiah appears in two very distinctive forms, viz., the Masoretic Hebrew text of Jeremiah (MT-Jeremiah) and the Septuagint Greek text of Jeremiah (LXXJeremiah). MT-Jeremiah is a far more expansive text that is approximately oneeighth longer than the Septuagint Greek form. The macrostructures of the two forms vary markedly. The first issue to note is the different form and conceptualization of Jer 1–10 in the MT and LXX versions of the book.8 MT-Jeremiah 1–10 includes major macrostructural markers in MT-Jer 1:1–3, 2:1, and 7:1, which demarcate MT-Jer 1–6 and 7–10 as the first two major units of the book. MT-Jeremiah 1–6 includes four constituent sub-units, including the superscription in MTJer 1:1–3; the commissioning of the prophet in MT-Jer 1:4–10; signs concerning Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship: An Introduction, SemeiaSt 38 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); Carol Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Carleen R. Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations, SemeiaSt 58 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007). 7  Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, tr. A. Lingis (Pittsburgh: Duquense University Press, 1969); see also Tamar Cohn Eskenazi et al., eds., Levinas and Biblical Studies, SemeiaSt 43 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). 8  Marvin A. Sweeney, “Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10,” in Reading Prophetic Books: Form, Intertextuality, and Reception in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature, FAT 89 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 135–53.

28

Sweeney

Yhwh’s plans to punish the nation if it does not repent in MT-Jer 1:11–19; and a lengthy sub-unit in MT-Jer 2–6 that calls upon the people to repent. LXX-Jeremiah presents a markedly shorter and different text at two major locations, viz., Jer 2:1–2 and 7:1–2. The shorter text of LXX-Jer presents a different understanding of the text – and thus Jer 1–10 as a whole – from MT-Jer. LXXJeremiah 1–10 lacks the major macrostructural markers and other elements of MT-Jer 1–10, which points to a major difference, viz., MT-Jer is addressed especially to Jerusalem and it calls upon Jerusalem to repent based upon experience with Israel and Judah. LXX-Jeremiah 1–10, however, is addressed to the entire nation, including Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem in an effort to convince all three to return to Yhwh. Discussion of the textual differences in MT-Jer 1–10 and LXX-Jer 1–10 demonstrates their differences in structure and outlook. MT-Jeremiah 2:1–2 presents an example of the prophetic word formula, a command spoken by Yhwh to the prophet to proclaim to Jerusalem, and an example of the prophetic messenger formula, viz., “And the word of Yhwh came to me, saying, Go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, Thus says Yhwh,” followed by the oracular material in MT-Jer 2–6 that calls upon both Israel and Judah to repent in order to avoid judgment.9 Yhwh’s instruction to proclaim these oracles to Jerusalem signals an interest in warning Jerusalem of impending disaster if the prophet’s words are not heeded. LXX-Jeremiah presents a different understanding. LXX-Jeremiah 2:(1–)2 reads simply, “And he said,” followed by the sequence of oracles calling for repentance. LXX-Jeremiah 2–6 is therefore left without a distinctive identity as a textual block within the larger structure of LXX-Jer, and the interest in addressing Jerusalem is absent. Two consequences follow. One is that LXX-Jer 2–6 is incorporated structurally into the account of Yhwh’s word to Jeremiah in LXX-Jer 1:11–19 concerning Yhwh’s threat of judgment against the nation. The other is that the warnings in LXX-Jer 2–6 are not directed specifically to Jerusalem, but to the nation at large, including Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem. The second major feature is the placement of the oracles concerning the nations in each version of the book. MT-Jeremiah places the oracles concerning the nations at the end of the book in MT-Jer 46–51, immediately prior to the narrative concerning the destruction of Jerusalem in MT-Jer 52. LXX-Jeremiah places the oracles concerning the nations immediately following LXX-Jer 25:13, which portrays Yhwh’s cup of wrath from which the nations must drink. Furthermore, the order of the nations differs. In MT-Jer 46–51, the order is Egypt (MT-Jer 46:1–12; 46:13–28); Philistia (MT-Jer 47:1–7); Moab (MT-Jer 48:1–47); 9  Sweeney, “Structure and Redaction in Jeremiah 2–6,” in Form and Intertextuality, 94–108.

Jeremiah Among the Prophets

29

Ammon (MT-Jer 49:1–6); Edom (MT-Jer 49:7–22); Damascus (MT-Jer 49:23–27); Kedar (MT-Jer 49:28–33); Elam (MT-Jer 49:34–39); and Babylon (MT-Jer 50:1–51:58; MT-Jer 51:59–64). In LXX-Jer 25:15–31:44 the order is Elam (LXX-Jer 25:15–39); Egypt (LXX-Jer 26:1–12; 26:13–28); Babylon (LXX-Jer 27:1–28:58; 28:59–64); Philistia (LXX-Jer 29:1–7); Idumea/Edom (LXX-Jer 29:8–23); Ammon (LXX-Jer 30:1–5); Kedar (LXX-Jer 30:6–11); Damascus (LXX-Jer 30:12–16); and Moab (LXX-Jer 31:1–44). By placing the oracles concerning the nations at the conclusion of the book, MT-Jer presents an understanding that the downfall of the nations that have oppressed Judah, Jerusalem, and Israel will take place at some point following the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem and their restoration as announced throughout MT-Jer 1–45. MT-Jeremiah 25:11–14 and 29:10–14 anticipate that the period of punishment and subjugation to Babylon will last for seventy years following the onset of the exile. From the standpoint of MT-Jer, restoration would follow afterwards and then the nations that oppressed Jerusalem, Judah, and Israel and were condemned in MT-Jer 46–51 would meet their own punishment. The placement of the oracles concerning the nations following LXX-Jer 25:13 appears to serve a very different conceptualization of the book. By placing the oracles concerning the nations after those concerned with the punishment of Israel and Judah, proto-LXX-Jer anticipates a future judgment against those nations that had oppressed Israel and Judah prior to their restoration. With the anticipated subjugation of the nations announced in the middle of the book, LXX-Jer is then free to take up the fate of Jerusalem, including both its anticipated restoration and its actual destruction. It is noteworthy then that LXX-Jer concludes in LXX-Jer 51:31–35 (MT-Jer 45:1–5) with the notice that Baruch ben Neriah will write down Jeremiah’s words and see great things. Such a notice anticipates both the realization of the scenario laid out in the LXX version of the book, and it points to Baruch as Jeremiah’s visionary successor.10 The third major feature is the presentation and conceptualization of Davidic kingship in the two versions of Jeremiah. Both versions include Jeremiah’s critique of King Jehoiakim in Jer 22 for building a sumptuous palace for himself while ignoring the needs of his people, as well as Jeremiah’s oracle in Jer 23:1–8 which calls for a righteous Davidic monarch. But whereas MT-Jer 33:14–26 presents a second oracle concerned with the house of David, LXX-Jer 40 omits this oracle. Jeremiah’s condemnation of Jehoiakim in both versions has implications for the book’s understanding of the future of the house of David. Jeremiah is instructed by Yhwh to confront King Jehoiakim ben Josiah for building a 10  J. Edward Wright, Baruch ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003), esp. 1–39.

30

Sweeney

palace for himself while ignoring righteousness and the needs of his people. As part of his condemnation of Jehoiakim, the prophet cites the example of his brother and predecessor, Shallum, better known as King Jehoahaz ben Josiah, who was deposed by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt so that he might place Jehoiakim on the throne. The prophet laments that Jehoiakim is not righteous like his father, Josiah, and he announces that Jehoiakim will suffer an ignominious death as a result of his actions. The prophet concludes by condemning Jehoiakim’s son, Coniah or Jehoiachin, who would be exiled as a result of his father’s unworthiness to sit on the throne of David. Jeremiah 23:1–8 then follows with the prophet’s oracle anticipating a righteous monarch of the house of David.11 He begins by condemning the shepherds, a common metaphor for kings, who let Yhwh’s flock stray away as a means to signal displeasure with Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin. But he anticipates a future time when a righteous Davidic monarch, to be known as “Yhwh is our righteousness,” will ascend the throne. Interpreters note that repeated use of the term ‫צדק‬, “righteousness,” and the name, ‫יהוה צדקנו‬, “Yhwh is our righteousness,” suggests that the oracle anticipates the reign of Jehoiachin’s successor, Zedekiah ben Josiah.12 In any case, the oracle indicates the prophet’s commitment to seeing a righteous Davidic monarch on the throne, not his rejection of the Davidic monarchy altogether. The major differences in perspective between the two versions of the book on the issue of Davidic kingship appear in Jer 33.13 MT-Jeremiah 33:14–26 includes a Davidic oracle, but LXX-Jer 40 omits this oracle. Insofar as it lacks the second oracle, LXX-Jer’s viewpoint on the House of David must lie in its presentation of LXX-Jer 22:1–23:8, viz., the prophet holds to righteous Davidic kingship, but condemns those who do not live up to this ideal. But MT-Jer’s view is nuanced. It’s use of terminology from MT-Jer 23:1–8 – for example, shepherds, justice, and righteousness – points to its dependence on MT-Jer 23:1–8, and its reference to the righteous branch (‫ )צמח צדיק‬points to its dependence on Isa 11:1–9 as well. But as Goldman’s close reading of MT-Jer 33:14–26 demonstrates, MT-Jer 33:14–26 is not a simple oracle affirming Davidic kingship in Jeremiah as

11  Sweeney, “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context,” in Reading Prophetic Literature, 154–66. 12  E.g., Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21B (Garden City: Doubleday, 2004), 164–66; Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 258–59. 13  Sweeney, “The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah,” in Reading Prophetic Literature, 167–81.

Jeremiah Among the Prophets

31

many interpreters suppose.14 Goldman demonstrates that the third feminine singular pronoun suffixes in the text of MT-Jer 33:16 indicate that the Davidic promise is not assigned to the future David king, but to the city of Jerusalem, viz., “In those days, Judah shall be delivered and Jerusalem shall dwell secure, and this is what she (Jerusalem) shall be called, Yhwh is our righteousness.” The Davidic promise is granted to Jerusalem, and in v. 18 it is extended to the Levitical priests who will serve in the city as well. When MT-Jer 33:14–26 is read within the larger context of the book, especially in relation to MT-Jer 23:1–8, it upholds the prophet’s commitment to righteous Davidic kingship, but it recognizes that a Davidic king might not sit upon the throne. It thereby reads the eternal Davidic covenant in relation to Jerusalem and its Levitical priesthood. 3 Jeremiah has extensive intertextual relationships with the Book of Isaiah, including both author-centered forms of deliberate citation and reader-oriented forms of literary association. Both forms of Jeremiah are presented generically as a Chronicle, which presents the “words of Jeremiah” (‫)דברי ירמיהו‬, i.e., his oracular words as well as narrative accounts of the events of his lifetime, whereas the Book of Isaiah appears as a Vision, i.e., “the Vision of Isaiah” (‫)חזון ישעיהו‬. The Hebrew/Aramaic term ‫חזון‬, from the root ‫חזה‬, includes both visual and audial experience and is best understood as perception.15 Isaiah’s vision extends well beyond his lifetime in the late-eighth century BCE to include projections of Yhwh’s actions in relation to Jerusalem, Judah, and Israel in the time of the Achaemenid Persian monarch, Cyrus the Great, and beyond. Whereas Jeremiah is a late-seventh and early-sixth century priest from the line of Abiathar, Eli, and Itamar ben Aaron who calls for adherence to Mosaic Torah, Isaiah is a royal counselor who calls for adherence to the Davidic/Zion tradition in which Yhwh pledges eternal security for the royal house of David and the city of Jerusalem. Jeremiah apparently supported King Josiah’s program of religious reform and national restoration and viewed an early form of

14  Yohanan Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil. Les origins littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie, OBO 118 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 9–64, esp. 11–12, 12–44. 15  See A. Jepsen, “‫חזה‬,” TDOT, 4:280–90.

32

Sweeney

the book of Isaiah composed in the mid- to late-seventh century BCE as a work in which Isaiah looked forward to a righteous Davidic monarch like Isaiah.16 Redactional reconstruction of early forms of Jer 2–6 and Jer 30–31 indicates that Jeremiah called upon the former northern kingdom of Israel to repent and return to Yhwh and Jerusalem.17 But following the early and unexpected death of King Josiah at the hands of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt in 609 BCE, Jeremiah was compelled to rethink his view of Isaiah’s earlier work. Jeremiah was forced to conclude that Yhwh would not carry out the reunification of Judah and Israel under the rule of a righteous Davidic monarch during the reign of Josiah. Instead, Jerusalem and Judah would also suffer punishment like that of Israel for failing to observe divine Torah, and would only realize such restoration after a seventy year period of punishment and exile. The original core of Jer 2:2–4:2, which focused on the return of Israel to Jerusalem and Judah in keeping with Josiah’s restoration, was therefore expanded in Jer 2:1, 4:3–6:30 to include the punishment of Judah at the hands of the unnamed “Enemy from the North.” Indeed, Jeremiah’s depiction of the “enemy from the north” as “a nation from afar” in Jer 5:14–19 appears deliberately to draw upon Isaiah’s depiction of the approaching Assyrian army in Isa 5:25–30. Likewise, Jeremiah’s references to a foolish people without intelligence, who have “eyes but cannot see and ears but cannot hear” in Jer 5:21 appears to draw upon Isaiah’s commission account in Isa 6 in which Yhwh instructs the prophet to render the people blind, deaf, and dumb so that they will not repent and thereby undermine Yhwh’s purpose to be recognized as the true G-d throughout all creation. Jeremiah 30–31 originally comprised only oracles beginning with the formula, “Thus says Yhwh,” that called upon Israel to return to Jerusalem, again in keeping with Josiah’s projected restoration, but the passage was expanded with oracles introduced by the formula, “Behold, the days are coming,” that envisioned the restoration of both Israel and Judah. Judah’s flagging fortunes following the death of Josiah and Jeremiah’s theological worldview combine in the prophet’s decision to question one of the fundamental tenets of Isaiah’s theological worldview, the role of the Jerusalem Temple as a symbol of Yhwh’s commitment to the eternal protection of the city of Jerusalem. Whereas Isaiah chastised King Ahaz ben Jotham of Judah for failing to believe in Yhwh’s promises of eternal protection for Jerusalem

16  Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 208–55. 17  Sweeney, “Structure and Redaction”; Sweeney, “Jeremiah 30–31 and King Josiah’s Program of National Restoration and Religious Reform,” in Form and Intertextuality, 109–22.

Jeremiah Among the Prophets

33

and the House of David in Isa7:1–9:6,18 Jer 7–10 presents Yhwh’s instructions to Jeremiah to stand in the gates of the Jerusalem Temple and to argue that the Temple alone would not ensure the nation’s security. As a priest, Jeremiah would stand watch at the Temple as a means to ensure the sanctity of those who would enter its holy precincts (see Pss 15; 24). Yhwh instructs Jeremiah to remind the people that adherence to Yhwh’s Torah is the key to their security. Again, as a priest, the teaching of Yhwh’s Torah is one of his most important tasks (Lev 10:10–11). Yhwh therefore instructs Jeremiah to cite elements from the Ten Commandments in order to underscore the point, viz., “will you steal, murder, and commit adultery and swear falsely and burn incense to Baal and go after other gods whom you do not know, and come before Me in this House upon which My Name is called and say, ‘We are saved!’, in order to commit all these abominations?” Yhwh further instructs Jeremiah to remind the people of his ancestral sanctuary at Shiloh, which was destroyed by the Philistines prior to the monarchic period. If Shiloh could be destroyed, so could Jerusalem. Jeremiah is able to question the validity of Isaiah’s prophecy elsewhere as well.19 At the time when King Jehoiakim of Judah was planning revolt against the Babylonian Empire, Jeremiah demonstrated in the streets of Jerusalem by walking about with a yoke upon his neck to symbolize his view that Judah must submit to the yoke of Babylon or otherwise suffer severe consequences. Jeremiah was confronted by the prophet, Hananiah, who took the yoke from Jeremiah’s neck and broke it, declaring that Yhwh would soon break the yoke of Babylon and ensure the freedom of Jerusalem and Judah. Such a message was consistent with that of Isaiah a century earlier, i.e., Yhwh would ensure the security of Jerusalem and the House of David. When Jeremiah later returned with a yoke of iron on his neck that could not be so easily broken, he reiterated his message, viz., only adherence to Yhwh’s expectations would protect the nation. Isaiah’s earlier promises of divine protection had run their course and must now be viewed as false prophecy. To underscore and validate Jeremiah’s point, Hananiah drops dead at the end of Jer 28, just as the Assyrian King Sennacherib was killed by his own sons in the temple of his own god at the end of Isa 36–37, following his expressions of defiance against Yhwh, the G-d of Israel and all creation. Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles follows in Jer 29, calling upon the exiles to build houses, bear children, and prepare for a seventy year exile. Prophets who speak otherwise – like Isaiah did a century before – must be false prophets. 18  Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 143–88. 19  Sweeney, “The Truth in True and False Prophecy,” in Form and Intertextuality, 78–93.

34

Sweeney

Like Isaiah, Jeremiah anticipates a righteous Davidic monarch. As a royal counselor grounded in the Davidic/Zion tradition, Isaiah presents oracles in Isa 9:1–6; 11:1–16; and 32:1–8 that state clearly his view that Yhwh would restore a righteous Davidic monarch to the Jerusalem throne. Jeremiah’s own royal oracle in Jer 23:1–8 appears to draw on the language of Isaiah’s royal oracles, particularly in Isa 11:1–16 in an effort to portray Yhwh’s righteous Davidic monarch in his own time. The emphasis on the king’s righteousness (‫ )צדק‬appears to anticipate Zedekiah ben Josiah, who ascended the throne in 597 BCE following the death of Jehoiakim ben Josiah and the deportation of his son, Jehoiachin, to Babylon. Perhaps an earlier form of the royal oracle in Jer 23:1–8 presumed King Josiah of Judah as Yhwh’s righteous monarch, but the death of Jehoiakim, the exile of Jehoiachin, and the Babylonian appointment of Zedekiah as a puppet king undermines any confidence in the true rise of a righteous Davidic monarch in the aftermath of the Babylonian suppression of Judah following their defeat of Egypt in 605 BCE. Such doubts might have prompted the placement of Jeremiah’s oracle concerning false prophecy in Jer 23:9–40 immediately following the royal oracle; with the Babylonian takeover of Judah, how could any prophecy concerning the rise of a righteous Davidic monarch ring true? The second instance of a royal oracle in MT-Jer 33:14–26 reformulates the anticipation of a righteous Davidic monarch. The feminine singular pronouns in MT-Jer 33:19 indicate that MT-Jer 33:14–26 shifts Yhwh’s promise of eternal security from the Davidic King to the city of Jerusalem and the Levitical priests who serve in the Jerusalem Temple. LXX-Jeremiah 40 includes no such text, and thereby indicates its continuing adherence to the ideal of a righteous Davidic King. But the reticence to hold to Yhwh’s eternal promise to the House of David in MT-Jer finds a dialog partner in the Book of Isaiah once again. Although the first portion of Isaiah in Isa 1–33 includes three royal oracles in Isa 9:1–6; 11:1–16; and 32:1–8, the second part of the book of Isaiah corresponds to MT-Jer by calling for a shift in thinking concerning Yhwh’s promise to the House of David. Second Isaiah, an anonymous prophet who spoke in the late sixth century at the end of the Babylonian Exile and the beginning of the reign of the Achaemenid Persian monarch, Cyrus the Great, declares that Cyrus – and not an heir to the House of David – will be Yhwh’s chosen Messiah and Temple builder in Isa 44:28 and 45:1.20 The anonymous prophet also declares that Yhwh’s eternal Davidic promise will not be assigned to 20  Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 40–66, FOTL (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 108–57; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 243–55.

Jeremiah Among the Prophets

35

the House of David per se, but to all Israel in Isa 55. By making such a shift, our anonymous Isaian prophet recognizes that no Davidic King will sit on the throne in Jerusalem following the Persian period restoration, but instead declares that Yhwh’s restoration of Jerusalem, Judah, and Israel constitutes the true fulfillment of Yhwh’s eternal promise to the House of David. One of the anonymous prophets of Isa 56–66, collectively known as Third Isaiah, takes the issue a step further by stating in Isa 66 that Yhwh must be recognized as the true and eternal king of Israel and all creation, but no Davidic monarch appears in the offing. Ultimately, Jeremiah’s portrayal of the punishment of both Israel and Judah in Jer 2–6 and the restoration of both Israel and Judah to Jerusalem in Jer 30–31 anticipate Second Isaiah’s visions of Israel’s return to Jerusalem in Isa 40–55, and the suffering of both Jerusalem/Judah and Jeremiah likewise anticipate the suffering servant of Isa 52:13–53:12 prior to the restoration.21 4 The books of Jeremiah are closely related to the book of Ezekiel. Ezekiel was a Zadokite priest from the line of Aaron, Eleazar, and Phineas, who was preparing to serve in the Jerusalem Temple when he was exiled to Babylonia together with King Jehoiachin ben Jehoiakim of Judah following Jehoiakim’s failed revolt in 598–597 BCE.22 He was a younger contemporary of Jeremiah having been born in 522 BCE at the outset of King Josiah’s religious reform and national restoration beginning in the eighteenth year of his reign (2 Kgs 22:3; cf. 2 Chr 34:8). Ezekiel was never ordained as a priest due to his exile from Jerusalem. During the fifth year of his exile in 592 BCE when he reached the age of thirty, the year in which a prospective young Zadokite would be ordained for service at the Temple altar, Ezekiel experienced a divine vision in which he was commissioned to serve as a visionary prophet of Yhwh (Ezek 1–3). Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel is formulated as a chronicle of the prophet’s career. Ezekiel’s book differs from those of Jeremiah. Rather than with a superscription like that of Jer 1:1–3, the book of Ezekiel begins with a narrative account in Ezek 1:1–3 that identifies the prophet, the date of his inaugural vision, and other information concerning his background. The structure of the book of 21  See esp. Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 32–72. 22  Marvin A. Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2013), 9–19.

36

Sweeney

Ezekiel proceeds with a sequence of chronological formulae in Ezek 1:1; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1; 29:17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1 32:17; 33:21; and 40:1, which trace the chronology of the prophet’s career for twenty years from the age of thirty in the fifth year of his exile (Ezek 1:1–2) through the age of fifty in the twenty-fifth year of his exile (Ezek 40:1), which correspond to the active years of a Zadokite priest from the time of his initial ordination at the age of thirty through his fiftieth year when he would retire from active service.23 Although Ezek 29:17 refers to Ezekiel’s twenty-seventh year of exile when he would have turned fifty-two, most interpreters maintain that this is a redactional update to the text insofar as Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Tyre commenced in 585 BCE, but the city only surrendered thirteen years later in 570 BCE.24 Overall, Ezekiel’s career as a visionary prophet of Yhwh corresponds to the years in which he would have served actively as a priest in the Jerusalem Temple had he not been exiled. Ezekiel would have been a supporter of King Josiah’s religious reform and national restoration. Having been born in 522 BCE at the outset of Josiah’s reform, Ezekiel would have been educated to serve in the Jerusalem Temple, the centerpiece of Josiah’s reform program. But with the early death of Josiah at the hands of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt, like his older colleague Jeremiah, Ezekiel would have had to rethink his stance on Josiah’s program, especially after he was exiled to Babylonia at the age of twenty-five in 597 BCE. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel has a commitment to divine Torah as a basis for the relationship between Yhwh and Israel, but unlike Jeremiah, Ezekiel would view the Jerusalem Temple as the holy center of Israel and all creation that would serve as the source of divine revelation in the world. Whereas Jeremiah viewed the Temple as unable to ensure the nation’s security, Ezekiel viewed the Temple as the sacred center of the relationship between Yhwh and Israel. When the Babylonians took control of Jerusalem in 597 BCE, they apparently erected a stele in the courtyard of the Temple likely commemorating Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian god, Marduk, for the victory, which Ezekiel would have called “the infuriating image that provokes anger” (Ezek 8:3; ‫)סמל הקנאה המקנה‬ and viewed as a desecration of the site. Ezekiel’s vision of the desecration of the Temple and Yhwh’s departure from the site in Ezek 8–11 includes other 23  Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile,” in Form and Intertextuality, 125–43; Tyler D. Mayfield, Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel, FAT 2/43 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). 24  Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 616–18; Paul Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 182; Steven Tuell, Ezekiel, NIBCOT (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009), 206.

Jeremiah Among the Prophets

37

indications of the Temple’s desecration as well, such as the men, led by Jaazaniah ben Shaphan, worshipping the sun to the east, women mourning for the Babylonian god, Tammuz, and foul imagery that replaced the imagery of the Garden of Eden in the Temple interior according to Ezekiel’s vision.25 It is not clear that these events actually took place, insofar as they appear as part of Ezekiel’s visionary experience, but it is noteworthy that Jaazaniah ben Shaphan, a son of one of Josiah’s officers and a member of the same family that gave Jeremiah such important support throughout his career, leads the men in worshipping the sun. Jaazaniah’s presence in this vision suggests that Ezekiel viewed the Shaphan family and a priest such as Jeremiah, who came from a secondary priestly line, as among those who contributed to the Temple’s desecration. In Ezekiel’s view, the desecration of the Temple calls for its purging and resanctification, and that is precisely what the Book of Ezekiel portrays. Ezekiel is compelled to prepare for a journey through the wilderness as he is exiled to Babylon, thereby reversing the tradition of Israel’s journey from Egypt through the wilderness to the promised land (Ezek 12).26 Like Jeremiah (Jer 2), he recalls Israel’s rebellion in the wilderness as an act in which Israel, Yhwh’s bride, abandoned Yhwh to pursue other lovers (Ezek 16; 20). Ezekiel does not look to past generations to explain Jerusalem’s present punishment. Jeremiah quotes the proverb, “the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the son’s teeth are set on edge,” in Jer 31:29–30 as an example of the present attitude that Judah suffers due to the sins of its ancestors, an attitude that will be reversed when the restoration takes place. In Ezek 18:2, Ezekiel quotes the same proverb to demonstrate his view of moral causation, i.e., that the current generation suffers for its own sins, not for those of its ancestors.27 He considers the experiences of several generations of men who commit transgression against Yhwh versus those who observe Yhwh’s Torah, and concludes that those who commit transgressions suffer the consequences of their action, whereas those who observe Yhwh’s expectation are held to be innocent and therefore do not suffer. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel agree that such a view constitutes the future ideal of Israelite ethics. 25  Sweeney, “The Destruction of Jerusalem as Purification in Ezekiel 8–11,” in Form and Intertextuality, 144–55; Sweeney, Ezekiel, 56. 26  Marvin A. Sweeney, “Ezekiel’s Conceptualization of the Exile in Intertextual Perspective,” HBAI 1 (2012): 154–72. 27  Sweeney, Ezekiel, 92–97; contra Gordon Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse, SBLDS 126 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), who, like many interpreters, maintains that Ezekiel speaks about individual rather than generational responsibility.

38

Sweeney

Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel agree that Yhwh will punish nations, but their view as to why this is the case differs. Jeremiah calls for the punishment of the nations that oppress Israel and Judah, including Babylon, which may signal the Persian Empire in MT-Jer. Ezekiel views the nations not only as oppressors of Israel, but as desecrators of creation as well. He does not include Babylon in his oracles against the nations in Ezek 25–32, but he does see the deaths that they have brought about as a desecration of the land on which the restored Temple will one day stand.28 In Ezekiel’s view, the land must be purified of death before the restored Temple is built.29 In Ezek 37:1–14, he has a vision of the Valley of Dry Bones, apparently viewing a battlefield where the dead had been left exposed to desecrate the land.30 Ezekiel envisions the restoration of these corpses as sinews and flesh cover the bones so that these dead might live and render the land pure once again. In Ezek 38–39, Ezekiel sees the land desecrated by the corpses of the army of Gog of Magog.31 When the animals of creation devour the corpses of the dead and the rest are burned by fire, the land is purified from death so that the Temple might be built. Ezekiel is a true adherent of Josiah’s reform. Jeremiah initially supported the reform as a means to return Israel to Judah and place both the Temple and the House of David at the center of a reunited Israel.32 Jeremiah recognized that Jerusalem and Judah would also suffer punishment before the process was complete, but he gives little role to the Jerusalem Temple and focuses instead on Jerusalem and Yhwh’s Torah as his focal points for restoration. Ezekiel agrees with Jeremiah that the process would include judgment against Jerusalem, but he envisions the rebuilding of the Temple in ideal form together with the restoration of all twelve tribes of Israel around the Temple and the renewal of creation as well as the focal points of his view of the ultimate outcome of Josiah’s efforts in his final vision in Ezek 40–48.33 The restored Temple is like none that is ever seen in Jewish history (Ezek 40–42); it corresponds neither to Solomon’s Temple nor to the Second Temple and it has therefore been identified as the future third Temple in Rabbinic understanding of Ezekiel’s 28  Sweeney, Ezekiel, 179–93. 29   Sweeney, “The Assertion of Divine Power in Ezekiel 33:21–39:29,” in Form and Intertextuality, 156–72. 30  Sweeney, Ezekiel, 179–83. 31  Sweeney, Ezekiel, 186–93. 32  Sweeney, “The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28: Ezekiel’s Reflection on Josiah’s Reform,” in Reading Prophetic Books, 219–32. 33  Sweeney, “Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision,” in Reading Prophetic Books, 233–50.

Jeremiah Among the Prophets

39

vision.34 The Temple will be the site of renewed worship of Israel and observance of Yhwh’s Torah (Ezek 43–46). Whereas the two versions of Jeremiah disagree about the future of the Davidic promise, Ezekiel is certain that there will be a Davidic King who will lead the people in coming to the Temple to worship Yhwh (Ezek 45). Although Ezekiel typically refers to the Davidic king as a “prince” (Heb ‫ )נשיא‬throughout the book, he refers to the future King of a reunited Israel and Judah as ‫מלך‬, “king,” in Ezek 37:15–28, esp. v. 24 (cf. Ezek 43:7). When the Temple is restored, the waters that flow from it will render the Dead Sea as a fertile lake lined with luscious fruit trees and filled with fish. Ezekiel sees the restoration of the Temple, a reunited Israel, and the leading role of the House of David, as the goals of Yhwh’s actions in purging the Temple, just as Josiah had envisioned such a scenario as the goals of his own program of reform and restoration. 5 The Book of the Twelve Prophets constitutes a very special case among the prophetic books of the HB insofar as it simultaneously constitutes a single book and a collection of twelve individual books that comprise the whole.35 Like Jeremiah, the Book of the Twelve appears in two different forms in the Masoretic Hebrew version of the book and the Septuagint Greek version.36 Each version presents a different order of books. The MT order includes Hosea; Joel; Amos; Obadiah; Jonah; Micah; Nahum; Habakkuk; Zephaniah; 34  See Seder Olam Rabbah 26:51–52 (Midrash Seder Olam: A Photostatic Reproduction of Ber Ratner’s Edition of the Text, Notes and Introduction [Brooklyn, NY: Moznaim, 1998], 20), which identifies Ezekiel’s Temple as “the future Temple to come (Heb habāyit lā`ātîd habbā᾽â),” and the commentaries of Rashi and Radaq who employ the same language. 35  Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, xv–xliii. 36   Sweeney, “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve,” in Form and Intertextuality, 175–88. Many contemporary scholars, e.g., James D. Nogalski (The Book of the Twelve, SHBC, 2 vols. [Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2011]), view the Book of the Twelve as a heavily edited composition rather than as an ordered assemblage of discrete books, but they ignore the evidence of the Septuagint and its order. For a selection of current scholarship on the Book of the Twelve, see Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle, eds., Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 433 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012). On the interrelationship between synchronic and diachronic readings of the Book of the Twelve, see now Daniel C. Timmer, The Non-Israelite Nations in the Book of the Twelve: Thematic Coherence and the Diachronic-Synchronic Relationship in the Minor Prophets, BibInt 135 (Leiden: Brill, 2015).

40

Sweeney

Haggai; Zechariah; and Malachi. There are many different orders within the LXX manuscript tradition, although the order in Codex Vaticanus, the earliest complete Greek version of the Bible, has become the basis by which interpreters recognize the LXX order, which includes Hosea; Amos; Micah; Joel; Obadiah; Jonah; Nahum; Habakkuk; Zephaniah; Haggai; Zechariah; and Malachi. Other orders appear among the Dead Sea Scrolls and other versions, which raises questions concerning any recognized order of books, although the Wadi Murrabba’at Hebrew manuscript of the Twelve and the Naḥal Ḥever Greek manuscript of the Twelve from the Judean wilderness both present the same order as the MT.37 Thus the MT order is very stable, even as the LXX order is often more fluid. Many interpreters maintain that the order of the books in either sequence is historical, but closer examination of the books demonstrates that this is not entirely true. Joel and Obadiah might be read as ninth century prophets and the historical order of the eighth century prophets should be Amos; Hosea; and Micah. The order of the books in both versions appears to be determined by a concern with the paradigm of a metaphorical marriage between Yhwh and Israel as the basis for the covenant in Hosea and Malachi. After Hosea, the MT version of the book appears to give special concern to Jerusalem throughout, insofar as it places Joel after Hosea and Obadiah after Amos, both of which take up Jerusalem. The LXX order appears instead to give special attention to the fate of the northern kingdom of Israel as a paradigm for that of Jerusalem and Judah, insofar as it places Hosea, Amos, and Micah first, all of which are concerned primarily with northern Israel, whereas the later books in the sequence give primary attention to Jerusalem and Judah. The concern with Jerusalem in the MT version of the Book of the Twelve is analogous to that of MT-Jer, and the concern with northern Israel in the LXX version of the Book of the Twelve is analogous to that of LXX-Jer. Both forms of the book of Jeremiah are in intertextual dialog with the two forms of the Book of the Twelve Prophets. Both forms of Jeremiah are fundamentally concerned with the observance of Yhwh’s Torah by both Israel and Judah, and both forms also begin in Jer 2–6 with a portrayal of Israel as the wayward bride of Yhwh who pursued other gods or other lovers in the 37  Ehud Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘the Twelve’: Some Preliminary Considerations,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W.  Watts, ed. J.W. Watts and P.R. House, JSOTSup 235 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 125–56. For discussion of the textual versions, see esp. Barry Alan Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon, SBLDS 149 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995).

Jeremiah Among the Prophets

41

wilderness. The appeal to Israel to return to Yhwh by observing Yhwh’s Torah is apparent in both. Likewise, both versions of the Twelve begin with Hosea’s use of the marriage metaphor to portray Gomer’s alleged abandonment of her husband, Hosea, as a metaphor for Israel’s alleged abandonment of her husband Yhwh. The use of this metaphor in Hosea is more political than religious in orientation insofar as the prophet apparently has Israel’s relationship with Assyria and Egypt in mind as the basis for his understanding that Israel had abandoned Yhwh. Both version of the Twelve likewise conclude with Malachi in which Yhwh declares abhorrence of divorce in Mal 2:10–17 and calls for Israel’s return to the observance of Mosaic Torah in Mal 3:22. There are other similarities. Both forms of Jeremiah make use of the symbolic vision report in Jer 1:11–12, 1:13–19, and 24:1–10 in which Yhwh shows the prophet a vision and then asks him what he sees in an effort to elicit an interpretation.38 In each case, Jeremiah interprets the almond rod (Heb ‫)שקד‬ as a pun that signifies that Yhwh is watching (Heb ‫ )שקד‬the divine word to perform it; the boiling pot poured out from the north as a sign of the impending invasion from the north; and the differentiation between good and bad figs presented at the altar as metaphor for the good and the bad among the exiles who will ultimately be restored to the land or who will suffer punishment. Similar forms are in use by Amos in his vision sequence in Amos 7–9 to signal the use of plumb line to indicate that Israel had measured up to Yhwh’s expectations in Amos 7:7–9 and a basket of summer fruit (Heb ‫ )קיץ‬to signify that the end (Heb ‫ )קץ‬had come upon Israel in Amos 8:1–3. Zechariah also uses the form in the vision sequence of Zech 1–6 to indicate that the golden menorah in the new Temple signifies the anointed king and the anointed priest in Zech 4 and the coming punishment of Babylon on the Plain of Shinar in Zech 5. Jeremiah 26 cites Micah’s announcement that Jerusalem would fall in Mic 3:12 during Jeremiah’s trial for sedition, and Jeremiah’s oracle against Edom in Jer 49:7–22 cites Obad 1–4, 5–6, and 10–16 to denounce the Edomites for their role in ravaging Judah and Jerusalem. Like Jeremiah, Nahum calls for the downfall of Israel’s oppressor, Assyria, but unlike Jeremiah, who can only anticipate Babylon’s downfall in Jer 50–51, Nahum actually gets to see it. There are differences as well. Both versions of Jeremiah view the Temple as far less important than Yhwh’s Torah to the relationship between Yhwh and Israel/Judah. But the Book of the Twelve gives special attention to the Temple in Joel; Obadiah; Habakkuk; Zephaniah; Haggai; Zechariah; and Malachi. Joel envisions Yhwh’s defense of Jerusalem from the attacking nations. Obadiah accuses the Edomites of playing a role in the desecration of the Temple during 38  Susan Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition, HSM 30 (Chico: Scholars, 1983).

42

Sweeney

the Babylonian assault. Habakkuk may well be a Temple priest who stands his watch while waiting for Yhwh to defeat Judah’s oppressors. Zephaniah calls for the nation’s recognition of the sanctity of the Temple together with the observance of Yhwh’s Torah. Haggai sees the rebuilt Temple as a sign that Yhwh will overthrow the nations and raise a new king in Jerusalem. Zechariah employs the imagery of the rebuilding Temple throughout his visions in Zech 1–6 to signify the restoration of the nation, and the apocalyptic war against the nations in Zech 12–14 culminates with their recognition of Yhwh at the Jerusalem Temple. Malachi calls for the people to support the Temple together with observance of Yhwh’s Torah. And whereas Jeremiah provides a full portrayal of the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the nation, the Book of the Twelve, like Isaiah, skips over this issue in moving from Zephaniah, who threatens exile, to Haggai, who portrays the implications of building the new Temple at the time of the initial return under Zerubbabel and Joshua ben Jehozadak. The portrayal of the monarchy is another key issue. There are differences between the two versions of Jeremiah in their understanding of the future of the Davidic monarchy. Whereas LXX-Jer anticipates the rise of a righteous Davidic monarch in LXX-Jer 23:1–8, MT-Jer reassigns the Davidic covenant to Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood in MT-Jer 33:14–26. Both versions of the Book of the Twelve show some ambiguity in portraying the High Priest Joshua ben Jehozadak crowned and sitting on the throne seemingly reserved for the Davidic figure, Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel in Zech 6. Otherwise, both versions of the Book of the Twelve anticipate a Davidic monarch who will serve as Yhwh’s regent in the future. Hos 3:1–5 anticipates a united Israel and Judah under the rule of a Davidic monarch. Amos calls for the restoration of the fallen booth of David in Amos 9:11–15. Haggai declares Zerubbabel to be Yhwh’s signet ring, a metaphorical statement concerning his role as Yhwh’s regent, in Hag 2:20–24. Zechariah anticipates that Yhwh’s apocalyptic war against the nations that oppress Israel will be led by the future Davidic monarch, which in turn will lead to the nations’ recognition of Yhwh at the Jerusalem Temple. Both forms of the Book of the Twelve appear to be in agreement with LXX-Jer when it comes to the question of Davidic kingship. 6 Jeremiah is in dialog with itself and with the other prophetic books of the HB. The dialog may be deliberate – in the case of authorial citation of other prophetic books – or not, in the case of literary association due to the

Jeremiah Among the Prophets

43

placement of Jeremiah together with the other prophetic books in the biblical canon. Sometimes Jeremiah agrees with the other prophets and sometimes there is substantial disagreement. Some might see such disagreement as problematic insofar as it undermines the notion of a uniform theological viewpoint throughout the biblical canon. But such disagreement must be seen as a desideratum insofar as it allows readers to see that there are a variety of standpoints within the canon itself as well as among the readers of the Bible, who so frequently disagree among themselves as to the correct understanding of the Bible. Such variety of viewpoint brings us closer to an understanding of the divine, who cannot be limited in relation to human perception, and of human communities themselves, who in reading the Bible and especially the Prophets according to their various standpoints allow us to see dimensions of G-d and the Prophets that we otherwise might not see. Our challenge then is to learn to listen to the variety of viewpoints expressed in Jeremiah and the other Prophets as well as within and among the communities that read them in order that we might better understand the messages that these books convey. Select Bibliography Albertz, Rainer, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle, eds. Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 433. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Allen, Leslie. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘the Twelve’: Some Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125–56 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by J.W. Watts and P.R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2002. Goldman, Yohanan. Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil. Les origins littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie. OBO 118. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21B. Garden City: Doubleday, 2004. Midrash Seder Olam: A Photostatic Reproduction of Ber Ratner’s Edition of the Text, Notes and Introduction. Brooklyn, NY: Moznaim, 1998. Niditch, Susan. The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition. HSM 30. Chico: Scholars, 1983.

44

Sweeney

Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology, Volume II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. Translated by D.M.G. Stalker. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Sweeney, Marvin A. Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. FAT 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 40–66. FOTL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Sweeney, Marvin A. King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Sweeney, Marvin A. Reading Ezekiel: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2013. Sweeney, Marvin A. Reading Prophetic Books: Form, Intertexuality, and Reception In Prophetic and Post-Biblical Literature. FAT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Sweeney, Marvin A. The Twelve Prophets. BO. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000. Tull, Patricia. “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality.” Pages 156–80 in To Each its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticism and their Application. Edtied by S.L. McKenzie and S.R. Haynes. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Wright, J. Edward. Baruch ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003.

chapter 3

Jeremiah – “The Prophet like Moses”? Georg Fischer 1

Introduction: The Link to Deuteronomy 18

The very last clause of the Torah begins, “And a prophet like Moses did not rise again in Israel” (Deut 34:10). This refers back to the divine promise quoted by Moses in Deut 18:18, “I will raise up for them a prophet from the midst of their brothers like you,” which he had already mentioned three verses earlier: “Yhwh, your God, will raise up a prophet from your midst, from your brothers, like me” (v. 15). The tension between the repeated announcements of a prophet equal to Moses in Deut 18 and its non-fulfilment points in two directions: it indicates that the divine promise has not yet been realised by the conclusion of the Torah, and that its fulfilment is still to be expected. This open motif remains a topic for discussion for the community of those who believe in the God of the Torah. Is he faithful to his word? And who might be the prophet who is equal to Moses, by far the most important and dominant figure in Israel’s history? The Book of Jeremiah1 responds to this issue. In its very first chapter, it proposes the prophet Jeremiah as the expected and promised successor of Moses. The key to such an understanding is to be found in Jer 1:9 where God, as he touches Jeremiah’s mouth, says: “Behold, I put my words in your mouth.” This picks up the continuation of the divine promise in Deut 18:18: “And I will give my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them everything which I will command him.” Renate Brandscheidt has interpreted Jer 1:9 as “dramatization” of Deut 18, adding to the mere words a unique divine gesture underlining and visualizing them.2 No other text of the Hebrew Bible uses the phrase ‫נתן דברי בפה‬, 1  From this point on, “Jer” will be used for either the book or its author, whereas “Jeremiah” refers to the historical or literary figure of the prophet. I am very grateful to Mrs. Felicity Stephens for having corrected the English of this essay, and to Brad Anderson for its redaction. 2  Renate Brandscheidt, “‘Bestellt über Völker und Königreiche’ (Jer 1,10). Form und Tradition in Jer 1,” TTZ 104 (1995): 12–37, here 30; Matthias Köckert, “Zum literargeschichtlichen Ort des Prophetengesetzes Dtn 18 zwischen dem Jeremiabuch und Dtn 13,” in Liebe und Gebot. Studien zum Deuteronomium, Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt, ed. Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann, FRLANT 190 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000),

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_004

46

Fischer

“to put my words into the mouth,” with God as a subject.3 Thus, an “exclusive relationship”4 unites Jer 1 and Deut 18. The second characterisation of the prophet like Moses, to “speak everything which I will command,” is also present in Jer 1. The phrase ‫דבר כל־אׁשר צוה‬ occurs in God’s response to Jeremiah’s objection at the end of v. 7, and again in v. 17, both times as a command. Besides these three instances in the opening chapter of Jer, which allude to the “law for the prophet” in Deut 18:15–22, Jer refers to it quite often later on,5 so that it seems reasonable to conclude for Jer that there is a deliberate dependence on it. Jer uses it as a key text to claim authority for “Jeremiah” and for its own message, to disqualify the pretentions and proclamations of other prophets, and to question their legitimacy. 1.1 The Debate About the “Original” Text of Jeremiah Any serious biblical study has to start with the text. For Jer, this is a very delicate issue, as recent years have brought about a significant shift in the evaluation of the two main textual traditions of Jer. From antiquity readers viewed the MT as generally offering the preferable reading.6 However, this began to shift in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as scholars such as J.D. Michaelis and F.C. Movers began to give preference to the Greek version.7 This would continue with German scholars in the twentieth century (Duhm, B.H. Kittel, Cornill, Volz, Rudolph), and with English language scholars such as H.P. Smith and Streane, then surviving in the works of Bright, Thompson, Holladay, Janzen,

80–100, is one of the few holding the opposite position, supposing Deut 18 to be dependent on Jer 1. 3  In the New Testament, Acts 3:22 and 7:37 pick up Moses’ quote of the divine promise in Deut 18:15. Peter, in his speech in Acts 3, interprets the coming of Jesus as its realisation. 4  The term “exclusive relationship” designates a literary link by a marked expression occurring only in two texts or books; for example, ‫“( מצא קׁשר‬to find treason”) connects 2 Kgs 17:4 and Jer 11:9 and is not found anywhere else, thus forming a strong bond between them. Jer contains a large number of such links, and they serve as a helpful tool not only for establishing the intertextual links of Jer, but also for gaining insight into its composition. 5  E.g., Jer 14:14, 20:9, 23:32, 26:16, 28:9, 35:13, and 44:16 show close connections to Deut 18. 6  One of the first to explicitly vote for such a position was St. Jerome, In Hieremiam Prophetam, Prologus 2. 7  On these developments see Franz D. Hubmann, “Bemerkungen zur älteren Diskussion um die Unterschiede zwischen MT und G im Jeremiabuch,” in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung,” ed. Walter Groß, BBB 98 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 263–70.

Jeremiah – “ The Prophet like Moses ” ?

47

Cross, Tov, McKane, and others. This view sees the Greek version, or its supposed Hebrew “Vorlage,” as closer to the presumed original of Jer.8 At first glance, the recent preference for the Septuagint of Jer seems to have strong support. The Greek text of Jer is approximately one sixth shorter than the Hebrew – if one applies the criterion of lectio brevior potior, this favours the lxx of Jer.9 The order of Jer MT has the oracles against foreign nations, unusually, at the close of the book, as chs. 46–51, whereas in the lxx they are in the middle, as Jer 25–31, corresponding to the normal sequence of prophetic books.10 The Qumran manuscript 4Q71, with traces of Jer 9:22–10:21, sides in some cases with the lxx version, and this is taken as proof for the latter’s priority.11 However, several studies in the last few years have pointed to difficulties in the majority position. Oliver Glanz has analysed the many changes in the communication structure of Jer, occurring in person, gender, and number.12 He concludes that Jer MT is the most complicated text, followed and supported by the Qumran manuscripts, and that the lxx of Jer deviates the most, exhibiting a tendency to diminish such shifts and thus making it easier to understand. Two studies on Jer 10, which is a focal point in the discussion about the text 8  Other representatives of this position include Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, Adrian Schenker, and Hermann-Josef Stipp. A decisive factor for this change was the work of J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, HSM 6 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), with a provisional rendering of five Jer manuscripts from Qumran. For an overview of the contrasting opinions, see the entries of Richard D. Weis, “Textual History of Jeremiah,” in Textual History of the Bible, Volume 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 495–513, and Georg Fischer, “Jeremiah: Septuagint,” in Textual History of the Bible, Volume 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 543–56. 9  The problem with such reasoning is that it transfers an argument valid for textual critical comparison within one language to a translation. When one has to render an original in another language, one can easily either lengthen or shorten it. As Jer is very repetitive, the latter is explicable. 10  The usual order, schematically, is judgement upon Israel – judgement upon other nations – salvation for Israel. Only Jer MT deviates so drastically from it; this could also be interpreted as lectio difficilior. There is still the banquet scene and its sequel in Jer 32 lxx, as closure for these oracles, which in MT 25:15–38 are a prelude to and announcement of what will come later. 11  Also 4QJer72a, with the text of Jer 43:4–6, goes together with the lxx in some instances. For the problems of such an interpretation see Georg Fischer, Jeremia. Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007), esp. 21–22. 12  Oliver Glanz, Understanding Participant-Reference Shifts in the Book of Jeremiah, SSN 60 (Leiden: Brill 2013).

48

Fischer

of Jer because of 4Q71, present plausible harmonisations and other deliberate changes in the Greek version.13 The research of Shimon Gesundheit on Jer 25, the “deviation point” regarding Jer’s structure,14 arrives at the same result. In my eyes, Jer MT generally deserves priority, offering a more complex reading, whereas the differences of the lxx version can easily be explained as resulting from the process of translation.15 Therefore it seems not only legitimate, but necessary to take Jer MT as the basis for Jer studies. The purpose of the above introductory remarks is twofold. The first part aims to show that Jer, in its very first chapter, claims Jeremiah as the announced successor of Moses, and equal to him. The second section pleads for caution with respect to the privileged position and esteem attributed to the Greek version of Jer in recent years, pointing to serious problems with it and suggesting that Jer MT is the better basis for investigations into this book.16 Against this background, we may now go on to scrutinise in detail the relationship between Moses and Jeremiah. I will proceed in three steps. As Moses is the main figure of the Torah, I will first (in section 2) deal with the concept of ‫ תורה‬in Jer, and its use therein. If Jeremiah is the promised prophet like Moses, it must show up in some way in his book. At the same time, “like” does not mean “identical”; this implies that Jeremiah, in some way, “deviates” from his predecessor and shows new traits (3). Finally (4), the direct comparison of the two figures will make clear that Jeremiah, in many respects, is quite different from Moses. 13  Antonio Favale, Dio d’Israele e dei popoli. Anti-idolatria e universalismo nella prospettiva di Ger 10,1–16, AnBib 211 (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2016), and J.S. Adcock, “Oh God of Battles! Steal My Soldiers’ Hearts!” A Study of the Hebrew and Greek Text Forms of Jeremiah 10:1–18, CBET 83 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017). 14  Shimon Gesundheit, “The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool for Literary-Critical Analysis,” VT 62 (2012): 29–57. 15  For further arguments, see Fischer, Jeremia. Stand, 17–53; Georg Fischer, “Zum Text des Jeremiabuches,” Bib 78 (1997): 305–28; and Andreas Vonach, “Jeremias,” in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare, Band II: Psalmen bis Daniel, ed. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 2696–814. Another argument for priority of the MT, based on haplography, is offered by Jack Lundbom, “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah,” HS 46 (2005): 301–20. 16  The link between Deut 18:18 and Jer 1:9 may serve as a typical example. In Hebrew, the correspondence between the two texts is very close: ‫ ונתתי דברי בפיו‬and ‫נתתי דברי בפיך‬, whereas in the lxx Deut 18:18 has καὶ δώσω τὸ ῥῆμά μου ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ and Jer 1:9 δέδωκα τοὺς λόγους μου εἰς τὸ στόμα σου. The meaning of the two phrases is similar, but the wording differs significantly and does not convey the precise connection existing in Hebrew.

Jeremiah – “ The Prophet like Moses ” ?

2

49

The Authority of the Torah in Jeremiah

2.1 The Passages with ‫ תורה‬in Jeremiah There are eleven passages with ‫ תורה‬in Jer.17 Its meaning – “instruction, teaching, Torah” – is open and its usage in Jer is varied and ambiguous. Five occurrences show the phrase ‫“ הלך בתורה‬to walk in the instruction / Torah,”18 and four of them state that this has not happened, the exception being Jer 26:4, where it is a warning. This indicates a problem with God’s teaching / Torah, namely that time after time it is not heeded by the people. Such a negative connotation is already present in the first instance for ‫תורה‬ in Jer 2:8. It carries an accusation: “those handling / grasping ‫ התורה‬don’t know me.”19 God judges those people who are closely connected with “the instruction / Torah” to be far from him in their behaviour. Similarly, Jer 8:8 and 18:18 also have negative undertones. The context of the first passage questions the conviction of the “we”-group to possess ‫ תורת יהוה‬by disqualifying the scribes’ handling of it twice as ‫“( ׁשקר‬deceit”). Jer 18:18 conveys the false attitude and illusory confidence of the group opposing Jeremiah that “‫ תורה‬will not disappear from the priest” and that they therefore need not heed his words and may beat him. Two other passages, Jer 6:19 and 16:11, also criticize the community, with respect to ‫תורה‬, of having despised and not kept its commands. The one positive exception in Jer’s use of ‫ תורה‬is in the passage concerning the New Covenant, where God declares: “I will give ‫ תורתי‬in their midst, and on their heart I will write it” (31:33). However, the other ten occurrences, too, show in the background a deep appreciation for God’s ‫תורה‬, and they question the way in which some religious officials and the people in general deal with it. Some passages, like 8:8 and 31:33, are connected with “writing,” and might thus point to scrolls, maybe even the five books of the Torah. In any case, God’s previous “instruction,” be it written or communicated in another form, is a key concept for Jer and an undisputed basis for the book. 17  The main study for this topic is Christl Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora. Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches, FRLANT 196 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002). She, too, assumes that ‫ תורה‬in Jer may also refer to written scrolls (293–94), thus allowing for “Torah” to be intended by it. 18  Jer 9:12 (English 9:13; here verb and preposition are in a relative clause, following ‫תורה‬ after some words in between); 26:4; 32:23; 44:10, 23. They all relate ‫ תורה‬by suffixes to God. 19  For the importance and significance of this passage see Georg Fischer, “‫ותפש ֺי התורה‬ ‫לא ידעוני‬: The Relationship of the Book of Jeremiah with the Torah,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures Between Europe, Israel and North America, ed. Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid, FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 891–911.

50

Fischer

2.2 The Usage of the Torah in Jeremiah The use of ‫ תורה‬in Jer shows the book’s esteem for God’s teaching. This attitude is confirmed by the many close links of Jer with all books of the Torah. Some examples may give an idea of the way in which Jer deals with them.20 Jer 4:23–26 describes Jeremiah’s vision of the earth as ‫תהו ובהו‬, the heavens without light, and with neither humans nor birds in them. This refers back to Gen 1, and is obviously a reversal of the first creation narrative.21 The Book of Exodus serves as a source many times, for example in the motif of bringing out from Egypt,22 with the Decalogue quoted in an abbreviated manner in Jer 7:9, and with references to events at Mount Sinai (see Jer 31:32 for the “old” covenant there). Connections with the Book of Leviticus are less visible, though there is a strong and exclusive link found in the phrase ‫“ געלה נפׁש‬the soul abhors,” joining Lev 26:11, 15, 30, 43 and Jer 14:19. It is significant that Jer does not refer to the cultic stipulations, but picks up a heavily loaded emotional expression of God’s promises and threats from the book’s concluding section. The oracle concerning Moab in Jer 48 draws on the Book of Numbers in several instances. The place names in vv. 21–24 are in part identical with locations mentioned in Num 21 and 32–33. Furthermore, Jer 48:45–46 look like a combination of Num 21:28–29 with Num 24:17. The Book of Deuteronomy is the main source for Jer. The link to Deut 18 (see above 1.1) showed that Jer deliberately chooses the image of Moses as prophet from there for its portrayal of Jeremiah, and takes the “law of the prophet” as an aid in the discernment of prophecy (cf. the instances in note 5). Moreover, Jer quotes Deuteronomy very often: main focal points are the former and the latter frame, among them especially Deut 4–5 and 31–32, with Deut 28 being the peak in the intensity of the links.23 20  The connections are so many that it is not possible to give a complete list here. For a more systematic presentation of some major links see Fischer, “‫ותפשׂי‬,” 900–3, and earlier Fischer, Jeremia. Stand, 134–136. 21  Birgit Trimpe, Von der Schöpfung zur Zerstreuung. Intertextuelle Interpretationen der biblischen Urgeschichte (Gen 1–11) (Osnabrück: Rasch, 2000), 55–84. 22  Jer 7:22, 25; 11:4 and elsewhere; cf. Georg Fischer, “Zurück nach Ägypten? Exodusmotivik im Jeremiabuch,” in A Pillar of Cloud to Guide: Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne, ed. H. Ausloos and B. Lemmelijn, BETL 269 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 73–92. On the importance of “Egypt” in Jer, see Michael P. Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick. Studie über einen theopolitischen Zentralbegriff im hebräischen Jeremiabuch, ÖBS 21 (Frankfurt: Lang, 2002). 23  For the latter, see Georg Fischer, “Fulfilment and Reversal: The Curses of Deuteronomy 28 as a Foil for the Book of Jeremiah,” Semitica et Classica 5 (2012): 43–49. It is important,

Jeremiah – “ The Prophet like Moses ” ?

51

The picture emerging from the remarks above is that Jer exhibits a knowledge of all the Books of the Torah, and even of its presumably late texts (such as Lev 26; Deut 32).24 The links with them can best be interpreted by perceiving Jer as quoting and alluding to them; the ideas of “reversal” (Gen 1 in Jer 4) and “fulfilment” (e.g. of the curses of Deut 28, often in Jer) suggest that the former texts are extant, and that Jer works with them. Even “late” passages, such as the final chapters of Lev and Deut, show up as sources for it. Thus Jer deliberately presents its message as a sequel to the Torah, elaborating and reflecting on it. Jer uses the books of the Torah constantly, starting with the first chapter, in poetry (Jer 4), prose (Jer 7), prayer (Jer 14), salvation texts (Jer 29; 31), and right up to the final section, the oracles against foreign nations (Jer 48). This points to a common literary technique pervading the whole Jer scroll, which can also be observed with respect to the relationship with other books of the Hebrew Bible (see 3.2 below). It is not only the word ‫ תורה‬which is important for Jer; Jer is also familiar with many texts of the books of the Torah and displays a high degree of appreciation for them. This feature is necessary for the consideration of the aspect “like Moses.” As Moses is the dominant figure in four scrolls of the Torah, Jeremiah, as his successor, must have a similar orientation and values as prophet akin to those of his predecessor to whom he is supposed to be equal. Such a similarity between them is apparent in many aspects. Moses and Jeremiah are both presented as God’s favourite dialogue partners.25 Both have to suffer attacks because of their divine mission (Exod 5:21; Jer 11:18–21, etc.), and for both it is important that God’s messages are communicated without any abbreviation (Deut 4:2; 13:1; Jer 26:2). The outstanding frequency of Jer’s

however, that Jer also picks up promises of Deuteronomy and the Torah; a clear example is Deut 4:29 being referred to in Jer 29:13. More generally on this topic of the connections between Deuteuronomy and Jer, see Georg Fischer, “Der Einfluss des Deuteronomiums auf das Jeremiabuch,” in Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation, ed. Georg Fischer, Dominik Markl, and Simone Paganini, BZABR 17 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 247–69. 24  Both texts, in their final form, refer to the exile and are therefore assumed to be postexilic: for Lev 26 see Thomas Hieke, Levitikus 16–27, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder 2014), 1100; Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 23,16–34,12, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2017), 2166, interprets Deut 32 as reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. 25  On Moses, cf. Georg Fischer, “Das Mosebild der Hebräischen Bibel,” in Mose. Ägypten und das Alte Testament, ed. Eckart Otto, SBS 189 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000), 84–120, especially 89–90.

52

Fischer

links with Deuteronomy, the scroll with the highest percentage of Mosesspeeches, underlines further, on a literary level, the closeness between the two prophets. 3

Going Beyond Moses

However, Jeremiah is no “copy” of Moses. As he is situated later in “history,”26 it is only natural that new themes, problems, solutions, and orientation should show up in his book. The different setting of Jer leads the reader to expect such changes and further developments, compared with the figure of Moses, and this is indeed visible in Jeremiah and his book. 3.1 Distance from Concepts of the Torah Moshe Weinfeld, in his seminal article on “spiritual metamorphosis” in Jer,27 highlighted a number of passages where Jer displays stances different from what is usual or even prescribed in the Torah, among them the neglect of the Ark of the Covenant (Jer 3:16–17), the critique of sacrifices (Jer 7:21–23), the new wording of oaths, surpassing the motif of the old Exodus out of Egypt (Jer 16:14–15 // 23:7–8),28 and the idea of a “new covenant” (Jer 31:31–34) which has God’s ‫“ תורה‬inscribed” directly on the heart, instead of on stones as in Exod 31:18; 34:1–4, 27–28. All these are significant changes with respect to prescriptions of the Torah29 and move in the direction of a different kind of piety which is more interested in a personal, individual relationship with God. The latter shows up very clearly in Jer 31:34, the final verse of the “new covenant” passage, granting to everybody an intimate knowledge of God, and opposing this to teaching it.30 Jer even dares to go against the law such as in the 26  Jer 15:1 mentions Moses and thus presupposes knowledge of him. Additionally, the many books in between Deuteronomy, where the death of Moses is reported at the end, and 2 Kings, which at its closure talks about the time when Jeremiah lived, point to a great distance in time. 27  Moshe Weinfeld, “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel,” ZAW 88 (1976): 17–56. 28  See the similar attitude in Isa 43:16–21, especially v. 18–19; cf. Ulrich Berges, Jesaja 40–48, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2008), 300–3. 29  For the importance of the Ark of the Covenant, see Exod 25:10–22; sacrifices are highly valued, e.g. in Lev 1–7; to pass on the memory of the Exodus is prescribed in Exod 12:14, 17, 42; 13:3, 8–10, 14–16. 30  With piel ‫למד‬, in contrast to the insistence on teaching and learning in Deuteronomy; for this see Georg Braulik, “Das Deuteronomium und die Gedächtniskultur Israels.

Jeremiah – “ The Prophet like Moses ” ?

53

case where God offers a different option to the divorced woman who has become another man’s wife. Whereas the relevant ruling in Deut 24:1–4 excludes the possibility of return, God, in Jer 3:1–4:4, not only allows it, but actually invites her to do so (3:12, 14). A second instance is the law of an apostate city. Deut 13:13–19 sees evil men “going out of her midst” (v. 14) as a reason, and with the result that this city will become a ‫ תל עולם‬which will never be rebuilt (v. 17). In the second poem of the scroll of consolation, the phrases “and the city will be rebuilt on its tell” and “his ruler goes out from its midst” in Jer 30:18, 21 pick up precisely the wording of Deut 13 and reverse it, thus abrogating this law.31 Deut 13 had, in veiled form, talked about the fate of Jerusalem at the Babylonian conquest; Jer, written much later, may already refer to its restoration, as a sign of undeserved and unexpected divine grace. The observations above indicate that Jer presents a stage beyond the Torah; it is based on it, and presupposes it, but relativizes some of its ideas and offers new solutions to difficulties unresolved there, or to issues that show up as problematic later on. In this respect, Jeremiah / Jer sometimes even takes a stance “against” Moses. 3.2 A Broader Background Above (in section 2) the Torah has emerged as a reference work for Jer. However, Jer uses not only the Torah, but also the Former Prophets and several of the Latter Prophets. It thus greatly extends the “horizon” of Moses and of the writings connected with him. This points to wider interests and a desire to enter into dialogue with other prophetic literature. The closeness of Jer to deuteronomistic literature is widely recognized and undeniable.32 I will briefly mention here some elements from the respective books. The “kingdoms of Hazor” (Jer 49:28) are exclusively linked to Josh 11:10. The ironic exhortation to cry to other gods for help in Judg 10:14 is the closest Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur Verwendung von lmd,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Für Norbert Lohfink SJ, ed. Georg Braulik, Walter Groß, and Sean McEvenue (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 9–31. 31  This interpretation has been suggested by Eckart Otto, Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht. Rechts- und literaturhistorische Studien zum Deuteronomium, BZABR 2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 76; he refers to Georg Fischer, Das Trostbüchlein. Text, Komposition und Theologie von Jer 30–31, SBB 26 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993), 191–92. Both phrases are the closest parallels, the one with “tell” is even an exclusive relationship. 32  See, for example, the two volumes of Winfried Thiel as major systematic treatment of Jer’s connections with it. Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25, WMANT 41 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), and Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45, WMANT 52 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981).

54

Fischer

parallel to Jer 11:12. God’s promise to David in 2 Sam 7, to establish his house / dynasty and be a father to his descendants, is the basis for Jer 31:9 and other texts in Jer.33 The Books of Kings, finally, are the main source for Jer’s historical framework, starting in Jer 1:2–3, and reaching the climax in the final chapter 52, almost entirely, and often verbatim, taken from 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30.34 The long quote of the end of 2 Kings is a sign that Jer is even later and that it could also have had knowledge of the previous books. The affinity to the “Deuteronomistic History” is frequently interpreted as an indication of a “Dtr redaction” of Jer.35 However, there are two main arguments which speak against such a hypothesis. First, Jer’s language and ideas are often different from Dtr thinking and sometimes contradict it, as Helga Weippert, J. Gordon McConville and others have shown.36 Second, the many references to the Latter Prophets (see below) point to a wider spectrum of intellectual and theological discussion than mere Dtr thoughts and orientation. Therefore, it seems better to refrain from labelling Jer “deuteronomistic” and from assuming its composition to be the work of Dtr editors. The connections with several of the Latter Prophets are still more intriguing than the relationship with Dtr literature. Generally accepted are Jer’s references to Hosea, Amos, Micah and “First” Isaiah,37 as those prophets are chronologically situated earlier than Jer. A question of debate relates to the links with 33  Michael Pietsch, “Dieser ist der Sproß Davids …” Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Nathansverheißung im alttestamentlichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neutestamentlichem Schrifttum, WMANT 100 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 75–92, notes especially the connection with Jer 33:14–26. 34  Many of Jer’s references in between – e.g. in Jer 22; 24:1; and 32:1–2, etc. – also presuppose the knowledge of the relevant texts in the books of Kings. For the relationship of 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30 with Jer 52 see Georg Fischer, “Jeremia 52 – ein Schlüssel zum Jeremiabuch,” Bib 79 (1998): 333–59, and for its significance and function within Jer, see Georg Fischer, Jeremia. Prophet über Völker und Königreiche, BiGe 29 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015), 29–32. 35  In this direction, besides Thiel (see note 30 above), see also Rainer Albertz, Die Exilszeit. 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr., BE 7 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 236–42, who reckons with at least three Dtr redactions. 36  Helga Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches, BZAW 132 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973); J. G. McConville, Judgment and Promise: An Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1993); William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 56–58. 37  Cf. H. Lalleman-de Winkel, Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition: An Examination of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, CBET 26 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), showing the influence of Amos and Hosea on Jer; Silvana Manfredi, Geremia in dialogo. Nessi

Jeremiah – “ The Prophet like Moses ” ?

55

the second part of Isaiah, with Ezekiel, and with other books of the Twelve.38 Several expressions in Jer 10:3–4 seem to presuppose the critique of the idols in Isa 44:9–20 as background.39 Jer 6:7 and 20 speak of “violence and destruction” (‫ )חמס וׁשד‬being heard in Jerusalem and of God’s disinterest in “incense from Sheba,” thus contradicting the new salvation for it, as announced in Isa 60:6, 18.40 These and other links hint at Jer drawing even from texts of “Deutero-” and “Trito-Isaiah.” The case of the relationship with Ezekiel is similarly disputed. The majority position takes Ezek as later than Jer. However, several studies of Henk Leene41 point in the other direction, namely, of Ezekiel as a source for Jer. Whereas the reference to the process of the refinement of bronze and iron in Jer 6:28–29 in itself is hard to understand, taking Ezek 22:9, 18–21 as background renders it comprehensible. The criticism of false prophets and their announcement of “peace” in Ezek 13 receives an extended treatment in several texts of Jer (6:9–15, in part parallel to 8:10–12; 14:13–18; 23: 9–40, etc.). The proverb of eating sour grapes and the dull teeth of the next generation in Ezek 18:2 is elaborated in Jer 31:29.42 These and other indications suggest that Jer could be seen as dependent on Ezek.

con le tradizioni profetiche e originalità in Ger 4,5–6,30 (Caltanisetta: Salvatore Sciascia, 2002), demonstrating for Jer 4–6 also dependence on Micah and Isaiah. 38  For the traditional view of dependence, see, e.g., Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 86–88 on Deuteroand Trito-Isaiah, and 81–84, on Ezekiel. This position is based on a preconceived dating of the respective texts. 39  Angelika Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder, OBO 162 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1998), 391. 40  Georg Fischer, “Partner oder Gegner? Zum Verhältnis von Jesaja und Jeremia,” in “Sieben Augen auf einem Stein” (Sacharja 3,9): Studien zur Literatur und Geschichte des Zweiten Tempels, Festschrift für Ina Willi-Plein, ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Michael Pietsch (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 69–79, here 77. “Incense from Sheba” is an exclusive relationship. 41   Hendrik Leene, “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: Promises of Inner Renewal in Diachronic Perspective,” in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets, ed. Johannes C. de Moor and Harry F. van Rooy, OtSt 44 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 150–75; Leene, “Blowing the Same Shofar: An Intertextual Comparison of Representations of the Prophetic Role in Jeremiah and Ezekiel,” in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist, ed. Johannes C. de Moor, OtSt 45 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 175–98; and recently Leene, Newness in Old Testament Prophecy: An Intertextual Study, OtSt 64 (Leiden: Brill, 2014). 42  Gordon H. Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse, SBLDS 126 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 141–42.

56

Fischer

Besides Amos, Hosea, and Micah, other Books of the Twelve have served as sources for Jer. Obadiah 1–5 have been reused in Jer 49:9, 14–16.43 A part of the last verse of Nahum, on the downfall of Nineveh (Nah 3:19: “for your brokenness”), is applied to Zion in Jer 30:12,44 and the maltreatment of the woman in Nah 3:5 is the closest parallel to Jer 13:22, 26. Habakkuk 2:13 (“and people labour for fire, and nations get tired for nought”) is exclusively related to Jer 51:58, the final verse of the oracles against Babylon, and expanded there: “and people labour for nought, and nations for fire, and they get tired.”45 The links mentioned above show Jer’s use of at least half of the twelve minor prophets. As the Book of Zechariah knows Jer,46 they open a “window” into the genesis of Jer and the Twelve. Jer seems to have originated when the books of the other major prophets, Isaiah and Ezekiel, as well as a large part of the minor prophets were already extant. Jer could pick up motifs and phrases from them, and did so very extensively. Taking this high degree of intertextuality seriously is thus a key for an appropriate understanding of Jer, and these “dialogues” with a multitude of scrolls of (what later became) the Hebrew Bible are the reason for its “mosaic” character and, in part, for the complexity of its composition. Jer incorporates a much richer background than Moses. 3.3 An International Horizon In a similar direction, the relationships with other peoples are different. Moses is elevated at the Egyptian court, is married to a Midianite woman, Zipporah, and mentions other nations (e.g. in Exod 15:14–15; Deut 2:26–3:11; 23:4, 8). However, the relationship is often “distanced” or hostile, even with respect to the people to whom his wife belonged (see Num 25; 31). The focus of Moses’ activity is Israel, and leading them to the encounter with God at Sinai and later towards the Promised Land. The outlook of Jer is more universal. Right from the beginning he is appointed as a “prophet for the nations” (Jer 1:5). Yhwh’s title “king of the nations” in 10:6 corresponds to this, and both expressions are unique. The frequency 43  Birgit Hartberger, “An den Wassern von Babylon …” Psalm 137 auf dem Hintergrund von Jeremia 51, der biblischen Edom-Traditionen und babylonischer Originalquellen, BBB 63 (Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1986), 182–83, 201–3. 44  Fischer, Trostbüchlein, 190. 45  For the differences of the Hebrew and Greek versions of the quote of Hab 2:13 in Jer 51, see Fischer, Jeremia. Stand, 26–27. Jer lxx inserts a negation, and thus turns around the meaning of the text. 46  Among others, Konrad R. Schaefer, “Zechariah 14: A Study in Allusion,” CBQ 57 (1995): 66–91, and, more generally, Risto Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 (Åbo: Åbo Akademis Förlag, 1996).

Jeremiah – “ The Prophet like Moses ” ?

57

of creation motifs or allusions to creation47 is another sign of this worldwide, even cosmic perspective of Jer. Jeremiah’s designation as “prophet for the nations” is exemplified throughout his book. Similar to the way in which Israel is dealt with, Jer offers salvation also to foreign nations (Jer 12:16), and reversal of fate after judgment.48 The position of the oracles against the foreign nations at the end of the book, in Jer 46–51, gives them decisive weight; this corresponds to the key roles of Egypt and Babylon, which frame them.49 Thrice Yhwh calls Nebuchadnezzar “my servant,”50 showing his esteem for him and attributing to him an international function.51 Jer has a very long list of nations in Jer 25:18–26 and mentions a large number of foreigners by name.52 This mirrors a close interaction between these people, and a cultural exchange, also testified to by details in Jer 46 and 50–51. These are signs that Jer is much more open to others, and interested in their fate, than Moses and most of his fellow prophets. Jeremiah’s “friendly” stance 47  See Jer 4:23–26; 5:22, 24; 8:2, 7; 10:12–13, etc.; cf. Helga Weippert, Schöpfer des Himmels und der Erde. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Jeremiabuches, SBS 102 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981). 48  The phrase ‫“ ׁשוב ׁשבות‬to turn around the fate” is applied to Israel (e.g. in 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23, etc.), but also to Moab, the Ammonites, and Elam (Jer 48:47; 49:6, 39). Furthermore, Egypt, too, receives a promise of restoration at the end of 46:26. 49  Egypt in Jer 46; for its role in Jer see Maier, Ägypten. The downfall of Babylon, in Jer 50–51, is the climax, bringing to an end a perilous and damaging foreign influence and domination; John Hill, Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT, BibInt 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), has aptly grasped its function within Jer. Jer 2:18, 36 (using both times “Ashur,” instead of Babylon) are warnings against a too narrow orientation towards these superpowers. 50  Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10; all these “provocative” designations for the foreign king who was responsible for Jerusalem’s destruction are missing in the lxx. Cf. Klaas A.D. Smelik, “My Servant Nebuchadnezzar: The Use of the Epithet ‘My Servant’ for the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Jeremiah,” VT 64 (2014): 109–34. 51  This does not contradict God’s critique of him later on in Jer 50:17–18 (see also 51:34). 52  Only Gen 10, with the listing of the descendants of Noah’s sons, is longer, containing seventy names. For this international perspective of Jer, see Georg Fischer, “Gottes universale Horizonte. Die Völker der Welt und ihre Geschichte in der Sicht des Jeremiabuches,” in “Ricercare la Sapienza di Tutti gli Antichi (Sir 39,1)”. Miscellanea in onore di Gian Luigi Prato, ed. M. Milani and M. Zappella (Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2013), 313–28, and Georg Fischer, “Der weite Blick des Völkerpropheten. Personen, Nationen und Orte im Jeremiabuch,” in Text – Textgeschichte – Textwirkung, Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Siegfried Kreuzer, ed. Thomas Wagner, Jonathan Miles Robker, and Frank Ueberschaer, AOAT 419 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), 94–110.

58

Fischer

towards foreigners is also a source for many of his conflicts, as the narrations in Jer 27–29 and 37–38 show. Jer is marked by an international and universal orientation. In this it differs greatly from most of the Torah and many of the prophetic books. 3.4 New Aspects with Regard to the Torah Section 3.1 above has presented issues where Jer takes a stance different from the Torah. Here I wish to focus on new or more developed motifs in Jer which are signs of a later time, or another orientation. a) The role of “Jerusalem.” The Torah does not mention Jerusalem once, although, for example, the “King of Salem” in Gen 14:18 may be a hidden reference to it.53 In contrast to this, Jer uses the name 102 times, out of 660 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, only surpassed by 2 Chronicles with 120 mentions. This emphasis on Jerusalem is a new feature, in comparison with the Torah. Parallel to it, ‫“ כש ֺדים‬Chaldeans” and King Nebuchadnezzar occur very often,54 indicating the Babylonian threat leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. The downfall of Jerusalem is a focus in Jer and highlighted by the dynamic leading to the final chapter 52.55 b) The presence of the temple. Whereas the Torah only knows of a sanctuary to be transported as Israel makes its way through the wilderness (Exod 25–31 passim) and of the place where Yhwh will choose to put his name (Deut 12:5), the prophet Jeremiah sees the temple in Jerusalem, visits it (Jer 19:14) and proclaims God’s messages there (e.g. Jer 26:7). He criticizes the false trust in it (Jer 7:4) and relativizes the importance given to it by the sanctuary texts of the Torah.56 In addition, Jeremiah frequently has conflicts with priests and prophets present in the temple. Main confrontations are those with the priest Pashhur (Jer 20:1–6) and the prophet Hananiah (Jer 28). They display fundamentally 53  In this sense Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 409–10. 54  “Chaldeans” is found forty-six times in Jer, out of eighty in the HB; “Nebuchadnezzar” has thirty-seven occurrences in Jer, out of sixty-two in the HB. 55  The concentration on Jerusalem and the catastrophe of 587 BCE is a distinctive feature of Jer; see Georg Fischer, “Don’t Forget Jerusalem’s Destruction! The Perspective of the Book of Jeremiah,” in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of Torah, ed. Peter Dubovský, Dominik Markl, and Jean-Pierre Sonnet, FAT 107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 291–311. 56  Georg Fischer, “Zur Relativierung des Tempels im Jeremiabuch,” in L’Écrit et l’Esprit: Études d’histoire du texte et de theologie biblique en hommage à Adrian Schenker, ed. Dieter Böhler, Innocent Himbaza, and Philippe Hugo, OBO 214 (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2005), 87–99.

Jeremiah – “ The Prophet like Moses ” ?

59

different attitudes. The “official” staff of the temple and many other prophets are mostly opposed to Jeremiah and his proclamations,57 and this becomes a major source of suffering for him. c) A changed perspective. The Torah is describing a very distant past, centuries, if not millennia (Gen 1–11) back in time. Even Moses, chronologically, is situated in the period before the “entry” into the land, i.e. not before the twelfth century BCE. There are no sure reference points which would allow us to correlate him with historical events. Despite the fact that it is dated far back in time, that Moses never actually enters the Promised Land, and that it only occasionally looks “forward” into the future,58 the Torah nevertheless intends to give directives for Israel’s life to come. The setting of the narrated time remains in the past, yet the aim is to influence decisively the community reading these scrolls. The perspective of Jer, however, is different from that of the Torah. It depicts the events of a much later time, that is, the seventh and sixth century BCE, as actually present. Readers perceive Jeremiah walking and talking with his contemporaries, although Jer must have been written around two centuries later.59 This means that Jer, similar to the Torah, describes the past, but chooses another way of presentation, linking its central figure Jeremiah to “known” characters and places and thus drawing the addressees into more lively encounters. Whereas the Torah is mostly oriented towards the future existence of

57  However, there are exceptions, such as the priest Zephaniah in Jer 29:29. For the role of the priests in Jer see Corrine Patton, “Layers of Meaning: Priesthood in Jeremiah MT,” in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets, and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis, JSOTSup 408 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 149–76, and Georg Fischer, “Träger religiöser Verantwortung im Jeremiabuch,” in Volk Gottes als Tempel, ed. A. Vonach and R. Meßner (Wien: Lang, 2008), 41–48. 58  For example in Exod 13:11; Deut 4:27–30; 6:11, etc.; in biblical terminology, however, the future is “backward” (cf. Jer 17:11; 29:11, among other passages). 59  The intertextual links do not allow for an earlier composition of Jer than the fourth century BCE: If Jer could draw on the entire Torah, the whole Dtr History, the Books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and at least half of the Twelve minor prophets, it cannot have been written before the end of the Persian Period. The classical position can be found in Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 70–74 and 80, who sees most of the texts as having originated in the prophet’s lifetime. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 21C (New York: Doubleday, 2004), attributes in his Appendix XI (582–85) still more texts to the prophet himself; the only exceptions are Jer 51:46 and 52:31–34 from the time after Nebuchadnezzar’s death 562 BCE, and Jer 52:12c from after 539 BCE.

60

Fischer

the people, the main focus of Jer is on understanding a terrible, disastrous past, and reflecting upon it. Jer, too, has announcements for the future, in two directions. Most of them “predict” Jerusalem’s fall – in fact, they are vaticina ex eventu. However, there are also positive outlooks given, concentrated especially in Jer 29–33, and sometimes inspired by Isaian texts.60 d) An inverted movement. The dynamic of the Torah and of Jer also differ markedly. The movement in Exodus to Deuteronomy is directed towards the Promised Land, starting from Egypt. Finally, the people can see that the fulfilment of God’s promises to give them a country is close at hand. In Jer, this process is reversed. The people are already in the country, and at the end of the narrative section, in Jer 43–44, they deliberately choose, against God’s advice, to go back to Egypt.61 They do so in spite of having promised to listen to what God will say (Jer 42:1–6), and finally end up with an explicit declaration in favour of idolatry (44:15–19). What God graciously gave them, is thus despised and recklessly abandoned. e) Intercession. One of the outstanding events in Moses’ life is his plea for the sinful people in Exod 32:11–13. Though personally innocent, he remains loyal to them, intervenes in their favour and even rejects God’s offer to make a “great nation” out of him (v. 10). Later on, he continues to intercede on behalf of the community (Num 14:13–19; in 16:22 together with Aaron), and in Deut 9:18, 25–29 he reminds the people of his commitment to them at Mount Sinai, thus emphasizing his intercession. Other prophets, like Samuel (1 Sam 7:5, 9; 12:23) and Amos (Amos 7:1–6), follow Moses’ lead in interceding for Israel. Not so Jeremiah. Three times, God explicitly forbids him to intercede (Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11)62 and, shortly afterwards, in Jer 15:1, referring to Moses and Samuel, declares his complete refusal to accept any further pleas for the people. This is a sign of an entirely different situation and relationship of the 60   For example Jer 30:10–11, with close connections to “Deutero”-Isaiah; see Fischer, Trostbüchlein, 189–90. 61  This process starts already in Jer 41:17–18, which picks up the respective note from 2 Kgs 25:26. The enormous expansion of this motif “going down to Egypt” in Jer 42–44 is a signal of its importance, acknowledged by J.M. Abrego de Lacy, Jeremías y el final del reino. Lecutra sincrónica de Jer 36–45 (Valencia: San Jerónimo, 1983), and recently by Keith Bodner, After the Invasion: A Reading of Jeremiah 40–44 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). The position of these chapters in Jer, as the last narrative about Judeans (besides Jer 52), conveys a final, disastrous image of them. 62  For this motif in Jer, see Benedetta Rossi, L’intercessione nel tempo della fine. Studio dell’intercessione profetica nel libro di Geremia, AnBib 204 (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2013).

Jeremiah – “ The Prophet like Moses ” ?

61

community with God. Whereas in the Torah Moses, even in very tense moments, could still “find God’s ear” and move him to be gracious, this is forbidden to Jeremiah, for most of the time.63 The divine interdict signifies that the depravity of the people is so bad that there is no hope for the present. Looking back at these new aspects in Jer, four elements (the exception being point c above) depict a deterioration. What Moses “envisioned” for Israel’s future, which turned out to be true, has in the interim been lost. The Temple and its city, Jerusalem, have been destroyed (a and b). The people, chosen to be God’s “priestly kingdom and holy nation” (Exod 19:6), is on the way to giving up its special status and identity, unable to learn from the disasters of 597 and 587 BCE, and reversing the salvation given in the Exodus by turning back to Egypt (d).64 They are relentless in their refusal to listen and in their rebelliousness, along with many of the religious functionaries, priests and prophets. Nevertheless, Jer does offer a few grains of hope, but only for the future (see notes 60 and 63). 4

Jeremiah: A Different Figure

The remarks above result in an ambivalent picture. On the one hand, there is an obviously deliberate linkage with the Torah by using it as a foundation, supporting its main ideas, and in portraying Jeremiah as the promised successor to Moses by picking up Deut 18 in a unique manner and in manifold ways. On the other hand, Jer simultaneously maintains its distance with respect to the Torah, and Jeremiah, its central figure, “like” Moses in some ways, is, taken overall, quite different from him. Luis Alonso Schökel has illuminated this latter aspect by calling Jeremiah an “anti-Moses”65 and listing various elements for Jeremiah which show a reversal of motifs connected with Moses, among them the return to Egypt. There are also other important differences between the two figures. 63  No significant change occurs until Jer 33:3 where God invites him to call upon him, yet this envisions a time after the downfall of Jerusalem. Similarly, Jeremiah’s prayer on behalf of the remnant of Judah in 42:2–4 is situated after this catastrophe. 64  Aptly caught by Maier, Ägypten, 303, describing Israel’s way in Jer as “aus Ägypten nach Ägypten.” For further differences between the Torah and Jer see Fischer, “‫ותפש ֺי‬,” 904–9. 65  Luis Alonso Schökel, “Jeremías como anti-Moisés,” in De la Tôrah au Messie: Etudes d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles pour 25 années d’enseignement a l’Institut catholique de Paris, ed. Joseph Doré, Pierre Grelot, and Maurice Carrez (Paris: Desclée, 1981), 245–54.

62

Fischer

4.1 Acceptance and Authority Moses, in his third objection during his calling (Exod 4:1 “And if they do not believe me …”), anticipated possible resistance by the people, correctly foreseeing what would come to pass several times during his mission.66 Nevertheless, he is the main figure of the Torah and generally respected throughout his life. Opposition to him mostly results in problems (e.g. Num 12), and may even cost one’s life (Num 16). What he says is mandatory, and nobody ranks higher than him, as leader of his people. At the end of his life, Israel mourns him for a whole month (Deut 34:8). Jeremiah, on the contrary, is mostly rejected, and his message is not heard. Others confront and accuse him, which causes him great suffering, and he is even subjected to torture (Jer 20:2–3). Whereas 2 Kings does mention the prophet Isaiah several times, and his proclamation is heeded (in chs. 19–20), Jeremiah does not appear in this book at all.67 Even after seeing that what he announced has turned out to be true, the leaders and the people do not trust him.68 Others make decisions about him, for example in putting him into the prison (Jer 37:15, 21) or throwing him into a cistern (Jer 38:6). His life ends without any information being offered about his death, burial, or a mourning period. 4.2 Various Roles The figure of Moses in the Torah is puzzling and very complex. He is God’s main dialogue partner, linked to nearly all laws, either by mediating or by proclaiming them, and is central to Israel’s faith.69 He is a leader, a judge, has cultic functions70 and ties to foreigners (his Egyptian education and his Midianite wife Zipporah). Yhwh attributes to him the role of “God” with regard to Aaron and Pharaoh (Exod 4:16; 7:1), and the final remark in Deut 34:10 presents him as a unique “prophet.”

66  To mention a few passages: Exod 5:20–21; 6:9; 14:11–12; 15:24 etc.; there are also others in the Book of Numbers. 67  Only later “historical” books pay tribute to him: 2 Chr 35:25; 36:12, 21–22; Ezra 1:1; see also Dan 9:2. 68  See Jer 37:18–20, where Jeremiah, in a discourse with King Zedekiah, challenges him by referring to the other prophets’ disappearance. Cf. Jer 43:2–4, where military leaders blame him for deceit and they and the people do not heed his warning not to go down to Egypt. 69  Moses exercises many important roles; for a list of his major ones see Georg Fischer, “Das Mosebild der Hebräischen Bibel,” in Mose. Ägypten und das Alte Testament, ed. Eckart Otto (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000), 84–120, esp. 89–110. 70  For example, in building an altar (Exod 24:4) or in “ordaining” priests (Lev 8–9), although not being a priest himself.

Jeremiah – “ The Prophet like Moses ” ?

63

The portrayal of Jeremiah is similarly multifaceted, yet different. Jer 1 contains a kind of summary of his roles.71 By descent, he is a priest (Jer 1:1), probably going back to Abiathar who was banished by King Solomon to Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26–27), Jeremiah’s home village. This may explain the opposition to the priests of the temple, of the lineage of Zadok. By God’s call, he is a “prophet for the nations” (Jer 1:5); this universal dimension shows up again in 1:10 where God confers on him worldwide authority to “pluck up and tear down,… to build and to plant.”72 Jer 1:11–14 portray him as a visionary, along the lines of Amos and others, even receiving divine praise for it (v. 12: “You have done well in seeing …”). In Jer 1:18, God makes him “a fortified city, an iron column, and bronze walls,” describing thus the prophet’s role in replacing, in a better way, the ruined temple and city of Jerusalem.73 Jer 6:27 adds further the role of “tester” of his people to Jeremiah, and in Jer 15:19 God offers him the opportunity to be “like his mouth,” that is, as a kind of official speaker, which is unique. A large number of roles is typical for Moses as well as for Jeremiah, yet their respective profiles are different. The former has much to do with establishing law and faith, the latter with the problems which arise when the community does not abide by them. 4.3 Long “Biographies,” and “Insight” into Thoughts and Feelings The Torah and Jer share similar features in the portrayal of their prophets. Both focus extensively on them and present a kind of “biography,” allowing the reader to gain some impression of their life. Yet they have distinguishing marks here, too. Exodus to Deuteronomy depicts Moses’ life from childhood to death, with many events at an early time that cannot be fixed in a regular chronology. For Jeremiah, God claims to have known him even from before his conception (Jer 1:5), and at the end he disappears without trace, Jer 44 being the “last” mention of him. In contrast to Moses, he can be “dated,” as there are many indications of the years of reign or important actions of Judean and other known kings.74 Moses is presented as 71  See Fischer, Jeremia. Prophet, 16–29. 72  All other instances of this list of verbs have God as subject, and the closest parallel to ‫פקד‬ hiphil is the appointment of Gedaliah as governor (Jer 40:5). Arnold Stiglmair, “‘Prophet’ und Gottesherrschaft,” in Schöpfungsplan und Heilsgeschichte, Festschrift für Ernst Haag zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Renate Brandscheidt and Theresia Mende, TThSt 69 (Trier: Paulinus, 2002), 319–28, connects Jer 1:10 with kingly traits. 73  G. Fischer, “‘Ich mache dich … zur eisernen Säule’ (Jer 1,18). Der Prophet als besserer Ersatz für den untergegangenen Tempel,” ZKT 116 (1994): 447–50. 74  For a timetable see Yair Hoffman, Jeremiah: Introduction and Commentary, Volume 1: Chapters 1–25, Miqra leYisra´el (Tel Aviv: Magnes, 2001), 70, and Georg Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 81 and 99–100.

64

Fischer

existing “outside” of “history;” Jeremiah is situated right in the middle of it and can be connected to “real” events. Moses and Jeremiah both share long encounters with God. They are graced with an extraordinary intimacy with him, and the biblical narrators allow the addressees to “participate” in these dialogues. Even more, they give access to what the prophets think and feel, albeit to a differing degree. Whereas Moses’ inner thoughts and feelings are reported occasionally,75 Jer dedicates much more space to the “inner processes” of its prophet. Jeremiah laments vociferously,76 often even accusing God, especially in the confessions (e.g. Jer 15:18; 20:7). This focus on the “inward life” of God’s messenger is a new orientation and a sign of an increased interest in the personal struggles of humans. 5

Conclusion: A Different Type of Prophet

Moses and Jeremiah are both outstanding. They are very close to God, receiving his word “directly,” and are portrayed at length. Nevertheless, they differ greatly in many respects, including that of being a “prophet.” Moses is the only “real” prophet during his lifetime,77 and the prophetic role accounts for only a minor part of his life; in fact, besides Deut 18:15, 18 and 34:10, he is never called so. Other tasks, like leading the people out of Egypt or transmitting divine law are more dominant themes for Moses. For Jeremiah, on the other hand, being a prophet is his main mission, starting right from the beginning of his life (Jer 1:5), and is universal in its scope (cf. 3.3 above). His portrayal is a combination of features taken from the prophets in the scrolls of the “Former Prophets” (the Dtr History), for whom events in their lives are described (e.g. Nathan, Elijah), and of the “Latter Prophets” to whom books are attributed by name. Conflict with colleagues is a major theme in Jer, leading to many clashes in Jeremiah’s life, and this topic is developed much more in Jer than in any other book of the Hebrew Bible.78 In contrast 75  E.g. in Exod 3:3; 9:30; Lev 10:20; Deut 31:27, 29. 76  Jeremiah’s first word is already typical of him: ‫“( אההּ‬Alas!”; Jer 1:6). 77  The other instances of ‫“ נביא‬prophet” applied to individuals in the Torah are references to Abraham (Gen 20:7) and to Moses’ brother Aaron in Exod 7:1, in relationship to him. Besides that, Moses’ wish and God’s declaration in Num 11:29 and 12:6 use this term, and there are the cases of the misleading prophets in Deut 13:2–6 and 18:20–22. 78  Among many others, see more recently the treatment of A.C. Osuji, Where is the Truth? Narrative Exegesis and the Question of True and False Prophecy in Jer 26–29 (MT), BETL 214 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), and for criteria for discernment, Georg Fischer, Jeremia 26–52, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 79–82.

Jeremiah – “ The Prophet like Moses ” ?

65

to them, Jeremiah is the only one ever to be accorded the privilege of being God’s “mouth” (15:19). Probably the most distinctive feature of Jer is his suffering, which takes up motifs of “Yhwh’s servant” in Isaiah79 and is expanded to an extreme degree, making Jeremiah a role model for a persecuted prophet, a theme used later for Jesus (Matt 16:14). Select Bibliography Brandscheidt, Renate. “‘Bestellt über Völker und Königreiche’ (Jer 1,10). Form und Tradition in Jer 1.” TTZ 104 (1995): 12–37. Fischer, Georg. Jeremia 1–25. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2005. Fischer, Georg. Jeremia 26–52. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2005. Fischer, Georg. Jeremia. Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007. Fischer, Georg. “Der Einfluss des Deuteronomiums auf das Jeremiabuch.” Pages 247– 69 in Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation. Edited by Georg Fischer, Dominik Markl, and Simone Paganini. BZABR 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. Fischer, Georg. “Fulfilment and Reversal: The Curses of Deuteronomy 28 as a Foil for the Book of Jeremiah.” Semitica et Classica 5 (2012): 43–49. Fischer, Georg. “Don’t Forget Jerusalem’s Destruction! The Perspective of the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 291–311 in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of Torah. Edited by Peter Dubovský, Dominik Markl, and Jean-Pierre Sonnet. FAT 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Fischer, Georg. “‫ותפש ֺי התורה לא ידעוני‬: The Relationship of the Book of Jeremiah with the Torah.” Pages 891–911 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures Between Europe, Israel and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Fischer, Georg. “A New Understanding of the Book of Jeremiah: A Response to Robert Wilson.” Pages 22–43 in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation. Edited by Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid. JSJS 173. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Hoffman, Yair. Jeremiah: Introduction and Commentary, Volume 1: Chapters 1–25. Miqra leYisra´el. Tel Aviv: Magnes, 2001.

79  Georg Fischer, “Jeremiah, God’s Suffering Servant,” in Uomini e profeti. Scritti in onore di Horacio Simian-Yofre SJ, ed. Elzbieta M. Obara and Giovanni Paolo D. Succo, AnBib 202 (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2013), 75–101, especially 77–89.

66

Fischer

Leene, Hendrik. “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: Promises of Inner Renewal in Diachronic Perspective.” Pages 150–75 in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor and Harry F. van Rooy. OtSt 44. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Maier, Christl. Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora. Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches. FRLANT 196. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Maier, Michael P. Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick. Studie über einen theopolitischen Zentralbegriff im hebräischen Jeremiabuch. ÖBS 21. Frankfurt: Lang, 2002. Osuji, A.C. Where is the Truth? Narrative Exegesis and the Question of True and False Prophecy in Jer 26–29 (MT). BETL 214. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Rossi, Benedetta. L’intercessione nel tempo della fine. Studio dell’intercessione profetica nel libro di Geremia. AnBib 204. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2013. Schökel, Luis Alonso. “Jeremías como anti-Moisés.” Pages 245–54 in De la Tôrah au Messie: Etudes d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles pour 25 années d’enseignement a l’Institut catholique de Paris. Edited by Joseph Doré, Pierre Grelot, and Maurice Carrez. Paris: Desclée, 1981. Thiel, Winfried Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25. WMANT 41. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel.” ZAW 88 (1976): 17–56.

part 2 Issues in Interpretation

∵

chapter 4

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin (Tell en-Naṣbeh): The Archaeological Setting* Jeffrey R. Zorn When analyzing any biblical text, with all its attendant layers of editing and complex transmission history, it is easy to slip into the habit of thinking of biblical characters as just that, characters in a piece of literature, not flesh and blood individuals who once lived in particular real world contexts, who experienced real events in specific geographic, historical, social, and architectural settings. In this essay, using primarily archaeological data, I attempt to set the prophet Jeremiah in just such a context in the period following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC, primarily during his time at Mizpah of Benjamin, most likely the site of Tell en-Naṣbeh (hereafter TEN), 12 km north of Jerusalem and just south of modern Ramallah.1 The Babylonians besieged Jerusalem from the tenth month of King Zedekiah’s ninth year until the fourth month of his eleventh year. Save for a brief respite, when the Babylonian had to withdraw to deal with an Egyptian

* All illustrations are adapted from materials under copyright of the Badè Museum of Biblical Archaeology at Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, CA. They are used here with the Museum’s kind permission. My thanks go to Professor Gary Rendsburg for his many useful comments on an early draft of this essay. 1  For the various possible site identifications for Mizpah, see James Muilenburg, “The Literary Sources Bearing on the Question of Identification,” in Tell en-Naṣbeh: Excavated Under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè, vol. 1, Archaeological and Historical Results, ed. Chester C. McCown (Berkeley: Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion, 1947), 23–44; also James Muilenburg, “Mizpah of Benjamin,” ST 8 (1954–1955): 25–42. Recent suggestions to locate Mizpah at Nebi Samwil, as advocated by Yitzhak Magen and Benny Har-Even (“Persian Period Stamp Impressions from Nebi Samwil,” TA 34 [2007]: 38–58) and Yitzhak Magen and Michael Dadon (“Nebi Samwil [Montjoie],” in One Land ― Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM, ed. Giovanni C. Bottini, Leah Di Segni and Leslaw D. Chrupcala [Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2003], 123–38) are problematic because no remains from either the Iron I or Babylonian periods were found there, which should be the case for any site identified with Mizpah.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_005

70

Zorn

relief force, the siege lasted at least eighteen months,2 and the city suffered the triple calamity of “sword, famine and pestilence.”3 A month after they broke into the city, the Babylonians, under the commander Nebuzaradan, began the systematic destruction of the city’s infrastructure. The city’s walls were destroyed, as were the temple, royal palace, and many houses (Jer 52:12–14). Subsequently, according to one text, 832 people were sent into exile (Jer 52:29), the riches of the temple, mostly bronze at this point, were plundered and carried away (Jer 52:17–23), and many priests, royal officials, and even Zedekiah’s sons were executed (Jer 52:24–27). Wherever excavations have uncovered strata of this period in Jerusalem they have yielded deposits consumed in the Babylonian conflagration.4 During the period of the siege Jeremiah was most often under arrest in the palace, including some time in a cistern/prison cell (Jer 37–38) and certainly felt the effects of the famine himself (Jer 37:21; 38:9). Jeremiah was a known Babylonian sympathizer. The Babylonians certainly understood that they would need some local leadership to administer what was left of Judah after the war. They had already picked Gedaliah son of Ahikam, a member of a distinguished though non-royal line, as the new secular administrator (Jer 39:14; 40:4–6). It would no doubt have been advantageous to Gedaliah to have the support of a religious figure of Jeremiah’s authority behind him, one whose oracles had so recently proved true. Also, Jeremiah had a long standing friendship with Gedaliah’s family.5 There are two somewhat different account of Jeremiah’s status following the destruction of Jerusalem. In one passage (Jer 39:11–14) Nebuchadnezzar himself gives orders that Jeremiah is to be treated well. A trio of high officials sees to his release from the court of the guard in Zedekiah’s palace, where he had been imprisoned at the king’s orders (Jer 37:21), and entrusts him to Gedaliah. A few verses later (Jer 40:1–6), however, Jeremiah is at Ramah (8 km north of Jerusalem and 2  Though perhaps as long as thirty months; see Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation and Commentary, AB 21C (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 82–84. 3  Jer 21:7; 24:8; 27:12–13; 32:24; 38:2; 52:6; Lam 1:11, 19; 2:11–12, 19–21; 4:4–5, 8–11; 5:4, 9–11; Ezek 5:12, 15–17; 6:11–12; 7:15; 14:21. All biblical citations are from the NRSV. 4  Examples include: Yigal Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David I: 1978–1982, Interim Report of the First Five Seasons, Qedem 19 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984), 29. Hillel Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1960–1982. vol. 1, Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000), 158. Eilat Mazar and Benjamin Mazar, Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem, Qedem 29 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989), 21, 43. 5  Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 92.

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

71

just 4 km south of TEN) where he is manacled and apparently awaiting deportation to Babylon along with other Judeans. There he is given the choice to go with Nebuzaradan to Babylon, where he will be well-treated, or to remain in Judah, either with Gedaliah at Mizpah or wherever he prefers. It is unclear if these are two separate or overlapping accounts of Jeremiah’s fate. For example, the prophet might have been released initially, then subsequently rounded up for deportation, only to be released again. The accounts do agree on the core points that Jeremiah was initially in Babylonian custody, released by them, and eventually joined Gedaliah at Mizpah. Because he advocated surrender to the Babylonians it may be that Jeremiah’s safety would have been an issue in the lawless conditions following the destruction of the Judean state, hence Nebuzaradan’s advice to either journey with him to Babylon, or to stay with the Babylonian appointed officer in charge of what was left of Judah, where local security would be tighter since Gedaliah had at least a small force of Judean and Babylonian soldiers at his disposal (2 Kgs 25:3; Jer 40:7–8, 13; Jer 41:11, 16; Jer 41:3). Once Jeremiah left the devastated city of Jerusalem he would have witnessed a countryside that had suffered greatly from the Babylonian attack. No doubt, he was also aware of the damage inflicted by the Babylonians on many other parts of the country (Jer 34:7). Many Iron Age IIC sites in Judah bear evidence of destruction or abandonment at the end of this period. One problem in interpreting the remains at these sites, however, is the chronology surrounding when they came to an end.6 It is not known when the late Judean ceramics, as attested in Babylonian destruction strata like Lachish II and City of David 10, began to morph into the forms found in the Persian period of the fifth century.7 Were the ceramic repertoires of, for example, 550 BC or 539 similar to those of 586, or had significant changes begun to emerge? Without a site with a destruction deposit that can confidently be dated to the mid-to-late-sixth century this is impossible to say. It is tempting to assume that all sites that came to an end with ceramics resembling those of the early sixth century, be it with clear 6  Avraham Faust, Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation, ABS 18 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 10–17. Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah Under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 192–97. 7  Oded Lipschits, “Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the ‘Exilic Period’: New Studies, Further Elucidation, and Some Questions Regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an ‘Empty Land,’” in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts, ed. Brad Kelle, Frank R. Ames, Jacob L. Wright, AIL 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 64–65; Ephraim Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 2, The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.) (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 342–44.

72

Zorn

evidence of destruction or not, were destroyed in the Babylonian campaign of 587–586. However, it is also possible that some of these sites were destroyed or abandoned sometime after the end of that campaign.8 Some settlements facing imminent attack by the Babylonians may have been abandoned by their inhabitants, who fled as refugees to Ammon, Moab and Edom (Jer 40:11–12) or to other settlements in Judah or other neighboring regions. As the security once provided by the central administration in Jerusalem lapsed, sites in marginal areas may also have been abandoned as their inhabitants sought refuge in surviving, better defended Judean settlements or in neighboring lands. Some settlements, perhaps stripped of whatever garrisons they had to help shore up the defense of Jerusalem, may have fallen prey to non-Babylonian raiders at any time after the their invasion had begun. Some sites may have gradually dwindled away once the royal support that helped maintain them was gone (e.g. sites in the Judean wilderness). Jeremiah would certainly have been well aware of the existence of such internally and externally displaced segments of society. Despite the widespread ruin brought by the Babylonian invasion, there seem to have been some parts of the Judean kingdom that escaped destruction and which carried on much as before. For example, a pocket around Rogem Ganim in the Rephaim Valley southwest of Jerusalem seems to have survived from the Iron Age into the Persian period.9 It likely supplied wine to the impressive palace-garden complex at Ramat Rahel, south of Jerusalem, which also seems to have survived the Babylonian invasion.10 The town of Mozah, west of Jerusalem, was a site used for the collection of agricultural resources, probably grain, in the late Iron Age, as attested by the storage pit facility found there.11 No evidence for destruction was found at the site, and the existence of M(W)ṢH stamped jar handles, most likely marking goods produced at the royal estate at Mozah, found in their highest concentration at TEN, suggests that Mozah continued to provide such a function to the 8  Lipschits, “Shedding New Light,” 57. 9  Raphael Greenberg and Gilad Cinamon, “Stamped and Incised Jar Handles from Rogem Gannim and Their Implications for the Political Economy of Jerusalem, Late 8th–Early 4th Centuries BCE,” TA 33 (2006): 235, 239. 10  Lipschits, “Shedding New Light,” 58–62. 11  Zvi Greenhut and Alon De-Groot, Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza: The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 39 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 2009), 219–27. There is some debate whether biblical Mozah should be located at Khirbet Mizzah/Tel Moza or nearby Khirbet Beit Mizza; see Israel Finkelstein and Yuval Gadot, “Mozah, Nepthtoah and Royal Estates in the Jerusalem Highlands,” Semitica et Classica 8 (2015): 227–34.

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

73

new administrative center, at least in the period of the immediate aftermath of the Babylonian attack. Besides these two areas west of Jerusalem, it has long been thought, based on a variety of texts that mention the continued existence of certain towns (Anathoth, Mizpah, Ramah) during and after the Babylonian assault, that the tribal area of Benjamin was largely spared the devastation visited upon Judah.12 Unfortunately, except for TEN, the archaeological data from the end of the Iron Age from the Benjaminite area is problematic for a variety of reasons. First is the general problem of the uncertainty surrounding the end/transition dates for late Iron Age ceramic forms already mentioned, which makes dating the final period of occupation at the Benjaminite sites impossible. The published survey data, however, does indicate a pronounced drop in settlements from the end of the Iron Age until the middle of the Persian period. Second, many of the sites in Benjamin were excavated many years ago (e.g. TEN), or were poorly excavated or published (e.g. Beitin, el-Jib) and so the available data is not always useful. Third, at some sites (e.g. el-Ful) the remains of the late Iron Age were paltry. Fourth, the identifications of some biblical toponyms remain uncertain (e.g. Anathoth).13 Fifth, some important sites (e.g. er-Ram) have never been excavated. Finally, because most of the Benjaminite region is inside the West Bank today, little new archaeological data, other than from salvage excavations, is likely to become available. On the other hand, the M(W)ṢH impressions, most likely connected to the Babylonian administration, come only from the Benjaminite region and Jerusalem, suggesting continued occupation.14 On the whole, and with the available evidence, it seems best to assume that occupation of some sort continued in Benjamin beyond the Babylonian invasion, though at some uncertain point many sites did come to an end.15 The Babylonians would not have set up an administration at Mizpah if there was little to administer. In fact, if the area was spared by the Babylonians it may have even witnessed a temporary increase in population from refugees from other parts of the kingdom seeking shelter there. The area around Ramah,

12  Abraham Malamat, “The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah,” JNES 9 (1950): 226–27. 13  Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study, JSOTSup 294 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 163–64, notes the problems with the various sites suggested to be ancient Anathoth. 14  Jeffrey R. Zorn, Joseph Yellin, and John Hayes, “The m(w)ṣh Stamp Impressions and the Neo-Babylonian Period,” IEJ 44 (1994): 161–83. 15  Contra Faust, Desolation, 209–31. See also Oded Lipschits, “The History of the Benjaminite Region under Babylonian Rule,” TA 26 (1999): 155–90, and Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 237–49.

74

Zorn

where those to be deported to Babylonia were rounded up, may have had the appearance of a temporary shanty town at this time. There are multiple reasons why the Babylonians could have spared the Benjaminite area. Because of the long antipathy felt by the Benjaminites towards the Davidic dynasty it may be that they were more favorable to the Babylonian cause. It should not be forgotten that Jeremiah himself was from Anathoth of Benjamin (Jer 1:1). It may also be that the Babylonians, understanding that the siege of Jerusalem might be long, decided to spare this area in order to use it as a source of supplies during the siege. Finally, any administration set in place by the Babylonians would need some resources to function at all, and so the Benajminite area might have been spared with that intention in mind. Thus, in the time between the fall of Jerusalem and Jeremiah’s arrival at Mizpah he would have witnessed, or been aware of, a socially disjointed and architecturally devastated landscape. Some settlements were destroyed and in complete ruins; some continued much as before; some were at the beginning of a downward spiral to abandonment. In addition, squatters and refugees likely huddled in some of the ruins or lived in caves and temporary clusters of tents and attempted to rebuild or carry on with their lives. These are the poor of the land mentioned in the biblical texts (Jer 39:10; 52:16; 2 Kgs 25:12). The prophet was likely well-acquainted with Mizpah.16 It was close to Jerusalem, not even a day’s walk away, and was most likely visible to him at Ramah.17 It had been Judah’s bulwark against invasion from the north since the time of Asa in the early ninth century (according to 1 Kgs 15:22)18 and was 16  For an in-depth survey of the Babylonian to Persian Period remains at TEN, see Jeffrey R. Zorn, “Tell en-Naṣbeh and the Problem of the Material Culture of the 6th Century,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 413–47. A briefer, popular version is Jeffrey R. Zorn, “Mizpah: Newly Discovered Stratum Reveals Judah’s Other Capital,” BAR 23.5 (1997): 28–38, 66. 17  Based on Google Earth Pro Viewshed and Elevation Profile analyses. See also Chester C. McCown, “The Archaeological Problem,” in Tell en-Naṣbeh: Excavated Under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè. vol. 1 Archaeological and Historical Results, ed. Chester C. McCown (Berkeley: Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion, 1947), 53. 18  Some scholars have dated the wall later than the time of Asa. Finkelstein would put the construction of the wall around the time of Hazael’s invasion toward the end of the ninth century. See Israel Finkelstein, “The Great Wall of Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah), The First Fortifications in Judah, and 1 Kings 15:16–22,” VT 62 (2012): 25–27. Katz dated the wall to the eighth century. See Haya Katz, “A Note on the Date of the ‘Great Wall’ of Tell en-Naṣbeh,” TA 25 (1998): 131–33. Na’aman even attempted to date the wall to the

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

75

associated with traditions concerning Samuel (1 Sam 7, 10). As Jeremiah approached Mizpah from the south he would have used the road which followed the spine of the central hill country and connected Jerusalem with Shechem and points farther north. As he neared the site he would have first seen the town’s impressive fortifications. The offset-inset plastered stone town wall at TEN averaged about 4.4 m in width. In places, however, the total width of the fortifications could reach ca. 14 m (at some of the towers and including the external stone revetment and sections of a dry moat which were probably opportunistically used quarry sites).19 By comparison, the wall at Dor (8.5 hectares) was only 2 m wide; that at Megiddo (10 hectares; a similar offset-inset) was about the same width as the wall at TEN; the wall at Lachish II (8 hectares) was about 3.7 m; only Jerusalem (ca. 60 hectares) at the end of the Iron Age had significantly thicker walls (e.g. the Broad Wall at 7 m).20 Despite its modest size (3.2 hectares), TEN was thus one of the most strongly fortified settlements in Judah. It is likely that these formidable defenses recommended the town to the Babylonians as the most suitable site for Gedaliah’s rump administration. From the exterior Mizpah would have looked much the same as it had for centuries, though there were probably huts and tents dotting the area around it, temporary dwellings for recently displaced residents, refugees, new citizens, and Babylonian soldiers. Jeremiah would have passed by the town on the east and approached its gate system, located on the northeast side of the mound, probably from the north (Fig. 4.1.1). A low saddle connected the hill on which the site stood with the Ramallah ridge to the north, probably the primary reason for originally locating the gate at that point.21 The entrance to the Stratum 3 town Babylonian period: Nadav Na’aman, “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History,” in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspect of Early Israel, ed. Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 224, n. 13. 19  Jeffrey R. Zorn, “Tell en-Naṣbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1993), 319–32, summarizes the data on the offset-inset wall. The original TEN report also describes the fortifications; see Chester C. McCown, “The Defenses of Tell en-Naṣbeh,” in Tell en-Naṣbeh: Excavated Under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè, vol. 1, Archaeological and Historical Results, ed. Chester C. McCown (Berkeley: Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion, 1947), 191–94. 20  Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 331. Ephraim Stern, “Stratigraphical Summary of Architectural Remains,” in Excavations at Dor, Final Report. vol. 1A, Areas A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy, ed. Ephraim Stern et al., Qedem Reports 1 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1995), 29. 21  McCown, “Archaeological Problem,” 53.

76

Zorn

figure 4.1 Map of TEN Stratum 2. Black walls belong to Stratum 2. The grey sections are the four-chamber gate and the western wall of the inner-outer gate complex of Stratum 3 dismantled during construction of Stratum 2. Pale architecture elements are primarily remains of Stratum 3. Numbers indicate points mentioned in connection with Jeremiah in the text. For example Fig 4.1.1 in the text below refers to area 1 on the plan. An * indicates a four-room house. Grid squares are 10 m on a side.

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

77

had been protected by a massive inner-outer gate complex.22 The outer gate was formed by overlapping stretches of the town wall coming from the north and the south and consisted of two chambers on either side. Each chamber contained benches, as did the small plaza outside. The eastern gate chamber was part of a massive tower which, including revetments, measured about 17 m by 14 m. The entire outer gate was about 30 m wide and 14 m deep. The inner gate was of the four-chamber type. Not including the town wall, which it abutted on the east, it was about 14 m wide by about 10 m deep. The two gates were connected by a passage about 65 m long and 12 m wide. On the east this passage was protected by the town wall. On the west a wall of similar width connected the two gates. The entire gate complex was about 90 m long and 25 m wide (including the revetment) and occupied an area of about 0.25 hectares, amounting to about 8% of the total area of the town. When the prophet entered the town through its two-chamber gate he would have encountered his first major surprise (Fig. 4.1.2). While the two-chamber gate appeared much as it always had, the area of the rest of the gate complex was radically changed. First, most of the wall which had connected the western sides of the two gates had been removed down to near its foundations, leaving only a few courses intact. In the area behind where the wall had stood the prophet would have seen the 5 m high bedrock scarp which stood just to the west of this wall. The outer gate had been built in an area where there was a large expanse of flat bedrock. The scarp began just south of the outer gate and stretched for about 48 m to the south. Because this scarp started just inside the outer gate, and continued south, the gate complex had to be very long; there would have been no easy way to ascend into the town over the scarp at any point before the area in which the four-chamber gate was built. After the removal of most of the western wall the entire area from the scarp on the west to the town wall on the east, a space of 25–30 m in width, had been leveled with debris; a variety of new buildings were under construction in this newly created open area. Just inside the two-chamber gate he would have noticed a four-room house going up (Figs. 4.1.2 and 4.2).23 The front three rooms had already been completed and the back broad room was still being built. The central room lay directly above the gate complex’s old western wall and utilized it as the foundation for its two side walls. A small part of the town wall between the rear 22  Jeffrey R. Zorn, “An Inner and Outer Gate Complex at Tell en-Naṣbeh,” BASOR 307 (1997): 53–66, describes the gate complex in detail. See also the discussion in McCown, “Defenses,” 195–201. 23  Building 110.01 in Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 538–45.

78

Zorn

figure 4.2 Four-room house (Building 110.01) inside two-chamber gate (in background).

wall of the house and the gate was being reused as a stairway to provide access to the center of the town. The house itself was impressive, being about 13 m long by 10 m wide and compared favorably even to houses that once stood in Jerusalem itself.24 The walls were substantial and often included stones of near ashlar quality. Two of the rooms flanking the central space had stone cobbled floors. The pillars used in the eastern and half the western wall of the central space were imposing stone monoliths whose quarrying would have involved much effort; these were not the sort of pillars built up of rough field stones so common in typical Judean homes. An annex expanded the house right up to the rock scarp. In the annex a cistern was being hewn and a set of stairs to the building’s second story was under construction. Its proximity to the gate would suggest to Jeremiah that the building might have some official function, rather than being a simple dwelling. The prophet would have seen several other buildings under construction south of the inner gate, including another four-room house just south of the one adjacent to the gate.25 Jeremiah may have puzzled over why such a large part of the town’s defenses had been dismantled. In all its long history Mizpah had never been captured and destroyed, despite its prominent position on the main invasion route from the north; indeed, some considered the eastern Michmas pass a more viable means of approaching Jerusalem 24  E.g., the “House of Aḥiel” in Area G of the City of David. Shiloh, Excavations, 18. 25  Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 591–611.

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

79

(Isa 10:27b–32) than the road past Mizpah. These formidable defenses were the primary reason for its long inviolate status. There were at least two factors that likely contributed to the decision to take down so much of the inner-outer gate complex. The most important may have been the need for additional space for larger buildings that a new, though small, administrative center would require. A second factor may have been Babylonian concerns that a too well-fortified center might form the nucleus for yet another Judean revolt, as would, in fact, happen. Because of the rock scarp Jeremiah would not have been able to view or gain access to the interior of the town, so he would have proceeded south to the area of the four-chamber gate, the original final entry point into the town (Fig. 4.1.3).26 Here, too, a surprise awaited him. The gate had been removed down to its foundations and walls for some sort of structure were being built over it. Just beyond the area where the gate had stood, where there had once been a small plaza fronting the gate, another four-room house was being raised; the back wall of its rear broad room was only a few meters from the old gate.27 This building would have effectively blocked direct access to the gate if the gate were still standing. The house was of almost identical size and quality of construction to the one south of the two-chamber gate, but it was still not finished and the prophet could not guess its role. On previous visits to Mizpah Jeremiah would have become familiar with a unique aspect of the town’s layout. The settlement’s original fortifications were made up of the rear walls of the broad back rooms of the dwellings arranged around the periphery of the town.28 This unprepossessing defensive line would not have been adequate to the task once Mizpah had become Judah’s main strongpoint against attacks from the north. It was said (1 Kgs 15:16–22) that, in a war between King Asa of Judah and King Baasha of Israel, Baasha had attempted to seize Ramah and fortify it, effectively moving the border to the very outskirts of Jerusalem. When Baasha was forced to withdraw because of a threat along his northern border Asa was said to have used the materials assembled by Baasha to fortify both Mizpah, which guarded the main road to Jerusalem, and also Geba, which likewise defended the Michmas pass. Instead 26  Zorn, “Inner and Outer Gate”; McCown, “Defenses,” 199–201. 27  Building 145.02. Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 710–14. 28  Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 312–16. Thomas L. McClellan, “Town Planning at Tell en-Naṣbeh,” ZDPV 100 (1984): 54–55. McCown, “Defenses,” 191. Chester C. McCown, “The Buildings of Tell en-Naṣbeh,” in Tell en-Naṣbeh: Excavated Under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè, vol. 1, Archaeological and Historical Results, ed. Chester C. McCown (Berkeley: Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion, 1947), 222.

80

Zorn

of constructing the new fortifications over any part of the old town of Mizpah, a move which would have likely outraged its Benjaminite inhabitants, the new fortifications were built down slope 5–10 m from the original town.29 The sharply sloping space between the old wall and the new wall, the intramural space, was filled up with debris to create a level and usable surface. Instead of leaving the intramural space empty, the kings of Judah had put it to a special use. A series of at least sixty-one stone lined silos had been sunk into the debris around the southern half of the site.30 Because the town sloped downward from south to north no silos had been dug in the northern half of the intramural area; water that flowed down through the narrow streets of the town would have emptied into that area and ruined any grain or other products stored in the silos.31 Instead, a series of eight drains had been constructed in the northern intramural area, nine if the drain through the gate complex is included, to channel this runoff through the offset-inset wall and out of the town entirely. Jeremiah would have expected to see a dozen or so such storage silos south of the gate, but they had been entirely filled in and covered over. Indeed, the new four-room house under construction just south of the gate was being built over at least one of these old silos. The filling in of the silos would also have puzzled Jeremiah. These silos had the capacity to hold enough grain to feed hundreds of people for months. In the past they could have been used to feed the small number of soldiers permanently garrisoned at Mizpah, or as food for other royal workers or officers, or for trade, or even as a reserve food supply for Jerusalem. It seemed odd that Gedaliah’s new administration would not have continued to use these storage facilities for its own needs. As Jeremiah turned west from the area of the old gate complex to enter the town of Mizpah proper he would have experienced his greatest surprise of all. The town, as he had known it, was completely gone, almost. Like most of the Judean hill towns with which the prophet was familiar, Mizpah was built on a limestone ridge which eroded from the summit in a series of natural terraces. Because of their construction on such hills these settlements had roundish 29  Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 319–32, discusses offset-inset wall in detail. 30  This is the total number that was preserved; it is perhaps possible that there were a few more that did not survive. Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 251–257, discusses these silos in detail. Note that the excavators called narrow storage chambers cut into bedrock “silos,” while stone-lined storage chambers cut into fill were called “bins.” 31  How water was manipulated and stored is covered in Jeffrey R. Zorn, “Tell en-Naṣbeh’s Contributions to Understanding Iron Age Israelite Water Systems,” in “As for me, I will dwell at Mizpah …”: The Tell en-Nasbeh Excavations after 85 Years, ed. Jeffrey R. Zorn and Aaron J. Brody, GSANE 9 (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2014), 225–79. Also Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 259–85.

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

81

outlines. The main road(s), really narrow alleys, followed these contours and formed one or more rings around the site.32 The hill on which Mizpah was built was shaped roughly like a broad bean. The band of houses on the periphery of the site would be downhill from the road, while those on the other side of the road would be uphill or on the same level as the road. If the settlement were large enough there would be another ring road higher up the slope. In order to provide access to blocks of dwellings in the center of the hill, and to provide quicker access from one side of the town to the other, there might be crossroads constructed perpendicular to the slope of the hill. Mizpah had likely had seven to nine such crossroads. The roads themselves were usually dirt packed and averaged 1.7 m in width.33 The Mizpah that Jeremiah had known before was, except for its massive fortifications, a typical crowded Iron Age rural agricultural town.34 Inside the defenses it was packed with around 200 dwellings (there were also some structures and agricultural installations just beyond the town walls) and probably had a population of 900–1000.35 The great majority of these houses were of the three-room type (similar to four-room houses, but with only two long front rooms) which were about 60 m2 in area, though there were also a few four-room (only a little larger than the three-room type), two-room, and nonstandard plan homes. Most of these structures had partial second stories and courtyards. A number of structures had contained presses used for extracting olive oil. Many, but not all, of the dwellings had cisterns fed either by rain diverted in from the building’s roofs or by drains from an adjacent road. Extended families in nearby dwellings likely shared such water resources since not all such houses had a cistern.36 Over the centuries these houses had often seen internal rearrangements of rooms in order to accommodate expanding and contracting families. 32  The road system is discussed in Zorn “Re-evaluation,” 341–59, and in McClellan, “Town Planning,” 59–60, 62, 64. The notion that a ring-road plan was typical of Iron Age Israelite settlements was discussed in Yigal Shiloh, “Elements in the Development of Town Planning in the Israelite City,” IEJ 28 (1978): 36–51. 33  There were exceptions where certain roads helped channel water and were stone paved. See Zorn, “Water Use,” 239–40, 244–45; McClellan, “Town Planning,” 59, 64–65. 34  The Iron Age II town of Mizpah with which Jeremiah would have been familiar is Stratum 3 at TEN. The new town he is seeing under construction is Stratum 2 of the Babylonian to Persian Periods. These two strata are characterized in Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 114–85. Short summaries can be found in Jeffrey R. Zorn, “Naṣbeh, Tell en-,” NEAEHL 3:1098–1102. 35   Jeffrey R. Zorn, “Estimating the Population Size of Ancient Settlements: Methods, Problems, Solutions and a Case Study,” BASOR 295 (1994): 31–48. 36  Zorn, “Water Use,” 265–71.

82

Zorn

What the prophet now saw was a vastly different townscape. Scores of houses, especially at the northern end of the site, had been knocked down, leveled out, and built over with new structures. To the west of the inner gate a long enclosure wall was under construction.37 In other parts of the town the old houses had been destroyed, debris was being moved about by peasant workers, and new buildings were under construction. In still other parts of the site some houses still stood, apparently awaiting demolition, while other houses were in the process of being torn down. Because of the height of the debris left from the demolition of the old houses, and the widespread leveling, much of the natural stepped appearance of the site had been smoothed over, leaving much larger, flatter stretches of ground than had existed before. The new structures he saw taking shape took advantage of the wider expanses and were much larger and more widely spaced than those he knew from the crowded old town with its narrow alleys. He saw a number of four-room houses under construction; these too were virtually identical in size and construction material to those he had seen in the old gate area.38 However, there were also larger buildings scattered around. It would have been clear to the prophet that the cramped and often squalid homes of peasant farmers that had existed at Mizpah during the centuries of the Judean kingdom would not have been appropriate to the needs of Gedaliah’s administration. So, these had been demolished to make way for structures more suited to the needs of the new regime. So many buildings had already been demolished that it was clear that the work must have begun while Jerusalem was still under siege. The Babylonian intent had been to destroy Jerusalem, both as a punishment to the rebellious kingdom, and to serve as a warning to others in the area. Still, Nebuchadnezzar would have known that the area required some administration, and that that administration would need its own functioning infrastructure in place once Jerusalem was captured and destroyed. Hence, the work at Mizpah had been underway for some time. Jeremiah must have wondered where all the farmers had gone now that their town had been appropriated by the new Babylonian sponsored regime. Ironically some number of the laborers leveling the old houses had probably been residents of the town. Most of those who would live in the emerging town would have been part of the new administration. Many of the buildings under construction would have had official functions, such as for storage, and there would have been many fewer buildings for the old inhabitants. Since these farmers were tied to ancestral lands around Mizpah some of them likely moved to nearby villages, while others built houses just beyond the 37  Zorn, “Problems,” 418–19, 424. 38  Zorn, “Problems,” 419–27.

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

83

town walls. Perhaps some would have jobs with the new administration and reside in the new structures inside the town. Near the northern end of the town (Fig. 4.1.4) a large building, much larger than any of the new four-room buildings, had already been completed (over 20 m long preserved remains). Its walls were substantial. It consisted of a series of rooms (at least a few paved) arranged around a large open stone-paved central courtyard (7.5 m wide and over 11 m long). The structure did not follow the plan of a typical Judean house, or even that of the small palaces and administrative residencies of Judah.39 Jeremiah would soon learn that this was a foreign building style imported from Babylonia and that it was the residence of Gedaliah. It was likely at this building that Gedaliah met the military commanders, such as Ishmael and Johanan (Jer 40:7–11), who were still operating in the countryside and had not yet surrendered, and attempted to secure their allegiance and to reconcile them to Judah’s new position in the Babylonian empire. No doubt Gedaliah’s oath (Jer 40:9) to serve as a mediator between these men and the Babylonians was intended to assure them that there would be no reprisals. Instead of demanding that they relinquish control of the towns they held he ceded them to these officers and allowed them to retain whatever food resources they had harvested soon after Jerusalem’s fall (Jerusalem fell in August, and these were the crops still to be harvested), instead of turning them over to his administration. Similarly, the text says that the refugees who had fled to surrounding countries returned and were able to bring in a late-in-the-year harvest, but it does not mention Gedaliah taking any of that for his administration (Jer 40:12). Perhaps he relied on crops that had been harvested in Benjamin during the siege, and also on royal estates (e.g. Mozah) and depots (e.g. Ramat Raḥel) that had not been destroyed, until more of the local agricultural infrastructure was repaired. Probably this building housed a few Babylonian soldiers (Jer 41:3), royal women (Jer 41:10), eunuchs, and some Judean soldiers (Jer 41:16). The text does not specify where in Mizpah Jeremiah (and Baruch) resided, with Gedaliah himself, or in a house of his own. It seems clear that the events described above took place shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. What is not so clear is the date of Ishmael’s assassination plot (below). The coup is said to have occurred in the seventh month (Jer 41:1), but the year is not given. Jerusalem fell in the fourth month, so the text seems to imply that the attack on Gedaliah took place only three months later. However, the third Babylonian deportation (Jer 52:30) and the Babylonian attack on Ammon reported by Josephus,40 which were surely reprisals for Ishmael’s 39  Zorn, “Problems,” 423–24, Fig. 7. Building 74.01 in Zorn “Re-evaluation,” 424–27. 40  J.A. 10.9.7.

84

Zorn

figure 4.3 M(W)ṢH stamp impression.

actions instigated by the Ammonite king Baalis (Jer 40:14), took place five years after the fall of Jerusalem. It does not seem likely that Nebuchadnezzar would wait so long to inflict such punishment and that instead the biblical author telescoped events that took place over several years into a much shorter time span.41 Probably the events of Jer 40:13 and following took place three or four years after those of Jer 40:12. If this chronology is correct, then any prophecies delivered by Jeremiah for this span have not been recorded. Were these quiet times which required no such oracles? In the years following Jeremiah’s arrival at Mizpah he would have likely seen the rest of the old town leveled and final new structure erected by Gedaliah’s administration. At least six of the large four-room house buildings had been constructed, along with several other structures,42 including one with long magazine-like rooms used (probably) for storage (Fig. 4.5).43 A large number of jars brought into these storage facilities would have been stamped with M(W)ṢH impressions (Fig. 4.3), indicating that they had been brought from the old royal estate at Mozah.44 Other jars may have been stamped with Lion impressions (though not all the storage jars were necessarily stamped).45 Because the new administrative center contained several large public buildings and larger individual dwellings (four-room houses), and because these buildings were more dispersed from each other and did not often share walls, the population was smaller than the old crowded town, probably no more than 400–500 at

41  Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 114–15. 42  Zorn, “Problems,” 426, 428, Figs. 3–6. 43  Zorn, “Problems,” 424, 426, Fig. 8. 44  The vast majority of jar handles with this impression were found at TEN, signifying a special role for this site in the use of these jars. Zorn, Yellen and Hayes, “m(w)ṣh,” 164–67. 45  Lipschits, “Shedding New Light,” 62–63.

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

85

figure 4.4 Rear corner of Mesopotamian-style bathtubshape coffin.

most.46 Among the towns inhabitants were a contingent of Babylonian soldiers, and perhaps some officials who either resided there, or visited periodically. This is clear not only from biblical references (Jer 40:10, 41:3; 2 Kgs 25:24–25), but from artifacts such as inscriptions (Fig. 4.5), ceramic coffins (Fig. 4.4), a bronze beaker, and “Skythian” style arrowheads found at the site.47 Some of these 46  Zorn, “Estimating,” 44. 47  Zorn, “Problems,” 433–37, 439–40. Especially intriguing is the fragment of a bronze circlet bearing a dedicatory cuneiform inscription (Fig. 4.5). See the contrasting interpretations in Stephanie Dalley, “Gods from North-eastern and North-western Arabia in Cuneiform Texts from the First Sealand Dynasty, and a Cuneiform Inscription from Tell en-Naṣbeh, c.1500 BC,” AAE 24 (2013): 177–85, and David Vanderhooft and Wayne Horowitz, “The Cuneiform Inscription from Tell en-Naṣbeh: The Demise of an Unknown King,” TA 29 (2002): 318–27. For details about the “bathtub” shaped coffins see Jeffrey R. Zorn, “Mesopotamian-style Ceramic ‘Bathtub’ Coffins from Tell en-Naṣbeh,” TA (1993): 216–24; also Jeffrey R. Zorn, “More on Mesopotamian Burial Practices in Ancient Israel,” IEJ 47 (1997): 214–19. Recently the suggestion has been made that some such tubs were used for the fulling process; e.g. Laura Mazow, “The ‘Bathtub Coffin’ from Tel Qitaf: A Re-Examination of Its Context and Function,” PEQ 146 (2014): 31–39. Note, however, that many such tubs, both in the Levant and Mesopotamia, are found in funerary contexts, and even containing human remains; moreover, a number of bell-shape burial jars, with parallels in Mesopotamia, have also been found in the Levant. On the beaker, see Jeffrey R. Zorn, “The Date of a Bronze Vase from Tell en-Naṣbeh,” TA (1996): 209–12.

86

Zorn

figure 4.5 Fragment of bronze circlet bearing a partial dedicatory cuneiform inscription perhaps of the second millennium Sea Land king Ayadara (galama).

objects could have been used by the Babylonians themselves, or by Judeans aping Mesopotamian fashions. Jeremiah would have seen little evidence of high end foreign trade. Most of the Judean elite who participated in such trade were either dead or in exile. It is possible that some trade continued with Ammon, as suggested by pottery, and perhaps by the continued Ammonite interest in Judean affairs.48 A thorny issue that would have confronted Gedaliah was whether to build a temple to Yahweh at Mizpah to replace the destroyed Jerusalem temple. Certainly his administration would have felt the need to have a nearby location in which to carry on the cult of the national god. In addition, despite the reforming efforts of Hezekiah and Josiah, Judah had a long history of cult places to Yahweh outside of the Jerusalem temple (e.g. the temple at Arad) and so a temple to Yahweh at Mizpah might not have seemed unusual. On the other hand, any surviving members of the Jerusalem priesthood, who had been attempting to consolidate cultic power in their own hands, probably took umbrage at the thought of setting up a temple at Mizpah. A variety of texts link cultic activities with Mizpah, though the historicity of most of them is open to debate. In Judges it is the site of a pan-tribal oath 48  Aaron J. Brody, “Transjordanian Commerce with Northern Judah in the Iron IIC – Persian Period: Ceramic Indicators, Interregional Interaction, and Modes of Exchange at Tell en-Naṣbeh, in “As for me, I will dwell at Mizpah …”: The Tell en-Nasbeh Excavations after 85 Years, ed. Jeffrey R. Zorn and Aaron. J. Brody, GSANE 9 (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2014), 59–93.

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

87

ceremony (21:5, 8); in stories of the prophet Samuel it is a site of prayer, fasting and a water ceremony (1 Sam 7:5–6); in the eighth century a Mizpah (though it is not at all clear that the Mizpah of Benjamin is intended) was a snare for priests (Hos 5:1); in the Hellenistic era it is again a site for prayer and fasting (1 Macc 3:46). None of these texts, however, mention a permanent cult site or any sacrificial ritual at Mizpah. Only one text (Jer 41:4–6), which mentions northern pilgrims on their way to the temple of the Lord with grain and incense offerings, might suggest that Gedaliah had a temple built at Mizpah. Unfortunately the text does not precisely locate the actual site of the temple, and it is possible, since the text mentions no animals for sacrifice, that the intent of the pilgrims was to make an offering at the site of the ruined Jerusalem temple. Certainly the debate in Gedaliah’s time over whether to build a temple at Mizpah was as contentious as modern scholarly debate over whether one existed.49 As a priest, and as a prophet who had sometimes questioned the role of the temple and its priesthood (Jer 7:1–14; 20:1–6; 23:11; 26: 1–12; 32:34), Jeremiah would likely have been in the thick of such a debate. Ishmael’s plot against Gedaliah took place in the seventh month (September– October) of probably either 584 or 583, likely in association with the Festival of Booths (Lev 23:33–43; Num 29:12–40) which correlates with the arrival of the northern pilgrims mentioned later in the story (Jer 41:4–8). Apparently Gedaliah had invited Ishmael and some of his men to feast with him, presumably at Gedaliah’s residency mentioned above. None of the other officers mentioned earlier seem to have been invited. Perhaps this special invitation is connected with Ishmael’s status as a member of the Davidic line. A great deal has been written in the last decade about the role of feasting in ancient Israel and the Near East in general.50 Josephus provides a colorful description of this event (though whether based on any real knowledge of the occasion, or 49  E.g., the contrasting opinions in Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 117–18, and Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 97–99, who argues that the old Israelite temple at Bethel still functioned and could have served Gedaliah’s needs. 50  For some recent literature with bibliography, see Avraham Faust, “Pottery and Society in Iron Age Philistia: Feasting, Identity, Economy, and Gender,” BASOR 373 (2015): 167–98; Deirdre N. Fulton, et. al., “Feasting in Paradise: Feast Remains from the Iron Age Palace of Ramat Raḥel and Their Implications,” BASOR 374 (2015): 29–48; Justin Lev-Tov and Kevin McGeough, “Examining Feasting in Late Bronze Age Syro-Palestine Through Ancient Texts and Bones,” in The Archaeology of Food and Identity, ed. Katheryn C. Twiss, Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 34 (Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations, 2007), 85–111; Sharon Zuckerman, “‘… Slaying oxen and

88

Zorn

fashioned from his own knowledge of such practices in his own time, is unknown), with lavish food, gift giving, and much drinking; so much drinking that Ishmael committed his murder after Gedaliah had passed out.51 No doubt Gedaliah, who was only a member of an important scribal family, by hosting this feast, was hoping to display his preeminent position in the remnant Judean society while also cementing some sort of reciprocal alliance with Ishmael, who, as a member of the Davidic family, could provide significant support to Gedaliah’s regime. As the one hosting the feast Gedaliah showed his dominant position, but by excluding the other important officials in this small region he was elevating Ishmael above them. No doubt the meal included sumptuous amounts of local cuisine, but perhaps not imports.52 Ishmael and his men are said to have undertaken a general massacre of the populace during this Mizpah feast (Jer 41:3), but later on he is able to leave the town with a significant number of captives (Jer 41:10, 13–14, 16). Jeremiah’s location during all of these events is unknown, even whether he was at the feast itself. The text states that the next day Ishmael lured eighty pilgrims who were apparently on their way to the Jerusalem temple (see above) into Mizpah and murdered all but ten of them (Jer 41:4–8). No reason is offered for this action. The text relates that Ishmael then had all the bodies dumped into an especially large cistern, said to be the work of King Asa in the early ninth century. This is at least seventy of the pilgrims, along with some unspecified number of Mizpah’s inhabitants. In the approximately two thirds of the site that was excavated, no monumental water system, such as found at some other Israelite sites, was uncovered.53 However, the bedrock of TEN was honeycombed with many rock-cut installations, including tombs, silos, and cisterns. In the areas Killing Sheep, Eating Flesh and Drinking Wine…’: Feasting in Late Bronze Age Hazor,” PEQ 139 (2007): 186–204. 51  Ant. 10.169 52  Carol Meyers, “Menu: Royal Repasts and Social Class in Biblical Israel,” in Feasting in the Archaeology and Texts of the Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. Peter Altmann and Janling Fu (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 136–39, 144–47, also includes additional bibliography on feasting in Israel and the ancient Near East. 53  Yigal Shiloh, “Underground Water Systems in the Land of Israel in the Iron Age,” in The Architecture of Ancient Israel, ed. Aharon Kempinski and Ronny Reich (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1991), 275–93. The rarer use of ‫ בור‬as “pit” seems less likely. No large pit was found at the site, unless some section of the moat uncovered at points outside the offset-inset wall is intended. However, this moat was only found in a few locations and is most likely an opportunistic reuse of stone quarries used to bolster the town’s defenses. Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 323–24, 327. Cf. Dag Oredsson, Moats in Ancient Palestine (Stokcholm: Almquist and Wiksell Interntational, 2000), 121–23.

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

89

excavated 104 cisterns were uncovered.54 In a sample area in the southwest corner of the site, fifteen cisterns were well enough recorded to allow for computation of estimates of their capacities. The average capacity of these cisterns was about 18 m3, or 18,000 liters. However, there was great variability in cistern size. For example, the standard deviation was 16.4; this means that two thirds of the cisterns fell within a range of between about 2–34 m3. The smallest cistern was 2.2 m3 while the largest in that area, Cistern 159, was 57.5 m3. Cistern 285, at the north end of the site, was even larger, approximately 85 m3. Were any of these cisterns large enough to hold the bodies of Ishmael’s victims?55 Determining the area occupied by a human body is difficult because it is not a simple, regular shape. Also, filling a cistern with bodies would require that space be left inside the cistern for a person (or perhaps more than one person) to stand and arrange and stack the bodies. The size of a cistern mouth would preclude simply dumping the bodies. They would pile up and just fill the area immediately below the cistern mouth. Some cisterns were two or more meters deep, and so stacking the bodies high would have been difficult. As a result, the entire capacity of any cistern might not have been used. However, it is possible to give a rough idea of the maximum number of bodies that might be fit into a cistern. The human body is primarily made up of water, so the volume of a human body roughly matches the volume of a similar weight of water.56 One kilogram of water occupies one liter of volume. For the purposes of this hypothetical example, a weight of 60 kg covering both males and females is assumed, so about 60 liters.57 There are 1000 liters in a cubic meter. So, the hypothetical 60 kg Israelite would occupy 0.06 m3, but this does not take into account the shape of a human body. A study which estimated the volumes of mass burials from the Holocaust, based on da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, arrived at 3.3 f3 or 0.09 m3 54  See Zorn, “Water Use,” 255–71, for cisterns and water storage. 55  As far as the author is aware, no one before now has attempted to answer this morbid question. 56  Actually, because of the presence of fat, the volume is somewhat different depending on various factors, but dividing weight in kg by 1.05 kg/liter gives a more accurate volume. See Harry J. Krzyicki and Kenneth S.K. Chen, “Human Body Density and Fat of an Adult Male Population as Measured by Water Displacement,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 29 (1967): 305–10. 57  A study of the human remains from Pompeii estimated average male weights at 66 kg and females at 50 kg. Maciek Henneberg and Renata J. Henneberg, “Reconstructing Medical Knowledge in Ancient Pompeii from the Hard Evidence of Bones and Teeth,” in Homo Faber: Studies on Nature, Technology and Science at the Time of Pompeii, ed. J Renn, G Castagnetti (Rome: L’Ermadi Bretschneider), 182–84.

90

Zorn

as the volume of an adult male.58 Using this higher figure, Ishmael’s minimum seventy victims would have occupied an area of at least 6.3 m3. A study of the deposition of sheep and goat carcasses in mass burials suggests about seven human bodies per cubic meter, or about 10 m3 total.59 An additional 2–3 m3 should be added to accommodate a person standing in the cistern positioning the bodies. It seems that a cistern of around 9–13 m3 would provide ample space for Ishmael to dispose of seventy victims. Even if the number of victims were twice this amount a number of the larger cisterns at TEN could have handled the corpses. Of course, this is a rough approximation, but it does give some sense that the cistern in question need not have been inordinately large compared to other cisterns at the site. Soon after Ishmael’s failed coup Jeremiah’s time at Mizpah came to an end when he was dragged off to Egypt (Jer 43:6–7). However, Mizpah likely continued as the administrative center for Judah until some of those who had been sent into exile returned from Babylonia and reinstituted Jerusalem as the Judean capital. Mizpah remained an important settlement well into the Persian period,60 which is clear not only from biblical references (Neh 3:7, 15, 19) but also from the various Persian period finds that come from the site (e.g. midfifth century storage jars from the house inside the outer gate, Yehud stamp impressions, wedge-and-circle impressed pottery, imported Greek wares and so on).61 Unfortunately, the texts do not say who Gedaliah’s successor was and are equally silent about whether Jeremiah had any contact with Judah after he was carried off to Egypt. The rest of this tale, accordingly, is shrouded in silence, even though the existence of a vibrant Jewish community in Egypt centuries later, especially in Ptolemaic times, is well-known.62 58  Charles A. Bay, “8.0 – Treblinka: Reconstruction of the Death Camp,” http://www.shoahtreblinka.com/Website%20Treblinka%20New/DeathCampInternet/DeathCampNew .html. 59  C.P. Young, P.A. Marsland and J.W.N. Smith, Foot and Mouth Disease Epidemic. Disposal of Culled Stock by Burial: Guidance and Reference Data for the Protection of Controlled Waters (Bristol: Environment Agency, 2001), 16. The figures in Table 4.2 indicate a density of about 424 kg/m3. This is about seven 60 kg humans. 60  Oded Lipschits and David S. Vanderhooft, The Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 45, 256. It is difficult to determine from the text (Jer 43:4–7) how many people fled to Egypt; v. 6 could be construed to be just those at Mizpah, but the rest of the passage suggests a larger number. 61  Zorn, “Problems,” 441, 443–44; Lipschits and Vanderhooft, Yehud, 15–17, 19, 21, 42–45, 761–62. 62  Joseph M. Modrezejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, trans. Robert Cornman (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 21–157.

Jeremiah at Mizpah of Benjamin

91

Select Bibliography Brody, Aaron J. “Transjordanian Commerce with Northern Judah in the Iron IIC – Persian Period: Ceramic Indicators, Interregional Interaction, and Modes of Exchange at Tell en-Naṣbeh.” Pages 59–93 in “As for me, I will dwell at Mizpah …”: The Tell en-Nasbeh Excavations after 85 Years. Edited by Jeffrey R. Zorn and Aaron. J. Brody. GSANE 9. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2014. Faust, Avraham. Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation. ABS 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Finkelstein, Israel. “The Great Wall of Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah), The First Fortifications in Judah, and 1 Kings 15:16–22.” VT 62 (2012): 14–28. Greenberg, Raphael, and Gilad Cinamon. “Stamped and Incised Jar Handles from Rogem Gannim and Their Implications for the Political Economy of Jerusalem, Late 8th–Early 4th Centuries BCE.” TA 33 (2006): 229–43. Greenhut, Zvi, and Alon De-Groot. Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza: The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 39. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 2009. Lipschits, Oded. “The History of the Benjaminite Region under Babylonian Rule.” TA 26 (1999): 155–90. Lipschits, Oded. “Demographic Changes in Judah between the 7th and the 5th Centuries BCE.” Pages 323–76 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Lipschits, Oded. “The Rural Settlement in Judah in the Sixth Century BCE: A Rejoinder.” PEQ 136 (2004): 99–107. Lipschits, Oded. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah Under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Lipschits, Oded. “Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the ‘Exilic Period’: New Studies, Further Elucidation, and Some Questions Regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an ‘Empty Land.’” Pages 57–90 in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad Kelle, Frank R. Ames, and Jacob L. Wright. AIL 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation and Commentary. AB 21C. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Malamat, Abraham. “The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah.” JNES 9 (1950): 218–27. Stern, Ephraim. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 2, The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.). New York: Doubleday, 2001. Zorn, Jeffrey R. “Tell en-Naṣbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1993. Zorn, Jeffrey R. “Estimating the Population Size of Ancient Settlements: Methods, Problems, Solutions and a Case Study.” BASOR 295 (1994): 31–48.

92

Zorn

Zorn, Jeffrey R. “An Inner and Outer Gate Complex at Tell en-Naṣbeh.” BASOR 307 (1997): 53–66. Zorn, Jeffrey R. “Tell en-Naṣbeh and the Problem of the Material Culture of the 6th Century.” Pages 413–447 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Zorn, Jeffrey R. “Tell en-Naṣbeh’s Contributions to Understanding Iron Age Israelite Water Systems.” Pages 225–79 in “As for me, I will dwell at Mizpah …”: The Tell en-Nasbeh Excavations after 85 Years. Edited by Jeffrey R. Zorn and Aaron J. Brody. GSANE 9. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2014. Zorn, Jeffrey R., Joseph Yellin, and John Hayes. “The m(w)ṣh Stamp Impressions and the Neo-Babylonian Period.” IEJ 44 (1994): 161–83.

chapter 5

Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah? The Productive Memory of David Bob Becking In this essay, two lines of thought are intertwined: the memory of David in the book of Jeremiah, and the presence or absence of messianic expectations in the same book. I begin with a few remarks on both topics. David is mentioned some 850 times in the Hebrew Bible.1 In the books of the prophets (Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Hosea; Amos; Zechariah) the heroic king is referred to about thirty-five times. Only a few of these texts are explicitly related to the past, in the sense that they refer to past events of the heroic king and hence formulate a memory. I will mention a few: Woe to you, Ariel, Ariel, the city where David settled! Add year to year and let your cycle of festivals go on. Isa 29:12

Or: You strum away on your harps like David and improvise on musical instruments. Amos 6:5

The memory on the king is also present in expressions like “the house of David,” “David’s throne,” and “the city of David.”

1  On David see, e.g., Walter Dietrich, David: Der Herrscher mit der Harfe (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006); Bob Becking, “David between Evidence and Ideology,” in History of Israel between Evidence and Ideology, ed. Bob Becking and Lester L. Grabbe, OTS 59 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1–30; Jacob L. Wright, David, King of Israel, and Caleb in Biblical Memory (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014). 2  Unless noted otherwise, all English translations are my own.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_006

94

Becking

More often the references to David are related to the future. David is seen as a future king, a future shepherd for the people, a future servant of God, and so forth. This brings me to the second line in my argument: to what degree is David cast in the role of a “messianic” figure in the book of Jeremiah? The authors of the New Testament had a clear view on this topic. In the New Testament, several texts from Jeremiah are construed as being “messianic.”3 I will mention some. In Matthew 11:29, Jesus is said to have distinguished himself from John the Baptist with the following words: Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. Matt 11:29

The Greek phrase καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν (Mat 11:29) is an almost verbatim quotation of Jer 6:16: καὶ εὑρήσετε ἁγνισμὸν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν (Jer 6:16 lxx). The Greek renders the Hebrew of Jer 6:16: ‫ומצאו מרגוע לנפשכם‬ (“And you shall find rest for your souls” [nasb]).4 In his speech after the cleansing of the temple in Matt 21:13 (cf. Mark 11:17 and Luke 19:46), Jesus quotes Jeremiah’s temple sermon: And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’ den.” καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· γέγραπται· ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται, ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ποιεῖτε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν Matt 21:13

This text refers to the temple sermon of Jeremiah (7:11): ‫המערת פרצים היה הבית הזה אשר־נקרא־שמי עליו בעיניכם גם אנכי הנה ראיתי‬ ‫נאם־יהוה‬

μὴ σπήλαιον λῃστῶν ὁ οἶκός μου οὗ ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἐκεῖ ἐνώπιον ὑμῶν καὶ ἐγὼ ἰδοὺ ἑώρακα λέγει κύριος Jer 7:11 3  See, e.g., Joachim Becker, Messiaserwartung im Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 7–9. 4  On the connection between Jer 6:16 and Matt 11:29, see Maarten J.J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, BETL 173 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 267–69.

Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah ?

95

“Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,” declares Yhwh. Jer 7:115

In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he advises that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in Yhwh” (1 Cor 1:31; see also 2 Cor 10:17: Ὁ δὲ καυχώμενος, ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω: “But he who boasts, let him boast in Yhwh”). This is a direct quotation of a broader summons in Jer 9:22–23: Thus says Yhwh, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boasts of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am Yhwh who exercises loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares Yhwh. Jer 9:22–23

There are many other quotations and allusions of this character, that link the person of Jesus to sayings from the prophet Jeremiah. It should be noted that they are not presented as fulfilment quotation and not labelled as messianic devices.6 The first question to be discussed is what is meant by the concept “Messiah/messianic.” 1

‫משח‬: “to Anoint” and/or “to Appoint”?

One of the main problems in detecting – or rejecting – “messianic” prophecies in the Hebrew Bible is connected with the idea a modern reader has of the concept of Messiah. Both in Judaism and Christianity the word Messiah refers

5  Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 205. 6  See Jer 10:7 = Acts 15:3–4; Jer 12:3 = Jas 5:5; Jer 12:15 = Acts 15:16 (see also Amos 9); Jer 22:24 = Rev 14:11.

96

Becking

to a forthcoming redeemer given by God to the world.7 There does not exist, however, a unified concept on the character of this redeemer and his/her redemptive acts. I will not bother the reader with a survey of the different positions that are held: from remission of the sins of the chosen ones to a liberation from the evil powers of the free market system.8 When looking for “messianic” texts in the prophetic books, one should be aware of one’s own concept of messiah. It would, therefore, be sound to first have a look at the Old Testament roots of “messiah,” ‫משיח‬. The English word “messiah” is derived from a Hebrew verb ‫משח‬. Literally the verb means “to anoint,” hence messiah, ‫משיח‬, “the anointed.”9 The verb refers to a ritual act by which (holy) oil is put on the head of a person. As in the following text: Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, “Has not Yhwh anointed you ruler over his inheritance? When you leave me today, you will meet two men near Rachel’s tomb, at Zelzah on the border of Benjamin. They will say to you, ‘The donkeys you set out to look for have been found. And now your father has stopped thinking about them and is worried about you. He is asking, “What shall I do about my son?” ’ ” 1 Sam 10:1–21 0

7  See, e.g., Richard Harvey, Mapping Messianic Jewish Theology: A Constructive Approach (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009); Peter Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012); Matthew V. Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); William Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians: Biblical and Historical Studies, 2nd ed. (London: Bloomsbury, 2016). 8   See recently Hans Otto Seitschek, “Politischer Messianismus als Konzept der Totalitarismuskritik,” ZRGG 68 (2016): 40–56. 9  There exists an abundance of literature on the interpretation of the verb; I confine myself to: Ernst Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im alten Orient, BZAW 87 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963); Marinus J. de Jonge, “The Use of the Word ‘Anointed’ in the Time of Jesus,” NovT 8 (1966): 132–48; Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings, ConBOT 8 (Lund: GWK Gleerup, 1976), 185–232; Ansgar Moenikes, “Messianismus im Alten Testament (vorapokalyptische Zeit),” ZRGG 40 (1988): 289–306; Ernst-Joachim Waschke, Der Gesalbte: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie, BZAW 306 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 9–52; Hans-Josef Fabry and Klaus Scholtissek, Der Messias: Perspektiven des Alten und Neuen Testaments, NechtB 5 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2002), 19–36. 10  See on this unit, e.g., Mettinger, King and Messiah, 64–79, 174–79; P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary AB 8 (New York: Doubleday,

Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah ?

97

Saul is thus consecrated to his task. Anointing is a symbolic way of appointing. The human act is seen as the expression of the divine will to appoint someone in a specific role. Throughout the Hebrew Bible a variety of people are anointed and hence appointed to a specific task. Solomon is anointed by Zadok to become king over Judah and Israel (1 Kgs 1:39). Priests were sometimes anointed to their task (Lev 4:3). God’s spirit anointed the anonymous prophet TritoIsaiah in order that he could “preach good tidings unto the meek” (Isa 61:1). God had anointed the Persian king Cyrus to be a liberator for oppressed kingdoms (Isa 45:1). These – and other texts – imply that the meaning of the verb ‫ משח‬is connected to a network of features, such as (a) a sorrowful situation; (b) a divine intervenor; (c) a person – mover, liberator – who is accepted by both people and divine; (d) an inimical power. Within a cognitive approach to meaning this network can be designed in the form of a prototypical scenario, or a basic script that clarifies the meaning of a word or an expression.11 (1) A people, a community, or a person is in distress; (2) There seems to be no way out of the sorrow (of whatever kind); (3) Either divine intervention or an informal leader – often in cooperation – points at a person; (4) This person is accepted by the people, a community, or a person in distress; (5) In a symbolic act in front of the people, a community, or a person in distress the informal leader anoints this person; (6) The person accepts his (her) role and acts in a beneficial way for the people, a community, or a person in distress.

1980), 178; Walter Dietrich, Samuel, BKAT VIII/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), 418, 423–26. 11  On this concept, see: George Lakoff and Zoltán Kovecses, “The Cognitive Model of Anger Inherent in American English,” in Cultural Models in Language and Thought, ed. Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 195–221; Dominique Fleury and Thierry Brenac, “Accident Prototypical Scenarios: A Tool for Road Safety Research and Diagnostic Studies,” Accident Analysis & Prevention 33 (2001): 267–76; Ellen J. van Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 54–60; Cliff Goddard, “Universals and Variation in the Lexicon of Mental State Concepts,” in Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience, ed. Barbara C. Malt and Phillip Wolff (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 72–93.

98

Becking

2 Does ‫ משיח‬or ‫ משח‬Occur in the Prophetic Books and Especially in Jeremiah? Another question to be asked is whether or not forms from the root ‫ משח‬occur in the book of Jeremiah. A first observation might be disappointing. The noun ‫משיח‬, “anointed,” does not occur in the book of Jeremiah. The same holds for the nouns ‫ ׇמ ְׁש ׇחה‬and ‫ ְמ ְׁש ׇחה‬, both meaning “anointment.” The verb ‫ משח‬is attested only once in the book of Jeremiah. In an oracle of doom, we read: Who says, “I will build myself a roomy house with spacious upper rooms, and cut out its windows, to panel it with cedar and to ‫ משוח‬it bright red.” Jer 22:14

The Hebrew text reads ‫משוח‬, a qal infinitive absolute. Here, the verb is used with a specific meaning: “to smear.” This connotation is attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Shields (Isa 21:5) and wafers (Ex 29:2; Lev 2:4 etc.) are “smeared” in preparation for battle – and hence “appointed,” and “made ready” for their role.12 However, the use of the verb for the finishing touch of house-construction, such as to smear or dye the cedar walls in vermillion, is exceptional. Here, an important warning must be made. The absence of the root ‫ משח‬in the book of Jeremiah does not imply the absence of the concept underlying this verb in the biblical book under consideration. It must now be asked what language Jeremiah applies in designating the future. This can best be done by asking whether (elements of) the prototypical scenario noted above can be found in this biblical book. 3

Does the Prototypical Scenario Occur in Jer 23:1–8?

I would like to start with the analysis of a smaller unit, Jer 23:5–6. This strophe is part of a greater canto, Jer 21:1–23:40.13 In this canto prophecies of doom and salvation are gathered in juxtaposition. The first part – Jer 21:1–23:8 – assesses 12  See Ruth Amiran, “The ‘Arm-Shaped’ Vessel and Its Family,” JNES 21.3 (1962): 161–74 (174); Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1986), 425–26; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 21B (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 137. 13  On the delimitation of Jer 21–23 into cantos, stanzas, and strophes, see Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 93–221.

Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah ?

99

the behaviour of kings, while the final part – 23:9–40 – is concerned with prophets. The first part mainly contains oracles of doom addressed to kings of Judah and Jerusalem – Zedekiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Coniah (which is Jechoniah). These oracles include three other elements: – Tidings of good news for the people, – Oracles indicating that Lebanon South will be favoured, and – Summons to Judean kings to improve their moral and religious behaviour. The final sub-canto of the first part – Jer 23:1–8 – consists of two canticles: – Jer 23:1–4: on bad and good shepherds, and – Jer 23:5–8: promise of a righteous shoot and the return to the land. I will first concentrate on the first strophe in this last canticle. After making a set of remarks on this unit, I will return to the composition in its entirety and the question on the assumed presence of the prototypical scenario in the textual unit. But first, I will present my translation: Look, days are coming, oracle of Yhwh, When I shall raise up for David a righteous branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, “Yhwh our righteousness.”14

14  On this unit see: Becker, Messiaserwartung im Alten Testament, 53–58; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 616–20; Carroll, Jeremiah, 445–47; Moenikes, “Messianismus im Alten Testament,” 300; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 170–76; Marvin A. Sweeney, “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context,” in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen, ed. John Goldingay, LHBOTS 459 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 308–21.

100 1.

2.



Becking

‫הנה ימים באים‬: This expression occurs several times in the book of Jeremiah. With Lundbom, I do not construe this expression to be eschatological.15 In my view, the words do not refer to the end of all time, but indicates a transformation that will happen in the not-so-near future.16 In reading the books of prophets like Micah and Jeremiah a distinction should be made between a near future and a second stage. Stage I will contain doom, and stage II prosperity, hope, salvation. The stock phrase ‫ הנה ימים באים‬refers to the coming of the second stage. ‫צמח צדיק‬, “a righteous sprout/branch.” What does it mean? The collocation is read as messianic by the Targum: ‫ואקים לדויד משיח דצדקא‬, “I will rise for David an anointed one of righteousness.” The words have often been construed as the indication of a future ruler.17 In the Hebrew Bible, the word ‫ צמח‬occasionally occurs. In Amos 9:11, Mic 5:1, and Isa 9:6–7 the word refers to the hope of a restored Davidic rule. Only in post-exilic texts like Zech 3:8 and 6:12 does the term begin to have something of a reference to a “ruler of the final days.”18 The latter meaning has come to the fore in early Christianity (Matt 9:27) and Rabbinic Judaism. See for instance Talmud b. Sanh. 97a: Our Rabbis taught: in the seven year cycle at the end of which the son of David will come-in the first year, this verse will be fulfilled: And I will cause it to rain upon one city and cause it not to rain upon another city; in the second, the arrows of hunger will be sent forth; in the third, a great famine, in the course of which men, women, and children, pious men and saints will die, and the Torah will be forgotten by its students; in the fourth, partial plenty; in the fifth, great plenty, when men will eat, drink and rejoice, and the Torah will return to its disciples; in the sixth, [Heavenly] sounds; in the seventh, wars; and at the conclusion of the septennate the son of David will come. R. Joseph demurred: But so many septennates have passed, yet has he not come! – Abaye retorted: Were there then

15  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 171–72; see also Werner Dommershausen, “Der ‘Spross’ als Messias-Vorstellung bei Jeremia und Sacharja,” TQ 148 (1968): 321–41. 16  See Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 258–59. 17  See, e.g., Kimhi; Calvin; Dommershausen, “Der ‘Spross’ als Messias-Vorstellung”; Carroll, Jeremiah, 446. 18  See Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period, JSOTSup 304 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 91–120.

Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah ?

101

[Heavenly] sounds in the sixth and wars in the seventh! Moreover, have they [sc. the troubles] been in this order!19 What does ‫ צמח צדיק‬mean? The term ‫ צמח‬can best be rendered with “shoot,” in the sense of “off-spring,” something that is growing as a new form of life. What does ‫ צדיק‬mean here? The adjective is often understood as “righteous,” implying that the acts of the forthcoming person will be morally correct according to the social code of the implied society, that is, the ancient Israelite moral system of solidarity.20 Following the lead of George Cooke, I would, however, like to pay attention to two Phoenician inscriptions.21 The first is a third century text found in Narnaka (Larnax Lapethos) on Cyprus. This dedicatory inscription is carved on the pedestal of a votive image that had been erected by the king Yaton-Baal. The image and inscription both honour the god Melqart. The important lines contain the following phrases: … the altars of my god Melqart. For the sake of my life and the life of my offspring (zrʿi), day after day, and for the legitimate offspring (ṣmḥ ṣdq), to his wife and to his blood.22

In the context of this inscription, ṣmḥ ṣdq refers to the legitimate heir, in this case Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Gossai correctly noted that in the Phoenician inscriptions ṣdq is used in forensic contexts.23 Yaton-Baal’s classification of Ptolemy II Philadelphus as a ṣmḥ ṣdq gives the impression of being based on a righteous juridical decision. The succession of Ptolemy I Soter (367–283) was disputed. With this inscription the local ruler, Yaton-Baal, makes clear

19  See, e.g., Ben Zion Wacholder, “Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles,” HTR 61 (1968): 451–81; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987), 677–78; Renald E. Showers, The Pre-Wrath Rapture View: An Examination and Critique (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2001), 14. The word “septannate” refers to a period of seven years. 20  See recently Hemchand Gossai, Social Critique by Israel’s Eighth-Century Prophets: Justice and Righteousness in Context (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 11–89. 21  See George A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 86; see also Alphons van der Branden, “I titoli tolemaici ‘Sâ Râ’, ṣmḥ ṣdq e ἀνατολήν δικίαν,” BeO 6 (1964): 60–72; James Swetnam, “Some Observations on the Background of ‫ צדיק‬in Jeremias 23, 5a,” Bib 46 (1965): 29–40; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 617–18; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 172–73. 22  Larnax Lapethos 2 = KAI 43.10–11. 23  Gossai, Social Critique, 14–17.

102

Becking

the claims of Ptolemy II Philadelphus to the throne, at least on the island of Cyprus.24 The other inscription was excavated at Sidon and dates to the fifth century BCE. It concerns a building inscription from the reign of king Bod-Ashtart and reads: King Bod-Ashtart and his legitimate son (bn ṣdq) Yaton-Malik, King of the Sidonians, grandson of Eshmun-Ezer, king of the Sidonians, has built this temple for his god Eshmun, the Holy Prince.25

The expression bn ṣdq clearly designates Yaton-Malik as the one and only legitimate heir to the Sidonian throne. In line with these two inscriptions, the Hebrew expression ‫ צמח צדיק‬would mean “the legitimate shoot.” The adjective ‫ צדיק‬by implication refers to a metaphorical lineage. Contrary to the kings mentioned in Jer 21–22, this ‫צמח צדיק‬ will be the true descendant of David. This implies that although the “moral aspect” (the king has to reign in a righteous way) is far from unimportant, it is subordinated to this person being the legitimate heir of David. 3. 4.

5.

Returning to the text of Jer 23, the two final lines of v. 5 design some sort of a programme for how this legitimate sprout can act righteously. “He will (really) reign as king.” The cognate object indicates the quality of this reign.26 In contrast to the four Judahite kings whose acts were assessed negatively in Jer 21–22, this forthcoming heir will not spoil his heritage. “He will succeed.” The Hebrew here is not easy to translate. The Hiph of the verb ‫ שכל‬has a broad variety of meanings running from “to make

24  On this ruler and his reign, see the essays in Paul R. McKechnie and Philippe Guillaume, eds., Ptolemy the Second Philadelphus and his World, Mnemosyne Supplements 300 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). 25  Building-inscription of Bod-Ashtart = KAI 16; see Paolo Xella and José-Ángel Zamora López, “L’inscription phénicienne de Bodashtart in situ à Bustān eš-sēh (sidon) et son apport à l’histoire du sanctuaire,” ZDPV 121 (2005): 119–29; Josette Elayi, Histoire de la Phénicie (Paris: Perrin, 2013), 248–49; the text is found in nine versions, all on public display. 26  A cognate object or accusative is the object of a verb that is etymologically related to the verb; see, e.g., Bruce K.Waltke and Michael P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §10.2.1; Asya Pereltsvaig, “Cognate Objects in Modern and Biblical Hebrew,” in Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax, ed. Jamal Ouhalla and Ur Shlonsky (Dordrecht: Springer, 2001), 107–36.

Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah ?

103

wise” to “be successful.” Since we are in a way in the semantic field of royal ideology, I would like to make a connection with 1 Kgs 2:3. In his death-bed speech, David summons his son Solomon: And keep the charge of Yhwh, your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the law of Moses, that you may succeed (‫ )תשכיל‬in all that you do and wherever you turn.



6.

In both contexts – 1 Kings and Jer 23 – ”to succeed” does not refer to management targets or political proceedings, but to the fact that the ruler will succeed in applying the social code of the Yahwistic tradition in his reign. Phrased otherwise, he will succeed in bringing prosperity to the community based on the principles of solidarity.27 This is underscored by the resultative we-X-yiqtol forms in 23:6. As a result of the reign of the legitimate sprout there will be safety and security in the whole of the land.

The element of change is underscored by the final canticle in the “Kingprophecies.” Applying the discontinuative adverbial adjunct ‫לא עוד‬, “no longer,” a reframing of the basics of the Israelite belief-system is indicated.28 The Exodus as foundation myth will be replaced by the return from exile as foundation myth. In my view, Jer 23:1–8 can easily be read within the framework of the prototypical scenario designed above around “to appoint by anointing”: (1) A people, a community, or a person is in distress. An indication can be found in the woe-oracle Jer 23:1, where the leaders of the community have brought distress over the people: “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of My pasture!” oracle of Yhwh.

27  See also Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 618; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 173–74. 28  See Bob Becking, Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30–31, OTS 51 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 235–37.

104

Becking

(2) There seems to be no way out of the sorrow (of whatever kind). Clearly, the language of scattering (‫ )פוץ‬and its references to the exile, makes clear that the people have entered a dead end street. This is underscored by the theme of retribution, phrased with the verb ‫פקד‬, in v. 2.29 (3) Either divine intervention or an informal leader – often in cooperation – points at a person. The divine intervention is already mentioned in vv. 3 and 4: God will appoint (‫ קום‬Hif.) “better” shepherds. In v. 5, this “better shepherd” motive is concentrated on one single person: the ‫צמח צדיק‬. (4) This person is accepted by the people, a community, or a person in distress. The acceptance as such is not mentioned, but is assumed in the reframing of the belief system. (5) In a symbolic act in front of the people, a community, or a person in distress the informal leader anoints this person. This element is absent in Jer 23:1–8. (6) The person accepts his (her) role and acts in a beneficial way for the people, a community, or a person in distress. This is quite easily deduced from the themes of “righteousness,” “justice,” “saved,” and “security.” Does this make Jer 23:1–8 a messianic oracle? The textual unit clearly contains several elements of the futurology of the biblical book of Jeremiah. The forthcoming exile is presented as divine punishment for the deeds and doing of the leaders of the community. Return and restoration – as yet beyond the horizon – are presented as the result of a merciful divine intervention. They are not presented in an eschatological way – that is, in terms of the end of time and history – but as the result of a decisive discontinuity within time and history in which the “David”-character will play an important role. The question now raised is whether this concept can also be found in other passages from the book of Jeremiah and whether or not it can be classified as messianic.

29  See Gunnel André, Determining the Destiny: PQD in the Old Testament, ConBOT 16 (Lund: GWK Gleerup, 1980); Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 614; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 168.

Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah ?

4

105

Sprout and David instead of Messiah

Although the concept of fundamental change in history with the help of a divinely appointed person is present in the book of Jeremiah – at least in Jer 23:1–8 – the specific “messianic” language is absent. Jer 23:5 applies two other words, the noun ‫צמח‬, “branch, sprout,” and the personal name ‫דוד‬, David. What can be said about these two ideas? The noun ‫צמח‬, “branch, sprout,” is also mentioned in Jer 33:15. Chapter 33 contains a set of oracles of salvation that are located in the time when the prophet was imprisoned in the court of the guard. Jeremiah 33:14–16 repeats – with minor differences – words and phrases from Jer 23.30 The ‫ צמח צדיק‬has exactly the same function as in Jer 23. Through him Judah and Jerusalem will be saved. The personal name ‫דוד‬, David, occurs 14 times in the book of Jeremiah: Jer 13:13; 17:25; 21:12; 22:2, 4, 30; 23:5; 29:16; 30:9; 33:15, 17, 22, 26; and 36:30. I will not present a full interpretation of all these passages, but only remark that none of them can be construed as “messianic texts,” giving a few examples. The prophecy of doom in Jer 13 clearly does not have messianic traits: Then you shall say to them, “Thus says Yhwh: Behold, I will fill with drunkenness all the inhabitants of this land: the kings who sit on David’s throne, the priests, the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And I will dash them one against another, fathers and sons together, declares Yhwh. I will not pity or spare or have compassion, that I should not destroy them.” Jer 13:13–14

The same is true for the following passage in the letter of Jeremiah to the exiles living “by the rivers of Babylon”: 30  See, e.g., Carroll, Jeremiah, 637; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 227–31; Willie Wessels, “Jeremiah 33:15–16 as a Reinterpretation of Jeremiah 23:5–6,” HVTSt 47 (1991): 231–246; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 537–39; Sweeney, “Jeremiah’s Reflection”; Johanna Erzberger, “Jeremiah 33:14–26: The Question of Text Stability and the Devaluation of Kingship,” OTE 26 (2013): 663–83.

106

Becking Thus says Yhwh concerning the king who sits on the throne of David, and concerning all the people who dwell in this city, your kinsmen who did not go out with you into exile: “Thus says Yhwh of hosts, behold, I am sending on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like vile figs that are so rotten they cannot be eaten.” Jer 29: 16–1731

Both texts present a negative view on the fate of the Davidic dynasty in the future. Next to that, the name David occurs in fixed collocations such as “throne of David” (Jer 13:13; 17:25; 22:2, 4, 30; 29:6; 36:30) and “house of David” (Jer 21:12), both referring to the dynasty in Jerusalem. In these texts, generally no mention is made of a messianic era. An interesting exception is found in the conditional prophecy of salvation in Jer 17: But if you listen to me, declares Yhwh, and bring in no burden by the gates of this city on the Sabbath day, but keep the Sabbath day holy and do no work on it, then there shall enter by the gates of this city kings and princes who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their officials, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And this city shall be inhabited forever. Jer 17:24–2532

31  On this letter see Meindert Dijkstra, “Prophecy by Letter (Jeremiah XXIX 24–32),” VT 33 (1983): 319–22; John J. Ahn, Exile as Forced Migrations: A Sociological, Literary, and Theological Approach on the Displacement and Resettlement of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, BZAW 417 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 107–58; Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2015), 130–37. 32  Along with the commentaries, see Jerry A. Gladson, “Jeremiah 17:19–27: A Rewriting of the Sinaitic Code?,” CBQ 62 (2000): 33–40; Christl M. Maier, “Jeremiah as Teacher of Torah,” Int 62 (2008): 22–32.

Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah ?

107

There exists an interesting discussion on the character of Jer 17:24–29. Some exegetes construe a discontinuity in history and assume that the prophet is talking about the conduct of the people after the devastation of Jerusalem: keeping the Sabbath then will provoke salvation, while not keeping the Sabbath will bring further ordeal.33 Others understand the unit as a summons to act wisely in the moment of threat: the siege of Jerusalem gives its population a unique chance to revaluate its conduct, especially in view of keeping the Sabbath.34 On the basis of the verbal forms in the unit, a decision on this question cannot be made. The text, however, contains an element that might be seen as a decisive argument. In the beginning of v. 25, the collocation “kings and princes” occurs. The word “princes” has often been construed as a later addition based on dittography with “their princes” later in the verse and on the assumption that “princes” never ruled on the throne of David.35 This proposal, however, meets some serious challenges: – None of the versiones antiquae have a minus on this point;36 – The collocation ‫ מלכים ושרים‬is attested elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah.37 Besides, the noun ‫שר‬, “prince,” can be interpreted here in the specific connotation of “a ruler who will lead the people over the threshold between a bad time and a good time.”38 In that case, the section in Jer 17 would hint at a discontinuation, and the “kings and princes” should be construed as rulers in a distant future. They are, however, not presented as messianic figures. The name David also occurs in texts that are dealing with the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. This theme started with a promise given to David after he transferred the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem: And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever. 2 Sam 7:16

33  See, e.g., Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 508–11. 34  See, e.g., Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 807. 35  See, e.g., Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 508; Gladson, “Jeremiah 17:19–27,” 38. 36  lxx: βασιλεῖς καὶ ἄρχοντες; Vulg: reges et principes; Targ: ‫מלכין ורברבין‬. 37  See 2:26; 25:18; 32:32; 44:17, 21. 38  See Isa 9 “prince of peace”; and below “David as Heilszeitherrscher.”

108

Becking

The prophecies in the book of Jeremiah make clear that this promise has been contested by the behaviour of kings in the lineage of David. This can be seen in the prophetic oracles concerning the kings in Jer 21–22. Although they were sitting on the “throne of David” they did not behave in a Davidic way. They failed to be a ‫צמח צדיק‬. In the occurrences of the kings of David, the book of Jeremiah talks in two different registers: (1) The first dimension connects to the negative view on the future of the Davidic dynasty as displayed in texts like Jer 13:13–14 and 29:16–17, discussed above. In an oracle against Jehoiakim who dared to burn the scroll of Baruch containing the prophecies of Jeremiah, the language of discontinuation is used: Therefore thus says Yhwh concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah “He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night.” Jer 36:303 9

A comparable idea is to be found in Jer 33:26. (2) In oracles of hope that design the future after the return from exile, the continuation of the line of David is promised: For thus says Yhwh, “David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel.” Jer 33:17

This two-side view on the future of the Davidic dynasty needs to be read within the broader Jeremianic view on two stages of future. 5

David Does Not Equal the “Messiah”

In my view therefore, David is never seen in the prophetic corpus as the “Messiah.” He nevertheless plays an important role in ancient Israelite futurology. With this label, I refer to a conceptualization of time that can be found in various prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible. Threat, conquest, downfall, exile, and so forth, are interpreted as divine acts in history. They are not, however, 39  See Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 261; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 609–12.

Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah ?

109

the end of time or history. Through the humiliation a new future is possible. This future can be reached by conversion, or by new deeds of the deity. This pattern can be found, for instance in Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation40 as well as in the enigmatic interchange of prophecies of doom and prosperity in Mic 2–5.41 Both in Micah and in Jeremiah a pattern can be detected. In this prophetic view, history is the display of an interchange between “good times” and “bad times.” The texts imply the idea that there is an alternation in time from periods of prosperity to times of trouble, and from situations of sorrow to periods of peace. Fear and freedom follow each other in a continuing interplay. This worldview can be characterized as proto-apocalyptic. In later apocalyptic literature, history is related in a schematic way. The past is presented in periods. I shall characterize this prophetic view as proto-apocalyptic since the concept of periodizing in its extreme form is not yet present. Besides, the active role of the divine being is stressed. I would add that a comparable worldview is attested in Mesopotamian from the first millennium BCE. In the so-called Akkadian literary predictive texts the same pattern of interchange between “good times” and “bad times” is detectable.42 The theme of reversal is not only present in the Akkadian literary predictive texts, but also elsewhere in the ancient Near East, including the Appendix to Ashurbanipal’s Coronation hymn,43 the Admonitions of Ipuwer,44 and the Cyrus-Cylinder.45

40  See Becking, Between Fear and Freedom; Kathleen M. O’Connor, Jeremiah: Pain and Promise (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2011), 103–13. 41  See Bob Becking, “Micah in Neo-Assyrian Light,” in “Thus speaks Ishtar of Arbela”: Prophecy in Israel, Assyria, and Egypt in the Neo-Assyrian Period, ed. Robert P. Gordon and Hans M. Barstad (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 111–28. 42  See Tremper Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991). 43  SAA III 11: r. 9–10; see Martin Arneth, “‘Möge Šamaš dich in das Hirtenamt über die vier Weltgegenden einsetzen’: der ‘Krönungshymnus Assurbanipals’ (SAA III,11) und die Solarisierung des neuassyrischen Königtums,” ZABR 5 (1999): 28–53. 44  Ipuwer 8:1–5 (COS I 96); see Roland Enmarch, The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All, Griffith Institute Publications (Oxford: The Griffith Institute, 2005). 45  Most recent edition: Paul-Richard Berger, “Der Kyros-Zylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II Nr. 32 und die akkadische Personennamen im Danielbuch,” ZA 64 (1975): 192–234; see also Amelie Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy,” JSOT 25 (1983): 83–97; Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire, Power, and Indigenous Elites: A Case Study of the Nehemiah Memoir, JSJSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 54–63; Irvin Finkel, ed., The Cyrus Cylinder: The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon (London: British Museum, 2013).

110 6

Becking

David as Heilszeitherrscher

All these ancient Near Eastern texts imply the idea that there is an alternation in time from periods of prosperity to times of trouble, and from situations of sorrow to periods of peace. Fear and freedom follow each other in an on-going interplay. At the turn of times a Heilszeitherrscher plays an important role in bringing the community from bad times to good times: the “good prince” in the Akkadian literary predictive texts; the “Prince of Peace” in Isa 9; the “son of man” in Dan 7.46 In Jer 23:5 the sprout from the house of David is cast in this role. The imagery is a subtext of the well-known prophecy in Amos 9:11–12: “In that day I will restore David’s fallen shelter – I will repair its broken walls and restore its ruins – and will rebuild it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name,” declares Yhwh, who will do these things.47

46  On this concept see Peter Höffken, “Heilszeitherrschererwartung im babylonischen Raum: Überlegungen im Anschluß an W 22 307.7,” WO 1 (1977): 57–71; Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography; Beat Pongratz-Leisten, Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien. Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., SAAS 10 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Texts Project, 1999); Jonathan Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison, CHANE 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Matthew Neujahr, Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East: Mantic Historiography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, and the Mediterranean World, BJS 354 (Providence: Brown University Press, 2012). 47   See Francis Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 24A (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 885–926; Greg Goswell, “David in the Prophecy of Amos,” VT 61 (2011): 243–57. The same holds for Zechariah 12.

Messianic Expectations in the Book of Jeremiah ?

111

7 Conclusion Bringing the two lines of this essay together: in future-oriented texts in the book of Jeremiah, David is presented as a future prince of peace who will lead the population of Judah and Jerusalem from fear to freedom. Although this concept later gave rise to a messianic interpretation of King David, the book of Jeremiah cannot be seen as a messianic text.48 Select Bibliography Becking, Bob. Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30–31. OTS 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Becking, Bob. “David between Evidence and Ideology.” Pages 1–30 in History of Israel between Evidence and Ideology. Edited by Bob Becking and Lester L. Grabbe. OTS 59. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Dietrich, Walter. David: Der Herrscher mit der Harfe. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Horbury, William. Messianism among Jews and Christians: Biblical and Historical Studies. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Menken, Maarten J.J. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. BETL 173. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. ConBOT 8. Lund: GWK Gleerup, 1976. Moenikes, Ansgar. “Messianismus im Alten Testament (vorapokalyptische Zeit).” ZRGG 40 (1988): 289–306. Novenson, Matthew V. Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Rose, Wolter H. Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period. JSOTSup 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

48  See also Hans Strauss, Messianisch ohne Messias: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte und Interpretation der sogenannten messianischen Texte im Alten Testament, Europäische Hochschulschriften XXIII/232 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984); Walter Brueggemann, The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, OTT (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), esp. 128–33.

112

Becking

Schäfer, Peter. The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Seitschek, Hans Otto. “Politischer Messianismus als Konzept der Totalitarismuskritik.” ZRGG 68 (2016): 40–56. Wright, Jacob L. David, King of Israel, and Caleb in Biblical Memory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

chapter 6

Sagacious Divine Judgment: Jeremiah’s Use of Proverbs to Construct an Ethos and Ethics of Divine Epistemology Samuel E. Balentine This essay asks about the underlying epistemological assumptions in Jeremiah’s use of proverbial similes to convey divine judgment. Epistemological concerns are more obviously associated with philosophy than biblical studies, more with a Greek way of thinking about the nature and justification of knowledge than a Hebraic way of apprehending the revelation of God. To the extent that biblical scholars have investigated epistemological issues, we have typically focused on the human side of the equation, not the divine, on the finitude of human thinking and reasoning, not the infinity – inscrutability – of divine wisdom.1 To speak of “divine epistemology” may well seem like a detour from Sinai into Plato’s cave.2 Even so, I suggest Jeremiah invites us to proceed along this route.

1  The focus on human knowledge is increasingly present in, although not limited to, studies of Israelite wisdom literature. See, e.g., Annette Schellenberg, Erkenntnis als Problem: Qohelet und die altestamentlichen Diskussion um das menschliche Erkennen, OBO 188 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002); Michael V. Fox, “The Epistemology of the Book of Proverbs,” JBL 126 (2007): 669–84; Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 18B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 963–76; Ryan P. O’Dowd, The Wisdom of Torah: Epistemology in Deuteronomy and the Wisdom Literature (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009); Jaco Gericke, The Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 371–404. For a broader survey, see Mary Healy and Robin Parry, eds., The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God (Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007); Dru Johnson, Scripture’s Knowing: A Companion to Biblical Epistemology (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2015); Dru Johnson, Epistemology and Biblical Theology: From the Pentateuch to the Gospel of Mark (New York: Routledge, 2017). 2  For the allegory of Plato’s cave, see Republic VII.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_007

114 1

Balentine

Proverbial Similes

Commentators have long noted the Book of Jeremiah’s use of wisdom vocabulary and motifs, especially those drawn from Proverbs.3 I focus here specifically on Jeremiah’s appropriation of the proverbial simile that takes the form ‫כ )כאשר( … כן‬, “Like/As X … so then Y.”4 Such similes are frequent in Proverbs; consider the following examples: Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so are the lazy to their employers. Prov 10:265

Like one who binds a stone in a sling, so is one who gives honor to a dolt. Prov 26:86

Like a bird that strays from its nest, so is one who strays from home. Prov 27:87

The speaker in these similes is always a recognized wise person in the community – parent, teacher, elder – never God. Indeed, the similes tend to cluster in the Hezekian collection (Prov 25:1–29:27), where God is mentioned but six times, a disproportionate infrequency when compared with the rest

3  E.g., William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 70; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 143. 4  See the seminal discussion in T.R. Hobbs, “Some Proverbial Reflections in the Book of Jeremiah,” ZAW 91 (1979): 62–72. 5  Unless noted otherwise, references to Jeremiah refer to the MT, and translations are from the NRSV. 6  Following the translation in Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 791. 7  Other examples are: Prov 26:1, 2, 18–19; 24:9; 27:8, 19; cf. 24:29 (with ‫)כאשר‬. For similes where the second line lacks ‫כן‬, see Prov 10:23; 25:13; 26:11. Still more frequent than these explicit comparisons (similes) are the implicit comparisons (metaphors): Prov 11:22; 25:4–5, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28; 26:3, 6, 7, 9, 17, 20, 21, 23; 27:3, 15, 21; 28:3, 15. See Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 775.

Sagacious Divine Judgment

115

of Proverbs.8 The addresses are always individuals, never communities or nations. In the world of the Proverbs text, the author assumes that the necessary and sufficient epistemological criteria are in place for the simile to be effective. Both speaker and addressee (and reader) already have a conventional understanding of X and Y. These entities (e.g., vinegar and smoke and employers; birds and nests and homes) are neither unknown nor unfamiliar; one can compare one with the other because both belong to a common stock of knowledge. To understand the connection between X and Y, the speaker further presumes the addressee has the cognitive capacity for analogical reasoning and inferred conclusions. How is a bird wandering from its nest analogous to a person wandering away from home (Prov 27:8)? The premise inferred, now more clearly conveyed by the simile, is that both are lonely and vulnerable. Or, on a coarser note, how is a fool who repeats foolish mistakes like a dog licking (repeatedly) its vomit (Prov 26:11)? The premise: both fail to learn from experience; their behavior is continually stupid and repulsive. The epistemology that integrates these proverbial similes is unstated but not inscrutable. We may think of it in connection with Aristotle’s notion of truth derived by “analogical” reasoning (i.e., truth as likenesses)9 or what modern philosophers describe as a “correspondence theory of truth.” Simply put, X is true by virtue of its correspondence to Y; the truth of both X and Y is a “mind-dependent” truth, i.e. a truth that is not dependent on its conformity to an ideal or transcendent reality.10 As Aquinas put it, “Truth is the equation of the thing and intellect.”11 Such is the wisdom epistemology that Jeremiah appropriates – and substantially modifies – from proverbial similes. 8  Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 774. 9  See especially, Die Interpretatione, 16a3; cf. Categoria, 12b11, 14b11. For further reading on Aristotle’s philosophy of mind, see Paolo Crivelli, Aristotle on Truth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Jan Szaif, “Die Geschichte des Wahrheitsbegriffs in der klassischen Antike,” in Die Geschichte des philosophischen Begriffs der Wahrheit, ed. Markus Enders and Jan Szaif (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 1–32. 10  Marian David, “The Correspondence Theory of Truth,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/ entries/truth-correspondence. 11  Aquinas, De Veritas, Q.1, A.1–3; cf. Summa Theologiae, Q.16. The principal competitor with the “correspondence theory of truth” is the “coherence theory of truth,” which Fox takes to be the “background epistemology” in Proverbs (Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 968; cf. Fox, “The Epistemology,” 675). The “coherence theory” posits that the truth of a proposition depends on other propositions believed to be true and validated as such by an omniscient being (James O. Young, “The Coherence Theory of Truth,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia

116 2

Balentine

Sagacious Divine Judgment in Jeremiah

Jeremiah employs the ‫ כ … כן‬simile ten times in the MT, seven of which are generically comparable to the proverbial similes examined above.12 Although the form is the same as that used in Proverbs, Jeremiah deploys the simile in a distinctly different way: the simile conveys a first person subjective perspective, not a third person objective observation, as in Proverbs; the speaker is always God (or the prophet speaking on behalf of God), rather than a sage; the addressees are not individuals but rather the people of Judah; the context is either a prophetic warning or an announcement of judgment, not a wise axiom for living the good life. The following are examples: As a thief is shamed when caught, so the house of Israel is shamed – they, their kings, their officials, their priests, and their prophets. Jer 2:26

As a woman betrays13 her lover, so you, people of God, have betrayed me. Jer 3:20

As a well keeps its water fresh, so she [Zion] has kept her evil fresh. Jer 6:7

Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, house of Israel. Jer 18:6

of Philosophy [Fall 2015 Edition], available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/ entries/truth-coherence. Fox is likely correct to argue that most all the sayings and epigrams in Proverbs cohere with or conform to the primary proposition stated at the beginning of the book: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (1:7; cf. 9:10). This makes it all the more interesting, however, that these proverbial similes do not presuppose piety as the precondition for knowledge. 12  Jer 2:26; 3:20; 6:7; 18:6; 24:5, 8; 34:5. The remaining occurrences, excluded from this discussion, are Jer 5:27; 42:5, 20. The simile with ‫ כאשר … כן‬occurs in Jer 5:19; 13:11; 31:28; 32:42; 39:12; 42:18. 13  Reading with the lxx: ‫אך כבגד‬, literally, “but, as the betrayal of.”

Sagacious Divine Judgment

117

Like the bad figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten, so I will treat King Zedekiah of Judah, his officials, the remnant of Jerusalem who ­remain in the land, and those who live in the land of Egypt. Jer 24:8

Jeremiah is not the only prophet to use the proverbial simile in this way (cf. Isa 55:9; 66:13; Ezek 22:20; 34:12; 35:15). There is however a higher percentage of occurrences in this book than in other prophetic books, which suggests that its authors and editors found it useful to depict God as a sage, reasoning from X to Y, from a general knowledge about human nature (thievery, betrayal) and natural occurrences (fresh water, rotten fruit) to particular conclusions now conveyed to a specific audience as divine truth. In the world of the Jeremiah text, as in Proverbs, the underlying epistemology that makes these similes effective is taken for granted. The text presumes that God (as speaker) and the people of Judah (as addressees) share a common understanding of X and Y; that God and people think alike when X and Y are compared; and that when God derives a conclusion from this comparison, its truth will be mutually agreeable when conveyed to the people. The people will have presumably engaged in the same analogical reasoning process as God; they will have reasoned it out together, although the decision results in an unwanted truth for the people. A closer look at the “conceptual content”14 – the unstated epistemological framework – in one of Jeremiah’s similes will thicken the argument. The immediate context for the simile in Jer 2:26 is a series of discreet judgment oracles (2:23–28) conveyed by multiple metaphors. 23 How can you say, “I am not defiled, I have not gone after the Baals”? Look at your way in the valley; know what you have done – a restive young camel interlacing her tracks, 24 a wild ass at home in the wilderness, in her heat sniffing the wind! Who can restrain her lust? None who seek her need weary themselves; in her month they will find her.

14  For this language, see Gericke, Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion, 449.

118

Balentine 25 Keep your feet from going unshod and your throat from thirst. But you said, “It is hopeless, for I have loved strangers, and after them I will go.” 26 As a thief is shamed when caught, so the house of Israel shall be shamed – they, their kings, their officials, their priests, and their prophets, 27 who say to a tree, “You are my father,” and to a stone, “You gave me birth.” For they have turned their backs to me, and not their faces. But in the time of their trouble they say, “Come and save us!” 28 But where are your gods that you made for yourself? Let them come, if they can save you, in your time of trouble; for you have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah.

Judah is like a young camel and like a wild ass and like a thief who has been captured in the act of stealing, but exactly how do these comparisons provide an intelligibly moral rationale for God’s judgment? The audience is expected to navigate a complicated thought process in order to learn what God is teaching. First, they must retrieve details of what they know about the behavior of a young camel and a wild ass in heat: the young camel is spindly-legged, lurching uncertainly from one step to the next; the wild ass sniffs the wind for the scent of a male and races without restraint toward gratification. Then, the audience must discern a connection between a camel who cannot walk straight and a people who have a wobbly relationship with God; between an ass that cannot be diverted from its lusts and a people who cannot restrain their pursuit of other gods. They must take what they know about animals doing what comes naturally to them, behavior therefore that carries no moral opprobrium, and apply this knowledge to themselves, now making a cognitive shift that enables them to understand that unlike the animals, they are morally culpable for their behavior with God. The thought process is multilayered and complicated when we readers parse it out; in the world of the text, however, there is no need for

Sagacious Divine Judgment

119

explanation. The epistemic map that enables the transmission of knowledge between God and Judah is presupposed. The oracle in 2:26–28 moves from implicit comparisons of animal and human behavior to an explicit comparison of the shame of a thief who has been caught in the act of stealing and the shame of Israel. The simile is explicit but subjective; this shame is like that shame, according to God’s perspective. Both aspects of this simile invite hermeneutical reflection. 1) Shame is like shame. Shame is a frequent issue in Jeremiah,15 and we can reasonably assume a cultural context that contrasts shame with honor is foundational in the world of the text. Cultural norms assign moral values to honor and shame; the former is a recognition of one’s surpassing integrity and value to the community, the latter a social indictment that marks someone as bringing humiliation and disgrace to the community. In this simile, shame is further defined by its linkage to stealing and by extension to a thief who has been caught in the act of violating an agreed upon social value, a value typically codified in law.16 Embedded within this cultural definition of shame and thievery is a tacit recognition that not everyone who steals gets caught. Presumably some thieves escape with their loot, evade legal sanction, and retain their standing as a valued member of the community. This entire cultural nexus for understanding shame is presupposed; the criteria for its verification as truth go without saying. Nevertheless, cultural convention alone does not provide a clear cognitive bridge to Israel’s culpability. What has Israel stolen? In what way have the people been caught transgressing cultural norms? Israel’s shame may be analogous to the thief’s shame, but to understand why this is so an audience must know how God thinks about this issue. How does God’s moral reasoning compare with conventional (human) reasoning? 2) Israel’s shame, according to God’s perspective, derives not from stealing but instead from lying, a conclusion God reaches by stretching the simile to include consideration of matters not necessarily (or conventionally) associated with it. We may track two steps in God’s thought process. First, God quotes the people as saying to a tree, “You are my father,” and to a stone, “You gave me birth” (2:27a). These are not words one normally associates with a thief confessing a crime, or with young camels or she-asses in the wilderness, to recall the earlier metaphors in these judgment oracles. The 15  See Jer 2:36; 6:15; 8:9, 12; 10:14; 14:3, 4; 20:11; 46:24; 50:2; 51:17. 16  Cf. Exod 22:1–4, which may be the general source for this oracle; see William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 103.

120

Balentine

words are innocuous in their first order of meaning. The text presupposes that both God and Israel know these words are lacquered with cultic symbolism. Rooted in the conventional rhetoric of a child’s gratitude to parents for the gift of life, the words “You are my father” “You [mother] gave me birth” now cross over to a religious context, where they signify misplaced (idolatrous) devotion to Canaanite deities. From God’s perspective, the people turn their faces to idols of wood and stone, which means they turn their backs to God (literally and figuratively), a gesture that signifies contempt (2:27b). Idolatry was clearly not an acceptable practice for God’s people, and they would have needed no explanation for why God would punish them for it, so our presenting question lingers. How exactly is their merited indictment for idolatry analogous to the shame of a thief? To understand the connection as God deduces it, we must follow a second step in the logic of God’s thinking. Israel is guilty of turning away from God, but the source of its shame, in God’s way of thinking, is being caught lying about having done so. The contradictions between what Israel says and what it does is a repeating motif in this collection of judgment oracles:17 Now you say, “I will not serve!” [But] on every high hill and under every green tree you sprawled and played the whore. (2:20) How can you say, “I am not defiled, I have not gone after the Baals”? Look at your way in the valley; know what you have done. (2:23) Now you say, “It is hopeless, for I have loved strangers, and after them I will go.” (2:25) You say to a tree, “You are my father,” and to a stone, “You gave me birth” … But in the time of their trouble they say, “Come and save us!” (2:27)

17  Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 275.

Sagacious Divine Judgment

121

This discrepancy between word and deed is the rationale for God’s decision. A thief who has been caught red-handed with stolen goods cannot feign innocence and avoid the shame of censure. His behavior is inarguably inconsistent with the truth. Similarly, Israel cannot claim exclusive fidelity to God when evident idolatry gives the lie to its words; the shame Israel bears is the moral equivalent of a criminal’s guilt. We may take it from Israel’s sages and prophets that reasoning from X to Y was a common practice in the ancient world. Jeremiah’s adaptation of proverbial similes is a case in point. In the world of these ancient texts the epistemological concepts that make such reasoning possible and effective are presupposed but not inscrutable. We can construct a descriptive epistemology that attempts to clarify assumptions in the text about the acquisition of knowledge and the verification of truth. When we do so, it is not particularly remarkable that a close reading of Jeremiah’s proverbial similes reveals a complex amalgam of cognitive processes. X is like Y, provided one assumes the analogy winds its way through most of the other letters in the alphabet as well. What is striking, however, even in a world where language about divinity is necessarily anthropomorphic, is the assumption that God’s moral reasoning mirrors that of humans: a common sense, reality-based correspondence of this X and that Y provides a foundation for both divine and human knowledge. I suggest therefore that Jeremiah’s use of these proverbial similes invites consideration of the ethos and ethics of divine epistemology. 3

The Ethos and Ethics of Divine Epistemology

I began this essay by recognizing that philosophical approaches to biblical exegesis have often been considered anachronistic, an imposition of “modern” questions about the infinite and the finite on a pre-modern, pre-philosophical religious text that has no interest either in asking them or answering them. To propose that we ask about divine epistemology may well seem even more inappropriate – if not indeed illegitimate, as some might argue – because it sets us on a slippery slope of turning the divine into an abstraction to be analyzed rather than a God whose truth should be reverenced. We may remind ourselves, however, that exegesis by definition requires us to ask about matters that did not necessarily concern ancient authors; if we did not, we would not have the ability to delineate the formal differences between a prophetic judgment in Jeremiah, for example, and a traditional folk saying in Proverbs. These are without doubt our form critical categories for biblical genres, not theirs; nonetheless, they have given us knowledge and insight into ancient settings

122

Balentine

we may not have attained if we had not investigated matters that exceeded explicit conceptual categories of the biblical world. The authors/editors of Jeremiah did not analyze the underlying epistemology of divine thought, but this does not mean such matters were of no concern to them. Their questions and their answers are embedded in the text, but they are not overt; they are presupposed. Our challenge is to reconstruct these presuppositions, not with the objective of arriving at some final articulation of biblical epistemology but instead of gaining clarity about what a given text implies about the nature and validation of divine knowledge.18 Towards this end, I conclude with preliminary reflections on three aspects of what Jeremiah’s use of proverbial similes may tell us about the ethos and ethics of divine epistemology. (1) Is there, in the world of the text, a presumption of a metaphysical moral order independent of God and to which God’s actions conform? In biblical studies, the default answer to this question has been, “No.” As Creator of the world, God infuses the cosmos with a fundamental goodness and beauty that provides the moral compass for righteousness and justice. This divine instillation is the presumed ultimate foundation of morality; God and moral order are inextricably joined. What God commands is by definition morally good; obedience to God’s will is therefore the sine qua non of human existence. There is little need to defend this view; the reservoir of texts in and beyond Jeremiah that can be marshaled in its support are too numerous to cite.19 Nevertheless, proverbial similes rest on common knowledge available to all. To understand that X is like Y does not require divine revelation of unknown information; comprehension does not require unreasoned obedience to divine law. Instead, one may draw upon observable truths about ordinary matters – camels and thieves – and deduce an extended truth that clarifies through a process of autonomous discernment. The world of Jeremiah’s similes assumes that God and humans draw reasonable conclusions from a common stock of information. We may therefore rephrase the presenting question as a variation of Socrates’ question to Euthyphro: is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is inherently moral?20 Jeremiah’s

18  See the discussion in Gericke, Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion, 388. 19  On the dominance of the “obedience ethic” in Jeremiah (e.g., 2:8; 5:4–5; 11:7–8; 31:33), see John Barton, Ethics in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 131. 20  Euthyphro, 10a. On the appropriation of the Euthyphro Dilemma in the study of ethics in the Old Testament, see Gericke, Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion, 408–411; Barton, Ethics in Ancient Israel, 12, 94, 260.

Sagacious Divine Judgment

123

use of proverbial similes presupposes that X is innately like Y; the truth of the comparison is not dependent on God’s authority. (2) How does God know what God knows? Are there sufficient reasons, according to the text, for God to believe that what God knows is true? Epistemological analysis typically focuses on the nature and justification of human knowledge, not divine. Both prophets and sages frequently affirm that divine wisdom is hidden and beyond human scrutiny, for example: For my thoughts are not your thoughts nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isa 55:8–9; cf. Hos 11:9; Prov 3:5–8

Nonetheless, there is no reluctance in the world of the text to describe God as engaging in much the same thought process as humans. A case in point is Jer 3:19–20, which describes what passed through God’s mind in the process of reaching the indictment presaged in the judgment oracles discussed above: I thought (‫)אמרתי‬ how I would set you among my children, and give you a pleasant land, the most beautiful heritage of all the nations. And I thought (‫ )ואמר‬you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. 20 Instead, as a faithless wife leaves her husband, so you have been faithless to me, O house of Israel, says the Lord. cf. Jer 3:7; Zeph 3:72 1

In this instance, God not only thinks like humans but also makes the same kind of mental errors as humans. “I thought you would call me `My Father’,”

21  The verb ‫ אמר‬is used frequently with the connotation “think,” especially with reference to human thinking; e.g., Gen 20:11 (Abraham); 26:9 (Isaac); 44:28 (Jacob); Exod 2:14 (Moses); Judg 15:2 (Manoah); 1 Sam 20:26 (Saul); 2 Sam 12:22 (David). The related expression, ‫אמר בלבי‬, “say/think in one’s heart,” occurs frequently with reference to the sage’s internal deliberation process: Eccl 2:1, 15; 3:17, 18; cf. Eccl 1:13, 16–17 (with the verb ‫)דבר‬.

124

Balentine

God says to Israel, I thought “you would not turn from following me,” but my thinking was wrong. (3) Analogical reasoning is fundamental to the human thought process; it is a way of expanding knowledge, generating insight, of distinguishing the plausible from the incredible. But why should Jeremiah’s author depict God as thinking in such a conventionally human way? The answer to a first order “Why?” question such as this is likely beyond our reach – and certainly beyond the scope of this essay – but we may speculate on second order matters, such as the meta-ethical implications of thinking about God’s moral reasoning. Divine judgment in the world of these proverbial similes is neither automatic nor irrational. It is instead a deliberate decision based on God’s use of ordinary, human-like capacities to reason from a commonly accepted premise to a plausible and pragmatic conclusion. God’s decision to judge Israel is therefore the result of a moral reasoning process that is not beyond the scope of human cognition. The infinity of God’s wisdom may be beyond human reach, but God’s way of reasoning is not. As God reasons from X to Y, so too may humans figure out what is right and proper to do by extracting moral truths from available evidence. To be sure, the prophets make clear that God can and does command obedience; whether Israel understands the reasons why is essentially a moot point. But Jeremiah’s use of proverbial similes reminds us that irrational or non-rational obedience is not the only route to ethical behavior. To return to where I began this essay, perhaps asking about divine epistemology leads us into the shadows of Plato’s cave instead of the theophany that illuminates Sinai. Maybe so. But Jeremiah’s objective is not the same as Plato’s. He does not seek to draw the line between knowledge derived from what is visible in the world and the ideal truth of divinity, as Plato does. Instead, Jeremiah imagines that God himself erases this line by demonstrating that the world of divine reasoning is analogous to the world of human reasoning. Were Plato included in the audience hearing Jeremiah’s proverbial similes, he might well respond with the same words he ascribes to Socrates’ interlocutor, Glaucon: “What you say is very reasonable” (Republic VII, 518b).22 22  B. Russell describes the Platonic affirmation of genuine, autonomous, first-hand knowledge as an epistemology that “encouraged the habit of regarding intellectual activity as a delightful social adventure, not a cloistered meditation aiming at the preservation of a predetermined orthodoxy” (The History of Western Philosophy [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972 (1945)], 500). Russell is describing the generative influence of Plato on the great intellectual achievements of the Renaissance. By analogy, we might say Jeremiah’s use of proverbial similes is a similarly delightful – or at least evocative – adventure in describing God’s intellectual process.

Sagacious Divine Judgment

125

Select Bibliography Barton, John. Ethics in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Enders, Markus, and Jan Szaif, eds. Die Geschichte des phiilosophischen Begriffs der Wahrheit. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Fox, Michael V. “The Epistemology of the Book of Proverbs.” JBL 126 (2007): 669–84. Gericke, Jaco. The Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Healy, Mary and Robin Parry, eds. The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God. Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007. Hobbs, T.R. “Some Proverbial Reflections in the Book of Jeremiah.” ZAW 91 (1979): 62–72. Johnson, Dru. Scripture’s Knowing: A Companion to Biblical Epistemology. Eugene: Cascade, 2015. Johnson, Dru. Epistemology and Biblical Theology: From the Pentateuch to the Gospel of Mark. New York: Routledge, 2017. O’Dowd, Ryan P. The Wisdom of the Torah: Epistemology in Deuteronomy and the Wisdom Literature. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Schellenberg, Annette. Erkenntnis als Problem: Qohelet und die alttestamentlichen Diskussion und das menschliche Erkennen. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002.

chapter 7

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah Catherine Sze Wing So In the book of Jeremiah, personal expressions in five passages called the confessions (Jer 11:18−12:6; 15:10−21; 17:14−18; 18:18−23; 20:7−18) give rise to an ongoing dispute about their position and function.1 Earlier historical-critical study viewed them as an independent and dispersed collection of poems; however, more recent scholarship is inclined to see them as a poetic unity in the context of chs. 11−20. If they are a unified collection of poems, a number of questions arise: What elements determine their position? Why are they positioned in the locations they occupy? And what is the importance of these confessions in the prophetic book? In order to answer these questions, this essay will investigate the position and function of the confessions by reviewing past scholarship, and then proposing a new thematic structure in ch. 11−20, where each confession or group of confessions carries a different theme within its complex and makes a progressive move in the relationship between the prophet, the people, and God. For the sake of space, this essay will only present the key features of this new structure, and not a detailed exegesis of each text. 1

Scholarly Debate on the Position of the Confessions

Diamond helpfully outlines scholarly views about the position and function of the confessions, observing that there are two different approaches: significant sequentiality by rearrangement, and significant sequentiality without rearrangement.2 What follows is a bird’s eye view of these approaches. The first approach holds that “their reconstructed order is viewed … as directly corresponding to a historical, chronological, and psychological sequence

1  The selected passages receive a common consensus as Jeremiah’s confessions in terms of classification. For more details, see A.R. Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama, JSOTSup 45 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 11. In compliance with the conventional usage, the term “confessions” is used here. All citations refer to the MT, and unless noted otherwise, all translations are from the NRSV. 2  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 127–35.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_008

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

127

in the mission of Jeremiah himself”;3 the confessions are interpreted within the historical setting of the prophet’s mission. Diamond indicates that Skinner is the typical representative of this approach.4 Skinner’s contribution concerns connecting the confessions in the way of “a connected series, recording the stages of a definite, though more or less protracted crisis in Jeremiah’s life.”5 The confessions exist in an inner contradiction where the prophet faces the dilemma between resistance to difficulties and loyal perseverance in his prophetic mission. Jeremiah 15:15−21 is treated as the turning point in a crisis that “solves the problem of his personal relation to God.”6 After the spiritual struggle in the last years of Josiah’s kingship, the prophet reacts to the mission more courageously. Diamond says that this interpretation builds upon the reconstruction of different stages of a crisis from progression to resolution, but is not based on the present structure or composition of the passages. Moreover, the passage after 15:15−21 does not show total resolution of the spiritual crisis; the prophet still curses his birth and makes a bitter complaint to God in ch. 20. The sequence of the proposed crisis is constructed on the assumption of the prophet’s biography, but this perception needs external evidence to support the reconstruction of a particular historical sequence.7 Two other studies follow this approach, namely those of Ittmann8 and Ahuis,9 but they try to justify their rearrangement based on form-critical considerations.10 Ittmann proposes three divisions with similar themes: group 1 (chs. 18, 11, 12), group 2 (ch. 17), and group 3 (chs. 15, 20). The themes show a progressive development of the prophet’s self-understanding. Ahuis keeps the present order of the confessions, but with a new arrangement of surrounding narrative in each context. The initial confessional units, 12:1−4b, 5; 15:10, 17, 18, 19b, 20a and 20:7−9, are grouped into three composites; each is preceded by a symbolic prophetic act (13:1, 2, 4−7; 16:5, 7; 18:2−4/ 19:1−2a). In this reading, 17:14−18 and 18:19−20, 22b−23 are formed as an individual 3  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 127. 4  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 128. 5  John Skinner, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), 208. 6  Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 214; Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 128. 7  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 128–29. 8  Norbert Ittmann, Die Konfessionen Jeremias: Ihre Bedeutung für die Verkündigung des Propheten, WMANT 54 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981). 9  Ferdinand Ahuis, Der klagende Gerichtsprophet: Studien zur Klage in der Überlieferung von den alttestamentlichen Gerichtspropheten (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1982). 10  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 128–29.

128

Sze Wing So

literary complex and connected to the existing complexes to produce the following sequence: 13/12; 16/15; 17/18; 18/19/20:7−9; 20:14−18.11 The aim of this structure is to present a concurring “sequence of commission, execution, and report.”12 Again, these studies are deficient because they cannot provide convincing evidence for their rearrangement.13 Rather than digging into the historic sequence and rearranging the sequence of the text, O’Connor proposes studying the present form of the book. She criticizes the historical attribution to the confessions, claiming that the rearrangement is too heavily based upon false methodological assumptions, because the evidence is not strong enough to date the materials precisely, and poetry is not circulated in the same way as prose.14 The second approach is to keep the present arrangement of the confessions. Diamond lists two studies that do this.15 Von Rad16 and Wimmer17 promote a progressive sequence in the prophet’s experience without rearrangement of the confessions. Von Rad’s study emphasizes a progressive increase in despair. On the contrary, Wimmer discerns a progression from despair to hope and acceptance. In comparing the two studies, Diamond18 and O’Connor19 find von Rad more convincing. The first two confessions contain an oracle of assurance (12:5−6 and 15:19−21), demonstrating a conversation between Yahweh and the prophet; the other three reflect the loneliness of the prophet in his monologues. The last confession reaches the apex of despair and bitterness by cursing his birth. The confessions then show the deteriorating inner situation of the prophet in a gradual way.20 However, Diamond comments that there are two inconsistent aspects within von Rad’s assumption; one is the 11  This is a simplified version of Ahuis’s proposal made by Diamond (The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 129): I. 13:1–10ab; 12:1–4,5; II. 16:5,7; 15:10,17,18,19b,20a; III. 17:14–18; IV. 18:19,20ab,22b,23; V. 18:1–6a; 19:1–2a,10–11a; 20:7–9; VI. 20:14–18. Cf. Ahuis, Der klagende Gerichtsprophet, 123. 12  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 129. 13  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 129. 14  Kathleen M. O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation and Role in Chapters 1−25 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), 97–111. 15  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 130–31. 16  Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, trans. D.M.G. Stalker, 1st ed. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1965), 203. 17  Donald H. Wimmer, “Prophetic Experience in the Confessions of Jeremiah” (PhD diss., University of Notre Name, 1973), 357. 18  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 130–31. 19  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 83–85. 20  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 84.

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

129

sudden change from complaint (20:7−13) to praise (20:14−18); another is the lesser complaint in the middle part of the confessions in 17:14−18 and 18:18−23. The third quite different example for this approach is Holladay’s analysis.21 He forms a model of “father and mother complexes” based on the repetition of keywords ‫ אב‬and ‫ אם‬in chs. 11−20.22 Diamond says that Holladay is more concerned with illustrating the pattern or structure of the present arrangement of the confessions than with mapping out “a progressive pattern in the development of the ideas.”23 By using rhetorical devices, Holladay discerns “an initial stratum consisting of confessional and quasi-confessional material, which serves to organize structurally the whole of 11−20.”24 There are six sections of materials in the initial stratum, which are: Father complex (11:18−12:3, 5−6); Mother complex (15:10−12, 15−21); Integrating passage (16:1−9); Man complex (17:5−10); Day complex (17:14−18; 18:18−23; 20:7−13); and Integrating passage (20:14−18).25 The key terms “fathers/mothers” (16.3, 7) in the Integrating passage (16:1−9) refer to the preceding material in the Father complex (12:6) and Mother complex (15:10); at the same time, the Integrating passage (16:1−9) echoes the pattern of “Father complex, then Mother complex,” by putting the “Funeral section” (16:1−7) first, and the “Wedding section” (16:8−9) second. O’Connor, however, argues that this kind of catchword connection does not fully explain the positioning of the confessions in their contexts, the reason being that not many confessions show strong catchword links with the neighboring texts.26 Further, Diamond challenges Holladay’s proposal by raising questions,27 the first of which is how to set the criteria of determining a “key rhetorical marker” in defining the structure.28 Holladay lacks a consistent standard of analyzing the text as claimed. For instance, 13:14 and 14:20 also have indications of “fathers,” so why are these sentences not parallels to the Father complex, but only 16:1−9? Also, 16:8−9 does not contain the catchword “mother” to echo 15:15, even though the two passages share other similar diction. The second question concerns the difficulties encountered in the distance between the proposed structural markers. As the confessions are located separately in 21  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 132. 22  William L. Holladay, The Architecture of Jeremiah 1−20 (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1976), 130–31. 23  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 132. 24  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 132. 25  Holladay, The Architecture of Jeremiah 1−20, 130–31. 26  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 97–111, 100–01. 27  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 133–34. 28  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 133.

130

Sze Wing So

chs. 11−20, the difficulties of associating them with their immediate contexts increase when the distances separating them are significant. After reviewing these past studies, none proves satisfactory in either the use of methods or the consistent explanation of certain features in the confessions. In the following section we will look at the works of Diamond,29 O’Connor,30 and Smith,31 who are the most recent scholars to analyze the inter-relationship of the confessions with their immediate context. In evaluating their work we can get a glimpse of the next step in the structural correlation of the confessions. 1.1 Diamond (1987) Diamond, pursuing the way of “Significant Sequentiality without Rearrangement,” discerns two cycles of progressive structure within the confessions. The first cycle (11:18−23; 12:1−6; 15:10−14; 15:15−21) focuses on the struggling relationship between the prophet and God/opponents, when Jeremiah is called to be a rejected servant of God. After the transitional point (Jer 17:14−18), the second cycle (18:18−23; 20:7−13; 20:14−18) shifts the focus to the confrontation between the prophet/God and his opponents. In the second cycle the relationship worsens when opponents continuously reject the prophetic words, which contain divine judgment against Israel. Jeremiah 17:14−18 is a thematically transitional section linking the two cycles, and 20:7−13 is a climax and a synopsis of two cycles to bring ultimate resolution in the end.32 However, Diamond struggles to explain why 20:14−18 has a sudden change in tone, and returns to the self-cursing of 15:10. He admits that there are some inconsistencies in the edited second cycle, for example that 18:18−23 and 20:14−18 go back to the situation of 11:18−23 and 15:10ff respectively. He speculates that the mention of the self-curse alludes to the call narrative and functions as a kind of ironic rhetoric in the prophetic mission.33 Diamond suggests that the confessions have undergone editorial activity. Based on the observation of redactional additions (11:21−23; 15:13−14; 15:15; 18:18), the two-cycled progressive sequence in the confessions indicates the incorporation of an earlier literary complex (representing the authentic pre-exilic work of Jeremiah) into the present composite context. He says, “the present 29  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context. 30  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah. 31  Mark S. Smith, The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of Jeremiah 11−20, SBLMS 42 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990). 32  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 136–37. 33  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 143.

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

131

literary sequence is a product of the major and comprehensive redaction of the book by Dtr. editorial activity.”34 He argues that passages like 11:21−23; 15:13−14; 15:15; and 18:18 are probably redacted units, which function as a critical turn in the proposed progression.35 The composition reflects the development in the relationship between God and Israel through the prophet’s monologue and narrative scenes. In the process of depicting the nature of the prophetic mission and explaining the inevitable fall of the nation,36 Diamond considers that the central focus is the theodicy theme based on three subthemes: “prophetic conflict, prophetic iconoclasm and prophetic paradigm.”37 In response to Diamond’s proposal of the theodicy motif in the two cycles structure, Stulman38 considers that the confessions, nevertheless, are very complex, diversified, and dispersed in chs. 11−20, and questions whether it is possible to group them under a single literary purpose. Stulman lists other possible purposes, which have no direct association with the theodicy theme: some poems depict the prophet as a legitimate messenger through the image of suffering, which is an outcome of obedience to God in opposition to a nation of disobedience; the confessions can be a defense of the prophetic mission as proposed in O’Connor’s contextual study;39 and some poems are intended to demolish “popular notions regarding Zion-temple cult.”40 Another critical alternative for Diamond’s study, is Waldow’s proposal of “prophetic liturgy” detected in the first four confessions;41 this term was first used by Gunkel42 to show the sequence of the “liturgical prayer-oracle,” in which the prophet participates in certain liturgical activities in Israel. However, this prayer-oracle pattern is not treated as a formal genre in prophetic literature. Regarding the Deuteronomistic redaction proposed by Diamond, Waldow raises a number of questions, including: Is there only one redactor? Are there different stages in the redactional process? What is the background of the redactor(s)? What is 34  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 145. 35  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 144–45. 36  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 144, 177–78, 181–82. 37  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 185. 38  Louis Stulman, review of The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of a Prophetic Drama, by A.R. Diamond, CBQ 51 (1989): 316–18. 39  Stulman, review of The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context (by Diamond), 317–18. 40  Stulman, review of The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context (by Diamond), 318. 41  H. Von Waldow, review of The Confessions Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama, by A.R. Diamond, JBL 108 (1989): 124–27. 42  A Community Lament in prophetic literature usually is characterized with two elements: a passionate appeal and the divine response; cf. Hermann Gunkel, The Psalms: A FormCritical Introduction, trans. Thomas M. Horner (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 14.

132

Sze Wing So

the correlation between chs. 11−20 and the rest of the book when the context of 11−20 is an integrated complex?43 In my opinion, Diamond’s structure shows a clear development in the prophet-divine-people relationship; nevertheless, some passages do not align with this system. For example, the theme in the first cycle is the confrontational relationship between the prophet and God, but God also shows compassion to the prophet in 11:21−23 by promising the punishment of enemies; when the prophet complains about his situation (15:10), God confirms his prophetic mission and promises his delivery from enemies in 15:11−14; in 16:19−20, the prophet put his confidence in God by stating that only God is his strength and fortress. In this sense, 17:14−18 is not a turning point in which the prophet and God resolve their relationship because they still maintain a close connection in the first cycle. The complaint in the first two confessions seems like another manner of conversation; the prophet can talk with God plainly in order to show the intimacy between God and the prophet. 1.2 O’Connor (1988) O’Connor identifies one characteristic of the confessions, namely, Israel’s rejection of the word of Yahweh, to be the thematic connection to the surrounding prose sections.44 The depiction of the prophet’s persecution in the confessions is used to highlight Israel’s rejection of Yahweh. O’Connor therefore analyzes the structural connections thematically and literarily in order to bring out this characteristic as being the purpose of the confessions in chs. 11−20. In her analysis, the vocation of the prophetic mission in ch. 1 is to introduce all the major themes of 1−25.45 Chapters 2−10 describe the prophet’s appeals to national repentance, from begging the nation to announcing threats of punishment. Chapters 11−20 emphasize the themes of rejection and persecution of the prophet in order to explicate Israel’s rejection of the prophetic warning about coming disaster or destruction. Chapters 21−25 are the appendices to chs. 1−20 offering “instructions for surviving the disaster.”46

43  Von Waldow, review of The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context (by Diamond), 126. 44  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 101–02, 112. 45  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 118–19. 46  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 147. O’Connor treats Jer 25:1−14 as a prose summary of all the main themes which have occurred, but it is more convincing to see it simply as a prose narrative connected with the prose, following Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21−36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21B (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 12–13, 237–54.

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

133

O’Connor divides the materials in chs. 11−20 into five units: 11−12, 13, 14−16, 17, 18−20. She proposes a variety of connecting devices used in joining the confessions and surrounding materials. The first (11:18−12:6), second (15:10−21), and fifth (20:7−13) confessions are connected to their surrounding contexts through catchwords. The third (17:14−18) and fourth (18:18−23) are joined in a broader thematic relationship with surrounding prose narratives.47 The third confession in its context shows the plea of the prophet for Israel’s obedience to God’s words. The fourth confession taken in context is the request for vengeance upon the enemies, but is answered by the symbolic action of breaking the clay jar, foretelling the demise of the nation (indicating that the Israelites are the opponents).48 One major feature of O’Connor’s structure is the close connection between each confession and the prose sections in their immediate context. Jeremiah 11:1−14 is an early warning to those who disobey the prophetic words described in the first confession (11:18−12:6); the description of Israel’s rebellion in the second confession (15:10−21) is followed by the ceasing of social life in the land (16:1−13), pointing to the fall of the nation if Israel does not repent; the third confession (17:14−18) shows the doubt of Israel about the prophetic words, making necessary the following command to observe the Sabbath (17:19−27); the prophet’s plea of innocence and his call for vengeance upon the enemies (18:18−23) follows the exhortation for Israel to repent and return (18:1−12), and this confession is also followed by 19:1−15, which shows the stubbornness of Israel by breaking the clay jar; the last confession is the climax of the prophet’s emotional expression responding to the imprisonment and persecution described in 20:1−6. Prose material in the context mainly gives the reason for the destruction of a nation, which is Israel’s deafness to the divine commands.49 Diamond, however, criticizes O’Connor50 with respect to delimitation of the confessions. The exclusion of 20:14−18 on formal grounds seems inconsistent with her rhetorical perspective because this passage is rhetorically associated with former confessional units (for example, 15:10), and is redacted purposely after the last confession (20:7−13).

47  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 111. 48  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 108–10. 49  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 112. 50  A.R. Diamond, review of The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation and Role in Chapters 1−25, by Kathleen M. O’Connor, JBL 108 (1989): 694–96.

134

Sze Wing So

1.3 Smith (1990) Smith divides the confessional material into four units (11−12; 13−15; 16−17 and 18−20) based on a perceived development. Each unit starts with a divine announcement or judgment (11:1−12; 13:1−11; 16:1−9; 18:1−12) and ends with a prophetic lament (11:18−23; 15:15−21; 17:14−18; 20:7−13). Smith argues that laments are incorporated into the divine oracle in response to needs of the exilic period, where Israel’s guilt must be aroused. This differs from Diamond and O’Connor who see the confessions as an apology of the prophetic mission.51 Three laments (12:1−6; 15:10−14; and 20:14−18) not included in the units are taken to be added secondarily.52 The connection between introductory prose narrative and the prophetic laments is built up through a depiction of the prophet’s enemies in the laments. The enemies remain unnamed, but secondary prose materials identify them as Jeremiah’s own people (11:21, 23), and in the fourth lament as the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The naming attributes the responsibility of the disaster to specific groups who oppose Jeremiah’s prophetic oracles and the possibility of national exile.53 Holladay challenges Smith’s division, particularly his view on the secondary additions. He argues that the poetry is an earlier source than the prose materials, with the prose being dependent on the poetic portions. The linkage between poetry and prose gives them a stronger cohesion in the context of chs. 11−20. Smith suggests a reversal by regarding the laments of 12:1−6; 15:10−14 and 20:14−18 as secondary additions, but he fails to give a comprehensive argument for this view.54 I concur that Smith’s pattern artificially excludes some passages in order to make his suggestion valid, for example those found in 12:1−17; 14:1−22; 16:10−21; 17:1−13; 17:19−27; 18:19−23; and 20:1−6. The prophetic actions in 16:1−9 help to illustrate the judgment announcement, but 16:10−21 gives the reason for the punishment, which is essential in the woe oracle. Why does Smith exclude some passages when constructing his structural pattern? What are his criteria for making such selection? Observing Smith’s neat structure, it seems likely that he makes a presumption concerning the judgment oracle followed by a lament in each section, and then constructs the proposed structure based on this hypothesis. 51  Smith, The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts, 40–43. 52  Smith, The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts, 43–44. 53  Smith, The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts, 40. 54  William L. Holladay, review of The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of Jeremiah 11−20, by Mark S. Smith, CBQ 54 (1992): 768–70.

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

2

135

A New Proposal

If the confessions are treated as an anthology of unrelated poems, it is difficult to find a correlation between them, and their meaning as a whole becomes less clear. As concluded from the three studies above, there are two reasons for saying that the confessions exhibit a unified structure: 1. Density of repetition: repeated words, phrases, refrains, and themes form the perplexing structuring of chs. 11−20. To begin, the confessions are related to their surrounding contexts by connecting words or concepts. For instance, there is repeated imagery of infliction in “why is my pain unending and my wound grievous and incurable”? (15:18a), and “[my people] has suffered a grievous wound” (14:17b). Confessions in 11:18−12:6 are connected to the surrounding context by catchwords (‫ רעה‬in 11:15; 12:4, ‫ ישב‬in 11:12; 12:4, ‫ נטע‬in 11:17; 12:2, ‫ בית‬in 12:6, 7),55 a motif (tree imagery in 11:15−16, 19; 12:2), and the theme of a mourning land (question in 12:4 is responded to in 12:7–13);56 the confession in 15:10−21 shares a cursed offspring with 15:5−9.57 Secondly, there is close affinity between the confessions. For example, 17:18 and 20:11 are connected by the repeated words “be ashamed” (‫ )בוש‬and “my persecutors” (‫)רדפי‬.58 Jeremiah 15:16 and 20:8 display affinity by antonymous parallelism, where “your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart” is opposite to “the word of the Lord has become for me a reproach and derision all day long.” The word “terrifying” (‫ )עריץ‬is used for the prophet’s enemies in 15:21 and for Yahweh in 20:11, showing a reversal of power: Yahweh in the end is invincible.59 2. Cohesive motifs: the announcement of the judgment oracle, the prophet’s self-exposure, and the depiction of the enemies appear as coherent themes in chs. 11−20. As was pointed out, O’Connor proposes two consistent themes that the confessions bring into structural contexts, which are the persecution of the prophet and the plea for revenge upon his opponents.60 The first theme depicts the persecution of the prophet (11:19; 12:3; 15:15; 17:15; 18:20; 20:7, 8, 10), which is different from Yahweh’s rejection of the people found in the prose materials 55  The catchwords of ‫ נטע‬and ‫ בית‬are mentioned in Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21B (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2004), 643. 56  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 133. 57  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 137. 58  William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1−25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia Fortress, 1986), 551. 59  Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 551. 60  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 101–04.

136

Sze Wing So

(11:1−14; 13:10; 16:12; 17:23). The attack on the prophet is a unique theme in the confessions, and the reason for the attack is supplemented by the surrounding prose. The first confession (11:18−12:6) depicts the severe attack on the prophet without reason (11:18−20) but is followed by its explanation in the prose section (11:21−23). The second theme occurs in all five laments. The request for revenge concerns not just the dignity or life of the prophet, but a validation of prophetic words in which the prophet made a pledge in the name of Yahweh. Due to the insertion of the petition for vengeance, we may expect the prophet’s vindication, his enemies’ defeat, and Yahweh’s triumphant return. While in agreement with O’Connor that the confessions are thematically connected to their contexts, I want to go beyond the unified purpose or theme others have proposed to suggest that there is a development of the prophet’s outcry in the laments. Moreover, since the main characteristic of the confessions is the personal expressions of the prophet, the outcry of the prophet should be the main focus or theme of each confession. And the confessions, dispersed as they are in chs. 11−20, should carry a different outcry that the prophet wants to convey. Therefore, another thematic structure is here proposed in chs. 11−20, in which confessional material highlights a different outcry of the respective complex and makes a progressive development in the relationship between the prophet, the people, and God: I. Judgment oracle of broken covenant (11:1−17) First Confession: “Why does the way of the guilty prosper?” (11:18−12:6) Divine response on punishment (12:7−17) Prophetic Action: hide a linen loincloth (13:1−11) Prophetic Action: filling of wine jars (13:12−27) II. Judgment of drought, intercession, and a predestined penalty (14:1−22; 15:1−9) Second Confession: “Woe is me … all of them curse me” (15:10−21) Prophetic Action: exclusion from social activities (16:1−9) III. Judgment: exclusion from the land (16:10−21) Judgment: inscribed sin on tablets of the heart (17:1−13) Third Confession: “Do not become a terror to me” (17:14−18) Prophetic Action: sin of violating the Sabbath (17:19−27) IV. Prophetic Action: observing the potter making a clay pot (18:1−18) Fourth Confession: “Remember how I stood before you” (18:19−23) Prophetic Action: breaking the clay pot (19:1−15)

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

137

V. Prophetic Action: imprisonment (20:1−6) Fifth Confession: “the word of the Lord has become for me a reproach and derision all day long” (20:7−18). In this structure, chs. 11−20 are divided into five complexes in which each complex starts with either a judgment oracle or a prophetic action. The judgment oracle occurs only in the first three complexes, whereas prophetic actions are distributed in each complex. One more prophetic action (19:1−15) is allocated after the third confession to convey divine messages of destruction. We see a progressive movement in the confessions that the destruction of the nation is inevitable. In complexes I, II, and III, each confession succeeds a judgment oracle and ends with a prophetic action. The judgment oracles are used to expose the sinfulness of Israel by describing the punishment of its disobedience to Yahweh. On the other hand, judgment oracles can function as a prior warning to Israel, giving a reason for the fall of a nation or foretelling impending disaster if Israel does not return from its evil ways. By warning Israel through the judgment oracles in I, II, and III, the prophet hopes that the destruction will not come. In complexes IV and V, we find only prophetic actions accompanying the confessions. The dramatic presentation heightens the intensity of punishment (19:1−15) or persecution (20:1−6), pushing the plot to a more severe situation. Symbolic acts are used to express inevitable destruction of the nation because Israel does not repent after repeated warnings in the judgment oracles (complexes I, II, and III). In what follows we can see that the confessions are situated in their contexts thematically by repetition of keywords and significant concepts. 2.1 Confessions in 11:18−12:6 in Complex I Complex I, 11:18−20 and 12:1−6, combines confessions based on similar keywords or concepts. Lundbom61 and O’Connor62 have made a connection between 11:18−20 and 12:1−3 by recognizing an overall chiasm. O’Connor also associates 12:4−6 with the preceding confessions (11:18−12:3) by making Yahweh’s reply in v. 6 a response to Jeremiah’s enemies (alluded to and identified in 11:18−20 and 12:1−3), so that 11:18−12:6 is taken to be unified confessional material.63 61  Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1−20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 635. 62  “Both units contrast Jeremiah’s innocence (11:19ab; 12:3) with the wickedness of the enemies (11:19c; 12:2) … both address Yahweh as Righteous Judge (11:20; 12:1).” O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 17. 63  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 22.

138

Sze Wing So

Here an unabridged connection in 11:18−12:6 is proposed, with a parallelism found between 11:18−23 and 12:1−6 based on a continuity of words and phrases. A. Know (11:18): “It was the Lord (‫ )יהוה‬who made it known to me (‫)הודיעני‬, and I knew (‫”)ואדעה‬ B. Destruction (11:19): “But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter (‫ ”)לטבוח‬+ “Let us destroy the tree with its sap”64 C. Heart (11:20): “who try the heart and the mind” (‫)בחן כליות ולב‬ D. Opponents: “the people of Anathoth” (11:21a, 23b) + “their sons and their daughters” (11:22) X. Outcry: “Why does the way of the guilty prosper”? (12:1) + Flourishing Plant (12:2) A’. Know (12:3a): “But you, O Lord (‫)יהוה‬, know me (‫”)ידעתני‬ C’. Heart (12:3b): “You see me and test me (‫ )ובחנת‬− my heart (‫ )לבי‬is with you.” B’. Destruction (12:3c) “Pull them out like sheep for the slaughter (‫)לטבחה‬, and set them apart for the day of slaughter (‫”)הרגה‬ D’. Opponents (12:5−6): “compete with horses/ the thickets of the Jordan” + “For even your kinsfolk (‫ )אחיך‬and your own family (‫”)אביך‬ Jeremiah 11:18−12:6 is highly cohesive: 12:3 contains all the keywords or similar concepts that appear in 11:18 (‫)ידע‬, 11:19 (‫)טבחה‬, and 11:20 (‫ לב‬/ ‫)בחן‬, and finally, 11:18−20 and 12:1−465 both end with the divine response (11:21−23; 12:5−6). Given this structural cohesion, 11:18−2366 and 12:1−667 are combined as one unit of confessional material rather than split into two. The keywords in this unit are “know” (11:18 twice; 12:3a), “heart” (11:20; 12:3b), “slaughter” (11:19; 12:3c twice), and “the people of Anathoth” (11:21a) // “your own family” (12:6). A contrasting image between the prophet and his enemies is built up in the passage: the prophet has a good heart toward God, whereas the enemies, who are Jeremiah’s family, are evildoers. This contrast induces the prophet to ask an important question, which is, “Why does the way of the 64  John Bright, Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 21 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), 84; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 636; “strength” in NJB. 65  This section consists of a complaint by the prophet (vv. 1−3) and a reflective comment (v. 4). See Lundbom, Jeremiah 1−20, 641. 66  This section is delimited by the section markings prior to v. 18 and after v. 23. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1−20, 633. 67  The section markings are set prior to v. 1 and at the end of 3 and 6. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1−20, 641.

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

139

guilty prosper?” The prophet does not understand the unfair treatment between himself and his enemies, as he is suffering and his enemies are prospering. This complaint or outcry about the situation becomes the main theme in Jer 11:18−12:6 because it is situated between the parallels (as shown above), making 12:1−2 (X) the central or focal point of the lament. In the surrounding texts, God shows his support to the prophet by condemning the wickedness of all the people in Israel; for example, “everyone walked in the stubbornness of an evil will,” (11:8) “conspiracy exists among the people of Judah” (11:9), and “they have sown wheat and have reaped thorns, they have tired themselves out but profit nothing. They shall be ashamed of their harvests because of the fierce anger of the Lord” (12:13). The prophet, however, does not blame all the people of Israel, only the wicked planning to kill him (11:19).68 By slaughtering the wicked (12:3), the nation can be restored (12:4). Concerning the internal cohesion and the connection with surrounding texts, the question of the prosperity of the wicked is the prophet’s main outcry; this question is posed to ask God to punish that specific group of the wicked (not the whole nation), in order to restore the situation. The response to this question is further confirmed by the following symbolic actions concerning the fall of the nation and the exile of the people.69 The first symbolic action is the burial of the linen loincloth (13:1−11). God “made the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to him,” just like the loincloth clings to one’s loins, but they did not listen (13:11). The second action pertains to the wine jars following 13:12−14, which lists the catastrophes that will come to those who do not listen to God. The confessions are related to the symbolic action thematically because the question in the confessions is “answered” by the symbolic action, yet the consequences are for all who disobey, which in God’s perspective is the entire nation. 2.2 Confessions 15:10−21 in Complex II The second group of confessions is situated between the judgment oracle (14:1−22; 15:1−9) and the prophetic action (16:1−9) in complex II. As O’Connor has noted, ch. 14 is a component within the larger context of chs. 14−16, which deal with the consequences of Israel’s sinful behavior in societal life.70 The 68  Job Y. Jindo, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1−24 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 217. 69  “Those emblems showed certain emotional reactions of God, in an anthropomorphized manner.” Kelvin G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, JSOTSup 283 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 387–88. 70  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 135.

140

Sze Wing So

judgment oracle induces the complaint of the prophet because everyone curses him (15:10) after the oracle’s proclamation. Yahweh then promises protection to the prophet in divine sayings (15:11−14; 15:19−21). Afterwards, the prophetic act of social exclusion (from funeral and feasting) demonstrates the woe against Israel; there is no more happiness in the society. The internal structure within these confessions is well built: the complaints (15:10; 15:15−18) are followed by divine responses (15:11−14; 15:19−21).71 Also, this group is enclosed by a similar concept of “contention,” in which “a man of strife and contention” (‫ )איש ריב ואיש מדון‬in v. 10 is answered by what follows in v. 20: “they will fight against you, but they shall not prevail over you” (‫ונלחמו אליך ולא־‬ ‫)יוכלו לך‬. Though the prophet will face attacks from others, his enemies will not succeed. According to O’Connor’s analysis, there are three units, vv. 10−12, 15; vv. 16−18, and vv. 19−21, with vv. 13−14 a secondary addition. She suggests that the repetition of similar words creates a stylistic pattern forming the following coherent unity:72 ‫איש ריב ואיש מדון‬ ‫אם־לא אם־לוא‬ ‫ברזל ברזל‬ ‫דבריך דבריך‬ ‫תשוב ואשיבך‬

(15:10b) (15:11ab) (15:12) (15:16ab) (15:19b)

‫לא־נשיתי ולא־נשו־בי‬ ‫בעת־רעה ובעת צרה‬ ‫ידעת דע‬ ‫ישבתי ישבתי‬ ‫אם ואם‬

(15:10c) (15:11c) (15:15ac) (15:17ab) (15:19b, d)

Diamond has a similar suggestion about the doubling of synonymous words;73 however, these only show that the repeated words in each colon form a lexical patterning, not other connections among cola. Rather than just word repetition, semantic relationships between the lines function to unify this material structurally.74 The main theme of these confessions is the prophet’s outcry that “all of them curse” him (v. 10). It is why he complains and explicitly describes his situation of being cursed and rejected by his own people in vv. 15−18. The curse includes “the move to take him away” (v. 15), “insult” (v. 15), and “[having] unceasing pain and [an] incurable wound” (v. 18). The hardship provokes the prophet to 71  The divisions are delimited by section markings before and after v. 10, at the end of v. 14, v. 18 and v. 21. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1−20, 730–31, 740, 748. 72  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 40–41. 73  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 54, 68; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1−20, 741–42. 74  For more information, Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 88–89.

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

141

make a serious reproach against God, which is: “you are to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail” (v. 18). It is arguable if this is the main outcry, but considering the large part of being cursed and persecuted, “all of them curse me” becomes the basis of all his miseries in the lament. On the other hand, the complaint of being cursed does induce Yahweh to respond by promising revenge (vv. 11−14) and protection to Jeremiah (vv. 19−21). These two responses have similar meaning regarding how Yahweh will strengthen the prophet: “Can iron break the iron from the north and the bronze (‫( ?”)ונחשת‬v. 12 NJB) and “I will make you to this people a fortified wall of bronze (‫( ”)נחשת‬v. 20). After all, a contrast is presented, namely between those in Israel who curse the prophet and the prophet himself: the former will be punished to serve their enemies in a land that they do not know (v. 14), and to Jeremiah is given the promise that Yahweh is with him to save him and deliver him (v. 20). The depiction of the curse (vv. 15−18) and the divine responses (vv. 11−14, 19−21) serve the same aim of paying off their deeds, which starts with the outcry, “all of them curse me” (v. 10). These confessions are thematically connected with surrounding texts in complex II. The preceding judgment (14:1−22; 15:1−9) announces the specific curses imposed upon Israel, which include drought (14:1−6), pestilence (14:12; 15:2), sword=war (14:12, 15−16; 15:2−3), famine (14:12, 15, 18; 15:2), and captivity (15:2, 4). Another curse on Israel is the imagery of a barren, widowed or childdeprived mother (15:7−9), indicating the fate of Israel. The proclamation of these woeful oracles upon Israel cause the personal persecution of the prophet, and finally, the prophet strongly complains, “all of them curse me.” God then says clearly in the divine responses (15:11−14; 19−21) that he is only cursing the prophet’s enemies (Israel) who do not listen to him, not the prophet. The theme of a cursed life is continuously shown in the prophetic act of isolation from social life (16:1−9) because of his call (15:17). 2.3 Confession 17:14−18 in Complex III After the prophetic act of self-exclusion from social activities (16:1−9), a doublejudgment oracle (exclusion from the land in 16:10−21 and description of their sin in 17:1−13) appears to extend the sense of exclusion in the prophetic act (16:1−9) and open a way for accusing Israel of their sinful acts of worshipping idols (17:2), turning away from God (17:5), and getting rich by unjust means (17:11). The accusation of Israel’s sin (17:1−13) is framed by an inclusio with the repeated use of ‫כתב‬: “the sin of Judah is written (‫ )כתובה‬with an iron pen; with a diamond point it is engraved on the tablet of their hearts, and on the horns of their altars” (17:1) parallels “those who turn away from you shall be recorded

142

Sze Wing So

(‫ )יכתבו‬in the underworld” (17:13). The sin of Israel leads to a third confession in which people show their ignorance by saying “where is the word of the Lord? Let it come” (17:15). Besides the connection with surrounding texts in the immediate context, O’Connor argues that this confession enjoys a literary unity formed by parallel passages in v. 14 and v. 18:75 ‫רפאני יהוה וארפא‬ ‫הושיעני ואושעה‬ ‫יבשו רדפי ואל־אבשה אני‬ ‫יחתו המה ואל־אחתה אני‬

14a 14b 18a 18b

Verses 14 and 18 are framed in such a way that words are repeated in a similar fashion (… ‫)… וא‬. O’Connor further argues that verses 14−18 use a striking pattern of personal pronouns (“you” ‫[ אתה‬14c] – “they” ‫[ המה‬15a] – “I” ‫[ ואני‬16a], then “you” ‫[ אתה‬17b] – “I” ‫[ אני‬18a] – “they” ‫[ המה‬18b]) in which the complaint sections are highlighted by the personal pronouns. The personal pronouns in vv. 14−18 also show a more concrete and personal tone of petition compared to the impersonal tone used in vv. 12−13.76 Therefore, vv. 14−18 as a literary unit is different from vv. 12−13. The use of personal pronouns (I, you, they) has another function, which is to identify the duties of the prophet, Yahweh, and enemies in the poem.77 “They” as the enemies are responsible for the disregard of the word of God (v. 15) and the assault upon the prophet (“my persecutors” in v. 18). In contrast to “they,” “I” (the prophet) gives his confidence to Yahweh by saying, “I have not run away from being a shepherd in your service” (v. 16a) and “you are my refuge in the day of disaster” (v. 17b). Between the two sayings of confidence or trust of the prophet (v. 16a and v. 17b), a petition emerges in the poem where the prophet cries out to Yahweh: “Do not become a terror to me” (17:17). This plea is rather indirect compared to other more direct complaints (“woe is me” in 15:10; “let me see your retribution upon them” in 20:12). Terror in the prophet occurs when the opponents question the realization of the word of God (17:15), which is an affront to the prophet’s authenticity. “They” do not treat Jeremiah as a representative of God, and do not believe his prophetic messages. Their request for legitimation threatens the prophet in his ongoing prophetic mission (commissioned in ch. 1) and his own life. “Do not become a terror to me” 75  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 48. 76  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 48–49. 77  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 49.

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

143

(17:17) is the main outcry in this poem addressed to Yahweh, for Yahweh is the one who sends the prophet to be his mouthpiece, yet the prophet is attacked and threatened. The prophet implies the “terror” (‫ )מחתה‬to be God, who brings terror (Isa 54:14), ruin (Psa 89:41), or even destruction (Prov 10:14).78 The theme of “terror” can also be shown in depictions of “destruction” in neighboring texts, such as in the judgment oracle, “Your wealth and all your treasures I will give for spoil as the price of your sin” (17:3), and in the divine response, “I will kindle a fire in its gates; it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched” (17:27). When the prophet complains about the terror placed upon him (17:15), Yahweh advises him that terror is for Israel (17:27), not for him. The outcry “do not become a terror to me” is the theme that connects the internal structure in the confession, as well as the encompassing texts. 2.4 Confession 18:19−23 in Complex IV The fourth confession (18:19−23) is set within the prophetic act of the clay pot (18:1−18; 19:1−15) in complex IV. The clay pot represents Israel, and in 18:6−10, any nation. Before the confession the prophet is told to watch the process of a potter making a clay pot in order to explicate God’s sovereignty over Israel, a people stubborn in their wrong ways. The confession expresses the prophet’s change of attitude from self-pity to a request of concrete retribution upon a whole nation (vv. 21−23). This dramatic change emerges from the depictions in 18:1−18, in which all people are disobedient (v. 12). This poem has a balanced poetic structure based on repetition of words or phrases.79 O’Connor discovers the following pairs: ‫( שמע‬19b) // ‫( תשמע‬22a); ‫( כי־כרו שוחה‬20b) // ‫( כי־כרו שיחה‬22c); ‫( לפניך‬20c) // ‫מלפניך‬, ‫( לפניך‬23cd); ‫( להשיב את־חמתך מהם‬20e) // ‫( בעת אפך עשה בהם‬23c). She explains them as parallels on the semantic level. The first is ‫ שמע‬which is used to draw the attention of Yahweh in v. 19, and at the same time its Niphal stem is used for the crying out of the prophet’s enemies in v. 22. In the second pair, the distress of the prophet (‫ )כי־כרו שוחה‬in v. 20, is paralleled with the situation of bullying (‫ )כי־כרו שיחה‬in v. 22 that motivates Yahweh to take vengeance. The next pair highlights the difference between standing before Yahweh (‫ )לפניך‬to plead for Israel in v. 20, and standing before Yahweh (‫מלפניך‬, ‫ )לפניך‬to complain about the destructive power of opponents (Israel) in v. 23. Lastly, the antonymous concept of “turning away” is present in v. 20 and v. 23, in which the prophet says he has turned away Yahweh’s anger from the opponents in v. 20, and the 78  “‫מחתה‬,” HALOT 2:191. 79  Lundbom, Jeremiah 1−20, 829.

144

Sze Wing So

prophet asks Yahweh to take action in anger in v. 23.80 We can see that this fourth confession is thematically cohesive. The confession is connected with the preceding passage (18:1−18) by the repeated word “attentive” (‫)קשב‬. Furthermore, v. 18 is probably an addition to reiterate the total rejection of the people (v. 12) in order to make way for the request of vengeance in 18:21−23.81 The theme for this confession is the plea to God to “remember how I [the prophet] stood before you” (18:20). The prophet reminds God to remember his labor in the prophetic mission, as people either ignore or have forgotten his efforts on their behalf. The outcry is in 18:20, enclosed by the repeated word “good” (‫)טובה‬, expressing his goodness over against the opponents’ wickedness. Therefore, the prophet’s petition for “remembering how I stood before you” is a request for Yahweh as a witness, attesting to all his earlier effort and validating his request for punishment because people have repaid him with evil and even “dug a pit for his life” (18:20). For the confession in the context of chs. 18−19 the prophetic action of watching the clay pot-making (18:1−18) is a prior warning to Israel, exhorting people to return and repent; however, they are stubborn in their ways, so the prophet asks for vengeance upon them (18:19−23). The following prophetic act of breaking the clay pot (19:1−15) demonstrates and confirms the inevitable punishment that God will finally impose on Israel due to its continual disobedience. The outcry in this fourth confession is highlighted between the two clay pot accounts. 2.5 Confessions 20:7−18 in Complex V The final confessions (20:7−18) develop the idea that “the word of the Lord has brought [the prophet] insult and reproach all day long.” In this complex the confrontation between the prophet and the people reaches its peak. The religious leader, Pashhur, struck the prophet and confined him overnight in the temple, a public insult to this servant of God. Following this humiliation came the prophet’s complaint to God, where he accuses God of his suffering, for example, “everyone mocks him,” and “reproach and derision [come] all day long.” In 20:7 and 10 the use of “entice” (‫ )פתה‬includes the meaning of accusation directed to God for seducing the prophet.82 Jeremiah complains that he 80  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 55–56. 81  O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 58–59. 82  The verb usage in three texts (Exod 22:15; Hos 2:14; Job 31:9) contains indication of seduction (or even rape), and the verb is strengthened in Jeremiah by other words (‫[ חזק‬v. 7] and ‫[ ושד חמס‬v. 8]) which have sexual connotations; cf. John Bright, Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 21 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), 129; John

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

145

has been overpowered into accepting the prophetic mission. God forced (‫פתה‬, ‫חזק‬, ‫ )יכל‬him, and now he cannot escape from the compulsion within to preach the prophetic message. Concerning the internal structure, Jer 20:7−1383 and 20:14−18 are two confessions in which the former accords with the pattern of petition to praise in the Psalms84 and the latter is self-standing on the consideration of section markings, content, rhetorical structure, and change in tone from v. 13.85 But the confessions are connected by repetition of ‫ יהוה‬in vv. 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13; ‫ היה‬in vv. 7, 8, and 9; ‫ לב‬in vv. 9 and 12; and ‫ נקמה‬in vv. 10 and 12. They are also framed by “all day long” (‫ )כל־היום‬in v. 7 and “my days” (‫ )ימי‬in v. 18, suggesting a compositional unity. For the relation of these confessions to the context of ch. 20, it is likely that the content of ‫עמל‬, ‫יגון‬, and ‫“ בשת‬toil, sorrow and shame” come from the previous narrative (20:1−6).86 Use of words such as “power” (‫)יכל‬, “overpower” (‫)חזק‬, and “terrifying warrior” (‫ )כגבור עריץ‬imitate war scenes or military conflict in order to keep continuity with the hostility in the preceding narrative. Due to the strong connection between 20:1−6 and 20:7−18, laments in the confessional material show a sense of individuality by situating the persecution of the prophet at the hands of Pashhur. At the same time they also demonstrate a national calamity currently taking place. Then the confessions of vv. 7−18 emerge.87 The main outcry here is that “the word of the Lord has become for me [the prophet] a reproach and derision all day long,” which started in the imprisonment by Pashhur. The strike and insult the prophet suffered was not executed in private; it was a public disgrace and an affront to the prophet’s authenticity. Jeremiah then accused Yahweh of compelling him to take on the prophetic MacLennan Berridge, Prophet, People and the World of Yahweh: An Examination of Form and Content in the Proclamation of the Prophet Jeremiah, Basel Studies of Theology 4 (Zürich: EVZ, 1970), 151–53; O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah, 70. 83  Lundbom treats 20:7−10 as a confession and 20:11−13 as a psalm of praise (Lundbom, Jeremiah 1−20, 581–83); however, as the confessions are similar to the genre of lament psalms in their vital elements, which include invocation, pleading to God, complaint of suffering, doubting God, asking for help, cursing his opponents, asking for divine intervention, vindicating one’s trust in God, confidence of being heard, vow, and praise to God, I prefer to treat 20:7−13 as one confession; see Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah, SHBC 15 (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 187–88. 84  Lundbom, Jeremiah 1−20, 852–53. 85  Lundbom, Jeremiah 1−20, 865–69. 86  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 120. 87  Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context, 120.

146

Sze Wing So

mission in 20:7−10, where Yahweh was said to be “enticing” (‫)פתה‬, “powerful” (‫)יכל‬, “overpowering” (‫ ;)חזק‬the message bringing “violence and destruction” (‫ ;)חמס ושד‬and people wanting to take “revenge” (‫)נקמה‬, where war imagery is prominent. The reason for this war imagery is to contrast God with the opponents, showing that God has supreme power and that the opponents will not succeed. 3 Conclusion The above observations have shown that the confessions are closely related to their contexts, both thematically and linguistically through repeated keywords and concepts. At the same time, they are juxtaposed to judgment oracles or symbolic actions. This structural pattern brings out the stubbornness of Israel conveyed in the prophet’s outcry and gives the reason for the fall of the nation. The exposure of the prophet’s suffering in the confessions reveals the disobedience of the people as well as the sorrow of God. God is no longer just a distant God. He is the one who “let my eyes run down with tears night and day, and let them not cease, for the virgin daughter – my people – is struck down with a crushing blow, with a very grievous wound” (8:23 [9:1]; 14:17).88 Further, in the context of chs. 11−20, we observe that Jeremiah makes different outcries with different purposes: “why does the way of the guilty prosper?” (11:18−12:6); “everyone curses me” (15:10−21); “do not become a terror to me” (17:14−18); “remember how I stood before you” (18:19−23); and “the word of the Lord has become for me a reproach and derision all day long” (20:7−18). Each confession emphasizes a unique petition, complaint, or outcry. When we connect them, a progressive development can be seen in chs. 11−20: the addressee of the complaint changes from the wicked (or the enemies) to Yahweh directly. In the first confessions the prophet queries about unfair treatment he has experienced as compared to the prosperity of the wicked. He knows that his own people are wicked, persecuting him and trying to kill him (11:18−19), so his complaint is focused on God’s justice and the punishment of the wicked 88  David A. Bosworth, “The Tears of God in the Book of Jeremiah,” Bib 94 (2013): 24–46; Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, OBT 14 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 160–62; the traditional interpretation, however, is inclined to understand the weeping speaker as the prophet, please see Joseph M. Henderson, “Who Weeps in Jeremiah Viii 23 (ix 1)?: Identifying Dramatic Speakers in the Poetry of Jeremiah,” VT 52 (2002): 191–206.

Structure in the Confessions of Jeremiah

147

(12:3−4). After several woe oracles affirming the punishment in store for the wicked, the next confessions extend the persecutors to everyone. This implies that the scope and intensity of personal persecution has increased. But Yahweh goes further to command that the prophet cannot participate in social activities, so as to warn Israel concerning their upcoming exclusion from the land. The next confession after 17:1−13 makes a plea: “do not become a terror to me” (17:17). This is because the prophetic act and forthcoming judgment of God put the prophet in danger, and God seems to be a terror to the prophet. This outcry is made against God indirectly by the use of “do not.” The object of the outcry changes from the enemies to Yahweh indirectly. The outcry in the next confession reflects the prophet’s new understanding of Yahweh. He appeals for God’s attention (18:19) and calls for God to be his witness (18:20). The outcry is not only against the enemies, but directed also against Yahweh. Finally, the final confessions express a severe charge and direct petition to Yahweh, in which the prophet complains to Yahweh for compelling and overpowering him to accept prophetic ministry. His ultimate petition is because “the word of the Lord has become for [him] a reproach and derision all day long” (20:8). There is thus a clear progression from accusing first a group of the wicked, then all the people, and finally God. Select Bibliography Ahuis, Ferdinand. Der klagende Gerichtsprophet: Studien zur Klage in der Überlieferung von den alttestamentlichen Gerichtspropheten. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1982. Bosworth, David A. “The Tears of God in the Book of Jeremiah.” Bib 94 (2013): 24–46. Bright, John. Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 21. Garden City: Doubleday, 1965. Diamond, A.R. The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama. JSOTSup 45. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Fretheim, Terence E. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. OBT 14. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Friebel, Kelvin G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts. JSOTSup 283. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1−25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Holladay, William L. The Architecture of Jeremiah 1−20. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1976. Ittmann, Norbert. Die Konfessionen Jeremias: Ihre Bedeutung für die Verkündigung des Propheten. WMANT 54. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981.

148

Sze Wing So

Jindo, Job Y. Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1−24. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1−20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 21−36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2004. O’Connor, Kathleen M. The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation and Role in Chapters 1−25. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology Vol. II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. Translated by D.M.G. Stalker. 1st ed. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1965. Skinner, John. Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961. Smith, Mark S. The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of Jeremiah 11−20. SBLMS 42. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. Wimmer, Donald H. “Prophetic Experience in the Confessions of Jeremiah.” PhD diss., University of Notre Name, 1973.

chapter 8

Reconsidering the “New Covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31–34 Magnar Kartveit 1 Introduction The “new covenant” in Jer 31:31–34 is at the core of several significant discussions: does the text unit Jer 31:31–34 stem from the prophet Jeremiah or is it a later addition? Does the text speak of a renewed covenant or a covenant to replace the former one? What is the nature of the new covenant that will be on people’s hearts and minds? Is it a prophecy that was fulfilled in the New Testament?1 In these discussions and in commentaries and lexica there seems to be a tacit agreement that we know what a covenant is, because it is presupposed that the word ‫ ברית‬as used in the HB/OT refers to the phenomenon of a covenant. A covenant is taken to be a treaty or an agreement between two parties, “to perform or refrain from certain actions stipulated in advance.”2 Underlying the word ‫ ברית‬there may be “treaties,” “loyalty oaths,” and “charters.”3 In Walther Eichrodt’s Theology of the Old Testament (1933) the concept and phenomenon of the “covenant” is the overarching idea.4 The first sentence of Eichrodt’s Theology is this: “The concept in which Israelite thought gave definitive expression to the binding of the people to God and by means of which they established firmly from the start the particularity of their knowledge of him was the covenant.”5 Eichrodt does not start from the word ‫ברית‬, but from the concept “covenant.” From this concept he develops the whole description of the theology of the HB/OT; the concept is found also where the word is not

1  Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21B (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 464–71. 2  G.E. Mendenhall and G.A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1: 1179. 3  Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1: 1179. 4  W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Basel: Hinrich, 1933). ET: Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J.A. Baker, OTL (Louisville: Westminster, 1961). 5  Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 36.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_009

150

Kartveit

used. The word itself only appears in the book when the description of the concept is well under way, and it is subordinate to the concept. In a more recent contribution, the supposition is the same: “In the HB/OT, covenant serves as the central metaphor for the representation of the relationship between Yhwh and his people, Israel. With the concept of covenant, the ancient Near Eastern treaty institution comes into view (which precedes covenant theology/Bundestheologie traditio-historically.)”6 Also here, “covenant” is used as a concept for the representation of the relationship between Yhwh and Israel, and at the same time it is said to be a metaphor. The discussion of the term ‫ ברית‬here is also subordinate to the presentation of the concept. With such a wide meaning of the word, “covenant” may be used for Israel’s relationship with God, or for its representation. Eichrodt, and many others, presuppose that we deal with a phenomenon “covenant,” referred to by the word ‫ברית‬, but also present where this word is not used. The discussion sometimes is detached from a linguistic treatment of ‫ברית‬. This article will focus on the sense of the word ‫ברית‬, and suggest a nuanced understanding of the word and its referents. The approach will therefore be linguistic in nature, and on this background the use of this word in Jeremiah will be addressed. 2 Method The linguistic practice used by Eichrodt, Mendenhall, and many others, may fall into the category that linguists call the referential theory of meaning, dubbed the “Fido-Fido”-theory.7 This is the theory that words refer to an entity in the real world directly, and only to one entity. If the name of a dog is “Fido,” this word refers directly to that dog only, and not to other entities. Linguists generally reject the theory, because, among other things, it overlooks the roles of a word’s sense and meaning, and neglects the elements of connotations attached to senses and meanings. Between a word and the real world stand sense, meaning and connotations, and these have to be addressed before one can approach the denotations and references of a word. The many treatments of the covenant in scholarly literature may be right in many respects in terms

6  Christoph Koch, “Covenant. I. Ancient Near East. II. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” EBR 5:897. 7  John Lyons, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 79.

Reconsidering the “ New Covenant ” in Jeremiah 31:31–34

151

of what they discuss and describe, but often rest on sand when it comes to assumptions on the relationship between ‫ ברית‬and its referents. In order to find the senses of ‫ברית‬, the methods of investigation generally are those of paradigmatic and syntagmatic analyses. A paradigmatic analysis investigates how words can replace each other, and how closely related words in the same group are. Scholars often speak of synonyms – words that share the same field of senses with the same connotations or emotional overtones – but full synonyms are rare, and usually one will only find words with partly overlapping senses. Words that come close to each other in their senses can help us distinguish between senses, and find emotional nuances in the senses of words. A syntagmatic analysis looks into the collocations of a word – which verbs and adjectives occur with a given noun, which nouns occur with a given verb, and so on. A look at the semantic studies of ‫ ברית‬will help us sharpen our focus. 3

Research History on the Semantics of ‫ברית‬

As indicated above, the word “covenant” is widely used in translations of ‫ברית‬ in Jer 31:31; further the word is treated as a theological concept, and as a description of the relationship between human beings and God. As is exemplified by Eichrodt’s Theologie, meaning is brought from texts about Israel’s relationship with God into the word. One must ask if this wide usage has resulted in an apparent semantic overload in the scholarly comments on ‫ ;ברית‬it is often taken to mean much that is hard to find in the contexts where the word is used. The English “covenant” is a translation of testamentum (“document,” “agreement,” “treaty”), used in the Old Latin translation of the HB/OT, or of the lxx’s διαθήκη (“last will,” “testament”), both of which render the HB/OT’s ‫ ברית‬in the majority of cases.8 In the name of the “New Testament” (διαθήκη) this word is used. Through this English translation of the Old Latin and lxx words, an impression is created, namely, that we know what the Hebrew word ‫ ברית‬means and refers to: a covenant. A brief look into some standard works will illustrate this situation. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew offers only this translation for ‫ברית‬: “covenant.”9 The Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament

8  A good introduction to the history of words and translations is found in Ernst Kutsch, “Bund,” TRE 7: 397–98. 9  D CH, 2:264.

152

Kartveit

similarly offers: “Vereinbarung,” “Bund,” “Abmachung mit.”10 Gesenius (18th ed.) has a wider range of translations: “Abmachung,” “Bund,” “Übereinkommen,” “Vereinbarung,” “Verpflichtung,” “Vertrag”; and then the word can be used theologically: “Verpflichtung,” “Inpflichtnahme,” “Satzung.” In later literature, like Daniel and Qumran, the senses given are “Verband,” “Gemeinde,” “Gemeinschaft.”11 In this lexicon the influence from Ernst Kutsch is evident, and I will return to his work on this question. He wrote the entry on ‫ ברית‬in THAT/TLOT, and there suggested the translation “Verpflichtung,” “Obligation.”12 The TWAT/TDOT entry is written by Moshe Weinfeld, who states that ‫ברית‬ does not refer to an “agreement or settlement between two parties,” but first and foremost implies the notion of “imposition,” liability,” or “obligation.” He still uses “covenant” throughout the article.13 The semantic range of the word is distributed according to two “semantic fields: oath and commitment on the one hand, love and friendship on the other.”14 Under these two categories he lists parallels and synonyms that “indicate ‘covenant.’”15 The more recent EBR, under the entry “Covenant,” with subdivisions covering the BCE and CE-eras written by several scholars, treats the “concept” of “covenant.”16 I will take a look at Kutsch’s larger study on the word. Ernst Kutsch in 1973 published a monograph on the word ‫ברית‬.17 Here he studies the word in context, “semasiologisch.”18 This is done by commenting upon specific text-units, or developing the understanding of the word from these sentences in their contexts. He thinks that “[Berît als] Selbstverpflichtung und Zusage” is found in Gen 15:18; Josh 9:11; Jer 34:18; as “Verpflichtung eines anderen” it is found in Jer 34:8, 18; Ezek 17:13–14; as “wechselseitige Verpflichtung” it is found in 1 Kgs 5:26; 15:19; Ps 83:6; and as “Verpflichtung durch einen Dritten” it is found in Hos 2:20; Ezek 34:25; Lev 26:6 (even if there is no ‫ ברית‬here, but ‫ ;)שלום‬Job 5:23.19

10  HAL, 1:150f. 11  W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament (Berlin: Springer, 1987), 176–77. 12  Ernst Kutsch, “‫ ְבּ ִרית‬berît Verpflichtung,” THAT 1:339–52; ET: TLOT 1:256–66. 13  M. Weinfeld, “‫ ְבּ ִרית‬,” TWAT 1:782–807; TDOT 2:253–79. 14  Weinfeld, “‫ ְבּ ִרית‬,” 256. 15  Weinfeld, “‫ ְבּ ִרית‬,” 257–59. 16  See articles in EBR 5:897–933. 17  Ernst Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament, BZAW 131 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973). 18  Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz, 5. 19  Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz, 6–16.

Reconsidering the “ New Covenant ” in Jeremiah 31:31–34

153

He then discusses “Besonderheiten und Parallelen im Sprachgebrauch.”20 “Selbstverpflichtung ohne einen ‘Partner’” is found in Jer 34:15, 18; 2 Kgs 23:3; 2 Chr 15:12; Jer 50:2; Exod 34:10; Hos 10:4. “‘Schwören’ bzw. ‘schwören lassen’ in Parallele zu [‫ ”]כרת ברית‬is found in Josh 9:15; Ps 89:4; Ezra 10:3, 5; Ezek 16:8; 2 Chr 15:12, 14; Hos 10:4; Neh 10:1 (‫ ;)כרת אמנה‬2 Kgs 11:4; Gen 26:28 (J); “entspricht” ‫ השבעה לי‬in Gen 21:23 (E); Ezek 17:13; Gen 21:31; 1 Sam 23:18 (David and Absalom ‫כרת ברית‬, cf. 1 Sam 20:42 they have “geschworen”). “‘Eid’ bzw. ‘Gesetz’ o.ä. in Parallele zu [‫ ”]ברית‬is found in Ps 105:15–11; 1 Kgs 2:23; 19:2. When ‫“ ברית‬die Verpflichtung eines anderen bezeichnet, finden sich parallel”: ‫תורה‬, ‫חקים‬, ‫חקות‬, ‫עדות‬, ‫פקדים‬, ‫אמרה‬, ‫ ;כל אשר צוה משה‬for the last case, cf. 2 Kgs 18:12. ‫אלה‬, “oath,” is used as a parallel in Gen 26:28; Deut 29:11; Ezek 16:59; 17:18f. Further, he discusses the prepositions used with ‫ברית‬. On the etymology of ‫ברית‬, he writes that the word comes from ‫ ברה‬II, “to see” (1 Sam 17:8), and suggests the following development: “‘Sehen’ = Ersehen, Aussuchen, Für-gut-Halten > Für-am-besten-Halten, Erwählen zu einem bestimmen Zweck, das Bestimmen > die Bestimmung. Übernehme ich eine ‘Bestimmung,’ etwas zu tun, für mich, liegt Selbstverpflichtung vor. Erlege ich einem anderen die ‘Bestimmung,’ etwas zu tun auf, so verpflichte ich ihn, dies zu tun.”21 For a possible covenant renewal festival, he concludes that “Es gab also in Israel auch kein ‘Bundes’-Fest” and for a “‘Vasallitätsfest’ ist aus Jos 24 nicht (und noch weniger aus Psalmen) zu erschliessen.”22 Kutsch concentrates on the texts, and shows a genuine interest in concentrating on the word ‫ברית‬, and developing its understanding as used in context.23 In an interesting study of ‫ברית‬, James Barr discussed some of the scholarly studies mentioned above.24 The following discussion will in particular relate to his 1977 article. Barr first presents the four etymological explanations of ‫ ברית‬that have been suggested: 1) from ‫ברה‬, “eat, feed (of invalids or persons in mourning)”; 2) from ‫ברה‬, “see”; 3) from an origin in a prepositional form like *‫ברת‬, “between”; 4) from a noun form like Akkadian birtu, bertu, mA berittu, 20  Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz, 16–26. 21  Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz, 34. 22  Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz, 173. 23  Another contribution came from Lothar Perlitt, whose monograph simply is entitled “Covenant Theology in the Old Testament” (Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36 [Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969]). He is aware of the problem of the relationship between language and reality, but still treats the covenant as a concept and a phenomenon. 24  J. Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant,” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart und Rudolf Smend (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1977), 23–38.

154

Kartveit

“clasp, fetter.” None of them he finds satisfying, but more important “is the disengagement of the etymological question from the description of the actual Hebrew semantics.” The semantic function of the word was far removed from any sense that can be detected by etymology. The second important observation concerns four features in its grammatical behaviour: (1) opacity: it completely lacks transparency, which is an association with another word that appears to have related form and meaning (‫משפט‬, cf. ‫מסכהה ;שפט‬, cf. ‫( ;)נסך‬2) idiomacity, seen in the construction ‫כרת ברית‬, where the verb is used with a meaning which is different from the normal meaning; (3) non-pluralization: the word forms no plural in the HB/ OT (but in later texts); 4) the shape of the semantic field, which is very wide as seen from one direction, but very restricted as seen from another. On the one hand, it does not seem to have “either real and effective synonyms of importance or substantial competitors in its own field.” On the other hand, it seems to be very restricted in the sort of context in which it is used.25 When it comes to the senses of ‫ברית‬, Barr states that “provided that the incident is to be described with some real solemnity and with powerful religious sanctions, it seems that” … “terms such as agreement, treaty, contract, promise, obligation” … “may come under berīt, and indeed perhaps they must, for there seems to be no other bordering and distinguishing term under which they may fall, if a specific terminological distinction is to be made.”26 He seems to consider traditional understandings and Kutsch’s suggestion “obligation” possible senses of the word. Somewhat reluctantly, he uses “covenant” because the modern English usage most familiar to the ordinary speaker “refers to a promise to pay certain sums for a number of years to a charitable organization. Such a covenant is a quite unilateral undertaking, and might thus receive Kutsch’s approval as a proper modern exemplification of a berīt.”27 Barr does not take up a position for or against Kutsch’s view on the part of the matter, but leaves the question of the sense of ‫ ברית‬rather open. In a discussion of the term, Christoph Levin suggests that ‫ ברית‬in pre-exilic texts is a political terminus technicus, in foreign affairs meaning a suzerainty treaty or an alliance (Bündnis), and in internal affairs a royal treaty (Königsvertrag).28 From this last meaning the word is used theologically-metaphorically, a

25  Barr, “Some Semantic Notes,” 25–34; quotation from 31. 26  Barr, “Some Semantic Notes,” 31. 27  Barr, “Some Semantic Notes,” 36. 28  Ch. Levin, Die Verheiβung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen 1985), 125.

Reconsidering the “ New Covenant ” in Jeremiah 31:31–34

155

description of its usage in the realm of relationship between humans and the divine.29 Returning to Barr’s statement about synonyms or competitors, this is made with reference to Weinfeld’s list in TWAT/TDOT.30 Kutsch’s list of parallel words or phrases is not discussed. Barr states that parallelism does not show synonymy, but some kind of compatibility. Also, replaceability can only show synonymy if it is systematic and reversible. Against an understanding of synonymy that has been extended to a point where it ceases to have a critical force in semantic discussions, Barr seems to advocate an understanding that is an unrealistic ideal: replaceability must be applied systematically and reversibly. But this goal is unattainable; it will be helpful enough to find words with one or more overlapping sense(s). The lists presented by Weinfeld and Kutsch can be a starting point for this type of investigation. 4 Material The word ‫ ברית‬is attested around 285 times in the HB/OT, ten times in Sirach, 156 times in the Qumran writings, and it is only used in the singular. In this context it is impossible to conduct a complete semantic study of all occurrences, and we will have to concentrate on some cases in the HB/OT where a paradigmatic and syntagmatic analysis is possible. 4.1 Parallel Words and Expressions: Paradigmatic Analysis Weinfeld offers the following words as synonyms in the semantic field oath and commitment: ‫אלה‬, ‫עדות‬, ‫דבר‬, ‫עצה‬, ‫סוד‬, ‫חזות‬/‫חזה‬, ‫תורה‬, ‫פקדים‬, ‫משפט‬, ‫חוק‬, ‫מצוה‬, ‫אמרה‬, ‫מסכה‬, ‫אמנה‬, ‫משרים‬. In the semantic field love and friendship he presents: ‫חסד‬, ‫טובה‬, ‫שלום‬, ‫אחות‬.31 Kutsch’s list in his book is shorter: When ‫ ברית‬has the sense “die Verpflichtung eines anderen”: ‫תורה‬, ‫חקים‬, ‫חקות‬, ‫עדות‬, ‫פקדים‬, ‫אמרה‬, ‫כל אשר צוה משה‬, ‫אלה‬. Parallel words in other areas include ‫נשבע‬, ‫שבועה‬, ‫אלה‬, ‫כרת אמנה‬, ‫תורה‬. Both scholars have found many of the same synonyms or parallels. Barr’s stark statement that ‫ ברית‬has no synonyms or competitors in the field may be correct, but we can restrict the perspective to overlapping senses between the pertinent words and phrases.

29  Levin, Die Verheiβung des neuen Bundes, 125. 30  Weinfeld, “‫ ְבּ ִרית‬,” TWAT 1:785–88. 31  In the TWAT entry Weinfeld refers to two articles on the topic by Kutsch, but the book on “Bund” appeared after he wrote it.

156

Kartveit

Under the presupposition that poetry operates with parallel expressions, where words or phrases have overlapping senses, this would be a good place to start looking. In what follows I offer some examples of parallelisms for ‫ברית‬, without entering into the discussion of the various types of parallelism. Ps 25:14: ‫סוד יהוה ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם‬. Translations of this verse differ; NJPS: “The counsel/secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him; to them He makes known His covenant”; Lutherbibel: “Das Geheimnis des HERRN ist unter denen, die ihn fürchten; und seinen Bund läßt er sie wissen.” ‫ סוד‬is understood as a “secret,” or “secret counsel.” If one assumes that ‫ סוד‬and ‫ ברית‬are in parallel positions, the sense of ‫ ברית‬that is used here would be “(secret) decision.” Ps 50:16: ‫ולרשע אמר אלהים מה־לך לספר חקי ותשא בריתי עלי־פיך‬, “But to the wicked God says: ‘What right have you to recite my statutes, or take my covenant on your lips?’”32 Here, ‫ בריתי‬is parallel to ‫חקי‬, which means that the sense of ‫ ברית‬here comes close to that of “statutes,” “something decreed.” Ps 78:10: ‫לא שמרו ברית אלהים ובתורתו מאנו ללכת‬, “They did not keep God’s covenant, but refused to walk according to his law.” The parallel between ‫ברית‬ and ‫ תורה‬indicates that the sense of ‫ ברית‬is not far from “law,” “instruction,” “rule.” Ps 83:5: ‫כי נועצו לב יחדו עליך ברית יכרתו‬, “They conspire with one accord; against you they make a covenant.” ‫ נועצו‬seems to be parallel to ‫ברית יכרתו‬ here: they refer to the same event. This parallel has not been noted by Kutsch or Weinfeld. If ‫( יעץ‬Niph) has the sense of “consult together,” “conspire,” ‫כרת‬ ‫ ברית‬approaches “consult,” “make a decision,” and ‫ ברית‬would then have a sense like “decision.” Ps 89:4: ‫כרתי ברית לבחירי נשבעתי לדוד עבדי‬, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to my servant David.” The swearing and the ‫ברית‬ are in parallel and refer to the same event: a “decision,” a solemn and adjured “declaration.” Ps 89:29: ‫לעולם אשמור־לו חסדי ובריתי נאמנת לו‬, “Forever I will keep my steadfast love for him, and my covenant with him will stand firm.” The sense of ‫ברית‬ comes close to “commitment,” “emotional relationship.” Similarly, in v. 35: ‫לא־אחלל בריתי ומוצא שפתי לא אשנה‬, “I will not violate my covenant, or alter the word that went forth from my lips.” What “goes forth from the lips” parallels ‫ברית‬, and refers to a “declaration,” “statement.” Ps 103:18: ‫לשמרי בריתו ולזכרי פקדיו לעשותם‬, “To those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments.” To keep his ‫ ברית‬is parallel to remember his ‫ פקדים‬and do them. The senses in both cases may not overlap completely, but are close to each other. 32  All translations are from nrsv, unless otherwise stated.

Reconsidering the “ New Covenant ” in Jeremiah 31:31–34

157

Ps 105:8–10: ‫‏זכר לעולם בריתו דבר צוה לאלף דור׃ אשר כרת את־אברהם ושבועתו‬ ‫לישחק׃ ויעמידה ליעקב לחק לישראל ברית עולם‬, “He is mindful of his covenant

forever, of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant that he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac, which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant.” The passage starts and ends with ‫ברית‬, and this word is part of a series with several parallel phrases: ‫דבר צוה‬, “the word that he commanded” in v. 8, “his oath,” ‫שבועתו‬, in v. 9 and “statute,” ‫חק‬, in v. 10. This series of parallels indicates that ‫ ברית‬here does not have the sense of “covenant,” “agreement,” “obligation,” but the sense is more in the direction of “uttering,” “statement,” “solemn declaration,” “commandment.” Taken together, this series of expressions convey the meaning of God’s clear announcement of his will. The content of the uttering is found in v. 11: “saying, ‘To you I will give the land of Canaan as your portion for an inheritance.’” In these cases from the Psalms, ‫ ברית‬is parallel to ‫סוד‬, ‫חק‬, ‫תורה‬, ‫( יעץ‬Niph; not noted by Kutsch and Weinfeld), ‫נשבע‬, ‫חסד‬, ‫מוצא שפה‬, ‫פקדים‬, ‫דבר צוה‬, and ‫שבוע‬. This range of words may indicate the breadth of senses ‫ ברית‬can have. In none of the texts is there any indication of a mutual treaty or agreement. Some more examples: Isaiah 28:15 has been in focus for the understanding of ‫ ברית‬as “covenant”: ‫כרתנו ברית את־מות ועם־שאול עשׂינו חזה‬, “We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement.” On first sight, this would support the theory that ‫ ברית‬carries the sense of “agreement.” This depends, however, on the understanding of ‫חזה‬. The sentence in v. 15 is repeated with the threat of destruction in v. 18: ‫וכפר בריתכם את־מות וחזותכם את־שאול לא תקום‬, “Then your covenant with death will be annulled, and your agreement with Sheol will not stand.” Even if there is a variation between ‫ חזה‬in v. 15 and ‫ חזות‬in v. 18, one must assume that they refer to the same phenomenon, “agreement” (nrsv), or, in the usual sense “vision.” A common understanding of Isa 28:14–22 is that the passage it is about Jerusalem putting her trust in Egypt against an Assyrian threat (late eighth century BCE?). “Death” and “Sheol” may be allusions to Egyptian texts about death, or to the Canaanite god Mut. As the whole action in the context is described as “lies” and “falsehood,” one can assume that the phenomenon is one of illusion: people have the illusion that they can command “death” and “Sheol” and avoid the “scourge.”33 If ‫ חזה‬and ‫ חזות‬are used in their ordinary sense of “prophetic vision,” something seen or received as an assurance, ‫ כרת ברית‬might mean something in the same direction, like the 33  J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 391–95.

158

Kartveit

parallel to ‫ סוד‬in Ps 25:14. A possible rendering would be “We have a message from death, and from Sheol we have a revelation” (v. 15), “Your message from death will be covered over and your revelation from Sheol will not come true” (v. 18). A further example is found in Isa 54:10: ‫וחסדי מאתך לא־ימושׁ וברית שלומי לא‬ ‫תמוט‬, “my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed.” When ‫ ברית‬is parallel to ‫חסד‬, it attains the sense of “loving statement.” The same parallel is found in 1 Kgs 8:23. Moving to Hos 8:1 we find: ‫עברו בריתי ועל־תורתי פשעו‬, “they have broken my covenant, and transgressed my law.” ‫ תורה‬and ‫ ברית‬are parallels. This is also the case in Isa 24:5: ‫כי־עברו תורת חלפו חק הפרו ברית עולם‬, “For they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant.” Here, ‫ חק‬is also one of the parallelisms, as is the case in 2 Kgs 17:15. In Num 18:19 we read: ‫חק־עולם ברית‬ ‫מלח עולם‬, “a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt forever.” ‫ חק‬is in parallel to ‫ברית‬, which then comes close to a decree, something decided. And in Deut 29:13 the text notes: ‫אנכי כרת את־הברית הזאת ואת־האלה הזאת‬, “I am making this covenant, sworn by an oath.” In this case, ‫ ברית‬carries the sense of an oath, a “solemn declaration.” Both Weinfeld and Kutsch have noted that ‫ ברית‬is a parallel to ‫עדות‬. This is found in the expressions for the ark: ‫ ארון הברית‬and ‫ארון העדות‬. These expressions are not used together, as the former is found in D-texts, and the latter in P-texts. ‫ ארון הברית‬occurs over forty times (Deut 10:8; 31:9, 25, 26, etc.) and ‫ ארון העדות‬is found fourteen times (Exod 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.). Gerhard von Rad suggested that the Deuteronomists sought to “demythologize” the ark as only a container for the tablets with the Decalogue, and God is separate from it.34 The priestly material, on the other hand, uses ‫ ברית‬at important points like Gen 17:1–14, but because this term denoted the physical nature of the tablets of stone, that disappeared after the destruction of the temple in the sixth century BCE, they preferred ‫ ארון העדות‬for the ark. According to C.L. Seow, this parlance secured the lasting relationship with God: Israel could continue to have faith in God after the ark and tablets had been lost.35 As it was the ark that disappeared, questions remain on this theory. For our present purpose it is interesting to note that ‫ ברית‬and ‫ עדות‬both could be used in connection with the ark. It indicates that there were overlapping senses between the words, like “testimony,” “witness,” “presentation.” These examples from a broad range of materials show how there are overlapping senses, but no full synonymy. ‫ ברית‬does not have synonyms or competitors 34  Cf. M.K. George, “Ark,” EBR 2:744–54. 35  George, “Ark,” EBR 2:744–54.

Reconsidering the “ New Covenant ” in Jeremiah 31:31–34

159

in one field, but has sense relations with many words in different fields. The parallel words indicate that ‫ ברית‬has the senses “(secret) decision,” “something decreed,” “instruction,” “declaration,” “statement,” “commandment,” “a word commanded,” “oath,” “statute,” “loving statement,” “testimony,” “presentation.” These senses are related in the way that a decision may be made known, so ‫ ברית‬may refer to the decision and the contents of the decision. The connotations to the decision and its contents may be positive, loving, or instructional, commandment. 4.2 Syntagmatic Observations The verbs used for creating a ‫ ברית‬are: ‫כרת‬, ‫הקים‬, ‫צוה‬, ‫נתן‬, ‫נשבע‬, ‫העמיד ב‬, ‫הביא ב‬, ‫ ;בוא ב‬for announcing it: ‫הגיד‬, ‫ ;נשא עלי פה‬for keeping it: ‫זכר‬, ‫שמר‬, ‫נצר‬, ‫החזיק ב‬, ‫הבט ב‬, ‫נאמן‬, ‫ ;עשה כ‬for making it strong: ‫ ;הגביר‬for forgetting it: ‫ ;שכח‬for violating it: ‫הפר‬, ‫עבר‬, ‫עזב‬, ‫הפיר‬, ‫מאס‬, ‫ ;הרשיע‬for annulling it: ‫( כפר‬Pu), ‫מוט‬, ‫ ;נאר‬for corrupting it: ‫שחת‬, ‫ ;שקר ב‬for profaning it: ‫חלל‬.36 The most widely used verb with ‫ ברית‬is ‫כרת‬. This verb has the senses of “cut down,” with the objects “(part of) tree,” “sacred image”; “cut off,” with the objects “foreskin,” “head,” “part of garment”; “split,” with the object “calf sacrifice”; “tear,” with the object “garment”; perhaps also “take,” “remove,” with the object “vine”; and “destroy” with the object “human being.”37 Together these two words form the expression ‫כרת ברית‬, “cut a ‫ברית‬,” which has occasioned theories that at the forming of a covenant, animals were slaughtered and the carcasses were cut in two. The prime example here is the covenant with Abram, Gen 15:7–21, where animals are cut and Yhwh traverses between the parts. The word for “cut” here is, however, not ‫כרת‬, but ‫בתר‬. There is no terminological link between the ritual and the expression ‫כרת ברית‬. Jer 34:18 is discussed below. Genesis 17:9–14 is another text used in this connection, where the cutting of the foreskin of males is in focus. Exodus 4:25 uses the expression ‫ותכרת את־‬ ‫ערלת בנה‬, “[Zipporah took a flint] and cut off her son’s foreskin,” but this is the only case where ‫ כרת‬is used in connection with circumcision. The standard expressions for this procedure is found in Gen 17:11, ‫ונמלתם את בשר ערלתכם‬, “You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins.” Circumcision shall be “a sign of the covenant between me and you,” ‫( אות ברית ביני וביניכם‬Gen 17:11). Accordingly, “So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant,” ‫והיתה בריתי‬ ‫( בבשׂרכם לברית עולם‬v. 13). To circumcise is therefore ‫ מול‬in all cases except one (Exod 4:25), or the fuller expression ‫מול את בשר ערלה‬. Also in this case, there 36  For an incomplete list, see DCH 2:265. 37  DCH 3:465.

160

Kartveit

is no terminological link between creating the “sign of the covenant” and ‫כרת‬ ‫ברית‬. The most obvious understanding of ‫ כרת ברית‬is to consider it an idiomatic expression, like ‫שים לב‬, “place the heart,” = pay attention, ‫הקים דבר‬, “raise up a word,” = perform a promise (Neh 5:13), ‫הקים זרע‬, “raise up seed,” = create descendants (Gen 38:8), ‫נשא קינה‬, “lift up a dirge,” = intone a dirge (Amos 5:1), or similar expressions. The sense of ‫ כרת ברית‬would then be to make a ‫ברית‬, and if ‫ ברית‬has the sense of a “statement,” an “uttering,” “command,” or similar senses, the whole expression would carry the sense of “to make a statement,” “to make a solemn declaration,” “to give a command,” “to commission,” or similar senses, depending on the context. Such senses would work well in the relevant passages of Gen 15 and 17. After the animal ritual in Gen 15, God “makes a solemn declaration” that Abram and his descendants will inherit the land (vv. 18–21). Similarly, in Gen 17 God “makes a solemn promise” that Abram will be numerous (vv. 2 and 4), that he will be Abraham’s and his descendants’ God (v. 7). In the following verses, God “makes the command” to Abraham to practice circumcision (v. 9–14), in order that his promises be visible on the male body (v. 13). The expressions ‫( קום‬Hiphil) with ‫ ברית‬as the object (Gen 6:18 and many other instances), and ‫( עמד‬Hiphil) with ‫ ברית‬as object (Ps 105:10), would also have the sense of “making a declaration” or “announcing a decision.” Psalm 111:9 uses another verb: ‫צוה־לעולם בריתו‬, “command forever his covenant,” which indicates that ‫ ברית‬can take a verb of commanding. The expression is parallel to “He sent redemption to his people,” suggesting the understanding of ‫ ברית‬as a positive statement: “announce his decision.” A look at the other verbs used with ‫ ברית‬as an object creates the same impression. They all work better with an understanding of ‫ ברית‬as an uttering and similar senses than with the sense “covenant”: for instance ‫שבע‬, “swear,” ‫נגד‬, “tell,” ‫זכר‬, “remember,” ‫שמר‬, “keep,” ‫פרר‬, “break,” and many others. In Ezek 34:25 we read: ‫וכרתי להם ברית שלום והשבתי חיה־רעה מן־הארץ וישבו‬ ‫במדבר לבטח וישנו ביערים‬, “I will make with them a covenant of peace and banish wild animals from the land, so that they may live in the wild and sleep in the woods securely.” Here, the decision of peace is toward the people, the flock of Yahweh, entailing that animals are banished. God commands over nature. Finally, in some cases ‫ ברית‬occurs with other words coming close to a hendiadys, like Deut 7:9: ‫הברית והחסד‬. In the discussion of the senses of ‫ ברית‬scholars may have expected too much. In the case of “covenant” and “treaty” the mutuality of the covenant was in focus, and this is difficult to see in the texts. In the case of Kutsch’s suggestion “Verpflichtung,” “obligation,” the assumption may also have been too high.

Reconsidering the “ New Covenant ” in Jeremiah 31:31–34

161

To leave the mutuality and see the one-sided-ness in the senses was progress, but one must ask if his suggestion for the sense is still filled with too much content. The material I have surveyed here rather points in the direction of senses in the semantic field of a “relation,” between God or gods on the one hand and humans on the other, or between humans. The word covers the phenomena connected to creating a relation, and of announcing this relation. This relation is then to be filled with content, and the context often mentions acts or words that fulfil this task. We will look at some examples. 4.3 The Content of the ‫ברית‬: Exegetical Observations Genesis 9:9–17 tells that God will “raise up” (‫ )הקים‬his ‫ ברית‬between himself and Noah and Noah’s descendants: “that never again shall all flesh be cut off [‫ ]!כרת‬by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” (Gen 9:11). The content of ‫ ברית‬is a promise, and the sign of this promise is the “bow in the clouds” (v. 13). The promise is a ‫ברית‬, and the sign of the promise is the (rain)bow; in this way the ‫ ברית‬is filled with content. Exodus 24:3–8 is about Moses reading the law to the people, and after they promise to do what the Lord has spoken, he writes it down in a book, the book of the relationship with God, ‫ספר הברית‬. Moses then dashes half of the sacrificial blood on the people, saying, “Behold, the blood of the relationship that the Lord has made with you on the basis of all these words,”38 ‫הנה דם־הברית אשר‬ ‫כרת יהוה עמכם על כל־הדברים האלה‬. The content of the relation with God are the words of the law that the people promise to follow. In Exod 34:10 God promises to secure Moses’ position as a leader of the people by performing unique marvels, this is the content of creating a ‫ברית‬, a relation with Moses. Many texts speak of creating a ‫ ברית‬with the inhabitants of the land, for example Exod 34:11–16. The contents of the ‫ ברית‬are to tear down the altars and destroy other cultic objects, avoid worship of their gods, and not intermarry. This admonition is frequent in Deuteronomy, sometimes also with the word ‫ברית‬, as in Deut 31:16–20. The relation with the inhabitants of the land is described as a ‫ברית‬, and its contents are specified. In Deuteronomy, ‫ ברית‬is sometimes described in terms of the Ten Commandments, Deut 4:13, and the reference to the ‫ ברית‬on Horeb might have the same idea, Deut 5:2; 28:69; in the latter text a new ‫ ברית‬in Moab is added to the previous one on Horeb. Also, the reference to the tablets of the law may mean the Ten Commandments, Exod 34:28; Deut 4:13; 9:9, 15. The Ten Commandments are the contents of the relationship with God. This can also be referred to as the ark of the ‫ברית‬, or the ark of the testimony, as the tablets 38  My translation.

162

Kartveit

are located there (Exod 40:20). God’s relation with his people is specified in this case through the Ten Commandments, written on the tablets that were kept in the ark. Some texts mention God’s act in bringing Israel out of Egypt as the incident when a ‫ ברית‬was made: Lev 26:45; Deut 29:24; Judg 2:1; 1 Kgs 8:21; Jer 31:32; 34:13. The exodus was the ‫ברית‬: ‫בהוציאו אתם מארץ מצרים‬, Deut 29:24, can mean (the ‫ ברית‬that I made) “by bringing them out of the land of Egypt.” In Isa 42:6 we find: ‫ואתנך לברית עם לאור גוים‬, “I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations.” The same phrase also found in Isa 49:8: ‫לברית עם להקים ארץ להנחיל נחלות שׁממות‬, “(I have kept you and given you as) a covenant to the people, to establish the land, to apportion the desolate heritages.” In 42:6 ‫ ברית‬may parallel ‫אור‬, or the second phrase may carry the meaning further in a second step, while 49:8 specifies the content as being a ‫ברית עם‬: to reclaim lost and devastated land.39 These examples show that the ‫ ברית‬in itself was felt in need of being filled with content. As a “decision,” “statement,” “uttering,” “testimony” and so on, it needs specification. 5

What is a Metaphor?

Scholars often state that ‫ ברית‬is used metaphorically for the representation of the relationship between Yhwh and his people, Israel.40 It is pertinent to take a look at this question, as the understanding of ‫ ברית‬is connected to the understanding of metaphors. The analysis of metaphor has a long history, and the last decades of the previous century saw an upsurge in interest in this phenomenon in different fields.41 Also in biblical studies this phenomenon has been intensively studied by the last generation of scholars.42 The word “metaphor” is used with different 39  J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19a (New Haven: Yale, 2000), 306. 40  R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 614; Koch, “Covenant,” EBR 5:897; cf. Norman Whybray, Job, Readings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), who states that the word is used metaphorically for the covenant with the stones of the field. 41 Warren A. Shibles, Metaphor: An Annotated Bibliography and History (Whitewater, WI: The Language Press, 1971); J.P. van Noppen, Metaphor: A Bibliography of Post-1970 Publications (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1985); J.P. van Noppen and Edith Hols, Metaphor II: A Classified Bibliography of Publications From 1985 to 1990 (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1990). 42  For a good overview, see Bonnie Howe, Because Your Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter, BibInt 81 (Atlanta: SBL, 2005). Also relevant is

Reconsidering the “ New Covenant ” in Jeremiah 31:31–34

163

senses and in different contexts, for instance to describe the metaphysics of the Bible.43 As this study focusses on the word ‫ ברית‬used in the HB/OT, and its possible metaphorical sense, only a few methodological remarks are necessary. Ivor Richards set off a new wave of interest in metaphors in his essay from 1936, where he introduced the technical terms “vehicle” and “tenor.”44 His terminology was criticized by Max Black for being “an inconvenient fiction” and for vacillating in reference.45 Black’s criticism is valid: Richards uses “vehicle” as referring to the metaphorical expression, to the subsidiary subject, and to the connected implication system; and he uses “tenor” for the principal subject, for the implications connected with that subject, and for the resultant meaning of the expression in its context. On this background, it is no wonder that later authors use “tenor” and “vehicle” in a variety of ways. One must respect Richards’ usage of these words, but the most logical understanding of them would be that “vehicle” describes the word or expression used for the metaphor, and “tenor” the metaphorical meaning of this word or expression. In the sentence “how lonely sits the city” (Lam 1:1), “sits” is the vehicle for the meaning “is,” “exists.” The tenor of “sits” is “be,” “exist.” Richards’ study has one important implication for the understanding of ‫ברית‬, namely that metaphors typically are figurative uses of words or expression with senses referring to concrete entities: examples often used are “wolf” or “lion.” Both Richards and Black react against earlier views of metaphor, first of all against the substitution view of metaphor, according to which a metaphor is used in place of some equivalent literal expression. Black also opposed the comparison view of metaphor that a metaphor consists in the presentation of the underlying analogy or similarity. Instead, he suggested the interaction view of metaphor. Anders Jørgen Bjørndalen’s comment to this mutual interaction is to the point: at least one element of meaning that cannot refer to man must be present in the metaphor “wolf” in addition to the referable elements, in order for the word to function as a metaphor and not be eliminated as a metaphor altogether.46 There has to be an element of non-transference for the Sarah J. Dille, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah, JSOTSup 398 (London: T&T Clark, 2004). 43  See for example James R. Adams, From Literal to Literary: The Essential Reference Book for Biblical Metaphors, 2nd ed. (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2008). 44  I.A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, Mary Flexner Lectures (London: Oxford University Press, 1936). 45  Max Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1966), 47, n. 23. 46  Anders Jørgen Bjørndalen, Untersuchungen zur allegorischen Rede der Propheten Amos und Jesaja, BZAW 165 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986), 61, n. 244.

164

Kartveit

metaphor to work. The standard example discussed in these studies is “wolf,” and this has concrete and metaphorical senses. An interesting tool for the study of sense relations is the componential analysis.47 It has been used for analyzing metaphors.48 There are valuable insights from componential analysis for our purpose. One example is “personification” characterized as a metaphor, where the verbs in syntactical relation to the noun are used metaphorically: “how lonely sits the city.” The preceding examples are words with a concrete sense, used metaphorically: “sit,” “wolf.” The pertinent question in this context is, then, whether a word like ‫ ברית‬can be used metaphorically. Words like “justice,” “righteousness,” “love,” and other words and expressions with senses referring to abstract phenomena, are not used figuratively or metaphorically. Even if analyzed for their components, it is difficult to understand the use of any of these components in a way that can be characterized as “metaphorical.” If ‫ ברית‬has a sense that refers to a “covenant,” an “agreement,” an “obligation,” or similar phenomena, it would be hard to see which components are in function when the word “serves as the central metaphor for the representation of the relationship between Yhwh and his people, Israel.”49 With such referents it is more likely that it was used directly, literally. That one part in the covenant, agreement, or obligation is divine, does not necessarily make the use of the word figurative or metaphorical. On the background of the major theories of metaphor it is difficult to see how ‫ ברית‬was used metaphorically. If metaphorical readings are not likely, more plausible literal readings are needed, and this might lead to less forced readings of the text. 6

‫ ברית‬in the Book of Jeremiah

The word ‫ ברית‬is used twenty-four times in Jeremiah, which is eight to nine percent of the total number of uses in the HB/OT. It seems that the senses used here are consistent with the senses assumed earlier in this article. The deuteronomistic sermon in 11:1–13 refers to the ‫ ברית‬created by the exodus event (vv. 4, 7). As in some other texts (see above), ‫ ברית‬may have the sense “relationship” established by the exodus event. This is then coupled with “the words of the ‫( ”ברית‬v. 3), probably referring to the Decalogue. Of 47  Lyons, Linguistic Semantics, 107–17. 48  Bjørndalen, Allegorische Rede; Magnar Kartveit, Rejoice, Dear Zion! Hebrew Construct Phrases with “Daughter” and “Virgin” as Nomen Regens, BZAW 44 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013). 49  Koch, “Covenant,” EBR 5:897.

Reconsidering the “ New Covenant ” in Jeremiah 31:31–34

165

prime importance is the injunction against idolatry, which the people have ­violated. In the vein of Deuteronomy, punishment will reach the people for this violation. The breaking of the ‫ ברית‬is here described as ‫קשר‬, “conspiracy” (v. 9). This is an argument for seeing in the HB/OT a variant of the “suzerainty treaty” in the ancient Near East, as exemplified in Hittite vassal tracts or Assyrian ­documents.50 These treaties were made between an overlord and a vassal, with obligations to be followed by the vassal. These “suzerainty treaties” have made a large impact on HB/OT studies in the case of the book of Deuteronomy and in the case of ‫ברית‬, among other topics. Often, these studies have been conducted on the basis of earlier understandings of ‫ברית‬, and with the change in direction made by Kutsch, Weinfeld, and Barr more and more taken into account in recent studies, this comparison with Hittite and Assyrian treaties may have to be re-evaluated. Jeremiah 33:20–21 constitutes a case where ‫ ברית‬has the sense of “order,” “law”: ‫אם־תפרו את־בריתי היום ואת־בריתי הלילה ולבלתי היות יומם־ולילה בעתם׃ גם־‬ ‫בריתי תפר את־דוד עבדי מהיות־לו בן מלך על־כסאו‬, “(Thus says the Lord:) If any of you could break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night would not come at their appointed time, only then could my covenant with my servant David be broken, so that he would not have a son to reign on his throne (and my covenant with my ministers the Levites).” The translation “covenant” works poorly here, as God simply commands over nature. Here, the meaning is “order,” “system,” “law of nature,” its breaking means disorder, day and night will not arrive regularly, in their times. God commands over day and night. In v. 25 this understanding is spelled out: ‫אם־לא בריתי יומם‬ ‫ולילה חקות שׁמים וארץ לא־שׂמתי‬. Here, ‫ ברית‬and ‫ חקות‬are referring to laws of nature, “order,” “commanding.” In the Deuteronomistic sermon found in 34:12–20 there is a reference to a ritual: “the calf which they cut it in two and passed between its parts: the officials of Judah, the officials of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf” (v. 18b–19). This text is often referred to as a “covenant ritual,” as in Gen 15:9–10, 17. If the sermon here has a ritual in mind, it would be different from Gen 15 in several respects: the animals involved, as well as that humans pass between the parts of the calf instead of the fire (Gen 15:17). Carroll reminds us of the cases in Judg 19:29 and 1 Sam 11:5–11, with the cutting into pieces of a woman and of oxen, respectively,

50  Henry McKeating, The Book of Jeremiah, Epworth Commentaries (Peterborough: Epworth, 1999), 78f.

166

Kartveit

and the pieces used to send a message to the tribes of Israel.51 All of these texts may have played a role as background for the sermon here. Verses 18b–19 could be secondary in the context, as v. 18b comes abruptly after v. 18a and uses words from v. 18a (‫כרת‬, and ‫ עבר‬with a concrete meaning instead of the idiomatic use in v. 18a); there is a repetitive resumption of ‫( ונתתי‬v. 18, and in 20). Verses 18b–19 could be an insertion that makes use of the established idiom ‫ כרת ברית‬and creates a calf ceremony out of it, in order to add graphic elements to the message of judgment. This insertion may be based on a reading of Gen 15 where the “cutting” of animals and of ‫ ברית‬was seen as one unit, despite the use of different verbs. It is not a description of the ritual connected to creating the ‫ברית‬, but the idiom was used creatively. The sermon refers to the ‫ ברית‬of the exodus (v. 13), as liberation from the slave house, specified by the laws of manumission of slaves (Exod 21:2; Deut 15:1ff). Israel was given an obligation by the king, a ‫( ברית‬v. 8, 15), but disobeyed, and will be punished. 7

The “New Covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31–34 ‫הנה ימים באים נאם־יהוה וכרתי את־בית ישראל ואת־בית יהודה ברית חדשה׃ לא כברית‬ ‫אשר כרתי את־אבותם ביום החזיקי בידם להוציאם מארץ מצרים אשר־המה הפרו את־‬ ‫בריתי ואנכי בעלתי בם נאם־יהוה׃ כי זאת הברית אשר אכרת את־בית ישראל אחרי‬ ‫הימים ההם נאם־יהוה נתתי את־תורתי בקרבם ועל־לבם אכתבנה והייתי להם לאלהים‬ ‫והמה יהיו־לי לעם׃ ולא ילמדו עוד איש את־רעהו ואיש את־אחיו לאמר דעו את־יהוה כי־‬ ‫כולם ידעו אותי למקטנם ועד־גדולם נאם־יהוה כי אסלח לעונם ולחטאתם לא אזכר־עוד׃‬

The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt – a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.

51  Carroll, Jeremiah, 650.

Reconsidering the “ New Covenant ” in Jeremiah 31:31–34

167

The text uses standard verbs in connection with ‫ברית‬, but the combination ‫ ברית חדשׁה‬is unique in the HB/OT. The sense of ‫ הפר‬has been discussed in distinction to other verbs used with ‫ברית‬.52 In view of the collocations for ‫ברית‬, such discussions are difficult since the phrases often are idioms and variation in verbs does not necessarily mean a change in senses. It is possible to suggest the senses of “decision” or “declaration” for ‫ ברית‬in Jer 31:31–34. Israel broke the previous “decision,” “declaration,” which was made evident through the exodus event and followed by the law that was made public when written on stones and given at Sinai. The new53 “decision,” or “declaration” will consist in the law written on the hearts and minds of the people, resulting in the mutual relation between God and Israel, in the knowledge of God, and in the forgiveness of sins. This combination of effects might mean that the new ‫ ברית‬is not a renewed one, but “genuinely new.”54 If the new ‫ ברית‬is a new proclamation, decree from God, the ‫ תורה‬might be the same, but the divine initiative is new. This is not a renewal, but a novelty. Scholars have observed the use of the phrase ‫ברית עולם‬, “an everlasting covenant” (nrsv) in Jer 32:40; 50:5, and suggested this to be a variation on the phrase used here, ‫ברית חדשה‬. There are evident links between these three texts, and the expression with ‫ עולם‬is used for permanent laws (Num 18:19). The new ‫ ברית‬is to last. The enigmatic ‫ואנכי בעלתי בם‬, “though I was their husband” (v. 32), may be understood on the basis of another expression, as found in Judg 8:33: ‫ישימו‬ ‫להם בעל ברית לאלהים‬, “making Baal-berith their god” (cf. Judg 9:4, 46). The ‫בעל‬ ‫ ברית‬of the book of Judges has been understood as the god of a political treaty between Shechem and other city-states, or as a party in a covenant of people who worship him.55 However, if Baal-berith was a fertility god in Judg 9:27, it stands to reason that people expected him to be “Lord over promises,” – Lord of promises of prosperity, a “Lord of good expectations.” If this is the background for Jer 31:32, the verse would mean that Yhwh was the Lord of the first “decree,” “declaration,” and even if he was behind it, Israel broke it. He gave the first ‫ברית‬, and they broke it even though he was the Lord over it.56

52  See for instance William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II: Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 818. 53  The use of an adjective and not a passive verb form could point in the direction of the sense “new” rather than “renewed.” 54  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 466. 55  M.J. Mulder, “Baal-Berith,” DDD, 141–44. 56  The use of ‫ בעלתי‬may lead to seeing here a variant of Hittite and Assyrian suzerainty treaties.

168

Kartveit

The text envisages a new situation at an undefined point in the future (‫ימים‬ ‫)באים‬, after some time has passed, or later than the period of the present “covenant” (‫)אחרי הימים ההם‬. Also here, there is a reference to the exodus as the “day” when the ‫ ברית‬was made, but the continuation mentions the law, so the text

may have exodus-plus-Sinai in mind. The new situation will affect the houses of both Israel and Judah (v. 31), or the house of Israel (v. 33). These expressions echo Jer 31:27; 11:10b.57 At this future point in time, a utopian situation will prevail: internalized Torah, full fellowship with God, complete knowledge of him, and forgiveness of sins. Such an eschatological hope can be seen as “a fundamental weakness of biblical prophecy,” or a hope that “the deity will act to create the kind of society which previous generations failed so miserably to achieve.”58 The promise of a new “decision” could have been a strong prophecy in the winter between 588 and 587 BCE,59 in the exile, or later. 8 Summary

This contribution to the study of the book of Jeremiah has concentrated on the senses of ‫ברית‬, and the traditional reading as “treaty,” “agreement” between two or more parties has been called into question. Also, Kutsch’s proposal (“Verpflichtung,” “obligation”), might be too precise and narrow. The material for ‫ ברית‬in the HB/OT seems rather to point in the direction of a reduction in the meaning often attributed to the word. Rather than seeing in the word an expression for the relation between Israel and God on a grand scale, perhaps as a metaphor, the present study suggests considering the senses of ‫ ברית‬once more, to see if the understanding of the word has been overloaded in much scholarship. The linguistic definition of “metaphor” makes the use of this phrase unfit for the study of ‫ברית‬. The linguistic study of ‫ ברית‬deserves further study, much larger than the present one can offer. My proposal for senses have been “decision,” and the presentation of a decision, “decree,” “proclamation,” or similar senses. Only further work on the word and on the implication of the different scholarly approaches can bring us closer to an adequate reading of the word in its contexts.

57  William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 197. 58  Carroll, Jeremiah, 612–14. 59  Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 161.

Reconsidering the “ New Covenant ” in Jeremiah 31:31–34

169

Select Bibliography Barr, James. “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant.” Pages 23–38 in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart und Rudolf Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1977. Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Eichrodt, W. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Basel: Hinrich 1933. [ET: Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J.A. Baker. OTL. Louisville: Westminster, 1961.] Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Kartveit, Magnar. Rejoice, Dear Zion! Hebrew Construct Phrases with “Daughter” and “Virgin” as Nomen Regens. BZAW 44. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Koch, Christoph. “Covenant. I. Ancient Near East. II. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.” EBR 5:897–907. Kutsch, Ernst. “‫ ְבּ ִרית‬berît Verpflichtung.” THAT 1:339–52. [ET: TLOT 1:256–66.] Kutsch, Ernst. Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament. BZAW 131. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. Levin, Christoph. Die Verheiβung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Lyons, John. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II: Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Mendenhall, G.E., and G.A. Herion. “Covenant.” ABD 6:1179–1202. Perlitt, L, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT36. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1969. Richards, I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Mary Flexner Lectures. London: Oxford University Press, 1936. Weinfeld, M. “‫ ְבּ ִרית‬.” TWAT 1:782–807. [ET: TDOT 2:253–79.]

chapter 9

Yet Another New Covenant: Jeremiah’s Use of Deuteronomy and ‫שבית‬/‫שוב שבות‬ in the Book of Consolation Amanda R. Morrow and John F. Quant 1 Introduction The book of Jeremiah is closely tied to Deuteronomy.1 While it is often argued that the book of Jeremiah reuses and adapts texts, language, and themes from Deuteronomy, the relationship between both books is fraught with difficulty when one considers their complex compositional history. In comparing later additions to both books, is it possible to establish the priority of one text over the other? Furthermore, can we establish a sense of the direction for literary dependence between texts that have been retouched by later redactors? One phrase in particular that occurs in both books, in some (arguably) later redactions or revisions, is ‫שבית‬/‫שוב שבות‬. This phrase occurs a total of twenty-nine times2 in twenty-six verses of the ᴍᴛ, but only once in the book of Deuteronomy (30:3) and a full seven times in Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation (BoC).3 Deuteronomy 30:1–10 is drastically different in ideology and argument from the rest of the book. For Jeremiah, on the other hand, the BoC 1  See Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition Des Buches Jeremia (Kristiania: Dybwad, 1914); Emanuel Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of Its Textual History,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 211–38. Richard E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 2nd ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), 146–47, goes so far as to identify Jeremiah as the Deuteronomist. While his conclusions are doubtful, the fact that one can even propose such a possibility highlights the similarity in language, ideology, and style between these corpora. 2  Deut 30:3; Jer 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7, 11, 26; 48:47; 49:6, 39; Ezek 16:53; 29:14; 39:25; Hos 6:11; Joel 4:1 [ET: 3:1]; Amos 9:14; Zeph 2:7; 3:20; Pss 14:7; 53:6; 126:1, 4; Job 42:10; Lam 2:14. In what follows, all translations are our own, unless noted otherwise. 3  Sometimes called the “Book of Comfort” or, as Lundbom titles it, the “Book of Restoration.” See Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 97–98; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21B (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 386. The phrase occurs elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah, but only in the Oracles Against the Nations.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_010

Yet Another New Covenant

171

(Jer 30–33) contains some of the most positive oracles within this lengthy book.4 Neither of these sections are typically considered to be a part of the original stratum of their respective books, and the date of their respective composition is contested. It is our belief that ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬in Jer 30–33 is a literary allusion to Deut 30:3. Deuteronomy 30:1–10 not only provides the language of restoration, but already implicitly contains the new covenant idea that Jeremiah will make explicit in 31:31–34. Deuteronomy 30:1–10 stands at the beginning of an exegetical trajectory that will be furthered by the BoC. 2

Definition of Terms

Literary dependency is the large umbrella term used to discuss situations where one text uses another text and assumes a “diachronically expressed enterprise.”5 The most important point of literary dependence is that the author of the latter text6 must have knowledge of the former text,7 in order for the author to be able to use said text.8 Furthermore, one must question whether the alleged literary dependence fits into the argument or theology of the latter text, (i.e., thematic coherence).9 4  William  L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 22; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 98; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 368; Gary Yates, “New Exodus and No Exodus in Jeremiah 26–45,” TynBul 57 (2006): 2; Lundbom claims the “somber mood” of the core of the book of Jeremiah is later interrupted by “a mood of joyful anticipation” in the BoC that makes up the “bulk of Jeremiah’s hopeful preaching.” Baba Bathra 14a characterizes Jeremiah as more judgment-focused than other prophetic books. 5  Jeremy M. Hutton, “Isaiah 51:9–11 and the Rhetorical Appropriation and Subversion of Hostile Theologies,” JBL 126 (2007): 276. Hutton is referring specifically to literary allusion when discussing diachronic enterprises, but this can be applied to all forms of literary dependence. 6  By latter text we refer to the text that contains the allusion. 7  By former text we refer to the text that the reader has recognized as the referent text. 8  Richard  B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29–32; Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 34–44. This definition satisfies two of Hays’ seven tests for literary dependence (which he calls an “echo”): availability and historical plausibility. All of the tests are as follows: 1) Availability, 2) Volume, 3) Recurrence, 4) Thematic Coherence, 5) Historical Plausibility, 6) History of Interpretation, and 7) Satisfaction. These seven tests have “only shades of certainty” so the more tests that are passed, the more likely a literary allusion occurs. 9  Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 38.

172

Morrow anD Quant

It is possible to make an unintentional allusion, which can stem from idiomatic phrases that have been grammaticalized in the language and divorced from the original context. Inner-biblical literary dependency within the study of the HB often struggles to show direction of dependence due to the complicated compositional histories of each individual book.10 As Jon Paulien points out, “It is difficult enough, for example, to determine when a literary parallel exists. But the mere existence of a parallel is no guarantee that one author made use of another. It may only indicate that both had access to a common source …. [An] author may draw on the general climate, cultural traditions, and social structures of any place he/she has lived.”11 In the case of /‫שוב שבות‬ ‫שבית‬, we hope to establish that the phrase has not been grammaticalized into the Hebrew language, and further demonstrate that Jeremiah is intentionally alluding to Deut 30:1–10.12 3

Meaning of ‫שבית‬/‫שוב שבות‬

The idiomatic meaning of ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬has been debated extensively in scholarship,13 particularly in the historical derivation of the noun from either ‫( שוב‬to turn/return/restore) or ‫( שבה‬to capture/take captive). Holladay, in 10  Often this is called inner-biblical exegesis or inner-biblical allusion. See Lyle Eslinger, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category,” VT 42 (1992): 47–58; Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Clarendon, 1984); Michael A. Fishbane, “The Book of Job and Inner-Biblical Discourse,” in The Voice from the Whirlwind, ed. Leo G. Perdue and W. Clark Gilpin (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 86–98; Hays, Echoes of Scripture; Robert S. Kawashima, “Comparative Literature and Biblical Studies: The Case of Allusion,” Prooftexts 27 (2007): 324–44; Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127 (2008): 241–65; G. Brooke Lester, “Inner-Biblical Allusion,” Theological Librarianship: An Online Journal of the American Theological Library Association 2 (2009): 89–93; Geoffrey D. Miller, “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,” CurBS 9 (2011): 283–309. See further the annotated bibliographical essay in Bernard M. Levinson, Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 95–175. 11  Jon Paulien, “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in Revelation,” BR 33 (1988): 39. 12  For more on the device of literary allusion, see Ziva Ben Porat, “The Poetics of Literary Allusion,” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory 1 (1976): 105–28; Carmela Perri, “On Alluding,” Poetics 7:3 (1978): 289–307. 13  For the sake of space, we will not go into a discussion about the difference in the verb in the G- and C-Stem. For a full discussion, see William L. Holladay, The Root Šûbh in the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1958), 110–12.

Yet Another New Covenant

173

his book on the verb ‫שוב‬, claims the debate over the meaning of ‫שבית‬/‫שבות‬ is based on context.14 In two different articles on this phrase, Preuschen and Baumann both argued that ‫שבית‬/‫ שבות‬came from ‫ שבה‬meaning “to take captive.”15 This would render the phrase along the lines of “to turn the captivity,” “to return from captivity,” or “do away with a sentence of imprisonment.” Preuschen acknowledged that his translation does not fit in all occurrences of the phrase so he amended his translation to “turn the misfortune” for Job 42:10 based on context, but nowhere else does he amend his translation.16 Dietrich, who wrote an entire book on this phrase, provides a more universally applicable translation of ‫שבית‬/‫שבות‬, deriving it from ‫שוב‬, therefore, “to render a restoration.”17 In agreement with Dietrich, Bracke argued that ‫שבות‬ is an abstract noun coming from ‫שוב‬, but that it was later confused with ‫שבית‬ “captivity,” thus leading to the many Ketib/Qere variants in the ᴍᴛ.18 Lundbom also agrees that the noun is from the root ‫שוב‬, claiming that ‫שבית‬/‫ שבות‬is a cognate accusative of the verbal form.19 Historically, the phrase has been connected to the eighth century document Sefire 3.24, which has the phrase: ‫השיב אלהן שבית בית אבי‬, “the gods have rendered a restoration of the house of my father.”20 What is meant by this phrase, “rendered a restoration,” is that the gods have restored the ancestral house. The 14  Holladay, Šûbh in the Old Testament, 112. 15  Erwin Preuschen, “Die Bedeutung von ‫ שוב שבות‬im Alten Testamente,” ZAW 15 (1895): 21–22, 72–79; Eberhard Baumann, “‫שוב שבות‬, Eine exegetische Untersuchung,” ZAW 47 (1929): 29. 16  Preuschen, “Die Bedeutung von ‫ שוב שבות‬im Alten Testamente,” 72–79. 17  Ernst  L. Dietrich, ‫ שוב שבות‬Die endzeitliche Wiederherstellung bei den Propheten, BZAW 40 (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1925), 36, 51–60. 18 Rykle Borger, “Zu ‫ית‬/‫שוב שבו‬,” ZAW 66 (1954): 315–16; John M. Bracke, “šûb šebût: A Reappraisal,” ZAW 97 (1985): 234. For the K ‫שבית‬, Q ‫ שבות‬see Jer 29:14; 49:39; Ezek 16:53 (3x); 39:25; Job 42:10; Lam 2:14. For the K ‫שבות‬, Q ‫ שבית‬see Zeph 2:7; Ps 85:2; 126:4. Without any K/Q variation the noun ‫ שבית‬appears in Num 21:29 and Ezek 16:53 (2x), whereas ‫ שבות‬appears in Deut 30:3; Jer 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7, 11; 48:47; Ezek 29:14; Hos 6:11; Amos 9:14; Zeph 3:20; Ps 14:7; 53:7. 19  Jack  R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 818; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 355; cf. Dietrich, Endzeitliche Wiederherstellung, 1; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 110–14. 20  James  L. Crenshaw, Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 24C (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 174; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, rev. ed. (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995): 17; Jonas C. Greenfield, “Stylistic Aspects of the Sefire Treaty Inscriptions,” AcOr 29 (1965–66): 4; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 355; Johannes Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 135. The terminus ante quem is 740 BCE for the Sefire inscriptions.

174

Morrow anD Quant

use of ‫ שבית‬in Sefire provides possible Aramaic origins of this phrase. If this were the case, the nominal form must come from ‫ שוב‬not ‫ שבה‬and, therefore, mean to “render a restoration” or, more common in English translations, “restore the fortunes.”21 We prefer this translation. 4

‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬in the ᴍᴛ

‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬occurs in the densest concentration in Jeremiah’s BoC. With such a high number of occurrences, it is difficult to trace a relative chronology of the phrase’s use in the HB, but we will attempt to do so below. It is our argument that the BoC in Jeremiah is alluding to Deut 30:3 with the use of ‫שוב‬ ‫שבית‬/‫שבות‬, which means we must eliminate the probability of Jeremiah alluding to other places where the phrase occurs, including the Minor Prophets and Ezekiel.22 Andersen and Freedman set up the problem of this phrase with the general consensus that ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬is a late expression focused on the exilic period and that any occurrences in earlier texts are secondary.23 They recognize the affinities of the phrase’s use throughout the HB, but to the question “can literary dependence and its direction be established?” they answer, “we think not.”24 Instead they posit that “the expression was a common one, or at least known, that it is not restricted to exilic or captivity contexts, and that the case remains unproved. Admittedly, the usage is concentrated in the exilic prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel; but is that the period in which it began? It is difficult

21  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 377. It is important here to note that the etymology of a word does not always give credence to the semantics of a word. As Barr points out, tracing the historical etymology of a word or phrase does not mean that the semantics of the word or phrase is rooted in the historical etymology. See James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Hebrew (London: SCM, 1983), 105–60. 22  For the case of the writings in which this phrase occurs (Psalms, Job, and Lamentations), there is general consensus that these books postdate the book of Jeremiah, and therefore would not be the source of the allusion. It is possible that Lamentations draws upon Jeremiah in this case as it does in others. Furthermore, Job apparently utilizes this same motif of repentance and restoration. See Amanda R. Morrow, “Why has Deuteronomic Theology Infiltrated the Epilogue of Job?: The Double Allusion to a Deuteronomic Motif in Job 42:10–11,” (MTS Thesis, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, 2012). 23  Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos, AB 24A (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 924. 24  Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 924.

Yet Another New Covenant

175

to say.”25 While it is true that this phrase is common in a particular medium of prophetic speech in a particular time setting, allowing for historical plausibility of reuse, this alone does not preclude the possibility of tracing literary dependence through other means, such as thematic coherence and multiple intertextual patterns between texts.26 4.1 ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬in The Minor Prophets The use of ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬in Hos 6:11; Joel 4:1; Amos 9:14; and Zeph 2:7 implies that the phrase is post-destruction of the northern kingdom, yet pre-Persian, since there is no mention of our phrase in the books of Haggai, Zechariah, nor Malachi. Furthermore, in the purportedly pre-exilic prophetic books there is little doubt that the verses containing ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬are late additions. In summary, ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬in the Twelve appears in a context that presumes and addresses an exilic situation, as we will demonstrate below. In Amos, the phrase appears near the end of the book in the “epilogue to the epilogue to the Epilogue” of the book of Amos.27 This epilogue is decidedly divergent from the themes of the majority of the book; therefore, it has been argued that the final five verses of Amos are an addition.28 Amos 9:14, in the context of a late addition, predicts a restoration of “the fallen booth of David” and uses our phrase to promise a return and restoration from exile. The key to interpreting this verse is the “booth of David,” which assumes the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE.29 As Andersen and Freedman note, the difficulty with dating any text post-destruction in that there are no other indications of exile or return except the fallen booth.30 25  Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 924. 26  Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 37; Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 30. Hays calls the combination of multiple intertextual patterns “recurrence.” 27  Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 923. 28  Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 892–95; Donald E. Gowan, “The Book of Amos,” in Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, Daniel, The Twelve Prophets, NIB 7 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 426–27; Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 6, 288–95; Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Prophets Joel and Amos (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 352. Paul lists the major evidence for the secondary nature of the ending of Amos, such a use of plene spelling and a focus on Judah (David). Although Paul rejects the evidence he lists, the consensus he criticizes is more convincing than his alternative pleas. 29  Paul, Amos, 289. Again Paul disagrees with this argument, claiming Amos’ roots are in Judah and therefore, the use of David here makes sense, as Amos is describing “the future of Israel as a return to the halcyon golden age of David and Solomon.” 30  Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 893.

176

Morrow anD Quant

Since the phrase is formulated identically, “I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel,” McKane has suggested that Jer 30:3 draws upon Amos 9:14.31 While this seems like a possibility upon first glance, the thematic similarities between the two texts as a whole is less convincing. For example, the idea of a renewed Davidic covenant is atypical. It occurs only in Jer 25:5–6 and Jer 33:36. The latter is a late addition, absent from the ʟxx, which rewrites the former oracle and contains the only instance of ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬alongside ‫( דויד‬Jer 33:36).32 With regards to Hosea, we see the phrase appear just after the so-called Deuteronomistic section (Hos 5:15–6:3). It is considered a late addition betrayed by its focus on Judah, as opposed to the target audience of the book: Israel.33 Yee argues that Hos 5:15–6:3 is a late Deuteronomistic addition in part based on the use of the verb ‫ שוב‬throughout.34 Yee, therefore, connects ‫שוב‬ ‫שבית‬/‫ שבות‬in 6:11 with the earlier Deuteronomistic section through the use of the same verb.35 We must admit it seems plausible that Jeremiah alludes to Hosea from a perspective of thematic coherence with the marriage metaphor and use of ‫ עמי‬in both Hos 6:11 and Jer 30:3. However, the thematic coherence ends here, whereas the coherence with Deuteronomy is much greater, as we will demonstrate below. Zephaniah is closest in relative date of authorship and context to Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah; however, Vlaardingerbroek claims that “one cannot date Zephaniah” with any certainty.36 Zephaniah is purportedly set in the seventh century BCE, but arguments for setting the book before or after Josiah’s “reformation” are equally balanced on either side.37 Furthermore, scholars have argued that the entirety of Zeph 3:20 is an addition due to its 31  William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II: Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 752. 32  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 171, 537. There is some debate as to the provenance of Jer 23:5– 6. It is possible that Jeremiah was speaking to a southern audience, and thus ascribed to their messianic desires here. 33  Gale A. Yee, “The Book of Hosea,” in Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, Daniel, The Twelve Prophets, NIB 7 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 253. 34  Gale  A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation, SBLDS 102 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 144–45; Yee, “The Book of Hosea,” 253. In her earlier work, Yee refers to this addition as the product of the final redactor (R2) of the book of Hosea, who inserted this material along with 10:12 and 11:10–11, the only texts of hope in Hosea that she sees. 35  Yee, “The Book of Hosea,” 253. 36  Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, 17. 37  Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, 17.

Yet Another New Covenant

177

repeating of contentions found in 3:19 and elsewhere in the book.38 While Zephaniah does echo the earlier prophets, such as Amos and Proto-Isaiah, it is most similar in language to Jeremiah and Ezekiel.39 On the other hand, Zephaniah is similar in theology to Deuteronomy, particularly in that it is “strongly anti-syncretistic, viewing idolatry as the reason for the loss of the land and the exile of the people.”40 Berlin actually notes the strong similarity of Zeph 3:19–20 and Deut 30:3–4, claiming that Zephaniah is alluding to Deuteronomy here.41 If Jeremiah is alluding to Zephaniah here, which is itself most likely alluding to Deut 30, then it is an allusion to an allusion; however, we highly doubt this. Looking at Joel 4:1, it similarly speaks of Judah’s future restoration utilizing our phrase. Unlike the rest of the Twelve, there is “nothing in the book of Joel [that] offers a decisive clue in determining its actual historical context.”42 According to Wolff, “Joel is considerably later than its closest neighbors in the canon” in that Joel 4:1–3 assumes the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem that occurred in 587/586 BCE.43 Wolff argues that the terminus post quem for Joel is the second half of the fifth century BCE, but cannot provide a solid terminus ante quem.44 Wolff also argues that Joel’s use of ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬is connected particularly to Zeph 3:20 and Ezek 39:25, but that the beginning of 4:1 is connected to Jer 33:15 and 50:4, 20.45 Suffice it to say, it is highly improbable that Jeremiah was alluding to Joel due to date, although the reverse could be possible. 4.2

‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬in Ezekiel

‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬appears in three different passages in Ezekiel. The first is Ezek

16:53–54, which addresses the restoration of the three sisters: Sodom, Samaria, and Jerusalem. Immediately following a reprimand for infidelity where Jerusalem appears even more lewd and rebellious than Sodom and Samaria,

38  Marvin  A. Sweeney, Zephaniah: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 196; Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, 217. Sweeney notes that there are some who have argued for a postexilic redaction of parts or the entirety of 3:14–20. 39  Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, 217. 40  Adele Berlin, Zephaniah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25A (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 14–15. 41 Berlin, Zephaniah, 14–15; Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, 23. Vlaardingerbroek on the other hand, notes the similarity between Zeph 3:17 and Deut 30:9. 42  Crenshaw, Joel, 21. 43  Wolff, Joel and Amos, 4. 44  Wolff, Joel and Amos, 4. 45  Wolff, Joel and Amos, 76.

178

Morrow anD Quant

16:53 abruptly changes into an oracle of salvation announcing a change of fortune for all three cities – each will be restored to its former state. Similar to Amos, this section is a shift to the positive, leading some to question the provenance of vv. 53–58.46 While the positive upswing can be seen as divergent from the original author, both Eichrodt and Zimmerli claim that the connections to the previous verses only make it a turning point, not the product of a separate hand.47 Zimmerli further argues that the use of ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬in v. 53 presupposes an already known phrase that existed during the time of the prophecy of Hosea, although he does not mention that Hos 6:11 is possibly a late addition.48 The second verse in which our phrase occurs is Ezek 29:14 in an oracle against Egypt. The beginning of the oracle (29:1) gives the date that has been calculated to the seventh of January, 587 BCE, about a year into the siege of Jerusalem.49 According to Greenberg, unlike the previous locations where ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬occurs, here there is no question as to the provenance of this oracle, as it seems to fit the situation of the time.50 What is unique about the phrase here is that “restore the fortunes” does not mean to return Egypt to its previous glory and state, but to a “lowly kingdom.”51 Ezekiel 39:25 contains the final occurrence of this phrase, which refers to the restoration of the House of Jacob. According to Zimmerli, there is a more recent general consensus among commentators that Ezek 38–48 is from the hand of a later redactor.52 While the final eleven chapters are not stylistically different from the earlier material in that they emulate the style of the prophet, Zimmerli claims that “something new is happening here” that may not be ­original.53 With regards to 39:23–29, Zimmerli claims this is definitely the hand 46  Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 134. 47  Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, trans. Cosslett Quin (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 216; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, trans. Ronald E. Clements (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 351. 48  Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 351. 49  Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 601. 50  Greenberg, Ezekiel, 612–13. 51  The fall of the Egyptian empire in the LB was the end of the so-called “glory days” of Egypt, when the empire controlled much of the ancient Near East, including the Levant. It is unclear if “lowly kingdom” here is meant to be a reference to the state of Egypt in the LB or IA, or to differentiate from the restoration of Judah, who we can assume will be restored to former glory. Cf. Jer 48:47; 49:6, 39. 52  Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 302. 53  Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 302–04.

Yet Another New Covenant

179

of a redactor who “betrays his proximity to the language of the Psalms” through use of terminology found abundantly in the Psalms and not often elsewhere.54 There is, therefore, a possibility that the redactor is using ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬from where it occurs earlier in the book, or taking from later Psalms that employ this phrase. From these few examples above there is no conclusive evidence that Jeremiah used any of Ezekiel as the source for the BoC. Furthermore, while there is a possibility that Jeremiah used Hosea or Zephaniah as inspiration for the BoC, we hope to demonstrate below that Jer 30–33 has much more in common with Deut 30:1–10. 5

Deuteronomy 30:1–10

Deuteronomy forms the center of much of the HB as the capstone of the Pentateuch, the introduction to the Deuteronomistic History, and the constituting source for much of the ideology of Jeremiah and the HB as a whole. As Deuteronomy itself is a complicated composite document interwoven with other textual corpora, questions of priority and literary relationship are particularly thorny.55 The sizeable textual variants surrounding which mountain the altar in Deut 27 is to be built are the tip of the iceberg, signaling a much greater number of changes and developments hidden beneath the surface. Since Wellhausen, the majority of scholars have differentiated between the narrative frame of Deuteronomy and the legal collection of chs. 12–26, often with

54  Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 319–20. 55  On the major textual variants in Deuteronomy see Sidnie White Crawford, “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, ed. Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange, SBLSymS 30 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 127–40; Eugene Ulrich, “The Old Latin, Mount Gerizim, and 4QJosha,” in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera, ed. A. P. Otero, et. al., JSJSup 157 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 361–76; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 88. On Deuteronomy’s compositional history see Karin Finsterbusch, Deuteronomium: Ein Einführung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2012); Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991); Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und die historichen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 3rd ed. (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899).

180

Morrow anD Quant

several different layers or stages.56 While commentators can be more or less restrained in their dissection of the book, Van der Toorn is representative of the general consensus that 12–26 formed the book’s original core with a series of expansions or additions at the end, ch. 30 being among the latest. Recognizing Deuteronomy’s composite nature and the consensus of a relatively late date for ch. 30, we can focus upon that chapter where our phrase in question first appears. Deuteronomy 30:1–10 departs drastically from the ideology and argument of the rest of the book. Here Moses calls Israel to worship Yhwh alone “with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might” (Deut 6:4–5). This loyalty oath forms the basis of the covenant between Yhwh and Israel contained in the book.57 The treaty form concludes with the pronouncement of blessings for obedience, the threat of curses for disobedience, and exhorts the hearers to “choose life” by their obedience to Yhwh’s statutes. Chapters 27–29 emphasize the necessity of obedience. Even parts that assume the exile (i.e., Deut 29:25– 29) end with the acknowledgement that God has revealed Torah “in order to perform the words of this Torah” (29:29). When one comes to Deut 30:1, however, the motivational rhetoric changes. One finds the intriguing opening, “When all these have come upon you, the blessing and the curse” (‫)והיה כי־יבאו עליך כל־הדברים האלה הברכה והקללה‬. Instead of the conditional “if” (cf. Deut 28:15 ‫ )והיה אם־לא תשמע בקול‬we find the temporal “when” (cf. Deut 26:1, ‫)והיה כי־תבוא על־הארץ‬. Right after the exhortation to obey, Israel is now told that failure is inevitable. The combined blessings and curses – but especially the latter – will come to pass just as certainly as Israel’s eventual entrance into the land. The phrase “blessing and curse” betrays a knowledge, at minimum, of the demand for obedience and loyalty spelled out in the preceding chapters (esp. 27). The entire thrust of these previous exhortations, warnings, and lists of curses and blessings is that Israel has a choice to obey or disobey.

56  Gerhard Von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, trans. Dorothea Barton, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966); Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 9–16; Karel Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 150–51. 57  Reinhard  G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. John Bowden (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 126–29; Bernard M. Levinson, “Textual Criticism, Assyriology, and the History of Interpretation: Deuteronomy 13:7a as a Test Case in Method,” in “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation, FAT 54 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 138–43.

Yet Another New Covenant

181

Deuteronomy 30:1–10 proceeds to explain that not only is exile a possibility, it is a certainty, and the solution will not be found in human effort to obey or repent. Rather, “You shall return to Yhwh your God and you shall obey his voice according to all which I am commanding you today – you and your son – with all your heart and all your soul. And Yhwh your God will restore your fortunes … and Yhwh your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring so that you will love Yhwh your God with all your heart and with all your spirit that you may live” (vv. 2–6). What is commanded in 6:4 and chs. 27–29 is now only achievable by divine intervention. Human beings cannot, in this view, return to Yhwh or fulfill the demands of the covenant on their own. Instead, the ability to “love” Yhwh is made possible by the deity, turning the thrust of the preceding chapters upon its head. The very act of “circumcising” one’s heart, while commanded in Deut 10:12 and 16, is performed by the deity in 30:6. The uniqueness of this view of Deut 30:1–10 stands out both in contrasting it with what precedes and also with what follows. Past v. 10, the ideology of Deut 30 returns to the typical perspective of its previous chapters. In Deut 30:11, the narrative voice insists that the requirement to obey does not “exceed your ken” (‫ )לא־נפלאת הוא ממך‬nor is the command far off, being neither in heaven nor across the sea; instead the commandment is “very near you – in your mouth, in your heart – so that you can perform it” (30:14). This encouragement aligns congruently with Deut 29:28, and all of Deut 27–29 in expecting and insisting on the possibility of exact, willful obedience. Only with 30:1–10 does it strike a cacophonous chord. It is this particular and unique ideology within Deuteronomy that resonates and resounds within the BoC. Jeremiah 30–33 will repeatedly make use of the language of “restoring the fortunes” as well as “circumcision of the heart.” Jeremiah calls for a new covenant that will differ from that of Horeb/Sinai in that the deity will internalize the requirements upon their hearts (cf. Ezek 39:25–29). Deut 30:1–10, with its insistence on the inevitability of exile and the need for a divine “circumcision of the heart,” already contains an implicit step beyond Deuteronomy. The BoC in Jeremiah draws upon Deut 30:1–10 and makes explicit what is already implied, namely that Israel will break the covenant ratified on the plains of Moab and a new covenant will be necessary for restoration. 6

Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation

This unique section of the book of Jeremiah contains the only oracles of salvation and weal within the book (although it still contains oracles of judgment

182

Morrow anD Quant

intertwined with hope). According to Lundbom, the BoC was originally comprised of only chs. 30–31, with a later addition of 32–33.58 While there is much debate as to the origin of the entire text as truly Jeremianic, Lundbom argues it is “an integral part of the completed Jeremiah book, fulfilling as nothing else does Yahweh’s early promise to Jeremiah that his prophetic mission to Israel and the nations would be ‘to uproot and to break down … to build up and to plant’” (in reference to Jer 1:10).59 Many of the oracles in the BoC are set up for both Israel and Judah as the audience, and thus arguments about provenance are taken up concerning areas where the text is solely focused on only one nation. It is generally agreed that the final composition of the original BoC (Jer 30– 31) must postdate the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE, but that portions of the text may be considered earlier.60 For example, in places where the text is focused primarily on Israel or the northern kingdom, Volz and Rudolph have argued that the text has been recycled from earlier Jeremianic prophecies directed at the northern kingdom and dated to a time of pre-Josianic reform (cf. Jer 3:12–18).61 Gross goes so far as to make linguistic connections between the book of Hosea and Jeremiah to back such a claim of a northern audience for some oracles.62 While the final form was definitely compiled post-exile,

58  Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 22; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 368; Alexander Rofé, “The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah,” ZAW 101 (1989): 390–98. Holladay sees this larger section of chs. 26–36 as a separate scroll, whereas Rofé sees the separate scroll as containing chs. 25–36. 59  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 369. 60  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 370; McKane, Jeremiah, 749–51. 61  Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia (Tübingen: Mohr, 1958); D. Paul Volz, Studien zum Text die Jeremia, BWAT 25 (Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1920); cf. Karl Gross, Die literarische Verwandtschaft Jeremias mit Hosea (Borna-Leipzig: Universitätsverlag von Robert Noske, 1930), 32–33. Lohfink and Holladay, on the other hand, make the argument that the entirety of the Jer 30–31 comes from the time of Josianic reform and is intended for a southern, Judahite audience. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 156; Holladay, “The Years of Jeremiah’s Preaching,” Int 37 (1983): 146–59; Norbert Lohfink, “Der junge Jeremia als Propagandist und Poet: Zum Grundstock von Jer 30–31,” in Le Livre de Jeremie: Le prophete et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission, ed. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert (Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 1981), 351–68; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 370–76. 62  Gross, Jeremias mit Hosea; Holladay, “Years of Jeremiah’s Preaching”; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 370–72. On the concept of Jeremiah being influenced by Second Isaiah, see Umberto Cassuto, “On the Formal and Stylistic Relationship Between Deutero-Isaiah and Other Biblical Writers,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies I, ed. Umberto Cassuto (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973), 149–51. Holladay agrees with the connection of Second Isaiah and Jeremiah, but not the direction of dependence, which he claims is too difficult to

Yet Another New Covenant

183

some sections were written pre-exile and a majority of the text seems to have been compiled in the early exilic period.63 Jeremiah 31:31–34 predicts a new covenant that will both differ from and replace the one made “in the day when I took them by the hand to go out from the land of Egypt – my covenant that they broke – and I being a husband to them” (v. 32). This passage identifies Israel as a faithless spouse, a theme found both here and in Hosea.64 This new covenant is Jeremianic in origin and this covenant language sets Jeremiah up to be a “Prophet like Moses” (Jer 1:7) amounting to some of his “best preaching.”65 The phrase ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬occurs in seven verses throughout the BoC and creates an inclusio around the book.66 The first occurrence in Jer 30:3 is considered the beginning of the BoC (following the superscription in 30:1–2).67 There is little doubt that 30:3 is original, but the final line of the inclusio (33:26) appears to be a late addition purportedly added to conclude the hopeful section. The absence of 33:14–26 from the ʟxx demonstrates its lateness.68 Additionally, establish. Lundbom, on the other hand, claims that the connections have been overdrawn and claims that it is more likely that Second Isaiah used Jeremiah. 63  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 376. Contra Mowinckel, Komposition Des Buches Jeremia, 46–47; Konrad Schmid, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches, WMANT 72 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996). 64  Cf. Jer 3:1–11. 65  Lundbom; Deuteronomy, 43; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 465; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah Closer Up (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), 37. 66  Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 98; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 526; Patrick D. Miller, “The Book of Jeremiah,” in Introduction to Prophetic Literature, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, NIB 6 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 797. It is also interesting to note that the verb ‫ שוב‬is a connecting verb for this section. It occurs 111x in the book of Jeremiah as a whole, but 20x in Jer 30–33 alone. 67  Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 23; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–26, 377. Interestingly, ʟxx and the Targum take ‫שבית‬/‫ שבות‬to mean “captives, captivity.” The translation in the ʟxx may be in response to the situation of Jews living in the Hellenistic world (see Bob Becking, “Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation: A Textual Comparison. Notes on the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek Version of Jeremiah xxx–xxxi,” VT 44 [1994]: 158–59). The translation in the Targum is much more suspicious due to the Aramaic origin of this phrase. Either the translator did not recognize such an origin and had to puzzle out the meaning from a linguistic angle or he relied on the lxx translation, the latter of which is less likely but not impossible. 68  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 376, 537; Johan Lust, “The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah and History Writing in Jer 33 as a Test Case,” JNSL 20 (1994): 31–48. In certain cases Lundbom claims that “It is not possible to decide which text is a deviation of the other”; however,

184

Morrow anD Quant

the repetition of themes and phrases found elsewhere in the book (esp. 31:35– 36) and the focus on concepts not found elsewhere in the book give more reason to suspect it is an addition.69 Jeremiah 31:23 uses the phrase to introduce an oracle exclusively about Judah’s restoration – another late addition.70 Jeremiah’s criticisms of temple worship contrast with many honorifics for the temple in this section, supporting the general scholarly consensus that this section did not derive from Jeremianic material.71 The remaining occurrences of ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬are likely from Jeremiah. The oracle in 30:18–22 focuses on a southern, Judahite audience but talks about the restoration of the “tents of Jacob.” Rhetorically, Jeremiah uses “Jacob” to refer to all of the tribes (both Israel and Judah) as opposed to “Israel” which he uses to refer to the northern kingdom explicitly (cf. 30:7).72 Lundbom, following Bright, sees this as a true Jeremianic text, which is defensibly exilic.73 It cannot be addressing an earlier audience (pace Volz and Rudolph), since the promise is for a rebuilt city and that city cannot be Samaria.74 Similarly, 32:44 must address a southern, Judahite audience only. While the final form of the BoC is the result of redaction, “The prayer … has all the marks of a genuine eyewitness account,” according to Lundbom.75 Further, this verse concludes the narrative portion of the BoC, tying it back to the theme of restoration originally found in Jer 30–31 and reflecting the final siege of Jerusalem.76 ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬then occurs in two final verses: Jer 33:7 and 11, both followed by ‫“ כבראשנה‬as at first.” In 33:7, the restored fortunes are that of Israel and Judah,77 when larger chunks of the text are missing, there is more reason to believe that the ᴍᴛ is an expansion. 69  Joëlle Ferry, “‘Je restaurerai Juda et Israël’ ( Jr 33,7.9.26). L’écriture de Jérémie 33,” Transeu 15 (1998): 69–82; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 537. As mentioned above, one concept found hardly elsewhere in Jeremiah is the renewal of the David covenant. Another foreign concept to Jeremiah is the discussion of the renewal of the Levitical priesthood. 70  It is possible that “Judah” here is meant to refer to a united Israel and Judah under the heading of “Judah,” but this is less likely than the idea that this is a late addition from a Judah-focused redactor. See Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 453. 71  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 455. 72  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 404. 73  John Bright, Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), 284–287; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 404. 74  Rudolph, Jeremia; Volz, Studien zum Text die Jeremia. 75  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 501. 76  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 524. 77  Some ʟxx manuscripts have Jerusalem and Judah instead. While this would make sense for the audience, which, from the implied time of authorship, would be a Judahite audience, the majority reading may be more likely. See Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 532.

Yet Another New Covenant

185

whereas it is the fortunes of ‫“ הארץ‬the land” in v. 11. This section should be assigned to Jeremiah, who received these oracles while he was confined to the court of the guard.78 6.1 Excursus: Jeremiah’s Letter(s) to the Exiles While not explicitly a part of the BoC, Jeremiah’s Letter to the Exiles in ch. 29 is the beginning of the hopeful tone that will continue into the following chapters. ‫שבית‬/‫ שוב שבות‬occurs just once in this chapter (29:14), only in the ᴍᴛ and lacking in the ʟxx. It is possible that ‫שבית‬/‫ שבות‬in the ᴍᴛ is an expansion or an ʟxx omission due to haplography, as “one of fifteen arguable cases of haplography in the chapter.”79 Dated to the time of 594 BCE, there are some who claim this chapter came from Source B (Baruch?), who tied it together with the BoC through the use of our phrase.80 Mowinckel disagrees, claiming Source C (the Deuteronomist) wrote and compiled this chapter due to stereotyped and repetitive language so common in the C source.81 Nicholson, on the other hand argues that Jer 29:13–14 was written by Source C because it closely parallels Deut 4:29 and 30:1–5.82 Nonetheless, this chapter is connected to the BoC and should be considered in the discussion of thematic coherence below. 7

Literary Relationship of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah

That Jeremiah, as a book, draws frequently upon the themes and diction of Deuteronomy is a commonplace of scholarship and need not be disputed. Deuteronomy certainly was altered by various later scribes as the book’s textcritical variants show,83 and many of these scribes must have postdated some form of Jeremiah. While Holladay claims that the relationship of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah is so interdependent that the direction of dependence is often too difficult to discern, there seems rarely any passage or variant in Deuteronomy 78  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 527, 530. 79  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 345, 347, 354; Tov, “Literary History,” 232–33. The key to this discussion is in the use of the phrase ‫נאם־יהוה‬, which Lundbom claims is omitted in the lxx, whereas Tov argues it is added in the MT. 80  Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 23; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 346. 81  Mowinckel, Komposition Des Buches Jeremia, 24. 82  E.W.  Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970), 98–99; cf. Tov, “Literary History,” 211–38. 83  Stefan Schorch, “The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origins of Deuteronomy,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, ed. József Zsengellér, Studia Samaritana 6 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 23–37.

186

Morrow anD Quant

that warrants a theory of Jeremianic influence upon Deuteronomy.84 If the expanded copies of Exodus (the so called pre-Samaritan texts) are any evidence, it would seem that Deuteronomy tended to have a much greater effect upon other books rather than being influenced by them.85 Even in the ᴍᴛ, there are cases of Exodus harmonizing with Deuteronomy.86 With regard to the direction of dependence based on date, Lundbom claims that later supplements to the book of Deuteronomy (chs. 29–30 and 31–34) do not necessarily need to be exilic or postexilic, even though many have argued as such, since the evidence cited can also be compared to eighth century prophets.87 Even more so, some parts of these late additions, including the Song of Moses (Deut 32) are so influential on the earlier prophets and earlier writings of Jeremiah in particular (see Jer 25:28–29), that it seems the final form of these additions must be earlier than the book of Jeremiah.88 According to Holladay, the best argument of Jeremiah’s use of Deuteronomy is in places where “Jeremiah evidences a distortion or an ironic reuse of the material in Deuteronomy.”89 While this would be ideal, there is no evidence that such occurs between the BoC and Deut 30:1–10. In response to such a predicament, Holladay goes on to say that one must look at the “authenticity or

84  Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 61–63. While Holladay envisions reciprocity between Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, with the latter drawing on early stages of the former and the former being influenced in late strate by the latter, he does not discuss Deut 30:1–10 and the BoC in particular. Instead he discusses the relationship between Jer 30:21 and Deut 17:15, as well as Jer 1:7 and 9 and Deut 18:15–18. In both cases the question of direction of dependence is left open, but Holladay favors Jeremianic priority in both cases. 85  Bénédicte Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts? A Text-Critical Study of the so-called “Plagues Narrative” in Exodus 7:14–11:10, OTS 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Judith Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QPaleoExod and the Samaritan Tradition, HSM 30 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); Jeffrey Tigay, “Conflation as a Redactional Technique,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 53–89. The harmonizations in 4QPaleoExodm and the SP are one example. 86  As but one example, in the MT, Exod 32:9 expands by adding the phrase ‫ראיתי את־העם‬ ‫ הזה והנה עם קשה־ערף הוא‬from Deut 9:13, an expansion made clear by its absence in the ʟxx of Exodus. For other examples see, Tigay, “Conflation as a Redactional Technique.” 87  Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 6–19, 800. 88  Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 38, 820, 852–57; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 110–114. In his commentary on Deuteronomy, Lundbom talks about exile by noting that in the late eighth and early seventh century it was “a deeply troubling reality for all Israelites, north and south,” and therefore exile and restoration language does not necessarily mean the events of 587/586. 89  Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 54.

Yet Another New Covenant

187

nonauthenticity of a given passage” in both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.90 As we have problematized above, there is a complex compositional history for both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. While there are still some unknown variables for the dating of these texts, these general trends and observations listed above make viewing Jeremiah’s dependence upon Deuteronomy, rather than vice-versa, the more elegant and probable solution. 8

Common Themes in Jeremiah’s Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy 30

Lundbom claims that Jeremiah “picks up on” the language of Deut 30:1–10 in the BoC.91 For the purpose of this essay, the primary item we have considered is ‫שבית‬/‫שוב שבות‬. Yet, in order to grasp the importance of the literary reuse, we must look at the larger blocks of text in which this phrase occurs to make more intertextual patterns and thematic comparisons. When one compares Deut 30:1–10 and Jer 29–33, some common themes arise, namely: 1) new covenant; 2) repentance and restoration; 3) gathering of those dispersed; and 4) circumcision of the heart. 8.1 New Covenant Deuteronomy 30:1–10 contains assurance of Yhwh’s fidelity to the people of Israel, even though it is implied in the text that the people will break the covenant which was renewed at Moab (Deut 29:11). Jeremiah 31:31–34 announces ‫ברית חדשה‬, “a new covenant,” that will not look like the one made with their ancestors, the one made at Horeb/Sinai and renewed at Moab, which they broke. This covenant will replace the old covenant. The entirety of the BoC in Jeremiah is, thusly, set up as yet another new covenant. This is further demonstrated in Jer 32:38, where Yhwh claims ‫כרתי להם ברית עולם‬, “I will establish (lit. cut) an everlasting covenant with them,” one in which Yhwh will change human hearts once the people repent and are restored. As Lundbom claims, in Jer 31:33; 32:39 as with Deut 30, “Yahweh must bring about the change; the people cannot do it themselves.”92

90  Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 54. 91  Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 818. 92  Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 38, 819.

188

Morrow anD Quant

8.2 Repentance and Restoration According to Lundbom, “Repentance in exile and subsequent restoration is anticipated in Deut 30:1–10.”93 The key verb of repentance and restoration is ‫( שוב‬to turn/return), which occurs a total of seven times in Deut 30:1–10, constituting 20% of the occurrences in the entire book.94 In Jeremiah, this phrase occurs a total of twenty-nine times, constituting more than 25% of the occurrences in Jeremiah. In both Deut 30:2–3 and Jer 29:14, restoration of fortunes comes after the people have repented to Yhwh.95 Further in Jer 31:18 the oracle has Ephraim (that is, the northern kingdom) cry out “restore me so that I may be restored,” giving credence to the idea that repentance and restoration go hand-in-hand for this new covenant. 8.3 Gathering of the Dispersed As a part of the punishment for breaking the covenant, Yhwh disperses the people into exile. Yhwh claims to have driven (‫ )נדח‬them to the furthest reaches of the earth/heaven (Deut 30:4; Jer 29:14; 32:37)96 and dispersed (‫ )פוץ‬them throughout the nations (Deut 30:3; Jer 30:11).97 Now Yhwh must gather (‫)קבץ‬ the dispersed back to the land (Deut 30:3–4; Jer 29:14; 31:8, 10; 32:37).98 8.4 Circumcision of the Heart Finally, as a sign of the covenant, Yhwh will circumcise the heart of the people and their descendants (Deut 30:6) in order that they might keep the covenant. According to Lundbom, the language of circumcision of the heart is picked up by Jeremiah, “but its first use is here in Deuteronomy.”99 Furthermore, the law (of the new covenant) will also be inscribed upon the heart of the people (Jer 31:33) and the fear of Yhwh will be upon their heart (Jer 32:39).

93  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 443. 94  Here is where ‫ שוב‬occurs in the book of Deuteronomy: 1:22, 25, 45; 3:20; 4:30, 39; 5:30; 13:18; 17:16 (2x); 20:5, 6, 7, 8; 22:1 (2x), 2; 23:14, 15; 24:4, 13 (2x), 19; 28:31, 60, 68; 30:1, 2, 3 (2x), 8, 9, 10; 32:41, 43. 95  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 377. 96  Driver, Deuteronomy, 329; cf. Jer 8:3; 16:15; 23:3, 8; 24:9; 27:10, 15; 46:28. 97  Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 424; cf. Jer 9:15, 13:24, 18:17. The root ‫( זרה‬to scatter) also occurs in Jer 31:10; 49:32, 36. 98  Cf. Jer 23:3. 99  Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 39, 819; cf. Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26.

Yet Another New Covenant

9

189

Literary Relationship of Jer 29–33 and Deut 30:1–10

From the common themes and examples above, there is little doubt that one text used another. Now the question can be asked: If this ideology and language pervasive in Jer 29–33 is found only in Deut 30:1–10, why insist upon Jeremiah drawing from Deuteronomy and not for a late Jeremianic addition to Deuteronomy? Our answer: the direction of literary dependence makes the most sense from the direction of Jeremiah using Deuteronomy.100 Deuteronomy 30:1–10 stands out from its surroundings and also differs from the passages in Jeremiah that appear most like it. The BoC reuses the language of “restoring the fortunes” and the key idea that Israel’s (and thus Judah’s) failure and exile were unavoidable, yet the specific stipulations of the earlier covenant, so central to Deuteronomy, are lacking in the BoC – there is no mention of blessings or curses, nor the choice of obedience. Conversely, Jeremiah follows Hosea in viewing the covenant as a marriage agreement between Yhwh and Israel, a concept completely absent in Deut 30. These differences, concomitant with the two books’ similarities, argue for Deut 30:1–10’s independence both from its surrounding context and from Jeremiah, as well as the likelihood of Jeremiah’s dependence upon this passage. 10 Conclusion The BoC in Jeremiah stands out from the rest of the book by its positive outlook and oracles of salvation. The preponderance of the phrase “restore the fortunes” seems a deliberate method of structuring Jer 30–33. At the core of this collection is a prediction of a new covenant that will replace that of the wilderness generation, and the central development that Yhwh places Torah within human hearts. Israel and Judah broke the previous pact, but now Yhwh will make a new one contingent on Yhwh’s action, not theirs. We have proposed that Jer 30–33 draws its use of “restoring the fortunes” from Deut 30:1–10, where the concept of yet another new covenant first emerges. Deuteronomy – a speech on the plains of Moab revisiting and revising the instruction associated with the Horeb/Sinai event – presents itself as a new covenant. Deuteronomy 30:1–10 declares the obsolescence of Deuteronomy itself in the face of human failure and the need for Yhwh to “circumcise hearts.” Jeremiah 31:31–34, within the context of the BoC, draws upon this concept and makes it 100  See the test on “Satisfaction” in Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 31.

190

Morrow anD Quant

explicit: Yhwh will need to make yet another new covenant and make changes to human hearts. Selected Bibliography Baumann, Eberhard. “‫שוב שבות‬, Eine exegetische Untersuchung.” ZAW 47 (1929): 17–44. Borger, Rykle. “Zu ‫ית‬/‫שוב שבו‬.” ZAW 66 (1954): 315–316. Bracke, John M. “šûb šebût: A Reappraisal.” ZAW 97 (1985): 233–244. Bright, John. Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. Dietrich, Ernst L. ‫שוב שבות‬, Die endzeitliche Wiederherstellung bei den Propheten. BZAW 40. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1925. Driver, S.R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Holladay, William L. The Root Šûbh in the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1958. Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah Closer Up. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II: Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia. Kristiania: Dybwad, 1914. Preuschen, Erwin. “Die Bedeutung von ‫ שוב שבות‬im Alten Testamente.” ZAW 15 (1895): 1–74. Tov, Emanuel. “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of Its Textual History.” Pages 211–238 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985.

chapter 10

The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah and Their Historical Roots in Israel Herbert B. Huffmon 1 Introduction The primary textual appearance of the Rechabites in the Hebrew Bible is in Jer 35, editorially assigned (35:1) to the period of King Jehoiakim (608–598), more specifically to a time when Judah was being threatened by the forces of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon who had recruited Aramaean allies (35:11) to assist in his attempt to subjugate Judah. The focus of Jer 35 is Jeremiah’s engagement with the Rechabites, a community with a long tradition of loyalty to a rather distinctive “rule” that they themselves assign to J(eh)onadab,1 whom they define as “our (founding) father” (Jer 35:6). Jehonadab is mentioned in 2 Kgs 10 as a contemporary of the usurper and dynastic founder, Jehu. This Rechabite group is important for Jeremiah because of its enduring loyalty to the “rule” of Jehonadab for about two and a half centuries, which means eight or more generations. It is not Jehonadab himself who is the model of loyalty but the Rechabite followers, whose long-time loyalty – not the individual rules – becomes for Jeremiah a model that the people of Judah and Jerusalem need to imitate. As Mulder observed, there is already a contrast between the Rechabites, who are loyal to a founding “father,” and Jeremiah, whose loyalty centers on the one God, Yahweh.2 God’s command through Jeremiah challenges the disloyal people of Israel to “take instruction” from these somewhat strange Yahwistic Rechabites who show intense loyalty to a human, ancestral leader (v. 13). As the exemplary teachers of Israel, Jeremiah advises the Rechabites that “there will be an unending line, through Jehonadab ben Rechab, standing before me” (v. 13).3 Though this may be a priestly role (Jer 33:18), it is an

1  The longer form of the founder’s name predominates in the MT, whereas the shorter form reigns in the OG. Hereafter I will cite only the longer form. 2  Martin J. Mulder, De Rekabieten in Jeremia 35, SKC 68 (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1990), 9–10. 3  Unless noted otherwise, all translations are my own.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_011

192

Huffmon

intercessory role that conceivably will be filled by Rechabites, in the spirit of the intercessory prophets who, like Jeremiah, stand before Yahweh.4 2

Jeremiah’s Message and the Encounter with the Rechabites

The message of the prophet Jeremiah focuses especially on the present disloyalty of the people and the ultimate consequences of that disloyalty, described in Jer 34:2 as God delivering Jerusalem into the hands of the Babylonians who will burn the city down, albeit that oracle is set in the time of King Zedekiah (597–586), thus a few years later than the ostensible period of Jer 35, that of the prior king, Jehoiakim (608–598). Moreover, Jer 34:8–22 describes a covenant that King Zedekiah and the people entered into, a special covenant of release of fellow Hebrews, male and female, who had been enslaved, a covenant which was quickly violated. This violation is regarded by Jeremiah as a fundamental act of disloyalty, prompting God to make the cities of Judah desolate. Thus, editorially the consequences of quick disloyalty are described in detail prior to the special attention given to the long-term loyalty on the part of the Rechabites, the centerpiece of Jer 35. Jeremiah 36 again makes reference to King Jehoiakim, specifically his fouth year (Jer 36:1), and presents Yahweh’s request for a written record that includes “all the words that I have spoken to you (Jeremiah) … from the time of Josiah to this day,… all the disaster that I am planning to bring about for them” (Jer 36:2– 3). These cumulative words might lead the people to recognize their disloyalty and to repent so that God might pardon them. (This is the famous scroll reportedly written down by the scribe Baruch ben Neriah [Jer 36:4]). Thus the editors of the book of Jeremiah bracket Jer 35 with references to Jeremiah’s repeated call for obedience, even the written record, supposedly, of all of Jeremiah’s oracles up to that time. Even though editorially Jer 35 is out of chronological sequence, the present arrangement places the example of the long-term loyalty of the Rechabites in the midst of the disastrous reigns of the last two kings of Judah. The theme of Jer 35 fits with the overall precarious situation of Judah toward the end of the seventh and early sixth centuries, whichever king is at hand. The people of Judah 4  On the intercessory role of the prophets, see Yohanan Muffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 9–48. Muffs, however, does not refer to Jer 35. Note the comments by Mulder, De Rekabieten in Jeremia 35, 19–20 and 33–34, where he describes the Rechabites’ almost fanatical loyalty, like that of others such as the prophets who form part of the backbone of later Israel.

The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah

193

are at risk of imperial domination and even exile, understood by Jeremiah as forms of divine punishment. A key motif in the texts of Jeremiah, accordingly, is the essential element of the people being faithful. Jeremiah 35, with its message of loyalty to Yahweh, is central to the whole career of Jeremiah and as such appropriate at any point. The biblical editors were not being careless. 3

The Long-Term Loyalty of the Rechabites

The example of the enduring loyalty embodied by the Rechabites as expressive of Jeremiah’s message is particularly impressive because it comes at a time when the people of Jerusalem, the key city of Judah, are Jeremiah’s immediately targeted audience. The people of Jerusalem are clearly reminded of the character of the Rechabites by their specific presence as refugees in the city during a time of neo-Babylonian military threat to the larger territory of Judah. For the Rechabites are not normally resident in any city, let alone the major city, but are, in accord with their “rule,” primarily located in the more open areas away from centers of population. To effectively appeal to them as an example of loyalty, Jeremiah takes advantage of the unusual instance of their presence in Jerusalem as refugees from the neo-Babylonian show of force and potential onslaught against Judah. It is also important to note that the Rechabites, though a comparatively small community as reported in Jer 35, were not unknown to the people of Jerusalem. The people in Jerusalem must have had an awareness of the history of the Rechabites and their “founding father,” Jehonadab, who had played a very important role in Jehu’s coup, that is, Jehu’s overthrow of the Omride dynasty in Israel, the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 10), and his destruction of the Baal temple in the capital city, Samaria. Jeremiah’s example of the Rechabite loyalty would have had little power if the people had been unaware of the history of the loyalty of the Rechabites, going back two and a half centuries. The narrative in Jer 35 may seem somewhat incomplete, but there was a long-term kind of ongoing awareness. For the Jerusalemites, the continuing presence of the Rechabites in their city would draw attention as an “exotic” group.5 5  This helpful label derives from the article by Steed Vernyl Davidson, “‘Exoticizing the Other’: The Curious Case of the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35,” in Prophecy and Power: Jeremiah in Feminist and Postcolonial Perspective, ed. Christl M. Maier and Carolyn J. Sharp, LHBOTS 557 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 189–207. Many commentators have described Jeremiah’s encounter with the Rechabites as bizarre. Davidson’s label for the Rechabites as exotic is very helpful for pointing to how the special attention given to the Rechabites strengthens the

194

Huffmon

What that attention enabled was Jeremiah’s highlighting of their enduring loyalty. Jeremiah 35:16 specifically notes that the present Rechabites “have upheld … the charge of their Father with which he charged them.” This is not presented as a “one-generation” phenomenon, as some scholars have intimated. If the longevity were, as van der Toorn allows as possible, “a later invention that was projected back upon the past in order to endow it with a lustre of antiquity,”6 it would have to have been done very convincingly for the Rechabite model of loyalty to be genuinely useful to Jeremiah’s rhetoric. But easily the simplest reading is that the broad lines, if not all the details, of the Rechabite group took form in the northern kingdom in association with at least Elisha, and perhaps ultimately Elijah who, according to the tradition of 1 Kgs 19, had been charged with anointing the politically ambitious Jehu. So the combination of the Rechabites’ history, including their migratory presence in both the northern kingdom, the only known locus of Jehonadab himself, and later in Jerusalem, where they are temporarily but conveniently present in the context of the Babylonian threat, created a special opportunity for Jeremiah and his message of the absolute necessity of basic loyalty to Yahweh. Effective speaking involves taking advantage of special opportunities, and Jer 35 represents a classic opportunity for Jeremiah to take advantage of at least some Rechabite followers of Jehonadab being visibly on hand. For the large audience of the people in Jerusalem the Rechabites were a portable billboard. 4

The Occasion

Jeremiah 35 begins with the notation of a divine command to the prophet Jeremiah that he visit the community (“house”) of the Rechabites then present in Jerusalem, as noted, and request them to come to a major place of assembly, namely, the temple of Yahweh, and specifically to the chamber of the Bene

publicizing of his theme of loyalty. Davidson’s own development of the implications of the label, however, is another matter. 6  Karel van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life, SHCANE 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 348. Note also Robert P. Carroll’s comment that “[t]he Rechabites do not figure in any of the stories of the fall of Jerusalem, so perhaps [Jer] 35 should be treated as a fabricated story rather than a historical account (Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986], 656). However, a fabricated story would have no rhetorical power and, for that matter, the Jeremiah text does not require the Rechabites to have remained in the city until its fall.

The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah

195

Hanan ben Yigdalyahu, a Man of God.7 Once gathered inside the temple complex, a frequent location for Jeremiah’s messages, Jeremiah was to offer them some wine (v. 2) in a setting which suggests the propriety of offering hospitality. Jeremiah must have been already familiar with the Rechabites and their customs, among which abstention from wine offered a special opportunity to highlight their loyalty to their founder’s “rule.” The Rechabites – identified more specifically as Ya’azanyah ben Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) ben Habașșanyah, his brothers, and all his descendants, and the whole community (“house”) of the Rechabites (Jer 35:3) – consented and came along with Jeremiah who brought them into the temple complex, doubtless gathering a crowd in the process. Once there, Jeremiah set out bowls of wine and drinking cups for the Rechabite community – presumably at this point men only, though Jeremiah 35:8 specifies “we, our wives, our sons, and our daughters,” so they all followed the same regimen. Jeremiah then hospitably invited them to drink some wine, like the welcoming offerings to pre-monarchic David and his band (1 Sam 25:18; 2 Sam 16:1).8 The response to Jeremiah’s seemingly generous hospitality was clear and unanimous, as the response is repeatedly expressed with the democratic “we” in vv. 6–11, pointing to a basically homogeneous community. They speak as a group, citing the guiding “rule” of Jehonadab ben Rechab, their founding “father” (vv. 6, 8, 10), and declining the offer of some wine. They cite their defining “rule” that presumably was basically established in the middle of the ninth century BCE by Jehonadab ben Rechab: “You (plural throughout) shall not drink wine, you and your descendants forever. Nor shall you build a house or sow seed or plant a vineyard or possess such, but you shall always live in tents, so that you may have long lives on the good earth (‫ )אדמה‬where you are sojourning” (vv. 6–7). The “rule” is not just for their individual lifetimes but for the whole duration of the Rechabite community itself, already many, many

7  This chamber associated with a “Man of God” must have seemed an appropriate location, as that same title is especially assigned to Elisha and Elijah, with whom the Rechabite “father,” Jehonadab, surely felt special affinity. 8  See James F. Ross, “Wine,” IDB 4: 849–52, esp. 851.

196

Huffmon

generations old.9 It was apparently a small community, but its enduring loyalty was a model for all Israel.10 The Rechabites add that their presence in Jerusalem is an anomaly, due to the military threat of neo-Babylonian and allied Aramaean forces. But their unusual presence in Jerusalem does not mean that they are now living in houses instead of tents, thus violating their “rule.” Stepping inside a building in the temple complex, for example, is not a violation of their tenting lifestyle.11 The response of the united Rechabite group to Jeremiah’s invitation to have some wine was exactly what Jeremiah wanted. The Rechabites cited their “rule” to explain that their affirmed lifestyle did not include drinking wine, building houses for themselves, sowing seed, or planting vineyards, but did specify living in tents. Furthermore, this “rule” is identified as having been established by Jehonadab ben Rechab, who, as Jeremiah and his audience were aware, was a contemporary of King Jehu from about two and a half centuries earlier. That is, the “rule” has been in effect for a long time. Their loyalty to their “rule” was not meant to be short lived, like many of the Nazirite vows, nor even for

9  In the most insightful and extensive discussion of the Rechabites, van der Toorn argues that “it is a matter of speculation whether or not the Rechabites had maintained their customs up to the day of Jehonadab; there can be little doubt, though, that Jehonadab did not introduce new rules. Due to Jehonadab’s promulgation of ancient customs as a binding rule, however, what used to be a natural lifestyle became, in a sense, artificial. These rules were originally designed to cope with a specific ecological situation. Transposed to a different context, they looked like an anachronism. Yet they were not meaningless; only their purpose had radically changed.” See Karel van der Toorn, “Ritual, Resistance, and Self-Assertion: The Rechabites in Early Israelite Religion,” in Pluralism and Identity: Studies in Ritual Behaviour, ed. Jan Platvoet and Karel van der Toorn, (Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 229–59 (citation from p. 243). From the perspective of Jer 35, however, Jehonadab represented at least a significant new departure, though the prior customs of the Rechabites, presumably not radically different, are indeed a matter of speculation. 10  Jon D. Levenson, “On the Promise to the Rechabites,” CBQ 38 (1976): 508–14, emphasizes that “the promise to the Rechabites [Jer 35:18–19] is a type of covenant … [in which] fidelity of one generation … wins for the clan the gift of eternal survival. Jeremiah … believed that obedience in one generation could, in some mysterious way, secure for future generations the gift of life” (514). Be that as it may, Jeremiah apparently had much more confidence in the persuasive power of a more sustained loyalty. 11  Some commentators have regarded the presence of the Rechabites in Jerusalem as a violation of their “rule.” Taking refuge in a city during a time of military strife does not require building houses or living in houses. Note that in the contemporary Near East there are many Bedouin and refugee tents pitched on city land.

The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah

197

an individual lifetime, as with other Nazirite vows, appropriate as these vows were.12 But the “rule” was followed by the multi-generational Rechabite “house” for over eight generations or more. The Rechabites, temporarily in Jerusalem, were a sort of portable billboard proclaiming that loyalty could be quite enduring. It should not be assumed, however, that the complete “rule” antedated Jehonadab himself and the time of Jehu’s rebellion, though there must have been some significant continuity with their prior life-style. 5

The Relevance of the Rechabite “Rule”

It is important to note, as virtually all commentators do, that Jeremiah is not asking the people to themselves adopt the Rechabite “rule” which includes, as taken for granted, an exclusive relationship with Yahweh. The particularities of the “rule” are not at issue for the people of Judah (and Israel) in general. What is important is the example of long-term loyalty that the prophet Jeremiah can hold up as a model for the kind of loyalty or faithfulness that all those who claim – or are now asked to claim – loyalty to Yahweh should embody. Jeremiah is not endorsing some sort of “nomadic ideal” that the people of Israel should adopt, though the model of a “nomadic ideal” has been argued for by various scholars, beginning, curiously, with an English language article in The New World by the German scholar, Karl Budde, in 1895.13 6

Jehonadab ben Rechab

The background of Jehonadab, not reviewed in Jer 35, is an essential ingredient in this example of loyalty that Jeremiah cites. Without the historical depth and the emphasis on zealous and exclusive loyalty to Yahweh represented by Jehonadab ben Rechab, the “father” of the Rechabites who lived in the time of the usurper king, Jehu, the later example of Rechabite loyalty would not provide a strong message. Jehonadab, the founder, played a supporting role in the 12  On the Nazirites, see Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 355–58. 13  Karl Budde, “The Nomadic Ideal in the Old Testament,” The New World 4 (1895): 726–45. Budde published a German version in 1896: “Das nomadische Ideal im Alten Testament,” Preussische Jahrbücher (1896). The major advocacy by an English language scholar was provided by John W. Flight, “The Nomadic Idea and Ideal in the Old Testament,” JBL 42 (1923): 158–226.

198

Huffmon

coup led by Jehu, a military leader who led the coup that brought to a bloody end the Omride dynasty and the Baal cult based in Samaria (2 Kgs 10) and who himself became the founder of another dynasty that lasted over one hundred years. According to the tradition in 2 Kgs 9–10, Jehu, having been secretly anointed by an emissary of the prophet Elisha as the new king of Israel during a campaign in the area of Ramoth-Gilead, had been endorsed by his fellow officers. So Jehu and his supporters set out on a general political “cleansing,” killing off the then kings of both Israel and Judah as well as many members of the intermixed royal families (including the now dowager Queen Jezebel). In the first stages of this cleansing campaign, Jehu headed out with his chariot force for Samaria and the temple of Baal that had been established there by King Ahab and Queen Jezebel. On his way there Jehu came across Jehonadab ben Rechab, who apparently was looking to meet up with him. The text implies that Jehu, a well-known soldier who had doubtless traveled about in the Northern Kingdom, was already familiar with Jehonadab. The two affirm their mutual zeal for Yahweh, which was an essential point. Jehu then asks Jehonadab, who apparently had neither horse(s) nor chariot, to join him in his chariot. This is a rather striking invitation, as the war chariot normally held but two persons – the driver and the shooter – though at times there were three people or even four (adding a shield bearer and extra protection, as found in Assyrian warfare and hunting scenes from the time of Ashurbanipal).14 Whoever else is in the chariot has an important role in support of the shooter, who is the primary person. There is no room for bystanders in a war or hunting chariot. The invited presence of Jehonadab, who shared Jehu’s zeal for Yahweh, provides further religious prestige to the privately anointed Jehu as he carries out the “cleansing.”15 Note also that when the Baal worshippers were assembled in the temple of Baal that had been established in Samaria, 2 Kgs 10:23 states that Jehu and Jehonadab together – the military usurper and the zealous Yahwist – entered the Baal temple, signaling again the importance of Jehonadab not only as a prestige lender and witness but also as an active participant in the rebellion.16 14 See R.D. Barnett and Amleto Lorenzini, Assyrian Sculpture in the British Museum (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1975), plts. 92, 95, 103, 104, 117, 147, 151, 168. 15  Note Marsha  C. White, The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup, BJS 311 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 47. She mentions Jehonadab’s “symbolic role” as “the only possible populist element of the overthrow.” 16  Note that 2 Kgs 10:23 begins with a singular verb followed by a compound subject (that is, both Jehu and Jehonadab entered the temple) and that the following command, also singular in form, presumably refers to both Jehu and Jehonadab as specifying that only

The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah

7

199

Symbolic Representation

Jeremiah, in his engagement with the Rechabites, identifies them as a symbolic people who carry about with themselves the message of a multi-generational allegiance to the “rule” of Jehonadab. The prophet’s emphasis on the significance of their well-established loyalty makes them a potent and portable reminder of Jeremiah’s message. Their symbolic display of loyalty has many parallels in the symbolic acts and life of Jeremiah himself. The most important enduring symbolic action by Jeremiah was his intentional celibacy, or, more specifically, a symbolic celibacy reportedly imposed on him by God, the only instance in the HB.17 In Jer 16:1–9 God instructs Jeremiah “not to marry and not to have sons or daughters in this place,” for any such children and their mothers and fathers shall die without being lamented or properly buried (Jer 16:3–4). And Jeremiah himself was not to join in any feasts or wedding celebrations, which God is going to bring to an end, all of which makes Jeremiah somewhat “exotic.” As to just why Jeremiah was instructed to never marry or have children, and to avoid celebrations, this behavior provides a lifelong symbolic act communicating to the people that they do not have a proper future because they have not been faithful. Jeremiah 16:10–13 clearly ascribes this dismal future to the people’s lack of faithfulness: “Your ancestors deserted me … and followed after other gods …. They abandoned me and did not keep my instruction (‫)תורתי‬.” They were not faithful, whereas the Rechabites kept their “rule” which worshipers of Baal should be present. It is so translated in the NJPS, but the NRSV indicates that only Jehu was speaking. In other verses, to be sure, Jehu is identified as the exclusive actor, but the role of Jehonadab is also highlighted in the larger text. The following singular verb in v. 23 is usually taken to indicate instructions given by Jehu, but some translators take this usage as a singular form in reference to a compound subject – the NJPS translates “and they said …” What is clear is that Jehonadab had an important role. John T. Cummings suggests that Jehonadab’s meeting up with Jehu is a substitute for the expected Elisha, citing 1 Kgs 19:17 and the combination of Ahab and Elijah at Mt. Carmel (123–24). He even suggests that the unnamed member of the prophetic band who, as a representative of Elisha, anointed Jehu, might actually have been Jehonadab; see his article, “The House of the Sons of the Prophets and the Tents of the Rechabites,” in Studia Biblica 1978, 1. Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes, ed. E.A. Livingstone, JSOTSup 11 (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1979), 119–26 (here 126, n. 20). 17  For discussion, see H.B. Huffmon, “Gender Subversion in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001, ed. Simo Parpola and Robert M. Whiting (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002), 245–53.

200

Huffmon

Jehonadab had commanded (‫ ;צוה‬Jer 35:8). Of course, Jeremiah also held out hope for the people, even to the point of their being reconstituted with God’s rule, that is, God’s ‫תורה‬, written on their heart (Jer 31:33). But that does not take away from the powerful embodiment of his message about the present dire situation of the people, as represented in his own symbolic actions, nor from the contrast of the people’s lack of faithfulness with the faithful multigenerational life-style of the Rechabites. Jeremiah and his prophetic opponent, Hananiah ben ‘Azzur, both utilize short-term symbolic actions (Jer 28), and the book of Jeremiah offers many examples of symbolic actions of varying duration,18 a common tactic with Israelite prophets.19 8

Some Roots of the Rechabite Community and Its “Rule”

One early Israelite parallel representing a life-style vow is the Nazirite vow, which can be either temporary or life-time. A typical feature of a Nazirite vow involves not cutting one’s hair, as in the case of the legendary Samson and later the great leader, Samuel. Judges 13 provides the story of the Danite, Manoah, and his wife, who were without children. An angel of the Lord appeared to Manoah’s wife and promised a son but specified certain dietary conditions, avoiding wine or strong drink as well as any unclean food. Following the birth she was to be sure that the boy’s hair was never cut, as the boy was to be God’s Nazirite from conception to death (Judg 13:2–7). This “judgment” for the boy is reiterated in vv. 13–14. His mother’s avoidance of wine or any grape product as well as any unclean food was doubtless a temporary measure relating to her pregnancy, but the commitment about not cutting Samson’s hair was surely understood as a lifetime commitment shared by his mother during his youth and by himself as he became older. Her avoidance of wine and strong drink, at least during her pregnancy, established a proper beginning for Samson’s lifetime commitment not to cut his hair and, by implication, not to consume wine or strong drink for his lifetime. In the related case of Samuel, a Dead Sea Scroll

18 Note the useful listing in John A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 71–76, including “the incident with the Rechabites.” 19  See Georg Fohrer, Die symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten, 2nd ed., ATANT 54 (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1963). Such symbolic acts are already attested among the prophets in the Mari texts.

The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah

201

manuscript of 1 Sam 1:22, 4QSam(a), in agreement with the OG, indicates that his mother, Hannah, “(dedicated) him as a Nazirite forever.”20 Although some Nazirite vows were for a limited period, others could be for a lifetime. In this respect, the vows of Samson and Samuel are comparable to the Rechabite lifetime rules. Numbers 6 describes a Nazirite, someone set apart for the Lord, as avoiding wine and strong drink as well as any grape product, and avoiding cutting his hair or coming into contact with a dead person even if the deceased is a parent or a sibling (Num 6:2–7).21 But Nazirites are not described as following the other Rechabite rules. Another partial parallel to the Rechabite community, the “sons of the house of Rekab,” is provided by the prophetic bands or fellowships, the “sons of the prophets,” in the northern kingdom in the time of Samuel and again in the time of Elijah and Elisha. These various groups illustrate the creativity of the time of Elijah, Elisha, Jehu, and Jehonadab, a time when traditional Yahwism had to engage the religious openness practiced under the Omrides, and in particular the state support of both Yahweh and Baal in the time of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel.22 In the earlier time of Samuel, the group of prophets affiliated with Samuel is associated with a hilltop shrine and engages in general ecstasy (1 Sam 10:5–13). Similar prophetic groups, though not specifically described as practicing ecstasy, do see visions, and Elisha at least practiced musically induced ecstasy (2 Kgs 3:15–20). Both Elijah and Elisha, contemporaries of Jehonadab ben Rechab, are likewise assigned the title “father” (2 Kgs 2:12; 13:14).23 The prophetic groups associated with Elisha live within communities 20  For an insightful discussion, see Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York: Harper Collins, 1999). 215. Note also that John the Baptist is described as consecrated from the womb to avoid wine or strong drink and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15; cf. Luke 7:33–34). 21  For a general survey, see Milgrom, Numbers, 355–58. 22  Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), refers to the formation of a new coalition between the “prophetic protest movement” led by Elijah and Elisha, “conservative social groups like the Rechabites … and parts of the officer corps” (154), responding to “the fundamental political and religious conflict which runs through the whole history of Israel [the Northern Kingdom] as a state” (156). See also R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. J. McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 14–15, who emphasizes that the Rechabites were “not a survival of earlier days but a reactionary movement.” 23  In the same tradition, the question raised about Saul’s participation in the ecstatic experience of the prophetic band in 1 Sam 10:12, “and who is their father?” is commonly answered as “Saul,” but should be answered by identifying their “father” (or “his father,”

202

Huffmon

in various towns, such as Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho (2 Kgs 2:1–7; 4:38–41), even their own, separate community (2 Kgs 6:1–4). These prophetic groups also identify a decisive “father,” rather like Jehonadab for the Rechabites. The declaration by Elisha in regard to Elijah following his ascent, is “My father, my father; the chariotry (‫ )רכב‬of Israel and its horsemen” (2 Kgs 2:12), supported by the visionary images of fiery chariots and horses in 2 Kgs 2:11 and 6:17. Likewise, during Elisha’s final illness, King Joash reportedly visited him and pronounced that Elisha was “My father, my father, the chariotry of Israel and its horsemen.” Elijah and Elisha are not just “fathers” and leaders of the prophetic bands, a similar role to that of Jehonadab for the Rechabites, but from the perspective of some groups within Israel, Elijah and Elisha, as prophets of Yahweh, were symbolically the ultimate defenders of Israel in general. This comprehensive situation led Karl Budde in 1898 to describe the Rechabites as missionaries of an ancient desert religion,24 a perspective that was paralleled more than fifty years later by R. de Vaux who stated that the Rechabites, with their “rule,” represented “(t)he ideal which the Prophets exalted, but never tried to put into practice, which was actually carried out by a group of extremists, the Rekabites.”25 And in 1992, in another classic work, Rainer Albertz refers to “the impression that Jonadab ben Rechab first committed his followers to an artificial nomadic life-style in the ninth century … to live out symbolically the ideal image of an ‘original Yahweh religion’ in opposition to the state syncretism of his time.”26 This perspective was clarified in the (unpublished, but frequently cited) dissertation of Paul Riemann who argued that the so-called “nomadic ideal” in the prophets was basically a description of the disastrous situation that would result from rejection of the Yahwistic tradition.27 The Rechabites were not proper nomads, they were semi-nomadic. lxx) as Samuel; see David Jobling, 1 Samuel, Berit Olam (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), 117–18; J.G. Williams, “The Prophetic ‘Father,’ A Brief Explanation of the Term ‘Sons of the Prophets,’” JBL 85 (1966), 344–48, esp. 347. Note also the supposedly earlier example of Hammath, “father of the ‫( ”בית־רכב‬1 Chr 2:55), discussed below. 24  Karl Budde, “The Nomadic Ideal,” 726–45. 25  De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 14. 26  Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion, 320 (n. 66), emphasis added. Here Albertz is in explicit agreement with Eduard Meyer’s view (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme [Halle: 1906; reprinted 1967], 132), that the Rechabites were not genuine nomads but “artificial” nomads (künstlich) who adopted a particular lifestyle for ideological reasons. 27  Paul A. Riemann, “Desert and Return to Desert in the Pre-Exilic Prophets,” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1964). Note the published abstract in HTR 57 (1964): 391–92. A similar argument is made by Shemaryahu Talmon, “The ‘Desert Motif’ in the Bible and the Qumran Literature,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations, ed. A. Altmann

The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah

203

Their lifestyle involved nomadic elements but was essentially ideological not occupational; a message, not a job. As Riemann pointed out, the prophetic idealization related to the Exodus-Wilderness period, mixed as that was with murmurings and difficulties, and not to the adoption of a nomadic life-style. The return-to-desert motif was a feature of curses and prophecies of destruction, as in Deut 29:20–27. 9

Rechabite Life Apart from The “Rule” of Jehonadab

There are but few references to Rechabites apart from 2 Kgs 10 and Jer 35, although the personal name, Rechab, occurs several times in 2 Sam 4, borne by a military leader who served King Saul’s son, Ish-bosheth (Eshbaal, 1 Chr 9:33), and who is identified as a son of Rimmon (and the brother of Baʻanah) from the Benjaminite town of Beeroth. More pertinent is the reference in the time of Nehemiah to Malchijah ben Rechab – a man bearing a Yahwistic name like Jehonadab and the three Rechabite names cited in Jer 35:3 – who was in charge of the repair of a section of the wall of Jerusalem that was assigned to workers from Beth-haccherem (Neh 3:14), though that implies someone resident in a city of Judah, an apparent break with the “rule.” Another reference to Rechabite men, at least in the BHS preferred reading, following some lxx versions, occurs in 1 Chr 4:11–12.28 Seven Judahite individuals, apparently spanning four generations, are identified as “the men of Rechab,” none of whom have a Yahwistic name. But one of the cities with which they are connected is Ir-Nahash, “The City of Copper(smiths),” discussed below. Also, for the lxx text of Psalm 70 (MT 71) the heading includes “for the sons of Jonadab and the first of those taken captive.” There are no biblical or other ancient texts that locate Rechabites in the true desert. 10

Genealogical Association

Rather distant in time from the report in Jer 35 is the genealogical reference in 1 Chr 2:55, a problematic text describing the pre-monarchic situation in (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), 31–63; Talmon, “Midbār,” in TDOT (1997), 8:87–118. 28  In addition to Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 125, 133–34, note C.H. Knights, “The Text of 1 Chronicles iv 12: A Reappraisal,” VT 37 (1987): 375–77, and Frank S. Frick, “Rechab,” ABD 5:630–32.

204

Huffmon

Judah, thus long before the time of Jehonadab. The MT refers to “the families of the scribes living in Jabez,” which BHS, followed by Klein, revocalizes as “the Siphrites,” that is, those who are in Jabez, more specifically, “the Tirathites, the Simeathites, and the Sucathites” who were “Kenites who came from Hammath, father of (the?) ‫בית־רכב‬.” So this text could possibly refer to another “father” of the Rechabites rather prior to Jehonadab and could be taken as linking the Rechabites with the Kenites. But the structure of the list in 1 Chr 2 points rather to ‫ בית־רכב‬being a place name, Beth-Rekab, which would be similar to – or perhaps even a variant of – an attested Simeonite place name, Beth-marcaboth (Josh 19:5; 1 Chr 4:31). As a place name, Beth-Rekab would not then provide a direct link between the Rechabites and the Kenites, a group that was especially significant in the early history of Israel. Also, the text would not identify Hammath as a much earlier “father” of the ‫ בית הרכבים‬of Jer 35. Hammath, otherwise unknown as a personal name, is also the name of a Naphtalite city in northern Israel.29 11

The Social Locus of the Rechabites

A rather distinctive reconstruction of the social setting of the Rechabites has been offered by Karlheinz Keukens, who emphasizes in particular the contrast between the Rechabite vows and the wealth-building indulgences of Qoh 2:2–9a, including the acquisition of ‫בני־בית‬, “household servants.” In that light, he understands the reference to Jehonadab (even though he lived long before the time of Jeremiah!) being their “father” as meaning that he is the “full citizen,” the actively functioning “patron over his home-born slaves” who, though subordinate and distressed, are still following his rules. But there is no hint in Jer 35 of the presence of anyone like a “full citizen” standing over them like a sort of successor abbot.30 The Rechabites in Jer 35:7 represent themselves as homogeneous ‫גרים‬, “sojourners/non-citizens (aliens).” They speak anonymously as a group, not through a leader or a “full citizen.” But it is among such 29  See Klein, 1 Chronicles, 82–84, 107–08, and C.H. Knights, “Kenites = Rechabites?: 1 Chronicles II 55 Reconsidered,” VT 43 (1993): 10–18. There is also an intriguing suggestion by S. Talmon (“1 Chron. ii, 55,” IEJ 10 [1960]: 174–80) that Hammath be interpreted as a kinship term, for which there are many parallels, thus possibly referring to the Kenite groups as having “marriage ties” with the father (ancestor, i.e., Jehonadab) of the house of Rekab (178). He also argues that “there is nothing to prove that the Kenites were really of Rechabite or Judahite origin” (176). 30  Karlheinz H. Keukens, “Die rekabitischen Haussklaven in Jeremia 35,” BZ 27 (1983): 228–35.

The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah

205

an “underclass” that Keukens places the Rechabites, as if still intimidated by their absent and long-dead “father” who somehow continues to function as the “full citizen.” The present Rechabites regard Jehonadab as more like the Moses figure that provides leadership for many of their neighbors. A more convincing picture is represented by Shemaryahu Talmon, who concludes that the Rechabites do not reflect “prophetic desert ideology.” Their mode of life was prompted, rather, by an “anti-urbanism reflecting a socio-­economic reality, not a religious idea, an occupation, not a vocation.”31 In that same trajectory, Frank Frick has plausibly suggested that the Rechabite economic ­occupation was that of “a guild of craftsmen, proposing in this case a guild of metalworkers involved in the making of chariots and other weaponry.”32 That occupation would fit with the guild-type notation, ‫בן רכב‬, with the leader of the group being a “father,” with their name connected with ‫רכב‬, “ride,” and the related ‫מרכבה‬, “chariot,” as well as with their association with the place name, ‘Ir-Nahash (1 Chr 4:12), suggesting copper work. Furthermore, various groups of wandering tinkers are attested, such as the well-known Ṣleib of more recent time.33 Yet the situation seems otherwise, as they were far from being typical nomads and seem, rather, to represent a basically ideological orientation as a minority religious community. Living in marginal land, probably at least in part to avoid assimilation in a non-observant setting, they would be able to sustain themselves by engaging in trade, like the later Nabataeans, or having special skills that would be in harmony with a separate mobile community.34 The most compelling reconstruction would seem to go along the lines suggested by Karel van der Toorn, who emphasizes their political and economic minority status as they seek to perpetuate a special religious identity within an exclusively Yahwistic tradition that is carried on within a somewhat alien 31  Talmon, “Midbār,” 109. 32  Frank S. Frick, “The Rechabites Reconsidered,” JBL 90 (1971): 279–87, quotation from p. 285. See also his entry, “Rechab,” ABD 5:630–32, and his observation that the Rechabites do not appear to be seeking a “nomadic ideal,” and “can just as well be seen as an occupational pattern, not a religiously motivated way of life” (632). For the wider role of marginal groups with metallurgical associations, see Paula M. McNutt, “The Kenites, the Midianites, and the Rechabites as Marginal Mediators in Ancient Israelite Tradition,” Semeia 67 (1994): 109–32. 33  See W.F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, rev. ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1953), 97, 199, n. 4. 34  Amihai Mazar suggests that “some peculiar sect in Israel such as the Rechabites” may have contributed to the “unique combination of Judean and Israelite traditions” evidenced at Kuntillet ʻAjrud, a trade route site; see Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000–586 B.C.E., ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 449.

206

Huffmon

larger community. The Rechabites apparently sought both to withdraw, so as to minimize the forces of assimilation, yet to also remain within the larger society. That picture could even fit with being traveling traders and/or tinkers with distinctive cultural practices. The summation by van der Toorn is that “the society of the Rechabites had taken on the characteristics of a religious community – or a religious sect, to use a much abused term.”35 12

The Lifestyle of the Rechabites

The closest parallel to the “rule” of Jehonadab as reported in Jer 35 is found in the oft-cited reference in Diodorus Siculus (ca. 80 BCE–20 BCE) regarding an Arab group identified more particularly as Nabataeans, people who “live in the open air, claiming as native land a wilderness that has neither rivers nor abundant springs from which it is possible for a hostile army to obtain water.” For them, the desert is their fortress, as they alone are truly familiar with it. Most noteworthy, “it is their custom neither to plant grain, set out any fruit-bearing tree, use wine, nor construct any house; and if anyone is found acting contrary to this, death is his penalty.”36 Diodorus ascribes these rules to their desire for freedom which for them requires a high level of group conformity, to the extent that the penalty for violating any of the rules is death. Diodorus also indicates that these Nabataeans are wealthier than other Arab groups and stresses the importance of their role as traders along the incense route from South Arabia. He also notes that “some 35  See van der Toorn, Family Religion, 344–52, quotation from pp. 351–52. 36  Diodorus of Sicily 19.94.1–6 (Library of History, Volume X, Books 19.66–20, trans. Russell M. Geer, LCL 390 [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954]). Diodorus apparently is drawing upon Hieronymos of Cardia (Diodorus, 19.100.1–2), a contemporary and chronicler of Alexander the Great and his successors. Diodorus provides an almost identical rule (nomos) to that of the Rechabites in Jer 35. Elsewhere, Diodorus describes the Nabataeans as operating in the area between Syria and Egypt (2.48.1) leading “a life of brigandage” (2.48.2 [Geer]) and even piracy (2.43), while possessing extensive flocks and herds (2.43). They drew upon their special knowledge of water sources, hidden supplies, and concealed wells to preserve themselves from attack (2.48.3–5). Diodorus says that they date back to the time of the Assyrians (2.48.5), that is, the time of Jehu and Jehonadab. He adds that other tribes of Arabs behave differently from the “Nabataeans” (2.94). Diodorus also refers to the Nabataeans as living in villages (2.43). Note C.H. Knights, “The Nabataeans and the Rechabites,” JSS 38 (1993): 227–33, who acknowledges the parallel vows but contrasts the Rechabites as occupying “arable” land, not desert, and being religiously motivated rather than security minded.

The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah

207

of them raise camels, others sheep, pasturing them in the desert” (19.94.2–6 [Geer]). On the other hand, Strabo, a younger contemporary of Diodorus, advises us that not all Nabataeans abstained from wine, reporting that the Nabataean king “has many drinking-bouts in magnificent style, but no one drinks more than eleven cupfuls.”37 And clearly at least some Nabataeans engaged in extensive building, as evidenced most famously at Petra. The characterization of the Nabataeans by Diodorus with a description very reminiscent of the “rule” of Jehonadab is at least an indication that such a regimen could be followed by an economically and socially successful community. The Rechabite lifestyle is not one dedicated to poverty, though it may well reflect an aversion to the more indulgent lifestyle on the part of the Israelite royal courts. Also it is clear that the Rechabites regarded their lifestyle choice as consistent with being followers of Yahweh, and they may well have regarded themselves as a symbolic people, just as did Jeremiah. But they did not refuse contact with the comparatively great urban center of Jerusalem, and if they sustained themselves as metalworkers or traders they would have been required to have continuing contact with village and urban markets. As mentioned, Jeremiah is not an advocate of the Rechabite “rule.” Jeremiah’s commendation of the Rechabites centers on their loyalty. He does not advocate that the people adopt the strict disciplines of the Rechabites though he himself chose a personal discipline, being celibate, as a lifelong symbolic reminder of the dangers the unfaithful people of Israel will have to face. In a somewhat similar way the Rechabites may have viewed themselves as returning to the beginnings in the wilderness, vicariously reverting to the days of Israel’s youth, not yet worthy of intimate speech from Yahweh nor ready to receive the vineyards (Deut 29:4–5; Hos 2:16–17).

37  Strabo, The Geography, 16.4.26 (The Geography, Books XV–XVI, trans. Horace Leonard Jones, LCL 241 [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930]). For confirmation of at least some abstinence see the inscription noted by van der Toorn, Family Religion, 243, which I cite from Javier Teixidor, The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 88–89, noting a Palmyrene dedicatory inscription by a Nabataean horseman: “To Shaiʻ al qaum, the good and bountiful god, who does not drink wine.” For the full text, see G.A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), 303–04.

208 13

Huffmon

Rechabite Associations

The somewhat vague association that the Rechabites have with the Kenites, and even perhaps the Midianites, might well have encouraged them to regard their semi-nomadic, perhaps metalworking lifestyle as a fully legitimate expression of the Yahwistic tradition. They perhaps saw themselves as continuing the traditions of the relationship by marriage of Moses with a priest of Midian, Reuel, whose daughter, Ṣipporah, was given to Moses as a wife (Exod 2:18, 21). Moses’ father-in-law, a priest of Midian, is also identified as Jethro (Exod 3:1). And Num 10:29 refers to Hobab, son of Reuel the Midianite, the ­father-in-law of Moses.38 Also, this same Hobab is mentioned in Judg 4:11 as an ancestor of Heber, the Kenite (husband of Jael), which links the Kenites and the Midianites. Such connections may have been honored by the Rechabites. In Exod 18 Jethro, a priest of Midian, offers a blessing for Yahweh who had delivered Moses and his group from Egypt, together with a burnt-offering and sacrifices (vv. 10–12). It is also the father-in-law who counsels Moses about a proper administrative organization for judging the variety of disputes that will arise (vv. 13–23). Numbers 10:29–32 identifies Hobab, son of Reuel, Moses’ father-in-law as someone who could guide them through the wilderness to the land of promise. So the tradition assigns a major role to Moses’ in-laws. This role is also highlighted by the discovery, announced by 1947, of an Egyptian source from the time of Ramses II that associates an apparent place name, Y-h-w3, that is, Yahweh, with Shasu nomads somewhere in the Negev, the Sinai, or North Arabia.39 Further discoveries have confirmed this evidence and expanded it to include listings from the time of Amernophis III. Scholars have often viewed the apparent place name as further evidence for the Kenite/Midianite origins of the divine name.40 Apart from the history of the divine name, the general Rechabite association with the rather earlier semi-nomadic life of the 38  On the complications in the sorting out of Moses’ in-laws, see W.F. Albright, “Jethro, Hobab and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition,” CBQ 25 (1963): 1–11. 39  For the announcement and commentary, see W.F. Albright’s review of B.N. Wambacq, L’epithete divine Jahwe Seba’ot, in JBL 67 (1948): 377–81, esp. 380. H.W. Fairman’s account of the 1938–39 campaign at ʻAmrah West in JEA 25 (1939): 139–44, with plates, does not mention the yhw3 text. For a discussion, noting a similar occurrence in a list from the time of Amenophis III (1390–1353), see James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 242–43. For the texts, see R. Giveon, Les bédouins Shosou des Documents Égyptiens, DMOA 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 26–28, 74–77. 40  For a possible alternative background of the divine name in Amorite tradition, as mentioned by Albright in his review of Wambacq (JBL 67 [1948]: 379–80), see H.B. Huffmon,

The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah

209

Kenites and Midianites may have contributed to the formation of Jehonadab’s “rule” and the subsequent Rechabite life-style apart from the houses, wines, fields, and other customs of the urban dwellers they encountered.41 But that understanding of the “rule” seems more an escape than an embracing. The Rechabites who come to our attention in the tradition of Jer 35 are associated with life in the land, where there were many non-urban areas. They did not have to venture as far as places like Kuntillet-ʻAjrud, though that is theoretically possible. It is even theoretically conceivable that they saw themselves as vicariously living in the wilderness still preparing for the proper life in the land, ready to someday carry out the request to lead the people into the land, apparently declined by Hobab in the tradition of Num 10:29–32. It is clear that the Rechabites saw themselves as having an important role, but we can only speculate as to what that role was. Select Bibliography Budde, Karl. “The Nomadic Ideal in the Old Testament.” The New World 4 (1895): 726–45. Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Cummings, John T. “The House of the Sons of the Prophets and the Tents of the Rechabites.” Pages 119–26 in Studia Biblica 1978, 1. Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes. Edited by E.A. Livingstone. JSOTSup 11. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1979. Davidson, Steed Vernyl. “‘Exoticizing the Other’: The Curious Case of the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35.” Pages 189–207 in Prophecy and Power: Jeremiah in Feminist and Postcolonial Perspective. Edited by Christl M. Maier and Carolyn J. Sharp. LHBOTS 57. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Fohrer, Georg. Die symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten, 2nd ed. ATANT 54. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1963. Frick, Frank S. “The Rechabites Reconsidered.” JBL 90 (1971): 279–87. Frick, Frank S. “Rechab.” ABD 5: 630–32. Huffmon, Herbert B. “Gender Subversion in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 245–53 in Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Edited by S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002. “Yahweh and Mari,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1971), 283–89. 41 Lawrence E. Stager provides a convenient summary of these earlier associations in “Forging An Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael D. Coogan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 90–130.

210

Huffmon

Keukens, Karlheinz H. “Die rekabitischen Haussklaven in Jeremia 35.” BZ 27 (1983): 228–35. Knights, C.H. “Kenites = Rechabites?: 1 Chronicles II 55 Reconsidered.” VT 43 (1993): 10–18. Leuchter, Mark. The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Muffs, Yohanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. Mulder, Martin J. De Rekabieten in Jeremia 35. SKC 68. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1990. Thompson, John A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Van der Toorn, Karel. “Ritual, Resistance, and Self-Assertion: The Rechabites in Early Israelite Religion.” Pages 229–59 in Studies in Ritual Behaviour. Edited by Jan Platvoet and Karel van der Toorn. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Van der Toorn, Karel. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria & Israel: Continuity & Change in the Forms of Religious Life. SHCANE 7. Leiden: Brill, 1995. White, Marsha C. The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup. BJS 311. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997. Williams, James G. “The Prophetic ‘Father’: A Brief Explanation of the Term ‘Sons of the Prophets.’” JBL 85 (1966): 344–48.

chapter 11

Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah’s Foreign Nation Oracles Jack R. Lundbom 1

Jeremiah: Prophet to the Nations

Jeremiah was called to be a prophet to the nations (1:5, 10), a mission he carried out in word, vision, and symbolic action. An array of nations is named and given Yahweh’s cup of wrath in the prophet’s cupbearer vision (25:15–29); the wearing of yoke bars and straps and giving envoys of five foreign kings is a symbolic act urging submission to the king of Babylon (27); and preaching against nine foreign nations supplements Jeremiah’s preaching to Judah. The Foreign Nation Oracles became a separate collection (46–51), which in the lxx is located in the middle of the book (lxx 25:13–32:13). Jeremiah is said to have written a scroll of his Babylon oracles (51:60) and given it to Seraiah for a public reading in Babylon when Seraiah went there with King Zedekiah in 594/3 (51:59–64). The first oracle against Egypt is dated in 605 (46:2), and the earliest date commonly assigned to oracles against Edom, Ammon, and Moab is 590. This covers a period of fifteen years, and the time frame may be greater. 2

Quality, Style, and Genuineness of the Foreign Nation Poetry

Early critical scholars had doubts about whether the Foreign Nation Oracles were genuinely Jeremianic. Most of the preaching is poetry, but opinions about quality and style varied. Budde claimed the poetry was stereotypical, lacking in great ideas that stir the mind and grip the inner being.1 But Bright said the quality was high, with some oracles showing the same vividness as oracles addressed to Judah, whose genuineness was not questioned.2

1  Karl Budde, “Ueber die Capitel 50 und 51 des Buches Jeremia,” JDT 23 (1878): 458–59. 2  John Bright, Jeremiah, AB 21 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), 307–08.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_012

212

Lundbom

3 Language Jeremiah’s foreign nation poetry is vivid, rich in imagery, replete with irony, and probably no more stereotypical than any other poetry in the book. Oracles and poems make effective use of repetition and contain some of the same rhetorical structures found in the Judah poetry. They also teem with vocabulary and phraseology in Jeremiah’s Judah poetry. One finds in them the following characteristic words and phrases:

• • • • • • • • •

“devastate, devastator” (47:4; 48:1, 8, 15, 18; 49:28; 51:48, 53, 55; cf. 5:6; 6:26c; a total of twenty-six times in the book of Jeremiah); “desolation” (46:19; 48:9; 49:33; 50:3, 13; 51:29, 37, 43; etc.; cf. 2:15; 4:7; 6:8; 9:10[11]; 10:22; 12:11; etc.; a total of forty times in the book of Jeremiah); “terror on every side” (46:5; 49:5 [modified], 29; cf. 6:25; 20:10); “a great shatter” (48:3; 50:22; 51:54; cf. 4:6; 6:1; 14:17); “(sitting/virgin) Daughter Egypt/Moab/Babylon” (46:11, 19, 24; 48:18, 19, 28, 43; 50:42; 51:33, 35; cf. 4:31; 6:2, 23; 21:13; etc.); “turnable/rebellious daughter” (49:4; cf. 31:22); “like a woman in labor” (49:24; 50:43; cf. 6:24; 22:23; 30:6); “stumbled and fallen” (46:6, 12, 16; 50:32; cf. 6:15; 8:12; “stumble” occurs eleven times in the book of Jeremiah, “fall” thirty-two times); “look (I),” “look I (am bringing),” “look (hereafter days are coming),” often beginning a poem, a prose oracle, or stanza of a poem (46:25; 47:2; 48:12, 40; 49:2, 5, 12, 15, 19, 22, 35; 50:9, 41; 51:1, 47, 52; cf. 1:9, 15, 18; 3:1; 4:13; 5:14, 15; 6:19; 30:18, 23; 31:8, 27, 31, 38; etc.); “(the land of) the north” (46:10; 50:9, 41; 51:45; cf. 3:18; 6:22; 10:22; 16:15; 31:8); “(its) sound”/“voice,” “at (for) the sound,” often beginning a poem or stanza of a poem (46:22; 47:3; 48:3; 50:22, 46; 51:54; cf. 3:21; 4:15, 19, 29, 31; 9:18[19]; 10:22; 30:5; 31:15); “(how) can you say?” (48:14; cf. 2:20, 23, 25b, 31, 35; 8:8); “the land and its entirety, the city and those living in it” (47:2; cf. 8:16); “a jar in which no one takes delight” (48:38b; cf. 22:28 ); “reckon”/“in the time/year of their reckoning” (46:21, 25; 48:44; 49:8; 50:18, 27, 31; 51:44, 47, 52; cf. 6:15; 10:15; 11:23; 14:10; 23:12; 30:20; etc.; the verb ‫ פקד‬and cognates occur sixty times in the book of Jeremiah); “den of jackals” (49:33; 51:37; cf. 9:10[11]; 10:22); “Is …? Is …? “So why …?” Jeremiah’s signature three-fold rhetorical question (49:1; cf. 2:14, 31; 8:4–5, 19, 22; 14:19; 22:28); “so why” (‫ )מדוע‬or “so why have I seen?” (46:5, 15; cf. 30:6).

• • • • • • • • •

Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah ’ s Foreign Nation Oracles

4

213

Great Ideas

So far as great ideas are concerned, the Foreign Nation Oracles lack the specificity of the Judah oracles, for example, there are no arguments detailing wrongdoing or calling for repentance; the prophet has no personal involvement in the sin, guilt, and suffering of these nations, so of confessions personal and corporate one hears nothing. How could it be otherwise? There are also no arguments with false prophets, no escapes from enemies, and no run-ins with officials of temple and state, details of which fill or lurk in the shadows of the oracles and confessions in 1–20. The prophet does not know other nations in the way he knows his own. Nor do any of these foreign nations come under judgment for covenant violation, as they have no covenant with Yahweh, and are cited simply for unspecified wickedness (25:31), hubris (50:31–32), and the worship of idols (50:38; 51:47, 52). Certain oracles do, nevertheless, contain material that appears to be anonymous, from other Foreign Nation Oracles, or from oracles of another prophet. In the Moab oracles, 48:29–31 has a close parallel in Isa 16:6–7; 48:32–34 is a variation of Isa 16:8–10, with v. 34 being an add-on from Isa 15:4–6; 48:35–38a is a florilegium from Isa 15:2–3, 7a, and 16:11; 48:43 has a parallel in Isa 24:17; 48:44 has a parallel in Isa 24:18; 48:45–46 expands old poetry from Num 21:28–29 and 24:17. In the Edom oracles: 49:7, 9–10, and 14–16 are similar to Obad 1–8, and 49:14–16 is similar to Obad 1–4; 49:27 looks to be taken from Amos 1:4, 14; 49:31 has a parallel in Ezek 38:11; and 50:16b is similar to Isa 13:14b. In the Babylon oracles, 50:16b is similar to Isa 13:14b; 50:31–32 may rework two Judah oracles in 21:13–14; 50:40 looks to be a repeat from 49:18 (cf. Isa 13:19); 50:41–43 adapts the Judah poem in 6:22–24; and 50:44–46 adapts the two Edom oracles in 49:19–21. Finally, as is true in other OT poetry, added prose appears at various points, e.g., 48:7a, 10, 13; 49:30b; 50:14c, 15c, 28, 30 (cf. 49:26); 51:11bc, 12c, 14b, and 29b. 5 Rhetoric Jeremiah’s foreign nation utterances are replete with rhetorical figures, many strikingly similar to figures in the Judah poetry and prose. Some of these figures are the following: Repetition (geminatio): 46:20 – “beautiful, beautiful” and a balancing “came, came” (cf. 3:19; 4:19; 6:14; 7:4; 8:11; 22:29; 23:25) 48:30 – Yahweh says: “I, I know …” (cf. 2:21; 3:19)

214

Lundbom 49:10 – Yahweh says: “But I, I have stripped Esau” 49:11 – Yahweh says: “I, I will keep alive” 50:3 – “it, it will make her land a desolaton” 51:3 – “God will bend, will bend, the bender his bow”

Anaphora: 50:35–38a – “sword” beginning five poetic lines, modified to “drought” beginning line six (cf. 4:23–26; 5:15–17; 31:4–5) 51:20–23 – “and with you I smashed,” beginning seven poetic lines

Onomatopoeia: 50:35–37 – five-fold repetition of “sword” simulating the stabbing of the victims (cf. 5:17) 51:20–23 – nine-fold repetition of “I smashed” simulating the smashing of the warclub

Repeated Roots (multiclimatum): 46:5 – “and a flight they are fleeing” – a signature Jeremiah construction (cf. 11:18; 14:17; 15:19; 17:14; 20:7; 30:16; 31:4, 18) 50:34 – “He’ll pleadingly plead their plea” 51:36 – “I have pled your plea, and I have avenged your avenging”

Alliteration: 48:15 – the combination bû repeats three times 49:15 – the b consonant repeats three times 50:34 – “He’ll pleadingly plead their plea” 51:44: “I have reckoned with Bel in Babylon”

Accumulatio: 46:25–26 – six occurrences of “upon” and three occurrences of “into the hand”

Chiasmus: 50:8 – syntactic chiasmus with verbs at the extremes (many examples in Judah poems; cf. 2:19; 4:7, 9; 20:6; etc.) 51:20–23 – objects of the divine wrath form a large keyword chiasmus (cf. 5:17)

Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah ’ s Foreign Nation Oracles

215

51:34–45 – repetitions, balancing terms, and balancing voices make a large chiasmus (cf. 2:5–9, 27c–28a; 5:1–8; 8:13–17; 23:18, 21–22) 51:38 – syntactic chiasmus with verbs in the center (rare in Judah poetry; cf. 2:36; 10:11)

Asyndeton: 46:3–4 – seven imperatives issuing battle commands (cf. 4:5, 6; 5:1; 7:9; 25:27; 31:7b) 46:9–10 – multiple imperatives summoning an army to begin battle 49:8 – “Flee! Be gone! Go deep to dwell” 49:30 – “Flee! Wander all about! Go deep to dwell!” 50:2 – “Declare among the nations, Set up a flag! Make heard! Keep it not hidden” 51:12 – “To the walls of Babylon! Set up a flag! Strengthen the watch! Station watchmen! Prepare men in ambush!” 51:27 – “Set up a flag in the land! Blow the trumpet in the nations! Sanctify the nations against her! Summon the kingdoms against her – Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz”

Metaphor: 46:20 – Egypt is a heifer; enemy is a horsefly 46:23 – “They cut down [Egypt’s] forest” (“forest” = Egypt’s lush growth along the Nile and her wood-paneled buildings) 47:2 – “waters are rising from the north” (“waters” = the coming Babylonian army) 49:23 – “they rock, anxiety in the sea” (referring to the floundering of Hamath and Arpad) 50:23 – “the hammer of the whole land” (= Babylon) 51:7 – “a golden cup was Babylon in the hand of Yahweh” 51:25 – Babylon formerly “Destroying Mountain”; now “a burned-out mountain” 51:36 – “I have drained her sea, and I have dried up her fountain” 51:42 – “the sea has come up upon Babylon, with its roaring heaps she is covered” (referring to the onrush of the enemy army)

Simile: 46:18 – “(Yahweh) like Tabor among the mountains, and like Carmel by the sea, he will come” 46:20 – hired hands are like stall heifers

216

Lundbom 46:22 – “[Egypt’s] sound is like a snake going” 48:6 – “and be like Aroer in the desert” 48:38b – “[Yahweh] has broken Moab like a jar in which no one takes delight” 48:40 – “[the enemy] as the eagle flies, and he spreads his wings towards Moab” 48:41; 49:22, 24; 50:43 – “as a woman much distressed/in labor” 49:16 – “for as the eagle, you [Edom] make high your nest” 49:19 – “Look, as a lion goes up …” 49:22 – “as the eagle [the enemy] goes up and flies, and spreads his wings over Bozrah” 50:11 – “How you frisk like a threshing heifer, and neigh like stallions” 50:34 – “like a monster he swallowed me” 50:44 – “as a lion goes up” 51:14 – “humanity like the locust” 51:27 – “bring up the horse like a bristling locust” 51:38 – “Together like lions they roar, they growl like lion cubs” 51:40 – “I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with the he-goats”

Abusio: 51:44b – “and nations will not stream to him any longer” (cf. 4:4; 5:8)

Metonymy: 49:35 – “I am shattering the bow of Elam” (“bow” = “strength”) 50:6 – “mountains led them astray” (“mountains” = “fertility worship on mountains”) 50:37 – “sword to chariots” (= “destruction to chariots”) 50:37c – “sword to her treasures” (= “capture of her treasures”)

Epithet: 46:17 – Pharaoh called “Loud Noise Who Lets the Deadline Pass” (cf. 3:23: “Noise of the Mountains”) 50:7 – Yahweh called “The Righteous Pasture” and “Hope of Their Fathers” (cf. 17:13: Yahweh called “The Hope of Israel”) 50:31, 32 – Babylon called “(Mr.) Arrogance”

Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah ’ s Foreign Nation Oracles

217

Merismus: 51:22b – “old and young” (= everyone)

Paronomasia: 46:22 – play on ‫הלך‬: “Her sound is like a snake going … with strength they are coming” 48:5 – play on ‫עלה‬: “Yes, at the Luhith ascent, weeping on weeping goes up” 48:15 – play on “up” and “down”: “The devastator of Moab and her cities has come up, and the best of his young men have gone down to the slaughter” 48:18 – play on “down” and “up”: “Come down from glory and sit in thirst, sitting daughter Dibon, for the devastator of Moab has come up against you” 49:8 – play on “Go deep to dwell, dwellers of Dedan” 49:26 – play on “young men in her open squares” 49:30 – play on “Go deep to dwell, dwellers of Hazor” 50:35–37 – ‫ ֶח ֶרב‬/“sword,” and ‫ח ֶֹרב‬/“drought” (cf. 1:11–12) 51:44 – “So I have reckoned with Bel in Babylon”

Assonance: 49:30 – “Flee! Wander all about!” (cf. 2:10–12) 50:26 – “like heaps and devote her to destruction”

Apostrophe: 47:6 – Jeremiah addressing the sword (cf. 2:12) 50:35–37 – Yahweh addressing the sword 51:8b – Imaginary bystanders dispatched to get balm for Babylon; perhaps she can be treated (cf. 22:30) 51:49 – Judahites in Babylon addressing Israel’s slain (cf. 31:16–17)

Rhetorical Question: 47:5 – ‘How long will you slash yourself?” 47:6 – “How much longer before you are idle?” 47:7 – “But how can you be idle, when Yahweh has commanded it?”

218

Lundbom 49:1 – Jeremiah’s signature three-fold rhetorical question: “If …? If …? So why …?” 49:19; 50:44 – four rhetorical questions in sequence

Rhetorical Question with Answer (hypophora): 46:7–8 – “Who is this that rises like the Nile?” Answer: “Egypt rises like the Nile …” 46:15–16 – “So why is your mighty bull lying flat?” Answer: “It stands not, because Yahweh shoved it; he kept on, stumbling, yes, it fell.” 49:7 – “Is there no longer wisdom in Teman?” Answers: “Counsel has perished from people of understanding; their wisdom stinks.” (cf. 30:15; 31:20)

Argument a minori ad maius: 49:12 – “Look, those for whom there is no judgment to drink the cup must surely drink, are you then one who will surely go free?” (cf. 3:1; 12:5; 25:29)

Cutoffs in mid-sentence (aposiopesis): 46:5 and 15 – Jeremiah says, “So why have I seen …?” (cf. 10:18)

Irony: 46:2–6, 9–10 – commands to Egyptian soldiers to begin battle are ironic because no battle takes place; Egypt is routed as soon as engagement begins, or defeat comes soon after (in the Babylon oracles the irony is lacking; cf. 50:14, 29; 51:11a, 12) 46:11–12 – “Rise up to Gilead and get balm …”; a contrived lament over Egypt 47:6 – Jeremiah feigns compassion over the Philistines, telling the sword to put itself back in its sheaf, to rest and be silent 48:17a – “Give consolation to [Moab], all you round about him, and all you who know his name” 48:17b–18 – Moabites supplied with a dirge to lament Dabon, Moab’s capital city 48:32 – Yahweh pretends to weep more for Sibmah than for Jazer 48:36 – Yahweh moans like the low notes of a flute over Moab and the men of Kirheres 49:3–4 – Jeremiah issues an ironic call for the Ammonite people to lament and mourn Ai (cf. 22:20)

Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah ’ s Foreign Nation Oracles

219

49:30 – Yahweh tells the people of Kedar to seek a refuge that will do them no good 50:11 – Yahweh addressing those who plundered his heritage 50:38b – People are said to be going mad over Babylon’s idols, here called “terrors” 51:8 – Jeremiah says: “Suddenly Babylon is fallen and shattered, wail madly over her! Get balm for her pain, perhaps she can be treated” (cf. 2:28a) 51:33 – Irony in the endearing term “Daughter Babylon” 51:41 – “How Sheshak is taken, and the praise of all the land occupied!”

Hyperbole: 46:12 – “your cry has filled the earth” 46:23 – Egypt’s enemies “were more numerous than locusts, yes, of them there was no number” 49:21 – Edom’s scream “at the Red Sea … is heard” 50:20 – “the iniquity of Israel shall be sought out and there shall be none, also the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found” (cf. 2:28b; 4:13; 37:10) 51:9b – Babylon’s judgment said to “reach to the heavens and lifted up to the clouds” 51:53 – “If Babylon should climb to the sky …”

Symbolic Action: There is drama and symbolic action in the Foreign Nation Oracles, with Seraiah casting the Babylon scroll into the Euphrates (51:63–64). Scrolls should be put in the libraries of temple or palace.

Antiphony: In the Foreign Nation Oracles is the same sort of dialogue characterizing the Judah oracles (cf. 6:4–5; 8:18–21). Yahweh and Jeremiah alternate as speaker (48:11–13), and every now and then other voices are brought in (46:8b, 16–17). In the long Babylon poem of 51:34–45, the other voices aid the structure of the poem (v. 35).

So far as rhetorical structures are concerned, poems in 51:20–23 and 51:34–45 rank with the best of Jeremiah’s poems and oracles to Judah. In one instance an oracle written to “daughter Zion” (6:22–24) is adapted for delivery to “daughter Babylon” (50:41–44).

220 6

Lundbom

Selected Poems Against Egypt and Babylon

Egypt. Egypt receives nine poems, some designated as divine oracles. They divide in two on the basis of the superscriptions in vv. 2 and 13 in ch. 46. The poetry has been highly acclaimed, having many rhetorical features familiar from the Judah oracles: chiasmus, double meanings, repeated roots, heightened vocabulary, change of speaker, and irony. 46:3–6. The first Egypt oracle is a lively three-stanza composition, one of the finest in the foreign nation collection.3 A superscription (v. 2) puts the two oracles of vv. 3–12 in context, which was the battle occurring between Egypt and Babylon at Carchemish in 605, where Pharaoh Neco II was roundly defeated by the army of Nebuchadrezzar (cf. 2 Kgs 24:7). 46 3Ready, buckler and shield! and advance to battle! 4Harness the horses! and rise up, O horsemen! Stand ready with helmets! Polish lances! Put on scale armor! 5“So why have I seen …?” They are terrified! drawing back! Their warriors are beaten and a flight they are fleeing They do not turn back terror on every side! – oracle of Yahweh 6The swift cannot flee the warrior cannot escape Up north on the bank of River Euphrates they have stumbled, and they have fallen!

3  For translation and structure, see Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21C (New York: Doubleday / New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 184–85.

Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah ’ s Foreign Nation Oracles

221

The oracle begins with seven imperatives (asyndeton), rapid-fire battle orders issued by Yahweh to Egyptian charioteers, cavalry, and foot-soldiers facing Nebuchadrezzar and the military might of Babylon (vv. 3–4). Soldiers are told to grab hold of bucklers and shields; harness the horses; be ready to mount them; put on their helmets; have their lances polished; and be fitted in scale armor. The commands are laden with irony, for Yahweh knows the army will soon be routed. Some imagine we are hearing excited soldiers urging one another on to battle (cf. 6:4–6), or officers barking out commands to their troops, but this being a divine oracle, Yahweh appears to be imitating the soldiers or their commanders. Jeremiah then speaks, “So why have I seen …?” but is cut off in mid-sentence by Yahweh who reports what both have observed (aposiopesis). It was no battle at all, or if it was, it quickly turned into a rout. Soldiers suffered panic attacks, drew back, and were beaten. When put to the flight they were fleeing (repeated root), they did not look back. Terror was on every side. They ran for their lives, but the swift could not get away and the mighty could not escape. On the northern Euphrates, the proud army of Egypt stumbled and fell (vv. 5–6). 46:7–8. This poem censures the hubris of Egypt. It has nice repetition: “rise” (three times); “Nile” (two times); “great river” (two times); “waters swell/are swollen” (two times), and contains a rhetorical question with Jeremiah himself supplying the answer (hypophora).4 46 7Who is this that rises like the Nile like the great river, its waters swell? 8Egypt rises like the Nile and like the great river, the waters are swollen For he said, “I will rise I will cover the earth I will destroy city and inhabitants in it.”

Jeremiah begins by feigning ignorance, asking the identity of the nation harboring expansionist pretensions (irony). In answering the question, he names Egypt, and says it is the Pharaoh of Egypt who is rising like the Nile. Reference is doubtless to Pharaoh Neco II before the Battle of Carchemish. 46:9–10. Probably another divine oracle, even though without a messenger formula. The structure is basically the same as the poem in vv. 3–6: multiple 4  Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 195.

222

Lundbom

imperatives (asyndeton) summoning horses, chariots, and ready mercenaries to begin the fight, then a report of the army’s defeat.5 More irony! Of the battle itself there is no mention. Yahweh speaks the battle commands, imitating what is heard on the battlefield (v. 9). Jeremiah responds: This day is another for Yahweh of Hosts, when he will avenge himself against his foes, this foe being Egypt (v. 10). The poem: 46 9Rise up, O horses! and go like mad, O chariots! and let the warriors move on out! Cush and Put holding the buckler and Ludim holding, bending the bow 10That day is for the Lord Yahweh of hosts a day of vengeance, to avenge himself on his foes The sword will consume and be sated and it will drink its fill of their blood Indeed a feast for the Lord Yahweh of hosts in a land of the north by River Euphrates.

The second group of Egypt poems (46:14–26) is preceded by a superscription that looks ahead to punitive campaigns against Egypt carried out by Nebuchadrezzar – on the Egyptian frontier (601–600) and within Egypt i­ tself – subsequent to Carchemish (v. 13). 46:14–17. This first oracle in the second group celebrates the fall of Egypt’s bull-god and disparages the Pharaoh, who is all talk:6 46 14Declare in Egypt, and proclaim in Migdol and proclaim in Memphis, and in Tahpanhes say: “Stand ready, and prepare yourself for the sword has consumed those around you.” 15So why is your mighty bull lying flat? It stands not, because Yahweh shoved it 16He kept on; stumbling, yes, it fell!

5  Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 198. 6  Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 205–06.

Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah ’ s Foreign Nation Oracles

223

Each person to his fellow, indeed, they said: “Arise, and let us go back to our people and to the land of our birth before the oppressive sword.” 17Call the name of Pharaoh king of Egypt: “Loud Noise, Who Lets the Deadline Pass.”

Four stanzas alternate speaker and bring in other voices, a common feature of the Judah oracles. Yahweh is speaker in Stanza I, first addressing messengers who will carry his message to the Egyptian cities – Migdol, Memphis, and Tahpanhes (v. 14a), and then giving the message itself, which is that people need to be on alert, for war has already begun to consume those round about (v. 14b). Jeremiah interrupts with another “So why?” question in Stanza II, mocking the Egyptian god (v. 15). Why is Egypt’s mighty bull (Apis of Memphis) lying flat? Another rhetorical question, which Jeremiah himself answers: Yahweh kept shoving it until it fell (hypophora). People should be preparing to flee, but are not. Mercenary soldiers and other expatriates are on high alert, however, for in Stanza III they are urging one another to return home. In Stanza IV they give a parting shot upon leaving the country, calling Pharaoh: “Loud Noise, Who Lets the Deadline Pass” (epithet). Babylon. The Babylon collection contains a substantial core of Jeremiah utterances, to which has been added non-Jeremianic oracles and supplements of various kinds. Oracles and poems against Babylon convey judgment in a very general sense, often – but not always – lacking specific names and places such as we find in oracles against other nations. Lacking, too, is the audience engagement present in poetry spoken to Judah. For example, there are no rhetorical questions in the Babylon oracles (50:44 repeats 49:19). Also, the simulated battle commands in 50:14, 29, and especially in 51:11a, 12, lack the irony in commands of the same type against Egypt in 46:3–4. Babylon is a distant enemy, and its demise lies in the distant future. 50:35–38a. Here is a catalogue poem in which Yahweh, speaking a divine oracle, hurls a string of curses upon the Chaldeans.7 An unstoppable “sword” will carry out the bloody work, and perhaps, as in 47:6, it is being addressed

7  Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 417.

224

Lundbom

directly (apostrophe). In the last line Jeremiah replaces “sword” with the similar sounding “drought” (paronomasia).8 50 35A sword upon Chaldeans – oracle of Yahweh – and to the inhabitants of Babylon and to her princes and to her wise men 36A sword to the diviners, that they become foolish a sword to her warriors, that they be broken 37A sword to his horses and to his chariots and to all the mixed races who are in her midst that they become women A sword to her treasures, that they become booty 38aa drought to her waters, that they be dried up.

Five poetic lines begin with “sword” (‫) ֶח ֶרב‬, then a final line beginning with “drought” (‫)ח ֶֹרב‬. The repetition is anaphora. The shift is a known device in ancient Hebrew rhetoric where the poet makes a deliberate deviation in a series.9 Another deviation is seen in Jeremiah’s use of prepositions, beginning with ‫על‬ (“upon”) in v. 35, then ten occurrences of ‫“( אל‬to”) to the end. Duhm10 emended all the occurrences of ‫ אל‬to ‫על‬, and many commentators, also some modern versions (NEB, REB, JB, NAB) emended ‫ ח ֶֹרב‬to ‫ ֶח ֶרב‬. Neither deviation should be emended in the interest of achieving consistency. These are fine examples of ancient Hebrew rhetoric. The sword will reach everyone and everything – inhabitants of the city of Babylon, princes, wise men, diviners, warriors, horses and chariots, mixed races residing in Babylon (mercenary soldiers, traders), and national treasures. The “brokenness” of the warriors employs a common Jeremiah verb, ‫חתת‬ (1:17; 8:9; 14:4; 17:18; 48:1, 20, 39; 50:2). The repetition of “sword” simulates the repeated stabbing of the victims (onomatopoeia). When referents are chariots and treasures, “sword” means destruction or capture in war (metonymy). 8  Immanuel M. Casanowicz, “Paronomasia in the Old Testament,” JBL 12 (1893): 105–67, here p. 137, #142a. 9  David Noel Freedman, “Deliberate Deviation from an Established Pattern of Repetition in Hebrew Poetry as a Rhetorical Device,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem August 4–12, 1985). Division A: The Period of the Bible (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), 45–52 (reprinted in Freedman, Divine Commitment and Human Obligation, ed. John R. Huddlestun [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 2.205–12). 10  D. Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, KHC (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1901).

Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah ’ s Foreign Nation Oracles

225

The final curse is on Babylon’s precious natural resource: water. A drought will dry up the Euphrates, canals, and other waterways. The line is climactic. This showcase example of anaphora compares with 4:23–26; 5:15–17; and 31:4–5 in Jeremiah’s Judah poems. 51:20–23. Another well-crafted catalogue poem with anaphora (“and with you”) and onomatopoeia (the repetition of “I smashed” simulates the repeated smashing of a war club).11 Objects of the divine wrath form a large chiasmus, making a structured enumeration similar to 5:17 in the Judah poem. The line following the introduction has a second verb, “I destroyed,” which could be a deliberate deviation in a series such as we have in 50:38a, or else expansion providing a catchword to the oracle following (v. 25: “destroying” two times). The poem: 51 20You were a club for me weapons of war: And with you I smashed nations and with you I destroyed kingdoms 21and with you I smashed horse and its rider and with you I smashed chariot and its rider 22and with you I smashed man and woman and with you I smashed old and young and with you I smashed young man and maiden 23and with you I smashed shepherd and his flock and with you I smashed farmer and his team and with you I smashed governors and commanders.

Who is the addressee? Was Babylon or the king of Babylon Yahweh’s club of war (or mace), smashing nations and kingdoms and everything in them? If so, it is such no longer, for now Babylon is being smashed by Yahweh, and Jeremiah – as bearer of Yahweh’s word – has become the divine war club. The prophet elsewhere is described as a hammer breaking rocks in pieces (23:29). Perhaps the poem was originally a judgment against Judah and the nations, and is here being recycled for use against Babylon. In the oracle following (v. 24) Babylon is being repaid for the evil it did to Zion. The opening and closing lines are complementary: “governors” and “commanders” rule “nations” and “kingdoms,” making an inclusio for the whole. The final line should not be omitted with Rudolph12 and BHS as an MT plus. It is an integral part of a well-balanced poem. There is also inversion, with Jeremiah 11  Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 451. 12  W.  Rudolph, Jeremia, HAT, 3rd ed. (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1968).

226

Lundbom

choosing terms in the first line that form their plurals with îm and ôt, and then switching them around in the last line. At the center, “old” and “young” distinguish a “man” from a “young man,” and a “woman” from a “maiden,” but is merismus, meaning “everybody.” In v. 21bc the human figures come second in the pairings: “riders” of horse and chariot, and in v. 23ab they come first: “shepherd” and “farmer.” A fine poem with repetition and other rhetorical features, fully worthy of Jeremiah. 51:34–45. The longest poem (twenty lines excluding the messenger formula in 36a and add-on in 43b), and one of the most carefully crafted in the entire Jeremiah book.13 Repetitions, metaphors, balancing terms, and balancing voices in five-stanzas combine to form an expanded keyword chiasmus, making it structurally similar to the Judah poems in 2:5–9; 5:1–8; and 8:13–17. The keywords (italicized): “Nebuchadrezzar”/“Bel,” “Babylon,” and “swallowed” in Stanzas I and V (vv. 34 and 44); “sea,” “heaps,” and “desolation” (a common word in Jeremianic poetry and prose) in Stanzas II and IV (vv. 36–37 and 41–43); and four animals with “like” at the center in Stanza III (vv. 38–40). The chiasmus functions to highlight the main point, that is, that Babylon will receive the very treatment it meted out to Jerusalem. Direct speech is brought in at the beginning and the end: at the beginning a personified Jerusalem laments its treatment by Nebuchadrezzar, calling on its citizens to curse Babylon; at the end Yahweh tells his people to flee Babylon before his burning anger erupts. The poem combines in rare fashion images of land and sea (vv. 36–37, 42–43, 44), sea monsters and an array of land animals – jackals, lions, lion cubs, lambs, rams, and he-goats (vv. 34, 37–38, 40): 51 34He consumed me, he shook me up Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon he set me down an empty jar Like a monster he swallowed me he filled his belly with my delicacies he rinsed me out 35“My violated flesh be upon Babylon” let the inhabitant of Zion say “My blood be upon the inhabitants of Chaldea” let Jerusalem say 36Therefore thus said Yahweh: Look I have pled your plea 13  Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 469–70.

Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah ’ s Foreign Nation Oracles

227

and I have avenged your avenging I have drained her sea and I have dried up her fountain 37And Babylon will become heaps a den of jackals a desolation and an object of hissing without inhabitant 38Together like lions they roar they growl like lion cubs 39When they are heated I will set out their drinks and make them drunk so they become silly They shall sleep an eternal sleep and not awaken – oracle of Yahweh 40I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter like rams with the he-goats 41How Sheshak is taken and the praise of all the land occupied How she has become a desolation Babylon among the nations! 42The sea has come up upon Babylon with its roaring heaps she is covered 43Her cities have become a desolation a land of drought and desert (a land in which a person shall not dwell and a human shall not pass through) 44So I have reckoned with Bel in Babylon and taken out what he swallowed from his mouth And nations will not stream to him any longer even the wall of Babylon has fallen! 45“Go out from her midst, my people! and deliver each his own life from the burning anger of Yahweh!”

The poem begins with a lament by Lady Jerusalem who says that Nebuchadrezzar consumed her, gave her great internal distress, and then set her down an empty vessel. He swallowed her like a monster, filling his belly with all her good things, and then rinsed her out. All this rich imagery portrays

228

Lundbom

a loss of Jerusalem’s population, temple treasures, and much, much more. Lady Jerusalem calls for inhabitants who remain to curse the nation that carried out this violence: “My violated flesh and blood be upon Babylon!” Yahweh, having heard the plaint and the curses, responds in an oracle of judgment. The fall of Babylon is a ways off, but it may as well have already happened. No need for Jerusalem to plead her case; Yahweh has already done that, and will do the avenging on her behalf. Whereas Babylon was once a water wonderland, Yahweh will make her a dry ruin heap where jackals come to live. Passersby will whistle in derision at the desolation they see. But the end is not yet. Babylon’s mighty ones are still roaring like lions, growling like lion cubs, waiting for another victim to devour. But Yahweh is ready. When passions are elevated and appetites have peaked, he will set out drinks to make them so drunk they will act like silly fools. The hapless souls will then fall asleep, but it will be a sleep from which they will not awaken. Babylon’s crack warriors will be easy prey, brought down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with he-goats. The climax has been reached in the center of the oracle. It remains only to repeat and spell out the details of this spectacular turn of events. Yahweh now utters a lament that an attentive audience will perceive to be laden with irony. What a pity that Babylon – mentioned now in a cipher (Sheshak) – is captured, a nation that was once the praise of all the earth! What a pity that she should become a desolation! If Babylon’s own sea has become dry, another sea is now about to roll in upon her, its roaring waves waiting to make her disappear from view. The curse is repeated, only now it is upon the daughter cities, for they too will become a desolation. Yahweh has reckoned with Bel in Babylon. Now the monster god, not Nebuchadrezzar, must give up what he has swallowed. Respect and tribute money will no longer flow to him from nations of the world. The celebrated wall of Babylon is seen lying flat on the ground. In closing, Yahweh tells his own people to flee the city in all haste, save their lives, and escape the outpouring of the burning divine anger. 7

Rhetoric in Composition

There is rhetoric also in the composition of the Foreign Nation Collection. In MT the concluding Babylon oracle in 51:58 hearkens back to the divine word in 1:15 on the fate of Jerusalem, the two verses making an inclusio. Key words are “gates” and “walls,” which in typical fashion are inverted in their second occurrence:

Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah ’ s Foreign Nation Oracles 1:15 51:58

229

Yahweh says: A foe shall come against Jerusalem’s gates and walls Yahweh says: [A foe] shall demolish Babylon’s walls and gates.

Compare the structure using these same key words in 1:15–18. Another inclusio ties together the Jeremiah book of 51 chapters in MT. Seraiah, at the end of his colophon in 51:59–64, adds a subscript that is lacking in the lxx: 1:1 51:64

The legacy [or words] of Jeremiah … Thus far the legacy [or words] of Jeremiah.

Select Bibliography Bright, John. Jeremiah. AB 21. Garden City: Doubleday, 1965. Budde, Karl. “Ueber die Capitel 50 und 51 des Buches Jeremia.” JDT 23 (1878): 458–59. Casanowicz, Immanuel M. “Paronomasia in the Old Testament.” JBL 12 (1893): 105–67. Freedman, David Noel. “Deliberate Deviation from an Established Pattern of Repetition in Hebrew Poetry as a Rhetorical Device.” Pages 45–52 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem August 4–12, 1985). Division A: The Period of the Bible. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21C. New York: Doubleday / New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Rudolph, W. Jeremia. HAT, 3rd ed. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1968.

chapter 12

What is Israel’s God Up To among the Nations? Jeremiah 46, 48, and 49 Paul R. Raabe 1 Introduction It is well known that the book of Jeremiah offers promises for Israel’s future to follow the judgment of exile. What is not so familiar is the promise for the future of Egypt, Moab, the Ammonites, and Elam. The God of Israel announces that he will “restore” these foreign nations after he enacts judgment against them. Here I want to focus on these four sections (Jer 46, 48, 49:1–6, 34–39). But first some observations on their written context. The writing prophets of ancient Israel typically made proclamations concerning non-Israelite nations. That was part of the job description. Since many of these proclamations are grouped together, it is not surprising that the book of Jeremiah has such a collection as well. In fact, it is to be expected given that the book speaks of Jeremiah announcing divine judgment against all the nations.1 In the lxx Jeremiah’s proclamations concerning foreign nations are located in the middle of the book after 25:13a but are at the book’s end in the MT. In light of Qumran texts scholars generally hold that there were two different Vorlagen for the MT and lxx.2 The lxx order of the nations differs from the MT: Elam, Egypt, Babylon, Philistines, Edom, Ammon, Kedar, Damascus, and Moab. The rationale for the lxx sequence of nations is unknown, but one can make sense of the MT’s sequence (see below). By word count chs. 46–51 in the MT comprise 15% of the book.3 1 See, for example, 1:9–10; 4:16; 9:25–26; 25:13–33; 36:2. 2 For discussions of the question of the MT and lxx with respect to Jeremiah, see James W. Watts, “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles Against the Nations,” CBQ 54 (1992): 432–47; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 57–63; Julie Woods, Jeremiah 48 as Christian Scripture, PTMS 144 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2011), 10–11. 3 For the statistics, see Paul R. Raabe, “Why Prophetic Oracles against the Nations?,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Astrid B. Beck, et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 236–57, here at 236–37. Word counts are based on Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes, “‘Prose Particle’ Counts of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_013

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

2

231

The Order of the Nations

In the MT ch. 45 has a swing function. It concludes the so-called Baruch biography and prepares for the following proclamations concerning foreign nations. Here the divine speech says to Baruch in the fourth year of Jehoiakim: Look! That which I have built I am breaking down, and that which I have planted I am plucking up, and that is all the earth …. Look! I am about to bring misfortune upon all flesh (45:4–5).4

The God of Israel states his intention, and it is one that concerns “all the earth” and “all flesh.” Chapters 46–51 then particularize that universal intention to individual nations and cities. The logic of judgment moves from the universal to the particular, from “all the earth//all flesh” to the specific places named in the following chapters. The same logic occurs in the cup-of-wrath passage of Jer 25:15–29, from “all the nations” to the specific places and rulers named.5 According to the headings in chs. 46–51 (MT), there are ten sections. Two of them deal with Egypt, while one section focuses on two names, “Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor” (49:28). Thereby according to the headings, there are ten national names explicitly targeted: 46:2 Egypt 46:13 Egypt 47:1 Philistines 48:1 Moab 49:1 Ammonites 49:7 Edom 49:23 Damascus 49:28 Kedar and Hazor 49:34 Elam 50–51 Babylon

Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 165–83. 4 All translations are by the author. On the phrase “all the earth,” see Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21C (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 176. 5 See Paul R. Raabe, “The Particularizing of Universal Judgment in Prophetic Discourse,” CBQ 64 (2002): 652–74.

232

Raabe

The order begins and ends with the superpowers of the day, Egypt and Babylon.6 It begins with Egypt in keeping with the focus of chs. 42–44. After Egypt the sequence reflects the geography of the ancient Near East. The smaller nations are located between the two superpowers. Is there any logic to their sequence?7 They seem to be arranged in a geographical manner. Moving from west to east it makes sense that Philistia would follow Egypt (47:1–7). The two are also related in that Egypt would strike down Philistia (47:1). Elam immediately precedes Babylon (49:34–39). Although Elam was geographically east of Babylon, placing it before Babylon allows Babylon to be the final target (see below). The other six national names are located east of the Jordan Rift Valley. Perhaps they are arranged in a pattern that alternates between north and south: Moab – central; Ammon – north of Moab; Edom – south of Moab; Damascus – north of Ammon; Kedar and Hazor – east of Edom.8 Moab occupies a central geographical location among the names east of the Rift Valley. That geographical positioning also corresponds to the length of the different sections. The longest sections are those concerning Egypt (west), Moab (central), and Babylon (east). The hammer that God used against Judah and the other nations afterward must itself face the judgment of God. Babylon is not exempt; no national power is exempt. Note how the order of the bookends is the same as the order in the cup-of-wrath passage. Judgment begins with Jerusalem and Judah (25:18), just as it dominates chs. 1–41. Then judgment targets Egypt (25:19), just as it occupies chs. 42–44 and ch. 46, the first of the proclamations concerning foreign nations. Finally judgment comes around to Babylon (25:26), just as it ends the proclamations concerning foreign nations in chs. 50–51.9

6 One can see a bracket construction in other sections of the book. See Alexander Rofé, “The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah,” ZAW 101 (1989): 390–98. 7 For various views on the order, see William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 313– 14; Woods, Jeremiah 48, 39–46. 8 They have a different sequence in the cup-of-wrath passage of Jer 25:21: Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites. Damascus does not occur in that list. 9 On the correspondence between ch. 25 and the general outline of the book, see Martin Kessler, Battle of the Gods: The God of Israel Versus Marduk of Babylon: A Literary/Theological Interpretation of Jeremiah 50–51, SSN 42 (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 180–82; Kessler, “The Scaffolding of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence, ed. Martin Kessler (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 57–66.

233

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

3

The God of Israel Spoke in History

The material locates the proclamations within history by providing some dates for the utterances. They follow in a chronological sequence: 45:1 46:2 47:1 49:34 51:59

fourth year of Jehoiakim fourth year of Jehoiakim Before Pharaoh smote Gaza In the beginning of Zedekiah’s reign fourth year of Zedekiah’s reign

605 BC 605 BC ca. 600 BC ca. 597 BC 594/3 BC

The chapters repeatedly emphasize that the one speaking and the one revealing the events is Yahweh, the God of Israel. To do this several different formulas are employed. Together these formulas cover all the nations targeted. “Thus spoke Yahweh” – commonly introduces a discourse: 47:2 – Philistines 48:1, 40 – Moab 49:1 – Ammonites 49:7, 12 – Edom 49:28 – Kedar and Hazor 49:35 – Elam 50:18, 33; 51:1, 33, 36, 58 – Babylon

“The utterance of Yahweh” – does not function to close a discourse but only to mark the continuing speaking of Yahweh:10 46:5, 18, 23, 26, 28 – Egypt 48:12, 15, 25, 30, 35, 38, 43, 44, 47 – Moab 49:2a, b, 5, 6 – Ammonites 49:13, 16, 18 – Edom 49:26 – Damascus 49:30, 31, 32 – Kedar and Hazor 49:37, 38, 39 – Elam 50:4, 10, 20, 21, 30, 31, 35, 40; 51:24, 25, 26, 39, 48, 52, 53, 57 – Babylon

10 Oliver Glanz, Understanding Participant-Reference Shifts in the Book of Jeremiah, SSN 60 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 264.

234

Raabe

“The word which Yahweh spoke to Jeremiah the prophet” 46:13 – Egypt

“The word which Yahweh spoke to Babylon, to the land of the Chaldeans, by means of Jeremiah the prophet” 50:1 – Babylon

“Yahweh of Hosts, the God of Israel spoke” 46:25 – Egypt

“That which came as the word of Yahweh to Jeremiah the prophet” 46:1 – the nations 47:1 – Philistines 49:34 – Elam

Chapters 46–51 repeatedly claim to be the speech of Yahweh. Not only is this emphasized by the frequent meta-discourse formulas but also by the repeated use of first person verbs. The God of Israel speaks. He wants to communicate his intentions. He does not operate in a secret, silent way. He openly reveals his plan. He wants people to know what he is up to among the nations. And the textual addressees for much of the material are the populations of the foreign nations themselves. The God of Israel is depicted as publicly announcing ahead of time his actions among the nations. 4

Two Questions Directed Toward Chapters 46, 48, and 49

The activity of interpreting ancient texts involves directing questions to the text. Here I will direct two questions to the material as given in the MT: 1) 2)

How do the sections flow in terms of speakers and audiences? What is the God of Israel up to?

I will take a text-centered approach, reading with the grain of the text and considering things from within the world projected by the text.11 11 The approach is akin to what the behavioral sciences call an “emic” approach.

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

235

The first question focuses on how the hearer/reader now encounters these chapters. In terms of speakers and audiences, how do these chapters flow from verse-to-verse and paragraph-to-paragraph? The second question concentrates on the activity of Israel’s God and presses the question of his goals and purposes. According to the text, what was the God of Israel attempting to achieve on the international scene? How do those goals relate to what the rest of the book says about the divine goals? We will begin with the first question: how does the contemporary hearer/reader encounter this material? 5

How Do the Sections Flow? An Example: The First Section against Egypt

We should not suppose that each section will convey one coherent, uniform speech with an introduction, body, and then conclusion. On the contrary, each section presents many short vignettes that quickly change from one to the next. It is as if the text projects different movie clips, now from one angle, then from a different angle, sometimes with a zoom-lens and sometimes with a wide-angle lens. The camera can suddenly move from place to place and from time to time. One clause can announce the initial preparations for a battle, and the next clause can describe the aftermath. We also hear different voices and different sounds. The textual speakers and the textual audiences can vary rapidly from segment to segment. The first section in ch. 46 provides an example.12 Jeremiah 46:2–12 constitutes the first section. Verse 2 locates us at Carchemish by the river Euphrates in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 605 BC. There the army of Pharaoh Neco engaged the army of Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon.13 In the opening verses Yahweh commands the Egyptian army to prepare for battle. With seven imperatives he orders the chariot force, the horsemen, and the foot-soldiers to get ready (vv. 3–4). The movie clip quickly moves to the end of the battle. Jeremiah interrupts and expresses surprise to Yahweh, “Why have I seen?” Yahweh continues with a description to Jeremiah of the scene.14 The Egyptian army is terrified. Their warriors are beaten and single-mindedly flee

12 For a stimulating description of Jeremiah’s rhetorical moves in chs. 46 and 49, see Barbara Green, Jeremiah and God’s Plan of Well-being (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2013), 12–25. 13 This first section is unique in the amount of historical information provided by the heading. 14 For this interpretation, see Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 192.

236

Raabe

(v. 5). Yet the swift and the warrior will not be able to flee and escape.15 The Egyptian army is defeated: “toward the north, by the side of the river Euphrates, they have stumbled and they fall” (v. 6). In vv. 5–6 we were placed at the end of the battle to witness the defeat of the Egyptian force. Now in v. 7 we are located back at the preliminary stages of the battle with the intention of the Egyptian military and the call to arms. Yahweh continues to speak to Jeremiah by asking a rhetorical question: “Who is this, which like the Nile rises?” Then Yahweh answers his own question, “Egypt like the Nile rises.” He clarifies the comparison by quoting how Egypt thinks: “I will rise; I will cover the earth; I will cause city and her inhabitants to perish.” In seeking to dominate the earth, Egypt acts like the Nile overflowing its banks (vv. 7–8). Verse 9 points to a time subsequent to the initial command to prepare for battle in vv. 3–4. With two imperatives and a jussive, Yahweh orders the Egyptian army, already prepared, to attack. It is an army that includes Cush, Put, and Ludim. In v. 10 Jeremiah interprets the event to his audience of onlookers. While a multi-national army of Egypt engages in battle, the day will not belong to them. Instead, “that day belongs to the Lord Yahweh of Hosts.” It will be a day of vengeance when Yahweh avenges himself on his enemies, Pharaoh and his army. It will be a day when the Lord Yahweh of Hosts “sacrifices his victims” (TEV) in the north at the river Euphrates. In vv. 11–12 Yahweh speaks to the population of Egypt personified as a virgin. He urges her to get balm from Gilead and then discover that there is no cure for her. He informs her that the news of her disgrace and the sound of her wailing have reached other nations and filled the earth. The reason for her shame and wailing is the complete defeat of her military. These ten verses illustrate the kind of rapid switching that characterizes chs. 46–51: changes in speaker and audience, changes in imagery, and changes in depicted time from the initial stages to the aftermath of the battle. The changes in speaker and audience deserve special attention.

15 So Joüon for v. 6; Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and rev. T. Muraoka, SubBi 14 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991) §114k. McKane recognizes that the construction with the negative particle ‫ אל‬normally has jussive force, “Let not the fleet of foot escape; let not the mighty warrior save himself”; William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II: Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 1114. If one were to take it that way, at face value, one would interpret the sentence as a change in audience with Yahweh speaking to the Babylonian army.

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

6

237

Extra-Textual Speaker and Extra-Textual Audience

The material presents itself as “the word of Yahweh which came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning/against (‫ )על‬the nations” (46:1). In chs. 46–51 as well as the rest of the book, the God of Israel is typically the speaker, and he speaks through Jeremiah his mouthpiece. The prophet enabled his original hearers and his subsequent hearers and readers to see the sights and hear the sounds of what takes place in each nation. Where did these speeches originally take place? In terms of extra-textual history one should think of Jerusalem as the place where Jeremiah was speaking. It is rather doubtful that Jeremiah actually travelled to the different places mentioned. At least there is no record of it, other than his exile in Egypt. While Jeremiah was located in Jerusalem, the question of the extra-textual audience is a different matter. In terms of extra-textual history, did Jeremiah speak only to Jerusalemites? That may very well be the case. But a good case can be made that he might have addressed some proclamations to representatives from the foreign nations. We know from ch. 27 that such an occasion took place in 594 BC. Envoys from foreign nations gathered in Jerusalem and the prophet had words for them to take back to their kings and homelands. The text mentions envoys from Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, and Tyre and Sidon. Perhaps that occasion or similar ones may be a plausible hypothesis for some of his OAN.16 There is also the possibility of Jeremiah’s messages informally being spread to non-Israelites, such as merchants in Jerusalem. According to chs. 39–40, Nebuchadrezzar knew of Jeremiah, and Nebuzaradan was familiar with Jeremiah’s message. Nevertheless, the texts of chs. 46–51 do not explicitly answer this historical question.17 7

The Textual Speakers and Textual Audiences

The prophet Jeremiah is the historical, extra-textual speaker and people in Jerusalem are the historical, extra-textual audience. The more interesting question concerns the textual speaker and the textual audience. In this respect 16 One might consider the international conference in Jerusalem in 594 as the occasion for Jeremiah’s prophetic announcements against Moab, Ammon, and Edom. So Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, WBC 27 (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 320, 325, 329. 17 On the possibility of non-Israelite hearers, see Raabe, “Why Prophetic Oracles against the Nations?,” 248–53.

238

Raabe

we see changes among textual speakers and textual audiences. There are three basic options for the textual speaker: 1) 2) 3)

Yahweh, the God of Israel; Jeremiah the prophet as a distinct speaker; Participants in the depicted action.

There are four basic options for the textual audience: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Yahweh, the God of Israel; Jeremiah the prophet; Participants in the depicted action; Third party onlookers.

If we put these options together, we find six speech patterns: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

“I” (=Yahweh) to participants in the depicted action;18 Jeremiah to participants in the depicted action; Participants to participants in the depicted action; “I” (=Yahweh) to Jeremiah and onlookers;19 Jeremiah to onlookers;20 Jeremiah to Yahweh.

The discourse in these chapters can make rapid shifts in terms of both textual speaker and textual audience. In order to make sense of the text, to “naturalize” the text, the contemporary hearer/reader needs to follow these shifting configurations of communication.21 Here I will attempt to track the speech patterns through chs. 46 and 48–49. Chapters 47 and 50–51 exhibit the same speech patterns.

18 Many passages addressed to participants in the depicted action are explicitly marked as divine speech (46:18–19; 48:14–15, 43–44; 49:4–5, 7–10, 11–13, 15–16, 28, 30, 31–32). I assume that the other like passages should be understood the same way (pattern 1). 19 When a passage uses first person divine speech and third person for the participants in the scene, I take it as Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers (pattern 4). 20 When both Yahweh and the actors in the scene are third person, I group them as Jeremiah to onlookers (pattern 5). 21 On “naturalizing” a text, see Robert B. Robinson, “Levels of Naturalization in Obadiah,” JSOT 40 (1988): 83–97.

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

239

Chapter 46 – First Section concerning Egypt 46:3–4 (1) Yahweh to Egyptian army 46:5 (6/4) Jeremiah to Yahweh; Yahweh to Jeremiah 46:6 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 46:7–8a (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 46:8b (3) Egypt to itself 46:9 (1) Yahweh to Egyptian army 46:10 (5) Jeremiah to onlookers 46:11–12 (1) Yahweh to population of Egypt Chapter 46 – Second Section concerning Egypt 46:14–15a (1) Yahweh to unidentified messengers to proclaim 46:15b–16a (5) Jeremiah to onlookers 46:16b (3) Foreign troops to each other 46:17 (5) Jeremiah to onlookers22 46:18–19 (1) Yahweh to population of Egypt 46:20–26 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 46:27–28 (4) Yahweh to Israel Chapter 48 – concerning Moab 48:1–2a (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 48:2b (3) Attacking army to themselves 48:2c (1) Yahweh to Madmen 48:3–5 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 48:6–8 (1) Yahweh to Moabites 48:9 (1) Yahweh to Moab’s neighbors23 48:10 (1) Yahweh to Moab’s devastators 48:11–13 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 48:14 (1) Yahweh to Moabite army 48:15–16 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 48:17 (1) Yahweh to Moab’s neighbors 48:18 (1) Yahweh to inhabitants of Moab 48:19–20 (1) Yahweh to inhabitants of Moab 48:21–25 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 22 For 46:17, the MT reads: “They call out there [in Egypt], ‘Pharaoh, the king of Egypt is noisy; he let the appointed time pass by.’” The verbal subject continues to be the expatriates, asserting why they will depart. 23 The MT is difficult. It is plausible to understand it as a command to Moab’s neighbors to help her flee away by giving her “wings.” See Woods, Jeremiah 48, 62–64.

240

Raabe

48:26 (1) Yahweh to Moab’s devastators 48:27 (1) Yahweh to Moab 48:28 (1) Yahweh to inhabitants of Moab 48:29–31 (6/4) Jeremiah for Israel to Yahweh; Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 48:32 (1) Yahweh to the vine of Sibmah 48:33–41 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 48:42 (5) Jeremiah to onlookers 48:43–44 (1) Yahweh to inhabitant of Moab 48:45 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 48:46 (1) Yahweh to Moab 48:47 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers Chapter 49 – concerning the Ammonites 49:1–2 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 49:3 (1) Yahweh to Ammonites 49:4–5 (1) Yahweh to Ammon 49:6 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers Chapter 49 – concerning Edom 49:7–8 (1) Yahweh to Edomites 49:9–10 (1) Yahweh to Edom 49:11–13 (1) Yahweh to Edom 49:14a (5) Jeremiah to onlookers 49:14b (3) a messenger to recruit attacking nations 49:15–16 (1) Yahweh to Edom 49:17–19 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 49:20–22 (5) Jeremiah to onlookers Chapter 49 – concerning Damascus 49:23–24 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 49:25 (3) Inhabitant of Damascus to others 49:26–27 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers Chapter 49 – concerning Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor 49:28 (1) Yahweh to Babylonian army 49:29 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 49:30 (1) Yahweh to inhabitants of Hazor 49:31–32 (1) Yahweh to Babylonian army 49:33 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

241

Chapter 49 – concerning Elam 49:35–39 (4) Yahweh to Jeremiah and onlookers 8

Observations on Speech Patterns

A quick read through the preceding list reveals how rapidly the material shifts in terms of textual speaker and textual audience.24 For these chapters such quick changes constitute the prophet’s standard modus operandi. Given the overall heading for the material in 46:1 – “that which came as the word of Yahweh to Jeremiah the prophet concerning/against the nations” – one expects to see the pattern of Yahweh as “I” speaking about the nation in third person (pattern 4).25 For this configuration I add “and to onlookers,” since those messages were meant to be made known and broadcast. One also expects to encounter instances where Jeremiah the prophet as textual speaker explains and clarifies the matter to the third party onlookers (pattern 5). In these places “Yahweh” occurs in third-person. Fairly often one sees instances where participants in the depicted action are the textual speakers who speak to each other or other participants (pattern 3). That is also expected given the nature of the material, portrayals of sights and sounds taking place in each nation. Although it occurs frequently in the so-called “laments” of Jeremiah, I found only two texts with Jeremiah as the textual speaker addressing Yahweh (pattern 6), and the understanding of both is debatable (Jer 46:5; 48:29). I found two examples of Jeremiah speaking to a participant in the depicted scene (pattern 2). In 47:5b he expresses his lamenting plea to Gaza, “How long will you continue to gash yourself?” with the rhetorical force, “You have done mourning rituals long enough.”26 This rhetorical question leads into the next one, where the prophet addresses the (personified) sword of Yahweh, “How long will you not be quiet?” He urges the sword to stop (47:6). But then he responds to his own challenge with another rhetorical question: “How can you [the sword] be

24 Glanz calls the move from third-person to second-person for the same referent “subjectivization” (e. g. 48:4–5 = third person for Moabite refugees // 48:6 = second person) and the reverse move from second-person to third-person “objectivization” (e.g. 46:3–4 = second person to the Egyptian army // 46:5–6 = third person). See Glanz, Understanding Participant-Reference Shifts, 322–28. 25 Note also 46:13; 47:1; 49:34. 26 I assume that Jeremiah is the speaker in v. 5b in continuity with v. 6.

242

Raabe

quiet when Yahweh has commanded it [the destruction]?” These lines are best understood as soliloquy in which the prophet thinks aloud.27 What does come as a surprise is how often Yahweh as the textual speaker speaks to participants in the depicted action (pattern 1). This pattern occurs repeatedly although seemingly at random and in no logical order. One can organize these different textual audiences into an overall logical sequence: a) Yahweh to messengers to exhort the army that will be defeated (46:14– 15a) or to recruit the victorious army (49:14); b) Yahweh to the army that will be defeated (46:3–4, 9; 48:14) or to the victorious army (48:10, 26; 49:28, 31–32); c) Yahweh to people in the targeted nation (46:11–12, 18–19; 48:2c, 6–8, 18– 20, 27–28, 32, 43–44, 46; 49:3–5, 7–13, 15–16, 30); d) Yahweh to neighbors of the targeted nation (48:9, 16–17). The scenarios depict Yahweh on the ground at the location, addressing different types of participant: the military to be defeated, the military that will conquer, people in the targeted nation, and the nation’s neighbors. We should not treat each textual audience by itself as an isolated Gattung with its own historical Sitz im Leben, such as a “call to battle” and a “call to flee.”28 Rather, the key question is how they function now in the written text.29 The different textual audiences need to be understood in relation to each other. When we group them together, we see a range from the initial recruitment of the army to the aftermath of the destruction. Not the nations but the God of Israel is in charge of the entire sequence. He initiates the attack, ensures the defeat or victory of the army, exhorts the populations of the attacked nation, and sees to it that the news of the destroyed nation spreads. These chapters do not portray the God of Israel as distant and aloof, as indifferent to what goes on among the foreign nations. Rather, they present him as located on the field of action and speaking to different participants in the scene. His interest is not limited to his own people Israel but also extends to the populations of the foreign nations. The two most common second person, textual audiences (pattern 1) are the army and the people in the targeted nation. These two textual audiences reflect the two dominant roles of Yahweh in these chapters, as general or

27 So McKane, Jeremiah II, 1152; Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 230, 241–42. 28 See, for example, Robert Bach, Die Aufforderungen zur Flucht und zum Kampf im alttestamentlichen Prophetenspruch, WMANT 9 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962). 29 Kessler, Battle of the Gods, 37–52.

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

243

commander-in-chief of both the army to be defeated and the victorious army and as judge who sentences the targeted nation. Both roles are part of his position as King. It is fascinating how Yahweh, the textual speaker, addresses the different textual audiences. Here I want to highlight how he speaks to the populations within the nation or city-state that will be attacked. Yahweh employs rhetorical questions to taunt the defending warriors about their lack of military prowess or to demonstrate to the population the justness of its punishment. He speaks in first person to announce what he will do and to convince the inhabitants of the inevitability and certainty of their nation’s doom. Another kind of second person address consists of imperatives. An imperative is a volitive form expressing the will or wish of the speaker. Depending on the context it can express command, exhortation, advice, permission, or invitation.30 Although the nuance of each is not always clear, I understand them as genuine expressions rather than sarcastic taunts. Yahweh bids the populations to prepare for exile. He urges the fugitives to flee into the desert away from city and nation. He exhorts the proud to humble themselves. Instead of their boasting and false sense of security, he calls for wailing and lamentation. These types of second-person locutions should not simply be dismissed as mere ornamental flourish. Regardless of whether they were actually heard by the nations in extra-textual history, they reveal something about the speaker, the God of Israel. They exhibit his keen interest in how the people of the targeted nations think. By addressing them directly he seeks to disabuse them of their false sense of security, their self-boasting and hubris, their false objects of trust. His speech endeavors to convince them that the coming destruction is unavoidable and unstoppable. Nothing can exempt them, not their military, fortresses, wealth, lofty abode, or god and cult. They should not misinterpret what is happening to them as due only to the political and economic decisions made by human kings. The God of Israel is the One sending the disaster from land to land, and he wants those populations to know it and “own” it. That is how the rhetoric of the second-person speech works on the textual level. Just like the speech patterns, so also the depicted scenarios jump around quickly, with one textual segment presenting the approaching disaster, another textual segment describing the destruction as if it were currently taking place, and another textual segment portraying the scene after the destruction. It is as if the camera and microphone can quickly be located to any place or moment within the nation or battle scene. The camera angle can vary, and the camera 30 Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §114h, m.

244

Raabe

can zoom in on the action and then zoom out and portray the entire action in a summary fashion. The switch in perspective can take place over several verses or within one verse. The material requires contemporary readers/hearers to pay close attention to the text line-by-line and to follow what is going on. Julie Woods captures the style well with her movie presentation of the Moab material of ch. 48, which she labels a “Literary Storyboard of the Film of Jeremiah 48” set in the sixth century.31 Her depiction gives rubrics to the camera crew: The film begins in silence and in black and white. A long camera shot shows what is obviously a devastated city…. The camera slowly moves in…. The view quickly becomes a long shot again before the camera races across the screen in a blur to portray another scene similar to the first; then another and another…. The camera moves in once more on another shattered city…. The atmosphere is transformed: silence gives way to a burst of noise and there is accompanying activity.32

That depiction reflects well how the chapters actually read. We contemporary readers/hearers are third-party onlookers or observers who get to see the actions and hear the sounds and the speeches of different characters in the action. 9

What is the God of Israel Up To?

Repeatedly the God of Israel is the verbal subject of the sentences. He is doing things in human history among the foreign nations. Therefore the question naturally arises: “What is the God of Israel up to? What are his actions, and what purposes will they serve?” Chapters 46, 48, and 49 clearly present Yahweh as concerned about his people Israel and their future.33 At the same time the material also reveals the God of Israel’s interest in the foreign nations and their own future. 9.1 The God of Israel The One at work in human history is Yahweh, the God of Israel. He is not the god of Egypt or of Moab or of Babylon or of any of the other nations. In fact, 31 Woods, Jeremiah 48, 282–88. 32 Woods, Jeremiah 48, 282. 33 See 46:27–28; 48:27; 49:1–2.

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

245

the names of some of the other gods are explicitly mentioned: Amon of Thebes (46:25), Chemosh of Moab (48:7, 13, 46; cf. 48:35), Milcom of the Ammonites (49:1, 3),34 Bel-Merodach (Bel-Marduk) of Babylon (50:2; 51:44). Yahweh is the specific God of Israel. Moreover, this particular God is in charge and not the gods of the other nations. Yahweh is the King, the Lord not only over his own people Israel but also over the foreign nations.35 He is the only God who should be honored and invoked as God. Just as Yahweh “swears” only by himself (46:18; 49:13; 51:14), so all the nations should “swear” by his name (12:16). Yahweh is the only God who deserves to be worshiped, because he is the One who made the heavens and the earth and who sustains all of creation.36 In contrast to Yahweh the Creator are the gods of the nations, merely humanly-made images.37 The Creator made Israel his own; his name is “Yahweh of Hosts” (10:16 // 51:19). These claims are fundamental to the material. 9.2 The Nations Treated Together Yahweh, the God of Israel, announces what he is about to do in history. He is bringing judgment upon foreign nations. In many ways each of the nations is treated in a distinctive manner with references to its cities, geographical features and recognized characteristics. At the same time, the various nations are also homogenized in overlapping ways. Each nation is distinctive in some ways, but in other ways they are all the same. They are grouped together as “the nations” (46:1). They all receive similar judgment from the God of Israel. What reinforces this sameness is the amount of internal repetition.38 The terminology that applies to one nation can be applied to another nation. Such internal repetition has the effect of leveling all the foreign nations. “The repetition and reuse of poetic images and forms of destruction call into question the boundaries between Oracles and between nations. The destruction of Edom is very much like the destruction of Moab,

34 The MT reads “their king,” probably to avoid the name “Milcom.” One should read “Milcom” with the lxx, Syr., and Vulg. 35 See 8:19; 10:7, 10; 46:18; 48:15; 49:38; 51:57. 36 See, for example, 27:5; 31:35; 32:17; 33:2; 10:12–13 // 51:15–16. 37 10:3–9; 16:19–21; 10:14–15 // 51:17–18. 38 See Jean-Daniel Macchi, “Les doublets dans le livre de Jérémie,” in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception, ed. A.H.W. Curtis and T. Römer (Leuven: University Press, 1997), 119– 50, especially 139–41; Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases, SBLMS 51 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 115–84.

246

Raabe

of Damascus, of Babylon.”39 The different nations can be grouped together, because they all face the same judgment from the same God. To understand the material we must not think individualistically but rather in collective terms of a nation and city-state. From the prophetic point of view, an entire nation or city-state can be characterized in certain ways. How do these chapters characterize the foreign nations? Every nation is generally satisfied with the status quo. It is self-absorbed, self-secure, self-oriented, complacent, and proud in its own fortresses and military and wealth and land and gods and religious cults and … the list goes on. The people as a unified nation are secure. They follow their own stubborn will with carnal security, thinking no disaster will come upon them. Whereas that mindset characterizes Jerusalem at the time of Jeremiah (for example, 23:17), it also characterizes foreign nations. 9.3 The Theological Terms To Yahweh, the God of Israel, the status quo is completely unacceptable. Therefore he is going to change things, to overturn the applecart. Chapters 46–51 use several theological terms to express what God is about to do to all the nations. Judgment. God will exercise “judgment” (‫ שפט‬/ ‫ )משפט‬against the nations: Jer 25:31; 48:21, 47 (Moab); 51:9 (Babylon). Wrath/Anger/Indignation. God will execute his wrath: ‫“ חרון אף‬heat of wrath” – 25:37–38; 49:37 (Elam); 51:45 (Babylon); ‫“ קצף‬anger” – 10:10; 50:13 (Babylon); ‫“ זעם‬indignation” – 10:10; 50:25 (Babylon). Make the Nations Drink the Cup of Wrath. “The cup of wrath” is a literary metaphor: humans experiencing God’s wrath is like getting drunk on wine, only worse.40 See 25:15–29; 48:26 (Moab); 49:12 (Edom); 51:7–8, 39, 57 (Babylon). Punishment. God will “punish” the nations: ‫ – פקד‬46:25 (Egypt); 49:8 (Edom); 50:18, 31; 51:44, 47, 52 (Babylon); “will not leave unpunished”: ‫ – לא נקה‬25:29; 49:12 (Edom); “will repay, requite”: ‫ – שלם‬25:14; 50:29; 51:6, 24, 56 (Babylon); “deserved retribution”: ‫גמול‬/‫ – גמלה‬51:6, 56 (Babylon).

39 Rhiannon Graybill, “Jeremiah, Sade, and Repetition as Counterpleasure in the Oracle against Edom,” in Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, ed. Else K. Holt, Hyun Chul Paul Kim, and Andrew Mein, LHBOTS 612 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 128–44, here at 144. 40 On the cup-of-wrath metaphor, see Paul R. Raabe, Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 24D (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 206–42.

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

247

Vengeance. God will execute his “vengeance” (‫ )נקם‬against the nations: 46:10 (Egypt); 50:15, 28; 51:6, 11, 36 (Babylon).41 9.4 The Divine Actions Under the above general terms we can identify more specifically the actions and purposes of Israel’s God. The material abounds with clauses where Yahweh is the verbal subject, both with first-person and third-person verbs.42 He is about to act in human history among the foreign nations. What verbal actions are ascribed to Yahweh? To the targeted nation or city-state Yahweh will bring about a military defeat. He causes the battle cry to be heard. He sends his sword and renders the nation defenseless, vulnerable, and weak. He terrifies its warriors before the attacking army so that they will inevitably fall. He will destroy by fire the city’s fortresses and palaces. He will drive out and exile or scatter the population so that its land will be without inhabitants. He does not intend to kill every man, woman, and child. The focus is on the military side of things. He overcomes a nation’s defenses, its political wisdom, its inaccessible location, its military, and its fortresses. The nation or city-state as a unified, autonomous power center is no more. Yet Yahweh does not do this destructive work gladly. The Moab section speaks of Yahweh as weeping over the ruined people and places. He “wails, cries out, mourns, weeps, and moans” over Moab.43 The God of Israel conquers nations and city-states by using human armies. Yet, these human armies are not passive robots; they have their own plans. Yahweh carries out his own plans and deeds in, with, and through the plans and deeds of a human army. The section on Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor offers a good illustration (49:28–33). Here Yahweh commands the army of Babylon to advance and attack (49:28, 31). He is the commander-in-chief. Yahweh “has planned a plan” and “has purposed his purposes” (49:20; 50:45). At the same time the human king makes decisions and leads his army. The text employs the same terminology for Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon, who 41 On “vengeance” in Jer 46–51, see H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root NQM and the Function of the NQM-Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament, OTS 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 176–87. 42 In reference to Yahweh as the subject of the verbs, the book frequently oscillates between third person and first person. See Glanz, Understanding Participant-Reference Shifts, 263–84. 43 See 48:31–32, 36. Brian C. Jones argues for taking such laments in Isa 15–16 and Jer 48 as ironic, in Brian C. Jones, Howling over Moab: Irony and Rhetoric in Isaiah 15–16, SBLDS 157 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1996). Woods ( Jeremiah 48, 255–62) persuasively argues for understanding them as genuine expressions of grief.

248

Raabe

“has planned a plan” and “purposed a purpose” against Hazor (v. 30). Both the divine action and the human action are part of the picture. 10

Before and After

What is the God of Israel up to? He is about to undo the status quo of the international scene, to reverse the way things are. He states his plan ahead of time through his prophet Jeremiah. We can see what this looks like by focusing on the explicit or implied contrasts between the “before” and “after,” between the depictions of a nation before and after the coming disasters. Egypt. Although Egypt deigned to dominate over the earth, Egypt is no longer a strong power, not even an autonomous nation, but has been delivered into the hand of another nation. Its inhabitants must now go into exile. They will no longer look to Amon of Thebes and Pharaoh and Egypt’s gods, because their impotence has been made evident. Pharaoh and Egypt are put to public shame. Moab. Moab is no longer a nation. Its cities are destroyed, its fortresses broken down, and its proud renown no more. No longer will they trust in their own works and their own treasures. The Moabites must go into exile along with Chemosh and his priests. Yahweh puts an end to the cultus of Chemosh. Their proud nation has been reduced to public disgrace and derision. The fall of its fortresses and military forced Moab out of its complacent security. The once proud and arrogant people now can only wail and lament. The gladness they had in their fruitful land and famous wine industry has turned to sorrow. Just as Moab held Israel in derision and thereby magnified itself against Yahweh, so now Moab itself will be held in derision by its neighbors. Ammon. The capital of the Ammonites will become a tell, and its daughtervillages will be burned with fire. The tables will be turned. Israel will repossess its own land previously taken by the Ammonites. The Ammonites will go into exile together with their god Milcom and his priests. No longer will they boast in their beautiful, fertile valleys or trust in their treasures to ensure their security. Elam. Elam will be unable to rely on their archery prowess for defense. They will be terrified before their enemies. They will be dispersed and scattered into all directions. Yahweh will rule as king and judge there and remove Elam’s king and princes. According to these chapters, what is the God of Israel up to among the nations? He is rendering a nation into a non-nation. He removes everything that provides a people with unity, autonomy, and security. Its military suffers total

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

249

defeat; its chief cities are destroyed; its god and religious cultus are proven futile; its inhabitants are exiled or scattered. In place of its pride and hubris is public shame. The God of Israel is destroying the self-security, the self-­ orientation, the self-focus, the self-determination, and the self-complacency of foreign nations. He is radically altering the status quo of the international scene. What the concluding generalization states about the city of Babylon applies to the other nations and city-states as well: Peoples labor for nothing, and nations only for fire, and they weary themselves (51:58).44

Only what the God of Israel builds will endure. 11

After the Coming Destruction, Then What?

The God of Israel promises that after the coming destructions, “Egypt will be inhabited “as in the days of old” (46:26). Then God will “restore the fortunes” of Moab, the Ammonites, and Elam (48:47; 49:6, 39). Such a promise raises natural questions. “Why do that? What will happen then? Will all the divine judgment be for naught? Will future restoration simply reinstate the status quo ante?” If we pose these questions to the book of Jeremiah, we can see an answer in 12:14–17. Here Jeremiah lays out two future scenarios. It begins this way: Thus spoke Yahweh concerning all my evil neighbors who touch the inheritance which I have caused my people, Israel, to inherit: Look! I am about to pluck them up from upon their land, and the house of Judah I will pluck up from their midst. It will happen after I pluck them up, I will again show compassion to them and I will restore them, each to his inheritance and each to his land.

So far the text anticipates what we find regarding Egypt, Moab, the Ammonites, and Elam. It presupposes that Yahweh dwells in the midst of Israel; the land is Yahweh’s “inheritance.”45 Hence the surrounding nations are “my neighbors” (MT). Judah dwells in the “midst” of these nations. The God of Israel will pluck these nations up from off their lands, and he will pluck Judah up from the midst of these nations. Then afterwards, Yahweh will have compassion on 44 Compare Hab 2:13. 45 See Jer 2:7; 16:18.

250

Raabe

them and will restore them, each to his (i.e. the nation’s) inheritance and land. The verb “restore,” a Hiphil of ‫שוב‬, is a lexical synonym for the idiom “restore the fortunes” (‫ )שוב שבות‬used in 48:47; 49:6; and 49:39. The sequence of “plucking up” and then later “restoring” is what we see in the sections concerning Egypt, Moab, Ammon, and Elam.46 Then what? The text goes on: It will happen if indeed they will learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, “by the life of Yahweh,” just as they taught my people to swear by Baal, then they will be built up in the midst of my people. But if they will not hearken, then I will pluck up that nation, plucking up and making (it) perish – the utterance of Yahweh. (Jer 12:16–17)

For each nation after its future restoration, Yahweh lays out two alternatives. If the people of that nation will learn the ways of his purified Israel and express allegiance to Yahweh and worship Yahweh instead of Baal, they will “be built up in the midst of” Israel. The status quo of Jeremiah’s age will be reversed. Whereas in former times Judah dwelt “in the midst of” the foreign nations, in the promised future the restored foreign nations will dwell “in the midst of” restored Israel. Each foreign nation will be restored to its own land. At the same time, the statement seems to envision that restored Israel will incorporate the foreign nations or that restored Israel’s land will be considered as including the lands of the foreign nations.47 At any rate, this alternative anticipates a blessed future for foreign nations who stop following their own ways (compare 10:2) and instead learn the ways of renewed Israel and worship Israel’s God. It will be a future in unity with restored, renewed Israel.48 However, if that nation stubbornly refuses to learn and “hearken” (‫)שמע‬, then it will be plucked up again and this time perish. The first alternative, at least, does not seem to be eschatological but anticipates a situation within future history. According to Jer 12:14–17, foreign nations have a future hope after the coming judgment and destruction, but it is a future in connection with Israel. In the words of Fretheim:

46 One might question whether the scenario anticipated in 12:14–17 would include Elam, the most distant land mentioned in chs. 46–51. Yet Elam receives the same promise of restoration as Moab and Ammon (49:39). Therefore I assume it would be included. 47 One thinks of Ps 87; Isa 19:24–25; Zech 2:15 [ET 2:11]. 48 Note also Jer 3:17; 4:2; 16:19–21.

What is Israel ’ s God Up To among the Nations ?

251

Given the repeated designation of Jeremiah as a “prophet to the nations” (1:5, 10), it is important not to think of these oracles [chs. 46–51] as pertinent only insofar as they are related to Israel and Israelite policies of one kind or another. God is interested in these nations for who they are in themselves, not simply in their relationship to Israel. At the same time, the particularity of God’s work in and through Israel remains intact amid the universality of God’s work among the nations.49

The texts concerning the foreign nations in the book of Jeremiah do not represent xenophobic hate-speech nor nationalistic survival literature. They depict how the God of Israel is making the future different not only for Israel but also for Gentile nations, such as Egypt, Moab, Ammon, and Elam. To bring about that future he first must “pluck up and break down, destroy and overthrow” the foreign nations. They will not be allowed to remain autonomous and self-­ oriented. The former status quo will not return. But that destructive action is only his penultimate action; it serves a further constructive purpose. Yahweh destroys the old status quo in order to create a different future, in order to “build and plant” (1:10). What is the God of Israel up to among foreign nations, such as Egypt, Moab, Ammon, and Elam? He is changing the future for the better, to the benefit of Israel and to the benefit of the foreign nations. Select Bibliography Andersen, Francis I. and A. Dean Forbes. “‘Prose Particle’ Counts of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 165–83 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Bach, Robert. Die Aufforderungen zur Flucht und zum Kampf im alttestamentlichen Prophetenspruch. WMANT 9. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962. Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah. SHBC. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. Glanz, Oliver. Understanding Participant-Reference Shifts in the Book of Jeremiah. SSN 60. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Graybill, Rhiannon. “Jeremiah, Sade, and Repetition as Counterpleasure in the Oracle against Edom.” Pages 128–44 in Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Edited by Else K. Holt, Hyun Chul Paul Kim, and Andrew Mein. LHBOTS 612. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Green, Barbara. Jeremiah and God’s Plan of Well-being. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2013. 49 Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah, SHBC (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 575.

252

Raabe

Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Jones, Brian C. Howling over Moab: Irony and Rhetoric in Isaiah 15–16. SBLDS 157. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996. Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. SubBi 14. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. Keown, Gerald L., Pamela J. Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers. Jeremiah 26–52. WBC 27. Dallas: Word Books, 1995. Kessler, Martin. Battle of the Gods: The God of Israel Versus Marduk of Babylon: A Literary/ Theological Interpretation of Jeremiah 50–51. SSN 42. Assen: Royal van Gorcum, 2003. Kessler, Martin. “The Scaffolding of the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 57–66 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21C. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Macchi, Jean-Daniel. “Les doublets dans le livre de Jérémie.” Pages 119–50 in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception. Edited by A.H.W. Curtis and T. Römer. Leuven: University Press, 1997. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II: Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996. Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases. SBLMS 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Peels, H.G.L. The Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root NQM and the Function of the NQM-Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament. OTS 31. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Raabe, Paul R. “Why Prophetic Oracles against the Nations?” Pages 236–57 in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck, Andrew H. Bartelt, Paul R. Raabe, and Chris Franke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Raabe, Paul R. Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24D. New York: Doubleday, 1996. Raabe, Paul R. “The Particularizing of Universal Judgment in Prophetic Discourse.” CBQ 64 (2002): 652–74. Robinson, Robert B. “Levels of Naturalization in Obadiah.” JSOT 40 (1988): 83–97. Rofé, Alexander. “The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah.” ZAW 101 (1989): 390–98. Watts, James W. “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Nations.” CBQ 54 (1992): 432–47. Woods, Julie. Jeremiah 48 as Christian Scripture. PTMS 144. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

part 3 Textual Transmission and Reception History

∵

chapter 13

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX) Andrew G. Shead The diversity of ancient witnesses to the text of Jeremiah has made the task of reconstructing its textual history particularly challenging. Of all these witnesses, the Masoretic Text (MT) is the only complete text in existence; its stable transmission between ca. 100 CE and modern times allows us to treat it as basically identical to its Second Temple-period precursor text, which is here designated as m. Apart from m, the only complete and independent witness to Jeremiah is the Greek Septuagint (lxx). The lxx has a complex transmission history of its own, and strictly speaking refers to the range of Greek translations in circulation from the 3rd–2nd century BCE onwards. The work of Joseph Ziegler in reconstructing a reasonably pristine Old Greek text has withstood careful examination, and the designation g will here refer to his edition.1 The lxx has its own daughter translation, the Vetus Latina, which PierreMaurice Bogaert has suggested may attest a Greek parent text shorter than g;2 however, the earliest manuscript is from the eighth century, and the extent of its abbreviating tendencies remains uncertain. We will therefore focus our enquiry on m and g. Even if, as many scholars argue, m and g were but two of many text types in circulation during the Second Temple period, other surviving witnesses, being fragmentary, must inevitably be assessed in terms of their relationship to them. The six fragments of Jeremiah from Qumran are discussed elsewhere in this volume.

1   Joseph Zielger, ed., Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentun Graecum Auctoritate Academie Scientarium Gottingensis editum 15, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976). For a review see Sven Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis, JSOTSup 47 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 97–152. 2  Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “La vetus latina de Jérémie: texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plus ancienne de l’hébreu (Jer 39 et 52),” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. Adrian Schenker, SCS 52 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 51–82.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_014

256

Shead

The Elusive Septuagint Vorlage

1

Where they are coextensive, g is a relatively literal translation of its Hebrew Vorlage (henceforth designated lxx–v).3 However, g is about one seventh shorter than m,4 and differs in its internal arrangement. The six sevenths of common text precludes the possibility that the two texts arose independently, but their precise relationship is obscured by the fact that one is a translation. Reconstructing lxx–v involves discriminating between a number of possible scenarios, but they all hinge on the fundamental question of whether it more closely resembles m or g: Scenario I g

Scenario II abridged or damaged

lxx–v m

g lxx–v

m

abridged or damaged AND/OR expanded

figure 13.1 Reconstructing lxx–v.

Scenario I is very simple, as the variation between m and lxx–v is only apparent, having been largely created at the point of translation. g may still be helpful in identifying corrupt readings in m, and in preserving the occasional reading lost from m, but mostly it takes us further from the original. According to Scenario II, lxx–v has been translated faithfully, and its differences from m arose either through shortening of lxx–v, or lengthening of m, or a combination of both. The changes could be either accidental, namely, haplographic damage in lxx–v; or intentional, whether abridgement in LXX–V or expansion in m. Intentional changes could result either from piecemeal scribal alterations (which tend to accumulate over generations) or from large-scale 3  For an introduction to the Hebrew text underlying g, see Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 3rd ed. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 201–23. 4  Young-Jin Min, “The Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah as Compared with the Massoretic Text: Their Classification and Possible Origins” (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977). An estimated 3000 of m’s 21,800 words are missing from LXX–V.

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

257

editorial revision (which may happen over a short period). One of the texts could be the parent of the other, or a third text could be the parent of both. Of course, a combination of scenarios I and II could also have occurred. Each one of these views has been championed over the last two centuries, and many surveys of the literature exist.5 Our aim here is to address some key questions associated with each possibility, and defend the view that m is an expanded text, by focusing on a few key issues, beginning with the question of method.6 2

A Method for Recovering lxx–v?

In theory, LXX–V can be reconstructed by analysing the translation technique of g at one end, and the surplus material in m at the other, giving due weight both to indivdual words and phrases, and to broader contextual and literary patterns. The aim is to determine whether a discrepancy between g and m is real or apparent, and if real, how it originated. In practice, however, scholars have been unable to agree on the right way of carrying out the process. First of all, as Richard Weis observes, when it comes to individual variants “the interventions of redactors/editors, copyists and Septuagint translators all look much the same.”7 This means that purely textual arguments, which aim to identify for each variant the reading most likely to have given rise to the other(s), cannot by themselves uncover the relationship between m and LXX– V. Larger contextual considerations must be brought to bear, which ultimately seek to understand each witness as a work of literature in its own right. The recognition that literary criticism and textual criticism must go hand in hand is widespread. The current articulation of this method began with

5  E.g. Beat Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker: Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49, FAT 20 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 42–64; Shimon Gesundheit, “The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool for Literary-Critical Analysis,” VT 62 (2012): 29–57; James Seth Adcock, “Oh God of Battles! Steal My Soldiers’ Hearts!” A Study of the Hebrew and Greek Text Forms of Jeremiah 10:1–18, CBET 83 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 5–11. 6  We will use Hebrew versification throughout, bracketing Greek chapter and verse only when necessary. 7  Richard D. Weis, “Exegesis of Jeremiah 10 in LXX and MT: Results and Implications,” in Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah: The Exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in Light of Text and Reception History, ed. Karin Finsterbusch and Armin Lange, CBET 82 (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 117–36, here at 117.

258

Shead

the work of Tov and others in the 1980s,8 and was developed in the succeeding decades,9 so that it is now the rule rather than the exception.10 However, despite broad agreement about method, the conclusions of scholars about the m/LXX–V relationship remain as frustratingly diverse as ever. As Hermann-Josef Stipp wrote in a critique of the treatment of Jeremia in the Septuaginta Deutsch project, “Nun wirft es kein günstiges Licht auf die Problemlösungskompetenz unserer Disziplin, wenn Fachvertreter in einer solch fundamentalen Frage regelrecht entgegengesetzte Positionen einnehmen.”11 One of the major reasons for this is the inherent subjectivity of literary analysis, compounded by the speculative nature of much redaction criticism. Weis’s well-articulated method throws up the key question of the proper relationship of literary and textual analysis, through his choice of the word “alongside”: By attending to pattern, character and dynamics at the level of pericope and larger unit within the book, this allows the consideration of redactional processes alongside textual and translational processes as the source of concrete textual differences. This approach permits the interpreter to differentiate even smallscale differences that result from intentional large-scale interventions in the text by redactors or translators from those resulting from the small-scale interventions typical of textual transmission.12

8  Emanuel Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of Its Textual History,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 363–84. 9  E.g. Yohanan Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil. Les origines littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jéremie, OBO 118 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992); Hermann-Josef Stipp, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches: Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte, OBO 136 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); Georg Fischer, Der Prophet wie Mose: Studien zum Jeremiabuch, BZABR 15 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 24–41; Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker; Andrew G. Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions, JSOTSup 347 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). 10  See for example recent dissertations by Adcock, God of Battles!, and Shelley L. Birdsong, The Last King(s) of Judah: Zedekiah and Sedekias in the Hebrew and Old Greek Versions of Jeremiah 37(44):1–40(47):6, FAT 89 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017). 11  Hermann-Josef Stipp, Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Text und Redaktion, FAT 96 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 155–73, here at 157. 12  Weis, “Exegesis of Jeremiah 10,” 118.

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

259

In Weis’s practice of the method, alongside means before.13 In theory it is good practice to move from the whole to the parts, but results have not been encouraging. Consider the following two examples. Example 1: Weis’s exegesis of Jer 10 finds that both m and g “show coherent and meaningful organization that implies a consistent audience and intention. These characteristics seem most simply explained by inferring deliberate redaction operating with whole pericopes in view.” Yhwh’s reliability is contrasted in g with the impotence of the gods of the nations, suggesting an exilic audience for whom the gods did seem powerful; the gods in m are a mere foil for Yhwh, and the pluralistic context perhaps fits a Persian setting.14 By contrast, Adcock’s book-length treatment of the same text concludes that m is marked by intricate strophic parallels and a “victory-hymn” form; these have been obscured in LXX–V, whose text reflects “an overtly exilic denunciation of idols (or their evil spirits)” and a re-use of v. 11 that find parallels in Second Temple Jewish literature. Thus m is early (exilic), and LXX–V created later in the exilic period.15 These summaries do not exhaust the argument of either author. Nevertheless, they do point to the dangers inherent in building textual conclusions on literary foundations. A point against Adcock in this regard is his failure to deal with the textual evidence mounted by Stipp for secondary readings in the material unique to m (see below).16 The one point on which both scholars agree is that neither text-form is the result of small, random changes over time, but has emerged as the result of “deliberate redaction operating with whole pericopes in view.”17 Example 2: Anneli Aejmelaeus’s study of Jer 25:1–14 concludes that although some variants – marked by the difficulty of the Hebrew idiom or their complicated Greek – are due to the translator, most variation goes back to LXX–V. This short version does not make sense as a summary of Jer 1–24, but only as an introduction to the Oracles Against the Nations (OAN), which were originally inserted here. The later m edition contains alterations and additions that adapt 13  Richard D. Weis, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, ed. Y.A.P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij and R.D. Weis, VTSup 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 269–93, esp. 273. 14  Weis, “Exegesis of Jeremiah 10,” 134–35, quote at 134. 15  Adcock, Oh God of Battles!, 12–17, quote at 16. 16  Adcock does refer to Stipp’s arguments (20–21), but falsely equates them with a theory about material common to m and g. 17  Weis, “Exegesis of Jeremiah 10,” 134; cf. Adcock, Oh God of Battles!, 22.

260

Shead

the text to the relocation of the OAN, and can be dated by certain features that “fit perfectly into the ideological world of Palestine during the first third of the 2nd century B.C.”18 By contrast, Shimon Gesundheit’s reading of the same text uses tensions within m to uncover layers of redaction, and by parallels in Jer 7; 35; 36 he identifies the origins of these piecemeal Fortschreibungen. Because his reconstructed base text for m does not look anything like g, Gesundheit concludes that g is a later revision and abridgment of m, made either by LXX–V’s author or the Greek translator.19 Aejmelaeus’s method is exemplary in that it builds a literary argument on a textually-based theory (admittedly assumed rather than argued). However, it is interesting to note the three-century difference with Weis’s dating of m. The exercise of dating a text by locating a socio-political or ideological “context of best fit” is inherently uncertain. Gesundheit’s approach is much more radical. His conclusions are entirely determined by his redaction-critical analysis of the text. He objects to “harmonistic” literary comparisons of m and g because of their “denial of a basic lack of coherence in the final text.”20 This approach represents the total subordination of textual criticism to literary criticism (note his lack of interest in the question of whether abbreviation occurred in g or LXX–V). At the opposite extreme sit those, like Robert Rezetko, who imagine a very different process behind the creation of the text: m was the product of textual, not literary, growth. Literary criticism can play no part in recovering its history, for it has grown by the spontaneous, unrelated additions of copyists over centuries.21 Yet even Rezetko depends on literary critics to date the text for him.22 In the rest of this essay we will endeavour to place literary analysis after rather than alongside textual and translational considerations, and focus literary analysis on the features of extant texts in preference to their mooted antecedents. 18  Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer. XXV 1–14 in the Book of Jeremiah,” VT 52 (2002): 459–82, here at 461. 19  “The Question of LXX Jeremiah.” 20  Gesundheit, “The Question of LXX Jeremiah,” 56. So also Christoph Levin, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 71. 21  Robert Rezetko, “The (Dis)Connection between Textual and Linguistic Developments in the Book of Jeremiah: Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism Challenges Biblical Hebrew Historical Linguistics,” in Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism, ed. Raymond F. Person and Robert Rezetko, AIL 25 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 236–69. 22  Rezetko, “The (Dis)Connection,” 242–43.

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

3

261

The Character of the Greek Translation

The first step to investigating the relationship between m and LXX–V is to analyse the Septuagint translation, and test the scenario that g has abridged its exemplar. Our aim here is simply to survey some of the features of the translation that are pertinent to the question of retroversion.23 A translation’s literalness may be measured by its readiness to imitate Hebrew syntax even when it produces bad Greek. Tov and Wright measured, across the lxx, features such as the rendering of –‫ ב‬by ἐν, of ‫ כי‬by ὅτι rather than the post-positive γάρ, and of ‫ ו‬by καί rather than the post-positive δε; on these criteria Jeremiah was judged “relatively literal,” meaning that it falls into the group of literally-translated books, but does not have the high consistency of a book like 2 Kings.24 This slight patchiness can be a trap for the reader looking selectively either for wooden renderings or for free renderings, for plenty of each may be found. However, the general character of the translation is not mixed, but literal. The translator’s freedom with tense, voice, and number, with articles and conjunctions, and with prepositions does not translate to indiscriminate freedom in lexical choice, word-order, or quantitative equivalence (isomorphism). In these matters potentially free readings must be evaluated against a general background of strict equivalence. Not only are Hebraisms such as ‫ | תני קול‬δὸς τὴν φωνήν (22:20) frequent, but the translator regularly reproduces passages that make little sense to him, without trying to iron out their problems. Transcriptions are the most dramatic example, sometimes even used when the translator understands the Hebrew (e.g. ‫ | מנחה‬μαναα in 17:26, but ‫ | מנחה‬θυσία in 14:12). This level of literalism reveals a reverence for the original that aims at creating “a sort of replica of

23  An extensive literature exists on the translation technique of g. See Jannes Smith, “Jeremiah 52: Thackeray and Beyond,” BIOSCS 35 (2002): 55–96; Albert Pietersma, “On Translation and Revision: From Greek Isaiah to Greek Jeremiah,” in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Michaël N. van der Meer et al., VTSup 138 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 359–87; Andreas Vonach, “Jeremias,” in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechishen Alten Testament. Band 2: Psalmen bis Daniel, ed. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 2696–814; Georg A. Walser, Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on Ieremias in Codex Vaticanus, SCS (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Andrew G. Shead, “Jeremiah,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. James K. Aitken (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 469–86; Stipp, Studien, 141–98. 24  Emanuel Tov and B.G. Wright, “Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Studying the Literalness of Translation Units in the LXX,” Text 12 (1985): 141–88, here at 236.

262

Shead

the Hebrew Scriptures in a different language.”25 The main expression of the translator’s literalism is his preference for isomorphism. With some exceptions prompted by the requirements of good Greek, a Greek equivalent is usually found for each element of the Hebrew, often at the expense of good Greek.26 Lexical variety deserves special mention. The translator likes to vary his equivalents to suit the context, making some room for interpretation,27 though his freedom of word choice does not tend to take him beyond the semantic domain of his source. Variety is not always interpretive, however. So frequently is a standard word-equivalent replaced after ch. 29 of g by a new standard wordequivalent that for the last century the prevailing view was that two translators worked on the book,28 or that a reviser re-worked the book’s second half.29 This view is now falling out of fashion. Even the prime example, namely, the switch in equivalent for the formula ‫ כה אמר יהוה‬from the common τάδε λέγει ̑ κύριος, may be an exegetical shift from convey­ κύριος to the unusual οὕτως ἐ�ιπε ing a present oracular utterance to a divine speech in the past.30 Or perhaps the translator simply took a long break between finishing part one and starting on part two!31 Be that as it may, he is interested in immediate contextual and historical accuracy, rather than in uniformity across the book. Occasionally theological difficulties are also avoided, but by means of small adjustments such as the modification of tenses, pronominal suffixes or word selection.32 Large-scale omission and reorganization of material is not in keeping with his style. The theory that the translator was willing to abbreviate his source text after the habit of the dragoman, or Egyptian commercial interpreter of the time, is now also discredited.33 25  Jan Joosten, “Translating the Untranslatable: Septuagint Rendering of Hebrew Idioms,” in “Translation is Required”: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect, ed. R.J.V. Hiebert, SCS 56 (Atlanta: SBL, 2010), 59–70, here at 69. 26  Albert Pietersma and Marc Saunders, “Ieremias: To the Reader,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint, and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title, ed. A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 876–81. 27  Pietersma and Saunders, “Ieremias,” 877. 28  H. St J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah,” JTS 4 (1902/3): 245–66. 29  Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8, HSM 8 (Missoula, 1976). 30  Albert Pietersma, “An Excursus on Bisectioning Ieremias,” electronic supplement to NETS, online at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ieremias-excursus.pdf. 31  Stipp, Studien, 153–4. 32  Shead, “Jeremiah,” 475–82. 33  Theo A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 13–16.

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

263

There will always be variants that might point to a different Vorlage, and scholars differ in their willingness to attribute creativity to the translator. For example, ‫ | לעשות לא עשו ותקרא‬οὐκ ἐποίησαν καὶ ἐποίησας συμβη̑ναι (32[39]:23) could point to a Vorlage lacking ‫לעשות‬, or it could be a stylistic omission to avoid the laboured alternative του̑ ποιη̑ σαι οὐκ ἐποίησαν καὶ ἐποίησας συμβη̑ναι.34 Again, ‫ | בין החמתים‬ἀνὰ μέσον του̑ τείχους καὶ του̑ προτειχίσματος (52:7) could represent extra words in LXX–V, or, given the failure to repeat ἀνὰ μέσον after καὶ (cf. 7:5), could be an interpretive rendition clarifying the exact location.35 While good method dictates that translational reasons are considered for unusual cases before proposing an underlying reading different from m,36 the translation’s isomorphism means that elements in the Greek with no counterpart in the Hebrew will more often than not reflect cases where LXX–V does differ from m. It should be very rare that an m plus reflects the intentional excision of material from the translator’s source text for any reason. Indeed, as Walser observes, the translator had a very good knowledge of Greek, which suggests that the very literal translation technique was adopted on purpose to try and preserve as much of the Vorlage as possible.37 4

Haplography and Idiolect

Given that LXX–V was not shortened in translation, the next scenarios to test are that its long parent text grew shorter in transmission, and that m’s short parent text grew longer. Though Jack Lundbom’s case for haplography in LXX–V38 is not the same type of argument as Stipp’s case for a distinctive idiolect in the material unique to m,39 neither case can remain unaffected by the other, and so they are worth laying side by side. Each argument consists of a list of specific proposals covering the same sections of text, namely, the material unique to m.

34  Compare Stipp, Studien, 104; Shead, Open Book, 138. 35  So Smith, “Jeremiah 52,” 69. 36  Tov, Text-Critical Use, 44. 37  Walser, Jeremiah, 14. The chief proponent of the view that g has abridged LXX–V is Georg Fischer. He builds his case on Jer 52, whose Greek text is much shorter than its parallel in 2 Kgs 25. See Fischer, Der Prophet wie Mose, 42–63. However, Jer 52 LXX may draw from an earlier version of 2 Kgs 25: Raymond Person, Jr., The Kings–Isaiah and Kings–Jeremiah Recensions, BZAW 252 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 99. 38  Jack R. Lundbom, “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah,” HS 46 (2005): 301–20. 39  Stipp, Studien, 83–126.

264 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Shead

1

3

5

figure 13.2

7

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

Lundbom’s haplography (light bars) versus Stipp’s idiolect (dark bars), instances per chapter.

4.1 Idiolect There are many reasons to see m as resulting from additions to an lxx-like Vorlage, particularly the preponderance of evidence for this when individual variants are examined on a case-by-case basis.40 General arguments also abound,41 of which a notable example is the so-called “pre-Masoretic idiolect”: “an assemblage of linguistic characteristics – lexemes, word groups, grammatical constructions, and spellings – that are attested at least twice in the Masoretic text of Jeremiah, but nowhere in the Alexandrian edition, and to a sizeable part even nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible.”42 Stipp argues that the “bland nature of the relevant diction” precludes the possibility that a reviser expunged it for theological or ideological reasons. The purely textual nature of this argument makes it worth testing. The main vulnerability of Stipp’s list is its doublets. While there are five cases of an item of idiolect being used five times, seven cases of a fourfold use, and seventeen cases of a threefold use, there are fifty-four cases of idiolect occurring just twice. Though the data-set is insufficient for statistical analysis, this is a surprisingly high number, and it raises a question mark because of the spectre of haplography. If one of a pair of terms had been present in LXX–V but was lost through haplography, then it would no longer count as an example of idiolect. For example, a threefold repetition such as is found in 7:4 (‫ )היכל יהוה‬and 22:29 (‫)ארץ‬43 is very susceptible to haplography. 40  41  42 

43 

For a recent example see Birdsong, Last King(s) of Judah, 163–201. E.g. Stipp, Sondergut, 66–92. Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Broadening the Criteria for Clarifying the Textual History of Jeremiah 10: The Pre-Masoretic Idiolect,” in Finsterbusch and Lange, Texts and Contexts, 107–16, here at 111. By “Alexandrian edition” Stipp means LXX–V. Stipp, Studien, 116.

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

265

And while Stipp is correct that a scribe would hardly seek out both cases to expunge a word from each, the possibility that one of these texts was accidentally shortened is not thereby ruled out.44 Again, the plural ‫ספרים‬, unique to m pluses in 29:25 and 32:14,45 is not a word that any scribe would have targeted for deletion. Yet it is the natural word to use in both places, and while 29:25 has all the marks of a secondary expansion,46 32:14 is more difficult, and haplography cannot be ruled out.47 Occasionally also, the demarcation of a word-group is open to question. Stipp lists the construction ‫ צוה לעשות‬twice, at 11:8; 32:23.48 However, in 32:35 the words ‫אשר לא צויתם ולא עלתה על לבי לעשות‬ are fully represented in g; the intervening clause does not prevent ‫ צוה‬from governing ‫לעשות‬. These criticisms, however, simply chip away at the edges of the data. The strongest examples are items that occur four or more times, where two or more cases are isolated pluses, and not part of whole verses lacking in g. Let us assume that the collocation of “Judah” with “Jerusalem” (10x, only in m) was lost from LXX–V or g as the result of ten textual accidents, or as the result of “collateral damage” in a general programme of abridgement. In this case we would expect to find up to thirty further occurrences of “Judah and Jerusalem” that had suffered no misfortune – and that is assuming we only consider the idiolect-prone material in g.49 To list another example, given that “the king of Babylon” and/or “the Babylonians” are lost from g on four occasions when they come together in m, we might expect to find perhaps eight other occasions where they occur together in both versions.50 The fact that these items of idiolect never occur at all in g is a stumbling-block that Fischer, for one, does not attempt to remove when he repudiates the theory.51

44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51 

See further Jack R. Lundbom, Writing Up Jeremiah: The Prophet and the Book (Eugene: Cascade, 2013), 4. Stipp, Studien, 115. William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II: Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 731–33. Shead, Open Book, 114–24. Stipp, Studien, 104. This rough estimate comes from reducing the common material by half, since M mostly supplements dtr text. For these items of idiolect see Stipp, Studien, 100–1. Fischer, Prophet wie Mose, 87–89.

266

Shead

4.2 Haplography This brings us to Lundbom’s arguments for extensive haplography as a major factor behind the minuses in g. Janzen had already concluded that the version is “marked by a high incidence of haplography, which in many instances can be shown to have occurred in the Hebrew Vorlage.”52 The present author concluded that haplography was even more prominent,53 and though I would now be more cautious about some of the possibilities put forward, I would still at least double Janzen’s list of sixty-three examples. However, these numbers are dwarfed by the extent of haplography claimed by Lundbom in his list from 2005, which runs to 330 cases. Such a wide-ranging claim faces serious questions. Is g the sort of text this amount of haplography could produce? And do the mechanics of copying generate this level of haplography in the first place? Stipp is in no doubt about the first question, writing of Lundbom and Shead, “Diese Autoren vermögen kein Problem darin zu erkennen, dass derart viele Textausfälle nur in wenigen Ausnahmen die syntaktische Integrität ihrer Kontexte beeinträgtigt haben sollen.”54 And while it seems intuitively true that haplography should normally produce gibberish, the reality is more complex, and depends on the nature of the scribal activity involved. Through the application of research in cognitive psychology Jonathan Vroom has clarified the processes involved in haplography.55 When we copy we put whole words, or strings of words, into our working memory, transcribe them, and return our gaze to the same part of the original page, where we find the just-copied words before moving on.56 Qualitative variants thus occur when the memory fails at the point of writing down, and haplography occurs when the eyes fail, mis-identifying a word as the last one copied. While wholeword haplography is therefore far more likely than the omission of a few letters, the latter may occur under certain conditions. For example, when a scribe 52  J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, HSM 6 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 120. 53  Shead, Open Book, 249. 54  Studien, 82 n. 82. Stipp does recognize some haplography in LXX–V, and is alive to the problem of identifying it: “Bisweilen ist schwer zu entscheiden, ob ein masoretischer Überhang auf einen Nachtrag auf der masoretischen oder einen Textverlust auf der alexandrinischen Seite zurückgeht – oder ob sich gar beide Möglichkeiten überlappt haben” (Sondergut, 60). 55  Jonathan Vroom, “A Cognitive Approach to Copying Errors: Haplography and Textual Transmission of the Hebrew Bible,” JSOT 40 (2016): 259–79. 56  Vroom, “A Cognitive Approach,” 267–72.

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

267

had poor Hebrew he may well have copied syllable by syllable, though still not letter by letter.57 Secondly, Vroom highlights the phenomenon, which every copyist will immediately recognize, of returning the eye to a remembered physical location on the original page, rather than scanning the whole page for the last-copied words. He concludes that this makes large haplographies “implausible,”58 unless a string of words happens to line up directly beneath an identical string on the page. Vroom’s observations are sound, but his conclusions are somewhat overstated. Two factors suggest that a slightly wider range of haplographies will tend to emerge. First, the fact that copying is normally done one unit of meaning at a time encourages a confident scribe to move his or her eyes to where they remember the next word was on the page, with peripheral vision catching the end of the previous word as a check on accuracy. In such cases, if the last few letters are the same, and if the result makes grammatical sense, an error will not be caught without a check-back; texts with repetitive elements will be particularly susceptible. Although this sort of homoioteleuton is not impossible, homoioarcton of one or two letters is harder to account for.59 Secondly, Vroom’s constraints upon large haplographies underestimate the magnetic effect of a “target word.” To give a personal example, the very day I read Vroom’s article I also transcribed a section of Lundbom, which was laid out on the original page as follows: While the present study may seem overly corrective, in our opinion greater consideration needs to be given to inadvertent scribal errors wherever textual variants are encountered, since such solutions require less hypothetical reconstruction on our part, and less sophistication on the part of the supposed scribe or editor.60

57  Vroom, “A Cognitive Approach,” 274. 58  Vroom, “A Cognitive Approach,” 277. 59  Lundbom and D.N. Freedman suggest that homoioarcton occurs because “most readers identify a word by its opening letters, and rarely read through the whole word” (Lundbom, Writing Up, 2). However, this, even if true, would be an argument for reproducing a word incorrectly, not for missing it out. An example such as Jer 1:10 where one of a series of infinitives with ‫ ל‬prefix is missing from LXX–V (6) is better explained as a scribal memory slip, if indeed it is not secondary in m. 60  Lundbom, Writing Up, 18.

268

Shead

After the first less I turned my eyes from the book, typed in a word-string, and returned them to the second less (my “target word”). The resulting haplography (underlined) was only detected through a check-back. Such mistakes are not “implausible,” but they are uncommon. Most text critics judge that haplographic losses from g are very uncommon indeed,61 but stop short of further analysis. Judging by the above quote, Lundbom is well aware that his list may be too long; our discussion has thrown up some criteria for sifting it. A homoeoarcton of one or two letters is the only possible explanation given for about 120 of the 330 cases in Lundbom’s list, and these should in general be considered the least probable of his cases. About fifty-five cases involve a repeated sequence of from one to four words, and these have the strongest prima facie claim. About 135 cases involve homoioteleuton of a letter or two, and could perhaps permit haplography given the right circumstances. However, judgments can only be made on a case by case basis. A final reason for caution is the distribution of potential haplographies (Fig. 13.2). If there were no secondary expansion in m one would expect a rather even distribution of losses in g, perhaps with a slight increase to match repetitive prose. However, the disparity between Jer 2–20 and 25–35 is suspiciously large. 4.3 Expansion in m or Haplography in LXX–V? Just as it does not take many strong cases of premasoretic idiolect before the presence of secondarily inserted material in m becomes hard to refute, so it does not take many strong cases of haplography before the character “haplographic” can be attached to the text of LXX–V. However, the recognition of haplography somewhere can create suspicion of haplography everywhere, and one needs to be ready to abandon possible cases when better explanations come to hand. (1) An item of idiolect that occurs more than twice creates a strong presumption against haplography. Jer 25:24

‫]ואת כל־מלכי זמרי[ ואת כל־מלכי עילם ואת כל־מלכי מדי‬

On the face of it, the repetition of a string of three words makes a strong argument for haplography, except that this is one of four cases of the “atbash” cipher, the rest of them unique to m.62

61  E.g. Tov, Textual Criticism, 289 n. 14. 62  Stipp, Studien, 116.

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

269

(2) Even if it occurs only twice, a phrase in which the same word is missing each time has little chance of being haplographic, idiolect or no idiolect. For example, the fact that the word unrepresented in g Jer 23:19, ]‫על [ראש‬ ‫רשעים יחול‬, is also missing from 30(37):23, is enough to exclude haplography, quite apart from the strength of the example as a case of idiolect, given its idiomatic nature. (3) Sometimes idiolect and haplography can coexist: Jer 25:20

‫ואת כל־הערב ]ואת כל־מלכי ארץ העוץ[ ואת כל־מלכי ]ארץ[ פלשתים‬

It is not impossible that a reviser first inserted ‫ ואת כל־מלכי ארץ העוץ‬and then, inspired by ‫ ארץ‬1˚, proceeded to insert ‫ ארץ‬2˚. However, the character of each addition is very different, and it is simpler to suppose that the only words added in m were ‫ ארץ‬1˚ and 2˚, and that the phrase ‫ *ואת כל־מלכי העוץ‬dropped from LXX–V after the repeated three-word string drew the copyist’s eyes past Uz to Philistia.63 In short, when assessing an m plus, a number of factors need to be held together. Is the repeated string sufficiently “magnetic” to draw the scribe’s eye? Is there a reasonable chance that haplography would produce an intelligible result, such as an item dropped from a list? On the other hand, is the added material characteristic in some way of the m revision, whether at the level of idiolect, or at the level of Tendenz, such as m’s interest in names, epithets and speech formulae? Perhaps the main reason for expecting haplographies that do not disturb the sense is the relatively high incidence of haplographies that do disturb the sense, and which are therefore easier to recognize. Even if breaks in the sense are disguised by translators seeking to make the text intelligible, there should generally be evidence of compensation for textual damage. Stipp discusses this phenomenon via exegesis of some dramatic haplographies;64 it should in principle also occur on smaller levels, but the signs will be more equivocal. Possibilities from Jer 32(39) include θήσεις αὐτὸ for ‫( ונתתם‬v. 14) following the haplographic loss of one of the two “books” earlier in the verse; or πολεμου̑ντες

63  See Stipp, Studien, 95. The variety of speculation indulged by scholars who think the Uz clause was a secondary insertion underscores the attraction of supposing it original. Cf. B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, KHC 11 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1901), 204; W. Rudolph, Jeremia, 3rd ed., HAT 12 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1967), 164. 64  Such as Jer 11:7–8?; 17:1–4; 27:12–14; also 44:29; 51:44–49; 52:15 (Stipp, Sondergut, 60–65).

270

Shead

without the article for ‫( הנלחמים‬v. 29) to compensate for the haplographic loss of the antecedent, ‫הכשדים‬, from the previous verse.65 A longer haplography may also trigger compensation at each end, as may be the case in Jer 32(39):5, where καθιει̑ται is used for ‫יהיה‬, uniquely in the Septuagint.66 v. 5

v. 6

‫ובבל יולך את־צדקיהו‬ ‫ושם יהיה‬ ‫עד־פקדי אתו נאם־יהוה‬ ‫כי תלחמו את־הכשדים לא תצליחו‬ ‫ויאמר ירמיהו היה‬ ‫דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬

καὶ εἰσελεύσεται Σεδεκιας εἰς Βαβυλω̑ να καὶ ἐκει̑ καθιει̑ται

καὶ λόγος κυρίου ἐγενήθη πρὸς Ιερεμιαν λέγων

The possibilty that καθιει̑ται reflects ‫ ישב‬may be excluded, because ‫ ישב‬would align Zedekiah with the hopeful future of the exiles, against the rest of the book. The most probable reason for καθιει̑ται is a large haplography in LXX–V running from ‫ יהיה‬in v. 5 to ‫ היה‬in v. 6, a loss of between thirty and fifty-three letters (depending on whether v. 5 after ‫ נאם־יהוה‬was part of its precursor text).67 Either way, there seems to have been a vertical parablepsis resulting in a skipped line. The asyndetic and verbless stump of v. 6 has triggered at least one further piece of translator compensation, namely, the shifting of ἐγενήθη away from the front of the clause – a position it occupies in all seventeen other occurrences of this formula extant in g – presumably to convey the unusual nature of the text before him.68 Finally, the lack of ‫ ויאמר ירמיהו‬in LXX–V v. 6 would have made ‫ אלי‬ambiguous, and this may have prompted the translator to make the yod stand for Ιερεμιαν. If this is correct, then the speech formula in LXX–V v. 6 originally referred to Jeremiah in the first person (as it does everywhere else after Jer 25), so that there was no jarring shift to first-person speech in v. 8. In sum, there is good reason to believe that haplography is more prevalent in LXX–V than appears at first glance: not only haplographies prompting compensatory translation, but also haplographies that do not disturb the meaning of the text. On the other hand, there is equally good reason to believe that 65  Shead, Open Book, 120, 169, 181. 66  For a full discussion of these verses see Shead, Open Book, 94–103. 67  That the phrase ‫ עד־פקדי אתו‬is original to m is probable because of its role as a source for the m expansion in 27:22. 68  ἐγενήθη is delayed in 39(46):15, but the Hebrew is reversed there also.

271

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

haplography is not as prevalent as Lundbom has suggested.69 Though LXX–V is a damaged text, damage is not the main characteristic of the material unique to m, but rather, secondary additions created in m after the bifurcation of the textual stream. 5

Is M a Text or an Edition?

A common precursor text underlies both extant versions of Jeremiah. LXX–V is short and less revised; m is much expanded.70 We have excluded the scenario of translator abbreviation, also the scenario of LXX–V abbreviation, albeit with the recognition of significant amounts of haplography. This leaves us with a scenario of m expansion, but with one more question to answer: is the Model I: two texts of Jeremiah  textual transmission

literary growth 



early editions

LXX–V

common precursor m

Model II: two editions of Jeremiah literary growth LXX–V early editions

textual transmission

common precursor m

Figure 13.3

Models for the genesis of LXX–V and m.

69  Lundbom estimated an “arguable” 64% of the words missing from g were in LXX–V (“Haplography,” 306), but he used Graf’s estimate of 2,700 words unique to m. Using a more recent estimate of 3,000 (see n. 4), and removing four very large and unlikely haplographies (29:16–20; 33:14–26; 39:4–13; 52:27–30), reduces Lundbom’s tally of 1,715 lost words to 1,203, which is 40%. If the sifting process described above is along the right lines, perhaps as much as 20% of unique m material might belong in LXX–V. 70  Shead, Open Book, 260; cf. Stipp, Sondergut, 165.

272

Shead

secondary material in m (and in LXX–V for that matter) the result of random textual accretion, or does it represent another stage of redaction, the last of a series of literary editions already alluded to in the book itself (36:32)? The expansions in m are not for the most part of a different nature to the common material, but constitute “more of the same” – more speech formulas, more names and epithets, more doublets. Both texts show very similar patterns of growth (though the extent of growth in LXX–V is very small). As opposed to the translator, who conserved the text very faithfully unless some creativity was necessary to ensure contextual and historical accuracy, the secondary revisions in both LXX–V and m are concerned with discourse shape and structure, as well as assimilation to parallels.71 This points towards Model II. However, with a few exceptions, such as the words of hope added by m to oracles against Egypt, Moab, and Ammon, these additions can seem content-poor, lacking the qualities of a proper redaction.72 Stipp therefore prefers to envisage an intermediate model, a tradition of creative supplementation that is less than redactional but more than scribal, and that slowly peters out by the 4th-3rd century.73 McKane is more uncompromising, arguing that copyists expanded upon bits of text that caught their eye, with no scheme in mind at all, producing a “rolling corpus.” For McKane there is little alternative, because to treat most of Jeremiah, including the prose, as having been in existence during Jeremiah’s lifetime “is a literary judgement which seems to take no account of the problems which arise when one considers in detail the baffling inconcinnities of the constituents of the book.”74 Further, as Rezetko believes, “it is rather unlikely that the content of the book of Jeremiah was highly variant for a relatively short period and then suddenly became very stable for a long time.”75 The logical endpoint of such views is that literary criticism can play little part in the recovery of Jeremiah’s textual history. Not all features of m fit easily within the model of small accretions, however, such as the addition of long passages (33:14–26; 39:4–13), and especially the reorganizing of the whole book. Indeed, if it turns out that the book’s overall arrangement is not one of “baffling inconcinnities,” but rather is carefully 71  Shead, Open Book, 235–42, 258–60. 72  Stipp, Sondergut, 137–40. 73  Stipp, Sondergut, 141–3. 74  W. McKane, “Relations between Poetry and Prose in the Book of Jeremiah with Special Reference to Jeremiah iii 6–11 and xii 14–17,” in Congress Volume, Vienna 1980, ed. J.A. Emerton, VTSup 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 220–37, here at 228. 75  Rezetko, “(Dis)Connection,” 267–68.

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

273

conceived and planned, then the argument for a rolling corpus becomes much weaker. If m does not display a theological re-working of the kind postulated (for example) for deuteronomistic redactions of biblical books, there may at least be a coherent attempt to sharpen and refocus a message already present in the parent text. Several types of book-wide revision in m are well established: a concern to tighten up the internal structure of units;76 an increased focus on Babylon, its king, and the exiles over against Zedekiah and the people in Jerusalem;77 the tendency for formulaic phrases, particularly prophetic speech formulas, to grow longer as the book progresses.78 However, the strongest evidence for the literary character of the m edition lies in its systematic revision of speech formulas in the service of a theological message. 5.1 A Book about the Word of Yhwh The book of Jeremiah is replete with “word” language. Its use of the noun ‫ דבר‬and the verbs ‫דבר‬, ‫נגד‬, ‫נבא‬, and ‫( אמר‬excluding wayyiqtol) far outstrips even Deuteronomy and word-heavy deuteronomic books such as Kings. Jeremiah is also heavy with formulas marking direct speech, especially divine speech. Over 50% of all biblical occurrences of ‫ כה אמר יהוה‬come in Jeremiah, and over 60% of all instances of ‫נאם יהוה‬. The Wortereignisformel ‫ ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬occurs twenty-three times in Jeremiah, and twice as often in Ezekiel, but almost nowhere else; and the Wortgeschehensformel ‫ מאת יהוה לאמר‬79‫ הדבר אשר היה אל־ירמיהו‬is unique to Jeremiah.80 With the exception of ‫נאם יהוה‬, these formulas structure the discourse, and the Wortgeschehensformel, which is a heading rather than a sentence, functions to “subsume entire discourses under the heading of Yhwh speech”81 and to link those discourses into an overarching narrative frame for the whole book. 76  Louis Stulman, “Some Theological and Lexical Differences between the Old Greek and the MT of the Jeremiah Prose Discourses,” HS 25 (1984): 18–23; Mark E. Biddle, Polyphony and Symphony in Prophetic Literature: Rereading Jeremiah 7–20, SOTI 2 (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1996), 121. 77  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, 1986), 143. 78  Stipp, “The Prophetic Messenger Formulas in Jeremiah According to the Masoretic and Alexandrian Texts,” Text 18 (1995): 63–85. 79  Or, ‫אלי‬. 80  These terms go back to P.K.D. Neumann, “Das Wort, das geschehen ist…. Zum Problem der Wortempfangsterminologie in Jer. I–XXV,” VT 23 (1973): 169–217. 81  Biddle, Polyphony and Symphony, 121–22.

274

Shead

These features are present at every stage of the book’s growth, but grow more frequent in m, and more dominant as m unfolds, and the changes made by m to the Wortgeschehensformel in particular point to the conclusion that the goal of the m edition was to structure the book into a narrative whose protagonist was the word of Yhwh. 5.2 The Framing of Jeremiah 1–51 The opening verses of the book have been much studied,82 and may be treated briefly here. In both editions, a double title has been created. In the m edition, the Wortereignisformel ‫ ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי‬has been adapted to enable it to stand as a second title (‫אשר היה דבר־יהוה אליו‬, 1:2) without being read as a second and subsequent statement.83 Two subjects are being closely identified, and in contrast to g, where both those subjects are the word of God,84 m has made “the words of Jeremiah” the subject of the first title, and so identifies the words of Jeremiah with the word of God that came to him. “The words of Jeremiah” is a clear reference to the written words of the book of Jeremiah, and the extent of these words is explicitly demarcated by the addition of an inclusio in m at Jer 51:64, ‫עד־הנה דברי ירמיהו‬. Karin Finsterbusch rightly argues that m has thereby reframed the book as the words of Jeremiah;85 however, the claim made by 1:2 that these words are no less than the word of God prepares us for a discourse in which both the prophet’s voice and the narrator’s voice are regularly retracted and replaced by the voice of God.86 The m edition makes the bold claim that its words (i.e. Jeremiah’s words) are the very words of God; in keeping with this claim, the book’s narrative framework presents each major section as another “word” which came to Jeremiah from Yhwh.

82  Recently, Karin Finsterbusch, “Different Beginnings, Different Book Profiles: Exegetical Perspectives on the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX-Jer 1 and MT-Jer 1,” in Finsterbusch and Lange, Texts and Contexts, 51–64. 83  Andrew G. Shead, A Mouth Full of Fire: The Word of God in the Words of Jeremiah, NSBT 29 (Downer’s Grove: Apollos, 2012), 42. 84  Norbert Jacoby, “Isomorphism and Interpretation: Reflections on the Greek Translation of Jeremiah 1,” in Finsterbusch and Lange, Texts and Contexts, 37–50, esp. 39–44. 85  “Different Beginnings,” 58–64. 86  Biddle, Polyphony and Symphony, 120; Shead, Open Book, 109–16.

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

275

5.3 The Use of the Wortgeschehensformel to Structure Jeremiah 1–51 The Wortgeschehensformel (WGF) is added just once by m, at 7:1; its other occurrences are also found in g.87 However, m has edited the formulas to “fix” five instances where g reads παρὰ κυρίου πρὸς Ιερεμιαν, and ensure that the order of names is the same every time: ‫אל ירמיהו מאת יהוה‬. Beginning from 45:1 the WGF proper disappears, and its place is taken by two variations. The first is a WGF-variant in which ‫ היה‬is replaced by a verb of speech, and the second is the heading ‫אשר היה דבר יהוה אל ירמיהו‬.88 In m the subject of the verb in 51:59 is changed from Yhwh to Jeremiah, creating a counterpart to 45:1, and a frame for the OAN.89 The completely new headings at 46:1 and 47:1, and the almost completely new heading at 49:34, were made necessary by the internal reorganization of the oracles; the headings that were already present in LXX–V (26:13; 27:1) were conformed to 45:1 and 51:59. ‫ הדבר אשר דבר ירמיהו הנביא אל־ברוך בן־נריה‬45:1/51:3190 [‫ ]אשר היה דבר־יהוה אל־ירמיהו הנביא על־הגוים‬46:1 [‫ ]הדבר[ אשר דבר יהוה אל \ביד־ירמיהו ]הנביא‬46/26:13 ‫ ]אשר היה דבר־יהוה אל־ירמיהו הנביא[ אל־פלשתים‬47/29:1 ‫ ]אל־ירמיהו הנביא[ אל־עילם‬# ‫ ]אשר[ היה §דבר־יהוה \הדבר־הזה‬49:34/?26:191

87  11:1; 18:1; 21:1; 25:1; 30:1; 32:1; 34:1, 8; 35:1; 40:1; 44:1, with the bold verses lacking ‫מאת יהוה‬. 88  While Neumann (“Das Wort,” 172) classifies this as a sub-type of the WGF, i.e. a superscript, others treat it as a verbal sentence. Either way, it clearly functions as a heading in the OAN. It also occurs at 14:1. 89  Cf. G. Wanke, Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift, BZAW 122 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 133–43. 90  Following H.-J. Stipp’s practice, [brackets] enclose m pluses, ⟨angle brackets⟩ enclose LXX–V pluses, and a slash separates an m reading from a variant LXX–V reading, with § and # marking the boundaries of variants more than one word long. 91  The oracle against Elam, which opens the OAN in g, poses complex challenges. The best solution I can suggest is that the oracle in its free-standing form began with the superscription ‫*בראשית מלכות צדקיה המלך היה הדבר הזה אל־עילם‬. When the oracles were collected for LXX–V, Jer 25:13 as we have it in m became a de facto superscription for the Elam oracle, so the original superscription was moved to the end. (With McKane, Jeremiah, 1110–11, I take τὰ Αιλαμ to be a rare addition by the translator, as it is not in the dative case.) When the OAN were moved and reorganized for the m edition, Elam once more needed a superscription, so the final verse was moved back to the beginning. At the same time, the last five words were moved to the front, ‫ הדבר־הזה‬changed to ‫דבר־יהוה‬, and ‫ אשר‬plus ‫ אל־ירמיהו נביא‬supplied to conform it to the two other newly created superscriptions.

276

Shead ‫ אל־בבל‬# ‫ ]ה[דבר § אשר דבר יהוה \ יהוה אשר דבר‬50/27:1 ‫ הדבר אשר צוה ⟩יהוה את⟨ ירמיהו הנביא ⟩לאמר⟨ את־שריה בן־נריה‬51/28:59 ‫בן־מחסיה‬

Many scholars, even among the majority who hold g to reflect a shorter, less revised text, would argue that the translator, despite his general conservatism, moved the OAN to the middle of the book (where they are found in Isaiah and Ezekiel) and/or re-ordered them to give top billing to the great powers of the second century – the Parthians (Elam), the Ptolemies (Egypt) and the Seleucids (Babylon).92 Most arguments for this are based on the conviction that the m arrangement is superior, and must therefore have been earlier.93 However, from a textual viewpoint it is intrinsically unlikely that this translator would take such giant liberties with his source. Moreover, the sorts of changes involved in the rearrangement are typical of m’s interest in tightening and clarifying structure. Apart from the WGF revision, Philistia has been bound to the Egypt oracle not just by a new superscription, but by a Pharaonic addition; Kedar, which mentions Nebuchadrezzar, and Elam, which mentions Zedekiah (cf. 51:59), have been moved next to the Babylon oracles at the end; the lengthy Moab oracle has been moved to stand over the remaining three short oracles. In short, there is strong evidence that m has framed and structured the entire book as a narrative about the powerful actions performed by the word that came to Jeremiah from Yhwh, a narrative propelled by the programmatic word of 1:9–10.94

92  See the concise discussion in McKane, Jeremiah, 1108–11. 93  E.g. Christopher R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah,” ZAW 101 (1989): 3–27. 94  The claim that m has structured the whole book around strategically placed WGFs raises particular questions for the central section, from Jer 25 onwards. The major structural units suggested by the WGFs in these chapters are 25–29, 30–34 and 35–39. And yet there are many indications of units whose boundaries are quite different, such as the strong similarities between chs. 26 and 36, which could either begin new sections or bracket a ring composition. However, given the lightness of touch that characterises the book’s revision, it is not surprising that older structures should show through. The addition of 27:1 in m already begins to spoil the neatness of Jer 26–36, as does the narrative continuity of 37:1. The larger narrative rhythms of m revolve instead around the threefold return to the fourth year of Jehoiakim in Jer 25–26, 35–36, and 45–46. For a fuller discussion plus relevant literature see Shead, Open Book, 75–90.

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

6

277

Some Conclusions

We have suggested that m and LXX–V are two literary editions of a common precursor. LXX–V, a minimally revised text, has suffered significant haplography in the course of its textual transmission. m, a much expanded text, has been extensively and systematically revised in pursuit of a book-wide agenda, but the revision does not extend to major theological or ideological reshaping. Instead, it strengthens the link between prophet and divine word, and frames itself as an enactment of that word in all the nations, from Jerusalem to Babylon. It does not feel far removed from LXX–V in time.95 A tentative implication of the conclusion that m has been created in a bookwide revision is that, against Rezetko, it is not in fact unlikely that the book’s content was highly variant for a short period and relatively stable thereafter. This is not to say that every secondary reading in m must therefore go back to this period; case by case evaluation is still required. However, the nature of the changes made in m – not only major reshuffling, but the insertion of large new passages – is easier to account for on the understanding that many documents, collected together over time by a follower or followers of the prophet, were available from which to make a new edition of the book. Once produced and deposited in the temple the book would escape the influence of these documents and could quickly achieve relative stability.96 An early date also gives time for the haplographic nature of LXX–V to emerge, especially if it was geographically isolated in a long, narrow transmission stream. Methodologically our investigation suggests that the sort of literary analysis that will be most fruitful for textual decisions may not in the first instance be independent redaction criticism of each text, but the use of LXX–V to understand how m has organised itself as a discrete edition, and the structural and rhetorical analysis of m’s final form to provide a framework for the evaluation of variants. When having to choose whether a variant was caused by the translator, a careless scribe, or m’s creator, a sense for m’s overall literary shape and redactional goals is invaluable. The process needs to be recursive, so that any reconstruction of the book’s textual history that emerges from literary criticism may be constantly tested by the evidence; and perhaps digging into the earlier phases of the text’s existence comes in subsequent rounds of 95  This is similar to the theory of J.G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3rd ed., vol. 3 (Leipzig: in der Weidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1803), §§540–2. 96  Cf. Emanuel Tov, “Some Thoughts about the Diffusion of Biblical Manuscripts in Antiquity,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts, ed. Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman and Eileen Schuller, STDJ 92 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 151–69.

278

Shead

examination. If in m and lxx–v we have actual witnesses to the final stages of redaction, we ought to reverse Gesundheit’s approach and allow textual criticism to influence our decisions about redaction history. Select Bibliography Birdsong, Shelley L. The Last King(s) of Judah: Zedekiah and Sedekias in the Hebrew and Old Greek Versions of Jeremiah 37(44):1–40(47):6. FAT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Engel, Helmut. “Erfahrungen mit der LXX-Fassung des Jeremiabuches im Rahmen des Projektes ‘Septuaginta Deutsch’.” Pages 80–96 in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Band 3: Studien zur Theologie, Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der Griechischen Bibel. Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry and Dieter Böhler. BWANT 174. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007. Finsterbusch, Karin and Armin Lange, eds. Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah: The Exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in Light of Text and Reception History. CBET 82. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. Finsterbusch, Karin and Norbert Jacoby. MT-Jeremia und LXX-Jeremia 1–24: Synoptische Übersetzung und Analyse der Kommunikationsstruktur. WMANT 145. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2016. Finsterbusch, Karin and Norbert Jacoby. MT-Jeremia und LXX-Jeremia 25–52: Synoptische Übersetzung und Analyse der Kommunikationsstruktur. WMANT 146. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2017. Fischer, Georg. Der Prophet wie Mose: Studien zum Jeremiabuch. BZAR 15. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. Gesundheit, Shimon. “The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool for Literary-Critical Analysis.” VT 62 (2012): 29–57. Goldman, Yohanan. Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil. Les origines littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jéremie. OBO 118. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Lundbom, Jack R. “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah.” HS 46 (2005): 301–20. Pietersma, Albert and Marc Saunders. “Ieremias: To the Reader.” Pages 876–81 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint, and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Rezetko, Robert. “The (Dis)Connection between Textual and Linguistic Developments in the Book of Jeremiah: Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism Challenges Biblical Hebrew Historical Linguistics.” Pages 236–69 in Empirical Models Challenging

The Text of Jeremiah (MT and LXX)

279

Biblical Criticism. Edited by Raymond F. Person and Robert Rezetko. AIL 25. Atlanta: SBL, 2016. Shead, Andrew G. The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions. JSOTSup 347. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Shead, Andrew G. “Jeremiah.” Pages 469–86 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Shead, Andrew G. A Mouth Full of Fire: The Word of God in the Words of Jeremiah. New Studies in Biblical Theology 29. Downer’s Grove, IL: Apollos, 2012. Smith, Jannes. “Jeremiah 52: Thackeray and Beyond.” BIOSCS 35 (2002): 55–96. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches: Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte. OBO 136. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Text und Redaktion. FAT 96. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Tov, Emanuel. The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 3rd ed. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Vonach, Andreas. “Jeremias.” Pages 2696–814 in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechishen Alten Testament. Band 2: Psalmen bis Daniel. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Walser, Georg A. Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on Ieremias in Codex Vaticanus. SCS. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Weis, Richard D. “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 269–93 in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by the Editors of Biblica Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Y.A.P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij and R.D. Weis. VTSup 110. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

chapter 14

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library Armin Lange The book of Jeremiah plays an unusual role in the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, different from many other prophetic books, no pesher on the book of Jeremiah is preserved. Instead, several compositions have been identified among the Dead Sea Scrolls that belong to the metagenre of paratextual literature.1 Various quotations of Jeremiah are also employed in halakhic, messianic, and other contexts in the Essene and non-Essene literature from Qumran.2 As illustrated by the Qumran library, on the whole, the reception history of Jeremiah is thus comparable to that of Ezekiel but is distinct from the reception histories of Isaiah and many Minor Prophets. The Qumran library is also hugely important for the study of the book of Jeremiah for another reason. In the various caves around Khirbet Qumran, up to eight manuscripts of the book of Jeremiah were found.3 The present essay 1  For the category of paratextual literature, see Armin Lange, “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Greaeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” in In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature, ed. Philip S. Alexander, Armin Lange, and Renate Pillinger (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3–40. 2  For surveys of Jeremiah’s reception history in the Qumran library, see George J. Brooke, “The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception Reception – Le livre de Jérémie et sa reception, ed. Adrian H.W. Curtis and Thomas Römer, BETL 128 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 183–205, and Kipp Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions: Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity, STDJ 111 (Leiden: Brill, 2014). 3  Armin Lange, Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten, vol. 1 of Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 297–324; Armin Lange, “The Text of Jeremiah in the War Scroll from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Nora David, et al., FRLANT 239 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 95–116; Armin Lange, “The Textual History of the Book Jeremiah in Light of its Allusions and Implicit Quotations in the Qumran Hodayot,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday, ed. Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen, STDJ 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 251–84; Armin Lange, “The Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira,” in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible, ed. Innocent Himbaza, OBO 273 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 118–61; Armin

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_015

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

281

will focus on this latter issue, noting the importance of these Jeremiah texts in the Qumran library for the textual criticism of Jeremiah. 1

The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Jeremiah in Light of the Qumran Library

Among the versions, two different text types of Jeremiah are preserved. The first one is attested by the Masoretic text of Jeremiah and its translations (Peshitta [pesh-Jer], Targum Jonathan [t-Jer], Vulgate [v-Jer], Theodotion [Th-Jer], Aquila [Aq-Jer], Symmachus [Sym-Jer], Hexapla [Hex-Jer], and Karaite and Rabbanite Arabic translations [Arab-Jer]). The second one survives in the Old Greek text of Jeremiah and its translations (Old Latin [vl-Jer], Coptic [CopJer], Ethiopic [Eth-Jer], Syro-Hexapla [Syh-Jer], Armenian [Arm-Jer], Georgian [Georg-Jer], Old Church Slavonic [OCS-Jer], and Christian Arabic translations [Arab-Jer]). MT-Jer is the only surviving Hebrew text of Jeremiah that goes back to antiquity in its consonantal text. However, both proto-Masoretic and non-Masoretic fragmentary Jeremiah manuscripts survive among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of these Jeremiah manuscripts were found in one of the Qumran caves (2QJer, 4QJera, 4QJerb, 4QJerc, 4QJerd, 4QJere) while others cannot be attributed to a specific archeological site around the Dead Sea anymore (DSS F.Jer 1, DSS F.Jer 2, and XJer?). Their classification into non-aligned, proto-, or semi-Masoretic manuscripts and texts attesting to the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx4 is facilitated somewhat in the case of the book of Jeremiah due to the characteristic long texts of MT-Jer. 4QJera can be classified as proto-Masoretic in its final form, while 2QJer and 4QJerc are semi-Masoretic in character. 4QJerb attests to the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx-Jer. 4QJerd was probably a non-aligned manuscript. 4QJere as well as manuscripts DSS F.Jer 1 and DSS F.Jer 2 cannot be classified texttypologically any more as only small fragments of them have been preserved. The latter two manuscripts attest to isolated readings with lxx-Jer Lange, “7.2 Jeremiah: Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts,” in Textual History of the Bible, Volume 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 514–42; Karin Finsterbusch and Armin Lange, “Zur Textgeschichte des Jeremiabuches in der Antike: Überblick und neue Einsichten,” TLZ 142 (2017): 1137–52. 4  Lange, Handschriften, 1–32, and Armin Lange, “1.2.2 Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts: Ancient and Late Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish Texts,” in The Textual History of the Bible, Volume 1A: The Hebrew Bible: Overview Articles, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 112–66 (123–27).

282

Lange

though. Of XJer? so little text survives that its identification as a Jeremiah manuscript must remain speculative at best. 2

mt-Jeremiah and the Jeremiah Manuscripts from the Qumran Library

The proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah survives both in the consonantal text of MT-Jer as well as in the final form of the Qumran manuscript 4QJera. Both the medieval Masoretic manuscripts of Jeremiah and 4QJera attest to slight textual variation inside the (proto-)Masoretic textual tradition of Jeremiah. This is corroborated by some variant readings of the two semi-Masoretic manuscripts, 2QJer and 4QJerc. The most important Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts of Jeremiah are the Cairo Codex attributed to Moses ben Asher (MTC; 895 CE),5 Codex Aleppo (MTA; Israel Museum; Jer 29:9–31:34 are not extant; ca. 930 CE),6 Codex Leningradensis (MTL; Russian National Library in St. Petersburg EBP. I B 19a; 1009 CE),7 Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus (MTP; Russian National Library; 916 CE),8 Codex New York (MTN; E.N. Adler 246 = JTS 232; tenth century),9 MS 5  David S. Loewinger, ed., Codex Cairensis of the Bible from the Karaite Synagogue at Abbasiya (Jerusalem: Makor Publishing, 1971); Federico Pérez Castro, Jeremias, vol. 5 of Federico Pérez Castro, El Codice de profetas de el Cairo, Textos y estudios “Cadenal Cisneros” 37 (Madrid: Instituto de Filologia, 1987). 6  Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, ed., The Aleppo Codex: Provided with Massoretic Notes and Pointed by Aaron ben Asher (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1976); Mordekhai Breuer, ed., Torah Nevi’im Ketuvim Proofread according to Mesorah of Keter Aram Tzova and Like Manuscripts (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1989); Yosef Ofer, ed., Jerusalem Crown: The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Karger Family Fund, 2000). The Aleppo Codex is also available online: http://www.aleppocodex.org (accessed 20 March 2017). 7  David S. Loewinger, ed., Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographa: Codex Leningrad B 19a.: The Earliest Complete Bible Manuscript: With an Introduction by D.S. Loewinger (Jerusalem: Makor Publishing, 1971); David N. Freedman et al., eds., The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Aron Dotan, ed., Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia: Prepared according to the Vocalization, Accents, and Masora of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the Leningrad Codex (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001). 8  Hermann L. Strack, The Hebrew Bible – Latter Prophets: The Babylonian Codex of Petrograd: Edited with Preface and Critical Annotations, Prolegomenon by P. Wernberg-Møller (New York: Ktav, 1971); repr. of Hermann L. Strack, Prophetam Posteriorum: Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus (Petropoli: Bibliothecae Publicae Imperialis, 1876). 9  Judy Weiss, “The Masorah of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America Library Manuscript 232 (E. N. Adler Ms. 346)” (Ph.D. diss., The Graduate School of The Jewish Theological

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

283

Sassoon 1053 (MTS1; National Library of Israel; tenth century),10 and Codex Reuchlinianus 3 (MTR; Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe; 1105 CE).11 Andersen discusses furthermore the so-called Karasu Bazar codex (ninth century?).12 The *HUB edition of Jeremiah includes also Codex Leningrad II Firkovitch 9, 51, 59, 116, 124, 225, 1283, and Codex Gottheil 2213 into its apparatuses.14 The Genizah fragments of Jeremiah are available at the webpage of the Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society (https://fjms.genizah.org/). They remain largely unresearched. 2.1 4QJera and the Proto-Masoretic Text of Jeremiah 4QJera is the best-preserved and most ancient Jeremiah manuscript from the Qumran caves. Thirty-six of its fifty published fragments can still be identified as coming from the first half of the book of Jeremiah. They are allocated to fifteen columns of the original scroll. The thirty-six fragments attest to 728 (partial) words from Jer 7:1–2, 15–19, 28–34; 8:1–12, 18–19, 23; 9:1–2, 7–15; 10:9– 14, 23; 11:3–6, 19–20; 12:3–7, 13–17; 13:1–7, 22?, 27; 14:4–7; 15:1–2; 17:8–26; 18:15– 19:1; 20:14–18; 21:1?; 22:3–16; 26(33):10?. Paleographically, 4QJera is one of the earliest-known biblical manuscripts and among the earliest of all preserved Hebrew texts. The gradual publication and paleographic study of the Dead Sea Scrolls are the reason why over time scholars assigned a number of differing   Seminary, 2009). A digitized version of the manuscript is available at http://web.nli.org.il/ sites/NLI/Hebrew/digitallibrary/pages/viewer.aspx?presentorid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid =PNX_MANUSCRIPTS000101480–1#|FL28003941 (accessed 11 March 2017). 10  A digitized version of the manuscript is available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Tanakh-Sassoon1053–11-Jeremiah.pdf (accessed 11 March 2017). 11  Alexander Sperber, ed., Codex Reuchlinianus: No. 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe ( formerly Durlach no. 55): With a General Introduction: Masoretic Hebrew, vol. 1 of The Pre-Masoretic Bible: Discovered in Four Manuscripts, Representing a Unique Tradition and Published with a General Introduction, Detailed Description of the Mss. and Basic Conclusions, Corpus Codicum Hebraicorum Medii Aevi 2,1 (Copenhagen: Eijnar Munksgaard, 1956). 12  Francis I. Andersen, “The Orthography of D62,” in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography, ed. David N. Freedman, A. Dean Forbes, and Francis I. Andersen, BJSUCSD 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 253–93. 13  Richard Gottheil, “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo,” JQR 17 (1905): 608–655 (631–34); Israel Yeivin, “A Biblical Manuscript Very Close to the Aleppo Codex from the Karaite Synagogue in Cairo (C1),” in Moshe Goshen-Gottstein – In Memoriam, ed. Moshe Bar Asher et al., Studies in Bible and Exegesis 3 (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993), 169–94 [Hebr.]. 14  Chaim Rabin, Shemaryahu Talmon, and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Jeremiah (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1997), xxxvi.

284

Lange

paleographical dates to 4QJera. Cross originally compared the script of 4QJera to the Aramaic Persian chancellery script of the fourth century BCE and dated the manuscript to the third century BCE.15 However, he settled finally for a date between the years 225–175 BCE.16 This date is confirmed by Yardeni.17 Orthographically, 4QJera reflects the text of MT even in unusual cases. Tov notes in his edition only twenty orthographic deviations from MT-Jer among the 728 preserved words in the manuscript.18 This equals an orthographic deviation of 2.75 percent. While the orthographic affiliation of 4QJera to the consonantal text of MT-Jer is undisputed, scholars debate its textual characterization. HaCohen thinks unjustifiably that the manuscript is non-aligned because it lacks Jer 7:30–8:3.19 These verses were added by a second hand in col. III of the manuscript. However, the lack of Jer 7:30–8:3 in 4QJera is the result of a parablepsis.20 This example illustrates the principal problem in the textual classification of 4QJera. In total, the manuscript includes eighteen non-orthographic 15  Frank M. Cross, “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” JBL 74 (1955): 147–72 (152–59). 16   According to a personal communication; see David N. Freedman and Kenneth A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) (Winona Lake: ASOR, 1985), 55; cf. Esther Eshel, “Jeremiah, Book of,” in EDSS 1: 397–400 (398). In his article “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. Ernest Wright (Garden City: Doubleday, 1961), 133–202, Frank M. Cross dated 4QJera ca. 200 BCE (137, 140), while in “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 306–20, he opted for the years 200–175 BCE (308, 316 note 8). 17  Ada Yardeni, “The Palaeography of 4QJera – A Comparative Study,” Text 15 (1990): 233–68 (267 and passim). 18  Emanuel Tov, “Jeremiah,” in Qumran Cave 4 X: The Prophets, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., DJD 15 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997): 145–207 (145–51); cf. Tov, “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran,” RevQ 14 (1989): 189–206 (199); David N. Freedman, “The Masoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in Orthography,” Text 2 (1962): 87–102 (100–2); and Freedman and Mathews, Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, 58–59. 19  Aviah HaCohen, “4QJera – A Pre-Massoretic Text?” Text 17 (1994): 331, ‫[ א–ח‬Hebr.]. 20  Thus already Gerald J. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, HSM 6 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 174; cf. Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 206; Tov, “Jeremiah,” 152, 154; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 398. Different Eugene Ulrich, “Deuteronomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Biblical Texts: 4QJudga and 4QJera,” in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola, ed. Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 489–506, who regards the correction as a secondary insertion that the parent text of 4QJera did not include.

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

285

corrections prima or secunda manu.21 Even the corrections secunda manu, such as the addition of Jer 7:30–8:3 in col. III, were written in an archaic script. The uncorrected text of 4QJera resembles a semi-Masoretic manuscript. In 673 (partially) preserved words, 4QJera reads fifty-two times with and twenty-one times against MT, twice with and seventy-one times against lxx, and on twenty-one occasions non-aligned. When it is recognized that seventeen of the eighteen alterations in 4QJera correct scribal errors mostly towards MT and that a significant number of the smaller corrections were in fact made by the original scribe of 4QJera, the initial textual impression of 4QJera needs to be emended. Taking the scribal corrections of 4QJera into consideration, the manuscript attests to a proto-Masoretic text of Jeremiah. In 728 (partially) preserved words, the corrected manuscript of 4QJera reads fifty-two times with and only seven times against MT, twice with and fifty-seven times against lxx, and is non-aligned on only five occasions. The proto-Masoretic text type of 4QJera is corroborated by the fact that the manuscript reads coherently with the long Masoretic texts of the book of Jeremiah (Jer 8:3, 4, 10; 9:8, 9, 12, 14; 10:10, 13?; 12:3, 14, 17; 13:1, 3, 4; 14:4, 6; 15:1; 17:12, 18, 20, 22, 24; 18:17, 18, 21),22 and that in col. V, 4QJera reads the text sequence Jer 10:9, 10 with MT against 4QJerb and lxx-Jer, which have the sequence Jer 10:5a, 9, 5b, 11. 2.2 Semi-Masoretic Jeremiah Manuscripts from Qumran Extensive textual damage does not allow for a comprehensive assessment of the semi-Masoretic witnesses, 2QJer and 4QJerc. Both manuscripts read repeatedly with lxx-Jer against MT-Jer and are thus able to illuminate the textual character of MT-Jer as compared with the Old Greek text of Jeremiah. 2QJer in Jer 43[50]:9; 47[29]:3, 4; 48[31]:29, 30, 37 goes with lxx against MT, while 4QJerc does so in Jer 19:9; 21:8; 22:14; 30[37]:20, 21; 31[38]:92×, 12. These readings are typically small textual differences such as the presence or absence of a waw (e.g., 4QJerc in Jer 22:14), the reading of ‫“ על‬above, against” instead of ‫“ אל‬to” (e.g., 4QJerc in Jer 31[38]:9, 12 and 2QJer in Jer 47[29]:3) or differences in grammatical forms (e.g., 4QJerc in Jer 19:9 ‫“ ‏[וי]אכלו‬and they will eat” [lxx-Jer καί ἔδονται] against ‫ והאכלתים‬of MT-Jer [“and I will make them eat”]). Only rarely does the textual difference between 2QJer, 4QJerc, and lxx-Jer on the one hand and MT-Jer on the other hand amount to a whole word (e.g., 2QJer and lxx-Jer, which both lack in Jer 48[31]:29 the word ‫“ גבהו‬his loftiness” of MT-Jer). 21  Cf. Tov, “Jeremiah,” 151–54; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 205–06. Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 398–99, regards all corrections as secunda manu. 22  Cf. Tov, “Jeremiah,” 151; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 398–99; Lange, Handschriften, 299–300.

286

Lange

As 2QJer and 4QJerc do not overlap, no certainty can be reached regarding whether the two manuscripts represent the same semi-Masoretic text of Jeremiah or two different semi-Masoretic texts of this book. Both manuscripts share orthographic idiosyncrasies.23 That both manuscripts attest to the same semi-Masoretic text of Jeremiah could further be corroborated by the fact that 2QJer and 4QJerc read seven and ten times with lxx-Jer against MT-Jer respectively. However, the fact that 4QJerc applies the orthographic system known from MT-Jer while 2QJer attests to baroque plene spellings and morphology might argue against such a textual affiliation of both manuscripts with each other. 2.2.1 2QJer (2Q13) Twenty-seven fragments of 2QJer are preserved, some of which suffered extensive damage. The text of seventeen fragments can still be identified and attests to 249 (partial) words from Jer 13:22; 32(39):24–25; 42(49):7–11, 14; 43(50):8–11; 44(51):1–3, 12–14; 46:27–47:7(26:27–28; 29:1–7); 48(31):2–4?, 7, 25–39, 41–42?, 43–45(43–44); 49:10(30:4). The manuscript was copied in a Herodian bookhand from the first half of the first century CE.24 The many plene spellings of 2QJer correspond to the baroque orthographic system.25 Among the 249 (partially) preserved words in 2QJer, Baillet notes twenty-seven cases of textual variation, seven of which agree with lxx-Jer and four with the other versions; in thirteen cases, 2QJer preserves non-aligned readings. In general, the text of 2QJer corresponds to MT-Jer26 and can thus be classified as semi-Masoretic.27 Apart from its orthography, the non-aligned readings of 2QJer include the usual range of small textual differences. Scribal errors are restricted to waw-yod28 and dalet-resh confusions29 in the preserved text of 2QJer. 23  E.g., 4QJerc reads in Jer 21:9 and 22:25 ‫ הכשדיים‬instead of MT’s ‫“ הכשדים‬Chaldeans.” 2QJer attests to similar plural forms. In Jer 43(50):9, it has ‫ יהודיים‬instead of ‫“ יהודים‬Jews” (MT, 4QJerd) and ‫ פלשתיים‬in Jer 47[29]:4 instead of MT’s ‫“ פלשתים‬Philistines.” 24  Cf. Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 204. 25  See Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198; cf. Maurice Baillet, “13. Jérémie,” in Les ʽPetites grottesʼ de Qumrân: exploration de la falaise; les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q; le Rouleau de cuivre, ed. Maurice Baillet, Roland de Vaux, and Józef T. Milik, DJD 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 1: 62–69 (63). 26  Baillet, “Jérémie,” 62–63.; cf. Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 397–98. 27  Cf. Lange, Handschriften, 298. 28  Jer 42[49]:9: ] ‫“ אלוהימה‬their God” instead of ‫“ אליהם‬to them” in MT-Jer and αὐτοῖς “to them” in lxx-Jer (the suffix ‫מה‬- is spelled in the baroque system). 29  Jer 47[29]:5: ‫“ תתגוררי‬will you scratch yourselves” instead of ‫“ תתגודדי‬will you cut yourselves” in MT-Jer and κοψείς “will you cut [yourselves] down” in lxx-Jer.

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

287

Differences in grammatical forms between 2QJer and MT-Jer concern singular and plural forms.30 Most variant readings towards MT-Jer can be found in 2QJer’s text of Jer 48[31]:25–39. These variants include morphological differences,31 presence or absence of a suffix,32 scribal corruption,33 and different wording. The most coherent feature are interspersed feminine forms for which MT-Jer reads masculine ones.34 The feminine forms seem to function as a mockery in the word against Moab. Baillet regards them as more original readings compared to MT-Jer.35 That Bozak36 observed a similar phenomenon for Jeremiah 30–31 corroborates Baillet. (Proto)-MT-Jer harmonized the grammatically difficult forms later on with the dominant masculine forms in Jer 48[31]:26–31. A reading of 2QJer sheds new light on the text towards which Theodotion revised the Old Greek text of Jeremiah. Probably in harmonization with Num 21:28 and as part of a proto-Masoretic long text,37 2QJer reads in Jer 48:45 ‫“ מקרית‬from the town,” which corresponds to ἐκ πόλεως “from the town” in Theodotion,38 while the Masoretic textual tradition is divided (MTL and most 30  Jer 42[49]:9 ‫“ תחנו]תיכמה‬your petitions” instead of ‫“ תחנתכם‬your petition” in MT-Jer (>lxx-Jer); 47[29]:4: ‫“ איי‬coastlands” instead of ‫“ אי‬coastland” in MT-Jer (cf. the plural form in lxx-Jer). 31  E.g., Jer 48[31]:29: ‫“ לבבו‬his heart” instead of ‫“ לבו‬his heart” in MT-Jer. 32  E.g., Jer 48[31]:28: ‫“ ער]יך‬your cities” instead of ‫“ ערים‬cities” in MT-Jer (cf. lxx-Jer). 33  Examples include Jer 48[31]:29: ‫ורו]ם‬ [‫שמעו נא גאון מואב[ ג]אה מ[אוד] גאונו ואיננ[ו ]וגאותו‬ ‫“ לבבו‬Now listen to the pride of Moab – he is very proud of his pride and his vanity and his arrogance and the haughtiness of his heart” instead of ‫שמענו גאון מואב גאה מאד‬ ‫ גבהו וגאונו וגאותו ורם לבו‬in MT-Jer (“we heard of the pride of Moab – he is very proud of his loftiness and his pride and his arrogance and the haughtiness of his heart”) and of ἤκουσα ὕβριν Μωαβ, ὕβρισε λίαν ὕβριν αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑπερηφανίαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὑψώθη ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ in lxx-Jer (“I heard of the pride of Moab – he was very proud in his pride and in his arrogance and his heart was lifted up”). 34  Jer 48[31]:26 ‫“ הגדילה‬she magnified herself” instead of ‫“ הגדיל‬he magnified himself” in MT-Jer; 48:27 ‫“ ה[יתה היאה‬she was” instead of ‫“ היה‬he was” in MT-Jer; 48[31]:27 ‫תתנודדי‬ “you shook your head” (fem.) instead of ‫“ תתנודד‬you shook your head” (masc.) in MT-Jer; 48[31]:28 ‫“ ושכוני‬and live” (imp. sg. fem.) instead of ‫“ ושכנו‬and live” (imp. pl. masc.) in MTJer; 48[31]:28; ‫“ יושבת‬inhabitant” (part. sg. fem.) instead of ‫“ ישבי‬inhabitants” (part. pl. masc.) in MT-Jer; 48[31]:28; [‫“ תקננ[י‬nest” (fem.) instead of ‫“ תקנן‬nest” (masc.) in MT-Jer. 35  Baillet, “Jérémie,” 67–68. 36  Barbara A. Bozak, Life “Anew”: A Literary-Theological Study of Jer. 30–31, AnBib 122 (Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1991), 155–72. 37  Jer 48:45–47 are missing in lxx-Jer. 38  See M. Baillet, “Jérémie,” 69; Eugene Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, VTSup 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 583. Further texts supporting 2QJer

288

Lange

other MT manuscripts have ‫“ מבין‬from the midst,” MTKenn2 reads ‫“ מבית‬from the house”). The reading of 2QJer thus poses the question if Theodotion based its revision of lxx-Jer on a semi-Masoretic text similar to 2QJer. Regrettably, the bad stage of preservation of 2QJer does not allow us to answer this question. 2.2.2 4QJerc (4Q72) 4QJerc is one of the best-preserved Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran. Seventy-two fragments contain 631 (partial) words that can still be identified as remnants of Jer 4:5, 13–16; 8:1–3, 21–23; 9:1–5; 10:12–13; 19:8–9; 20:2–5, 7–9, 13–15; 21:7–10; 22:4–6, 10–28, 28–33?; 24:6–7; 25:7–8, 15–17, 24–26; 26(33):10–13; 27:1–3, 13–15(34:2–3, 14–15); 30(37):6–9, 17–25; 31(38):1–9, 11–14, 19–23, 25–26; 33:16–20. Fifty-five fragments of 4QJerc can still be reconstructed into twentyfive columns of text. Ancient repairs in cols. IV, XVI, XXI, and XXIII illustrate the high regard in which 4QJerc was held. The manuscript was copied in an early Herodian semi-cursive hand from the end of the first century BCE.39 Both in its orthography and its text, 4QJerc is close to MT-Jer.40 In its 631 preserved words, 4QJerc reads thirty-nine times with and twenty-five times against MT, ten times with and forty-seven times against lxx, and is non-aligned on fifteen occasions. Hence, 4QJerc can best be classified as semi-Masoretic.41 In rare cases, 4QJerc could preserve original readings. In Jer 20:3, 4QJerc attests to the shorter form of the name Jeremiah, ‫ירמיה‬, which is otherwise used only in Jeremiah 27–30[34–37]. As 4QJerc employs ‫ ירמיהו‬as the long form of the name Jeremiah also in Jer 33[40]:19, it seems likely that the shorter form ‫ ירמיה‬was originally used in the Pashur episode and later harmonized in MT with the longer form ‫ירמיהו‬, which is dominant in the book of Jeremiah.42 This observation is potentially very important for the source criticism of the book of Jeremiah. Next to original readings, the text of 4QJerc attests to several scribal errors43 and other secondary readings. Examples include the addition of the preposition lamed in the phrase ‫“ הנשארים למן המשפחה‬that remains are “Hexaplaire part, Lucian, Théodoret de Cyr … Arménien, Syr, et Num 21:28” (Baillet, “Jérémie,” 69). 39  Thus Tov, “Jeremiah,” 182, and Cross, “Evolution,” 308. 40  Cf. Tov, “Jeremiah,” 183–84; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198–99; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 399. 41  Cf. Lange, Handschriften, 302. 42  The short form of the name Josiah, ‫יאשיה‬, in Jer 22:11 results from scribal error because only five words later 4QJerc reads ‫יאשיהו‬. 43  In Jer 21:7, MT’s ‫“ ומן הרעב‬and from famine” got lost in 4QJerc or its Vorlage by way of homoiarcton. In Jer 22:20, the characters bet and resh are confused with pe and kaph (‫נשפכו‬ “they have been poured” instead of MT’s ‫“ נשברו‬they have been crushed”). In Jer 27:2, 4QJerc suffers from a metathesis (‫ צו[ר]אך‬instead of MT-Jer’s ‫“ צוארך‬your neck”).

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

289

with regard from the family” (Jer 8:3) by which 4QJerc tries to “improve” MT’s grammatically more unusual construction ‫“ מן המשפחה הנשארים‬that remains from the family.” Similarly, the text of 4QJerc corrects MT-Jer’s difficultto-understand phrase ‫“ הלבנון‬the Lebanon” into ‫“ בלבנון‬in the Lebanon” (Jer 22:20). In another case, 4QJerc carries MT-Jer’s tendency to add divine names in a supralinear addition even further than MT itself: [‫“ י]הוה צב[אות‬L]ord of ho[sts]” (Jer 9:2). Other variant readings towards MT-Jer are restricted to differences in grammatical form often without any difference in meaning.44 3

lxx-Jeremiah and the Jeremiah Manuscripts from the Qumran Library

Among the Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran, only 4QJerb can be classified beyond doubt as attesting to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer. Other manuscripts, such as DSS F.Jer 1 and DSS F.Jer2, contain important readings with lxx-Jer although they are too damaged for texttypological classification and do not align with lxx-Jer easily either. Given their isolated readings with lxxJer they are nevertheless discussed here. 3.1 4QJerb (4Q71) 4QJerb is one of the most important Jeremiah manuscripts from Qumran. The first publications considered 4QJerd and 4QJere to be part of 4QJerb.45 Differences in paleography, reconstructed column-width, scribal habits and textual character left no doubt though that 4QJerd and 4QJere attest to two further separate Jeremiah manuscripts.46 Therefore, only one fragment remains that can be attributed to the manuscript 4QJerb. It contains thirty-one (partial) words from Jer 9:22–25; 10:1–5, 9, 11–21. The manuscript can be dated paleographically to the first half of the second century BCE.47 In its orthography, 44  Jer 8:3: ‫“ בכל המקמות הנשארות‬in all the remaining places” instead of ‫בכל המקמות‬ ‫ הנשארים‬in MT-Jer (“that remains in all places”); Jer 30(37):17: ‫ נדחת‬instead of ‫“ נדחה‬outcast” in MT-Jer; Jer 30(37):18: ‫“ ונבנה‬and will be rebuilt” (masc.) instead of ‫“ ונבנתה‬and will be rebuilt” (fem.) in MT-Jer; Jer 31(38):8: ‫“ ואקבצם‬and I have gathered them” instead of ‫“ וקבצתים‬and I will gather them” in MT-Jer. 45  Thus Janzen, Studies, 181–84, and Cross, “Evolution,” 308–09. 46  See Tov, “Jeremiah,” 171–72; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 191–97. Cf. also the communications by Ada Yardeni and Émile Puech according to Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 191. 47  Thus Ada Yardeni according to Tov, “Jeremiah,” 172; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 197, and Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 399.

290

Lange

4QJerb follows the system known from the consonantal text of MT.48 That 4QJerb preserves parts of Jer 10:5–11 allows for its textual classification despite the fact that only thirty-one words are extant and the variant statistics are somewhat inconclusive. 4QJerb reads five times with and six times against MT, four times with and seven times against lxx, and is non-aligned on two occasions. Despite these variant statistics, 4QJerb is close to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer. As in lxx-Jer, it lacks Jer 10:6–8, 10 but reads the remaining verses in the sequence verses 5a, 9, 5b, 11.49 The verses MT-Jer 10:6–8 are a praise of God that interrupts the polemic against idols in Jer 10:1–11. MT-Jer should therefore be understood in Jer 10:1–11 as a secondary expansion of the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer.50 Furthermore, 4QJerb agrees in Jer 10:4 in the word sequence ‫“ במקבות ובמסמרות‬with hammers and with nails” with lxx-Jer (ἐν σφύραις 48  Cf. Tov, “Jeremiah,” 172. 49  For 4QJerb as attesting to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer, see Janzen, Studies, 173, 181– 82; Ralph W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran, 2nd ed., GBSOT (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 20–21; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198; Tov, “Jeremiah,” 174–75; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 399; Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 173–75; Eugene Ulrich, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptural Texts,” in Scripture and the Scrolls, vol. 1 of The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 77–99 (84–85); Lange, Handschriften, 300–01; Richard J. Saley, “Reconstructing 4QJerb according to the Old Greek,” DSD 17 (2010): 1–12. 50  Cf., e.g., Janzen, Studies, 182; Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 2nd ed., JBS 8 (Jerusalem: Simor, 1997), 191; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd rev. and exp. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 292–93; Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture,” in Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, ed. Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 31–56 (36–38); Ulrich, “Qumran Witness,” 269–71; Karin Finsterbusch, “Gegen die Furcht vor den Göttern der Welt: Eine Art ‘Psalm’ Jeremias für Israel in MT-Jer 10,1–16,” in Ich will dir danken unter den Völkern: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Gebetsliteratur: FS Bernd Janowski zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Alexandra Grund, Annette Krüger, and Florian Lippke (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013), 356–72; Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Broadening the Criteria for Clarifying the Textual History of Jeremiah 10: The Pre-Masoretic Ideolect,” in Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah: The Exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in Light of Text and Reception History, ed. Karin Finsterbusch and Armin Lange, CBET 82 (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 107–16; Richard D. Weis, “Exegesis of Jeremiah 10 in LXX and MT: Results and Implications,” in Finsterbusch and Lange, Texts and Contexts, 117–36. That 4QJerb is a representative of the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer was recently proven by reconstruction of this manuscript based on the text of lxx-Jer (Saley, “Reconstructing”).

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

291

καὶ ἥλοις “with hammers and nails”) against MT-Jer (‫“ במסמרות ובמקבות‬with nails and with hammers”). Although very little text is preserved of 4QJerb, its textual sequence and repertoire thus identify the manuscript as a witness to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer. That 4QJerb reads several times with MT against lxx and includes some non-aligned readings should not distract from this basic agreement with lxx-Jer. Several of the disagreements between 4QJerb and lxx-Jer result from either primary readings or idiosyncrasies of the Greek translator.51 Disagreements with MT-Jer can be found in Jer 10:15 and 10:18. In Jer 10:15, 4QJerb reads ‫בעת‬ ‫“ פקדתים‬at the time when I will punish them” against MT-Jer (‫“ בעת פקדתם‬at the time of their punishment”) and against lxx-Jer (ἐν καιρῷ ἐπισκοπῆς αὐτῶν “at the time of their visitation”). The 4QJerb reading ‫“ בעת פקדתים‬at the time when I will punish them” is an asyndetic relative clause that can also be found in MT-Jer 6:15 (‫“ בעת פקדתים‬at the time when I will punish them”); 49:8 (‫עת‬ ‫“ פקדתיו‬the time when I will punish him”); and 50:31 (‫“ עת פקדתיך‬the time when I will punish you”). Because the asyndetic relative clause was difficult to understand, and because as a lectio difficilior52 the first person voice does not agree with the rest of Jer 10:13, both lxx-Jer and MT-Jer reworked the verbal expression ‫“ פקדתים‬I will punish them” into the noun ‫“ פקדתם‬their punishment,” thus adjusting Jer 10:15 also to Jer 8:12; 10:15; 50:27; 51:18. 4QJerb preserves thus an original reading while both MT-Jer and lxx-Jer have secondary readings. When 4QJerb reads in Jer 10:18 the singular form ‫“ ישב [הארץ‬inhabitant of the land” against the ‫ יושבי הארץ‬of MT and the κατοικοῦντας τὴν γῆν of lxx (both meaning “inhabitants of the land”), this represents another original reading of 4QJerb. The plural form ‫ יושבי הארץ‬occurs repeatedly in the book of Jeremiah (Jer 1:14; 6:12; 10:18; 13:13; 25:29, 30; 47:2) but the singular form ‫ ישב הארץ‬is only known from Jer 10:18 in 4QJerb. Both MT-Jer and lxx-Jer harmonized Jer 10:18 thus with Jer 1:14; 6:12; 10:18; 13:13; 25:29, 30; 47:2 in reading the plural form. Two further disagreements of 4QJerb with lxx-Jer go back to the Greek translator. In Jer 9:25, the plural form ‫“ כל ]קצוצי פאה‬all those with shaven temples” of 4QJerb agrees with MT while lxx-Jer has a singular form: πάντα περικειρόμενον τὰ κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ “and on everyone who shaves what is 51  Against Georg Fischer who has emphasized in various publications that these agreements are an indication for the priority of MT-Jer. See, e.g., Georg Fischer, Jeremia 1–25: Übersetzt und ausgelegt, HThKAT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005), 40–41; Georg Fischer, “Die Diskussion um den Jeremiatext,” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten, ed. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus, WUNT 219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 622–23. 52  Cf. William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1−25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 211 and 324.

292

Lange

on his face.” That the singular form and the additional αὐτοῦ “his” of lxx -Jer go back to a translation idiosyncrasy of lxx-Jer is evident in Jer 25:23 (32:9) where lxx-Jer renders ‫“ כל קצוצי פאה‬all those with shaven temples” in a similar way: πᾶν περικεκαρμένον κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ “and every one shaven on his face.” The lxx translator is also responsible for the seeming difference between lxx-Jer and 4QJerb/ MT-Jer. In Jer 10:2, lxx-Jer renders the ‫כה אמר יהוה אל דרך‬ ‫“ הגוים אל תלמדו‬thus says the Lord God: Do not learn the way of the nations” of 4QJerb as τάδε λέγει κύριος Κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν μὴ μανθάνετε, “do not learn according to the ways of the nations.” As the word ‫“ אל‬God” is used only once more in the whole book of Jeremiah (Jer 51[28]:56), lxx-Jer and the punctuation of MT-Jer misinterpreted the characters ‫ אל‬as the preposition ‫“ ֶאל‬to.”53 As this preposition yields no sense in Jer 10:2, lxx-Jer rendered it with Κατὰ “according.” That lxx-Jer 10:2 renders the singular form ‫“ דרך‬way” with the plural form ὁδοὺς “ways” is an interpretative translation. In the opinion of the translator, the plural form “nations” desired to speak of several ways and not one way. 3.2 Manuscripts with Isolated Readings Agreeing with lxx-Jer 3.2.1 DSS F.Jer 1 (Manuscript Schøyen 4612/9) This small fragment was bought out of private ownership for the Schøyen Collection.54 It preserves thirty-one words and partial words of Jer 3:15–19. Langlois dates the irregular script of manuscript Schøyen 4612/9 to the second half of the first century BCE.55 Ada Yardeni describes it as a late Hasmonean or early Herodian hand from the years 100–40 BCE.56 Elgvin and Davis assert a Qumran provenance for the fragment, from either cave 4 or cave 11.57 While such a Qumran origin of manuscript Schøyen 4612/9 seems probable, its provenance out of private ownership begs for caution as biblical scrolls from the second half of the first century BCE were also found in refugee caves connected with the Second Jewish War. The orthography of DSS F.Jer 1 is conservative. Elgvin and Davis view DSS F.Jer 1 as related to the text of lxx-Jer but with 53  Cf., e.g., Mitchell Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV,” Bib 47 (1966): 403–19 (410); Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 582–83. 54  The editio princeps can be found in Torleif Elgvin and Kipp Davis, “MS 4612/19. 4Q(?)Jer (Jer 3.15–19),” in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from The Schøyen Collection, ed. T. Elgvin, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois, LSTS 71 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 215–21. 55  Michael Langlois, “Paleographical Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls in The Schøyen Collection,” in Elgvin, Davis, and Langlois, Gleanings from the Caves, 79–128, 88–98. 56  Thus the report in Elgvin and Davis, “MS 4612/19,” 215. 57  Elgvin and Davis, “MS 4612/19,” 221.

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

293

non-aligned features: “The evidence tentatively shows that MS 4612/9 may be grouped with 4QJerb, d as a text related to the Vorlage of 𝔊, although preserving independent features that indicate a thus far unattested shorter text.”58 In six partially preserved lines, DSS F.Jer 1 reads once with and six times against MT, twice with and five times against lxx, as well as five times non-aligned. Elgvin and Davis reconstruct one reading with and two readings against MT as well as two readings with and one reading against lxx. While the small amount of preserved text calls for caution, a general affiliation of DSS F.Jer 1 with the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx-Jer seems not impossible although the two certain readings with lxx-Jer are insufficient evidence for certainty: Jer 3:15, DSS F.Jer 1 reads ‫“ רעה‬shepherding” with the ποιμαίνοντες “as shep• Inherding ones” of lxx against MT’s ‫“ דעה‬knowledge.” MT-Jer’s ‫דעה והשכיל‬

“knowledge and skillful” goes back to a resh-dalet confusion. ‫רעה והש[כיל‬ “shepherding and skillful” should therefore be regarded as a primary reading. In Jer 3:19, manuscript Schøyen 4612/9 reads ‫“ אמן יהוה כי‬truly, oh Lord, for” with the Γένοιτο, κύριε· ὅτι “let it be, oh Lord, for” of lxx against MT’s ‫“ איך‬how.” It has been suggested that the translator of lxx-Jer regarded the characters ‫ איך‬as an abbreviation for ‫אמן יהוה כי‬.59 DSS F.Jer 1 demonstrates though that the reading ‫ אמן יהוה כי‬existed already in a Hebrew text. It seems hence not unlikely that some time in the transmission of proto-MTJer a scribe abbreviated the phrase to ‫ איך‬for lack of space. DSS F.Jer 1 and lxx-Jer would thus preserve an original reading. While agreements in primary readings are not important when it comes to the text-typological affiliation of a manuscript, the agreement of DSS F.Jer 1 with lxx-Jer in a secondary reading in Jer 3:19 is of significance. This is so because DSS F.Jer 1 attests to a Hebrew version of a textual plus in lxx-Jer.60 MT’s ‫“ ואנכי אמרתי איך אשיתך בבנים‬and I said: ‘how will I set you among my children’” is interrupted in DSS F.Jer 1 by an invocation of the Lord: [‫ואני‬ ‫“ אמרתי אמן יהוה כי כ[בנים אשיתך‬and I] said: ‘Indeed Lord, for (I said): I will set you like my children.’ ” This invocation is so similar to a textual plus in lxx-Jer that the latter most likely translated the former: καὶ ἐγὼ εἶπα

•

•

58  Elgvin and Davis, “MS 4612/19,” 221. 59  See e.g., Wilhelm Rudolph, ed., “Librum Jeremiae,” in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967–1977), 780– 895 (786 note 19a); Michael A. Fishbane, “Abbreviations, Hebrew texts,” IDBSup, 3–4 (d); Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 121–22. 60  That Elgvin and Davis, “MS 4612/9,” 217–18, reconstruct in DSS F.Jer 2 ‫“ ואנ]י‬and I” instead of MT’s ‫“ ואנכי‬and I” must remain speculative.

294

Lange

Γένοιτο, κύριε· ὅτι τάξω σε εἰς τέκνα “And I said: ‘May it be, O Lord, for (I said): “I will make you as children …” ’ ” This secondary reading of DSS F.Jer 1 demonstrates that not all secondary readings of lxx-Jer, especially its textual pluses, go back to the work of its Greek translator but that at least some if not all of them existed already in a Hebrew textual tradition of Jeremiah. This means that the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer already reworked slightly the archetype that it shares with MT-Jer. 3.2.2 DSS F.Jer 2 (Manuscript Museum of the Bible SCR.003172) DSS F.Jer 2 is another small fragment that was bought out of private property, in this case for the Green Collection, which donated it to the Museum of the Bible.61 Of the manuscript only one fragment is preserved that attests to twenty-six (partial) words out of Jer 23:6–9. Paleographically, DSS F.Jer 2 can be dated to the middle of the first century BCE.62 In the preserved text, the orthography of DSS F.Jer 2 agrees with the conservative orthography of MT-Jer. However, not enough text is preserved to reach certain conclusions about the orthographic system of this manuscript.63 The texttypological classification of DSS F.Jer 2 is impossible due to the small amount of preserved text. In the preserved text it reads in a macrovariant with MT-Jer, shares two readings with lxx-Jer, and attests to two non-aligned readings.64

• •

Regarding the position of Jer 23:7–8, DSS F.Jer 2 goes with MT-Jer against lxx-Jer. The latter reads the two verses after Jer 23:40. Despite this agreement with MT-Jer in a macro-variant, DSS F.Jer 2 reads in Jer 23:8 two times with lxx-Jer: The manuscript has ]‫ כל זר[ע‬equaling lxx: ἅπαν τὸ σπέρμα “all offspri[ng]” while MT lacks ‫“ כל‬all.” ‫ כל‬is a secondary interpretative reading emphasizing that the Lord will bring all of Israel out of the land of the north in analogy to the Exodus of all of Israel from Egypt addressed in Jer 23:7.

61  The editio princeps can be found in Karl Kutz et al., “Jeremiah 23:6–9 (Inv. MOTB. SCR.003172),” in Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection, ed. Emanuel Tov, Kipp Davis, and Robert Duke, Publications of the Museum of the Bible 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 140–57. 62  Thus Ada Yardeni, “Paleography and Date,” sec. in Kutz et al., “Jeremiah 23:6–9,” 142–43. 63  Cf. Kutz et al., “Jeremiah 23:6–9,” 152–53. 64  Cf. Kutz et al., “Jeremiah 23:6–9,” 150–51, 153–54.

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

295

•

In Jer 23:8, DSS F.Jer 2 agrees also in a secondary reading with lxx-Jer: 65‫“ הדי{ה}חם‬he drove them” (=lxx: ἐξῶσεν αὐτούς). MT-Jer reads instead ‫“ הדחתים‬I drove them away.” Given that in Jer 23:7–8 the Lord speaks in the third person of himself, the first person perfect hiphil represents a lectio difficilior which was harmonized in DSS F.Jer 2 and lxx-Jer with the grammatical forms of its context. In Jer 23:8, the editors transcribe DSS F.Jer 2 as ‫“ [יה]ו֯ ה אשר הצ[י]א‬the Lord who brought out”66 wanting to identify a non-aligned variant reading against MT (‫“ יהוה אשר העלה ואשר הביא‬the Lord who brought up and led”) and lxx (κύριος ὃς συνήγαγεν “the Lord who gathered”). While the he and aleph of ‫ הצ[י]א‬seem likely, the second character of the word cannot be a ṣade, because the lower stroke of medial ṣade looks different in the only preserved medial ṣade in line 5 of DSS F.Jer 2 (‫“ הארצות‬the lands”). DSS F.Jer 2 read much more likely ‫“ [יה]וה אשר הב[י]א‬the Lord who led.” This might have been translated by lxx-Jer as κύριος ὃς συνήγαγεν. The omission of ‫אשר‬ ‫ העלה ו‬would then be due to haplography, indicating a further agreement between DSS F.Jer 2 and lxx-Jer in a secondary reading. One non-aligned reading distances DSS F.Jer 2 from both MT-Jer and lxxJer. One of these readings is secondary and goes back to scribal error. In Jer 23:9, the ‫ בקבי‬of DSS F.Jer 2 goes back to an accidental erasure of the character resh by its scribe. MT (‫“ בקרבי‬within me”) and lxx (ἐν ἐμοὶ “within me” of lxx) preserve the original text.67

•

•

Conclusions: The Hebrew Parent Text of lxx-Jer and the Qumran Manuscripts 4QJerb’s agreements with MT-Jer and its non-aligned readings are mostly, if not exclusively, primary readings. 4QJerb thus attests, despite the claims of Fischer and others to the contrary,68 to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer; DSS F.Jer 1 could point to the possibility that the Hebrew parent text of lxxJer reworked somewhat the shared archetype of lxx- and MT-Jer; DSS F.Jer 2 provides isolated evidence that some variant readings of lxx-Jer go back to scribal corruption in the textual transmission of the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer.

3.3

•

• •

65  The second ‫ ה‬goes back to scribal corruption and was corrected to ‫ ;ח‬cf. Kutz et al., “Jeremiah 23:6–9,” 146–47, 151. 66  Kutz et al., “Jeremiah 23:6–9,” 143, 145–46. 67  Kutz et al., “Jeremiah 23:6–9,” 151, 68  See, e.g., Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, 40–41; Fischer, “Die Diskussion,” 622–23.

296

Lange

•

As outlined below, 4QJerd makes it likely that another expansive Jeremiah text needs to be supposed between MT-Jer and the shared lxx-/ MT-Jer archetype. This means that the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction reworked a Jeremiah text similar to that of 4QJerd, a text that already included some of the smaller characteristic long texts of MT-Jer, such as added patronyms. 4QJerd is not a direct textual witness to the base text of the proto-Masoretic Jeremiah redaction because it also includes secondary readings as compared to MT-Jer; Both 4QJerd and the quotation of Jer 10:12–13 in 11QPsa XXVI:12–15 point to the existence of non-aligned Jeremiah texts during the Second Temple period, which may (as might have been the case with 4QJerd) or may not have been related (as might have been the case with the anterior-text of 11QPsa XXVI:12–15) to the broader textual tradition of lxx/ MT-Jer.

•

4 4QJerd as a Non-aligned Jeremiah Manuscript from Qumran Only one fragment of 4QJerd containing sixty-three (partial) words from Jer 43(50):2–10 has been preserved. The fragment was originally attributed to 4QJerb (see above). Paleographically, 4QJerd resembles both 4QJerb and 4QJere and can hence be dated to the first half of the second century BCE.69 The orthography of 4QJerd is almost identical to that of MT-Jer.70 Due to the paucity of preserved text, a text-typological classification of 4QJerd is not possible. However, 4QJerd lacks the long MT texts in Jer 43(50):4–6. This lack argues for at least some resemblance to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer.71 The variant statistics for 4QJerd cautions though against classifying this manuscript as being close to lxx-Jer. 4QJerd reads five times with and eight times against MT, four times with and nine times against lxx, and is non-aligned on four occasions. Given the small amount of preserved text, it can only be speculated whether 4QJerd was a non-aligned manuscript.72 Aside from the text-typological characterization by way of variant statistics, the preserved text of 4QJerd also allows for some observations regarding its textual character. In the preserved text (Jer 43[50]:2–10), 4QJerd is more expansive than lxx-Jer but does not share all long readings with MT-Jer. There is 69  Thus Ada Yardeni according to Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 197. 70  See Tov, “Jeremiah,” 203. 71  See Tov, “Jeremiah,” 172; Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198; cf. Janzen, Studies, 173, 182–84; Eshel, “Jeremiah,” 399; Jobes and Silva, Invitation, 173–75. 72  Cf. Lange, Handschriften, 302.

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

297

also one case of scribal corruption and one disagreement in textual sequence. Nevertheless, no textual characterization by way of variant analysis is possible given the paucity of surviving text of 4QJerd. In six cases, 4QJerd preserves a more original text than MT. Two of these cases are non-aligned readings. 4QJerd reads in Jer 43(50): 4–5 twice with lxx ‫“ יוחנן‬Johanan” without a patronym against MT’s ‫“ יוחנן בן קרח‬Johanan, son of Kareah.” MT adds this patronym also in Jer 40(47):15; 41(48):13, 14, 16; 42(49):1, 8.73 MT-Jer adjusts Jer 43(50):4–5 to Jer 40(47):8, 13; 41(48):11; 43(50):2 where lxx-Jer has also Ιωαναν υἱὸς Καρηε “Joanan, son of Karee.”74 A similar case occurs in Jer 43:6 where 4QJerd reads with lxx-Jer ‫את‬ ‫“ גדליהו בן אחיקם‬Gedaliah, son of Ahikam” against the ‫את גדליהו בן אחיקם בן שפן‬ “Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, son of Shaphan” of MT-Jer. MT-Jer added the second patronym in harmonization with Jer 39(46):14; 40:5, 9, 11; 41:2 (cf. 26[33]:24).75 The way in which MT-Jer treats the name Nebuzaradan in Jer 43(50):6 is comparable. 4QJerd reads with lxx-Jer only ‫“ נבוזראדן‬Nebuzaradan” against MT’s ‫“ נבוזראדן רב טבחים‬Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard.” MT-Jer added the title ‫“ רב טבחים‬the captain of the guard” in harmonization with Jer 39:9, 10, 11, 13; 40(47):1, 10; 52:12, 15, 16, 26, 30.76 In lxx-Jer, Nebuzaradan occurs only in Jer 43(50):6 without a mention of his title.

73  For an overview, see Janzen, Studies, 139–54. 74  See Tov, Textcritical Use, 191; Tov, Textual Criticism, 293–94; Tov, “Literary Analysis,” 38–39; cf. Janzen, Studies, 82–83. 75  See Tov, Textcritical Use, 191; Tov, Textual Criticism, 293–94; Tov, “Literary Analysis, 38–39; cf. Janzen, Studies, 183. While Jer- MT always reads ‫“ את גדליהו בן אחיקם בן שפן‬Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, son of Shaphan,” Jer-lxx only has both patronyms in Jer 39(46):14 and 40(47):5 (“Γοδολιαν υἱὸν Αχικαμ υἱοῦ Σαφαν “Godolia, son of Ahikam, son of Saphan”). Jer 40(47):11 only has two patronyms (τὸν Γοδολιαν υἱὸν Αχικαμ “Godolia, son of Ahikam”) and Jer 40(47):9; 41(48):2 only one patronym (Γοδολιας and τὸν Γοδολιαν “Godolia”) instead of MT’s three. In Jer 26(33):24, MT-Jer has ‫“ בן אחיקם בן שפן‬son of Ahikam, son of Shaphan” and lxx-Jer reads Αχικαμ υἱοῦ Σαφαν “Ahikam, son of Shaphan.” For the use of the patronyms together with the name Gedaliah, see Janzen, Studies 149–50. 76  Cf. Janzen, Studies, 150–51, 183; Johann Cook, “The Differences in the Order of the Books of the Hebrew and Greek Versions of Jeremiah – Jer 43 (50): A Case Study,” OTE 7 (1994): 175–92 (187). MT-Jer changes various designations of Nebuzaradan in lxx-Jer and its parent text everywhere in Jeremiah to ‫“ נבוזראדן רב טבחים‬Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard.” In Jer 40(47):1; 52:12, 26 it reads Ναβουζαρδαν τὸν ἀρχιμάγειρον and Ναβουζαρδαν ὁ ἀρχιμάγειρος respectively (“Nabuzardan, the chief cook”), while Jer 41(48):10 and 52:16 has only ὁ ἀρχιμάγειρος “the chief cook” and in Jer 43(50):6 only Ναβουζαρδαν “Nabuzardan.” Jer 39:9, 10, 11, 13; 52:15, 30 are part of the MT long texts and are without equivalent in lxx-Jer.

298

Lange

In two cases, 4QJerd reads an even shorter text than both lxx and MT and thus preserves a textual tradition that precedes both proto-MT-Jer and the Vorlage of lxx-Jer. In Jer 43(50):7, 4QJerd has only ‫“ ו]יבאו תחפחס‬and they came to Tahpanes” instead of the ‫“ ויבאו עד תחפנחס‬and they came to Tahpanhes” of MT-Jer and the καὶ εἰσῆλθον εἰς Ταφνας “and they entered into Taphnas” of lxx-Jer. In Jer 43(50):5, 4QJerd reads once shorter than MT and lxx and once a textual plus that also occurs in MT-Jer: lxx-Jer: τοὺς ἀποστρέψαντας κατοικεῖν ἐν τῇ γῇ “those who returned to live in the country” 4QJerd: ‫“ אשר שבו מכל הגוים אש]ר [נדחו ]שם‬those who returned from all the nations to w]here [they had been banished” MT: ‫“ אשר שבו מכל הגוים אשר נדחו שם לגור בארץ יהודה‬those who returned from all the nations to where they had been banished, to settle in the land of Judah”

The original text argued probably that Johanan took “those who had returned there” (‫)אשר שבו שם‬‎.77 The phrase is difficult to understand, because it does not explain to which place the returnees came, from where they came, or how they got to their place of exile. The Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer replaced the ambiguous ‫“ שם‬there” most likely with the words ‫לגור בארץ‬, thus reading ‫אשר‬ ‫“ שבו לגור בארץ‬those who returned to live in the land” to explain what was the destination of the returnees. As for MT-Jer, the textual tradition represented by 4QJerd suggests that the long text of MT-Jer evolved in two stages. First, the words ‫ מכל הגוים אשר נדחו‬were added, to explain from where the returnees came, resulting in the text of 4QJerd: ‫“ אשר שבו מכל הגוים אש]ר [נדחו ]שם‬those who returned from all the nations to w]here [they had been banished.” Thus, ‫ שם‬relates in the text of 4QJerd to the place from where they returned. In a second stage, and probably influenced by the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer, the words ‫ לגור בארץ יהודה‬were added, resulting in the text of MT-Jer: ‫אשר שבו מכל‬ ‫“ הגוים אשר נדחו שם לגור בארץ יהודה‬those who returned from all the nations to where they had been banished, to settle in the land of Judah.” The second addition explained the second unclear element of the original text of Jer 43(50):5, that is, the destination of the returnees.

77  Similarly, Janzen, Studies, 54, and William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 276.

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

299

In Jer 43(50):7, 4QJerd follows another long text of MT-Jer in reading ‫ארץ‬ ‫[“ מצרים‬into] the land of Egypt” against lxx-Jer’s εἰς Αἴγυπτον “into Egypt.” The word ‫“ ארץ‬land” was added in harmonization with Jer 43:11, 12, 13.

Two further cases in which 4QJerd agrees with MT-Jer or is related to a primary MT-Jer reading are preserved in Jer 43(50):9. As for the primary MT-Jer reading, lxx-Jer has ἐν προθύροις τῆς οἰκίας Φαραω ἐν Ταφνας “in the entrance of the house of Pharao in Taphnas,” which probably renders the words ‫בפתח בית‬ ‫פרעה בתחפנחס‬. The lxx reading is the result of a homoiarcton in its Hebrew parent text. The eye of the scribe moved erroneously from the bet of ‫“ במלט‬in the clay floor” to the bet of ‫“ בפתח‬in the entrance” and thus deleted all the intervening text.78 MT’s ‫“ במלט במלבן אשר בפתח בית פרעה בתחפנחס‬in the clay floor, in the pavement that is in the entrance of the palace of the Pharao in Tahpahnes” is thus the more original text. 4QJerd or its base text rearranged the syntax of this verse in an editorial reading to clarify that the palace of the Pharaoh was at the entrance of Tahpahnes: ‫במלט במלבן בית פרעה] אשר בפתח‬ ‫“ בתחפנחס‬in the clay floor, in the pavement of the palace of the Pharao] which is at the entrance in Tahpanhes.” Jer 43(50):9 also includes a case in which 4QJerd agrees with MT-Jer against lxx-Jer. lxx-Jer has κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀνδρῶν Ιουδα “before the eyes of the men of Judah,” which equals most likely ‫לעיני אנשי יהודה‬. The textual tradition of 4QJerd/ MT-Jer rephrased this text to clarify that Jeremiah did not perform his symbolic act in Egypt before men of Judah but “before the eyes of Jewish men” (‫)לעיני אנשים יהודים‬. In this way, the 4QJerd/ MT-Jer text harmonizes the reading ‫ אנשי יהודה‬not only with the ‫כל היהודים הישבים בארץ מצרים הישבים במגדל‬ ‫“ ובתחפנחס‬all Jews who live in the land of Egypt, who live in Migdal and in Tahpanhes” of Jer 44(51):1 but also makes a careful distinction between men who live in Judah and diaspora Jews who live in Egypt. When 4QJerd reads in Jer 43(50):9 with MT ‫“ בידך‬in your hand” against the σεαυτῷ “for yourself” of lxx-Jer, this seems to be a case of intentional scribal corruption in lxx-Jer. lxx-Jer always translates ‫“ לך‬for yourself” (Jer 2:28; 13:1; 32[39]:7, 20, 25; 36[43]:2; 45:5 [51:35]; cf. Jer 22:14) with σεαυτῷ and renders ‫ביד‬ “in the hand of” routinely as ἐν χειρὶ or similar phrases; thus, also, in Jer 43(50):3. Given this evidence, it seems likely that either the translator of lxx-Jer or the scribe of its Vorlage could not imagine that Jeremiah would need to take large stones into his hand (singular!) and corrected thus ‫“ בידך‬in your hand” to ‫לך‬, or σεαυτῷ (both meaning “for yourself”) respectively. At least one case of scribal corruption occurs in 4QJerd in Jer 43(50):7. The manuscript reads ‫“ תחפחס‬Tahpes” instead of MT’s ‫“ תחפנחס‬Tahpanes”; cf. lxx 78  Cf. Janzen, Studies, 183; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 276; contra, Cook, “Differences,” 187.

300

Lange

Ταφνας “Taphnas.” That the scribe of 4QJerd or its Vorlage deleted the missing nun erroneously is apparent because the manuscript reads ‫“ בתחפנחס‬in Tahpanes” without scribal error in Jer 43(50):9. To summarize: That 4QJerd includes some but not all long texts of MT-Jer 43(50):2–10 and reads several times but not always with MT-Jer makes it likely that the manuscript attests to a somewhat extended textual version of Jeremiah as compared to the Hebrew parent text of lxx-Jer, to which MT-Jer added even more text.79 But 4QJerd cannot be understood as attesting to the parent text of MT-Jer either because it displays cases of scribal corruption and intentional alteration that do not occur in MT-Jer. Therefore, 4QJerd attests most likely to a somewhat developed version of a text situated between MT-Jer and the shared ancestor of lxx-Jer and MT-Jer. 5

Other Jeremiah Manuscripts from Qumran

5.1 4QJere (4Q72b) Of 4QJere, only one small fragment with sixteen (partial) words from Jer 50(27):4–6 is preserved. The fragment was originally attributed to 4QJerb. The small amount of preserved text does not allow for either orthographic or textual classification and the remains of 4QJerb could even be part of a Jeremiah quotation in a non-biblical manuscript.80 Paleographically, 4QJere resembles both 4QJerb and 4QJerd and should be dated to the first half of the second century BCE. 5.2 XJer? A small fragment with three words and partial words from Jer 48(31):29–31 is in the possession of the Foundation on Judaism and Christian Origins, which received it as a donation from Michael Sharpe of Pasadena, California. Charlesworth wants to date the fragment for paleographic reasons to the late first century BCE and speculates about a Qumran origin.81 The eleven extant characters of text allow for neither orthographic nor text-typological

79  Against Fischer who regards these agreements as an indication for the priority of MT-Jer (Fischer, “Diskussion,” 623) and against Tov, “Jeremiah Scrolls,” 198. 80  Cf. Lange, Handschriften, 303. 81  James H. Charlesworth, “Announcing an Unknown Dead Sea Scroll: Jeremiah 48:29–31a,” http://foundationjudaismchristianorigins.org/ftp/dead-sea-scrolls/unpub/DSS-jeremiah .pdf (accessed 20 March 2017).

Texts of Jeremiah in the Qumran Library

301

classifications.82 Due to the scanty extant remains of XJer?, the manuscript could also preserve a quotation of Jer 48(31):29–31 in a non-biblical text. The Jeremianic character of XJer? becomes all the more an issue because the transcription of the second word ] ‫“ י]דעתי‬I ]know[” is uncertain. Charlesworth himself notes: “However, the Daleth is problematic: Either the Dalat (sic) is written imprecisely or the copyist inscribed the wrong consonant (it looks like a Teth or a Samekh). This alleged error precludes me from being certain that this fragment represents a portion of Jeremiah (esp. in a so-called ProtoMasoretic form).”83 Select Bibliography Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les deux rédactions conservées du livre de Jérémie.” Pages 168–73, 430–32 in Le livre de Jérémie: le prophète et son milieu les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert. BETL 54. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1981. Brooke, George J. “The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 183–205 in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception Reception – Le livre de Jérémie et sa reception. Edited by Adrian H.W. Curtis and Thomas Römer. BETL 128. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Davis, Kipp. The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions: Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity. STDJ 111. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Eshel, Esther. “Jeremiah, Book of.” EDSS 1: 397–400. Finsterbusch, Karin and Norbert Jacoby. MT-Jeremia und LXX-Jeremia 1–24: Synoptische Übersetzung und Analyse der Kommunikationsstruktur. WMANT 145; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016. Finsterbusch, Karin and Armin Lange, eds. Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah: The Exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in Light of Text and Reception History. CBET 82. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. 82  Against Charlesworth, “Announcing,” who claims, “the text of this scroll of Jeremiah is similar to the so-called MT and dissimilar to the so-called Septuagint.” In the three extant words, only one textual difference between MT and lxx occurs. In Jer 48(31):29, MT-Jer reads ‫“ שמענו‬we have heard” and lxx-Jer has ἤκουσα “I heard” instead. The three extant characters of XJer? could stand for both readings, i.e., ]‫( שמע[נו‬thus the transcription of Charlesworth) or ]‫( שמע[תי‬thus the Hebrew equivalent of ἤκουσα; cf. Jer 20:10; 23:25; and 42[49]:4). 83  Charlesworth, “Announcing.”

302

Lange

Gesundheit, Shimon. “The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool for Literary-Critical Analysis.” VT 62 (2012): 29–57. Janzen, J. Gerald. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. HSM 6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Lange, Armin. Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Volume 1 of Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Lange, Armin. “7.2. Jeremiah: Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts.” Pages 514–42 in Textual History of the Bible, Volume 1B: The Hebrew Bible: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Min, Young-Jin. “The Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah as Compared with the Massoretic Text: Their Classification and Possible Origins.” PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches. OBO 136. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. HSM 8. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Tov, Emanuel. “Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27 (34).” ZAW 91 (1979): 73–93. Tov, Emanuel. “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 145–67, 430 in Le livre de Jérémie: le prophète et son milieu les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by Pierre-Maurce Bogaert. BETL 54. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1981. Tov, Emanuel. “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History.” Pages 211–37 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Tov, Emanuel. “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran.” RevQ 14 (1989): 189–206. Tov, Emanuel. “Jeremiah.” Pages 145–207 in Qumran Cave 4 X: The Prophets. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Tov, Emanuel. “7.1. Textual History of Jeremiah.” Pages 495–513 in Textual History of the Bible, Volume 1B: The Hebrew Bible: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

chapter 15

Jeremiah in Jesus and the New Testament Craig A. Evans The Old Testament prophets are quoted, paraphrased, or alluded to hundreds of times in Jesus and the literature of the New Testament. Jeremiah is quoted or alluded to about 125 times, which is about the same as we find with respect to Ezekiel and Daniel. Isaiah, of course, overshadows them all.1 But whereas Isaiah contributes the idea of gospel or “good news” to Jesus and the New Testament, and Daniel the mysterious “son of man” figure, Jeremiah’s major contribution is that of the prophecy of the “new covenant.”2 1

Jeremiah’s New Covenant in the Hebrew Bible and Versions

Jeremiah’s well known prophecy of the new covenant is found in 31:31–34. Related passages, which refer to the “eternal” or “everlasting covenant,” are found in 32:40 and 50:5. Before exploring in what ways these important passages contribute to the thought and teaching of Jesus and the New Testament writers, it will be helpful to present the texts noting the pertinent readings in their respective versions. Jer 31:31–34 (RSV) 31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant [‫ וכרתי … ברית חדשה‬/ καὶ διαθήσομαι … διαθήκην καινήν / et feriam … foedus novum] with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of 1  For a provisional listing of quotations, paraphrases, and allusions of Jeremiah in the New Testament, see the “Index of Quotations,” in The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland et al., 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1966), 913–14; “Loci Citati vel Allegati,” in Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. B. Aland et al., 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 862–63. 2  For a succinct overview of Jeremiah’s “New Covenant” in Jewish and Christian literature, see Jack R. Lundbom, “New Covenant,” ABD 4:1088–94.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_016

304

Evans Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Jer 32:40 (RSV) “I will make with them an everlasting covenant [‫וכרתי להם ברית עולם‬ / καὶ διαθήσομαι αὐτοι̑ς διαθήκην αἰωνίαν / et feriam eis pactum sempiternum], that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.” Jer 50:5 (RSV) “They shall ask the way to Zion, with faces turned toward it, saying, ‘Come, let us join ourselves to the Lord in an everlasting covenant [‫ ברית עולם‬/ διαθήκη … αἰώνιος] which will never be forgotten.’ ”

At 31:31 the Targum to Jeremiah reads ‫“( חדתא קימא‬new covenant”). But at 31:32, where the Hebrew reads ‫“( הפרו‬they broke”)3 the Targum reads ‫אשניאו‬ (“they changed”).4 The Targum’s reading recalls the reading at 14:21, where in the Hebrew we find ‫“( אתנו בריתך אל־תפר‬do not break your covenant with us”). But in the Targum it reads: ‫“( לא תשני קימך עמנא‬do not change your covenant with us”). Here the Old Greek reads: μὴ διασκεδάσῃς τὴν διαθήκην σου τὴν μεθ’ ἡμω̑ ν (“do not scatter your covenant with us”), while the Latin reads: ne irritum facias foedus tuum nobiscum (“do not void your covenant with us”). So also the Peshitta (“do not nullify your covenant with us”). Returning to 31:32, the Old Greek reads αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῃ̑ διαθήκῃ μου (“they did not abide in my covenant”). The Latin reads: pactum quod irritum fecerunt (“the covenant which they made void”). Again, the Peshitta reads the same way (“they nullified my covenant”). In some ways the various renderings that we observe in the versions reflect the range of interpretive possibilities. What does Jeremiah mean when he speaks of a “New Covenant”? Scholars are divided on the question. Some think

3  The hifil perfect of ‫פרר‬. 4  The aphel perfect of ‫שני‬.

Jeremiah in Jesus and the New Testament

305

the prophet is saying that the Sinai Covenant will be renewed.5 Others think the Sinai Covenant will be replaced with a truly new covenant, one that is unbreakable.6 Words such as “not like” (v. 32) and “no longer” suggest something truly new.7 Indeed, Jeremiah speaks of a covenant that seems to be without condition, written “upon their hearts” (v. 33), and based upon divine grace and forgiveness.8 2

Jeremiah’s New Covenant in the Dead Sea Scrolls

The ambiguity observed above, especially in the Hebrew tradition, appears to be present in the Dead Sea Scrolls. That is, it is not entirely clear if the “new covenant” anticipated at Qumran is truly new, in that it is different from the Sinai Covenant, or if it is a renewal of the Sinai Covenant. The word “covenant” (‫ )ברית‬occurs more than 300 times in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The vast majority of occurrences are in reference to the Sinai Covenant, but a few of them, sometimes modified either with the adjective “new” or the verbal form “renew,” speak to the sectarian community’s anticipation of the renewal of Israel. I will review several of the most relevant passages, beginning with the sectarian Damascus Covenant document (CD). This text begins with a reminder of Israel’s past punishment. But God will again have mercy on Israel because he remembers “the covenant with the first ones” (CD 1:4; cf. 3:10), that is, those who first received the covenant, the covenant given at Sinai. The text goes on to describe Israel’s faithlessness in not obeying the statutes of the covenant. But because the covenant is eternal (3:13, ‫ ;בריתו לישראל עד עולם‬cf. Jer 32:40, ‫)ברית עולם‬, God has raised up a righteous Community made up of men who will obey God’s laws (3:12–16).

5  Among others, Christoph Levin, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 140–41; Fredrick C. Holmgren, The Old Testament and the Significance of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 75–95. 6  Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1986), 610–12; William Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 197: “Yahweh will draw up a fresh contract without the defects of the old.” 7  Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, WBC 27 (Dallas: Word, 1995), 130. 8  Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21B (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 466.

306

Evans

The men of the Community are expected to separate themselves from the “men of the pit” (6:14–15), to avoid corrupt wealth (6:15–17), to “separate unclean from clean and differentiate between the holy and common” (6:17–18), and to keep the Sabbath, “in its exact detail,” and the festivals (6:18–19), “as it was found by those who entered into the new covenant [‫ ]הברית החדשה‬in the land of Damascus” (6:19).9 Joining the Community, which entailed the faithful observance of the Law of Moses as the Community understood it, meant that one had “entered into the new covenant” (cf. 1QS 2:18). However, men who “entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus” (CD 8:21 and 19:33b–20:1) are apostates, for having entered the new covenant they later “departed from the well of living water” (see also 20:10–13 for further discussion of the apostates) and so no longer were part of the new covenant. We find a close parallel in 1Q34bis: “However, you have chosen a people in the period of your favor, because you have remembered your covenant.6 You established them, setting them apart from all the peoples as holy to yourself. And you have renewed your covenant [‫ ]ותחדש בריתך‬with them in a vision of glory …” (1Q34bis frag. 3, col. ii, lines 5–6 = 4Q509 frags. 97 + 98, col. i, lines 7–8). In the Rule of the Community (1QS, 4QS) we find several references to the covenant but none qualified with the adjective “new.” Nevertheless, several of these references are in fact references to the new covenant mentioned in the passages in CD and elsewhere in Qumran literature. Those who “devote themselves to do the statutes of God” will enter the “covenant of mercy” and will “be joined to the Council of God” (1QS 1:7–8). Those “who are entering shall cross over into the covenant before God by the Rule of the Community” (1:16; cf. 1:18, 20, 24; 2:10).10 In 4:22 the covenant is described as an “eternal covenant” (‫ ;ברית עולמים‬cf. CD 3:13). The faithful men who separated themselves from the “men of deceit” have formed a Community, whose members “hold fast to the covenant” (5:1–3; cf. 1QSb 1:2; 1QH 10:28; 12:39). The wicked (of Israel) are not “in his covenant,” that is, not in God’s covenant (5:11). The works of those who do not know God’s covenant are worthless (5:18–19). 9  Translation is based on J.M. Baumgarten, “Damascus Document (CD),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents ed. J.H. Charlesworth, The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 13. 10  Translation based on E. Qimron and J.H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community (1QS; cf. 4QS MSS A–J, 5Q11),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 7, 9.

Jeremiah in Jesus and the New Testament

307

In Blessings (1QSb) the hope that God will “renew” the covenant is expressed three times. Upon the Zadokite priests the blessing is to be pronounced: “May he set you as a perfected ornament in the midst of the holy ones, and may he renew [‫ ]יחדש‬for you the covenant of the eternal priesthood” (3:25–26). A similar blessing is pronounced on an unidentifiable party in 5:5 (“and he shall renew for you the covenant of …”). In the section in which blessings are pronounced on the Prince of the Congregation (5:20–29) we read: “For the Master, to bless the Prince of the Congregation who … his strength and the covenant of the Community [‫ ]ברית היחד‬he (God) shall renew [‫ ]יחדש‬for himself, to raise up the kingdom of his people for ever …” (5:20–21).11 Throughout this passage we hear echoes of Isa 11. The sectarian pesher on Habakkuk finds prophecy relating to those who betray the effort to renew the covenant. Quoting Hab 1:5, we are told: “It also refers to the trai[tors to the] New [Covenant] [‫]בברית החדשה‬, because they did not 4 believe in God’s covenant [and desecrated] His holy name” (1QpHab 2:3–4). Review of references to covenant elsewhere in Qumran literature, such as 1QH, 1QM, 4Q174, 4Q175, 4Q280, 4Q501, and other pesharim affirm the same ideas.12 The sectarian eschatology of Qumran is very much focused on the renewal of the Sinai covenant. That is what is meant by “new covenant” or “he will renew the covenant.” Even if this language alludes to Jer 31, a new covenant that replaces the old Sinai covenant is not in view. There is no indication that there is discontinuity between the Sinai covenant, which is regarded as “eternal,” and the renewed covenant. The sectarian literature of Qumran calls for a renewal of the covenant, which can only happen when the faithful commit themselves to obey the laws and statutes of the covenant. It is assumed that the faithful are but a remnant of Israel. Many, perhaps most of Israel, including and especially the corrupt and wicked priesthood of Jerusalem, are lost and beyond redemption. It is important to note too that the language of “entering” (‫ )בוא‬and “crossing over” 11  Translation based on J.H. Charlesworth and L.T. Stuckenbruck, “Blessings (1QSb),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents, ed. J.H. Charlesworth, The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 127, 129. 12  I have reviewed all of the relevant texts in my essay, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, JSJSup 71 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 55–80. In the same volume one should also see Martin G. Abegg, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians,” 81–97; and Michael O. Wise, “The Concept of a New Covenant in the Teacher Hymns from Qumran (1QHa x–xvii),” 99–128.

308

Evans

(‫ )עבר‬is reminiscent of the great tradition of Israel crossing the Jordan River and entering the Promised Land (cf. Deut 9:1; 11:8). In speaking this way, the men of Qumran closely link the covenant with the land, which they hope to regain when God raises up “the Anointed of Aaron (the high priest) and the Anointed of Israel (the royal Messiah)” (1QS 9:11; 1QSa 2:11–12). The distinctive feature of Qumran’s understanding of the covenant is the reduction of the number of the elect. There is now a chosen people drawn out from among the people of Israel: a chosen from the chosen, as it were. Those who adhere to the Law according to the terms spelled out in the sectarian writings are the elect who have “crossed over” and have “entered” the covenant. This idea of an elect remnant within Israel itself provides an important parallel to early Christianity’s self-understanding, especially in relationship to the people of Israel as a whole. It may also shed light on Jesus’ understanding of the “new covenant” established in his blood, rather than – as in the Scrolls – in keeping the commandments, statutes, and ordinances in certain ways. 3

Jeremiah’s New Covenant in the Gabriel Inscription

Before we move on to Jesus and early Christian literature, we must take into account reference to the ‫ ברית החדש‬in a recently published text variously called the Vision of Gabriel, Revelation of Gabriel,13 or the Gabriel Inscription. The inscription is made up of some 87 or 88 lines of Hebrew, in two columns, written in ink, on a slab, or stele, of gray micritic limestone, measuring about 37 by 96 centimeters. Analysis of the stone and soil deposits clinging to it suggests that it originated east of the Dead Sea, “particularly east of the Lisan area.”14 Many think that the ink was applied to the stone near the end of the first century BCE, though some have expressed doubts about this dating. In recent scholarship, apparently motivated by the growing evidence that several Dead Sea Scroll fragments that have come to light in the last fifteen years or so may in fact be modern forgeries, there has been some discussion of the authenticity of the Gabriel Inscription. At a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2014 Årstein Justnes presented a paper in which he probes a 13  Hebrew: Hazon Gabriel. 14  Yuval Goren, “Micromorphological Examination of the ‘Gabriel Revelation’ Stone,” IEJ 58 (2008): 220–29 (229). The stone may have been found in 2000. It was purchased from a Jordanian antiquities dealer by David Jeselsohn of Zurich and has been displayed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. The author thanks the Israel Museum for permitting him to examine and photograph the stone in 2013.

Jeremiah in Jesus and the New Testament

309

number of anomalies that could suggest that the inscription is modern, not ancient.15 At the aptly named “Lying Pen of Scribes” conference in Kristiansand, Norway, in 2016 Amanda Bledsoe presented a paper that discussed at length the Gabriel Inscription and the possibility of forgery. Several papers at this conference discussed forgeries related to biblical literature. Most troubling is the mounting evidence that several small leather fragments, allegedly looted from Dead Sea Scrolls caves in the 1950s and in recent years sold to museums, schools, and private collectors, are in all probability modern forgeries.16 Kipp Davis and colleagues have observed a number of troubling features that support the growing suspicion that some of these fragments are indeed fakes. Among other things they note, with respect to the fragments that have recently come to light, the higher than expected percentage of fragments of biblical text, even indications that the text in some of these fragments reflects modern critical editions. Even more suspicious is the observation of ink written over encrusted soil, across cracks in the leather, or over worn, abraded areas. All of this points to modern production, not ancient. Because collectors are willing to pay enormous sums of money for these fragments, Davis and his colleagues believe the primary motivation behind these forgeries is pecuniary, not ideological.17 Although Justnes is convinced that the Gabriel Inscription is a modern forgery, Bledsoe is not so sure. She finds the evidence for and against forgery evenly divided. Torleif Elgvin, who has also worked on the Gabriel Inscription, acknowledges the evidence cited in support of forgery, but still thinks the evidence in support of authenticity is somewhat weightier. Among other things, Elgvin notes that the text of the Gabriel Inscription does not exhibit the characteristics of the Scroll forgeries.18 In his petrochemical analysis of the Gabriel 15  Årstein Justnes, “Hazon Gabriel: A Modern Forgery?” in Material Philology in the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Approaches for New Text Editions. Proceedings of the International Conference at the University of Copenhagen, 3–5 April, 2014 (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). The essay has been published in Norwegian: “Gabriels åpenbaring (Hazon Gabriel). En moderne forfalskning,” Teologisk Tidsskrift 2 (2015): 120–33. I thank Dr Justnes for making his paper available to me. 16  Readers will want to review the essays by Eibert Tigchelaar and Kipp Davis et al. in Dead Sea Discoveries 24 (2017): 173–270. 17  In the notorious case of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife Coptic fragment, now universally regarded as a modern forgery, the motivation seems to have been as much ideological (i.e., supporting the view that Jesus really was romantically involved with Mary Magdalene) as financial. 18  From personal correspondence. I thank Dr Elgvin for sharing with me his views and permitting me to discuss them in the present study.

310

Evans

Inscription, which included close inspection of the surface under a microscope, Yuval Goren found no evidence, at least no obvious evidence, of forgery. For example, unlike some of the Scroll fragments, Goren did not observe ink written over encrusted soil or over cracks or worn areas. In fact, in places soil encrustation covers the ink, which is what we should expect if the artifact is ancient and genuine.19 Both the stone and the soil traces that still cling to it are consistent with the geographical location from which the artifact is believed to have been found. If the inscription is a modern forgery, the forger possessed remarkable technological abilities, as well as sophisticated linguistic and paleographical skills. Also in favor of the authenticity of the Gabriel Inscription is the lack of parallels with themes and language found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The text is lengthy, which makes forgery far more risky, in that the chances of making errors increase, and the text does not follow a template, as seen, for examples, in the suspected Scroll forgeries (which follow the HB) and the Coptic Gospel of Jesus’ Wife (which makes use of words and phrases from the well known Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas). Elgvin’s willingness to view the Gabriel Inscription as genuine in my opinion seems justified. In view of these developments I will make use of the Gabriel Inscription but what results may emerge will be regarded as provisional only. Hopefully further study will settle the question of this text’s authenticity.20 Reference to a “new covenant” appears in line 19, as part of a response to David’s request for a sign: “Thus says 18 the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel: My son, in my hands I have 19 a new covenant for Israel, on the third day you will know it” (lines 17–19).21 The sign will be a “new covenant” (‫ )ברית החדש‬and it will become known “on the third day” (‫)לשלשת ימין‬. In line 36 a mysterious man “will give a sign for Jerusalem.” Threatened by an enemy who will make war, a sign will be given the people of God: “on the third day [‫ ]לשלשת ימין‬it will be, as (the prophet) said” (line 54). This sign will bring to an end the bloodshed in Jerusalem (line 57). The end of warfare will bring about a restoration 19  Goren, “Micromorphological Examination,” 223 fig. 4. 20  A few brief critical studies have appeared. The first major collection of studies devoted to the Gabriel Inscription is found in Matthias Henze, ed., Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation, SBLEJL 29 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). A more recent critical discussion, including Hebrew text, notes, commentary, and fresh translation, is found in Torleif Elgvin, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Gabriel Inscription,” Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 1 (2014): 5–25. 21  I am following the reconstruction and translation in Elgvin, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Gabriel Inscription,” 12.

Jeremiah in Jesus and the New Testament

311

of Jerusalem, a restoration facilitated by three shepherds, three prophets, and, perhaps, the Davidic Messiah (lines 57–79). At the end of the text we read: “On the third day [‫]לשלשת ימין‬: the sign! I am Gabriel, king of the angels,81 the prince of princes …82 The sign is for him…. On the third day [‫]לימין שלושה‬, the small one that I took, I Gabriel” (lines 80–83). The text is fragmentary in many places, often obscuring the train of thought. That it is an apocalyptic vision that foretells the redemption of Jerusalem and God’s people seems clear enough. A Davidic redeemer, perhaps the Messiah, appears to be in view also.22 On the basis of similar tradition in b. Sukkah 52a, where we find an expansive midrash on the dialogue between God and the Davidic king in Ps 2:7–8, Elgvin restores lines 16–19 of the Gabriel Inscription to read as follows: My servant David, ask me: “Give me words [in re]sponse, the sign I ask from you!” Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel: “My son, in my hands I have a new covenant for Israel, on the third day you will know it. Thus says the Lord God of Hosts, the God of Israel: Evil will be broken before righteousness. Ask me, and I will tell you what this evil plan is. You do not stand on firm ground, but the angel is your support, do not fear!”23

Elgvin concludes that the Gabriel Inscription constitutes an eschatological oracle, perhaps reflecting a particular crisis, in which the hope is expressed that a major sign will take place “on the third day,” which is very likely an allusion to Hos 6:2. At this time “Evil will be broken” and the people of God will be delivered. Elgvin speculates that the Gabriel Inscription was produced by a Jewish sectarian group not connected to the community at Qumran, but, like the men at Qumran, a group estranged from the ruling priesthood in Jerusalem.24 Assuming that the Gabriel Inscription is indeed a genuine artifact from late antiquity and that Elgvin’s interpretation is correct in its essential points, we may gain some new insight into Jesus’ understanding of Jeremiah’s “new covenant,” as well as his distinctive usage of Hos 6:6. At the very least it is interesting that these two elements from Hebrew Scripture are found together in a Jewish text apparently composed about one generation before the time of Jesus. These two texts, moreover, are brought together in an apocalyptic vision 22  Elgvin believes that in line 72 David is referred to, while in lines 77–78 Gabriel is instructing the Davidic Messiah, in keeping with the original request in line 16. Elgvin, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Gabriel Inscription,” 10, 17–18. 23  Elgvin, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Gabriel Inscription,” 19. 24  Elgvin, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Gabriel Inscription,” 15–16, 22–23.

312

Evans

concerned with eschatology and, apparently, the appearance of a Davidic Messiah. 4

Jesus and the New Covenant

It is in the Words of Institution that we hear an echo of Jeremiah’s new covenant. The oldest version of the words is found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian Christians. This version approximates the wording we find in the Gospel of Luke, though the two versions are not identical. They read as follows: 1 Cor 11:25 τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. (“This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”) Luke 22:20 τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον. (“This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”)

Most commentators recognize that the καινὴ διαθήκη of 1 Cor 11:25 and Luke 22:20 alludes to Jer 31:31.25 What complicates matters is that the form of the Words in Mark, a Gospel most think preceded Luke and was in fact utilized by the Lukan evangelist, not only reads a bit differently, it omits the adjective “new” (καινὴ). Matthew also lacks the adjective. The Markan and Matthean forms of the Words read as follows:

25  For a few examples of commentaries on 1 Corinthians, see C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 268–69; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 199–200; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, AB 32 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 443; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Revised Edition, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 614. For a few examples of discussion of the passage in Luke, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV, AB 24a (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 1402; François Bovon, Luke 3: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 19:28–24:53, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 159; and John T. Carroll, Luke: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 435; J.R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke, Pillar (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 629–30. On the function of Jer 31:31–34 in the early Church, see the discussion in C.H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952), 44–46.

Jeremiah in Jesus and the New Testament

313

Mark 14:24 τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. (“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”) Matt 26:28 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. (“for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”)

Some Matthean mss (A C D W Δ f 1 f  13) read τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς καινὴς διαθήκης ܺ ܳ ܶ݁ (“my blood of the new covenant”), so does the Peshitta (‫)ܕܡܝ ݁ܕ ݂ ܺܕ ܰܝ ݂ܬ ܺܩܐ ܰܚ ݂ ݈ܕ ݂ܬܐ‬,26 as well as Shem-Tob’s Hebrew text (‫)דמי מברית חדשה‬.27 The adjective καινὴ is not present in 𝔓37 ‫ א‬B L Z Θ 33 and other authorities. What is striking about the form of the Words of Institution in Matthew is the appearance of the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν). One will think of the divine promise at the conclusion of Jeremiah’s oracle (Jer 31:31–34): “I will remember their sin no more” (τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ). That reference to the forgiveness of sins should appear here in a context that mentions covenant is suggestive. A number of commentators rightly see an allusion to Jer 31:34.28 One should note too that Jesus’ words, “forgiveness of sins,” match more closely the words of Jeremiah in Hebrew (‫)ולחטאתם לעונם אסלח‬,29 than they do the Greek, which may suggest that the words should not be explained as an added Greek gloss but, perhaps more likely, as part of the original Words of Institution.30 The Markan form of the Words more closely echoes Exod 24:8 (“Behold the blood of the covenant …”) and lacks the adjective “new,” at least in several 26  For Syriac text, see Jeff W. Childers and George A. Kiraz, eds., The Gospel of Matthew according to the Syriac Peshitta Version with English Translation (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2012), 176. 27  For Hebrew text, see George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987), 134. 28  Dale C. Allison Jr. and W.D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume III: Commentary on Matthew XIX–XXVIII, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 474–75; R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 994. 29  “I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin …” The Greek renders the Hebrew ‫אסלח לעונם‬ (“I will forgive their iniquities”) as ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν (“I will be merciful with regard to their iniquities”). 30  It is hard to disagree with Floyd V. Filson, Commentary on St. Matthew, HNTC (New York: Harper, 1960), 275: “Whether Jesus explicitly said at the Supper that his death provided forgiveness of sins, he implied just that, and the disciples understood him to mean that.”

314

Evans

of our oldest and best witnesses, such as ‫ א‬B C D L W Ψ 565 and a few versions. Almost all of the mss of the Byzantine family read τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης (“of the new covenant”). The older of these witnesses that read “new” include A K P Δ Π f 1 f 13 and several versions, including the Peshitta (exactly as it reads in Matt 26:28). The most likely explanation of this difference is that the adjective καινὴ was added to, rather than omitted from, the Markan text,31 under the influence of the parallel passages in Luke and 1 Corinthians, as well as other places in New Testament literature where mention is made of the “new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15; 12:24), not to mention Jer 31:31 itself. We should conclude that Mark’s original text did not include the adjective “new.” But does Mark’s text represent the original Words of Institution? Some scholars think so, or at least a form of the Words older than what we find in Paul and Luke.32 But other scholars think the form of the tradition found in Paul, which is closely paralleled in Luke, in which the adjective “new” appears, is in fact closer to the original utterance of Jesus.33 Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz agree, saying that “in their earliest form in the tradition the eucharistic words were like the Pauline form: ‘This is my body for you. This cup is the new covenant in my blood.’”34 I think they are correct. After all, Paul’s account of the Last Supper and the Words of Institution in 1 Corinthians predates Mark by at least a decade and probably rests upon apostolic tradition, perhaps directly upon the testimony of one of the apostles themselves. James Dunn makes the important point that in Paul the expression “new covenant” “appears only in a quotation,” adding that in 1 Cor 11:25 “Paul brings in the thought of ‘new covenant’ merely as part of the tradition authorizing the meal and not as an item of his own theologizing.”35 The concept of the “new 31  So Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975 [corrected edition]), 113. 32  Hermann von Patsch, Abendmahl und historischer Jesus (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1972), 80–87. 33  V. Wagner, “Der Bedeutungswandel von ‫ ברית חדשה‬bei der Ausgestaltung der Abend­ mahlsworte,” EvT 35 (1975): 538–44; Barry D. Smith, “The More Original Form of the Words of Institution,” ZNW 83 (1992) 166–86. For arguments that Luke – not Paul – is closer to the original wording, see I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 806; I. Howard Marshall, “The Last Supper,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 481–588, here 567–69. Marshall believes that Paul and Mark (followed by Matthew) represent later, simplified, and independent forms. 34   Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 422. 35  J.D.G. Dunn, “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9.4 and 11.27,” in Porter and de Roo, The Concept of the Covenant, 287–307, here 296.

Jeremiah in Jesus and the New Testament

315

covenant” does not play a central role in Paul’s theology. Nowhere else does Paul speak of the Lord’s Supper in reference to the new covenant.36 When in 1 Cor 5:7 Paul speaks of Jesus as “our Passover” that has been slain, he says nothing about a new covenant. In fact, comparison of Jesus to the slain Passover lamb provides the rationale for Paul’s exhortation to eliminate “the old leaven,” so that the believer in Jesus “may be a new [νέον] lump.” The allusion to Jesus’ Passover death is not linked to the Words of Institution or to the “new covenant.” The only other time that “new covenant” appears in Paul is in 2 Corinthians: “God … has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant [καινῆς διαθήκης], not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written codes kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:5–6). The whole point here, however, is in the contrast between the ministries of Moses and of Paul.37 The ministry of Moses was a “dispensation of death, carved in letters of stone” (v. 7). But Paul’s is a ministry of the “dispensation of the Spirit,” which will be “attended with greater splendor” (v. 8). The reference to “new covenant” is not to Jesus’ death or to the Words of Institution, but rather to the shift from one dispensation to another. In an important sense Jeremiah as prophet and as foreteller of the new covenant influenced Paul’s own understanding as an apostle and prophet.38 In a lengthy and detailed study Brant Pitre has mounted a very strong case for concluding that in all probability Jesus spoke of a “new covenant” that would be established in his death, specifically in his blood.39 Among other things, Pitre observes a number of contextual factors that provide support. For one thing, Jesus’s message was eschatological, speaking of the in-breaking of the rule of God, while Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant is also eschatological. The new covenant and the proclamation of the rule of God go hand in hand. The new covenant, moreover, is “with the house of Israel and house of Judah” (Jer 31:31), that is, with the whole of Israel. This is in step with Jesus’ appointment of the Twelve, which most interpreters agree implied the restoration of the whole of Israel.40 36  Dunn, “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology?,” 296. 37  Dunn, “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology?,” 298. 38  L. Doering, “The Commissioning of Paul: Light from the Prophet Jeremiah on the SelfUnderstanding of the Apostle?,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 544–65. Doering concludes that Paul was influenced by Jeremiah and other Old Testament prophets as well. 39  Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 90–120. 40  J.P. Meier, “Jesus, the Twelve and the Restoration of Israel,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 2001),

316

Evans

Pitre also draws our attention to the saving work of the Servant of the Lord. As God’s righteous one, the Servant shall make many righteous and shall bear their sins and iniquities, pouring out his soul to death (Isa 53:10–12). He will himself be given to God’s people as “covenant” (Isa 42:6; 49:8), for “the former things have come to pass, and new things now” God declares (42:9). Similarly, Ezekiel foretells the coming of God’s “servant David,” whose appearance will coincide with the establishment of an “everlasting covenant,” a “covenant of peace” (Ezek 34:23–25; 37:25–27; cf. Jer 32:40).41 Jesus instructs his disciples to eat the bread and drink the cup “in memory of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24–25). The command to remember in the context of a reference to covenant recalls the Passover (Exod 12:14; cf. Jub. 49:15; Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.146),42 the tenth plague that befell Egypt and made the departure (the exodus) from Egypt and the subsequent reception of the covenant at Sinai possible. Jesus’ command that his disciples “do” the eating and drinking in memory of him places this part of the Last Supper on the level of the institution of the Sinai covenant and related cultic rites.43 This strongly implies that the covenant of which Jesus speaks is a new covenant, not simply a renewal of the original covenant. The new covenant, like the old covenant, will be established in blood; only this time it will be the blood of Jesus. In my view Pitre has made his case. It is very probable that in referring to the covenant of Exod 24:7, “and seeing it re-enacted in his own death,” Jesus did indeed have Jer 31:31 in mind.44 Speaking of his death, linking it to a covenant, 365–404; Craig A. Evans, “The Baptism of John in a Typological Context,” in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Anthony R. Cross and Stanley E. Porter, JSNTSup 234 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 45–71; Scot McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve,” in Bock and Webb, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus, 181–214. 41  Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, 100–104, 113–14. Walter Grundmann (Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 7th ed., THNT 3 [Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1974], 397) thinks the utterance may allude to Isa 53. 42  Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, 417–20. 43  Pitre (Jesus and the Last Supper, 417–19) rightly draws our attention to texts like Exod 29:31–35 and Num 15:8–15 where God commands Israel “to do” certain things, things that were to be done regularly and, usually, annually. We find similar thinking and language expressed at Qumran (cf. 1QSa 2:20–22 “All those who enter the covenant … shall do this year after year”). 44  Here I am paraphrasing R.T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (London: Tyndale, 1971), 94. Grundmann (Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 398) says that Jesus’ language “recalls Jer 31:31–34,” adding that the saying “is grounded in Jesus’ giving of himself and is sealed in his shed blood.” I note too the comment in Adolf Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1931), 422: “Because (Jesus) died for (his disciples), the reception of the cup, which he

Jeremiah in Jesus and the New Testament

317

and then commanding his disciples to repeat the moment, in memory of Jesus, strongly implies that the “covenant” of which Jesus is speaking is new and if new, then it must be the “new covenant” foretold by the prophet Jeremiah. Jesus alludes to Jeremiah elsewhere in his teaching and activities. We think of his entrance into Jerusalem, clearly modeled after Zech 9:9, which is not quoted in either Mark or Luke (though it is in Matthew and John, whose authors are preoccupied with fulfillments of Scripture and so cite the prophetic text explicitly).45 Jesus alludes to Jer 7:11 on the occasion of his demonstration in the temple precincts (Matt 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–18; Luke 19:45–46). The Matthean evangelist seems especially interested in the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 31:15 is cited as fulfilled in Matt 2:17–18, in reference to the massacre of the infants. Passages from Jeremiah (18:2–3; 32:6–15) seem to have influenced Matthew’s quotation of Zech 11:12–13 in reference to the purchase of the Field of Blood (Matt 27:7–10). Jesus is compared to the prophet Jeremiah in Matt 16:13–16 when Jesus asks his disciples what they and the general public think of him. The quotations and allusions to Jeremiah in Matthew lead Michael Knowles to conclude that the evangelist has found in the suffering and rejected prophet, set in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem, a model for understanding Jesus.46 Several times in the letter to the Hebrews there is reference to the “new covenant.” That the author is referring to Jer 31:31 is beyond all doubt, given that the prophetic text is explicitly quoted: “For he finds fault with them when he says: ‘The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant I made with their fathers …’ ” (Heb 8:8–12; Jer 31:31–34). The author of Hebrews goes on to explain, “In speaking of a new covenant he (God) treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Heb 8:13). The old covenant is not renewed in Jesus’ ministry and death; it has been replaced by the new covenant, foretold by Jeremiah.47 presented to them, is their share in the New Covenant.” See also the succinct assessment of the scriptural allusions in the Words of Institution, as especially found in Luke 22:20, in D.W. Pao and E.J. Schnackenburg, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 251–414, here 381–83. 45  Matt 21:5; John 12:14. 46  Michael Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthaean Redaction, JSNTSup 68 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). 47  Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 36 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 388.

318

Evans

The idea that the old covenant, the covenant of Sinai, is “obsolete” (πεπαλαίωκεν), “growing old” (παλαιούμενον), and “ready to vanish away” (ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ) is not implied in the Words of Institution. The theological development moves from Jesus, who speaks of a new covenant in his blood, to Hebrews who sees the old covenant as obsolete now that the new covenant, foretold by Jeremiah, has been instituted by Jesus through his death.48 It is not hard to see why the author of Hebrews interprets the new covenant in this way: It coheres with his apologetic throughout his letter. Jesus is the superior revelation, surpassing the prophets of old. He surpasses angels in glory and honor. He and he alone is called “Son.” He surpasses Moses. He is the new high priest and his death becomes a sacrifice that will never need to be repeated. It is in this light that Jeremiah’s prophesied “new covenant” must be interpreted. Given his exalted status, which surpasses all that has gone before, the new covenant in the blood of Jesus must render the Sinai covenant obsolete. It can do no less. Accordingly, in his priestly role Jesus is “the mediator of a new covenant” (Heb 9:15; 12:24). He is not the renewer of the old covenant. 5

Summing Up

At the Last Supper and in the Words of Institution Jesus appeals to the new covenant prophecy of Jeremiah to find meaning in his death and in doing so to find meaning in his ministry. The Words of Institution trigger theological reflections in a few of the early Christian teachers, above all, Paul and the author of Hebrews. For Paul the new covenant is spiritual and powerful, in contrast to the old covenant. For the author of Hebrews the new covenant provides a theological foundation on which weighty Christology and Soteriology may be built. It is possible, too, that the “new commandment” of the Johannine Jesus, uttered during the Last Supper (John 13:34; cf. 1 John 2:7–8; 2 John 5), is also an expression of the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s new covenant.49 Jeremiah’s influence in Jesus and the literature of the New Testament was highly significant. Although not quoted and alluded to everywhere, as in the case of other Old Testament writings like Isaiah and the Psalter, Jeremiah’s prophecy of a “new covenant” played a key role in Jesus’ understanding of his mission and his death. Jesus’ appeal to this important prophecy evidently 48  The strong affirmation of the Law in Matt 5:17–20 may have been intended to counter this thinking. 49  Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 463–64; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 758–59.

Jeremiah in Jesus and the New Testament

319

stimulated further theological reflection on the part of some of his earliest followers. Select Bibliography Abegg, Martin G. “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians,” Pages 81–97 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. JSJSup 71. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Charlesworth, J.H., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents, ed. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Doering, L. “The Commissioning of Paul: Light from the Prophet Jeremiah on the SelfUnderstanding of the Apostle?” Pages 544–65 in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation. Edited by Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Dodd, C.H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. Dunn, J.D.G. “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9.4 and 11.27.” Pages 287–307 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. JSJSup 71. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Elgvin, Torleif. “Eschatology and Messianism in the Gabriel Inscription.” Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 1 (2014): 5–25. Evans, Craig A. “Covenant in the Qumran Literature.” Pages 55–80 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. JSJSup 71. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Goren, Yuval. “Micromorphological Examination of the ‘Gabriel Revelation’ Stone.” IEJ 58 (2008): 220–29. Henze, Matthias, ed. Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation. SBLEJL 29. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Knowles, Michael. Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthaean Redaction. JSNTSup 68. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Pitre, Brant. Jesus and the Last Supper. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.

chapter 16

Jeremiah in Targum Robert Hayward From Second Temple times, Jewish scholars made translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic: these are known as Targum, an Aramaic word signifying both translation and interpretation. Indeed, Targum not only translates the Hebrew Scripture into Aramaic, but may also incorporate into its translation, in varying degrees, interpretation and explication of the Hebrew base text. Targum came to be widely used in the Synagogue service, in the study houses, and by private individuals.1 It may be defined, in the words of Alexander Samely, as “an Aramaic narrative paraphrase of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its [i.e., the biblical text’s] wording.”2 Targum became a popular medium of instruction, communicating religious information to people whose knowledge of classical Hebrew was limited. Originating outside the world of the rabbis, the latter came quickly to embrace it, eventually authorizing “official” Targum of the Pentateuch (Targum Onqelos) and of the Prophets (Targum Jonathan).3 These “official” Targums, to which the Targum of Jeremiah belongs, were able to disseminate to a wide audience fundamental rabbinic legal, moral, and theological norms: standing somewhere between the Written and the Oral Torah, and having characteristics of both, Targum was well placed to serve as a powerful educational device in the fundamental rabbinic programme promoting Torah study.4 1  On Targum as a medium of instruction in ancient Judaism, its distinctive characteristics, and its various “settings in life,” see Paul V.M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011); R. le Déaut, Introduction à la Littérature Targumique Première Partie (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988); Philip S. Alexander, “Targum, Targumim,” ABD 6: 320–31. 2  See Alexander Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuchal Targums, TSAJ 27 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1992), 180, and further detailed description in Alexander Samely, Philip Alexander, Rocco Bernasconi, and Robert Hayward, Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 248–53. 3  See Lee I. Levene, The Ancient Synagogue (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 442–52. 4  See further Willem F. Smelik, Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 220–65, for the differing evaluations of targum as Written or Oral Torah in different locales and among different Sages at various times before the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_017

Jeremiah in Targum

321

This essay will begin by exploring information not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but provided by the Targum, which gives details of Jeremiah’s life and personal circumstances. It will then discuss the teachings of Jeremiah which Targum sought to emphasise, paying particular attention to items which either are not represented in Scripture, or which were emphasised by the Aramaic translators, thus conveying to their audience the essential “Targumic Jeremiah.”5 At the same time, the setting of these items within the Targum’s translation of the Hebrew base text will be observed; for the Targum was experienced by its audience as a seamless rendering, coupling close rendering of much of the Hebrew text with its own specific additions, expansions, and alterations.6 While all the targumic information which this essay analyses assumed its present written form after the Second Revolt against Rome (132–135 CE), Jewish exegetes were concerned with Jeremiah’s personality and preaching long before then.7 Two texts from Second Temple times conveniently offer snapshot portraits of Jeremiah which resemble reports in Targum. The older of these is the Wisdom of Ben Sira (early second century BCE), which remains close to the biblical portrayal of the prophet: the collapse of the last kings of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem happened “by the hand of Jeremiah, because people afflicted him, when he had been formed as a prophet from the womb to pluck up and to break down and to destroy, to tear down, and so to build and to plant.”8 The afflictions suffered by Jeremiah as a result of his 5  The Aramaic text of Targum Jeremiah is cited from the edition of Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic III: The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: Brill, 1962), and English translation of the Targum from Robert Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, ArBib 12 (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987). 6  This sometimes neglected facet of Targum is explored by Alexander in dialogue with Moshe Bernstein: see Philip Alexander, The Targum of Lamentations Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, ArBib 17B (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 23. 7  The extant Targum of Jeremiah probably dates from the fourth century CE: for the evidence, see Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, 34–38. Targum Jonathan of the Prophets as a corpus seems to have grown incrementally until its final consolidation as a rabbinically approved text in the fifth century: see Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 169–227; le Déaut, Introduction, 124–28. 8  My translation of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira 49:7 (manuscript B from the Cairo Geniza), edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1997). For interpretation of this verse and its context, see Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 541. For the date of Ben Sira, see Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 3.1.202–03.

322

Hayward

political stances remain as prominent in the Targum as they are in Scripture,9 although some of his most bitter complaints are modified in true targumic fashion. Thus his despairing hope that he had died in the womb (Jer. 20:17) becomes: “Would that He had not said concerning me, that I had died from the womb, and that my mother should have been my grave, and that I should have been as if I had not existed.”10 Likewise, his mordant criticism comparing the Almighty to “a deceitful brook for me, waters which are not found” (Jer 15:18) is softened in the targumic version of this famous confession, which rephrases the Hebrew: “Let not your Word be lies for me, like a fountain whose waters give out.”11 The second text is the Greek composition 2 Maccabees (end of the second century BCE).12 Here, Jeremiah is depicted as instrumental in preserving the altar fire, the Tent, the Ark, and the incense altar, predicting their restoration to Israel along with the Divine Presence in some glorious future time (2 Macc 2:1–8). Although these particular details do not feature in Targum, the latter noticeably emphasises Jeremiah’s role as a prophet of the restoration of the sanctuary and of the people. Concern for the future well-being of the Jews is an aspect of Jeremiah’s message which, although represented in Scripture, is significantly amplified by the Targum to the point where it becomes almost a distinguishing mark of the version. We must begin our explorations, however, with the targumic portrait of Jeremiah himself.

9  They feature also in other Targums: thus Tg. Job 3:5 refers to “the suffering which Jeremiah endured on account of the destruction of the house of the Sanctuary.” For the Aramaic text, see David M. Stec, The Text of Targum Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 20. 10  Targum of this verse attempts to avoid any suggestion that Jeremiah cursed his divine commission from the time before his birth, Jer. 1:5. From this point onwards, italicised words will be used to represent targumic additions to, or divergence from, the base text of the Hebrew Scripture. 11  Such reverential modification of scriptural sentiments deemed to be improper when addressed to God is typical of the targumic tradition: on this verse, and others like it, see Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets by Pinkhos Churgin (New York and Baltimore: Ktav and The Baltimore Hebrew College, 1983), 142–45. 12  On the character, genre, and date of 2 Maccabees, see Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, 3.1.531–37.

Jeremiah in Targum

1

323

Jeremiah the Man

Scripture reports that Jeremiah was a priest (Jer 1:1). Targum takes this note very seriously: his father, Hilkiah, is described as leader of a priestly course, and one of the ‫אמרכלין‬, a group of priests responsible for temple finance and security. He thus holds a senior position among his colleagues.13 Jeremiah’s priestly status emerges in the Targum’s version of the prophet’s description of Israel’s holiness: The house of Israel are holy before the Lord – in respect of those who plunder them – like fruits of heave-offering of harvest, of which whoever eats is guilty of death; and like firstlings of harvest, the sheaf of the heave-offering, of which everyone who eats before the priests the sons of Aaron offer it as a sacrifice upon the altar, is guilty. Even so are all those who plunder the house of Israel guilty: evil shall come upon them, says the Lord.14

Such use of technical legal terminology marks out the targumic Jeremiah as well-versed in priestly law, just as Targum of 17:4 demonstrates his knowledge of ‫שמטה‬, the septennial “year of release.”15 Strikingly, he asserts that the cult of Ba‘al was not commanded by the Torah, nor did the prophets sanction it (Tg. Jer. 19:5; cf. 7:31; 32:35). He is, indeed, properly trained in (rabbinic) law: some real estate in Anathoth accrues to him as an inheritance (Tg. Jer. 1:1; 32:7, 8) which he must redeem, and he duly purchases it in the approved manner: And I took the bond of the purchase which was written, imprinted, and sealed according to the halakhah and according to what is proper, and the open bond, and I gave the bond of purchase to Baruch … in the sight of Hanamel my uncle.16 13  For the tradition that Hilkiah was high priest (2 Chr 34:9), see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1928), 6:384. 14  Tg. Jer. 2:3. R. David Kimhi offers a similar interpretation of the verse. For the rationale underlying the Targum’s exegesis, see Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, 48–49. The Targum’s interpretation has something in common with Philo’s statements about Israel in Spec. IV.179–181, where he may be alluding indirectly to Jer. 2:3. See the comments of Naomi G. Cohen, Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings. Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup 123 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 65, 67–68, 87–88. 15  For the biblical laws, see Exod 23:10–11; Lev 25:2–7; Deut 15:1–3, and Massekhet Shevi’it in the Mishnah for the fundamental rabbinic halakhah governing this institution. 16  Tg. Jer. 32:11–12; for the oldest statement of the halakhah, see m. B. Bat. 10:1–2.

324

Hayward

Targum accordingly presents him as an educated man: he knows the traditions of the prophets, mentioning the images which Micah set up in the time of the Judges (Judg 17; Tg. Jer. 4:15), Elijah’s ministry (Tg. Jer. 8:22), and the history of Judah’s kings (Tg. Jer. 15:4, the repentance of king Manasseh). The Targum’s concern to “modernise” biblical place names underscores Jeremiah’s knowledge of a vast world outside Israel, including the province of the Arabs (Tg. Jer. 2:10); this is also noticeable in the later chapters of the book, where Targum makes him speak of places like Cappadocia, Kardu, and Alexandria of Egypt.17 Scripture records that Jeremiah wrote letters to the exiled Jews (29:1–23, 30–32): Targum supplies text of another letter (Tg. Jer. 10:11) urging exiles to avoid incitements to idolatry. Interestingly, this verse in Scripture is written in Aramaic, and Targum’s decision to understand it as a warning letter perhaps betrays the translator’s awareness of similar writings attributed to Jeremiah circulating during Second Temple times.18 Finally, Jeremiah’s literary skills receive full recognition in the Targum of Lamentations, the opening verse of which designates their author as “Jeremiah the prophet and high priest.”19 The same Targum notes Jeremiah’s lamentation on the death of King Josiah (Tg. Lam 1:18): this, declares Tg. 2 Chr. 35:25, was recited antiphonally by princes and noble women, its words being recorded “in the book which Baruch wrote at the dictation of Jeremiah, concerning lamentations.”20 This educated, highly literate “Targumic” Jeremiah is thus well equipped for his task, to “make the nations drink a cup of cursing” (Tg. Jer. 1:5), and to give the same cup to “all the inhabitants of the land, to the kings of the house of Judah, to her princes, to her priests, and to the people of the land” (Tg. Jer. 1:18). For this commission, knowledge of Torah is indispensable.

17  The Arabs stand for biblical Kedar. See Tg. Jer. 47:4 for Cappadocia (biblical Caphtor); 51:27 for Kardu (biblical Ararat); and 46:25 for Alexandria (biblical No). 18  The best known of these is the so-called Epistle of Jeremiah, found in some versions of the Bible as an independent work, in others as chapter 6 of 1 Baruch: a Greek fragment of this has been found at Qumran (pap7QEpJer gr). The Epistle was probably composed in Hebrew or Aramaic between the fourth and second centuries BCE. See Schürer, The History of the Jewish People (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 3.2.743–45; David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 214–21. 19  See also Tg. Lam 1:2, and Alexander, Targum of Lamentations on that verse. 20  Compare also Josephus, Ant. 10.78–79.

Jeremiah in Targum

2

325

Jeremiah as Learned in Torah

Knowledge of, and learning in, the Torah form the basis of all Jeremiah’s teaching as presented in the Targum. Discovering that some of the poor “have not learned ways which are right before the Lord” (Tg. Jer. 5:4), the prophet turns to the nobles, only to find that they, too, “have rebelled from the Torah, they have removed themselves far from instruction” (Tg. Jer. 5:5). Instruction is a prophetic duty: at Tg. Jer. 29:15, the Hebrew word “prophets” is rendered without explanation as “teachers.”21 Rebellion against, and ignorance of the divine teaching can lead only to destruction: “I will surely destroy them, says the Lord, and they shall come to an end like grapes cease from a vine.” The reason for this severe punishment is unambiguously stated: “because I gave them my Torah from Sinai, and they have transgressed it” (Tg. Jer. 7:13). Even Israel’s unique status, “like the olive tree which is handsome in its appearance … and its boughs are exalted among the trees” such that the Lord has raised her name to dignity among the nations, will not exempt her from the penalties due for infringement of the commandments: “when you transgress the Torah, the armies of the nations who are strong as fire shall come against you, and auxiliaries shall be joined to them.”22 By contrast, the rewards for those who observe the Torah and keep its commandments are set forth in a verse worth quoting in full: For there is length of days and much goodness which is about to come for the righteous who have observed my Torah from of old: their portion is in the land of Israel, because they were longing for the years of consolations which are coming, saying: When shall we arise and go up to Zion, and appear before the Lord our God?23

The “consolations” originally signified the restoration and redemption of Israel,24 but came eventually in Targum Jonathan to refer also to the

21  On the centrality of “instruction” in the Torah for the message of targumic Jeremiah, see also Tg. Jer. 13:17; 22:21. 22  Tg. Jer. 11:16. The “auxiliaries” probably refer to mercenary forces commonly employed by the Roman armies: these were notable for their exploits in both the First and Second Revolts against Rome: see Smolar and Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 96–97. 23  Tg. Jer. 31:6, on which see L. Smolar and M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 172–73. 24  See Harry Sysling, Tehiyyat Ha-Metim, TSAJ 57 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 44–48, and Tg. Jer. 12:5; 31:26.

326

Hayward

resurrection of the dead25 which is inextricably bound up with the Land of Israel.26 Appearing before the Lord in Zion means observing the solemn festivals: these require Israelites to be present in the Temple, and the restored Temple service is central to targumic Jeremiah’s vision for the future.27 All these things are placed in jeopardy if the Torah is abandoned: because Israel has not returned to the Torah, despite the prophet’s urgent preaching, she merits punishment (Tg. Jer. 2:19).28 Targumic Jeremiah has no doubts about the absolute centrality of Torah for the life of the nation and the individual: “when we return to the Torah, he (God) shows mercy upon us” (Tg. Jer. 31:19). God declares that Israel is already a beloved child: “when I put the words of my Torah upon his heart to do them, I surely remember to do good to him again” (Tg. Jer. 31:20). Indeed, Israel’s return to the Torah will mean a return to her cities (Tg. Jer. 31:21); and such is the divine concern for Israel that “the Lord is creating a new thing upon the earth: the people, the house of Israel, shall pursue the Torah” (Tg. Jer. 31:22).29 Fidelity to the demands of the Torah is often expressed in words which describe Israel’s walking on paths which are “straight” or “established” before the Lord. Thus targumic Jeremiah declares (2:17) that God showed Israel the way which was straight, Aramaic ‫תקנא‬, a word which has strong legal overtones. The root of this word is common to Aramaic and to Rabbinic Hebrew; and in the latter it forms the basis of the noun ‫תקנה‬, which can signify a rabbinic 25  This is especially plain in Tg. Hosea 6:1–3. Compare Tg. Jer. 12:25; 31:26; and see Sysling, Tehiyyat Ha-Metim, 47–48; Martin McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 206–08. 26  Thus at Tg. Jer. 11:19, the Hebrew phrase “the land of the living” becomes “the Land of Israel”; see further Robert P. Gordon, “The Targumists as Eschatologists,” Congress Volume Göttingen 1977, ed. J.A. Emerton, VTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 113–30, especially 115–21. At the resurrection, those who died in the Land of Israel will be raised first: see Tg. Song 8:5 which explicitly refers to the giving of the Torah at Sinai, and Philip S. Alexander, The Targum of Canticles Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, ArBib 17A (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003), 194–95 for discussion of other rabbinic sources for this idea. 27  See below, section 5, on Israel’s restoration and future glory. 28  See also Tg. Jer. 2:24, “Say to her, O prophet, All those who seek my Torah shall not be forgotten: in its time they shall find it,” where “seeking” the Torah is tantamount to studying it; and compare 6:29, where the prophets are pre-eminently preachers of the Torah. For the rabbinic Sages, the teachings of the prophets and the Writings are already present in the Torah: see Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York: Schocken, 1969), 122–25. 29  The Hebrew of the final segment of this verse reads: “a woman shall encompass a man.”

Jeremiah in Targum

327

ordinance, a positive ruling for the good of the community. The straight or established ways which Israel should follow, therefore, may refer to the regulations of the Oral Torah, the halakhah to which targumic Jeremiah referred (32:11); but equally they may indicate the commandments of the Written Law, which Scripture itself describes as paths to be followed (Ps 119:1) and as the way of the Lord’s commandments (Ps 119:33–35), possession of which ensures that one’s footsteps do not slip or slide (Ps 37:31). These straight paths have existed from ancient times (Tg. Jer. 18:15); despite this, Israel has refused Jeremiah’s advice that she walk on the straight, ancient pathway (Tg. Jer. 6:16). In all this, the linking of Torah with instruction and with future blessedness underlines the essentially rabbinic character of the prophet as presented by this Targum. Like Scripture itself, the Targum of Jeremiah also insists that Israel has abandoned the Torah, with disastrous consequences. For targumic Jeremiah, that abandonment is principally to be discerned in Israel’s idolatry and unethical practices. In detailing these things, targumic Jeremiah follows Scripture, but at the same time amplifies particular aspects of Israel’s failures. These form the next topic for discussion. 3

Jeremiah versus Idolatry and Wickedness

In Scripture, Jeremiah tirelessly condemns Israel for her worship of idols; in Targum, he commonly defines these as idols of the nations, and thus something extraneous to Israel: this expression represents the Targum’s standard rendering of the Hebrew phrase “other gods.”30 Like other targumim, Tg. Jeremiah uses the Aramaic word ‫ טעות‬to designate “idols.” It means “error, mistake,” and its corresponding verb, ‫טעי‬, means “to wander, go astray.” Targumic Jeremiah elaborates the directionless, erratic consequences of Israel’s obsession with idols primarily as a departure from the Lord’s worship and as a breach of the Torah, the Lord declaring: “your fathers forsook my service … and strayed after the idols of the nations and worshipped them … they forsook my service, and did not keep my Torah” (Tg. Jer. 16:11, the Hebrew having God state that

30  Of the many verses which could be cited, see especially Tg. Jer. 1:16; 11:10; 16:11; 19:4, 13; 25:6; 44:3, 5, 8, 15. The Hebrew phrase is characteristic of Deuteronomic literature, with which biblical Jeremiah has clear affinities: see the catalogue of shared expressions in Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 320–24.

328

Hayward

they “forsook me”).31 These idols are characterised as having no use or profit in them (Tg. Jer. 2:11; 16:20; and 18:15, where the people are said to “wander in their evil paths, out of straight ways … to go on ways which are not right, in paths which are not trodden”). Forsaking the Lord’s worship and swearing oaths in the name of idols (Tg. Jer. 5:7), Israel has worshipped the idols of the nations, consequently becoming enslaved to the nations, the worshippers of idols (Tg. Jer. 5:19). Targumic Jeremiah strongly emphasises the moral consequences of such idolatry: “in deceit they shed innocent blood … devise plans to destroy … (and) kill souls” (Tg. Jer. 5:26).32 Furthermore, “they have become rich, they have also gained possessions,” transgressing the words of the Torah and failing to execute proper justice (Tg. Jer. 5:28). In all this, the notion of deceit or falsehood is prominent, and requires further attention. In Scripture, Jeremiah employs the Hebrew word ‫שקר‬, “falsehood, deception,” more than thirty times: targumic Jeremiah increases further the use of its Aramaic cognate ‫ שקרא‬to refer to matters related to the idols of the nations. Thus Israel defiled the land of the house of the Lord’s Shekhina, and made his inheritance into the worship of idols (Tg. Jer. 2:7); “the priests did not say: ‘Let us fear before the Lord’, nor did the teachers of the Torah study to know the fear of me … and the prophets of falsehood prophesied in the name of the idols, and went after what would not profit them” (Tg. Jer. 2:8). Targum repeatedly singles out the prophets of falsehood for attack. They represent prophets who oppose Jeremiah, sometimes prophesying in the Name of the Lord (e.g., Tg. Jer. 14:13–15).33 Savage is targumic Jeremiah’s appraisal of them: those who trust in the words of prophets of falsehood are “thieves, killers of persons, adulterers, men who swear falsely and offer up incense to Ba’al” (Tg. Jer. 7:8–9), and the prophets themselves, says the Lord, will receive “bitterness like arrows; and I 31  See also Tg. Jer. 2:17, where the prophet’s attack on the idols of the nations reports that God had “showed you the way which was right – but you did not walk in it.” 32  The Hebrew is difficult, perhaps meaning: “one lies in ambush while crouching (like) fowlers; they have set a snare, they shall catch men.” For analysis of the Hebrew, see William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume I: Commentary on Jeremiah I–XXV, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 132–33. Such obscurity invites the Targumist to turn to hermeneutic ingenuity, for which see Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, 65. 33  For MT’s prophets as prophets of falsehood, see (e.g.) Tg. Jer. 4:9; 5:13; 23:15, 16; 28:1, 12; the Targum is careful to distinguish them from prophets of the Lord like Yigdaliah, described by MT as a “man of God,” Tg. Jer. 35:4. On this phenomenon, and the Targum’s occasional translation of Hebrew “prophet” as “scribe,” see C.T.R. Hayward, “Some Notes on Scribes and Priests in the Targum of the Prophets,” JJS 36 (1985): 210–21; Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 178–81.

Jeremiah in Targum

329

will make them drink the cup of cursing, as evil as serpents’ poison” (Tg. Jer. 23:15). Like the Jeremiah of Scripture, targumic Jeremiah predicts as punishment for Israel’s involvement with idols a protracted Babylonian exile, which various prophets seek to underestimate: for targumic Jeremiah, these are certainly prophets of falsehood (e.g., Tg. Jer. 27:9, 15, 16), and he leaves no doubt that the exile will last until the destruction of the Babylonian empire (Tg. Jer. 27:7), that the confiscated vessels of the sanctuary will not soon return to the Land (Tg. Jer. 27:16), and that the sacred vessels remaining in the sanctuary of the Lord (Tg. Jer. 27:19–21) will be taken to Babylon until their memorial comes in before the Lord (Tg. Jer. 27:22).34 The chief mouthpiece of vain hopes for early restoration, Hananiah ben Azzur, whose deception Jeremiah confronts, is thus routinely dubbed a false prophet, or prophet of falsehood (Tg. Jer. 28:1, 5, 10, 12, 15, 17). Targumic Jeremiah complains that Israel restrain themselves from returning to the Lord’s worship or service (Tg. Jer. 8:5, where they are also said to be turned to rebel from the Torah and do not wish to repent). Their attitude to the Lord’s ‫פולחנא‬, a word which may mean both service in the sense of observing the commandments of the Torah generally, as well as referring to the Temple service in particular, is expressed in a number of complementary ways. In the verse just quoted, the Hebrew has no mention of the Lord’s service: rather, it describes the people as “backsliding,” ‫שובבה‬, and Jerusalem as “enduringly backsliding.” Other scriptural verses which use this terminology are likewise taken by Targum to refer to Israel’s restraining themselves from returning to the Lord’s worship (e.g., Tg. Jer. 3:6, 8, 11, 12, 14). Targumic Jeremiah also describes Israel as forsaking the Lord’s service, where Scripture speaks of her forsaking him (e.g., Tg. Jer. 1:16; 2:19, 22, 32; 3:21; 4:22; 5:7; 15:6; 18:15). Tg. Jer. 2:13 sums up much of what has been said hitherto: For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken my service, for the sake of which I bring goodness upon them like a fountain of water which does not cease; and they have strayed after the idols which are like broken pits for them, which cannot guarantee water.

34  This notion is common in Tg. Jonathan of the Prophets: see Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, 93. It strongly emphasises the Almighty’s power over the timing of events (as here, and the seventy years of exile in Babylon at 29:10), and may be used in prayer to petition the Lord to take note of the suppliant, as at Tg. Jer. 15:15, and to be moved by His past mercies: see Tg. Jer. 14:21, where the prophet requests that the memorial of the covenant of our Fathers come in before God.

330

Hayward

Israel also turns aside from the Lord’s service rather than from the Lord himself (Tg. Jer. 2:21, 25). Such emphasis on the service is to be understood not simply as a targumic ploy for avoiding anthropomorphism,35 but as reflecting the fundamental centrality which the service of the Jerusalem temple holds for targumic Jeremiah. Indeed, this service, prescribed by the Torah (unlike the cult of Ba’al, as explicitly stated at Tg. Jer. 19:5, and the cult carried on at the Tophet, Tg. Jer. 7:31; 32:35),36 is contrasted with famous historical examples of illegitimate worship, most notably the calf-cult at Dan (Tg. Jer. 4:15; 8:16), Micah’s images (Tg. Jer. 4:15), and the subservience to Ba’al Pe’or (Tg. Jer. 2:23). Israel’s return to the legitimate service of the Lord, therefore, is a pre-requisite for her rehabilitation. It is part of the larger process of national and individual return to the Torah which targumic Jeremiah demands, and which must next command our attention. 4 Repentance For targumic Jeremiah, Israel’s principal hope lies in repentance, Aramaic ‫תיובתא‬, an almost technical term which represents the distinctively rabbinic notion of ‫תשובה‬.37 God’s reported words in Tg. Jer. 33:6 indicate the power of the idea itself, and of benefits associated with it: 35  In reality, no-one can turn aside from, backslide from, or even forsake the Almighty, who is omnipresent and in respect of whom such language cannot rightly be used. For Targum’s attitudes to anthropomorphism, see S. Maybaum, Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos und den spätern Targumim (Breslau: Schletter, 1870); Michael L. Klein, “The Translations of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim,” in Congress Volume Vienna 1980, ed. J.A. Emerton, VTSup 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 162–77; Andrew N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 265–92; Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 45–46. 36  For the textual issues here, see P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927), 75 as reprinted in Smolar and Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan. 37  Rabbinic thinking on repentance is well explained by E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979), 2.462–71; Schechter, Aspects, 313–43; S.T. Katz, “Man, Sin and Redemption in Rabbinic Judaism,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. IV, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. S.T. Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 938–43. For its use in Targum of the Prophets, see Smolar and Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 210–18. Given the Targum’s place in the Synagogue service, it is important to recall that the fifth Benediction of the ‘Amidah is concerned with repentance as a return to the Torah, the service of God and to His Presence.

Jeremiah in Targum

331

Behold, I am bringing to them healing and redemption, and I will heal them, and reveal to them the door of repentance;38 and I will show them that they should walk in the way of peace and truth.

This divine initiative is made necessary by the people’s long history of sin, related by Scripture and repeated by the Targum. Indeed, Israel’s failure to repent is utterly perplexing: she could have repented, as did even the wicked king Manasseh, who owed his long reign to repentance (Tg. Jer. 15:4; 2 Chr 33:12–13); but she did not do so, and consequently endured the strong punishment of the Lord, “because you could have repented, but did not repent” (Tg. Jer. 15:6). In accordance with classical rabbinic teaching, targumic Jeremiah reminds Israel that ample time for repentance is given before the Divine decree of punishment is sealed.39 This is clear from Tg. Jer. 4:1, where he declares: If you return, O Israel, to my worship, says the Lord, your repentance will be received before your decree is sealed; and if you remove your abominations from before me, then you shall not be exiled.

Here the matter of returning to the Lord, expressed by the Hebrew verb ‫שוב‬, is understood as a key aspect of repentance: in and of itself, the Hebrew verb might be understood in a general and unspecific sense, but targumic Jeremiah is in no doubt that it signifies a change of conduct on the part of the one returning. The decree in question conveys God’s judgement, imposed on Israel for infringement of the stipulations of the Torah; and that decree can only be annulled by a return to behaviour, attitude, and actions which are in accordance with the divine will.40 Indeed, obedience to the Torah’s demands, which 38  On the “gate” or “door” of repentance in rabbinic texts, see further Alexander, The Targum of Canticles Translated, 151–52. 39  This “space” for repentance is mentioned by Sifre Numb. on Numb 6:22; Tg. Isa. 8:21; Numb. Rab. 11:7. God’s provision of a “space” for the wicked to repent is exemplified in targumic interpretations of Gen 6:3, where the period of 120 years mentioned in the Hebrew is understood as such, in agreement with Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Shirta 5:37–39; ’Abot R. Nat. 32; Tanhuma ‫ נח‬5; and cf. Gen. Rab. 32:10, where the days of mourning for Methuselah are granted as a time for the generation of the flood to repent. 40  A brief, but valuable summary of the different senses attributed to the verb ‫ שוב‬and other biblical terms commonly understood as referring to “repentance” in HB itself, nonJewish writings, Second Temple Judaism, and rabbinic Judaism is offered by David A. Lambert, “Repentance,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1134–35, which effectively summarizes his monograph How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity, and the

332

Hayward

targumic Jeremiah tirelessly advocates, requires nothing less than this. He repeatedly makes clear that the Lord has issued a decree of punishment against Israel: where the Hebrew base text tells simply of the Lord’s speaking of punishment, targumic Jeremiah makes of this speech a formal decree (see, e.g., Tg. Jer. 4:28; 16:10; 25:13). Typical is Tg. Jer.35:17, where, as so often, God juxtaposes this divine decree with the people’s lack of repentance: I am bringing upon the men of Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evils which I decreed concerning them, because I sent to them all my servants the prophets … and they prophesied to them, but they did not repent.

The prophets are thus entrusted with the duty of persuading Israel to change her ways, to be obedient to the Torah, and to ensure that the Almighty does not execute the decree of punishment which has been promulgated against her. The matter of a “space” which God provides for repentance before His decree is activated coheres with the general targumic notion, expressed repeatedly by targumic Jeremiah, that failure to obey the commandments of the Torah, and the commission of offences against God, constitute a “debt” to the Almighty which requires repayment. Thus where the Hebrew Scriptures speak of human “sin,” “iniquity,” or “rebellion” against God, the targumim commonly tend to define such things as “debt” or “obligation,” Aramaic ‫חובא‬. As Martin McNamara has noted, the understanding of “sin” as “debt” is very common in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch;41 it is frequent also in the Targum of Jeremiah (e.g., 2:37; 3:13; 4:3; 18:23), and one of the implications of this Aramaic terminology is the possibility that the creditor, or the one to whom an obligation is due, might mercifully permit a period of time for the payment of the debt or obligation. This would be particularly significant for Jerusalem, given targumic Jeremiah’s perception that her debts had been stored up against her (Tg. Jer.6:6). The granting of a grace period for the debtor to find the wherewithal to pay would, of course, be entirely at the discretion of the creditor; and it does appear to be implicit in much of what targumic Jeremiah has to say. The possibility that the merit of the Fathers,42 or the Lord’s remembering his covenant, might help to deal with Israel’s debts is also in view: at Tg. Jer. 14:20, Interpretation of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). Cf. William L. Holladay, The Root Šȗbh in the Old Testament: With Particular Reference to its Usages in Covenantal Contexts (Leiden: Brill, 1958). 41  See McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 187. 42  On the merits of the Fathers (Zekhut ’Avot) in Targum of the Prophets, see Smolar and Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 219–21.

Jeremiah in Targum

333

she acknowledges her debts and those of her fathers, and then begs God for the sake of His Name not to remove her afar off, but “let the memorial of the covenant of our fathers come in before you; do not alter your covenant with us” (Tg. Jer. 14:21). In addition, the Lord Himself has sought to lead Israel to repentance by means of sufferings or chastisements. Once again, targumic Jeremiah owes much to the thought of the rabbinic Sages, for whom sufferings have the power to teach, to lead people to right conduct, and to effect atonement.43 At Tg. Jer. 2:19 the Lord is presented as bluntly declaring to Israel: “I have brought sufferings upon you, but you have not refrained from your wickedness,” and predicting punishment because she has failed to return to the Torah.44 The sufferings are intended entirely for Israel’s well-being, as Tg. Jer. 30:11 makes clear when God says: “I will bring sufferings upon you to teach you, but in clement judgement, and I will certainly not destroy you.”45 Israel admits as much, accepting that God brought upon her sufferings, while she herself was unwilling to be instructed (Tg. Jer. 31:18). While the Targum of Jeremiah undoubtedly gives prominence to the regular rabbinic teaching that admission of guilt, repentance, and sufferings can turn aside Divine punishment, it does not dispute Scripture’s verdict that the Israelites addressed by the prophet are more or less incorrigible, and that their intransigence will inevitably lead to divine punishment. Verses which express God’s displeasure can, indeed, be underscored by targumic Jeremiah: the wellknown command to the prophet not to intercede for Israel (7:16) is thus amplified by targumic Jeremiah so as to declare: And as for you, do not pray for this people, do not make supplication for them with petition and prayer, and do not make request before me, for there is no pleasure before me to receive your prayer.

The result of all this is sadly predictable. Israel will go into exile from the land of the Lord’s Shekhina; and because they have combined their worship of idols with their visits to the Temple, the Lord has no pleasure in them, and will visit 43  See the classic study of A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement (London: Jews College, 1928); Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 306–12; cf. E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM, 1977), 168–72; Urbach, The Sages, 444–48. 44  Targum thoroughly reconstructs the Hebrew of this verse, which reads: “Your evil will correct you and your backslidings will reprove you. So know and see that your forsaking the Lord your God is evil and bitter.” 45  See also Tg. Jer. 46:28.

334

Hayward

their debts and punish their iniquities (Tg. Jer. 14:10). Any hope for the people, the Temple, and the Land of Israel itself is entirely at God’s discretion. Despite Israel’s failure to repent, that hope is nonetheless assured, and will be majestic and glorious. 5

Israel’s Restoration and Future Glory

Even in the darkest days, targumic Jeremiah announces that when Israel repents, the Almighty will avert his anger: “I will increasingly do good things, says the Lord: your debts shall not be stored up for ever” (Tg. Jer.3:12).46 The royal house of David will be blessed especially when God raises an anointed one, and this will happen in tandem with a restoration of the sanctuary and of the holy city itself; and such a reversal of fortune is fitting, since both King and temple have been associated with one another in divine judgement (Tg. Jer. 22:6). When the prophet begins the message of restoration in earnest, he proclaims a future anointed one for the house of David: the figure predicted in Scripture and referred to as a “righteous branch” becomes in Targum “an anointed one of righteousness” (Tg. Jer. 23:5), in whose days the house of Judah will be redeemed, and whose name will be “righteous deeds shall be done for us before the Lord in his days,” rather than “the Lord our righteousness” as in Scripture (Tg. Jer. 23:6). Furthermore, when the anointed one of David’s house appears, people will call Jerusalem by a new name: “Righteous deeds shall be done for us from before the Lord in her midst” (Tg. Jer. 33:16).47 Targum’s explanation of the Scriptural name of the expected anointed one and the new name of the city is telling: the appearing of the anointed one will mean that Israel will be carrying out actions which are just, righteous, and good. This will represent a significant change from the early days of Jeremiah’s activity, when the Lord had asked him to find in Jerusalem “a man who has good works” (Tg. Jer. 5:1), and this had proved to be a fruitless commission: the people were implicated in a catalogue 46  This paraphrase represents Hebrew “for I am kindly, says the Lord: I shall not maintain (my anger) for ever.” 47  The Hebrew of the part of this verse mentioning the city reads: “and this is what one shall call her – the Lord (is) our righteousness.” S.H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974), interprets the Aramaic of Tg. Jer. 23:5; 33:15 as referring to the anointed one bringing to effect “a righteous and meritorious law in the land”: this is a possible reading of the Aramaic, which, if adopted, would assign to the Messiah a more active role in the creation of conditions necessary for, and characteristic of, the restored state of Israel, the monarchy, and the Temple service.

Jeremiah in Targum

335

of misdeeds (Tg. Jer. 5:23–28), and the Lord had asked rhetorically whether he would not “exact punishment from a people whose deeds are like this, according to my will”? (Tg. Jer. 5:29) The prophet recognised that he himself needed good deeds for his ministry to be effective: “If, perhaps, I did not have good works to intercede for the house of Israel, would I not have desired the teaching of Elijah the prophet who was from Gilead?” (Tg. Jer. 8:22).48 Good works, good deeds, should be central to Israel’s thoughts and actions, and targumic Jeremiah suggests that they will be part of everyday life in the restored world when the anointed one of the house of David is present. The association of justice, righteousness and good deeds is unambiguous. We may note Smolar and Aberbach’s definition of Targum Jonathan’s “righteous person,” the ‫צדיק‬, as agreeing with rabbinic portraits of the same as first and foremost a person who not only refrains from wrongdoing, but actively engages in good deeds for the benefit of his fellow man. He is not merely a man of faith, but also a man of truth in all his dealings. Characteristic of the Tsaddikim in general is their insatiable thirst for instruction in the Torah. Hence they are the true aristocracy of the nation.49

That renewal or restoration of the world is in view is clear from the Targum’s interpretation of Jer. 23:23, the Hebrew text of which presents God asking: “Am I a God near at hand, says the Lord, and not a God afar off?” Targumic Jeremiah turns the question into a statement:50 I, God, created the world from the beginning, says the Lord: I, God, am about to renew the world for the righteous.

While the renewal of the cosmos is not a dominant theme in targumic Jeremiah’s thinking, it does represent an approach to the future of the universe which is encountered in other targumim and some early rabbinic texts.51 48  The Hebrew reads: “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there?”. 49  Smolar and Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 169–70. 50  Targum generally turns scriptural questions involving God into statements of “orthodox” colour, fearing what detractors of Judaism, or sectarians of various kinds, might invent by way of a disrespectful or malicious answer to Scripture’s question. 51  The Scriptural basis for such thinking can be found in Isa 51:6; 65:17, and is taken up by Palestinian Targums of Deut 32:1; Tg. Micah 7:14; Tg. Hab. 3:2; Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Vayassa’ 70–73 and other texts cited and discussed by R. le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 248–51.

336

Hayward

Targumic Jeremiah, rather unsystematically, sets it alongside other hopes for the future, without attempting to integrate the different patterns thereby created. The end of days is certainly in view in this Targum; and at that time Israel shall understand what the Lord has done (Tg. Jer. 30:24). The anointed one of the Davidic house is destined to play an important part in the period of restoration and the rehabilitation of Judah; and Targum’s perception of this anointed one, a “Messiah,” in these verses is reflected in other rabbinic texts. Such interest in messianism on Targum’s part is continued and sustained.52 The promised anointed one Israel will obey, while worshipping before the Lord (Tg. Jer. 30:9). Israel’s king, their anointed one, shall be revealed from among the people, and at that time Israel will assemble for the worship of God, delighting in it (Tg. Jer. 30:21).53 She shall “eagerly pursue the words of the Messiah” in a newly fertile land of plenty and security (Tg. Jer. 33:12–13). At the same time, the exiles of Judah will return; Jerusalem shall be rebuilt in her place; and the Temple shall be completed as is fitting for it (Tg. Jer. 30:18). The rebuilding of Jerusalem is emphasised, targumic Jeremiah providing exact details of its future topography and concurring with Scripture that it shall neither be uprooted nor destroyed for ever (Tg. Jer. 31:38–40). The restored Temple service is described: And they shall come and give praise on the mountain of the house of the sanctuary which shall be built in Zion, and delight themselves on the goodness which the Lord has given to them with corn, and with wine, and with oil. Tg. Jer. 31:12

52  See the classic studies of J.-J. Brierre-Narbonne, Exégèse Targumique des Prophéties Messianiques (Geuthner: Paris, 1936), 50–51; P. Humbert, “Le Messie dans le Targum des Prophètes,” RTP 44 (1911): 6–7. The figure of Messiah in Targum Jonathan is examined by B.D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum, JSOTSup 23 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982), 86–96, 112–17. For an excellent survey of Jewish messianic views in the periods which saw the birth, development, and final formation of the Targum of Jeremiah, see now L.H. Schiffman, “Messianism and Apocalypticism in Rabbinic Texts,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. S.T. Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1053–72. Targum Jeremiah affords examples of both the “restorative” and “utopian” messianism which Schiffman delineates. 53  The notion that the anointed figure should be “revealed” is discussed by le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale, 276–79; Brierre-Narbonne, Exégèse Targumique, 51–52. See also Tg. Micah 4:8 and discussion in Chilton, The Glory of Israel, 79–80, 114.

Jeremiah in Targum

337

Thus Israel’s plea to be restored to the Lord’s worship (Tg. Jer. 31:18) will be granted, and her exiles will return to Jerusalem and her surrounding towns (Tg. Jer. 31:23).54 All these matters are mentioned in quite general and unspecific language. Thus the precise duties and privileges of the anointed one of David’s house are not elaborated; the architecture of the restored Temple and the details of its service are not set forth; and details of the time and manner of the return of the exiles are not provided.55 In that respect they resemble the hopes entertained for them in the Benedictions of the ‘Amidah, which allude to the gathering of the exiles (Benediction X), the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of the Davidic monarchy (Benediction XIV), and the restoration of the Temple service and Divine Presence to Zion (Benediction XVII). The atmosphere of reserve and reticence surrounding these things is consonant with rabbinic concerns to ensure that, while Israel’s hopes for them are in no way diminished, they do not become flashpoints for unwise speculations.56 Quite different are targumic Jeremiah’s declarations about the eternal and irrefragable nature of God’s royal and priestly covenants with Israel. Here the language is quite definite, admitting of no ambiguity: Thus says the Lord: Just as it is not possible that my covenant should be abolished, which I made with the day and with the night … so my covenant will not be

54  The theme of exile as punishment for sin is in line with Scripture, and is frequently introduced throughout Targum Jonathan: see the many examples cited by Smolar and Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, 201–04. 55  Tg. Jer. makes no obvious attempt, for example, to co-relate the prophecies of Ezek 40–48 concerning the Temple, its priests and Levites, and its sacrificial offerings, nor the predictions of Isa 40–55 about the majestic return from Exile as if it were a second Exodus, with Jeremiah’s words on these topics. 56  For detailed discussion, see Jacob Neusner, Messiah in Context: Israel’s History and Destiny in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Neusner, “Mishnah and Messiah,” in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. J. Neusner, W.S. Green, and E. Frerichs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 265–82; and the comments of Schiffman, “Messianism and Apocalypticism,” 1061–70. It is noticeable that the two references to a future “branch,” ‫צמח‬, in relation to David (Jer 23:5; 33:15) are not represented in the Targum; and that the terminology of Benediction XV (the horn of David; the flourishing of salvation) which is absent from the Palestinian recension of the ‘Amidah, does not seem to feature in the Targum. For the history of Benediction XV, see A.Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and Its Development (New York: Schocken, 1932), 104–05.

338

Hayward abolished which I have made with David my servant … and the Levitical priests who minister before me.57

Likewise, at the end of the book, we are assured that the exiles of the two former kingdoms, Israel and Judah, will come together in their exile, seek to return to the Lord’s worship, and return to Zion; and the Lord will make for them an everlasting covenant which shall not come to an end (Tg. Jer. 50:4–5). 6 Conclusion Although we have examined verses of Targum which explicate the Hebrew base text of Jeremiah, it should be noted that in many chapters the Aramaic remains very close to the Hebrew original (e.g., chapters 9, 16, 19, 21, 24–29, 36–43, 52). There are a few lengthy targumic paraphrases (e.g., 2:3, 10; 4:15; 6:29; 8:22, 10:11; 12:5); most of these have featured in discussion here. The bulk of the paraphrastic material, however, is relatively brief and succinct, and follows the normal targumic pattern of making precise matters which are unclear or ambiguous; emending language which might be theologically or morally problematic for its audience; filling gaps in narrative; modernising names of persons and places; and emphasising the religious obligations of the people. In its final form, Targum Jeremiah is a document which carries the rabbinic seal of approval as being part of the larger Targum Jonathan of the Prophets. Not surprisingly, then, it underlines the importance of Torah study and prayer; of justice and good deeds; of repentance for sin; of correct adherence to halakhah; and of the need for confidence in the merciful and loving God of Israel who will restore his people to their Land, to the holy city of Jerusalem, and to the service of the Temple. The supplementary information which targumic Jeremiah supplies is not presented systematically. It does, however, very probably reflect the use of this Targum in Synagogue and private study,58 since many of the themes well known from the ‘Amidah are present in its paraphrases. Here we have singled out the topics of repentance, the appearing of the anointed one of the house of David, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the restoration of the Temple Service. To these 57  Tg. Jer. 33:20–21. 58  For the use of passages from Jeremiah as haftarah, and citation from the Hebrew text of Jeremiah in the Services for the High Holy Days, see Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah, 1–4; these passages and citations appear to have little connection with the Aramaic Targum.

Jeremiah in Targum

339

could be added mention of the Fathers of Israel and the resurrection of the dead, which feature in the first two Benedictions of the ‘Amidah; the Targum’s impressive concern with knowledge of the Torah and pardon for sin, requested by Benedictions IV and VI; and the plea for the gathering together of the exiles and their return home expressed in Benediction X. Targumic Jeremiah gives voice to all these concerns, which lie at the very core of the Jewish liturgical tradition, and would have a wide appeal for its audience. The Targum makes no attempt to minimise Israel’s failings; if anything, it brings to the fore warnings against idolatry, and against behaviour which does not conform to the commandments of the Torah. Israel is to be constantly on the watch to guard against these things. The restoration of the people to their Land and the Temple Service is, however, never in doubt, and the Targum urges confidence in God’s mercy, asserting that God’s covenant with Israel shall never come to an end. Select Bibliography Chester, Andrew N. Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Flesher, Paul V.M., and Bruce Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011. Hayward, C.T.R. “Some Notes on Scribes and Priests in the Targum of the Prophets.” JJS 36 (1985): 210–21. Hayward, C.T.R. The Targum of Jeremiah Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 12. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987. Klein, Michael L. “The Translations of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim.” Pages 162–77 in Congress Volume Vienna 1980. Edited by J.A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Le Déaut, R. Introduction à la Littérature Targumique Première Partie. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume I: Commentary on Jeremiah I–XXV. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Smolar, Leivy, and Moses Aberbach. Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets by Pinkhos Churgin. New York and Baltimore: Ktav and The Baltimore Hebrew College, 1983.

chapter 17

Jeremiah in the Peshitta Gillian Greenberg 1 Introduction The prophet Jeremiah has had a bad press: witness the eponym “jeremiad,” used to describe a long piece of writing in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a gloomy tone of sustained invective, and which always contains a prophecy of society’s imminent downfall. Much of the book of Jeremiah is indeed of this character, and, given the troubled times in which the prophet wrote, he can be forgiven for taking a gloomy view. His ministry was active from the thirteenth year of Josiah (626 BCE) until after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon’s temple (587 BCE), a period which spanned the reigns of five kings of Judah: Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. However, despite this chaotic background, there are occasional flashes of hope: consider for example the constructive and forwardlooking message of the early verses of the letter to the exiles in ch. 29. This is not an expression of condemnation and despair; rather, it is an inspiring exhortation to the exiles to make the best of things, to get on with their lives as best they may, and to strive for the good of the community in which they find themselves. In ch. 20, too, following Jeremiah’s bitter complaint about the community’s response to his prophecy, v. 13 is euphoric – “Sing to the Lord, praise the Lord, for he has delivered the soul of the needy from the hand of evildoers” – though this is immediately followed by several verses of unmitigated and unparalleled misery. All translators, no matter how hard they try not to do so, leave some mark: has the translator of the Peshitta (p), finding himself with an opportunity to work on a text of such importance and complexity, allowed himself to make changes, or has he disciplined himself to keep his mark as restricted as possible, and to preserve the sense and the tone of the original with all its variations in mood? The Peshitta to Jeremiah was written several centuries later than the Hebrew: Weitzman assembles evidence derived from literary tradition, references to historical events, citations of P and citations in P, vocabulary, and grammar, and concludes that a date close to 150 CE is probable for the beginning of this

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_018

Jeremiah in the Peshitta

341

translation.1 By then, one or more proto-Masoretic Text MSS would have been written and standardisation would have been well under way,2 so although we do not have our translator’s Vorlage we may reasonably assume that that was close to, though not identical with, the Masoretic Text (MT). The world had seen massive changes between the time when Jeremiah wrote and the writing of P: from the point of view of study of the Syriac translation, the most important of these is probably the establishment of Christianity. Yet there are remarkably few passages in P as a whole, and almost none in P to Jeremiah, which raise the question of the faith, whether Judaism or Christianity, of those working on the Peshitta: if the translator was a Christian,3 he wrote with considerable restraint. Overall, P is a remarkably faithful rendering of the sense and tone of the Hebrew as it appears in the MT. However, though so close to MT, P is by no means slavish: though enormously important the text was not seen as “letter-perfect.”4 Some differences from MT, such as small additions which add precision, or which harmonise to a passage elsewhere in Jeremiah or in some other biblical book, were permissible within the translation technique and were presumably deliberate. Other differences from the Hebrew may not have been deliberate: for instance, some entered the text in the translation of passages of difficult Hebrew; there are also a number of “minuses,” that is words or passages in MT which, due to several possible causes discussed below, are absent from P; and in addition, although there is remarkably little difference between the known MSS, some differences between MT and the extant MSS are evidently due to the work of the later editors/scribes. The latter will be discussed below; they have some bearing on the question of the faith of the translator.

1  Michael P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 248–58. 2  See for instance Bertil Albrektson, “Reflections on the Emergence of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977, ed. J.A. Emerton, VTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 49–65. 3  See for instance Gillian Greenberg, “Indications of the Faith of the Translator in the Peshitta to the ‘Servant Songs’ of Deutero-Isaiah,” AS 2 (2004): 175–92. 4  Gillian Greenberg, “Translating and Transmitting an Inspired Text,” in Text, Translation and Tradition: Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition, Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Wido Th. van Peursen and Robert Bas ter Haar Romeny, MPIL 14 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 57–64.

342 2

Greenberg

Translation Technique

Trivial differences are common, and conform to a pattern, indicating that they usually result not from carelessness but from a considered approach. 2.1 Literary Initiative The translator allowed himself some literary initiative. For instance, his feeling for rhetoric is well illustrated by decisions concerning the choice of lexical equivalents:5 at some passages, where the MT uses repetition to achieve effect, P opts for variety; at others, where MT uses a number of synonyms or nearsynonyms, P is repetitive.6 Thus, in MT Jer 4:23–26 each of the four successive verses opens identically: each component of the terrible vision, the desolate earth, the dark heavens, the trembling mountains, and the quaking hills, begins with “I looked.” The translator decided to make his effect differently: he uses two roots, “to look” and “to see,” alternately.7 But at Jer 14:20 the translator takes a contrasting approach: the MT here uses three roots for three kinds of wrongdoing, often translated into English as “wickedness,” “iniquity,” and “sin”; P translates each with the Syriac cognate of “sin.” This is a sweeping change: much as we may argue today that we do not necessarily understand exactly what the Hebrew writer meant by his different choices, that writer chose his terms deliberately and each would have meant, to him, something different from the others. The Hebrew ‫ חטא‬is always translated by the cognate, but words for the other kinds of wrongdoing are inconsistently translated, using a number of different Syriac terms. The context does not explain the choices: for example, a “wrongdoing” term used for the specific charge of sinning against God is differently translated in different passages; and when God speaks, reproving the people, his choice, too, is inconsistently translated. A conscientious translator would be expected to attempt to represent that choice, particularly when working on such important words as these, but this translator has allowed his rhetorical enthusiasm to override one of the basic requirements of a translator. There is no rigid one-for-one

5  James Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations, MSU 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 279–325 (particularly 310–13), instances this as “a classic aspect of freer translation.” 6  Anthony Gelston, The Peshitta of the Twelve Prophets (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 142–43. 7  The Septuagint (lxx) takes a similar approach, but although there are passages where P was apparently influenced by lxx (see below) it is unlikely that he would have looked to lxx for help in this straightforward passage.

Jeremiah in the Peshitta

343

correspondence such as discussed by Brock,8 even for these weighty words. This repetition of a single word was not the result of having to work with a limited vocabulary.9 2.2 Additions Clearly, the translator was ready to break the rule of quantitative literalism: almost ten percent of sense units include an additional term of some kind. These fall into four principal groups: some increase the precision of the text; some are additional epithets; a small number give additional information; and there are numerous passages in which an additional verb, often a synonym or close synonym of that in MT, is provided. Additions Increasing the Precision of the Text. These are common, and often seem pedantic: for instance, at Jer 10:12 the MT “He made the earth” becomes “The Lord made the earth.” Another such addition is at Jer 26:1, where MT “This word was from the Lord” becomes “This word was to Jeremiah from the Lord.” Additional Epithets. Expansion of the titles of God is common. For instance, at Jer 11:3 the MT reads “Lord God of Israel.” P gives “Mighty Lord God of Israel.” Additional Information. There is an interesting example at Jer 36:9, where Baruch’s role is emphasised. The MT reads “They proclaimed a fast before the Lord, all the people in Jerusalem, and all the people coming from the cities of Judah to Jerusalem.” P reads “They decreed a fast before the Lord, all the people who were in Jerusalem, and Baruch proclaimed before all the people coming from the cities of Judah to Jerusalem.” Additional Verbs. There are numerous examples, for instance at Jer 2:13, where God’s account of Israel’s idolatry is made more scathing in P: MT “to dig cisterns for themselves” becomes “they went and they dug cisterns for themselves,” emphasizing the picture of purposeless activity. At Jer 48:40 the translator allows himself a literary flourish: MT “he will fly like the eagle” is expanded to “he will rise up like the eagle, he will circle in the air.” 2.3 Harmonisation Harmonisation is frequent, either with other passages in Jeremiah or with other biblical books, including Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Nahum, Zechariah, and Psalms. In Jer 36:7 a close equivalent of a phrase from MT Jer 26:3 is inserted in P. MT reads “each will return from his evil way, for great is the anger and 8  Sebastian P. Brock, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” GRBS 20 (1979): 69–87. 9  Gillian Greenberg, “Freedom in Biblical Translation: Choice of Lexical Equivalents in the Peshitta,” in The Professorship of Semitic Languages at Uppsala University, 400 years, ed. Bo Isaksson, Mats Eskhult, and Gail Ramsay, SSU 24 (Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2005), 115–27.

344

Greenberg

the fury”; P has “each will return from his evil way, and the Lord will desist from the evil which he has spoken concerning them, for great is the anger and the fury.” In Jer 33:7 a closely similar phrase comes from Ezek 36:11. MT reads “I shall build them as at first”; P reads “I shall build them as at first, and I shall be good to them as at the beginning.” 2.4 Metaphor Metaphor is decoded, sometimes with simile in its place. Jer 4:7 gives an example of two modifications: MT reads “the lion has come up from his thicket”; P gives “the mighty king has come up like the lion from his thicket.” 2.5 Grammatical Inconsistency There are numerous examples showing small changes of person or number of verbs to give greater grammatical consistency in P than in MT. These are trivial, and only one, for completeness, is given here. In Jer 3:18 MT has a change of person, moving from third person to second: “the house of Judah will walk with the house of Israel, they will come together … to the land which I gave as an inheritance to your fathers.” P, however, is consistent: “your fathers” is changed to “their fathers,” sacrificing the impact of MT to consistency. 2.6 Reading Tradition10 There are about 130 points at which there is a Ketib/Qere difference in MT Jeremiah, and in most P renders the Qere. Nonetheless the evidence does not show conclusively that the translator was regularly influenced by a reading tradition. In passages where the Ketib uses inconsistent grammar, or archaic grammar which could have been misunderstood at the time of the translation and which the Qere corrects, P could have been influenced by the Qere or could have been using his own initiative. Weitzman concludes that any knowledge the translator had of a reading tradition would have been at most sporadic.11 3

Translation of Difficult Hebrew

There are just over one hundred passages where the meaning in Syriac differs substantially from that in MT and, where the Hebrew is difficult, that difficulty

10  Gillian Greenberg, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 209–17. 11  Weitzman, Syriac Version, 52–54.

Jeremiah in the Peshitta

345

apparently having been present in the original text, with no reason to indicate that it resulted from later inner-Hebrew corruption. In just under half of these passages P resembles lxx: but agreement of P and lxx against MT does not prove dependence of P on lxx. There are three principal other reasons for such similarity: it may be due to polygenesis; to a common exegetical tradition; or the two translators may have worked from similar Vorlagen which were different from MT. Even in the small number of passages where the agreement of P and lxx does seem to be due to influence of lxx on P in Jeremiah, it is sporadic,12 in keeping with the picture in other biblical books: Barnes assessed lxx influence as sporadic, except in Psalms;13 Weitzman believed that even in Psalms the influence was patchy and the similarities were perhaps due to polygenesis.14 In another group of translations of passages of difficult Hebrew, also a little less than half the total, the translator seems to have used guesswork, often based on etymology. In the remaining small number he was apparently guided by other passages of the HB, or mimicked the sound of the Hebrew, or simply gave an atomistic translation. A discussion of some of the most interesting examples follows. There is inevitably a subjective element in the classification. 3.1 Probable Guidance from lxx In Jer 4:11 the translation of ‫ רוח צח‬as “a wandering wind” strongly suggests influence of lxx (“a wind of error”) on P. The MT imagery is complex: the root ‫צחח‬, “to be dazzling,” is associated elsewhere15 with heat: a reasonable translation of the Hebrew would be “a scorching wind.”16 The probability of influence on P from lxx is strengthened by two other passages where both Versions approach the root ‫ צחח‬similarly. In Ps 68:7 (lxx 67:6) both give “tombs” rather than “parched”; in Isa 32:4 both give “peace” rather than “glowing, clear.” Individually, each of these three examples could be explained by polygenesis; seen together, influence is a more likely explanation. There is another example of probable influence from lxx in Jer 5:10 where the MT “Go up to her rows of vines and destroy; yet do not destroy totally. Take 12  Gelston, Peshitta, 192. 13  William E. Barnes, “On the Influence of the Septuagint on the Peshitta,” JTS 2 (1901): 186–97. 14  Michael P. Weitzman, “Peshitta, Septuagint and Targum,” in Symposium Syriacum VI 1992, ed. René Lavenant, OCA 247 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994) 55–60. 15  Greenberg, Translation Technique, 153. 16  William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume I: Commentary on Chapters I–XXV, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 95.

346

Greenberg

away her branches, for they are not the Lord’s,” is rendered in P as “Go up upon her walls and break them down! Yet do not make an end: spare her foundations, for they are the Lord’s.” lxx reads “Go up upon her battlements and break them down, but do not make a full end. Leave her buttresses, for they are the Lord’s.” The first point of interest is the rendering of the “rows of vines.” Both Versions give an architectural term, not an agricultural one: “battlements” in lxx, “walls” in P. The second is the surprising translation of “they are not the Lord’s”: neither Version renders the negative. Just possibly, P understood this term, written here as occasionally elsewhere in Jeremiah as ‫לוא‬, as lamadh plus an objective suffix giving “his,” but on balance this seems unlikely since at other passages where this form is used he perceived the intended meaning. The translation of Jer 32:21 (lxx 39:21–22), “you brought your people Israel out … with great terror,” forms a particularly interesting example which raises a number of different points. The focus here is on the root ‫ירא‬, “to fear,” in “with great terror.” Both lxx and P render this phrase as if the derivation of ‫מורא‬ “terror” were not the root ‫“( ירא‬to fear”) but the root ‫“( ראה‬to see”), and both have given “vision(s).” The agreement could result from polygenesis were it not for three similar passages and approaches in Deuteronomy. In Deut 4:34, despite the MT which parallels “war” with “terrors,” clearly suggesting the theme of “fear,” both Versions have “vision(s).” In Deut 11:25 the Hebrew parallel is of “dread” with “fear,” and both Versions follow that lead. Deuteronomy 26:8 is close to Jer 32:21 (lxx 39:21–22), with no clear parallel term to give guidance, and here too both Versions give “vision(s).” These agreements suggest influence from lxx on P in Deuteronomy, supporting the possibility of such influence in other books; however, there is a further possible source of influence. The Deuteronomy passages precede Jeremiah in the canon so had probably already been translated:17 P would have been familiar with Deuteronomy and could have been influenced by that text in a colleague’s translation, rather than by the lxx itself. To the MT of Jer 48(lxx 31):34, “from Zoar to Horonaim, Eglath-Shelishiyah,” P introduces another city, Alis. The translator gives: “from Zoar to Horonaim and as far as the city of Alis, a three-year-old heifer.”18 Eglath-Shelishiyah caused this: there seems to have been an original Greek transliteration of that which was corrupted to εἱς Ελισαν; P found this or a similar reading in this difficult text, and understood Ελισαν as a city.

17  Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (London: SPCK, 1985), 309. 18  Weitzman, Syriac Version, 75.

Jeremiah in the Peshitta

347

3.2 Probable Polygenesis For MT of Jer 2:23, “a fleet she-camel doubling back on her tracks,” both lxx (“her voice has howled”) and P (“you have lifted up your voice”) are based on a perception that ‫ קלה‬derives from ‫קול‬, “voice,” rather than from ‫קלל‬, “swift.” Influence of lxx on P is possible, but this misunderstanding is so easily made that polygenesis must be considered as the most probable explanation of the similarity of the two Versions. The difference in person between the two Versions, indicating independence of the one from the other, also supports polygenesis. In Jer 5:26, MT reads “they lie in wait, crouching as fowlers do; they have set a deadly trap, they catch men.” The lxx gives “they have set snares to destroy men; they have caught them”, and P reads “they have set up traps like hedges so that men may be caught in them.” Neither translator gives an equivalent of MT “they lie in wait” (from a root “to look”): perhaps both, independently, chose to avoid the difficulty of rendering the Hebrew where a singular verb is used with a plural subject. Two further examples in brief: in Jer 2:25 and 18:12 the MT reads “There is no hope,” with the root ‫יאש‬. Both translators have instead understood this as the root ‫איש‬, “to be of substance/ strong,” a confusion which could readily be made: in 2:25, P reads “I have grown strong”; lxx has “I will strengthen myself.” At Jer 18:12, P gives “We will grow strong,” and the lxx reads “We will acquit ourselves like men.” Finally, in Jer 2:34, where the MT reads ‫(“ בכנפיך‬blood) on your skirts,” both translators render ‫ בכפיך‬as “on your hands,” perhaps each being influenced by the familiar metaphor. 4

“Minuses”: Passages in mt Which are Absent from p

Minuses are fairly common: one is to be found in approximately 6% of sense units.19 They fall into three principal groups: (1) the most interesting, those where the Vorlage from which P was made may not have included the word or words which do appear in MT though they are absent from P; (2) the deliberate omission; and (3) the accidental omission. Here too, an element of subjectivity in the categorisation is unavoidable, but does not affect the overall picture.

19  Greenberg, Translation Technique, 96.

348

Greenberg

4.1 Minuses and the Vorlage Retroversion is an unreliable way of reconstructing a Vorlage, because the deductions are based on interdependent factors: much of the value of the Versions in textual criticism depends on our understanding of their translation technique, but assessment of that translation technique is inevitably, to some extent, often based on comparison with and analysis of the MT rather than of the Vorlage. However, there are some minuses in P which do seem to be worth attention: it does seem possible that they throw light on the wording of the Vorlage and thus, indirectly, on the transmission history of MT. These fall into three principal groups: (1) those where P and lxx agree against MT; (2) those where the minus is in P only, lxx agreeing with MT; (3) and those where MT, lxx, and P all differ from one another. p and lxx Agree Against mt. A number of examples suggest that words or phrases present in MT but not in either lxx or P are later additions to the Hebrew, perhaps glosses, perhaps additions intended to harmonise one verse with another, or perhaps caused by dittography occurring during transmission of the Hebrew Vorlage. In the examples given below such possible additions to the Hebrew, made too late for the Vorlagen used for lxx and P, but not too late to enter the transmission tree of MT, are discussed. Because the process of additions to the Hebrew is plausible it is unnecessary to postulate dependence of P on lxx. At Jer 5:27, 28 MT reads “therefore they have become great and wealthy, fat and sleek.” Neither P nor lxx render “fat and sleek.” There is no reason to suppose that both translators found this phrase too difficult to translate; it may be a gloss on “great and wealthy.”20 Possible secondary expansion is illustrated in Jer 22:11 (“Shallum, son of Josiah king of Judah”) where neither Version renders “king of Judah.” The reign of Jehoahaz, also known in the Bible as Shallum, was short, but there is no evident difficulty in the statement that Josiah was “king of Judah,” and no apparent reason for not translating the phrase.21 At Jer 51 (lxx 28):28 MT reads “Prepare the nations … and all the land of his dominion.” Neither lxx nor P render “and all the land of his dominion,” perhaps a secondary expansion in the Hebrew, introduced to harmonise with a phrase in Jer 34:1 where the might of Nebuchadnezzar is listed. The passage also evokes 1 Kgs 9:17–19 (and 2 Chr 8:4–6) where an almost identical phrase closes an account of some of Solomon’s building works, and 2 Kgs 20:13 and Isa

20  For discussion of a Lucianic variant see Greenberg, Translation Technique, 110, n.44. 21  James Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (London: SCM, 1986), 402.

Jeremiah in the Peshitta

349

39:2 which describe Hezekiah’s boastful display of his wealth, and include “and in all his dominion.” At Jer 8:3, “in all the remaining places to which I have scattered them,” neither P nor lxx render “remaining.” This is probably an accidental addition to the Hebrew: it breaks into a word-string which is well attested elsewhere in Jeremiah. At Jer 8:21, “I am broken by the wound of the daughter of my people, I am deeply depressed,” neither Version renders ‫“( השברתי‬I am broken”): this word may result from imperfect dittography of the preceding ‫שבר בת־עמי‬. Finally, in Jer 38(lxx 45):28, the MT Hebrew is repetitive (or perhaps particularly precise):22 it reads “and Jeremiah dwelt in the court of the guard until the day on which Jerusalem was taken, and he was there when Jerusalem was taken.” Neither Version renders “and he was there when Jerusalem was taken,” a clause which could have resulted from dittography, or perhaps been misplaced from the beginning of ch. 39 where the events immediately following the breach of the city are described. lxx and mt Agree Against p. This is at first sight a surprising group. Given that lxx was translated earlier than P, it seems probable that P would have been written from a later Hebrew MS than that provided for lxx, a MS which would have been nearer to the stabilised text of MT: so P would be closer to MT than would lxx. If lxx agrees with MT against P the inference is that P represents an earlier Hebrew MS than does lxx, which is counter-intuitive. There are two principal possible explanations: first, continuing editorial work on proto-MT MSS may sometimes have modified a MS later than that which formed the Vorlage of the Peshitta, and such secondary expansions may sometimes have been incorporated into lxx on which editorial work was also still continuing. Second, although the translators of P would have sought out a Hebrew MS given high status by those who were involved in continuing editorial work, they might have been less privileged than were those who wrote lxx. Josephus’s account of the MS provided to the latter – though perhaps he exaggerates its splendour – surely indicates that it was of high quality;23 but given the difficulties of travel and the danger of damage in transit, it is understandable that the translators of P, so far in the east, might have been sent not the latest, precious, MS, but one on which work had been completed some years earlier. The story in Jer 24:1 is set “after Nebuchadnezzar … had taken into captivity Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, the princes of Judah, and the 22  See too Weitzman, Syriac Version, 83. 23  See Josephus, Ant. 12.89–90 (for the English, see Antiquities of the Jews, trans. William Whiston [Edinburgh: Nimmo, 1865]).

350

Greenberg

craftsmen and the tradesmen/smiths from Jerusalem.” P does not render “the princes of Judah.” lxx does, and also adds the “rich men.” McKane notes that the MT list is to be understood as a summary of a more informative list: the parts missing from P were perhaps added by editors wanting to give more detail.24 At Jer 29(lxx 36):10–14 there is one of the passages of hope mentioned above: the Lord promises that there will be relief after a long period of exile. Here “I will listen to you, you will search for me and you will find (me),” absent from P, but represented in lxx, may be a late expansion of the theme. The verse is repetitive, but P did not usually fail to render repetitions. In Jer 50(lxx 27):24 (“I have laid a snare for you, and also you are taken, Babylon, and you did not know it; you are found and also caught”), P does not render “you are found and caught,” though lxx does. lxx, p, mt: No Agreement. In this group are passages where both components of a doublet are present in MT, one in lxx and the other in P. Apparently, one component was present in the proto-MT MS which formed the Vorlage of P; the other occurred in a different proto-MT MS, on which lxx was based, but was not present in the proto-MT MS used for P. Both components of the doublet were later established in the transmission line of MT. A clear example is in Jer 7:27, 28. lxx has an omission from 7:27b; all 7:28a is absent from P. In MT 7:27b reads: “they will not listen to you; you will call to them, but they will not answer you.” This is rendered in P but not in lxx. In MT 7:28a reads: “You will say to them ‘This is a people which did not listen to the voice of the Lord its God and did not accept correction.’ ” This is rendered in lxx but not in P. 4.2 Deliberate Minuses These fall into two groups: those occurring in the translation of passages of particularly difficult Hebrew, and those which seem to have been made in the drive for clarity. Difficult Hebrew. The complex Hebrew of Jer 23:3825 reads, “And if you should say ‘The burden of the Lord’ therefore the Lord will say thus ‘Because you have spoken this word “The burden of the Lord” and I have sent to you to say ‘You shall not say “The burden of the Lord.” ’ ’ ” P renders as, “And if you should say ‘The burden of the Lord’ thus says the Lord: ‘because you have said this word yet I sent to you that you should not say,’” with no rendering of the second and third “The burden of the Lord.” 24  McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 607. 25  See McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 600–01.

Jeremiah in the Peshitta

351

Drive for Clarity. At Jer 2:9, “therefore I will plead with you yet”, P has no equivalent of “yet”: this Hebrew particle appears to refer back to an earlier unidentifiable discussion and is therefore not rendered. Similarly, at Jer 2:10, “for pass over the isles of Kittim,” the ‫ כי‬which opens the phrase, and which has no clear meaning in the context, is not rendered in an otherwise precise translation. 4.3 Accidental Minuses These are minuses which are at odds with the characteristic translation technique: they neither increase clarity, nor improve grammar, nor harmonize one verse with another. Nor do they occur at passages of particularly difficult Hebrew. Most seem trivial, and are not discussed further here. One interesting example is at Jer 39(lxx 46):3, where the omission has a striking effect: the MT gives a list of “all the princes of the king of Babylon” who entered Jerusalem after it had been breached and took their seats in the middle gate; their names and titles are also rendered in P. MT and lxx both finish the verse with a reference to “all the remaining princes of the king of Babylon,” presumably those who were not sufficiently important to be named individually; P omits “remaining,” so that the closing phrase is virtually a repetition of the opening phrase, and the list of names seems pointless. 5

Work of the Scribes: Manuscripts 9a1, 7a1

A number of P MSS survive; the earliest of these which includes the prophets is Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, B.21 inf Codex Ambrosianus (“7a1”), discovered by Antonio Ceriani in 1866 and published in 1876–1883. This MS dates from the sixth or seventh century and is taken as a representative of later MSS; it has the advantage that it has elements in common with others older and younger than itself, and it closely resembles its near contemporaries. Another MS, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, Or. Ms 58, (“9a1”) is taken here as the representative of an early stage of transmission; it shows, particularly in Kings and Jeremiah, many unique agreements with MT. These have sometimes been ascribed to causes other than its relatively pristine text, including revision after MT itself, lxx, or the minor Greek versions, but Weitzman26 has

26  Michael Weitzman, “The Originality of Unique Readings in Peshitta MS 9a1,” in The Peshitta, Its Early Text and History, ed. Peter B. Dirksen and Martin J. Mulder, MPIL 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 225–58.

352

Greenberg

argued convincingly that a MS can preserve an original text uniquely if fed by a source not available to other MSS. Just as those who wrote the Peshitta felt free to make small changes from the Hebrew, so evidently did the scribes who succeeded them, and although the meaning of the translation differs hardly at all in the various extant manuscripts,27 there is evidence of a systematic process of revision. These scribes saw the text not as letter-perfect but as material on which they could work to increase accessibility, presumably their driving force. They made numerous small changes, although they would have understood that doing so would take their text further away from the Hebrew. Koster, writing on Exodus, shows that the later manuscripts indicate a movement to a gradual expansion of the Syriac text, diverging more and more from the Hebrew original.28 Walter concludes that the revision of Kings had “an element of intentionality.”29 There are approximately 200 of these differences, usually trivial, between Jeremiah in 9a1 and in 7a1:30 in the majority, 9a1 is closer to MT than is 7a1. These new readings, as seen in 7a1, are dominant in Aphrahat, but not in Ephrem: probably they originated in the eastern outskirts where Aphrahat lived rather than in Nisibis or Edessa where Ephrem worked. The differences are of two main kinds: (1) the more interesting for present purposes, those showing characteristics in common with the original translation technique, scribal policy maintaining translation policy; and (2) those which seem to indicate changes in the Syriac idiom with the passage of time. 5.1 Scribal Policy Maintaining Translation Policy 5.1.1 Literary Initiative In a number of passages the choice of lexical equivalent differs between these two MSS; most often, the choice in 7a1 is the more usual or the more precise. In Jer 3:2, “Lift up your eyes to the heights” is translated in 9a1 fam as “to your surroundings”; in 7a1 we have “to the pathways” which is used at each of the other occurrences of “heights” in Jeremiah (3:21; 4:11; 7:29; 12:12; 14:6).31 In Jer 8:3, the 27  Weitzman, Syriac Version, 7. 28  Marinus Koster, “Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?,” in The Peshitta, Its Early Text and History, ed. Peter B. Dirksen and Martin J. Mulder, MPIL 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 99–126, particularly 110–11, 122. 29  Donald M. Walter, “The Use of Sources in the Peshitta of Kings,” in The Peshitta as a Translation, ed. Peter B. Dirksen and Arie van der Kooij, MPIL 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 187–204. 30  Donald M. Walter, personal communication, 1986. 31  Anthony Gelston, “Some Notes on Second Isaiah,” VT 21 (1971): 518–21.

Jeremiah in the Peshitta

353

Hebrew root “to thrust/scatter” is translated in 9a1 fam by “to expel,” but more precisely in 7a1; in Jer 10:22, “the north country” is translated by “wilderness” in 9a1 but precisely in 7a1; in Jer 18:3, “I went down” is translated freely in 9a1 fam but precisely in 7a1; and in 20:5, “city” is translated with an innovative term in 9a1 fam but with the more usual and conservative term in 7a1.32 In contrast, in Jer 11:8 “to do” is rendered precisely in 9a1 fam, but in 7a1 “to hear/listen/obey” is used instead. 5.1.2 Additions Increasing Precision. Precision is usually achieved by specifying the subject or object at passages where these are implicit only in MT. In Jer 26:1 the word of the Lord comes, but only in 7a1, not in 9a1, is it specified to whom: “to Jeremiah.” In Jer 26:7, 33:1, and 37:21, MT “Jeremiah” is expanded in 7a1, but not in 9a1 fam, to “Jeremiah the prophet”; and in Jer 28:5, “Jeremiah the prophet” is expanded in 9a1 fam to “Jeremiah the prophet of the Lord.” In Jer 39:5 the king’s plight is made clearer in 7a1, though not in 9a1 fam, by the addition of “all his army was scattered from him.” Epithets. There are frequent additions in 7a1 to the divine title. For example, in Jer 11:3, 13:12, 25:15, and 45:2 “the mighty” is added, though not in 9a1 fam; in Jer 13:9, but not in 9a1 fam, “the Lord” is expanded to “the mighty Lord God of Israel.” In Jer 46:17 the standard epithet “the lame” is added in 7a1 (though not in 9a1 fam) to Pharaoh’s name. Increasing Emphasis. In Jer 23:10, where MT has “the land is full of adulterers,” 7a1, though not 9a1 fam, has the additional “and plunderers.” Harmonization. At Jer 32:35, where MT refers to the high places of Baal in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, 7a1 though not 9a1 fam, inserts “in Topheth,” harmonising with, for example, Jer 7:31 “high places of Topheth which is in the valley of Ben-Hinnom.” At Jer 33:7 there is an example of harmonisation in 7a1 to a passage in a different biblical book. MT “at the beginning” is rendered precisely in 9a1, but with the addition in 7a1 (though missing from 9a1 fam) of “and I will do good to them as at the beginning,” evoking Ezek 36:11. In Jer 36:7 there is a substantial addition in 7a1. The MT reads “each will turn from his evil way,” and this is given precisely in 7a1 and in 9a1 fam, but only 7a1 adds “and the Lord will turn away from the evil which he has spoken against them,” evoking Jer 26:13: “the Lord will repent of the evil which he has pronounced against you.” In MT, a standard phrase or word-string may be subject to small changes from time to time. 9a1 usually renders MT precisely at such passages, but 7a1 32  Weitzman, Syriac Version, 169–171.

354

Greenberg

often gives a rendering of the standard wording rather than of the variation. For example, the MT has the recurring trio “sword … famine … pestilence,” the terms usually being given in that order. In MT Jer 21:7 the three terms are used, but not in the usual order; 9a1 fam translates precisely, but in 7a1 the order is changed to the more usual sequence. In Jer 44:27, where the trio is incomplete in the MT, 9a1 is precise but in 7a1 the third term is introduced. 5.2 Changes in Idiom with Time The preferred method for translating the Hebrew construct apparently changed with time: there seems to have been a development from the use of the emphatic state followed by dalath, as in 9a1 fam, to the use of an anticipatory possessive suffix in 7a1. There are quite numerous examples of this, as can be seen in the translations of Jer 6:14 (“the hurt of the daughter of my people”), Jer 13:8 (“the word of the Lord”), and Jer 51:44( “the walls of Babylon”). 6

The Faith of the Translator

Whether the translator was a Jew or a Christian has been much discussed. There is no universally agreed answer to that question: some authorities believe that the whole translation was the work of Jews; some maintain that the work of translating the Peshitta as a whole was begun when the community in which the Peshitta school was based was Jewish, but at a time when the young Christian church in the area was gaining strength. During subsequent decades, as the translation progressed, the community converted to Christianity, so the work was begun by Jews and finished by Christians. The disagreements indicate the lack of conclusive textual evidence. There are very few passages in Jeremiah which contribute to the discussion;33 one worth considering is Jer 7:4. The MT three-fold reference to “the temple of the Lord” and the connection between this and moral improvement includes the difficult term ‫המה‬. P renders this as “you”: the readers are themselves the temple if they will pursue social justice, evoking the Christian doctrine expressed in 1 Cor 3:16–17 “Do you not know that you are the temple of the Lord where the spirit of God dwells?” This implies that there is no need for the temple (which was in any case obsolete, and beyond the reach of a Mesopotamian 33  Study of the “Servant Songs” and the “Apocalypse” of Isaiah yields suggestive though inconclusive evidence that the translator was a Christian. See Gillian Greenberg, “The Faith of the Translator of the Peshitta: Some Indications in P-Isaiah,” in Studies in Jewish Prayer, ed. R. Hayward and B. Embry, JSSSup 17 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 133–34.

Jeremiah in the Peshitta

355

community) so long as social justice is pursued: a point made by Aphrahat34 and discussed by Burkitt.35 There is also, however, some relevant indirect evidence. It is reasonable to suppose that most of the biblical books were translated in their canonical order,36 but it seems that there were some exceptions to this approach, and Jeremiah was possibly one such exception. Manuscript evidence shows that P to Jeremiah attracted special attention: we have referred above to the many differences between 9a1 and 7a1. The high prevalence of unique readings in the early MS 9a1 (about 200) is exceeded only in Kings, where there are more than 400 such readings.37 These unique readings indicate that later scribes introduced numerous variants: Syriac biblical scholars perhaps treated these two books as a pair, and wished to study them together,38 learning from Kings about the downfall of the Jews, and seeing in Jeremiah the life of a type of Christ.39 This suggestion presupposes that at some early stage the editors of P MSS, if not the translators, were Christians. A Christian origin is definitely possible. Consider the religious environment in which the Peshitta was written: the translation was probably begun in Edessa, or at any rate in the province of Osrhoene, where Syriac developed.40 Christianity was just beginning to be locally established in Edessa: the reference to “the church of the Christians”41 in the account of the flood of 201 CE suggests that by that date Christians were an accepted presence in Edessa, together with Jews and Gentiles, and though Edessene Jews did not need a Syriac translation of the HB, Christians may have wanted it to define themselves as different from the Jews.42 The tone of Aphrahat’s Demonstrations, written in 34  Aphrahat, “De Fide,” in Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes I–XXII, ed. Jean Parisot, PS 1 (Paris: Firmin-Didot et Socii, 1894), cols. 8–9. 35  Francis Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity: Saint Margaret’s Lectures on the Syriac Speaking Church (London: John Murray, 1904), 83. 36  Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, 309. 37  Weitzman, “Peshitta MS 9a1,” 226. 38  Weitzman, Syriac Version, 283 n.51. 39  Paraleipomena Jeremiou, ed. and trans. Robert A. Kraft and Ann-Elizabeth Purintun, SBLTT 1, Pseudepigrapha Series 1 (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), 45–49. 40  Weitzman, Syriac Version, 248–58. 41  In the Chronicles of Edessa, an account probably completed in the sixth century; this is the earliest reliable evidence of an established Christian community in Edessa: Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2006), 4. 42  Han Drijvers, “Syrian Christianity and Judaism,” in The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, ed. Judith Lieu, John North, and Tessa Rajak (London: Routledge, 1992), 138–41.

356

Greenberg

the first half of the fourth century, often indicates a fear that Christians, living in danger of persecution, might revert to the Judaism from which they had converted.43 The Demonstrations were not intended to convert Jews, but to give Christians a defence against backsliding, a reversion to Judaism. Such a backsliding would not have been too difficult, for they could preserve monotheism and use the same Bible as did the Jews whom they considered that they had replaced, and they would have been familiar with the Sabbath, the festivals, the dietary laws, and circumcision.44 The use of the Syriac Peshitta helped to maintain their separateness from the Jews. 7 Conclusion Given that there was no tradition of a letter-perfect text, some small changes were permissible, and both translator and scribes/editors deserve credit. If indeed the translator or those responsible for the text later were Christians, they worked most scrupulously, resisting almost all temptation to make changes or to introduce expansions.45 Whatever the uncertainty, it is clear from the degree of current interest that the Peshitta has stood the test of time: in recent years, published work on the Peshitta includes studies of the Peshitta to Jeremiah, 1 Kings, Lamentations, Psalms 90–150, Ezekiel, Joshua, and First Samuel;46 more than a score of volumes have appeared in the series of monographs of the Peshitta Institute; English translations together with the Syriac text covering most of the Old Testament and much of the New have 43  Aphrahat, “Demonstratio XIX,” in Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes, ed. Jean Parisot, PS 1 (Paris: Firmin-Didot et socii., 1894), cols. 845–92. 44  Jacob Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism: The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran (Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), 126. 45  Weitzman, Syriac Version, 246. 46  Johann E. Erbes, The Peshitta and the Versions: A Study of the Peshitta Variants in Joshua 1–5 in Relation to their Equivalents in the Ancient Versions, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis (Uppsala: Uppsala University Library, 1999); Peter J. Williams, Studies in the Syntax of the Peshitta of 1 Kings, MPIL 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2001); Craig E. Morrison, The Character of the Syriac Version of the First Book of Samuel, MPIL 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2001); Donald M. Walter, Studies in the Peshitta of Kings: The Transmission and Revision of the Text, Relations with other Texts, and Translation Features (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008); Ignacio Carbajosa, The Character of the Syriac Version of Psalms: A Study of Psalms 90–150 in the Peshitta, MPIL 17 (Leiden: Brill, 2008); Godwin Mushayabasa, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Ezekiel 1–24, SSn 63 (Leiden: Brill, 2014).

Jeremiah in the Peshitta

357

been published by Gorgias Press; and CALAP (Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis of the Peshitta) examines the language of the Peshitta, its character as a translation, and its textual transmission.47 The translators of the Peshitta were tasked with producing a text which read well, was not a stilted version of the Hebrew, but was at the same time a faithful rendering of the Hebrew: they and their later colleagues succeeded admirably, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for this achievement. Select Bibliography Barnes, William E. “On the Influence of the Septuagint on the Peshitta.” JTS 2 (1901): 186–97. Burkitt, Francis. Early Eastern Christianity: Saint Margaret’s Lectures on the Syriac Speaking Church. London: John Murray, 1904. Drijvers, Han. “Syrian Christianity and Judaism.” Pages 124–46 in The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire. Edited by Judith Lieu, John North, and Tessa Rajak. London: Routledge, 1992. Greenberg, Gillian. Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Greenberg, Gillian. “Indications of the Faith of the Translator in the Peshitta to the ‘Servant Songs’ of Deutero-Isaiah.” AS 2 (2004): 175–92. Greenberg, Gillian. “Freedom in Biblical Translation: Choice of Lexical Equivalents in the Peshitta.” Pages 115–27 in The Professorship of Semitic Languages at Uppsala University, 400 years. Edited by Bo Isaksson, Mats Eskhult, and Gail Ramsay. SSU 24. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2005. Greenberg, Gillian. “The Faith of the Translator of the Peshitta: Some Indications in P-Isaiah.” Pages 117–34 in Studies in Jewish Prayer. Edited by R. Hayward and B. Embry. JSSSup 17. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Keulen, Percy S.F. van, and Wido Th. van Peursen, eds. Corpus Linguistics and Textual History, SSN 48. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006. McKane, William. Jeremiah 1–25: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Peursen, Wido Th. van, and Robert Bas ter Haar Romeny, eds. Text, Translation, and Tradition: Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition. MPIL 14. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

47  Percy S.F. van Keulen and Wido Th. van Peursen, eds., Corpus Linguistics and Textual History, SSN 48 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006).

358

Greenberg

Weitzman, Michael. “The Originality of Unique Readings in Peshitta MS 9a1.” Pages 225–58 in The Peshitta, Its Early Text and History. Edited by Peter B. Dirksen and Martin J. Mulder. MPIL 4. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Weitzman, Michael P. “Peshitta, Septuagint and Targum.” Pages 51–84 in Symposium Syriacum VI 1992. Edited by René Lavenant. OCA 247. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994. Weitzman, Michael P. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

chapter 18

Jeremiah in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Sean A. Adams The character and book of Jeremiah have a minor but intriguing role in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.1 In this essay we will begin by looking at the instances where the character of Jeremiah is referenced, highlighting aspects of the narratives that explain or expand the existing biblical text. Following this we will look at how certain characters from Jeremiah, namely the Rechabites and Baruch, have been used by subsequent authors and how these characters have developed from the Jeremianic text. Finally, we will look at some of the instances where passages of the book of Jeremiah are cited. The goal of this essay is to provide insight into the variety of ways that the character and book of Jeremiah were employed by later apocryphal and pseudepigraphal authors. What we see is a willingness by later authors to expand and fill in missing aspects of the narrative, crafting new stories around existing characters.2

1  For the utility and difficulties inherent in these terms, see Devorah Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 379–419 (379); Lee Martin McDonald, “What Do We Mean by Canon? Ancient and Modern Questions,” in Jewish and Christian Scriptures: The Function of “Canonical” and “Non-Canonical” Religious Texts, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald, JCTS 7 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 8–40; Richard Bauckham and James R. Davila, “Introduction,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, ed. Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2013), 1: xvii–xxxviii, xvii–xx. 2  For an initial survey of this corpus, see John Barton, “Jeremiah in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Troubling Jeremiah, ed. A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 260 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 306–17. For a recent treatment of Jeremiah and his reception, see Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid, eds., Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, JSJSup 173 (Leiden: Brill, 2016).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_019

360 1

Adams

The Character of Jeremiah

Our knowledge of the biblical character of Jeremiah comes predominantly from the book that bears his name.3 In it, the author, “Jeremiah,” depicts himself as a prophet and recounts a number of oracles and some of his life events. Prophetic utterances take up a majority of the work and there is only a small amount of material on the person of Jeremiah, most of which are stories of opposition and struggle. For example, Jeremiah was repeatedly threatened with death (Jer 11:21–23; 26:7–8; 38:4), attacked (Jer 12:6; 37:15), plotted against (Jer 18:18), and imprisoned (Jer 20:1–4; 37:15; 38:28), because of his message of impending destruction and his critique of Jewish leadership (e.g., kings, priests, [false] prophets, Jer 1:18–19). Ultimately, the biblical narrative concludes with Jeremiah released from prison by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 39:11–40:5) and taken to Egypt (Jer 43:6–7), from which he writes to those in Babylon about forthcoming events (Jer 51:60–64).4 The text is open-ended in that it is silent about Jeremiah’s last years and his death. This is the material found in the book of Jeremiah, but it is clear from subsequent literature that there is a much wider tradition of interpretation surrounding Jeremiah.5 One of the common features of Jeremiah in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha is that all subsequent authors recognise him as a prophet who heard from God.6 A good example of this is found in 2 Maccabees, in which a number of elements of Jeremiah’s narrative are condensed. In 2 Macc 2:1–5, just like in Jeremiah, Jeremiah speaks to the people to prepare them for their exile (cf. Sir 49:6–7). He charges them with a specific task, namely to take some 3  Unless otherwise noted, citations from Jeremiah refer to the MT. Jeremiah is also mentioned as a prophet in 2 Chr 35:25; 36:12, 21–22; Ezra 1:1; Dan 9:2; and Lam 1:1 (lxx). 4  Given the parallels between the call narratives of Moses and Jeremiah, it is striking that Jeremiah mirrors the movement of Moses, moving from the Promised Land to end in Egypt. 5  Equally interesting as mentions of Jeremiah are places where one would expect to find mentions of him, but do not. The primary example of this is the book of Baruch, which is placed within the Jeremianic corpus, but in which there is not a single mention of the prophet. A similar absence is found in Lamentations and it is clear from the Greek manuscript tradition that a number of scribes attempted to rectify this absence by making explicit reference to Jeremiah in the inscription and the preface (Lam 1:1, lxx). Joseph Ziegler, Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae, Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 15, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 467. 6  This element is central to much of the literature attributed to Jeremiah (e.g., Jeremiah’s Prophecy to Pashhur). In other texts, Jeremiah’s statements are either not heeded at the ignorer’s detriment or events happen according to his prediction (e.g., 1 Esd 1:26, 45, 57; 2:1, lxx numbering).

Jeremiah in the ot Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

361

of the fire from the Temple (2 Macc 2:1), but focuses on their actions once they arrive in Babylon. After giving them the Law, Jeremiah instructs them not to forget the commandments of the Lord, or to be led astray in their thoughts on seeing the gold and silver statues and their adornment (2:2), exhorting them that the Law should not depart from their hearts (2:3). This latter part strongly parallels passages in Jeremiah, in which the prophet expresses the same ideas.7 However, the charge in 2 Macc 2:1 of taking some fire from the Temple is unique.8 This addition to the Jeremiah narrative is strongly based in the preceding text of 2 Macc 1:19–36 and the need by the author to show explicit continuity between the First and Second Temples.9 Other Jewish authors also augment the biblical narrative in order for the material to fit better with their larger work. For example, Eupolemus, Fr. 4 (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.39.2–5) shares a number of parallels with Jer 26 and 36; however, certain aspects of the text are unique to Eupolemus, namely the details of the conflict with Baal, the attempted burning of Jeremiah by Jonachim, and Jeremiah’s statement that the wood used in the attempt to burn him will be used to cook food and dig canals for the Babylonians. Another fundamental difference between Jeremiah and Eupolemus is the motivation for Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on the Jewish people. In the book of Jeremiah, the author does not specify why Nebuchadnezzar decided to attack Judah, but only indicates that it happened because it was determined by God (Jer 1:15; 5:15; 11:11). Such a position is expanded on in the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon, which has Nebuchadnezzar attack Jerusalem because the archangel Gabriel visited him in a dream and told him to do so (Cop. Jer. Ap. §§15–17).10 Conversely, Eupolemus (Fr. 4.4) claims that Nebuchadnezzar initiates his attack on the Jews because he heard of Jeremiah’s prediction. This is not a contradiction

7  Gold idols: Jer 10:1–10; cf. Ep Jer 4, 11, 39, 57; Pairing of law and hearts: Jer 31:33, this is the only such pairing, though it is not in the context of advice for the exiles. More often Jeremiah/God claims that the people have abandoned the law (e.g., 6:19; 9:13; 16:11; 44:23). 8  Cf. Cop. Jer. Ap. §27, “Go into the Temple and put the lamp upon the lampstand of the holy place, and it shall not go out or be quenched these seventy years until the people return to this place and fear and tremble before me.” 9  So Robert Doran, 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 56. 10  For the text, see K.H. Kuhn, “A Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon,” Le Muséon 83 (1970): 95–135, 291–350. For the related Syriac version, see Alphones Mingana, “A Jeremiah Apocryphon,” in Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshūni, Edited and Translated with a Critical Apparatus, with Introductions by R. Harris (Cambridge: Heffer, 1927), 1:125–38, 148–233.

362

Adams

to the biblical text, but a creative interpretation of how prophetic utterances have the ability to cause the events that they predict.11 In addition to making prophetic statements to the people of Judah, Jeremiah is also regularly depicted as engaging with literary culture. Although there is no mention of his education, Jeremiah is presented as being able to read and write a number of document types, such as deeds (Jer 32:10–12), books/scrolls (Jer 30:2; 36:2; 51:60; 2 Macc 2:1; Cop. Jer. Ap. §8), and letters (Jer 29:31; 4 Bar. 7:21, 24; Ep Jer 1). This latter activity fits with the narrative world in which Jeremiah is separated, sometimes by great distances, from those with whom he needed to communicate. This became such a fundamental aspect of his person that pseudepigraphical writers felt comfortable attributing letters to him (e.g., Epistle of Jeremiah).12 These similarities provide the foundation for other narrative details that are not as consistently presented in subsequent literature. Due to their importance and diversity we will look at four examples of alternate traditions: Temple vessels, Jeremiah’s location, Jeremiah’s long life and death, and the afterlife of Jeremiah. 1.1 Temple Vessels According to the biblical texts (e.g., 2 Chr 36:18; 2 Kgs 25:13–17; Jer 27:16; 28:3, 6; 52:17–23), the vessels of the House of the Lord were taken to Babylon.13 These passages provide broad inventories of items that were taken, although none of them specifically mentions the ark, the tent, the altar of incense, or the tablets of the Law. However, some later texts make explicit claims that not all of the items from the Temple were taken by the Babylonians, but that some of them were hidden by Jeremiah (and/or Baruch) before the fall of Jerusalem. As will be seen, these texts do not directly contradict the biblical narrative, but address the silences in the text about specific sacred items. Regarding the sacred vessels, the book of Baruch does not go beyond what we find in Scripture, stating that “Baruch took the vessels of the house of the Lord, which had been carried away from the Temple, to return them to the land 11  Josephus (Ant. 10.80) further develops Jeremiah’s prophet ability by claiming that Jeremiah had not only predicted the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, but also its recent capture. 12  It is important to highlight that a majority of Jeremianic literature does not provide much narrative that directly overlaps with the biblical texts. However, the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon does, recounting Jeremiah’s challenging of Zedekiah, the dictation to Baruch, his imprisonment and release by Ebedmelech, among other actions (§§1–8). 13  Cf. 4Q385B.

Jeremiah in the ot Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

363

of Judah – the silver vessels that Zedekiah son of Josiah, king of Judah, had made, after King Nebechadnezzar of Babylon had carried away from Jerusalem Jeconiah” (1:8–9). In this text, the author does not contradict the biblical narrative, but provides additional information about what happened to the items at some point after the start of the exile. Similarly, 4 Ezra 10:21–22 provides a detailed outline of the desecration of the Temple, complete with an inventory of what was lost and taken. Of particular interest here is the claim that the “altar [was] thrown down” (10:21) and that “the ark of our covenant was plundered and the holy things were polluted” (10:22). This fuller catalogue makes explicit what was left unsaid in the biblical texts and, if it was written in the late first century ce,14 might be an explicit contradiction of other narratives that claimed that the ark was rescued by Jeremiah. Such a narrative is found in 2 Maccabees. Above we saw that the author of 2 Maccabees began by having a depiction of Jeremiah that was generally in line with the biblical text (e.g., 2:1–3). However, following that description the author continues by recounting events in Jeremiah’s life that are not found in Scripture, claiming that, “having received an oracle, [Jeremiah] ordered that the tent and the ark should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God” (2:4). Once he had climbed the mountain Jeremiah found a cave and in it he placed the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense, before sealing the entrance (2:5). This is the only narrative that claims that Jeremiah hid this specific trio of items: the Ark of the Covenant, the tent, and the altar of incense. These sacred items are not explicitly said to have been captured by the Babylonians in the biblical texts and so allows the author of 2 Maccabees to fill the lacuna with a story of their preservation by Jeremiah for astute and wondering readers to learn what happened to these important objects. A related story is briefly mentioned in Eupolemus Fr. 4.5 (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.39.5), in which Jeremiah safeguards (in an undisclosed manner) the ark and the tablets within it, and so prevented them from falling into the hands of the Babylonians. Similarly, Liv. Pro. 2:11 claims that Jeremiah caused the ark and the things in it to be swallowed by a rock in order to prevent their capture. In a related narrative, 4 Bar. 3:9–11 and 3:18–19 has both Jeremiah and Baruch give the Temple vessels to the earth, which swallows them for safekeeping. Later Jeremiah also throws the Temple keys to the sun (4 Bar. 4:4), claiming that the Jewish people were not worthy of their possession. Both of these actions are 14  For a discussion on the dating of the text, see Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 9–10; Bruce M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” in OTP, 1:520.

364

Adams

unique to 4 Baruch, though the former has some parallel with 2 Baruch. A similar story is found in Cop. Jer. Ap. §28–29. In these paragraphs, before going into captivity, Jeremiah deposits the high priest’s garment inside the corner stone of the Temple, deposits the keys of the Temple in a stone tower, and throws the golden plates inscribed with the name of God that were worn by Aaron and his sons to the sun for safe keeping, because the people were not worthy of them. In contrast to the above narratives, 2 Bar. 6:1–9 has Baruch witness a vision of an angel coming down from heaven and commanding the earth to swallow up, not only the Temple vessels, but also the veil, the holy ephod, the mercy seat, the altar of incense, the holy raiment of the priests, as well as a number of other items (2 Bar. 6:7). In this narrative, the Temple items are secured within the earth for a future time, but Jeremiah is not part of the process. Rather, his scribe (now seer) Baruch is the visionary. This narrative is a good example of the deeply interconnected nature of 2 and 4 Baruch,15 and, as we will see below, this is not only time in which a narrative that had been assigned to Jeremiah is given to Baruch. 1.2 Jeremiah’s Location Equally diverse to the narratives of the Temple vessels are the claims in different texts regarding the ultimate location of Jeremiah: Did he go to Babylon, stay in Jerusalem, or travel to Egypt? According to Jer 43:6–7, Jeremiah was not taken by the Babylonians to Babylon, but was forced by Johanan son of Jareah and his troops to go to Egypt. Following this event, there is no mention in the book of Jeremiah of any change in location, and so the book closes with Jeremiah in Egypt. The book of Baruch is silent as to where Jeremiah is, but it might be inferred from the narrative that he is neither in Babylon nor in Jerusalem: in Babylon it is Baruch who is writing and it is clear from the letter that the leaders in Jerusalem require direction, something that would (presumably) not have been necessary were Jeremiah present.16 The Epistle of Jeremiah also does not 15  The work 4 Baruch displays strong thematic and structural parallels with 2 Baruch, which has resulted in scholars positing a variety of literary relationships between the two, with a majority arguing that 4 Baruch draws on 2 Baruch. Cf. Jens Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou): Translated with an Introduction and Commentary, SBLWGRW 22 (Atlanta: SBL, 2005), xvi–xxiii; Daniel M. Gurtner, Second Baruch: A Critical Edition to the Syriac Text, JCTS (New York: Continuum, 2009), 12. See, however, Jean Riaud, “Les Paralipomena Jeremiae dépendent-ils de II Baruch?,” Sileno-Anno 9 (1984): 105–28. 16  It is also possible that Jeremiah could have died by this point and so might have formerly been in Jerusalem, but is no longer there now. One confusing aspect of a number

Jeremiah in the ot Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

365

provide a definitive location for Jeremiah, except that it can be inferred that he is not in Babylon, otherwise he would not have needed to write a letter to the people who were to be exiled there (v. 1). A similar situation is presented in 2 Macc 2:2, which has Jeremiah talking directly to the captives prior to their departure, telling them how to behave while in exile. This scene implies that Jeremiah did not go to Babylon, but does not specify where he went.17 This ambiguity is not adopted by a number of later works, which explicitly make statements regarding Jeremiah’s location that appear to contradict the biblical text. For example, Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon, 2 Baruch, and 4 Baruch have Jeremiah taken to Babylon with the other Jewish captives (Cop. Jer. Ap. §30; 2 Bar. 2:15; 10:1–5; 4 Bar. 3:15; 4:6; 5:19). In these texts Baruch remains in Jerusalem (2 Bar. 8:3; 9:1; 10:3; 4 Bar. 4:11–12; cf. 3 Bar. praef. 2)18 to co-ordinate efforts there,19 although this placement stands in contrast to the claim in the book of Baruch that it was he and not Jeremiah that went to Babylon (Bar 1:1). At first glance, the placement of Jeremiah in Babylon appears to be contrary to the text of Jer 43:6–7, which claims that Jeremiah went to Egypt and was not taken into exile and that the Jewish people associated with him in Egypt were going to die, either by pestilence, captivity, or the sword (Jer 43:8–13; 44:11–14). In a story recounted by Josephus (Ant. 10.179), however, Nebuchadnezzar also attacked Egypt and “took the Jews there captives and led them away to Babylon” (Ant. 10.180–185). This narrative is not part of the book of Jeremiah, although there are two places (Jer 43:10; 46:26) where Jeremiah prophesied that God is going to punish Azariah, Johanan, and all the arrogant men (43:2) for not listening to his words. In these passages, Jeremiah declares that God is going to bring Nebuchadnezzar to conquer Egypt and remove the Jewish people. If Jeremiah is considered to be part of the latter captured group, then Jeremiah’s presence in Babylon, rather than in Egypt, can be reconciled with the text of Jeremiah. Only one text implicitly continues the narrative of Jeremiah in Egypt, namely Lives of the Prophets, whose author states that Jeremiah died in of Jeremianic narratives is the lack of explicit timing. See below for a more thorough discussion. 17  4Q385B (Fr.1, col. 1, l.6–7) also has Jeremiah speaking to the soon-to-be exiles as he accompanied them part of the way to Babylon. 18  Cf. S. ʿOlam Rab. 26; Shir R. 5; b. Meg. 16b. 19  The co-ordination is typically accomplished through correspondence. However, there are some noticeable discrepancies between the two works. For example, in 4 Bar. 7:5 Baruch sent a letter to Jeremiah in Babylon by means of an eagle. However, in 2 Bar. 77:19, Baruch also sends a letter by an eagle, though in this case it does not go to Jeremiah, but to the nine and a half tribes.

366

Adams

Taphnai (2.1, Greek transliteration of Tahpanhes), thus implying that he spent the rest of his life in Egypt.20 1.3 Jeremiah’s Long Life and Death The biblical text does not specify when Jeremiah died.21 This is an important lacuna that a number of ancient authors exploit in their discussions of Jeremiah’s life. According to the biblical text, the exile was to last seventy years (2 Chr 36:21). However, in a number of narratives we find Jeremiah and Baruch still alive at the end of this time period.22 No text explicitly addresses this issue or indicates divine intervention that might allow Jeremiah to be abnormally long-lived.23 Rather, a number of narratives compress the exile so as to almost remove it from the text. In this way they are able to have Jeremiah and/or Baruch (the stories’s main characters) alive and active on both sides of the exile. A good example of this is 4 Baruch, in which the sixty-six years of the exile – explicitly mentioned in 5:29, 6:8, and 7:28 – are passed over through the story of Abimelech and his long “nap” (4 Bar. 5:1–35). Abimelech is put into a deep sleep by God in order to protect him from the Babylonians and so that he would not have to witness the exile (cf. 3:12–24; Cop. Jer. Ap. §§12, 22, 38). However, Jeremiah and Baruch are alive throughout this time in their respective locales. Upon his awakening, Abimelech reconnects with Baruch, who is sitting in a tomb near Jerusalem (6:2) – presumably the same one that he went into at 4:12 – but it appears that Baruch has not been put into a deep sleep like Abimelech, but has been living a “normal” life for the last six decades. Upon understanding the sign of Abimelech’s figs (6:4–10), Baruch writes to Jeremiah, who is still living in Babylon (5:19; 6:11). That Baruch and Jeremiah are living is clearly not the impression given by the biblical texts (e.g., Ezra 1:1–2:67), but rather is a literary concession made by the author to allow Jeremiah and Baruch to control the narrative. That the extended time period has elapsed so quickly in the narrative allows the author to ignore the temporal inconsistency and to continue with the narrative as desired.

20  This perspective is also found in 4Q385B Fr.1, col. 2. In a related document, 4Q387B Jeremiah is in Egypt speaking out against idols (cf. Jer 44). 21  It is thought by later interpreters, however, that Jeremiah wrote the lamentation for his own funeral, cf. Josephus, Ant. 10.78. 22  E.g., Cop. Jer. Ap. § 41, in which Jeremiah is alive, though there is no mention of Baruch. 23  It is clear from other passages in Jeremiah that people who were taken into exile from Jerusalem were thought to have died in Babylon (e.g., Jer 20:6; 22:26).

Jeremiah in the ot Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

367

This sleight of hand with the narrative timing results in certain aspects of the narrative of Ezra and Nehemiah being attributed to Jeremiah.24 For example, in 4 Bar. 8:3–7 Jeremiah (with Abimelech) condemns the practice of Jewish people marrying foreigners and refuses to let such people return to Jerusalem. Although such drastic measures are not found in the biblical texts, there are a number of scenes in which Ezra and Nehemiah forcefully speak out against such practices, call the people to repent of their actions, and cleanse the priesthood of everything foreign (Ezra 9:12; 10:18–19; Neh 13:23–30). As a result, 4 Baruch takes the practice found in Ezra and Nehemiah and amplifies it to cover the entire population, not just the priesthood. The change in timing also allows for the author to recount the tragic death of Jeremiah by the people. In 4 Baruch, Jeremiah, having successfully stewarded the people through their exile and led them back to Jerusalem, receives a three-day vision after sacrificing in the Temple (9:1–14). At this time the people were upset by his apparent death, but were assured by a voice from heaven that Jeremiah was still alive. However, when Jeremiah awakes, he recounts his vision of the Son of God (i.e., Jesus) to the people (9:14–20),25 who attempt to stone him to death (9:22). God preserves Jeremiah for a short time by transforming a rock to look like him in order that he might reveal all of his vision to Baruch and Abimelech (9:24–29).26 After this, the stone tells the people where Jeremiah is and the people stone him to death (9:30–31; cf. Apoc. Paul 49). The book concludes with Baruch and Abimelech burying Jeremiah and setting up the stone which protected him to mark his tomb (9:32). In contrast to the narrative found in 4 Baruch, the Lives of the Prophets has much less detail about Jeremiah’s death, stating only that he was stoned to death by the people (2.1). However, unlike 4 Baruch in which Jeremiah dies in Jerusalem, the Lives of the Prophets places his death in Taphnai, Egypt. Following his death the Egyptians bury him close to Pharaoh’s palace (2.2)27 out of deep respect for him and in appreciation of his cleansing Egypt of asps and crocodiles (2.3). Not only did Jeremiah help the Egyptians during his lifetime, 24  An interesting blend is found in Cop. Jer. Ap., which includes the character of Ezra (§32), but has Jeremiah approach King Cyrus to release the Jewish people (§36–37). Upon his return, Jeremiah enters the Temple and obtains the return of the keys, the high priest’s vestment, and the golden plate (§41). 25  A similar declaration is given at Liv. Pro. 2.8–9. 26  For another example of divine protection, see Jer 36:26, though see also Josephus, Ant. 10.95, who downplays this. 27  It is possible that this detail is taken from Jer 43:7–8, which speaks of Jeremiah burring stones by the entrance of Pharaoh’s palace in Tahpanhes.

368

Adams

but dirt from his grave site was said to have the ability to heal those who were bitten by asps (2.4). Jeremiah’s tomb was so important that Alexander the Great visited his grave, and because he witnessed Jeremiah’s mysteries during his visit, he moved Jeremiah’s remains to Alexandria and placed them at twelve points around the city to protect the people from asps and crocodiles (2.5–6).28 1.4 The Afterlife of Jeremiah Although elements of Jeremiah’s afterlife are recounted in the Lives of the Prophets above, there is one passage in the Apocrypha that requires examination, namely 2 Macc 15:13–16, which reads, Then in the same fashion another appeared, distinguished by his grey hair and dignity, and of marvelous majesty and authority. And Onias spoke, saying, “This is a man who loves the family of Israel and prays much for the people and the holy city – Jeremiah, the prophet of God.” Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave to Judas a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: “Take this holy sword, a gift from God, with which you will strike down your adversaries.” NRSV

In this passage, Judas Maccabeus recalls a dream that he had received (15:11) in which Onias, the former high priest (cf. 3:1), and Jeremiah the prophet appear to him. In this vision, Jeremiah gives a golden sword to Judas so that he could destroy Nicanor and his army (cf. 15:20–27), blessing and affirming Judas Maccabaeus in his campaign to free the Jewish people from Seleucid rule. The one who had prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem is now acting to protect it. As far as I am able to determine, this is the only after-death appearance of Jeremiah in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The above passage highlights Jeremiah’s love for the people and his many prayers offered for them and Jerusalem, though it is intriguing to consider why Jeremiah was chosen to provide a sword and not some other biblical character.29 For example, the sword 28  For the possibility that the veneration of Jeremiah continued in Alexandria throughout the time of Philo, see Gregory E. Sterling, “Jeremiah the Mystagogue: Jeremiah in Philo of Alexandria,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid, JSJSup 173 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 417–30, esp. 426–29. 29  Collins highlights the irony of both Onias and Jeremiah’s use in this passage. Cf. John J. Collins, Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees with an Excursus on the Apocalyptic Genre (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1981), 356.

Jeremiah in the ot Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

369

of the Lord is specifically mentioned in three prophetic books (Ezek 21:9–17; Zech 13:7; Isa 31:8; 66:16),30 any character from which could have been used by the author of 2 Maccabees. Potentially an even more appropriate parallel would be the person of Enoch, who envisioned a great sword being given to sheep in order to enact vengeance on the other animals (1 En. 90:19; cf. 91:12). What is distinctive about Jeremiah is his prophetic utterance spoken against the Chaldeans (Jer 50:33–38), in which Jeremiah proclaims a sword (‫חרב‬, μάχαιρα) against the inhabitants of Babylon, her officials, diviners, warriors, horses, and chariots. Although the Seleucids were not the Babylonians, they did rule the same area and it would not be unreasonable that the author of 2 Maccabees might have read this passage in light of the situation at the time of the Maccabean revolt. In employing Jeremiah the author transforms this passive resistor – one who hid sacred objects and advocated political ­acquiescence – to one who supports revolution and violence.31 In our brief discussion of Jeremiah’s afterlife one final theme needs to be discussed: resurrection. Although this concept is not part of the biblical text, there are a couple works that associate Jeremiah with some element of the resurrection.32 The best example is Liv. Pro. 2.15, which directly associates the hidden ark with the resurrection of the saints. In this work Jeremiah prophecised that Aaron himself will bring out the ark and that only Moses will be able to open the tablets (2.14). The ark will be the first to be resurrected and all the saints will be gathered to it. The text does not speak of Jeremiah’s role in the resurrection, but it is not unreasonable to think that he would be one of the people raised, especially as he is presented as being a partner with Moses (2.19).33 This reading opens the possibility that Jeremiah might still have a

30  References acquired from Doran, 2 Maccabees, 293. 31  Scolnic suggests that Jeremiah is chosen because he merges two streams of political thought: acceptance and demand for future vengeance. Although his association between Judas Maccabeus and the description of the hammer in Jer 51:20–24 is intriguing, it does not provide a sufficient argument for the selection of Jeremiah. Cf. Benjamin Edidin Scolnic, Judaism Defined: Mattathias and the Destiny of His People, Studies in Judaism (Lanham: University Press of America, 2010), 59–61. 32  Jeremiah (along with Isaiah, Ezekiel, and others) appears to Paul in a vision in Apoc. Paul 49 to encourage him in his sufferings; however, this is beyond our purview. 33  Syb. Or. 2.249 associates Jeremiah and the future resurrection, but in this case Jeremiah is presented as the final prophet who could offer repentance to the Hebrew people: “[God] will destroy all of the Hebrews after Jeremiah.”

370

Adams

role to play in the future, even though it is clear that his current ministry was completed.34 1.5 Summary: Depictions of Jeremiah It is clear from the literature surveyed that there is a much wider tradition of interpretation surrounding Jeremiah than that found in the biblical text.35 To be sure, the tradition is grounded in Jeremiah’s identity as a prophet who accurately hears from God, and takes its starting point from the biblical texts. However, the Jeremianic narratives are not limited to the biblical narrative; rather, their authors expand the tradition by exploring the silences in the text. These texts rarely contradict elements found in the biblical narratives; rather, aspects of Jeremiah’s life are fleshed out and he is used to speak into specific, and often novel, situations. These additions present us with important questions to consider: why are these new elements included? Why do they exist? Some, such as the inclusion of the fire in 2 Macc 2:1, are to align better the Jeremiah narrative with the current work. Other texts appear to fill in the narrative gaps and provide some further information about where Jeremiah was and what he did during the exile.36 Other texts inform the reader how Jeremiah died and where he was buried (e.g., 4 Bar. 9:30–31; Liv. Pro. 2.1). In this investigation of the depictions of Jeremiah in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha we see that very few changes are made to the portrait of Jeremiah found in the biblical texts. Rather, these textual elements are relatively stable throughout the tradition. What are less stable are details of Jeremiah’s life that are not explicitly recounted in the book of Jeremiah (e.g., location, death, etc.). Similarly, “updating” his theology to accommodate new ideas (i.e., resurrection) is also understandable, especially in light of the tradition of divine teaching and revelation that Jeremiah received. More difficult to explain are changes to the received character of Jeremiah, specifically his use by the author of 2 Maccabees to endorse Judas Maccabeus’ rejection of foreign rule.

34  The description of Jeremiah as an eschatological figure in 2 Esdras 2:17–19 might also indicate a tradition of Jeremiah’s involvement in the end times. Cf. Barton, “Jeremiah,” 316. 35  For a discussion of some fragments that further affirm this perspective, see Devorah Dimant, “An Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Cave 4 (4Q385B = 4Q385 16),” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings from the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris, 1992, ed. George J. Brooke, STDJ 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 11–30. 36  Cop. Jer. Ap. §26 recalls how Jeremiah met Nebuchadnezzar, who kissed his feet and offered Jeremiah whatever he wanted.

Jeremiah in the ot Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

2

371

Mentions of Characters from Jeremiah

Although it is natural for later authors to engage with Jeremiah, he is not the only character from that book discussed in subsequent texts. For example, the story of the Rechabites in Jer 35:1–11, one of the few positive examples within the book of Jeremiah, became the focus of an independent text: The History of the Rechabites.37 The edition that has come down to us is influenced by Christian theology (cf. Hist. Rech. 12:9a; 13:5; 16:1b), but at the heart of the work (Hist. Rech. 8–10) we are given an expansion of the “history” of the Rechabites based on the text of Jer 35. Here the author tells the story of how Jonadab, son of Rechab, and his children were rescued from a prison in Jerusalem during the reign of an unnamed king who ruled after Josiah (9:1, i.e., Jehoiakim). According to the narrative (8:2–6, cf. Jer 35, esp. vv. 6–11), Jonadab heeded the words of Jeremiah not to eat bread or drink wine until God had answered their prayers.38 When the Rechabites were imprisoned because they refused the king’s order to abandon the teachings of their father (10:4), God sent an angel to release them and to bring them to the island on which they currently dwell, isolated and protected from all those who live in the world of vanity (10:5–8). In the book of Jeremiah the fate of these characters is unknown, and there is no indication that they had a conflict with king Jehoiakim, were thrown in prison, or were commanded to abandon their practices. Another interesting change is that, in the book of Jeremiah, Jeremiah is not the originator of the charge not to eat bread or drink wine, but affirms their practice and their faithfulness to the words of their father (Jer 35:18). However, in Hist. Rech. 8:3 the narrative implies that this charge was given to Jonadab by Jeremiah, thus attributing a divine command to Jeremiah. Rather, what Jeremiah does declare is that, “Jonadab son of Rechab will not lack a descendant to stand before me for all time” (Jer 35:19). This statement provides narrative space for creative imagination within the reader as to what the future might hold for this righteous family. What was envisioned was an Edenic paradise in which they were safe from harm and all of their needs are provided for (Hist. Rech. 7:2a, 8; 12:3a–5). Another Jeremianic character also received substantial literary interest in subsequent generations of writers: Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe and confidant (Jer 32:12–16; 36:4–32; 43:1–7; 45:1–5). Due to this strong association in the book 37  For a general overview and introduction, see James H. Charlesworth, “History of the Rechabites,” in OTP, 2:443–61. 38  In Hist. Rech. 8:3 the speaker claims that the prophet also told them not to wear any clothing, but this is not found in the biblical text. Nakedness does play an important theme in the larger narrative (e.g., Hist. Rech. 4:1; 5:2–3; 12:3).

372

Adams

of Jeremiah, it is not surprising that Jeremiah is one of the few figures that occur in the Baruchan corpus. However, both characters adopt different roles depending on which work one reads. For example, in 2 Baruch, Baruch functions as a prophet in his own right, so much so that the relationship between Baruch and Jeremiah is inverted and Baruch takes the lead.39 In 2 Bar 2:1 it is Baruch who receives a revelation and is told to tell Jeremiah and others to get out of Jerusalem. It is also Baruch who leads them away to Kidron valley in 5:5. True, Jeremiah is still positively portrayed (e.g., 9:1, in which he is said to have a “pure heart”), but he needs to be told by God through Baruch to go with captives to support them in Babylon (10:2). Both Jeremiah and Baruch lament together over the fate of Jerusalem (9:2), but Jeremiah never has his own voice; rather, his speech is reported by others (33:1–2). Additionally, Jeremiah is absent for a large part of the text and Baruch becomes the primary spokesperson for God and an apocalyptic seer. In fact, Baruch could be seen as the last prophet, because the Lord has sent Jeremiah to Babylon.40 A similar inversion is found in 4 Baruch, but not nearly to the same extent.41 At the beginning of 4 Baruch, Baruch and Jeremiah act together to preserve the Temple vessels (3:1–20), although Jeremiah was the primary character who received messages from God (1:1), tells them to Baruch (2:1), directs the narrative (3:21–22), and is identified as God’s chosen one to intercede for the people (3:7). However, following Jeremiah’s removal to Babylon, Baruch acts independently and receives his own messages from God (3:16; 4:12; 6:15).42 Although Baruch and Jeremiah do maintain contact through letters (6:19; 7:24), the narrative is centred on Baruch and his activities. We are not told what Jeremiah does in Babylon, although the narrative returns to him in 7:13 at the end of the exile.

39  This is also highlighted by Boyeon Briana Lee, “The Development of the Jeremiah Figure in 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch: A Response to Jens Herzer,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid, JSJSup 173 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 398–416, esp. 399. 40  Cf. Balázs Tamási, “The Sources of Authority in Second Baruch,” in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, ed. Géza G. Xeravits, Isaac Kalimi, and Tobias Nicklas, DCLS 16 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 225–50 (247). 41  For intertextual components of 4 Baruch and some differences between it and the biblical narratives (as well as 2 Baruch), see Jens Herzer, “Retelling the Story of Exile: The Reception of the Jeremiah Tradition in 4 Baruch in the Perspective of the Jewish Diaspora,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid, JSJSup 173 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 373–91, 382–89. 42  It is interesting that in the words of Abimelech, Jeremiah is identified as a priest and Baruch as a reader (4 Bar. 5:17; cf. Cop. Jer. Ap. §8).

Jeremiah in the ot Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

373

This sharing of the narrative in 4 Baruch substantially differs from the dominance of Baruch in 2 Baruch. However, in both texts there is a clear development of the relationship between Baruch and Jeremiah that goes beyond the biblical text. The only time in the book of Jeremiah that we see something of this type of relationship is in the accusation by Azariah, Johanan, and the other “insolent men” that “Baruch son of Neriah is inciting you [Jeremiah] to hand us over to the Chaldeans, in order that they may kill us or take us into exile in Babylon” (Jer 43:3). Although the depiction of Baruch as someone who is in conflict with the leading Jewish men is intriguing, the most interesting element in this passage is the view that Baruch could have such a strong influence on Jeremiah that he could convince him to lie. Nowhere else in the book of Jeremiah is the prophet shown to be influenced by Baruch; rather, Jeremiah is presented as being the dominant person in the relationship. This passage, therefore, might provide some small insight into what later developed into a more equal relationship between these two characters. In contrast to the narrative sharing of 2 and 4 Baruch, neither 3 Baruch nor the book of Baruch makes any mention of Jeremiah. Rather, in the former, the entire narrative is a recounting of Baruch’s heavenly vision and the people and events that take place on the different levels, whereas the latter uses the character of Baruch to provide authority to the text and to situate the narrative within a specific time period. Although much more can and has been said on the development of Baruch in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,43 the purpose of this section is to highlight the way that the biblical book of Jeremiah has been used by subsequent authors. What we find throughout the Barucan corpus is an extensive interpretive tradition that has its early roots in the book of Jeremiah.44 It is clear that rigid conformity to the biblical text was not of high priority, but neither did the subsequent texts contradict Jewish Scripture. Rather, these texts are not directly drawing on scriptural authority; they are texts about popular figures employed to propagate specific ideas and created to fill in narrative gaps.

43  For a book outlining the development of the character of Baruch, see J. Edward Wright, Baruch Ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer (Columbia: South Carolina Press, 2003). 44  Cf. Georg Fischer, “Simulated Similarities: The Intricate Relationship between the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah,” in Studies on Baruch, ed. Sean A. Adams, DCLS 23 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 5–24.

374 3

Adams

Citations of Jeremiah

The final topic that we will discuss in this chapter is the use of book of Jeremiah in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature. Above we have focused on the ways that Jeremiah and other characters have been adopted by later authors; here we will look briefly at how some authors have used the text of the book of Jeremiah in their works. Unfortunately, identifying allusions, language, or even implicit quotations is beyond the scope of this project,45 although this is the most common way for apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writers to engage with Jewish scripture.46 Nevertheless, there are a few instances in which the book of Jeremiah is explicitly engaged. One example would be Sir 49:6–7, in which the author asserts that Jeremiah foretold the destruction of Jerusalem.47 More importantly for our discussion, the author continues by further describing the person of Jeremiah, namely that “they had maltreated him, who even in the womb had been consecrated a prophet, to pluck up and ruin and destroy, and likewise to build and to plant” (49:7).48 The last part is a near quotation of Jer 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations,” and 1:10, “See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.” Although it is not explicitly highlighted as a quotation from the book of Jeremiah, it is clear that it is a composite statement that brings Jer 1:5 and 1:10 together into one passage, allowing the author to draw from the book of Jeremiah concisely, but without including extraneous material.49 Another example of the use of Jeremiah comes from Ps.-Philo, LAB 56:6,

45  E.g., the possible parallel between Ps.-Phoc. 53 and Jer 9:22 (lxx). See, especially, Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, JAJS 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 141–47, 359–62. 46  James Keith Zink, “The Use of the Old Testament in the Apocrypha” (PhD dissertation, Duke University, 1963), 164; Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra,” 381–84. 47  In later times, Josephus claims that Jeremiah foretold the destructions of Jerusalem under the Babylonians and the Romans (cf. Ant. 10.79). 48  For related statements that correlate the fall of Jerusalem to the mistreatment of Jeremiah, see b. Yoma 9b; Pesiq. Rab. 29 (138a); Exod. Rab. 31.16. 49  For a greater discussion of composite citations in antiquity, see Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn, “What is a Composite Citation? An Introduction,” in Composite Citations in Antiquity: Volume One: Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, ed. Sean A. Adams and Sean M. Ehorn, LNTS 525 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 1–16.

Jeremiah in the ot Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

375

And Saul said to Samuel “Who am I, and what is the house of my father that my lord should say to me this word? For I do not understand what you are saying because I am young.” And Samuel said to Saul, “Who will grant that your word will be accomplishment of itself to the end that you should have a long life? Nevertheless, consider this, that your words will be compared to the words of the prophet, whose name will be Jeremiah.”50

In this passage, the author places a modified version of Jer 1:6 in the mouth of Saul that was not part of 1 Sam 9:21. Although the author might have left this inclusion unhighlighted, he chose to identify its source and to direct the reader’s attention to this parallel. In doing so the author contrasts the characters of Saul and Jeremiah through the use of a now-common saying. The selection of Jeremiah is intriguing as it is not the most obvious of comparators, even if we acknowledge the fact that both are youths in the respective passages. More obvious pairings would have been David or Samuel, so it is not clear what the intended purpose of the comparison was. Nevertheless, it is clear that Saul is being negatively compared with Jeremiah and that the latter is being held up as a positive model. Our final two examples of quotations from Jeremiah come from the book of Baruch. Scholars have readily indentified a number of parallels between Jeremiah and the first half of Baruch,51 with most highlighting the fact that the opening of Baruch (καὶ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι τοῦ βιβλίου, 1:1) is nearly identical to the words of Jer 36:1 (lxx) (καὶ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι τῆς βίβλου, οὓς ἀπέστειλεν Ιερεμίας). This parallel, identified by all commentators, forms a strong tie between the books of Baruch and Jeremiah.52 The book of Jeremiah is not explicitly identified, but it is clear from the language that the author was associating his work with that of Jeremiah and that readers familiar with Jeremiah would notice the similarities. A similar occurrence is found in Bar 2:20–23, which references un-named prophets as a source of a quotation, “just as you said through the hand of your

50  Translation from Daniel J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in OTP, 2:297–377. 51  Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8, HSM 8 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976); I. Assan-Dhôte, and J. Moatti-Fine, La Bible d’Alexandrie: Baruch, Lamentations, Lettre de Jérémie: Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, Introduction et notes (Paris: Cerf, 2008), 29–31. 52  Cf. Sean A. Adams, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus, SEPT (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 51.

376

Adams

servants the prophets, saying …” (καθάπερ ἐλάλησας ἐν χειρὶ τῶν παίδων σου τῶν προφητῶν λέγων), For you have brought your anger and your wrath against us, as you had spoken by the hand of your servants the prophets, saying: “Thus did the Lord say: ‘Incline your shoulder, and work for the king of Babylon, and sit upon the land which I gave to your fathers. And if you do not obey the voice of the Lord to work for the king of Babylon, I will make to fail from the towns of Judah and from outside Jerusalem a voice of merriment and a voice of delight, a voice of bridegroom and a voice of bride, and all the land will become untrodden by inhabitants’”. Bar 2:20–23

Although there is an explicit reference to the prophets, which prophet(s) Baruch is intending is obscure. However, upon closer inspection Baruch seems to be only paraphrasing one prophet, Jeremiah.53 One issue with only being able to identify Jeremianic parallels in this Baruch “quotation” is the reference to multiple prophets (2:20). Although this is not the first time Baruch has referred to prophets in the plural (1:21), it is the first time that a saying has been attributed to them. A parallel example also occurs in 2:24, which also primarily draws from Jeremiah despite the plural form of prophets. Nowhere in Baruch is Jeremiah or a specific prophet referenced by name despite the abundance of intertextual parallels.54 This intentional omission is interesting and might suggest that the author of Baruch wanted to distance the text from specific individuals, including Jeremiah, and attribute certain aspects of Jeremiah’s actions (such as prophecy) to the character of

53  Sean A. Adams, “Reframing Scripture: A Fresh Look at Baruch’s So-Called ‘Citations,’” in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, ed. Géza G. Xeravits, Isaac Kalimi, and Tobias Nicklas, DCLS 16 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 63–83, 70–73. Cf. Zink, “Use of the Old Testament,” 109–113; Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 44 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 288. 54  The only author referenced by name is Moses (1:20; 2:2, 28). The paired references to Moses and the prophets in the penitential prayer section fit well with Baruch’s holistic vision of the history of Israel and her ongoing relationship with God. Cf. A. Kabasele Mukenge, “Les Citations internes en Ba. 1,15–3,8: Un Procédé Rédactionnel et Actualisant,” Le Muséon 108 (1995): 211–37 (215).

Jeremiah in the ot Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

377

Baruch.55 Nevertheless, it is clear that the author drew heavily from the book of Jeremiah and that it was foundational to the author of Baruch. Overall, we do not find many explicit quotations or specific engagements with the text of Jeremiah. Rather, a majority of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal authors draw on Jeremiah generally without specific references. What we have seen above is that Jeremiah is consistently portrayed as a prophet, possibly the quintessential one (so Baruch), and always in a positive manner. In these cases it appears that the person of Jeremiah and who people thought him to be is more important than specific engagements with the text. 4 Conclusion From the above discussion we see that Jeremiah enjoyed a vibrant literary afterlife; events of his life were recounted by subsequent authors and a number of “missing” details were filled in, though not consistently amongst subsequent traditions. A recurring element of the above discussion is that the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts evaluated did not regularly contradict the biblical text. In fact, a majority of instances that discuss Jeremiah do not depend on the scriptural authority of the biblical book, but rather on the reputation of a well-known character. Certain texts, such as the Baruchan literature or the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, do not directly draw on scriptural texts; rather, they are texts created to explore silences. Overall, in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha we witness a small, but consistent focus on the person of Jeremiah and a desire to fill in the narrative gaps about a popular figure. Select Bibliography Adams, Sean A. “Reframing Scripture: A Fresh Look at Baruch’s So-Called ‘Citations.’” Pages 63–83 in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits, Isaac Kalimi, and Tobias Nicklas. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Adams, Sean A. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus. SEPT. Leiden: Brill, 2014. 55  Cf. Judith H. Newman, “Confessing in Exile: The Reception and Composition of Jeremiah in (Daniel and) Baruch,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid, JSJSup 173 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 243–47, 252.

378

Adams

Barton, John. “Jeremiah in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 306–17 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Dimant, Devorah. “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 379–419 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988. Doran, Robert. 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Fischer, Georg. “Simulated Similarities: The Intricate Relationship between the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah.” Pages 5–24 in Studies on Baruch. Edited by Sean A. Adams. DCLS 23. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Gurtner, Daniel M. Second Baruch: A Critical Edition to the Syriac Text. Jewish and Christian Texts in Context and Related Studies. New York: Continuum, 2009. Herzer, Jens. 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou): Translated with an Introduction and Commentary. SBLWGRW 22. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. Kuhn, K.H. “A Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon.” Le Muséon 83 (1970): 95–135, 291–350. Lange, Armin, and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. JAJS 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Najman, Hindy, and Konrad Schmid, eds. Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation. JSJSup 173. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Scolnic, Benjamin Edidin. Judaism Defined: Mattathias and the Destiny of His People. Studies in Judaism. Lanham: University Press of America, 2010. Tamási, Balázs. “The Sources of Authority in Second Baruch.” Pages 225–50 in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits, Isaac Kalimi, and Tobias Nicklas. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. HSM 8. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Ziegler, Joseph. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 15. 3rd edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.

chapter 19

Jeremiah and His Book in Josephus’s Writings Michael Avioz Flavius Josephus is one of the most fascinating figures of the Second Temple period (37–100 CE). In thirty books, he documented the war between the Romans and the Jews, retold the Hebrew Bible, recorded his autobiography, and defended Judaism against its attackers.1 This essay will deal with Josephus’s retelling of the story of Jeremiah and the prophet’s book in his writings. Jeremiah’s reception in Second Temple sources has been dealt with in several recent studies.2 He is mentioned or alluded to in some late biblical books (Zechariah, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles), the Qumran scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, Jewish Hellenistic literature, the New Testament, the rabbinic literature, and in the writing of the Apostolic Fathers. Few studies, however, have been devoted to the portrait of Jeremiah in Josephus’s writings.3

* This research has been funded by the Beit Shalom Fund in Japan, to which I owe my gratitude. 1  On Josephus’s life and works, see most recently Honora H. Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers, eds., A Companion to Josephus (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2016). 2  The first thorough discussion of Jeremiah’s reception was presented by Christian Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum, TU 118 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976). See also Adrian Curtis and Thomas Römer, eds., The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception / Le livre de Jérémie et sa réception (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997); J. Barton, “Jeremiah in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Troubling Jeremiah, ed. A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 260 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 306– 17; Christopher James Patrick Davis, Re-Presentation and Emerging Authority of the Jeremiah Traditions in Second Temple Judaism (PhD diss., University of Manchester, 2009); Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid, eds., Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation (Leiden: Brill, 2016); Mary Chilton Callaway, Jeremiah Through the Centuries, BBC (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, forthcoming). 3  In fact, in the collections mentioned above, Josephus is usually absent. Begg has written several articles on Jeremiah in Josephus’s writings: Christopher T. Begg, “Jeremiah under King Zedekiah according to Ant. 10.102–130,” REJ 156 (1997): 7–42; Begg, “Jeremiah under Jehoiakim according to Josephus (Ant. 10.89–95),” AbrN 33 (1996): 1–16. Feldman mentions Josephus sporadically. See Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998); Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). See also Etienne Nodet, Flavius Josèphe Les Antiquités juives, vol. V. Livres X et XI (Paris: Cerf, 2010). Tyson has dealt with the historical value of Josephus. See Craig W. Tyson, “Josephus,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_020

380

Avioz

In contrast to Jeremiah’s brief mention in Ben Sira (49:6–7.) and the limited number of quotations of the book in the Qumran scrolls,4 Josephus presents an elaborate portrayal of the prophet. Josephus devotes more attention to Jeremiah than to any other classical prophet,5 raising the question of the reason for Jeremiah’s prominence in Josephus’s writings. 1

Why Jeremiah?

There are several possible directions for exploring the reason behind Jeremiah’s relative importance in the writings of Josephus. One such direction may be that the book of Jeremiah contains more prose (sometimes referred to as “biography”)6 than any other prophetic book in the Hebrew Bible. Another reason may be that Jeremiah lived during a critical era in Israel’s history: forty years before the destruction of the First Temple. Finally, Josephus’s fascination with Jeremiah may be due to the historical fact that his judgment oracles were eventually fulfilled. 2

A General Comparison of mt Jeremiah and Josephus

In the tenth book of Judean Antiquities (Ant. 10.78–185),7 Josephus rewrites the story of Jeremiah, largely following the MT in the selections he makes from

Antiquities 10.180–182, Jeremiah, and Nebuchadnezzar,” JHS 13 (2013) (http://www.jhsonline .org/Articles/article_187.pdf). 4  Kipp Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions: Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity (Leiden: Brill, 2014). 5  Josephus mentions Ezekiel, Jonah, Haggai, and Zechariah. See Christopher T. Begg, “The ‘Classical Prophets’ in Josephus’ ‘Antiquities,’” LS 13 (1988): 341–57 (Repr. in “The Place is too Small for us”: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, ed. R. P. Gordon [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995], 547–62). 6  Martin Kessler, A Prophetic Biography: A Form-Critical Study of Jeremiah, Chapters 26–29, 32–45 (PhD diss., University of Brandeis, 1965); A. Rofé, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible. Their Literary Types and History (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 106–21. 7  Translation is by Christopher T. Begg and Paul Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities, Books 8–10 (Leiden: Brill, 2005).

Jeremiah and His Book in Josephus ’ s Writings

381

Jeremiah.8 For reasons I will discuss below, Josephus does not retell all fiftytwo chapters of the prophetic work.9 Josephus first mentions Jeremiah as the composer of a lament for Josiah (based on 2 Chr 35:25);10 and the prophet’s last appearance in Antiquities sees him being taken down to Egypt with Baruch, as in the MT (Jer 43:6 // Ant. 10.179), and uttering his final prophecy, which concerns the fate of Egypt (Ant. 10.180–82 // Jer 43:10–13).11 Josephus does not dedicate a separate section to the story of Jeremiah, but rather incorporates his story throughout his retelling of the last days of the kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 22–25 and 2 Chr 34–36).12 Josephus’s account is continuous and he avoids doublets, contradictions and chronological displacements.13 While the biblical book of Jeremiah jumps from the reign of Jehoiakim (Jer 7; 26; 36) to Zedekiah (21:1–10; 32; 34; 37–39), making it difficult to follow Jeremiah’s chronology, Josephus presents a consecutive account from Jeremiah’s early days until Jeremiah’s forced migration to Egypt. The Book of Jeremiah is also alluded to in several parts of War.14 8  Josephus has very little to contribute to the question of the MT and lxx of Jeremiah. See most recently Shimon Gesundheit, “The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool for LiteraryCritical Analysis,” VT 62 (2012): 29–57. H. St J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York: Ktav 1967 [1928]), 89, writes: “I find no certain evidence of acquaintance with a Greek text.” See further Wolff, Jeremia, 10–15; Christopher T. Begg, Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1–10,185), BETL 145 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 626; Nodet, Flavius Josèphe Les Antiquités juives, XL; Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Le texte de Jéremie utilise par Flavius Josephe dans le Xe livre des Antiquites judaiques,” Henoch 14 (1992): 11–36. 9  See also the appendix at the end of this chapter. 10  On Josephus’s retelling of Josiah’s death, see Christopher T. Begg, “The Death of Josiah: Josephus and the Bible,” ETL 64 (1988): 157–63; Steve Delamarter, “The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil?,” VT 54 (2004): 29–60. 11  Josephus does not tell us of Jeremiah’s fate following his forced migration to Egypt. For the traditions that Jeremiah was executed in Egypt, see René Bloch, “Philo and Jeremiah: A Mysterious Passage in De Cherubim (Response to Gregory Sterling),” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 431–42. 12  Cf. Ronnie Golstein, “Jeremiah between Destruction and Exile: From Biblical to PostBiblical Traditions,” DSD 20 (2013): 433–51 (440). 13  See Nodet, Flavius Josèphe Les Antiquités juives, xxxvii–xxxviii. 14  See Tucker S. Ferda, “Jeremiah 7 and Flavius Josephus on the First Jewish War,” JSJ 44 (2013): 158–73. Downing’s attempts to find allusions to Jeremiah in War are inconclusive. See F. Gerald Downing, Order and (Dis)order in the First Christian Century: A General Survey of Attitudes (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 136–38.

382 3

Avioz

Typologizing Jeremiah

Scholars who deal with the portrait of Jeremiah in Josephus’s writings usually focus on the similarities between these two personalities.15 In a 1980 paper, David Daube notes several similarities between Jeremiah and Josephus:16 1.

2. 3.

Both Josephus and Jeremiah were persecuted figures. They were “prepared to incur the most searing hatred and contempt – and, indeed, physical abuse – for their faithful stand against mass delusion.” Both Jeremiah and Josephus’s parents suffered imprisonment at the hands of extremists. Priestly descent: both were born into a priestly family (Life 1; Jer 1:1; Ant. 10.80).17 Some scholars identify Jeremiah’s father, Hilkiah, with the high priest Hilkiah (2 Kgs 22:8).18 They both supported surrender to a foreign conqueror. Some scholars have even claimed that Josephus considered himself a second Jeremiah. Shaye Cohen adds that Josephus held that the Romans were God’s vehicle for punishing his people and purifying his temple.19 Jeremiah speaks of the divine empowering of Nebuchadnezzar just as Josephus speaks of the empowering of Vespasian and Titus.

15  David Daube, “Typology in Josephus,” JJS 31 (1980): 18–36; Louis H. Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus,” JTS 41 (1990): 386–422 (388, 406, 421–22); Shaye J.D. Cohen, “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius,” HistTh 21 (1982): 366–81; M. De Jonge, “Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Volkes,” in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. O. Betz, K. Haacker and M. Hengel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 205–19; Michael Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected-prophet Motif in Matthaean Redaction (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 251–54; Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 70–74, 78, 144, 164; John Sanford, Dreams: God’s Forgotten Language (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1989); Robert Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 27–29; Downing, Order and (Dis)order in the First Christian Century, 136–38. 16  Daube, “Typology in Josephus,” 26. 17  On Josephus’s priestly bias, see Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 61–62; Michael Tuval, From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew: On Josephus and the Paradigms of Ancient Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). 18  See Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 234. 19  Cohen, “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius,” 371.

Jeremiah and His Book in Josephus ’ s Writings

383

The resemblance between the fates of Jeremiah and Josephus cannot be denied, yet it seems that scholars push the case too far. Gnuse’s assertion is a case in point: “Both were spokespersons for God and prophets of doom, and this brought them in conflict with religious and political leaders (Jeremiah 38:4–6).”20 How can Josephus’s career be compared to Jeremiah’s divine appointment? Gnuse’s argument that “[Josephus’s] experience at Jotapata (War 3.351–354) appears to be portrayed as a prophetic call experience”21 is far from convincing. It is one thing to point out similarities between the two figures, but it is quite another to argue that Josephus emphasized these similarities himself. The scholars in question usually overlook the differences between Josephus and Jeremiah:22 for example, Jeremiah was appointed by God while Josephus was not; Jeremiah undertook his own mission reluctantly, while Josephus certainly did not; Josephus was a military commander, while Jeremiah was not. Moreover, Josephus’s view of himself as comparable to various biblical figures is certainly exaggerated. His similarities to Joseph, Moses, Saul, David, Jeremiah, Mordecai, and Daniel may be noted by the modern critic, but they are not explicit in Josephus’s own writings.23 4

Josephus’s Use of Apologetic

In a doctoral dissertation that deals with the motif of persecution in the book of Jeremiah in biblical and post-biblical sources, David Kopeliovich claims that when rewriting the story of Jer 37:11–16 (Ant. 10.115), Josephus omits the reason for Jeremiah’s departure to Anathoth during the Babylonian siege.24 He argues that this is for apologetic reasons – Josephus presumably wishes to avoid presenting Jeremiah as running from Jerusalem and deserting his own people because he himself was accused of defection.25 I believe that Kopeliovich is 20  Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports, 27. Gnuse lists no fewer than eighteen points of resemblance between Josephus and Jeremiah. 21  Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports, 26. 22  An exception is Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Duckworth, 1983), 171. 23  See especially Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 56, 59, 82, 203. 24  David Kopeliovich, “‘A Prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house’ (Matt. 13:57): The Motif of Jeremiah’s Persecution by the People of Israel in the Biblical and Early Extra-biblical Narrative, and Its Function in the Shaping of the Narrative in the Gospels” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2012 [in Hebrew]). 25  Kopeliovich, “A Prophet is not without honor,” 94.

384

Avioz

inappropriately projecting the Greco-Roman reality onto the biblical situation, which leads to an apologetic reading when it is not actually the case. The reason for Jeremiah’s departure to Anathoth is given to debate among interpreters,26 and Josephus merely states that Jeremiah wanted to visit his hometown. Kopeliovich also points out that in Josephus’s account, Jeremiah tells Zedekiah that surrender to the Babylonians will save the Davidic dynasty and the temple (Ant. 10.126), whereas the reference to the temple is missing in the biblical record.27 Kopeliovich then argues that being a priest, Josephus projects his concern for the temple onto Jeremiah, who is also a priest. Again, this may stem from a completely different reason: the words ‫( בית‬house) and ‫( עיר‬city) are paired in several places in Jeremiah, including Jeremiah 26, which is also retold by Josephus. Moreover, the fate of the temple is closely linked to that of Jerusalem, so this addition is a reasonable inference – after all, the temple and the palace are the most significant institutions in Jerusalem. Finally, in relation to Jeremiah’s release by Nebuzaradan: according to Josephus, when Nebuchadrezzar sentences Zedekiah, he tells him that “the great God, hating your behavior, has made you subject to us” (Ant. 10.139). Unlike the biblical record, where responsibility is placed upon the whole people, Josephus blames Zedekiah alone for the destruction. This may illuminate the king of Babylon’s decent treatment of Jeremiah: he respected the prophet as God’s messenger, a role that the king of Babylon played as well. When discussing why Jeremiah chose to stay in Judah, rather than follow his brothers to exile in Babylon, Josephus suggests that Jeremiah “was … content to spend his life among the ruins of his native land and its pitiable remains” (Ant. 10.157). This may have apologetic overtones, if Josephus was in fact thinking of himself. 5

Oracles and Narratives in Jeremiah

As is well known, the book of Jeremiah contains both oracles and narratives. Chapters 1–25 are defined as oracles, while chs. 26–45 are largely narrative. Josephus’s adaptation draws mostly upon narrative material, and due to his extensive omission of prophetic material, he does not mention prophetic call narratives, social justice, eschatology, or cult criticism.28

26  Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Jerusalem under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 76–77, with earlier literature. 27  Kopeliovich, “A Prophet is not without honor,” 94. 28  Begg, “The Classical Prophets.”

Jeremiah and His Book in Josephus ’ s Writings

385

One possible reason for this omission may be that he did not view oracles as an appropriate source for the reconstruction of Israel’s history. This is illustrated through his use of chapters 21 and 37. The reader meets Zedekiah for the first time in Jeremiah 21:1–10, and he will feature later in chs. 32, 34, and 37–39. Josephus’s biblical adaptations are generally chronological and continuous, so the passages in 21:1–10 and ch. 37 presumably posed an editorial problem as they seem to be doublets: both mention emissaries sent to Jeremiah during the Babylonian siege, and in both the prophet responds with a judgment oracle. Josephus omits the narrative in ch. 21 and uses the narrative in ch. 37,29 as the latter is mostly narrative and thus allows him to adhere to his usual methodology. This rule, however, does not always apply: in Ant. 10.181 Josephus notes that Moab was destroyed, in accordance with Jeremiah’s oracle.30 This may be a reference to Jeremiah 48–49, part of the series of oracles against the nations. Another explanation for the omission of prophetic material may be that oracles are difficult to understand and retell. As Josephus writes in his retelling of Jonah: “This prophet prophesied many other things about Ninue in addition to these that I did not think it necessary to speak of, but have passed over in order not to seem tiresome to my readers” (Ant. 9.242). Yet another reason may be that due to the great emphasis on fulfillment as a means of discerning between false and true prophets, the fact that many of the salvation oracles were not fulfilled might have implied that these biblical prophets were false prophets. Obviously, this is not something Josephus wanted to present to his readers. Feldman offers further reflections on Josephus’s omission of prophetic material:31 a.

Feldman suggests that these oracles present a national point of view that was liable to be taken as a threat by his Roman readers. While this may be true in specific cases, it cannot explain Josephus’s general tendency to omit prophetic material.

29  The same happens with regard to Jer 7:1–15 and 26. Josephus rewrites Jer 26 but omits Jer 7 (see below). 30  “And this is what happened. For in the fifth year after the demolition of Hierosolyma – this was the twenty-third year of Nabouchodonosor’s kingship – Nabouchodonosor campaigned against Coele-Syria; after occupying it, he made war on the Moabites and the Ammanites.” 31  Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus,” 386–422.

386 b.

6

Avioz

Feldman’s second explanation is also problematic. He argues that this omission may be part of Josephus’s tendency to de-theologize the biblical text. This is irrational, given Josephus’s emphasis on God’s role in history in both Judean Antiquities and Jewish War.32 The Call for Repentance

The call for repentance is a central theme in prophetic literature.33 The prophets were ordered to warn the people to mend their ways in order to avoid impending calamity. Josephus was familiar with this role: he uses the Greek term μετανοέω, and he even elaborates on these statements.34 However, he does not use the term μετανοέω consistently. With regard to Jeremiah, Josephus adds in Ant. 10.104: Coming therefore to [Zedekiah], the prophet Hieremias kept witnessing continuously. He directed him to leave behind his other impieties and lawless ways and to care for what was just, and not pay attention to the leaders – among whom there were vile persons – or believe the false prophets who were misleading him [with their claim] that the Babylonian [king] would no longer make war on the city and that the Egyptians would campaign against him [Nabouchodonosor] and be victorious. For, he said, these things were not true, and it was impossible that they should come about.

Here, Josephus expresses the idea of repentance using other terms (παρανομία καταλιπεῖν, for example). This is an adaptation of Jeremiah 37, which states, more generally, that Zedekiah did not heed Jeremiah’s words.

32  See Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus, HDR 7 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 154–65; R.J.H. Shutt, “The Concept of God in the Works of Flavius Josephus,” JJS 31 (1980): 171–89; Paul Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 7–10. 33  See, for example, Thomas M. Raitt, “The Prophetic Summons to Repentance,” ZAW 83 (1971): 30–49. 34  See Ant. 4.142–44; 5.108; 7.153; 9.166–68. Cf. Guy D. Nave, The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 74–85.

Jeremiah and His Book in Josephus ’ s Writings

387

Josephus uses the verb μετανοέω not only in the context of divine-human relations, but also with regard to human relationships: for example, he portrays Zedekiah as “thinking better of his having handed the prophet over to the leaders” (Ant. 10.123).35 Due to these “second thoughts,” Zedekiah orders Jeremiah’s release from the muddy pit. 7

Jeremiah as Predictor of the Future

Blenkinsopp asserts that “for Josephus prophecy consists principally in prediction.”36 He brings several arguments. According to Josephus, Moses himself “placed the blessings and the curses on record, so that their knowledge should never vanish through time” (Ant. 4.307). A few paragraphs later, in Ant. 4. 312–13, Moses foretells what will happen to the people of Israel. Furthermore, when Josephus rewrites the Balaam story, he adds: “From all the things that have attained the kind of end that he predicted, one might draw conclusions as to what should also occur in the future” (Ant. 4.125). Further, through his retelling of the story of Samuel, Josephus implies that the main feature of prophecy is predicting the future: “Samouel’s reputation grew greater, all that he prophesied being seen to be true” (Ant. 5.351). Josephus takes pains to show that Jeremiah’s oracles were fulfilled when he reports that the King of Babylon was “commanded to be tossed out unburied in front of the walls” (Ant. 10.97). Jeremiah’s oracle against Jehoiakim (Jer 22:19) is not fulfilled in the biblical text – but Josephus establishes it as a fact.37 Moreover, when retelling King Josiah’s death, Josephus adds: This prophet proclaimed in advance the terrible things that awaited the city; he also left behind writings about its capture in our own time and the destruction of Babylon. Nor did he alone foretell these things to the mob; there was also the prophet Iezekiel, who left behind two books that he was the first to write about these matters. Ant. 10.79

35  See other examples in Nave, Role and Function of Repentance. 36  Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” JJS 25 (1974): 239–62. 37  See E.J. Smit, “So How Did Jehoiakim Die?,” Journal for Semitics 6 (1994): 46–56; Oded Lipschitz, “‘Jehoiakim slept with his fathers …’ (II Kings 24:6): Did He?,” JHS 4 (2002–2003) (http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_23.pdf).

388

Avioz

According to Josephus, Jeremiah’s prediction that Babylon will conquer Egypt also comes true, and the same occurs with regard to other prophets. Finally, Josephus adds the following reason for Zedekiah’s rejection of Jeremiah’s oracles: Iezekiel in Babylon likewise foretold the people’s coming misfortunes; writing these things, he sent [them] to Hierosolyma. Sacchias, however, disbelieved their prophecies for the following cause: It happened that these prophets were in agreement with each other in everything else they said, namely that the city would be stormed and that Sacchias himself would be captured. In saying, however, that Sacchias would not see Babylon, Iezekiel disagreed with Hieremias who told him [Sacchias] that the Babylonian king would lead him [there] bound. And because the two of them did not say the same thing, he despised and did not believe even those things in which they seemed to agree, as if they were not speaking the truth in these [matters]. And yet, everything occurred to him in accordance with their prophecies, as we shall relate in a more suitable place. Ant. 10.106–107

This implies that the predictions of true prophets should be consistent with each other. According to Begg, Josephus is claiming that “the words of the two prophets are not necessarily discordant in that Jeremiah’s announcement as quoted by Josephus does not exclude the captive Zedekiah’s being taken to Babylon in a blinded state – just as Ezekiel predicted.”38 This explains why scholars maintain the view that Josephus considered the prophet a predictor of the future, which is precisely the definition of the prophet in Hellenistic literature. Apollonius was famous for his ability to predict the future, which was interpreted as a divine attribute. Yet scholars have largely overlooked the additional roles of the prophet that are emphasized in both the Bible and Josephus. Reading the works of Josephus, it is clear that the prophet’s most important task was to understand and explain historical events (cf. Ant. 1.240; Ag. Ap. 1.40–42).39

38  Begg and Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 8–10, 242, n. 455. 39  See Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 58; Victor Nagy Kokai, “Die Propheten und die religiösen Gemeinschaften bei Josephus,” in Propheten der Epochen: Festschrift für István Karasszon zum 60. Geburtstag = Prophets During the Epochs: Studies in Honour of Istvan Karasszon for his 60th Birthday, ed. Viktor Kokai Nagy and Laszlo Sandor Egeresi (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015), 233–50.

Jeremiah and His Book in Josephus ’ s Writings

389

While I do not disregard comparison between Josephus and the Hellenistic works in general, I do concur with Blenkinsopp that before we compare Athens and Jerusalem, we should first refer to Jewish sources to try and understand what Josephus is trying to articulate. 8

False Prophecy in Jeremiah

One central issue in the book of Jeremiah is the differentiation between true and false prophets.40 The main problem lies in determining criteria for differentiation. The MT refers to both false prophets and true prophets as “prophets.” The lxx uses the term ψευδοπροφήτης in Jer 6:13; 26:7, 8, 11, 16; 27:9; 28:1; and 29:1, 8. For Josephus, not everyone who claims to be a prophet should be regarded as such, regardless of the nature of their claims or the size of their following.41 In his view, the main test of a prophet’s authenticity as a prophet is whether their predictions hold true. One of the most cited texts in this regard is taken from War 6.286: Thus it was that the wretched people were deluded at that time by charlatans and pretended messengers of the deity. While they neither heeded nor believed in the manifest portents that foretold the coming desolation, but, as if thunderstruck and bereft of eyes and mind, disregarded the plain warnings of God.42

My focus, however, is not the later Second Temple would-be prophets but biblical prophets. Josephus writes that Josiah fought not only against the priest of Baal, as in the MT, but also against the false prophets:

40  See, for example, Daniel Epp-Tiessen, Concerning the Prophets: True and False Prophecy in Jeremiah 23:9–29:32 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012). 41  L. Stephen Cook, On the Question of the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism, TSAJ 145 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 122–48. See also J. Reiling, “The Use of ψευδοπροφήτης in the Septuagint, Philo and Josephus,” NovT 13 (1971): 147–56; David E. Aune, “The Use of ΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣ in Josephus,” JBL 101 (1982): 419–21. 42  War 6.288–91 (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus III: The Jewish War, Books IV–VII, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928], 459–61). For discussion of this passage, see Cook, On the Question, 127.

390

Avioz Once [Josiah] had disposed of these matters in Hierosolyma, he went into the country. He exterminated everything that had been constructed in it by King Hieroboam in honor of the foreign gods. He burned the bones of the false prophets on the altar that Hieroboam was the first to construct. Ant. 10.66

Here, rather than using the title “prophet,” he uses the term “pseudo-prophet.” Conversely, in Ant. 10.104 Josephus refers to Jeremiah: Coming therefore to him, the prophet Hieremias kept witnessing continuously. He directed him to leave behind his other impieties and lawless ways and to care for what was just, and not pay attention to the leaders – among whom there were vile persons – or believe the false prophets who were misleading him [with their claim] that the Babylonian [king] would no longer make war on the city and that the Egyptians would campaign against him [Nabouchodonosor] and be victorious.43

According to Josephus, Isaiah is also a true prophet, because all his prophecies came true (Ant. 10.35), and so is Huldah (Ant. 10.61). Josephus accepts the criteria for true prophecy as specified in Deut 18, even though he does not rewrite these laws in his retelling of the Pentateuch (Ant. 4.196–301).44 9

Josephus as an Interpreter

As an interpreter, Josephus made efforts to make the biblical text clearer for his readers. This can be shown in Josephus’s retelling of Jer 26 (Ant. 10.88–93). The biblical narrative is very complicated: What was the charge against Jeremiah? How many legal procedures are portrayed in this chapter? What is the role of vv. 17–23? Should these verses be defined as precedence? If they are, why were

43  It is interesting to note that Josephus locates these false prophets in Jerusalem, while according to the biblical record, there were false prophets in Babylon as well. Cf. Lutz Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography, WUNT 298 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 279. 44  See David Miller, “Luke’s Conception of Prophets Considered in the Context of Second Temple Literature” (PhD diss., McMaster University, 2004), 56–57.

Jeremiah and His Book in Josephus ’ s Writings

391

they brought after the verdict (v. 16) and not before it?45 Where was the King during Jeremiah’s trial? Josephus simplifies the story for his readers, and omits Jeremiah’s trial altogether. In his retelling, the people went to the elders to accuse Jeremiah of using divination against the king, and the elders eventually decided to release Jeremiah from court as he was echoing what Micah and earlier prophets had predicted before him. Josephus omits the death punishment and speaks only of punishment, and thus presents a clearer version of the story, albeit one that differs from the MT account. Josephus also replaces difficult words and phrases with more under­ standable words. Jeremiah 38:19 reads: ‫אני דאג את־היהודים אׁשר נפלו אל־הכׂשדים‬ ‫פן־יתנו אתי בידם והתעללו־בי‬. These words are translated by the NRSV as follows: “I am afraid of the Judeans who have deserted to the Chaldeans, for I might be handed over to them and they would abuse me.” Josephus (Ant. 10.127) understands ‫ אשר נפלו‬correctly as “deserted” (αὐτομολέω),46 while guessing that ‫ והתעללו‬means “having been slandered.” 10 Conclusion Josephus usually follows the MT of Jeremiah, attempting to clarify various difficulties and settle contradictions. Rather than retell the whole book of Jeremiah, he focuses on the narrative material. There are some traces of apologetic writing in Josephus’s retelling of Jeremiah, but in my view, this was not Josephus’s main objective. One should let Josephus speak for himself rather than imposing on him the paradigms created by scholars. The case for Josephus’s personal identification with Jeremiah may be stronger in his first work, War; but this motif is less present in Antiquities.

45  See the literature cited in M. Avioz, “Is There A Pre-trial Procedure in Jeremiah 26?,” ZABR 19 (2013): 249–52. 46  Cf. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21B (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 106.

392

Avioz

Appendix: A Comparison of Josephus and mt Jeremiah47 mt Jeremiah

Josephus’s Antiquities Book 10

1:1–3 22:18–19 26 28: 2–4 29 32 and 34 36 37 38 39 and 52 40 40–42 43–44

80 97 88–93 111 113 106, 154 93–95 110–15 117–30 116–17, 131–34, 135–41, 144–50, 156, 181–85 155 159–77 178–82

Select Bibliography Attridge, Harold W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. HDR 7. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Begg, Christopher T. “The ‘Classical Prophets’ in Josephus’ ‘Antiquities.’” LS 13 (1988): 341–57. Begg, Christopher T. “The Death of Josiah: Josephus and the Bible.” ETL 64 (1988): 157–63. Begg, Christopher T. “Jeremiah under Jehoiakim according to Josephus (Ant. 10.89– 95).” AbrN 33 (1996): 1–16. Begg, Christopher T. “Jeremiah under King Zedekiah according to Ant. 10.102–130.” REJ 156 (1997): 7–42. Begg, Christopher T., and Paul Spilsbury. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities, Books 8–10. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

47  Based on Abraham Schalit, ed., Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, vol. 2 [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1944) and on Begg and Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 8–10, though no table is included in either work.

Jeremiah and His Book in Josephus ’ s Writings

393

Chapman, Honora H. and Zuleika Rodgers, eds. A Companion to Josephus. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Cohen, Shaye J.D. “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius.” HistTh 21 (1982): 366–81. Feldman, Louis H. “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus.” JTS 41 (1990): 386–422. Feldman, Louis H. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Ferda, Tucker S. “Jeremiah 7 and Flavius Josephus on the First Jewish War.” JSJ 44 (2013): 158–73. Gray, Rebecca Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Piovanelli, Pierluigi. “Le texte de Jéremie utilise par Flavius Josephe dans le Xe livre des Antiquites judaiques.” Henoch 14 (1992): 11–36. Tyson, Craig W. “Josephus, Antiquities 10.180–182, Jeremiah, and Nebuchadnezzar.” JHS 13 (2013). http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_187.pdf.

chapter 20

Jeremiah in the Latin David L. Everson The Latin manuscripts of Jeremiah can be divided into two principal categories: those belonging to the Old Latin family of manuscripts and those belonging to the Vulgate. In this essay, I will endeavor to detail the origin and nature of each tradition with regard to Jeremiah, as well as discuss the relationship between the respective versions of Jeremiah. 1

The Origin and Nature of the Vetus Latina

The term Vetus Latina or “Old Latin” (hereafter ol) is used to indicate Latin versions that were translated from the Greek and do not correspond to the Vulg. of Jerome.1 During the first centuries of the Christian era, as Latin became increasingly common, the language of the early church became increasingly Latinate. The Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs provides the earliest testimony of a Latin Bible. According to this text, a man named Speratus (who was beheaded in AD 180) is said to have owned “the books and letters of Paul, a just man” (Libri et epistulae Pauli, viri iusti).2 Tertullian (d. ad 220) offers further testimony from the second century, stating that Latin was the exclusive language of the church in North Africa. In light of Tertullian’s biblical quotations, some argue that he might have had access to two separate versions of the Latin Bible. In the third century, for the first time, Cyprian provides lengthy citations of a Latin Bible.3 Already in the late-antique world, the ol manuscripts were famous for their lack of textual uniformity. In his Pref. to the Four Gospels, Jerome complains 1  The Greek origin of the ol may be proven by observing Greek neologisms, loan words, septuagintal syntax, and the preservation of Greek errors. 2  The Latin of this text appears in J.A. Robinson, ed., The Passion of S. Perpetua (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891; repr., Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2004), 114. See also ANF 9: 280–82. 3  Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, “The Latin Versions,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder, CRINT 2.1 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998), 299–338, esp. 299.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_021

Jeremiah in the Latin

395

that there are as many copies of the text as there are forms (exemplaria).4 Similarly, Augustine writes, “Those who have translated the scriptures from the Hebrew language into Greek can be numbered, but the Latin translators are in no way numerable. For in the early days of the faith, when a Greek book fell into someone’s hand and he believed himself to have some ability in both languages, he dared to translate.”5 It is possible, however, that such comments may have been a reaction to the numerous renderings of certain prophetic passages (e.g. Isa 7:9 and 58:7).6 With regard to accessing the ol text of Jeremiah, there are two major challenges. First, though plans have been made for its inclusion in volume 13 of the series, there is currently no Beuron edition for the ol of Jeremiah. Second, there are no extant ol manuscripts which contain the entire book of Jeremiah and those that do survive, for the most part, contain very few verses. In fact, there is only one principal manuscript for the ol of Jeremiah, namely Codex Wirceburgensis (olW; sixth century).7 Though it is the largest extant manuscript for the ol of Jeremiah, it contains, in part or in whole, only 233 verses of Jeremiah (about 18% of lxx Jeremiah). Joseph Ziegler describes olW as being periphrastic and expansive. He maintains that, often, “bringt LaW freie, umschreibende und erweiternde Wiedergaben.”8 Beyond this codex, there are but a handful of manuscripts that contain a handful of verses. The sixth century Palmipsest Sangallensis (olSg) contains a total of seventeen verses from Jeremiah.9 Two verses appear in an eighth century lectionary from Verona 4  “For if our faith should be applied to the Latin texts, they should tell us which ones; for there are nearly as many (forms) as there are copies” (Si enim latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus; tot sunt paene quot codices). All of the biblical prefaces have been taken from Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). Translations are my own. 5  Doctr. Chr. 2.16: Qui enim scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari. See also Augustine, Ep. 71.6 and Retract. 1.21.3. 6  Rudolf Dietzfelbinger, “Die Vetus Latina des Buches Exodus, Studien zur handschriftlichen Überlieferung mit Edition von Kapitel 1” (PhD diss., The University of Heidelberg, 1998), 13. 7  For olW, see Ernst Ranke, Par palimpsestorum wirceburgensium. Antiquissimae Veteris Testamenti versionis latinae fragmenta e codd. (Vindobonae [Vienna]: G. Braumüller, 1871). 8  Joseph Ziegler, Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae, 2nd rev. ed., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 18. 9  The majority of these were published by Burkitt, though a few verses were later published by Dold and Allgeier. See F.C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and Itala, With an Appendix Containing the Text of the S. Gallen Palimpsest of Jeremiah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896). See also P. Alban Dold and Arthur Allgeier, Der Palimpsestpsalter im Codex Sangallensis

396

Everson

(olVer).10 Fifteen verses appear in an eleventh century missal from Benevento (olB).11 Additionally, the great eighteenth century work of Sabatier provides, in part or in whole, 482 verses for the ol of Jeremiah. When this is combined with all of the available manuscripts, it is possible to find ol texts (though sometimes fragmentary) for 632 verses.12 Since the lxx of Jeremiah has 1298 verses, this would roughly indicate that less than half of Jeremiah has any ol testimony. Considering such a paucity of testimony and considering the ol’s reputation for lacking uniformity, one might question the benefit of the ol of Jeremiah. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert has been discussing this topic for a number of years. In his analysis of Jeremiah 39 and 52 in olW, Bogaert maintains that the original Greek text of Jeremiah (and its Hebrew Vorlage) was even shorter than the best extant septuagintal witnesses (i.e. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).13 Richard Weis tentatively agrees with this assessment.14 However, though it preserves an exemplar of the oldest form of Jeremiah, Bogaert believes that it is most useful for reconstructing the history of the textual traditions of Jeremiah, instead of reconstructing a Hebrew Vorlage. This is, in fact, precisely what Bogaert has endeavored to accomplish in a recent work. He writes, “Sans tomber dans la science-fiction, l’on peut reconstruire l’histoire du livre de Jérémie en grec, de sa traduction et de ses revisions, mais il ne serait pas prudent d’éditer comme

912, Eine Altlateinische Übersetzung des Frühen 6.Jahrh. aus der einstigen KlosterBibliothek von Bobbio, Texte und Arbeiten herausgegeben durch die Erzabtei Beuron 1/21–24 (Beuron: Hohenzollern, 1933), appendix 29–37. 10  D.A. Wilmart, “Trois nouveaux fragments de l’ancienne version latine des prophètes,” RBén 26 (1909): 145–62, esp. 150–55. 11  Dom Michel Huglo, “Fragments de Jeremie selon la Vetus Latina,” VC 8 (1954): 83–86. 12  For 518 verses there is only one ol witness. For 113 verses, there are two ol witnesses. For just two verses (Jer 17:10 and 22:3) there are three ol witnesses. 13  He writes, “La première traduction grecque de Jérémie était encore plus courte que ne la laissent croire les meilleurs témoins (B S) de la Septante. Tel devait être aussi le modèle hébreu de premier traducteur grec de Jérémie, décidément plus court que le TM.” See, Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “La vetus Latina de Jérémie: texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante det d’une forme plus ancienne de l’hébreu (Jer 39 et 52),” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. A. Schenker, SBLSCS 52 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 51–82, esp. 82. See also P.-M. Bogaert, “La Bible latine des origins au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état des questions,” RTL 19 (1988): 276–314. 14  Richard D. Weis, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Sôfer Mahîr, Essays in Honor of Adrian Schenker Offered by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, ed. Y.A.P. Goldman and A. van der Kooij, VTSup 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 269–93, esp. 270.

Jeremiah in the Latin

397

texte une retroversion.”15 Though its surviving manuscripts are few and partial, the ol of Jeremiah is useful for understanding the history of the biblical text, as well as occasionally providing access to the older Greek form of the text. 2

The Origin and Nature of the Vulgate

According to Jerome’s preface to the Gospels, in the year 382, at the invitation of Pope Damasus, he began his revision of the Gospels. This was followed by two revisions of the Psalter (one according to the lxx and another according to Hexaplaric revisions). He also revised a number of OT books according to the lxx of Origen’s Hexapla, namely, Chronicles, Job, and “Solomon’s Books.” One should keep in mind that these initial efforts were not translations but revisions. Catherine Brown Tkacz suggests that Jerome alludes to this distinction in his own writing, referring to the Gospels as a novum opus and his OT translations as interpretationem novam and nostra translatio.16 In light of the Prologus Galeatus (i.e. Jerome’s “Helmeted Preface” to Samuel and Kings), Samuel and Kings are often believed to have been the first books translated by Jerome. Therein Jerome writes, “This preface of the Scriptures can be understood as a helmeted beginning to all of the books, which we turn from Hebrew into Latin.”17 According to H.J. White, this preface “is really an introduction to the whole OT, and shows that even this early he must have conceived some idea of translating all the books.”18 Similarly, J.N.D. Kelly maintains that the Prologus Galeatus makes it “practically certain” that Samuel and Kings were translated first.19 A different position is held by Benjamin 15  Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “De la vetus Latina à l’hébreu pré-massorétique en passant par la plus ancienne Septante: le livre de Jérémie, exemple privilégié,” RTL 44 (2013): 216–43. The detailed chart and its description are particularly useful for a synoptic placement of the key Hebrew, Greek, and Latin manuscripts, which considers both their geography and chronology. 16  Catherine Brown Tkacz, “Labor Tam Utilis: The Creation of the Vulgate,” in VC 50 (1996): 42–72, esp. 50. 17  Hic prologus Scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris, quos de hebraeo vertimus in latinum, convenire potest. For the translation of convenio, see Alexander Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin: to 600 AD (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949), 78. 18  H.J. White, “Vulgate,” in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (New York: Scribner’s, 1902), 4:873–90, esp. 875. 19  J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome, His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975), 161. Tkacz maintains the same position. See, “Labor Tam Utilis,” 50–53, and “Quid Facit Cum Psalterio Horatius?: Seeking the Classical Allusions in the Vulgate,” in Nova Doctrina

398

Everson

Kedar-Kopfstein who, in light of the theological importance of the respective books and the development of Jerome’s technique, believes that the translations of the Prophets and Psalms preceded those of Samuel and Kings. He also notes that information found in the prefaces to Isaiah and Daniel would be redundant if Samuel/Kings had been translated first.20 In any case, Jerome translated Samuel, Kings, the Psalms, the Prophets and Job between 390 and 394; Ezra and Nehemiah between 394 and 395; Chronicles in 395; Proverbs, Canticles and Ecclesiastes in 398; the Octateuch between 398 and 404/5; and Tobit and Judith in 407.21 For our purposes, it is important to note that the book of Jeremiah was most likely one of Jerome’s first Hebrew translation efforts. In terms of method, the Hebrew text was the primary source for Jerome ( fons veritatis).22 In his preface to the Ecclesiastes commentary, he describes his method of translation.23 First, he examines the Hebrew and determines its meaning. Second, he compares the meaning of the Hebrew with rabbinic interpretation. Third, he considers the lxx when it is in agreement with the Hebrew. Fourth, he considers the other Greek sources, especially Symmachus. Kedar-Kopfstein has pointed out that despite Jerome’s testimony of consultation, his translations remain largely independent. He writes, “The moment we survey the overall picture, his relative independence becomes apparent: he never agrees with one of his informants for more than a short clause.”24 Vetusque, ed. Douglas Kries and Catherine Brown Tkacz (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), 93–104. 20  Kedar-Kopfstein, “The Latin Translations,” 321. Elsewhere, he maintains that Jerome’s reference to having translated the OT from Hebrew into Latin in Vir. ill. 135 (vetus [testamentum] iuxta hebraicum transtulit) refers to the Psalms and the Prophets, which are mentioned as having been translated in the previous chapter. See Benjamin KedarKopfstein, “The Vulgate as a Translation: Some Semantic and Syntactical Aspects of Jerome’s Version of the Hebrew Bible” (PhD diss.: The University of Jerusalem, 1968), 53. 21  For a discussion of these dates, see Kelly, Jerome, 156–62, and Tkacz, “Labor Tam Utilis,” 50–51. 22  Epist. 20.2; 34.4. cf. Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 45. 23  “…  hoc breviter admonens, quod nullius auctoritatem secutus sum; sed de hebraeo transferens, magis me septuaginta interpretum consuetudini coaptavi, in his dumtaxat, quae non multam ab Hebraicis discrepabant. Interdum Aquilae quoque et Symmachi et Theodotionis recordatus sum, ut nec novitate nimia lectoris studium deterrerem, nec rursum contra conscientiam meam, fonte veritatis omisso, opinionum rivulos consectarer.” CCSL 72:249. 24  Kedar-Kopfstein, “The Latin Versions,” 323. Adler comes to a similar conclusion. See, William Adler, “Ad Verbum or Ad Sensum, The Christianization of a Latin Translation Formula in the Fourth Century,” in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. John C. Reeves and John Kampen (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 321–48, esp. 334.

Jeremiah in the Latin

399

Similarly, Sparks notes that “Jerome in practice translated very much as he happened himself to feel at any particular moment.”25 This may be due to the fact that Jerome intended on creating a coherent text. In his Preface to Job, he writes, “Moreover, this translation follows no translator of old but comes from the Hebrew and Arabic speech and sometimes from the Syriac, here it reflects the word, here the sense and now both together.”26 Looking specifically at the Vulg. of Jeremiah, Kedar-Kopfstein writes that “Jerome on the whole aimed at giving a faithful rendition of the Hebrew” following the Hebrew closely, although his method is not entirely consistent.27 Regarding the Vulg. of Jeremiah, Richard Weis writes, “the fundamental norm governing the translation is the consistent creation of semantic and syntactic equivalence between the translation and the source text.”28 According to Weis, though the Vulg. “sticks to standard equivalences” (i.e. what Kedar-Kopfstein calls rigid), the Vulg. shows great variability in these equivalences showing that the translation “aims instead at semantic equivalence.”29 With regard to the differing text-types of Jeremiah found within the MT and the lxx/ol, Jerome was well aware of their differences, discussing the matter in his translation preface and in his commentary, not to mention including in his Vulg. the numerous passages that are entirely lacking in the Septuagint.30 In his Preface to Jeremiah, Jerome writes, “In addition, we have corrected the order of the visions which have been entirely confused among the Greeks and Latins.”31 Similarly, in his Comm. Jer. 5.29.15, Jerome states that he has indicated all major passages missing from the lxx with an asterisk. However, with regard to minor differences, Jerome writes, “As for the rest, wherever single verses or a few words have been omitted from them, defeated by weariness, I have refused to indicate them, lest I disgust the readers.”32 25  H.F.D. Sparks, “Jerome as Biblical Scholar,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 1, From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 510–41, esp. 526. 26  Haec autem translatio nullum de veteribus sequitur interpretem, sed ex ipso hebraico arabicoque sermone et interdum syro, nunc verba, nunc sensus, nunc simul utrumque resonabit. 27  Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, “Textual Gleaning from the Vulgate of Jeremiah,” Text 7 (1969): 36–57, esp. 37, 46–47. 28  Weis, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah,” 284. 29  Weis, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah,” 285. 30  See the Vulg. of Jer 25:14; 27:1, 7, 13, 17, 21; 29:16–20; 30:10, 15, 22; 33:14–26; 39:4–13; 46:1, 26, 48:45–47; 49:6; 52:2–3, 15, and 28–30. 31  Praeterea ordinem visionum, qui apud Graecos et Latinos omnino confusus est, ad pristinam fidem correximus. 32  Caetera enim, in quibus vel singuli versus, vel pauca ab eis praetermissa sunt verba, victus taedio, annotare nolui, ne fastidium legentibus facerem.

400 3

Everson

Relationship between the Versions

In order to demonstrate the relationship between the lxx, the ol, the Vulg., and the MT, and to gain a sense for the quality of each translation, I have conducted several analyses. One of these concerns proper nouns while the others concern Hebraisms which do not lend themselves to Greek and Latin. Infrequently Occurring Proper Nouns. Below is a list of all the infrequently occurring proper nouns within the book of Jeremiah. That is, if a proper noun appears five times or less within the MT and also appears in the book of Jeremiah, it has been listed below. Examining this list is a useful inquiry in that, since the nouns may be unfamiliar, deviation from the lxx for a Hebraic transliteration is more likely to occur. That is, the respective translators are less likely to reject a Hebraic rendering of the noun due to the influence of a standardized spelling. At the same time, because the following nouns are so rare, they are prime candidates for corruption. As a result, textual dependence will more clearly be seen and textual deviation is more likely to occur. table 1

Infrequently occurring proper nounsa MT

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Jer 52:31 Jer 10:9 Jer 26(33):20–21, 23 Jer 48(31):34 Jer 51(28):27 Jer 51(28):27 Jer 25(32):23 Jer 48(31):23 Jer 6:1 Jer 35(42):18

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Jer 48(31):23 Jer 50(27):2; 51(28):44 Jer 40:14 (47:14) Jer 29:3 (36:3) Jer 36(43):10–11, 25

‫אויל מרדך‬ ‫אופז‬ ‫אוריהו‬ ‫אלעלה‬ ‫אררט‬ ‫אשכנז‬ ‫בוז‬ ‫בית גמול‬ ‫בית הכרם‬ ‫בית הרכבים‬ ‫בית מעון‬ ‫בל‬ ‫בעליס‬ ‫גמריה‬ ‫גמריהו גמריה‬

Vulg.

ol

lxx

Evilmerodach Ofaz Urias Eleale Ararat Aschenez Buz Bethgamul Bethaccharem domus … Rechabitarum Bethmaon Bel Baalis Gamalias Gamarias

NA Moab (olSb) NA NA NA NA Bosor (olSb) NA NA filius rachab (olW) NA NA NA NA Gamarias (olW)

Ουλαιμαραδαχ Μωφαζ Ουριας Ελεαλη Αραρατ Ασχαναζαίοις Ρως οἶκον Γαμωλ Βαιθαχαρμα υἱός Ρηχαβ οἶκός Μαων Βῆλος Βελισα Γαμαριος Γαμαριος

401

Jeremiah in the Latin MT

16. Jer 31(38):39

17. 18. 19. 20.

Jer 31:39 Jer 48(31):22 Jer 36(43):12, 25 Jer 29:24

21. Jer 42(49):1; 43(50):2 22. Jer 35(42):3 23. Jer 48(31):3; 48(31):5; 48(31):34 24. Jer 48(31):21 25. Jer 52:1 26. Jer 32(39):7–8,12 27. Jer 31:38 28. Jer 36(43):12 29. Jer 44(51):30 30. Jer 35(42):4 31. Jer 37(44):3; 38(45):1 32. Jer 24:1 33. Jer 37(44):13–14 34. Jer 47:4 35. Jer 46(26):2 36. Jer 51(28):1 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

Vulg.

‫ געה‬Goatha

‫גרב‬ ‫דבלתים‬ ‫דליהו‬ ‫הנחלמי‬

Gareb Deblathaim Dalaias Neelamiten

‫ הושעיה‬Osaias ‫ חבצניה‬Absanias ‫ חורנים‬Oronaim ‫חלון‬ ‫חמיטל‬ ‫חנמאל‬ ‫חננאל‬ ‫חנניהו‬ ‫חפרע‬ ‫יגדליהו‬ ‫יהוכל‬ ‫יכניהו‬ ‫יראייה‬ ‫כפתור‬ ‫כרכמיש‬ ‫לב קמי‬

Jer 46(26):9 ‫לודים‬ Jer 48(31):5 ‫לוחית‬ Jer 46(26):14 ‫מגדול‬ Jer 44(51):1 ‫מדגל‬ Jer 48(31):2 ‫מדמן‬ Jer 48(31):21 ‫ מיפעת‬/ ‫מופעת‬ Jer 26(33):18 ‫מורשתי‬ Jer 32(39):12; 51(28):59 ‫מחסיה‬ Jer 2:18 ‫מי שיחור‬

Helon Amithal Anamehel Ananehel Ananias Efree Hiegedelias Iuchal Iechonias Hierias Cappadociae Charchamis cor suum levaverunt Lydii Luaith Magdolus Magdal silens Mefath Morasthim Maasias aqua turbidam

ol

lxx

per gyrum de eclectis lapidibus (olSb) NA NA NA Neelamitem (olSb) NA NA NA

κύκλῳ ἐξ ἐκλεκτῶν λίθων

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Iochal (olW) NA NA NA NA NA

Χαιλων Αμιτααλ Αναμεηλ Ανανεηλ Ανανιος Ουαφρη Γοδολιος Ιωαχαλ Ιεχονιας Σαρουιας Omitted Χαρχαμις Χαλδαιοι

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA aqua Geon (olSb)

Λυδοί Αλαωθ Μάγδωλος Μάγδωλος παῦσιν Μωφαθ ὁ Μωρασθίτης Μαασαιος ὕδωρ Γηων

Γαρηβ Δεβλαθαιμ Δαλαιας τὸν Νελαμίτην Μαασαιας Χαβασιν Ωρωναιμ

402 table 1

Everson Infrequently occurring proper nouns (cont.) MT

46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

Jer 38(45):6 Jer 51(28):27 Jer 50(27):2 Jer 38(45):1 Jer 46(26):25 Jer 39(46):3

52. Jer 39:13 (NA) 53. Jer 48(31):34 54. Jer 39(46):3 55. Jer 39(46):3 56. Jer 36(43):26 57. Jer 22:20 58. Jer 48(31):34 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

Jer 40(47):8 Jer 28(35):1 Jer 36(43):26 Jer 29(36):27 Jer 50(27):21 Jer 44(51):1, 15 Jer 21:1; 29:25

66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

Jer 29(36):21 Jer 48(31):31 Jer 48(31):24, 41 Jer 48(31):32 Jer 37(44):3, 13

71. Jer 36(43):26 72. Jer 25:26

‫מלכיהו‬ ‫מני‬ ‫מרדך‬ ‫מתן‬ ‫נא‬ ‫נבו שר סכים‬

Vulg.

ol

lxx

Melchias Menni Marodach Matthan Alexandria Nabu Sarsachim

NA NA NA NA NA Nabusachar (olW) NA NA Archanasar (olW) Mece (olW) NA trans mare (olW) NA

Μελχιας παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ Μαρωδαχ Μαθαν Omitted Ναβουσαχαρ

NA NA NA NA NA NA Stephanian (olW); Sophoniam (olW, Sb) NA NA NA Jazer (olSb) Aelemias (olW) NA Omitted

Ωφε Αζωρ Εσριηλ Αναθωθ ἐκδίκησον Παθουρης Σοφονιαν

‫ נבושזבן‬Nabu et Sesban ‫ נמרים‬Namrim ‫ נרגל שר אצר‬Neregel Sereser ‫ סמגר‬Semegar ‫ עבדאל‬Abdehel ‫ עברים‬ad transeuntes ‫ עגלת שלישיה‬vitula ‫עופי‬ ‫עזור‬ ‫עזריאל‬ ‫ענתתי‬ ‫פקוד‬ ‫פתרוס‬ ‫צפניהו‬

conternante Offi Azur Ezrihel Anathothites visita Fatures Sophoniam

‫קוליה‬ ‫קיר חרש‬ ‫קריות‬ ‫שבמה‬ ‫שלמיה‬

Culia murus fictilis Carioth Sobema Selemias

‫ שריהו‬Saraias ‫ ששך‬Sesach

Omitted Νεβριμ Ναγαργασνασερ Σαμαγωθ Omitted εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης Αγλαθ-σαλισια

Omitted Κιραδας Καριωθ Σεβημα Σελεμιος Σαραια Omitted

403

Jeremiah in the Latin MT

73. Jer 25(32):23 74. Jer 40(47):8

Vulg.

‫ תימא‬Theman (other

variants?) ‫ תנחמת‬Thenoemeth

ol

lxx

Theman (olSb) NA

Θαιμαν Θαναεμεθ

a Chapter numbers in parentheses reflect the lxx numbering.

In light of the data above, there are eight possible alignment scenarios. table 2

Alignment scenarios

29 instances, 4 ol (numbers 3, 4, 5, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 35, 37, 39, 44, 46, 48, 49, 59, 64, 65, 68, 71, 73) (MT = Vulg.) ≠ (lxx [=ol]) 29 instances, 6 ol (numbers 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 21, 22, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 45, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 60, 61, 62, 66, 72, 74) (MT = Vulg.) ≠ lxx ≠ ol 3 instances, 3 ol (numbers 7, 54, 55) MT ≠ (Vulg. = lxx) 4 instances (numbers 36, 41, 63) (MT = lxx) ≠ (Vulg. [≠ol]) 3 instances, 1 ol (numbers 14, 29, 69) MT ≠ Vulg. ≠ (lxx [=ol] 5 instances, 1 ol (numbers 40, 43, 57, 58, 67) (MT = Vulg. = lxx) ≠ ol 1 instance, 1 ol (number 70) (MT Qere=Vulg.) ≠ (MT 1 instance (number 42) Ketib=lxx)

1. MT = Vulg. = lxx [=ol]

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

This comparison offers a number of interesting agreements. It is quite common for the Vulg. to align with both the MT and the lxx (category 1). However, when the two traditions deviate, Jerome clearly prefers to side with the MT over and against the lxx (compare scenarios 2 and 3 to 4 and 5). Even at this early stage of his translation project, Jerome regularly deviates from these versions. In examples 2 and 47 in Table 1, Jerome agrees with the MT in the confusion over the preposition mem.33 Similarly, in example 10, Jerome reads ‫ בית‬instead 33  However, in example 41, the Vulg. agrees with lxx and maintains its awkward syntax by reading ‫ מדמן‬as a participle.

404

Everson

of ‫( בין‬lxx, ol = υἱός, filius). Likewise, in example 16, Jerome’s transliteration of ‫געה‬, Goatha, reflects the directive-‫ ה‬as it appears in the MT (‫)ּג ָֹע ָתה‬. It is important to note that in most of the instances where Jerome deviates from the lxx and ol, a similar disagreement can be found in various hexaplaric revisions, especially Aquila (α’), Symmachus (σ’), Theodotion (θ’), and Iosephus (ιω’). For instance, in example 6, α’ = Ασχενεζ; in 7, α’ and σ’ = Βουζ; in 8, α’ = Βαιθ Γαμουλ; in 9, σ’ = Βηθχαρεμ and θ’ = Βαιθθαχαρεμ; in 10, θ’ = οἶκός Ῥαχὰβ; in 13, “οι τρεις” = Βααλις; in 16, α’ = Γααθα; in 22, α’ = Αβασινιος; in 30, ιω’ = Ιεγεδλιος; in 31, α’ and θ’ = Ιουχαλ; in 33, α’ = Ιαρια; in 34, α’ and θ’ = Καππαδοκιας; α’ = Λουειθ and ιω’ = Λουαειθ; in 42, ιω’ = Μεθαφ (read Μεφαθ?); in 47, α’ and σ’ = Μενει; in 53, α’ and σ’ = Νεμηριμ; in 60, α’ and σ’ = Αζουρ; in 66, α’ and θ’= Κουλιος; and in 67, α’ and σ’ = ανδρας τοιχου οστρακινου. In his commentary on Jeremiah, Jerome frequently discusses the meaning of the Hebrew in light of the hexaplaric revisions. Though the commentary is incomplete, covering chs. 1–32, there are seventy passages where Jerome discusses one or more of the hexaplaric revisions. In fact, Symmachus alone is mentioned nearly sixty times within this commentary.34 A useful example of this would be Jerome’s discussion of the place name ‫ עברים‬in Jer 22:20 (number 57 above). Both the lxx and ol understand this as “across the sea” (trans mare/εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης = ‫ ים‬+ ‫)עבר‬. Jerome, however, renders ‫ מעברים‬as a participle, “those passing by” (transeuntes). In his commentary on this verse, Jerome writes, “However, that which we read as ‘cry out to those crossing,’ and is written as meabarim in Hebrew, the Septuagint and Theodotion render as ‘across the sea’; Symmachus, as ‘over against [the sea].’”35 In light of Jerome’s frequent agreement with the hexaplaric revisions (when deviating from the lxx in his rendering of infrequently-occurring proper nouns) and in light of his demonstrated familiarity with them in his commentary of Jeremiah, it seems reasonable to assume that Jerome would have been influenced by these revisions in his deviation from the Septuagintal text. This seems especially probable in Jeremiah, one of his 34  See Comm. Jer. 1.1.17; 1.1.18; 1.2.1; 1.2.10; 1.2.26; 1.2.42; 1.2.43; 1.3.21; 1.3.33; 1.4.5; 1.4.14; 1.4.28; 1.4.29; 1.4.44; 1.5.1; 2.5.27; 2.5.31; 2.6.28; 2.6.43; 2.7.1; 2.7.4; 2.8.8; 2.8.24; 2.9.26; 2.10.10; 2.10.24; 2.10.31; 2.11.2; 2.11.10; 3.13.9; 3.13.16; 3.13.20; 3.15.14; 3.15.23; 3.15.28; 3.17.11; 3.17.15; 3.17.34; 4.18.9; 4.19.1; 4.20.1; 4.20.4; 4.21.18; 4.22.29; 4.22.37; 4.22.40; 4.23.7; 4.23.22; 4.23.25; 4.23.32; 4.23.33; 4.23.46; 5.25.26; 5.25.49; 5.27.14; 5.29.8; 5.29.17; 5.29.27; 6.30.11; 6.30.13; 6.31.4; 6.31.48; 6.31.49; 6.31.50; 6.31.51; 6.31.82; 6.31.86; 6.32.42; 6.32.46; and 6.32.55. 35  Quod autem nos diximus: clama ad transeuntes, et in Hebraico scriptum est MEABARIM, Septuaginta, Theodotioque verterunt, trans mare: Symmachus de contra (Comm. Jer. 4.22.29).

Jeremiah in the Latin

405

first Hebrew translation efforts. However, the extent of this influence or dependence is difficult to determine. Initial ‫ויאמר‬.36 In Latin, it is normal for the verb to appear last within a given sentence or phrase. Similarly, though it has greater freedom in this regard, Greek normally does not place the verb first within a given sentence or phrase. Of course, the reverse is true for Hebrew narrative. Accordingly, there are numerous opportunities for both the lxx and Jerome to create an awkward or inelegant translation. Take, for example, the numerous verses that begin with the phrase ‫ויאמר‬. In the book of Jeremiah, there are thirty-six verses that begin in this way. Of these verses, there are thirty-five instances where the lxx woodenly translates the initial ‫ ויאמר‬with καὶ εἶπεν.37 Similarly, the Vulg. usually renders each initial ‫ ויאמר‬with et dixit. However, on a number of occasions, Jerome offers a bit of variatas with the use of autem and ergo in place of et/-que (Jer 36:18; 38:15, 20, 24; 42:4; and 44:24). It should be added that most of his literal renderings (twenty-six of the thirty) occur in non-poetic portions of Jeremiah. This is in contrast to Jerome’s more common paraphrasing of initial ‫ ויאמר‬in his later narrative translations (cf. table below).38 With regard to the ol of these passages, only three are extant, all of which follow the literal rendering of the lxx (i.e. et dixit).39 Moving beyond the book of Jeremiah, we see that this tendency for a wooden rendering is common in his earliest phase of translating. In the Psalms and Prophets, Jerome regularly rendered this phrase literally with the combination of et/-que + dixit, ait, or respondit appearing at the start of the verse. However, as time passes, this occurs less frequently:40 36  For both this inquiry and the one below (i.e. “initial ‫)”ויהי‬, I have limited my search to these phrases initially occurring so that I may conduct global searches throughout the morphologically tagged electronic texts of the MT, lxx, and the Vulg. 37  Jer 32(39):6 is the exception, where the lxx appears to reflect a different Hebrew text. 38  I followed the assessment of Rudolph (BHS) in determining poetic and non-poetic sections. See Jer 1:1–3; 3:6–12, 14–18; 7:1–34; 8:1–3; 9:12–15; 11:1–14, 17–18, 21–23; 12:14–17; 13:1–14; 14:10–16; 16:1–18; 17:19–27; 18:1–12; 19:1–15; 20:1–6; 21:1–10; 22:1–6, 24–27; 23:1–4, 7–8, 25–28, 30–40; 24:1–10; 25:1–29, 33; 26:1–24; 27:1–22; 28:1–17; 29:1–32; 30:1–4; 31:23–28, 31–34, 38–40; 32:1–44; 33:1–26; 34:1–22; 35:1–19; 36:1–32; 37:1–21; 38:1–28; 39:1–18; 40:1–16; 41:1–18; 42:1–22; 43:1–13; 44:1–30; 45:1–5; 46:1–2; 48:34–39; 51:59–64; and 52:1–34. 39  olSab: Jer 3:6, 11:6; olW: Jer 21:3. 40  Kedar-Kopfstein has classified the various books into separate groups according to chronology and quality. Accordingly, with the passage of time, each group becomes less literal. According to his terminology: (1) Psalms, Prophets = rigid, detached; (2) Samuel, Kings, Job = imitative, detached; (3) Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles = detached, (4) Solomon’s

406

Everson

table 3 Initial ‫ויאמר‬ Vulg.

(1) Psalms, Prophets 133 (1) Jer 30 (2) Sam, Kgs, Job 333 (3) Ezra, Neh, Chr 53 (4) Prov, Eccl, Song, Pentateuch 282 (5) Josh, Judg, Ruth, Esth 67

MT

lxx

Vulg./ MT

lxx / MT

140 36 416 78 429 140

137 35 399 78 420 134

95% 83% 80% 68% 66% 48%

99% 97% 96% 100% 98% 96%

According to this chart, Jerome awkwardly mimics the initial ‫ ויאמר‬more frequently in his earlier translations and less frequently in his later translations. In Jeremiah specifically, his literal rendering is nearly twice as frequent as that of his last stage of translating (i.e. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Esther). Initial ‫ויהי‬. In biblical Hebrew, the phrase ‫ ויהי‬serves a variety of functions with regard to temporal and nominal clauses. These would include initiating and concluding episodes within nominal clauses, initiating or concluding scenes within temporal clauses, as well as establishing continuity.41 In Greek and Latin, however, such clauses are normally rendered through other means (e.g. the use of adverbs and participles). Once again, a literal rendering of such a phrase would result in inelegant Latin or Greek. Like the lxx and the ol, the Vulg. of Jeremiah usually renders this phrase with et factum est (or some variant thereof). Of the forty instances of this phrase occurring initially, the Vulg. offers twenty-four literal renderings. However, if one excludes the phrase ‫ויהי דבר יהוה‬, there are only nineteen occurrences of an initial ‫ויהי‬ within Jeremiah (this phrase receives special treatment by Jerome in that it is most often translated as et factum est verbum/sermo Domini). The remaining nineteen occurrences of initial-‫ ויהי‬are found within non-poetic portions of Jeremiah. Perhaps it is for this reason that 13 of these are translated periphrastically or ad sensum. For example,

books, Pentateuch = detached, transformative, (5) Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Esther = transformative. See Kedar-Kopfstein, “Vulgate as a Translation,” 284. 41  See C.H.J. van der Merwe, “The Elusive Biblical Hebrew Term ‫ויהי‬, a Perspective in Terms of Its Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics in 1 Samuel,” HS 40 (1999): 83–114.

407

Jeremiah in the Latin

‫( ויהי בעלות‬MT) Jer 35:11

Jer 35:11 (Vulg.) Cum autem ascendisset Jer 42:11 (lxx) καὶ ἐγενήθη ὅτε ἀνέβη

Jerome correctly interprets this sequence (i.e. ‫ויהי‬+‫ב‬+infinitive) as a temporal clause by his use of cum+pluperfect-subjunctive (as does the lxx by its use of ὅτε). However, going further, Jerome indicates disjunction with his use of autem. He employs a similar method in 26(33):8 (‫ויהי ככלות‬, cumque conplesset). In the remaining passages, Jerome makes use of cum, cumque, autem, and igitur. Jerome’s frequency in translating ‫ ויהי‬periphrastically only increases in subsequent translations. With regard to the ol of these nineteen passages, five are available, four of which provide the literal et factum est, while one passage (following the lxx) is rendered ad sensum.42 The following chart indicates the number of times ‫ ויהי‬occurs initially within the indicated book(s) and how often the Greek and Latin render that phrase literally. Once again, the phrase ‫ ויהי דבר יהוה‬has been excluded from the results. table 4 Initial ‫ויהי‬ Vulg.

(1) Psalms, Prophets 28 (1) Isa 4 (1) Jer 6 (1) Ezek 13 (2) Sam, Kgs, Job 8 (3) Ezra, Neh, Chr 3 (4) Prov, Eccl, Song, Pentateuch 10 (5) Josh, Judg, Ruth, Esth 4

MT

lxx

Vulg./ MT

lxx / MT

52 6 19 17 177 64 132 93

41 4 16 16 129 51 49 62

54% 67% 32% 81% 5% 5% 8% 4%

80%a 67% 89% 94% 73% 84% 37% 67%

a The denominator of this ratio, along with the corresponding Jeremiah ratio directly below it, has been reduced by one occurrence in order to account for the Hebrew Vorlage of the lxx.

42  olW: Jer 13:6; 20:3; 41:4, 7, and 13.

408

Everson

Notice the high frequency of a literal rendering in the Vulg. to the Prophets. As with Jeremiah, this phrase usually occurs in the narrative portions of Isaiah and Ezekiel, where a literal rendering more frequently occurs. Notice also the drastic reduction in frequency for groups 2–5. For the abundant occurrences of initial-‫ ויהי‬in categories 2–5, there are only a comparative handful of instances where the literal rendering of et factum est is offered. Parataxis. Within biblical Hebrew, it is normal to find parallel or unsubordinated clauses joined by the word “and” within Hebrew narrative. That is, the paratactic arrangement of waw-consecutive imperfect verbs is the predominant sequence. In the words of Robert Alter, “parataxis is the essential literary vehicle of biblical narrative.”43 Such repetition of paratactic syntax would be inelegant or awkward in Greek or Latin, where hypotaxis (i.e. the subordination of clauses) is more common. Within the book of Jeremiah, the ol usually mimics the parataxis of the lxx, whereas the Vulg. regularly introduces hypotaxis by means of ut clauses, participial clauses, and cum clauses. In the book of Jeremiah, though, Jerome most commonly mimics the Hebrew parataxis (as does the lxx and ol). That being said, there are many examples where Jerome regularly replaces Hebrew parataxis with Latin hypotaxis. For example, ‫ואל־תשא‬ … ‫( ואתה אל־תתפלל‬MT) Jer 7:16

Jer 7:16 (Vulg.) tu ergo noli orare nec adsumas Jer 7:16 (lxx) καὶ σὺ μὴ προσεύχου … καὶ μὴ ἀξίου Jer 7:16 (olSb) Et tu noli orare … et noli postulare

In this passage, both the lxx and the ol woodenly imitate the syntax of the Hebrew. Instead of following their example of καὶ/et … καὶ/et, Jerome begins his verse with an adverb, which is followed by nec+subjunctive (perhaps trying to mimic the jussive meaning of ‫) ִּת ָּׂשא‬. The lxx and the ol mimic the Hebrew parataxis. Another example, ‫( וירמיהו בא ויצא בתוך העם‬MT) Jer 37:4

Jer 37:4 (Vulg.) Hieremias autem libere ambulabat in medio populi Jer 44:4 (lxx) καὶ Ιερεμιας ἦλθεν καὶ διῆλθεν διὰ μέσου τῆς πόλεως Jer 44:4 (olW) Et Ieremias transit et veniens per mediam turbam

43  Robert Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York: Norton, 1996), xvii.

Jeremiah in the Latin

409

Again, the lxx and ol faithfully mimic the Hebrew with their sequence of καὶ/et … καὶ/et. Jerome replaces the first waw with the disjunctive autem, which is then followed by an adverb+imperfect. Notably, Jerome’s translation indicates duration, “Jeremiah was walking freely among the people.” Jerome seems to understand ‫ בא ויצא‬as a verbal hendiadys or, as Williams calls it, “verbal coordination.”44 Modern translators would do well to study Jerome’s method. Reduction of Conjunctions. Throughout the book of Jeremiah, Jerome often deviates from a wooden rendering of waw. The conjunction waw appears within the MT of Jeremiah 3052 times. However, a corresponding et, -que, or neque appears only 2843 times (i.e. only 93% as frequent). To be more precise, there are 313 verses where Jerome decreases the waw/et count, 747 verses where he perfectly matches it, and 173 verses where Jerome actually increases the count. In other words, Jerome usually replicates the conjunction waw (61% of the time), often removes conjunctions (25% of the time), and occasionally adds them (14% of the time). Jeremiah 7:16 and 37(44):4, discussed above, are two examples of the first category. An example of Jerome increasing the waw/et count would be Jer 44:3. In this passage, in order to accommodate the string of infinitives within the Hebrew, Jerome adds five conjunctions, which are entirely lacking from the Hebrew. Similarly, in Jer 39:13, the string of Babylonian names and titles requires the addition of three conjunctions. In these 173 verses, Jerome may have been influenced by the lxx or ol. For example, ‫( כי־גם־נביא גם־כהן חנפו גם־בביתי מצאתי רעתם נאם יהוה‬MT) Jer 23:11

Jer 23:11 (Vulg.) Propheta namque et sacerdos polluti sunt et in domo mea inveni malum eorum ait Dominus Jer 23:11 (lxx) ὅτι ἱερεὺς καὶ προφήτης ἐμολύνθησαν καὶ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου εἶδον πονηρίας αὐτῶν Jer 23:11 (olW) Quia sacerdos et profetae coinquinati sunt et in domo mea inveni malignitates eorum

Here, the lxx renders ‫ גם‬with καὶ. The ol and the Vulg. follow suit with et, increasing the waw/et count. In Jerome’s later translations, etiam becomes a common rendering of ‫גם‬. 44  According to this understanding, “the first verb indicates the manner in which the second happens.” See Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), §223.

410

Everson

Interestingly, Jerome shows a clear tendency depending on whether or not the passage is poetic. Of the 313 verses where the waw/et count is reduced, 207 of these occur in non-poetic passages. On the other hand, of the 173 verses where Jerome increases the waw/et count, 104 of these occur in poetic passages. It seems that Jerome might reduce the number of conjunctions to clarify the meaning of narrative passages, whereas he increases the number of conjunctions to clarify the meaning of poetic passages. There is no clear tendency when it comes to the 747 verses where Jerome matches the waw/ et count of the MT: 363 of these verses appear in poetic sections of Jeremiah, while 384 appear in non-poetic sections. Looking beyond the book of Jeremiah, the number of conjunctions occurring in each translation is detailed below in the following chart. table 5 Conjunctions

(1) Psalms, Prophets (1) Isa (1) Jer (1) Ezek (2) Sam, Kgs, Job (3) Ezra, Neh, Chr (4) Prov, Eccl, Song, Pent (5) Josh, Judg, Ruth, Esth

Vulg. (et, -que, MT or neque) (waw)

lxx (καὶ)

Vulg./ MT lxx / MTa

13634 2509 2843 2883 7444 4899 9633 2968

14002 2485 2741 3128 9895 6473 12,589 4473

101% 98% 93% 93% 71% 75% 64% 65%

13476 2559 3052 3115 10,504 6543 15,053 4586

101% 97% 94% 100% 94% 99% 84% 98%

a The denominator of this ratio, along with the corresponding Jeremiah ratio below it, has been reduced by 148 in order to account for the Hebrew Vorlage of the lxx.

Similar to the examples above, we see here that, like the lxx, Jerome more frequently imitates the Hebrew in his earlier efforts. With time, however, he increasingly deviates from a literal rendering. 5 Conclusion In light of the analyses above, the following observations may be offered. We have observed that the ol tends to follow the lxx more so than reflect the

Jeremiah in the Latin

411

influence of Jeromian or Hexaplaric traditions. In examining all of the infrequently appearing proper nouns within Jeremiah, we observed that the ol more often follows the lxx (i.e. ten out of sixteen occurrences). However, it often deviates from the lxx for a unique reading (i.e. six out of sixteen occurrences). Significantly, when the ol does deviate from the lxx, it does not appear to be under the influence of the Vulg. or another tradition (i.e. the ol reading is unique). Additionally, the ol consistently mimics the wooden syntax of the lxx in the case of initial-‫ויאמר‬, initial-‫ויהי‬, and paratactic syntax. Unfortunately, in all of these analyses, the data is limited due to the frequent absence of ol testimony. In all of the analyses above, Jerome consistently follows the MT over and against the lxx, but does so with ever increasing freedom in his translation. With infrequently appearing proper nouns, wherever the MT and lxx were in disagreement, the Vulg. was most commonly in agreement with the MT. Of the seventy-four infrequently occurring proper nouns listed above, the Vulg. was rarely in agreement with the lxx or ol over and against the MT. However, it was noted that whenever Jerome deviated from the lxx, one could usually find support from one of the hexaplaric revisions. In light of Jerome’s frequent discussion of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, these traditions undoubtedly influenced his translation. To what degree, however, is difficult to determine. Additionally, Jerome’s translation remained fairly wooden with regard to initial-‫ויאמר‬, whereas this was not the case with initial-‫ויהי‬. Among the three Major Prophets, we observed that initial-‫ ויהי‬was most freely rendered in Jeremiah. Unlike the lxx and ol, Jerome was at greater liberty to introduce subordinate clauses (i.e. hypotaxis) and reduce the number of conjunctions. As with initial-‫ ויאמר‬and initial-‫ויהי‬, this would only increase with time. What might account for Jerome’s increasing freedom in translating the MT? One possibility is that, since the books translated at a later period were of lesser theological importance, Jerome may have felt freer to take liberties. However, as Kedar-Kopfstein has pointed out, the free renderings of important theological passages within the Pentateuch make this option seem less likely. He writes, “it seems that changes in the translation technique follow a chronological pattern rather than an ideological motivation.”45 Thus it seems most likely that as the years went by, having translated an ever-increasing number

45  Kedar-Kopfstein, “The Vulgate as a Translation,” 285. Also, the seemingly incremental developments in technique from one book to the next (or even within the same book) occurring steadily over long periods of time, would suggest that these resulted from natural developments in Jerome’s Hebrew proficiency and not theologically determined decisions.

412

Everson

of Hebrew books, Jerome’s confidence and proficiency with the Hebrew language would have allowed him greater freedom, which resulted in freer translations. Select Bibliography Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “De la vetus Latina à l’hébreu pré-massorétique en passant par la plus ancienne Septante: le livre de Jérémie, exemple privilégié” RTL 44 (2013): 216–43. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “La vetus Latina de Jérémie: texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante det d’une forme plus ancienne de l’hébreu (Jer 39 et 52).” Pages 51–82 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by A. Schenker. SBLSCS 52. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Brown, Dennis. Vir Trilinguis. A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome. Kampen: Kok, 1992. Burkitt, F.C. The Old Latin and Itala, With an Appendix Containing the Text of the S. Gallen Palimpsest of Jeremiah. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Dold, P. Alban and Arthur Allgeier. “Ein neues Bruchstück mit altlateinischem Jeremiastext im Codex Sangall. 912.” Pages 29–37 in Der Palimpsestpsalter im Codex Sangallensis 912, Eine Altlateinische Übersetzung des Frühen 6.Jahrh. aus der einstigen Kloster-Bibliothek von Bobbio. Texte und Arbeiten herausgegeben durch die Erzabtei Beuron I, 21–24. Beuron: Hohenzollern, 1933. Graves, Michael. Commentary on Jeremiah/ Jerome. Ancient Christian Texts. Edited by Christopher A. Hall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011. Graves, Michael. Jerome’s Hebrew Philology. A Study Based on his Commentary on Jeremiah. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae. Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language 90. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Hagendahl, Harald. “Jerome and the Latin Classics.” VC 28 (1974): 216–27. Huglo, Dom Michel. “Fragments de Jeremie selon la Vetus Latina.” VC 8 (1954): 83–86. Kamin, Sarah. “The Theological Significance of the Hebraica Veritas in Jerome’s Thought.” Pages 243–53 in Sha’arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by M. Fishbane and Emanuel Tov. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991. Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin. “The Latin Translations.” Pages 299–338 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. CRINT 2.1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin. “Textual Gleanings from the Vulgate to Jeremiah.” Text 7 (1969): 36–58.

Jeremiah in the Latin

413

Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin. “The Vulgate as a Translation.” PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1968. Kelly, J.N.D. Jerome, His Life, Writings and Controversies. London: Duckworth 1975. Kraus, Matthew. “Hebraisms in the Old Latin Version of the Bible.” VT 53 (2003): 487–513. Plater, W.E. and H.J. White. A Grammar of the Vulgate: Being an Introduction to the Study of the Latinity of the Vulgate Bible. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926. Ranke, Ernst. Par palimpsestorum palimpsestorum wirceburgensium. Antiquissimae Veteris Testamenti versionis latinae fragmenta e codd. Vindobonae [Vienna]: G. Braumüller, 1871. Rebenich, Stefan. Jerome. New York: Routledge, 2002. Sparks, H.F.D. “Jerome as Biblical Scholar.” Pages 510–41 in The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume 1, From the Beginnings to Jerome. Edited by P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1970. Tkacz, Catherine Brown. “Labor tam Utilis: The Creation of the Vulgate.” VC 50 (1996): 42–72. Wilmart, D.A. “Trois nouveaux fragments de l’ancienne version latine des prophètes.” RBén 26 (1909): 145–62.

chapter 21

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah Joy A. Schroeder As medieval Christian commentators on the book of Jeremiah examined the scriptural text, looking for lessons to apply to their own context, they discovered messages of judgment against sin, and words of encouragement and hope in the midst of suffering. Cognizant that the book of Jeremiah was written to the Judean people facing the destruction of Jerusalem and eventual exile, they also believed that the book contained messages directed specifically to the Christian church and its adherents. Christian worship gatherings regularly included readings from the book of Jeremiah. In sixth- and seventh-century Rome, the Ordines Romani (Roman Liturgical Instructions) directed worship leaders to have readings from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel read from the weeks before Christmas (December 25) through Epiphany (January 6). It is not clear whether the instructions refer to reading the entirety of the books or simply selections from each. By the twelfth century, the selections were shortened.1 Vernacular homilies on Jeremiah shared stories of the life of the prophet with worshippers unable to access or understand the Latin text. For instance, a late-twelfth-century Old English sermon told listeners the story of Jeremiah lowered into the cistern, buried in mire up to his mouth (Jer 38:6–13), comparing the pit to the depth of sin, filled with the mire of “adultery and gluttony, and perjury and pride, and other foul sins.”2 The cloths sent from the king’s house to cushion Jeremiah’s armpits (while the harsh ropes tied around him raised the prophet from the pit) represented the prayers of the church buffering the harshness of confession and penance (represented by the ropes).3 Indeed, as this essay will show, the 1  Frans van Liere, An Introduction to the Medieval Bible (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 210. 2  Hic dicendum est de propheta, in Old English Homilies and Homiletic Treatises (Sawles warde, and þe wohunge of Ure Lauerd: Ureisuns of Ure Louerd and of Ure Lefdi, &c.) of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. Richard Morris, Early English Text Society, First Series, 29 (London: Trübner, 1868), 46. 3  Hic dicendum est de propheta, 46.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_022

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah

415

medieval Christian interpretive tradition drew a wide variety of lessons from the book of Jeremiah – many of which could never have been imagined by the sixth century BCE prophet. 1

The Book of Jeremiah and the Medieval Commentary Tradition

Relatively few medieval Christian authors composed commentaries on the book of Jeremiah, especially when compared to more widely read books such as Genesis, the New Testament gospels, and the letters of Paul, or brief books such as Lamentations.4 The reason for the paucity of Jeremiah commentaries may have been the difficulty of the subject matter, the scarcity of patristic source material on Jeremiah for the medieval authors to draw upon, and the length of the book itself. Writing in the early 400s, the scholarly monk Jerome (ca. 345–420) exclaimed in his Commentary on Jeremiah: “The immense length of the book itself can deter readers. How much more if we discuss the book too extensively.”5 Only nine medieval Christian commentaries on Jeremiah, which will be discussed below, can be found in printed editions; however, as is the case with medieval commentaries on other biblical books, more commentaries on Jeremiah doubtless “sit in libraries and archives, and still await their first edition.”6 Medieval commentaries on Jeremiah have their origins in three settings: the monastery, the university, and the study houses of the mendicant orders, particularly the Order of Preachers (Dominicans). A number of the commentaries in circulation were originally lectures given in university classrooms and mendicant houses of study. It was customary for medieval interpreters to draw upon sources from the early church. Extant interpretive Christian writings from late antiquity include fragments from works by Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) and Ephrem the Syrian (ca. 306–373), or Pseudo-Ephrem; thirty-four sermons by Origen of Alexandria 4  For a discussion of medieval commentaries on Genesis, see Joy A. Schroeder, trans. and ed., The Book of Genesis, BMT 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 6–38. For medieval commentaries on Pauline letters, see Ian Christopher Levy, trans. and ed., The Letter to the Galatians, BMT 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011); and Ian Christopher Levy, Philip D.W. Krey, and Thomas Ryan, trans. and eds., The Letter to the Romans, BMT 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). 5  Jerome, In Hieremiam, ed. Sigofredus Reiter, CCSL 74 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1960), 85. 6  Van Liere, Introduction to the Medieval Bible, 173. For instance, the Jeremiah commentary of William of Luxi, a thirteenth-century Dominican commentator also known as William of Alton, is found in several manuscripts and is not yet in a printed or critical edition, though there is a critical edition of the prologue in William of Luxi, Opera, ed. Andrew T. Sulavik, CCCM 219 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), 131–32.

416

Schroeder

(ca. 185–ca. 254); a Greek commentary by Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ca. 393– ca. 458); and a commentary spuriously attributed to John Chrysostom (ca. 349– 407).7 By far, the most influential patristic writing on Jeremiah is the commentary that Jerome began to write approximately 414 CE, less than a decade after he completed his translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.8 Jerome’s commentary, which covered only chapters 1–32, was never completed, probably due to the 416 CE riot and fire that destroyed the buildings, including the library, at the Bethlehem monastery where he lived and worked.9 Western medieval commentators drew largely on Jerome’s commentary, and, to a lesser extent, his Latin translation of fourteen of Origen’s sermons.10 Additionally, they made use of Gregory the Great’s (ca. 540–604) Moralia on Job, which included substantial comments on passages from Jeremiah.11 Western Christians read the Bible in Latin, using Jerome’s translation that came to be called the Vulgate, a text that circulated in variant forms and revisions during the Middle Ages.12 Jerome referred to his Old Testament translation as “iuxta Hebraeos” (“According to the Hebrews”), a text that he produced between 391 to 405 CE, while dwelling in his monastery in Bethlehem, supported by wealthy patrons such as Paula of Rome (347–404).13 With only a handful of exceptions, such as the Franciscan exegete Nicholas of Lyra (ca. 1270–1349) and Paul of Burgos (née Solomon ha-Levi, d. 1435), a Spanish-born convert from Judaism who composed “additions” to Nicholas’s commentary, medieval 7  Introduction to Joy A. Schroeder, trans. and ed., The Book of Jeremiah, BMT 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 11–12; Seth B. Tarrer, Reading with the Faithful: Interpretation of True and False Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah from Ancient Times to Modern, JTISup 6 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 5; David Balás and D. Jeffrey Bingham, “Patristic Exegesis of the Books of the Bible,” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity, ed. Charles Kannengiesser (Boston: Brill, 2006), 313–14. 8  Michael Graves, “Translator’s Introduction,” in Jerome, Commentary on Jeremiah, trans. Michael Graves, ed. Christopher A. Hall, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), xxvii. 9  Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), xv. In 416, the Bethlehem monastery and its residents suffered from an episode of mob violence and arson. The marauders may have been supporters of Jerome’s theological opponent Pelagius (ca. 360–418). See J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975), 322–23. 10  Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah, PL 25:583–692. 11  Gregory the Great, Moralia on Job, PL 75:509–1162; PL 76:9–782. 12  Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, rev. and exp. by Alexander Achilles Fischer, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 140–45. 13  Graves, “Translator’s Introduction,” in Jerome, Commentary on Jeremiah, xxvii.

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah

417

Christian interpreters of Jeremiah had little or no facility in Hebrew.14 Jerome Friedman argued: “Despite the lofty idealism surrounding Hebrew competence, the fact is that probably no more than a few dozen Christians from 500 to 1500 could read Hebrew at all and perhaps a quarter of that number could use Hebrew in any constructive sense.”15 Medieval interpreters generally relied on Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah for explanations of Hebrew names and terminology.16 Certain misunderstandings or mistranslations of the Hebrew, or times when Jerome followed the Septuagint, led to unusual or idiosyncratic interpretation. For instance, the Hebrew text of Jer 11:19 reports that Jeremiah’s enemies said, regarding their hostile intentions toward the prophet: “Let us cut down the tree with its bread [that is, ‘fruit’].” Jerome followed the lxx: “Let us throw wood on his bread,” a puzzling idea, but the monk concluded that “wood” referred to the poisonous yew tree. In this scenario, Jeremiah is reporting that his enemies attempted to assassinate him with toxic yew wood slipped into his food. Medieval interpreters gladly followed Jerome in his choice to apply this to Christ as well. Throwing “wood on his bread,” according to such interpretations, referred to the killing of Christ, who is “bread” for the Christian, with the “wood” of the cross.17 2

Rabanus Maurus: A Carolingian Compiler

Monks, especially those who served as teachers in monastic classrooms, wrote foremost for monastic audiences, but other readers included nonmonastic clergy and theologians, as well as lay patrons. For instance, the prolific Carolingian commentator Rabanus Maurus (ca. 780–856) composed his Exposition on the Prophet Jeremiah as a tribute to the Holy Roman Emperor Lothar I (795–855), grandson of the renowned Charlemagne (742–814).18 14  For a discussion of Paul of Burgos, who was frequently critical of Nicholas, see Deena Copeland Klepper, The Insight of Unbelievers: Nicholas of Lyra and Christian Reading of Jewish Text in the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 124. 15  Jerome Friedman, The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-Century Christian-Hebraica in the Age of Renaissance Nostalgia (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1983), 13–14. 16  Jerome, In Hieremiam; Jerome, Commentary on Jeremiah, trans. Graves. 17  For a discussion of this passage in Jerome and in the work of medieval interpreters, see Jerome, Commentary on Jeremiah, 75 n. 302; and Schroeder, The Book of Jeremiah, 5. 18  Rabanus Maurus, Expositionis Super Jeremiam Prophetam Libri Viginti, PL 111:797–1271.

418

Schroeder

Writing in 841, at a time when emperors and empresses appreciated hearing biblical commentaries read aloud to them at the royal court, Rabanus, abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Fulda, dedicated his Jeremiah commentary to Lothar as a public act of political allegiance.19 (A decade earlier, Rabanus sent commentaries on Judith and Esther to Lothar’s mother Judith.)20 Lothar, in the midst of a civil war with his brother, received a commentary on a book dealing with familiar themes: violence, warfare, and conspiracy. Mayke de Jong observes: “There was nothing arbitrary about Hrabanus’ choice of specific biblical commentary for male rulers: to send the Emperor Lothar an exposition of Jeremiah lamenting the destruction of a kingdom at a time when he was still at war with his brothers was an appropriate and seasonal gift.”21 As was the case with most Carolingian commentators, Rabanus commented chiefly by compilation of earlier source material. Commenting on Jeremiah verse by verse, he (or the monks under his direction) assembled excerpts from church fathers such as Jerome, Gregory the Great, and Origen of Alexandria. Rabanus also contributed his own comments at various points, sometimes adding reassurances about God’s mercy and forgiveness, particularly when the words of the biblical passage and patristic commentator seemed harshly judgmental. He gave credit to his sources by placing in the margins the initials of the author of the source materials – “A” for Augustine, “G” for Gregory, and “M” for Maurus to signal his original work.22 Drawing from Jerome, Rabanus provided philological details, including ways that the Hebrew differed from the lxx and other ancient Greek versions of Jeremiah.23 Rabanus also used passages from Jerome, Gregory, Origen, and Cassian (ca. 360–ca. 435) to direct lessons toward the Christian church. Jeremiah’s warnings against idolatry and

19  Beginning with the time of Charlemagne, “expert readers” (peritissimi lectores) read biblical commentaries aloud to the emperors. See Mayke de Jong, “Old Law and New-Found Power: Hrabanus Maurus and the Old Testament,” in Centres of Learning: Learning and Location in Pre-modern Europe and the Near East, ed. Jan Willem Drijvers and Alasdair A. MacDonald (New York: Brill, 1995), 165. 20  Mayke de Jong, “Exegesis for an Empress,” in Medieval Transformations: Texts, Power, and Gifts in Context, ed. Esther Cohen and Mayke B. de Jong, Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions: Medieval and Early Modern Peoples 11 (Boston: Brill, 2001), 69–70. 21  De Jong, “Exegesis for an Empress,” 72. 22  Rabanus Maurus, “Letter 14,” in Hrabani (Mauri) Epistolae, ed. Ernst Dümmler, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae 5 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1899), 403. 23  For Jerome’s use of the lxx and other Greek translations of Jeremiah, see Michael Graves, Jerome’s Hebrew Philology: A Study Based on His Commentary on Jeremiah, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 90 (Boston: Brill, 2007), 92–106.

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah

419

false prophets are employed to admonish heretics, false teachers, and corrupt clergy.24 3

Rupert of Deutz’s Theological Commentary

Rupert of Deutz (ca. 1075–1129/30), abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Deutz, near Cologne, embedded a Jeremiah commentary, On Jeremiah, into a longer theological work, De Sancta Trinitate et operibus eius (On the Trinity and Its Works), that treated all of salvation history and most of the Bible.25 In his brief treatment of Jeremiah, Rupert offered comments on the seven passages introduced by the phrase, “And the word of the Lord came to me” (1:4; 1:11, 2:1) or “The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord” (7:1; 11:1; 14:1; 18:1).26 The first chapter of Jeremiah, the account of Jeremiah’s calling and commissioning, receives the most extensive treatment, particularly as Rupert compares Jeremiah with Christ. God’s words can be understood as twofold, applied in different ways to Jeremiah and to Christ. God’s message to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (1:5a), can refer not only to the prophet’s prenatal calling, but also to God the Son (Christ), who preexisted from eternity, whom God the Father “knew” prior to the Son taking flesh and becoming human in the Virgin Mary’s womb.27 God’s commission to Jeremiah, “Look, today I have set you up over the nations and over the kingdoms” (1:10) can likewise be applied to Christ, who, after his death and resurrection, received dominion over all things.28 Thus, Rupert found foreshadowing of New Testament events in the prophecies spoken to Jeremiah.

24  See the discussion in Schroeder, The Book of Jeremiah, 17–19. 25  Rupert of Deutz, In Hieremiam Prophetam Commentariorum Liber Unus, in De Sancta Trinitate et operibus eius libros XXVII–XLII, ed. Hrabanus Haacke, CCCM 23 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1972), 1572–1642. 26  Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical quotations in this essay are translations from the Latin text used by the medieval interpreters. The Latin text can be found in Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, 3rd edition, ed. Bonifatius Fischer et al. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969). An English translation of the Vulgate text of Jeremiah can be found in The Vulgate Bible: Douay-Rheims Translation, Vol. 4, The Major Prophetical Books, ed. Angela M. Kinney (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012). 27  Rupert of Deutz, In Hieremiam, 1574–77. 28  Rupert of Deutz, In Hieremiam, 1577.

420

Schroeder

4 The Glossa Ordinaria: A Resource for Medieval Biblical Scholars With the rise of the universities in the 1100s and 1200s, theology students and lecturers sought resources and study aids to help them with their reading and understanding of Scripture. A valuable resource was the Scholastic History of Peter Comestor (d. ca. 1178), which summarized the biblical story in a concise way.29 Various medieval authors and compilers produced “glossed” Bibles which contained the scriptural text, often in the center of the page, with brief glosses (annotations or explanations) in the margin. (Glossa is Greek for “tongue.”) Frequently the marginal glosses were excerpts from the church fathers. Sometimes “interlinear” glosses were placed between the lines of the biblical text, providing short explanations, definitions, or translations of words.30 The most popular glossed Bible, containing marginal and interlinear glosses, came to be called the Glossa Ordinaria or Ordinary Gloss, which has its origins at the cathedral school of Laon. Different twelfth-century scholars, such as Anselm of Laon (d. 1117), Ralph of Laon (d. 1133), and Gilbert of Auxerre (d. 1134), built on the compilation work done by Carolingian authors like Rabanus Maurus and added the interlinear comments.31 Most likely Gilbert of Auxerre, also called Gilbert the Universal, is responsible for the gloss on Jeremiah.32 For the most part, the marginal glosses on Jeremiah seem to come via Rabanus Maurus, and these include extracts from Jerome, Maurus, Gregory the Great, Origen, Augustine (354–430), and Cassiodorus (ca. 485–ca. 585).33 The interlinear glosses on Jeremiah were brief explanations, clarifications, or interpolations. For instance, in the statement, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (1:5), the word “mother’s” is placed in small letters above the word “womb,” so that the reader knows that the sense of the passage is: “Before I formed you in your mother’s womb I knew

29  Though the book of Jeremiah is not treated in a sustained way by Peter Comestor, events from Jeremiah’s life and ministry are included when he covers the book of 2 Kings. Peter Comestor, Historia Scholastica – Liber IIII Regum, PL 198:1416–27. 30  For a discussion of medieval glossed Bibles, see Van Liere, Introduction to the Medieval Bible, 33. 31  Lesley Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Boston: Brill, 2009), 23–33. 32  Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, 33. 33  Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, 50. The text of the Glossa Ordinaria on Jeremiah can be found in PL 14:9–62 and in Bibliorum Sacrorum cum Glossa Ordinaria (Venice: [s.n.], 1603), 4:577–922.

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah

421

you.”34 Sometimes events or individuals in the text of Jeremiah are given a Christian identification. When God tells the Judeans, “I will give you shepherds after my own heart” (3:15a), the glossator adds “apostles and apostolic men” above the word “shepherds.” Anti-Jewish sentiments are inserted via the interlinear gloss on the second half of the verse. Regarding the good shepherds that God will send, the deity says in 3:15b: “They will nourish you with knowledge and instruction.” The glossator adds: “Not with Jewish ceremonies.”35 Scholars such as Devorah Schoenfeld and Michael Signer have noted that anti-Jewish polemic is frequently found in the interlinear glosses, shaping antiJewish readings of the biblical text.36 5

Dominican Postills: Hugh of St. Cher, Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, commentators produced postills (also spelled postils) on Scripture, consisting of brief line-by-line comments on the biblical text. The Latin term postilla may derive from the combining of the words post (“following” or “coming after”) and illa (“those,” that is, “those words”).37 In the thirteenth century, biblical scholars belonging to the Dominican Order were particularly productive.38 Hugh of St. Cher (ca. 1200– 1263), Provincial for the Order of Preachers in France, taught at the University of Paris and served as prior at the Dominican house of St. Jacques in Paris. Between 1230 and 1236, friars under Hugh’s direction prepared a massive postill on the entire Bible.39 The multi-volume work circulated under Hugh’s name, 34  Bibliorum Sacrorum, 581. 35  Bibliorum Sacrorum, 609. 36  Devorah Schoenfeld, Isaac on Jewish & Christian Altars: Polemic and Exegesis in Rashi and the Glossa Ordinaria (New York: Fordham University Press, 2009), 9; Michael A. Signer, “The Glossa Ordinaria and Medieval Anti-Judaism,” in A Distinct Voice: Medieval Studies in Honor of Leonard E. Boyle, O.P., ed. Jacqueline Brown and William P. Stoneman (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 591–605. 37  Levy, Krey, and Ryan, The Letter to the Romans, 50. 38  In thirteenth-century Paris, for instance, Dominicans produced more biblical commentaries than any other religious order or group. See the introduction to William of Luxi, Opera, CCCM 219: x. 39  Hugh of St. Cher, Postilla super Ieremiam, in Opera Omnia in Universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum (Lyon: Ioannes Antonius Huguetan and Guillielmus Barbier, 1669), 4:175–282.

422

Schroeder

though some modern scholars prefer to refer to it as the Dominican Postill, in recognition of the friars’ collaborative efforts.40 Editions of Hugh’s Postilla super Ieremiam contained the Latin biblical text, accompanied by explanatory notes on individual words and phrases that provided information about grammatical, lexical, and historical details. These were usually followed by moral applications of the text and material suitable for preaching. For instance, in Jeremiah’s reproof of families baking cakes for the Queen of Heaven (Jer 7:18), the Postill writers, drawing upon Jerome, explain that the Queen of Heaven is the moon and offer the variant reading, from the lxx, that the cakes were offered to the army of heaven, a reference to the stars.41 The Vulgate text says that the entire family participates in the cake-making as the children gather the wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women “sprinkle the fat” (conspergunt adipem). Jerome had translated ‫ בצק לשות‬as “sprinkle the fat” rather than “knead the dough,” presenting the Dominican interpreters with a puzzle regarding why the women were sprinkling fat onto the fire and why it was offensive to God. They explained that the women had been dropping fat onto the fire as an offering, in defiance of the command in Lev 3:16–17 that orders fat to be offered to God alone. Thus the women were intentionally committing idolatry. A moral reading of the text, appropriate for sermons, admonishes parents to be strict with their children. When the children gather “wood,” this signifies wicked desires that the devil can use to kindle sin in the hearts of the young. Fathers “kindle” this sin by indulging their children’s desires for clothing, money, and other extravagancies. The mothers “sprinkle the fat,” metaphorically “cooking” their children, by pampering them and being too lenient, so that their offspring are consumed by their harmful desires.42 The Dominican Postill’s orientation toward providing support for preachers is evident in various asides directed to those preparing sermons. For instance, in a discussion of the rejection received by Jeremiah, preachers are told that they should not become discouraged if they were ignored, mocked, treated disrespectfully, or not taken seriously, since extraordinarily worthy luminaries like Jeremiah suffered far worse.43

40  Karlfried Froehlich, “Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament in the High Middle Ages,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, ed. Magne Saebø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 1.2:518, 522. 41  Hugh of St. Cher, Postilla super Ieremiam, 197r. 42  Hugh of St. Cher, Postilla super Ieremiam, 197r. 43  Hugh of St. Cher, Postilla super Ieremiam, 197v.

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah

423

Albert the Great (ca. 1206–1280), a prolific scholar and Master of Theology, lectured on the Bible at Dominican houses of study in Hildesheim, Freiburg, Regensburg, and Strasbourg before holding one of the Dominican chairs in theology at the University of Paris. Later he taught at the Dominican house of study in Cologne. His commentaries were probably composed around 1264– 1274, toward the end of his life, when he was a mature scholar, and they reflect his considerable experience lecturing on the Bible.44 All that remains of his once-massive Jeremiah commentary, Postilla super Ieremiam, is a fragment, found on nine pages of handwritten text preserved in a single manuscript, on Jer 1:5–10, the call of Jeremiah.45 Like many biblical interpreters influenced by scholastic philosophy, Albert endeavored to find order and structure in the text. He used a method called divisio textus (“textual division”) to outline biblical passages, dividing passages into parts and subparts, usually employing multiples of three or two.46 In the extant fragment on Jeremiah, Albert labeled the thematic units with nouns containing similar endings. For instance, in the call of Jeremiah, Albert discerned that God readied Jeremiah for his ministry by granting him a threefold “perfection” (perfectio), consisting of consecration (consecratio) in 1:5 (“Before you came out of the womb I sanctified you”); encouragement or strengthening (confortatio) in 1:8; and illumination (illuminatio) in 1:11 (“The word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘What do you see?’”). The aforementioned consecratio is, in turn, divided into three parts, consisting of the consecration itself; the removal (ablatio) of Jeremiah’s impediment when God touched his mouth following the prophet’s protestation of youthful inexperience at speaking (1:6–9); and his gathering (collatio) of power in 1:10, when God appointed Jeremiah “over the nations.”47 In his discussion of Jeremiah’s prenatal consecration, Albert ranked the eminence and relative sinlessness of other biblical figures sanctified prior to birth. In first place is the holy Virgin Mary, followed by John the Baptist (Luke 1:39–44), and finally Jeremiah, who still had “an impediment of sin even though 44  Froehlich, “Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament,” 534. 45  Albert the Great, Postillae super Ieremiam Fragmentum, in Codex Bruges, Bibl. du Séminaire 103/129, with a critical edition edited by Henricus Ostlender, in Opera Alberti Magni (Monasterii Westfalorum: Aschendorff, 1952), 19:633–37. See the discussion in G. Meersseman, “De S. Alberti Magni Postilla inedita super Ieremiam,” Angelicum 9 (1932): 3–20, 236–37. 46  On the medieval practice of divisio textus, see Thomas Ryan, Thomas Aquinas as Reader of the Psalms, Studies in Spirituality and Theology 6 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000), 27. 47  Albert the Great, Postillae super Ieremiam Fragmentum, 19:633–37.

424

Schroeder

he had received sanctification in the womb.”48 Albert also offered his theory of prophecy – that prophets such as Jeremiah were able to read from the speculum aeternitatis, the mirror of eternity, “a created representation of the divine eternity,”49 albeit in a limited way. Albert said: “This sort of [prophetic] understanding is said, since ancient days, to be contained within the mirror of eternity, from which the prophets read when they received revelation.”50 Albert’s fellow Dominican and best-known student, the scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274), likewise produced a Jeremiah commentary.51 His unfinished In Jeremiam Prophetam Expositio, which covers Jer 1:1–42:1, has its origins in Thomas’s lectures on Jeremiah at the Dominican house of studies in Cologne in 1251–1252.52 Like Albert, he used textual division as a chief means of commenting, by dividing and subdividing the text into ever smaller divisions, so that “Thomas’s comments on individual words and phrases … are carefully nested within layers of divisions.”53 For nearly every passage, Thomas also provided the text of biblical verses with similar language or lexical “echoes,” attentive to something akin to what modern interpreters call “intertextuality.” Thomas attends chiefly to the historical or literal meaning of the text, providing explanations for perplexing details. For instance, during the time of the Jerusalem drought – well before the Babylonian conquest of the city – Jer 14:2 reports that “the gates have fallen and they are obscured.” Thomas explains that this probably means that the judges who sat in the gates have fallen from their previous joy and are obscured by tribulation. He also allows for the possibility that the passage refers to the literal gates, positing that the gates had been crumbling due to desiccation from the drought and that the water shortage made it impossible to undertake necessary maintenance and repairs.54 He offers historical information and explains biblical customs, often with 48  Albert the Great, Postillae super Ieremiam Fragmentum, 634. 49  Carl J. Peter, Participated Eternity in the Vision of God: A Study in the Opinions of Thomas Aquinas and His Commentators on the Duration of Acts of Glory, Analecta Gregoriana 142 (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1964), 53. 50  Albert the Great, Postillae super Ieremiam Fragmentum, 635. 51  Thomas Aquinas, In Jeremiam Prophetam Expositio, in Opera Omnia 14 (Parma: Fiaccadori, 1863), 579–667. 52  Eleanor Stump, Aquinas (New York: Routledge, 2003), xvi; Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. 1, The Person and His Work, rev. ed. trans. Robert Royal (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 27. 53  Ryan, Thomas Aquinas as Reader of the Psalms, 27. 54  Thomas Aquinas, In Jeremiam, 613.

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah

425

reference to other parts of Scripture. When Jeremiah cried out, “Call for the mourning women [lamentatrices]” (9:17), Thomas explained that people in biblical times hired female mourners, and he referenced Luke 23:27–28, the account of the women following behind Jesus, weeping and beating their breasts.55 Thomas also provided a scholium, a short scholastic treatise embedded in his commentary on Jer 20:14–17. This was prompted by Jeremiah’s curse upon the day he was born, and upon the man who brought news to his father that “a male child has been born to you” and who failed to kill the infant Jeremiah in the womb “so that my mother might have been my grave” (Jer 20:14–17). Thomas concluded that Jeremiah was not literally cursing the day itself, which would have been wrong, since a day is an innately good creation. Furthermore, his curse of the man who failed to murder him as an infant was not literal. Both the curse of the day and the curse of the man were hyperbole, expressing Jeremiah’s great anguish and suffering.56 At the conclusion of most chapters in Thomas’s Jeremiah commentary are word studies that read like pastoral reflections, offering possible sermonic material for preachers. These probably were originally written by Thomas in the margins of the text, next to the verse prompting the word study, as is found in Thomas’s autograph copy of his Isaiah commentary.57 Commenting on 9:23–24a, “Let not the wise person boast in one’s own wisdom, let not the strong person boast in one’s own strength, let not the rich person boast in one’s own riches; but let the one who boasts, boast in this – in understanding and knowing me,” Thomas offers biblical support not to boast in wisdom, for it is transitory, with quotations from Isa 29:14, Eccl 8:17, 1 Cor 8:1, and Eccl 1:18. Likewise one should not boast in one’s own strength because it is weak, a claim supported by Job 6:12, Eccl 9:11, Ps 147:10, and Wis 2:11. Similarly quotations from Jas 5:2, Prov 17:16, Matt 13:22, and Eccl 5:13 show that it is wrong to boast in riches, which are transitory.58 A similar word study softens and makes more palatable the claim that God has seduced and overpowered Jeremiah: “You have seduced me [seduxisti me], O Lord, and I was seduced [seductus sum]; you have been stronger than me and you have prevailed” (Jer 20:7). Thomas explains that the Lord “seduces by using persuasion,” as the reader can find in 2 Cor 12:16 where Paul said that he was “crafty” and caught the Corinthians by “guile.” Similarly, one can say 55  Thomas Aquinas, In Jeremiam, 602. 56  Thomas Aquinas, In Jeremiam, 627. 57  Pierre-Marie Gils, “Les Collationes marginales dan l’autographe du commentaire de S. Thomas sur Isaïe,” RSPT 42 (1958): 253–64. 58  Thomas Aquinas, In Jeremiam, 602.

426

Schroeder

that God “overpowers” by “administering correction” and “restraining people through love,” as in Hos 11:4: “I will lead them with the cords of Adam, with the bands of love.”59 Thus Jeremiah’s disturbing claim, that the deity seduced and violently overpowered him, is tempered into a discussion of God’s subtle persuasiveness, corrective discipline, and loving, protective restraint of erring individuals. 6

Pseudo-Joachim of Fiore’s Apocalyptic Commentary

An idiosyncratic commentary, the Super Ieremiam, written in the 1240s but pseudepigraphically attributed to the apocalyptic theologian Joachim of Fiore (ca. 1135–1202), interprets the book of Jeremiah as containing twofold prophetic meaning. The incidents and prophecies in Jeremiah apply first to New Testament events and, second, to political and ecclesiastical events in the writers’ and redactors’ own times. The text, which may have been composed in Franciscan or Cistercian circles, or by members of the Florensian order founded by Joachim, went through several recensions.60 Joachim’s writings, which proposed three stages of history corresponding to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with the third stage about to come to fruition, had been condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council and Pope Innocent III in 1215, thirteen years after Joachim’s death. The Super Ieremiam claimed that the book of Jeremiah predicted this wrongful condemnation of Joachim. In the twofold prophetic interpretation, the episode of King Jehoiakim (mistakenly called Zedekiah in the Pseudo-Joachim commentary) cutting and burning Jeremiah and Baruch’s scroll (Jer 36:21–25) was a prediction regarding Caiaphas’s condemnation of Jesus, as well as Innocent III’s condemnation of Joachim’s teachings: “In this way Zedekiah rises up against Jeremiah. He condemns the book, cutting the Trinity from the unity.”61 The commentary, which enjoyed popularity among readers interested in eschatological themes, also dealt with the prophecies of Merlin the magician and included apocalyptic speculation. Historian Stephen E. Wessley observes that the Pseudo-Joachim commentary was most concerned with “the tribulations in the Church since the year 1200.”62 59  Thomas Aquinas, In Jeremiam, 627. 60  Stephen E. Wessley, Joachim of Fiore and Monastic Reform (New York: Peter Lang, 1990), 123. 61  Pseudo-Joachim of Fiore, Super Ieremiam [Abbatis Ioachim Divina prorsus in Ieremiam Prophetam Interpretatio] (Cologne: Alectorius and haeredes Soteri, 1577), 369. 62  Wessley, Joachim of Fiore, 105.

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah

7

427

Nicholas of Lyra: Engaging Jewish Sources

One of the most influential medieval commentaries, with influence extending well into the Reformation era, was the literal postill on the entire Bible composed by Franciscan exegete Nicholas of Lyra (ca. 1270–1349), who lectured on Scripture at the University of Paris.63 Nicholas, one of the few medieval Christians who could read Hebrew with any facility, engaged and quoted Jewish sources in his work. His Jeremiah commentary quoted Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon, 1135–1204), Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes, 1040–1105), and the Babylonian Targum on Jeremiah, an Aramaic paraphrase dating from the fourth or fifth century CE.64 It is not clear how Nicholas gained facility with Hebrew, since instruction in the language was not available in Christian schools and universities. He may have studied with a Christian convert from Judaism or some other learned individual – either Christian or Jewish – who was able and willing to instruct him in Hebrew and Aramaic.65 In his comments on Jer 23:6, “And this is the name they will call him: ‘the Lord, our just one,’” Nicholas used the occasion to educate his Christian readers about Jewish reverence for the divine name ‫יהוה‬, which he regularly called “the name of the Lord, the Tetragrammaton.” He explained that the name was not uttered by devout Jews, and he informed his audience that the Latin text used Dominus (“Lord”) to translate the Tetragrammaton: “The Hebrew uses the name of the Lord, the Tetragrammaton, which may not be used to speak of anything other than the true God. In The Guide for the Perplexed, Rabbi Moses [Maimonides] says that this name is applied to God to signify the bare divine essence, in and of itself, without reference to anything created, and for this reason it is utterly ineffable.”66 Nicholas then uses this point from Maimonides to argue in favor of a Christian interpretation of the passage – that the “righteous branch of David,” the Davidic king promised in Jer 23:5, is, in fact, fully 63  Nicholas of Lyra, In Ieremiam Prophetam, in Postilla super Totam Bibliam, Vol. 2 (Strassburg: s.n., 1492; reprint: Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1971), n.p. Since the text is unpaginated, references to this text will cite the biblical chapter and verse. 64  It is possible that Nicholas read Maimonides in one of the Latin translations circulating at the time. See Klepper, The Insight of Unbelievers, 49. 65  Klepper, The Insight of Unbelievers, 8. Also see Ari Geiger, “A Student and an Opponent: Nicholas of Lyra and his Jewish Sources,” in Nicolas de Lyre: Franciscain du XIVe siècle exégète et théologien, ed. Gilbert Dahan, Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Moyen Âge et Temp Modernes 48 (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2011), 173. 66  Nicholas of Lyra, In Ieremiam 23:6. Nicholas of Lyra is referencing The Guide for the Perplexed 1.61. See Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedländer, 2nd ed. (New York: Dover, 1956), 89.

428

Schroeder

divine. The prophet Jeremiah foresaw that God the Son would be incarnate as Jesus Christ, a descendant of David. Thus he applied the divine name to the promised branch of David: “Through this [use of the Tetragrammaton name], the true divinity of Christ himself is made evident.”67 Of particular note is Nicholas’s treatment of Jer 31:15–16, which reads in the Latin: “Thus says the Lord: On high was heard a voice of lamentation, of mourning, of weeping, of Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted, for they are no more. Thus says the Lord: Let your voice cease from weeping, and your eyes from tears, for there is a reward for your work, says the Lord, and they shall return out of the land of the enemy.” Given this passage’s citation in Matt 2:18, quoting from Jer 31:15 with reference to King Herod’s massacre of the Holy Innocents, the babies in Bethlehem and its environs, Nicholas followed long-standing Christian tradition by regarding this as a prophecy about the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. Nicholas explained that Rachel, buried near Bethlehem (Gen 35:19–20), was the region’s patron saint and “mother,” for “saints are described as suffering together with those for whom they are patrons.”68 She could also be described as weeping “through her daughters,” the women of Bethlehem lamenting for their infants slaughtered at Herod’s command. Then Nicholas takes issue with a Jewish tradition regarding Rachel’s weeping: “Now certain Jews say that when the Jews were led captive into Babylon and passed by the tomb of Rachel, a voice was heard miraculously coming forth from the tomb, begging God to have pity on the ones who were led captive.”69 According to Genesis Rabbah and other rabbinic traditions, Jacob had buried his wife along the road for precisely this purpose, so that she could plead for mercy on behalf of the exiles as Nebuchadnezzar led them past her tomb on their way to captivity.70 Nicholas disparaged the Jewish account as “fictitious,” since it contradicted Matthew’s interpretation of the passage and because the event was not recorded anywhere in Scripture. If Rachel had indeed spoken from her tomb, such an incident would certainly have been recorded at the end of 2 Kings, the end of 2 Chronicles, or at the end of Jeremiah, in the parts of the Bible that describe the captives being led off, “for the Jews took great pains to write down things that brought them honor.”71 67  Nicholas of Lyra, In Ieremiam 23:6. 68  Nicholas of Lyra, In Ieremiam 31:15. 69  Nicholas of Lyra, In Ieremiam 31:15. 70  Gen. Rab. 82:10. Also see the comments of David Kimḥi (ca. 1160–1235) on Jer 31:15, in Jeremiah: A New English Translation, vol. 2, trans. of text, Rashi, and commentary by A. J. Rosenberg (New York: Judaica Press, 1989), 248. 71  Nicholas of Lyra, In Ieremiam 31:15.

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah

429

Though Nicholas frequently appreciated and drew upon rabbinic sources and other Jewish writings – often preferring Jewish biblical interpretation to some Christian readings of the text – he nevertheless exhibited anti-Jewish sentiments characteristic of so many medieval Christian exegetes. 8

Denis the Carthusian

Working in a tiny Carthusian charterhouse, a community of twelve contemplative monks in Roermond, in the Netherlands, the monk Denis (ca. 1402–1471) composed a massive commentary on the entire Bible, which contains a lengthy exposition on Jeremiah.72 Denis drew upon all the Latin biblical resources available to him, including Jerome’s commentary, the Glossa Ordinaria, and Nicholas of Lyra’s postill, with which he frequently took issue. His extensive research and use of sources caused later admirers to say regarding Denis’s commentaries: “Whoever reads Denis, reads everything.”73 Denis attended largely to the literal-historical meaning of the text, explaining biblical customs such as the elaborate process involved in purchasing and taking possession of property, including that found in Jer 32:9–15 when Jeremiah purchased a field from his cousin Hanamel. Following his explanation about historical details, he often included moral and allegorical lessons. Jeremiah’s meticulous description of the weighing of silver to purchase the field, and the careful signing of contracts in front of witnesses yielded Denis’s exhortation regarding practical matters and business ethics: “This makes it clear that all legal requirements for wills and contracts should be fulfilled and be carried out in a methodical way.”74 He also provided an allegorical meaning, urging his readers to purchase “spiritual fields” in heaven. Just as Jeremiah’s name was written on the contract, the names of the buyers who will inherit the “spiritual fields” are written in the book of life, and the saints – parallel to the witnesses summoned by Jeremiah (32:12) – serve as legal witnesses to

72  Denis the Carthusian, Ennaratio in Jeremiam, in Opera Omnia (Monstrolii: Typis Cartusiae Sanctae Mariae de Pratis, 1900), 9:5–312. For biographical information on Denis the Carthusian, see Kent Emery Jr., “Denys the Carthusian: The World of Thought Comes to Roermond,” in The Carthusians in the Low Countries: Studies in Monastic History and Heritage, ed. Krijn Pansters (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 255–304. 73  Terence O’Reilly, “Introduction,” in Denis the Carthusian, Spiritual Writings, trans. Íde M. Ní Riain (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2005), xii. 74  Denis the Carthusian, Ennaratio in Jeremiam, 235.

430

Schroeder

this transaction.75 In this way, Jeremiah’s message about the eventual restoration of Judah, the promise that land would once more be bought and sold (32:15), is interpreted by Denis as a promise of eternal spiritual rewards. Denis followed the Christian interpretive tradition by asserting that Jeremiah’s promises of restoration after exile and the rebuilding of Jerusalem referred primarily to the establishment of the Christian church. God’s hopeful words in Jer 32:37, “I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell securely,” were not, in a complete sense, fulfilled by Cyrus’s decree (Ezra 1:1–11), since the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Maccabees, and Judith make clear that the Judeans who returned from captivity did not experience peace in any substantial way.76 The return from captivity was a fulfillment of the prophecy “in some sense,” since after the return “they sometimes dwelt safely again in Judah.”77 Rather, the prophecy came to pass in its fullest sense during the time of the apostles and the establishment of the church, which was frequently seen as symbolized by Jerusalem. The failures of King Zedekiah, who was wavering in his support of Jeremiah, represented the poor leadership qualities of certain Christian clergy, those who disobey God and give in to temptation, as we see in Denis’s grim summation of the story of the king being captured, blinded, and carried off to Babylon in chains (Jer 39:7). Nebuchadnezzar represents the devil: “The devil also put out Zedekiah’s eyes and bound him with chains, for he thoroughly blinds the hearts of wicked bishops and leaders of the church. He binds them with the chains of wickedness and sends them to hell.”78 9

Medieval Women as Interpreters of Jeremiah

Though there are no existing female-authored sermons or commentaries on Jeremiah from the Middle Ages, writings by a number of women show familiarity with Jeremiah, particularly among those who were learned. Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179), a visionary Benedictine nun from Saxony, interpreted the “branch watching” seen by Jeremiah (Jer 1:11) to refer to humans, created “watchful with the breath of life,” who sprang forth through the divine

75  Denis the Carthusian, Ennaratio in Jeremiam, 239. 76  Denis the Carthusian, Ennaratio in Jeremiam, 238. 77  Denis the Carthusian, Ennaratio in Jeremiam, 257. 78  Denis the Carthusian, Ennaratio in Jeremiam, 238.

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah

431

creativity of the “root that sent forth many branches.”79 The poet and visionary Mechthild of Magdeburg (ca. 1206–1280) praised Jeremiah as a prophet who predicted the incarnation of Christ from the Virgin Mary, speaking of “the intimate secrets of our Lady,” since he had foretold that “a woman will encompass a man” (Jer 31:22).80 Birgitta of Sweden (ca. 1303–1373) compared fourteenthcentury ecclesiastical politics with the intrigue surrounding Jeremiah’s struggles with the royal court of Judah. Pope Gregory XI, residing in Avignon rather than Rome, should listen to authentic prophecies, such as Birgitta delivered to Gregory and Jeremiah delivered to King Zedekiah, rather than to the false prophecies of French advisors who paralleled the false prophets who brought about the downfall of Zedekiah and the city of Jerusalem.81 10

Medieval Interpreters of Jeremiah and the Fourfold Sense of Scripture

Medieval Christian commentators on Jeremiah inherited from their early Christian precursors the practice of interpreting Scripture according to its various “senses.” A traditional approach was the fourfold sense of Scripture: literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. The Dominican author Augustine of Dacia (Aage of Denmark d. ca. 1282) wrote a Latin rhyme to help readers remember the four senses: “The letter [literal] teaches what took place; allegory teaches what you should believe; the moral teaches what you should do; anagogy teaches where you should aim.”82 As the survey of commentators in the preceding portion of this essay has shown, medieval interpreters on Jeremiah attended particularly to the “literal” sense, while also drawing moral and allegorical lessons from Jeremiah. Frequently medieval commentators spoke of two senses of Scripture, with the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses subsumed under the broader category of the “spiritual sense.”

79  Hildegard of Bingen, “Letter 389,” in The Letters of Hildegard of Bingen, trans. Joseph L. Baird and Radd K. Ehrman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 3:182. 80  Mechthild of Magdeburg, The Flowing Light of the Godhead 3.20, trans. Frank Tobin, CWS (New York: Paulist, 1998), 127. 81  Birgitta of Sweden, Liber Caelestis 4.14, in The Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden, trans. Denis Searby (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 2:53–54. 82  “Littera gesta docet, Quid creas allegoria, Moralis quid agas, Quo tendas anagogia,” from Augustine of Dacia’s Rotulus pugillaris, quoted in Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, vol. 1: The Four Senses of Scripture, trans. Mark Sebanc (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 25.

432

Schroeder

The literal sense (biblical interpretation ad litteram, “according to the letter”) dealt with the historical meaning of the text, including philology, clarifying confusing idioms for audiences unfamiliar with Hebrew, accurate translation, figures of speech, geography, biblical customs, and other aspects of the text. Jeremiah’s frequent references to nature (particularly in his comments about the environmental impact of the Babylonian assault, as inhabited and cultivated land reverted to wilderness), evoked an astonishing amount of zoological and ornithological information from the medieval commentators. Commenting on Jer 8:7, “The turtle dove, and the swallow, and the stork have observed the time of their coming,” Hugh of St. Cher’s Dominican Postill comments on the migration patterns of fish and birds, adding that there are two varieties of turtledoves – one that migrates with the seasons and one that does not.83 Thomas Aquinas, commenting on Jer 14:6, “the wild donkeys inhaled the wind like dragons,” explains that wild donkeys can go a long time with no water, so their thirst was a sign of the extremity of the drought. With regard to the comparison to dragons, Thomas explained that dragons need to inhale wind to cool their hot breath.84 Allegory included images of Christ, the church, the Virgin Mary, the apostles, and other people and events prefigured through individuals or events found in the Scriptures. The sufferings of Jerusalem during the time of the siege represented struggles endured by the church, whether due to external persecution or to vices of its members. Rabanus Maurus, commenting on Jer 4:29, “All the cities are abandoned, and no humans dwell in them,” wrote: “Now, as we said earlier, everything that refers to Jerusalem when interpreted in the historical sense can also refer to the church when it has offended God and has been handed over to enemies, either during times of persecution or after being handed over to wickedness and sins.”85 Moral interpretations of Jeremiah abounded, especially in the work of Hugh of St. Cher. In patristic and medieval usage, a moral interpretation found figurative meanings in scriptural events, drawing lessons from them that were often very different than the literal meaning of the text. For instance, in a moral reading of Jer 7:29, when the prophet was commanded to shave his head and scatter the hair to the wind (an image of the scattering of the exiles), Hugh tells his readers to disburse their possessions to the poor, sharing them widely

83  Hugh of St. Cher, Postilla super Ieremiam, 199v. 84  Thomas Aquinas, In Jeremiam, 613. The Vulgate reads “dragons,” erroneously translated from ‫תנים‬, which most modern translations render as “jackals.” 85  Rabanus Maurus, Super Ieremiam, PL 111: 839.

Medieval Christian Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah

433

rather than keeping their possessions close at hand, clinging to them tightly.86 Unburied bodies – ubiquitous in the book of Jeremiah – referred to the sins of others, inappropriately exposed to view by slander and gossip. It is better to “bury” or conceal the sins of one’s neighbor.87 Anagogical interpretations referred to heaven, hell, the final judgment, and the soul’s ultimate repose. Rabanus Maurus said that an anagogical reading of Jer 2:6, about God leading Israel from Egypt through the desert “through an uninhabited land that is impassable, through a land of thirst and the image of death,” referred to the soul’s pilgrimage through earthly difficulties on its journey toward heaven.88 11

Interpreting the Book of Jeremiah for the Christian Church

Medieval Christian interpreters regularly engaged in Christological interpretation. In the book of Jeremiah, medieval Christian exegetes found prophecies pertaining to Christ’s incarnation, ministry, and crucifixion. Not only did they see Jeremiah’s prophetic pronouncements fulfilled in Christ’s ministry and establishment of the church, but they also saw Jeremiah himself as a prophetic sign and prefiguring of Christ. Jeremiah, like Christ, was a prophet sanctified from birth, a preacher in Jerusalem who announced that God’s temple had become a den of thieves (Jer 7:11, Mark 11:17), and a target of murderous conspiracy (Jer 11:19, Mark 14:1). Jeremiah’s condemnation of idolatry and false prophets pertained not only to people living in ancient Jerusalem, but also to false teachers and heretics misleading unwary Christians in their own day. The prophet’s reproaches toward wicked priests serving in the Jerusalem temple could be applied to corrupt Christian clergy who led immoral lives and committed acts of financial corruption. Thus, through a variety of interpretive strategies, including explanations of puzzling historical or lexical details, moral lessons derived from the biblical text, and Christological readings of Jeremiah’s life and prophecies, medieval Christian interpreters exerted their exegetical efforts to bridge the gap between Jeremiah’s time and their own, speaking words of divine judgment and hope to the people of their own day.

86  Hugh of St. Cher, Postilla super Ieremiam, 198r. 87  Hugh of St. Cher, Postilla super Ieremiam, 198v. 88  Rabanus Maurus, Super Ieremiam, PL 111: 811.

434

Schroeder

Bibliography De Jong, Mayke. “Old Law and New-Found Power: Hrabanus Maurus and the Old Testament.” Pages 161–76 in Centres of Learning: Learning and Location in PreModern Europe and the Near East. Edited by Jan Willem Drijvers and Alasdair A. MacDonald. New York: Brill, 1995. Emery, Kent Jr. “Denys the Carthusian: The World of Thought Comes to Roermond.” Pages 255–304 in The Carthusians in the Low Countries: Studies in Monastic History and Heritage. Edited by Krijn Pansters. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Friedman, Jerome. The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-Century Christian-Hebraica in the Age of Renaissance Nostalgia. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1983. Froehlich, Karlfried. “Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament in the High Middle Ages.” Pages 496–558 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, Volume I, Part 2. Edited by Magne Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Klepper, Deena Copeland. The Insight of Unbelievers: Nicholas of Lyra and Christian Reading of Jewish Text in the Later Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. Schroeder, Joy A., trans. and ed. The Book of Jeremiah. BMT 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Signer, Michael A. “The Glossa Ordinaria and Medieval Anti-Judaism.” Pages 591–605 in A Distinct Voice: Medieval Studies in Honor of Leonard E. Boyle, O.P. Edited by Jacqueline Brown and William P. Stoneman. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997. Smith, Lesley. The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible commentary. Boston: Brill, 2009. Tarrer, Seth B. Reading with the Faithful: Interpretation of True and False Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah from Ancient Times to Modern. JTISup 6. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Van Liere, Frans. An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Wenthe, Dean O., ed. Jeremiah, Lamentations. ACCS Old Testament 12. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009. Wessley, Stephen E. Joachim of Fiore and Monastic Reform. New York: Peter Lang, 1990.

part 4 Jeremiah and Theology

∵

chapter 22

Jeremiah as Mediator of the Covenant* Jack R. Lundbom James Muilenburg, one of America’s preeminent scholars and teachers of the Old Testament,1 delivered during his career four known public lectures on “The Mediator of the Covenant,” a theme well documented in biblical and later Jewish writings, in which Moses is singled out as mediator par excellence between God and Israel. The first of these was a lecture, “Moses, the Mediator of the Covenant,” given at Chautauqua in 1950. Some years later, on April 24– 25, 1962, he gave the four Ayer Lectures on “The Mediator of the Covenant” at the 32nd Annual Post-Easter Convocation at Colgate Rochester Divinity School, and then in the next year, on November 20–21, 1963, he delivered the Nils W. Lund Memorial Lecture on “The Mediator of the Covenant” at North Park College and Theological Seminary. The latter consisted of four lectures: “Prolegomena to the Mediator of the Covenant”; “Moses, the Mediator of the Covenant”; “The Early Mediators of the Covenant”; and “The Great Mediators of the Covenant.” Another lecture, “The Mediator of the Covenant,” was delivered sometime between 1963 and 1967 at the University of California, Berkeley. Its exact date is unknown. The present essay will lift out excerpts from Muilenburg’s unpublished Lund lectures,2 and then go on to argue that Jeremiah, who understood himself as “the prophet like Moses” (Deut 18:15–18), became mediator of the covenant during the final days of Israelite nationhood, sometimes being successful in his mediation, but more often not. 1

Blessed are the Peacemakers

Mediation is often necessary in our own day, when gifted people have to be called in to arbitrate international disputes, disputes between labor and * This essay expands the chapter, “Prophet as Covenant Mediator,” in my Jeremiah: Prophet Like Moses, Cascade Companions (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015), 113–27. 1  Frederick Buechner, Now and Then (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983), 15–21. 2  Manuscripts of these lectures were given to me by Professor Muilenburg at the time of his retirement from The San Francisco Theological Seminary in 1972.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_023

438

Lundbom

management, and disputes among litigants in the lower courts. Successful international arbitrators in recent times have been President Jimmy Carter, who brought peace to Israel and Egypt; Richard Holbrooke, who negotiated the peace between warring factions in Bosnia; Senator George Mitchell, who labored tirelessly for peace between warring parties in Northern Ireland; and John Kerry, who negotiated a deal between the Western nations and Iran over a nuclear crisis. Luther gave this advice to peacemakers: “Carry the best to both sides,” a principle he learned from Saint Augustine, who observed how his mother went about settling disputes.3 Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt 5:9). 2

Mediation in the Old Testament

In the OT mediation is first seen in the person of Abraham and the power of prayer, where Israel’s patriarch is cited by the biblical writer as having interceded successfully on behalf of Abimelech, king of Gerar, who had taken Abraham’s wife and incurred God’s judgment for doing so (Gen 20). But this known man of prayer was unsuccessful in mediating on behalf of wicked Sodom (Gen 18:22–33), although God showed him mercy by spiriting Lot and his daughters out of the burning city to a place of safety (Gen 19:15–29). Mediation was sought but not found in the book of Job, where the suffering Job in replying to Bildad the Shuhite says he wished for an umpire to decide between him and the God who brought calamity upon him. Job knows he is innocent, but he also knows he cannot answer the Almighty as one does a human litigant in court. In 9:33, Job says: There is no umpire between us who might lay his hand (up)on us both.4

Or, in another translation: Would that there were an umpire between us To lay his hand on us both.5

3  Luther’s Works, vol. 21, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 41. 4  R SV; NRSV. 5  Marvin H. Pope, Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd ed., AB 15 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 70; cf. RSV and NRSV footnotes.

Jeremiah as Mediator of the Covenant

439

Marvin Pope says: “Since his case is prejudiced by God’s arbitrary power, Job wishes for an umpire or arbiter (môḵîaḥ) who could mediate and decide the dispute with equity … Job’s wish, however, is futile for there is no such person.”6 Later, when answering Eliphaz the Temanite, another would-be friend who thinks Job must have done wrong, Job claims to have a witness in heaven – presumably an intermediary or intercessor (Job 16:19; cf. 33:23–24) – who can speak on his behalf.7 The friends become more vehement in their indictment, but Job’s confidence is also on the rise, and in a second answer to Bildad the Shuhite he expresses faith in a “redeemer” (‫)גאל‬. In the famous passage of 19:25–27, Job says: “For I know that my redeemer lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth” (v. 25). Some take the “redeemer” to be God (RSV: “Redeemer”),8 but Pope – who translates ‫ גאל‬as “vindicator” – says God is Job’s adversary, not his defender, therefore this person must be the “umpire” of 9:33 or “witness” of 16:19.9 We know from reading farther on in the book that Job is no match for the Almighty, and that no one steps forth to mediate the dispute between them. Job concludes his case by taking an oath of innocence, and calls upon the Almighty (Shaddai) to answer him (Job 31:35). Well, the Almighty does answer – in the blast of a mighty whirlwind (Job 38–41). But no explanation is given for Job’s suffering, and the question of divine justice is not broached. In a rapid-fire barrage of questions, God simply asks Job what he knows about the marvels of creation, and God’s providential care over it all. Job confesses that he has spoken out of ignorance, and peace comes with him repenting in dust and ashes (Job 42:6). 3

Moses as Covenant Mediator

The mediator par excellence in the OT is Moses, who assumes the role of “covenant mediator” in having to negotiate disputes between Yahweh and the people of Israel.10 He is rightly called such even though the term “mediator of the covenant” never occurs with reference to him in the OT or the Apocrypha, 6  Pope, Job, 76. Compare the use of ‫ יכח‬in Gen 31:37 and Isa 2:4. 7  Pope, Job, 125. 8  The AV had “redeemer” in lower case. 9  Pope, Job, 146. 10  Christian Schoettgen, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae I (Dresden and Leipzig: Christoph Hekelii & Filium, 1733), 738–39.

440

Lundbom

being found only in a later Jewish writing. Jewish and early Christian writers more often use just “mediator.” But the “covenant mediator” attribution finds support enough in the OT, where texts in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy bear ample witness to Moses’ mediating skills at Mount Sinai, during the wilderness trek, and in the Moabite plains where Israel was encamped before crossing the Jordan into Canaan. Even before Moses became mediator of the covenant his skills were tested when God sent him to both Pharaoh and the Israelites to announce his plan to deliver the Israelites out of Egypt (Exod 3:7–22). For whatever reason, God did not wish to speak to either party directly, so Moses was called in as an intermediary. Moses resisted going on both errands, yet he went – with brother Aaron accompanying him on the visit to Pharaoh (Exod 5:1–6:9). When he did go, he met with resistance from both Pharaoh and the Israelites. Mediation took time, and required a series of terrible plagues to wear the Pharaoh down, but in the end it was successful, and the Israelites were delivered out of a miserable slavery. It was at Sinai that Moses became “mediator of the covenant.” Israel was assembled at the holy mountain and a great theophany occurred, leaving the people rocking in fright. Moses brought them out of the camp to meet God, and they took their stand at the foot of the mountain. The theophany occurred amidst thunder, lightning, trumpet blasts, and a mountain enveloped in smoke (Exod 19:16–19). The people were much afraid, and stood at a safe distance. The Ten Commandments were given. The people, nevertheless, said to Moses: “You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die” (Exod 20:18–19; cf. Deut 4:9–14, 32–40; 5:2–5, 22–27). They wanted Moses as a mediator, which is what he became (Lev 26:46). Muilenburg explains: Israel cannot tolerate the immediacy of holiness, the holy God who is about to speak. Moses, the charismatic speaker, will communicate the divine word and will. So we reach the supreme moment of Yahweh’s address, where heaven bows down to earth, and calls man to hearing through the mediator, Moses. But the words as we have them are drawn from the cultic liturgy as it was employed in the sanctuaries of a much later period; it is not therefore the historical Moses of whom we are speaking, but rather the covenant mediator who takes the part of Moses in the celebrations.11

11  Muilenburg, Lund Lecture, “Moses the Mediator of the Covenant,” 7.

Jeremiah as Mediator of the Covenant

441

Moses’ role as mediator in giving Israel the law was preserved in later Jewish and early Christian writings (Test. Mos./As. Mos. 3:12; Gal 3:19).12 The Greek term for “mediator” in these and other documents is μεσίτηϛ.13 Mediation again became necessary – one might better say urgent – after Moses ascended the mountain, and in his absence the people – with the aid of Aaron – fashioned a golden calf. Yahweh was so wroth he wanted to destroy the people and begin all over again with Moses. Moses therefore had to plead the people’s case and make atonement for their sin. The biblical writer says: On the morrow, Moses said to the people, “You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to Yahweh; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” So Moses returned to Yahweh and said, “Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if thou wilt forgive their sin – and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written”. Exod 32:30–32, RSV

Muilenburg remarks: “It is possible that the mediatorial work of Moses nowhere comes to such eloquent expression as here.”14 Yahweh forgave the people; the covenant was renewed, and the people were allowed to resume their journey (Exod 33:1–17; cf. Deut 9:7–21; 10:1–11). Philo, in recalling this defining event, says that Moses had to take the part of “mediator and reconciler” (μεσίτηϛ και διαλλακτὴϛ) in making prayers and supplications that Israel’s sins might be forgiven.15 Moses had to intercede for Israel in the wilderness, not once, but a number of times. When the people complained about their misfortune at Taberah, Yahweh sent a fire in the camp. Moses prayed, and the fire abated (Num 11:1–3; Deut 9:22–29). Moses was forced to intercede again when the people rejected the report of returning spies who had gone to scope out Canaan. The rebellion here was against Moses and Aaron, and the people wanted to choose another 12  James Charlesworth, “The Testament of Moses,” OTP, 1:928–29; R.H. Charles, The Assump­ tion of Moses (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1897), 13; Charles, “The Assumption of Moses,” APOT 2:407–24 (417). 13  The term means “mediator, umpire, arbitrator”; cf. Liddle and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1106. The term μεσίτηϛ appears only once in the lxx – in Job 9:33. 14  Lund Lecture, “Prolegomena to the Mediator of the Covenant,” 15. 15  Philo, “On the Life of Moses, Book II,” in Philo, Volume VI, trans. F.H. Colson, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 166.

442

Lundbom

leader. But Moses mediated the dispute and the people were pardoned, although for punishment Yahweh said a generation would be left to die in the wilderness (Num 13–14; Deut 1:26–46). A serious rebellion occurred when Korah and his followers spoke out against Moses and Aaron, and Yahweh again wanted to destroy the people. This time both Moses and Aaron interceded, with the result that the earth swallowed up only Korah and those with him. But the rebellion was not over. The people continued to murmur against Moses and Aaron, and Yahweh again wanted to consume everyone. A plague was sent. Moses and Aaron quickly made atonement for the people, and their mediation was successful. The plague was halted (Num 16). Moses and Aaron were thus remembered as successful mediators in Ps 99:6–8. No wonder then that Hosea, centuries later, remembered (Moses) not only as the prophet who brought Israel up from the land of Egypt, but also as the prophet who preserved Israel in the wilderness (Hos 12:13). Preservation came with Moses assuming the role of mediator between God and the nation, and his mediation being successful. Moses is designated “mediator of the covenant” in The Testament of Moses, or The Assumption of Moses, as it was earlier called, a pseudepigraphical work dating from the first century AD that purports to be Moses’ farewell exhortation to Joshua just before his death.16 Moses says in referring to himself: “But he did design and devise me who (was) prepared from the beginning of the world to be the mediator of the covenant” (Test. Mos./As. Mos. 1:14).17 Moses is again called a “mediator” in 3:12 of this document, and his mediatorial function is vividly portrayed in 11:17. The term “mediator of the covenant” had thus become a recognized title for Moses in the early Christian era. When the NT writer of Hebrews called Jesus the “mediator of a new/better covenant” (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24), the figure of Moses was clearly in the background.18 The Talmud and Midrashic literature

16  Charlesworth, “The Testament of Moses,” 919–21. The extant copy of our text is a Latin palimpsest from the sixth century AD, translated from the Greek but perhaps deriving from a Semitic original (Aramaic or Hebrew). The work could not have been written before 4 BC, because Herod (the Great) is already dead (4:6). R.H. Charles argued for a date in the first century AD, before AD 70, as the Temple was still standing (1:17). 17  Charlesworth, “The Testament of Moses,” 927; Charles, The Assumption of Moses, 6–7; APOT 2:415. 18  Charles, The Assumption of Moses, 6, note on “mediator” in 1:14.

Jeremiah as Mediator of the Covenant

443

also referred to Moses as a “mediator” (Exod. Rab. 3:5; Num. Rab. 11:3), where the Talmudic term was ‫סרסור‬, meaning “middleman, broker.”19 4

Other Early Covenant Mediators

In Muilenburg’s view, “Moses is the first covenant mediator of a dynastic succession of mediators.”20 Other early covenant mediators cited were Joshua, Samuel, and Elijah.21 Joshua, a Moses redivivus, showed himself to be a covenant mediator by presiding over the covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem, which occurred just prior to his death (Josh 24).22 The next important covenant mediator was Samuel, who was remembered with Moses and Aaron in Ps 99:6–8 as successfully mediating between God and Israel. In Jeremiah’s time, Moses and Samuel were cited as Israel’s great mediators of the past (Jer 15:1). Samuel became the central figure at Israel’s first sanctuary at Shiloh, but while he was still a boy serving under Eli the priest, the biblical writer tells us that “the word of Yahweh was rare in those days” (1 Sam 3:1). The problem was the same as in the wilderness, and all during the period of the Judges: disobeying the covenant and chasing after other gods, and Yahweh would not countenance it, repeatedly giving the people into the hands of their enemies. Samuel’s first mediation took place at Mizpah after the Philistines returned the ark they had captured, and Israel agreed to put away the Canaanite gods and serve Yahweh only. The people asked Samuel to intercede for them, which he did. The intercession was successful, and Israel went on to roundly defeat the Philistines (1 Sam 7:1–11). Samuel’s defining mediations came when Israel asked for a king, and then when Saul, the man chosen, disobeyed Yahweh’s word after becoming king. Mediation was necessary when the people asked for a king because their request implied a rejection of Yahweh as King (1 Sam 8; 12). Mediation here was successful. Yahweh granted the people’s request (8:22; 12:12), but told Samuel to warn them what would happen if they had a king to rule over them.

19  Charles, The Assumption of Moses, 6; cf. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (London: Luzac, 1903; reprint: Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 1029. 20  Lund Lecture, “Moses, the Mediator of the Covenant,” 5. 21  Lund Lecture, “The Early Mediators of the Covenant.” 22  Lund Lecture, “Moses, the Mediator of the Covenant,” 2.

444

Lundbom

Later, things took a different turn. Saul had defeated the Amalekites in battle, but spared Agag, their king, and took the best of the animals as spoil. He had been commanded to fully carry out the holy war ban, that is, spare no person or animal and devote (sacrifice) all to Yahweh. Yahweh now was sorry that he had made Saul king. Samuel prayed all night with tears on Saul’s behalf, but his mediation failed. Yahweh rejected Saul as king (1 Sam 15). Muilenburg said: “Moses lives on … in another figure of momentous importance in the traditions of Israel, old and new, in Elijah the Tishbite of Gilead beyond the Jordan.”23 About the colorful Elijah stories Muilenburg goes on to say: The accounts of his prophetic activity are shrouded in legend. Imagination and pious memory have done for him what no literal, prosaic biography could ever accomplish; only they portray the magnitude and the mystery of the man, only they measure his stature and eminence…. The prophet speaks with an authority and boldness before which even an Ahab must bow. The voice of the covenant speaker is imperious in its outspokenness: it is you who are the troubler of Israel, says Elijah, you and your father’s house.24 One thinks of Moses before Pharaoh and Samuel before Saul.25

The event for which Elijah will ever be remembered was the contest with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18). There, after an abject failure of the Baal prophets to call down fire from heaven, Elijah called upon Yahweh, and the fire descended, after which the people cried out: “Yahweh, he is God, Yahweh, he is God.” Prophet and people were now one, for Elijah’s very name meant “Yahweh is my God.” Elijah had turned Israel back to the ancient Yahwistic faith, and in so doing succeeded as mediator of the covenant. The last book of the OT in Christian Bibles, Malachi, expects that Elijah will perform another act of mediation in returning to usher in the eschatological day of Yahweh. The writer concludes with an admonition and a prophecy: Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb26 for all Israel. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Yahweh comes. And he will turn the hearts

23  Lund Lecture, “Moses, the Mediator of the Covenant,” 5. 24  1 Kgs 18:18. 25  Lund Lecture, “The Early Mediators of the Covenant,” 5. 26  “Horeb” is another name for Mount Sinai; see Deuteronomy.

Jeremiah as Mediator of the Covenant

445

of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse. Mal 4:4–6

In the New Testament it is Moses and Elijah who appear with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36), all mediators of the covenant. 5

The Great Mediators of the Covenant

Muilenburg turns finally to address the greatest of Israel’s mediators, Hosea and Jeremiah, and says beyond them lie the figure of the Servant of the Lord, and finally, the one who dominates all the others, the eschatological mediator of the new age, Jesus the Christ.27 There were doubtless others, in his opinion, but the compilers of the OT have not preserved them for us.28 The problem in Northern Israel in the mid-eighth century was Baal worship and a syncretism that threatened to destroy the ancient covenant faith. Both Amos and Hosea denounce the worship currently going on at northern sanctuaries (Amos 4:4–5; 5:4b–5; Hos 4:15; 5:1; 8:5; 10:5; 12:11). Hosea, having a softer side than his contemporary from Tekoa, attempts mediation between a wayward people and God by preaching the ancient covenant faith and acting it out symbolically by marrying a prostitute, sending her away, and then taking her back again (Hos 1–3). Muilenburg says: Hosea stands in the great succession of covenant mediators. His entire prophecy throbs with passionate intensity with the central and over-arching reality of Israel’s faith, the covenant words, “You shall be my people, and I will be your God.” In the image of the divine marriage or betrothal he portrays the intimacy of this bond. The true name of Israel was Ammi (“my people”), but its disobedience is so grevious that it had to be changed to Lo-ammi (“not my people”). Yet the day will come when Yahweh through his grace will speak the ancient words, “You are my people” again, and Israel will then respond, “Thou art my God.” Surely this is Moses speaking five centuries later; Israel is again at Sinai, and there her covenant Lord speaks words for a new and better covenant: “I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness (sedeq) and

27  Lund Lecture, “The Great Mediators of the Covenant,” 1. 28  Lund Lecture, “The Great Mediators of the Covenant,” 1.

446

Lundbom in justice (mishpat), in covenant love (hesed), and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and in knowledge of Yahweh (Hos 2:19–20).”29

For some reason Muilenburg did not include Amos as a covenant mediator, although he appears to have been one in visions reported at the Bethel sanctuary (Amos 7:1–9). Twice, he said, he pleaded that Israel be forgiven, and twice Yahweh rescinded his judgment. But the third time no intercession was made. Yahweh simply pronounced judgment upon Israel’s sanctuaries, and said he would rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.30 With no intercession having occurred in the third vision, we can assume that Amos no longer had standing before Yahweh as a covenant mediator. 6

Jeremiah as Covenant Mediator

Another great covenant mediator in the OT, eclipsing everyone except Moses, is Jeremiah, who mediated or attempted mediation between Yahweh and the king, selected individuals, and the people. Later Jewish tradition remembered Jeremiah as one who prayed much for the people and for Jerusalem (2 Macc 15:13–16). In the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch), a pseudepigraphical work dated after 70 AD, Baruch says to Jeremiah: “your works are for this city [i.e., Jerusalem] like a firm pillar and your prayers like a strong wall” (cf. Jer 1:18).31 Jeremiah’s role as covenant mediator was foreordained in his call to be a prophet, where for him, as for Moses and Isaiah earlier, the prophet was to be royal messenger in the service of Yahweh the King (Exod 3:10; Isa 6). His task would be twofold: (1) to deliver messages from Yahweh – to the king, to select individuals, to the covenant people, and to nations of the world; and (2) to bring messages back to Yahweh – usually from the king or the people. In this 29  Lund Lecture, “The Great Mediators of the Covenant,” 3. The RSV translates the end of Hos 2:20 as “and you shall know the Lord.” 30  The text here has problems. The accepted reading has Yahweh “standing beside a wall built with a plumb line, with a plumb line in his hand” (so RSV). But Andersen and Freedman translate v. 7: “Indeed my Lord was standing beside a plastered wall (wall of ’ănāk) with a lump of tin (’ănāk) in his hand.” See discussion in Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 24A (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 754–59. 31  The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch) 2:2; Charlesworth, OTP 1:621; Charles, APOT 2:481.

Jeremiah as Mediator of the Covenant

447

latter capacity Jeremiah became a man of prayer, which, as we learned about Abraham mentioned earlier (Gen 20:7), was one of the defining marks of a prophet.32 For Jeremiah, too, intercessory prayer was a defining mark of the (true) prophet (Jer 27:18). There was another reason why Jeremiah assumed the role of covenant mediator. He fell into it because he understood himself to be “the prophet like Moses” of Deut 18:15–18. Muilenburg says regarding the Deuteronomy passage: “It is indeed the most important of all those [passages] that bear on the motif of the covenant mediator. No passage proved more influential for the future; indeed it is not too much to say that it is the locus classicus of the prophet like Moses.”33 In it Moses says to the people: A prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like me, Yahweh your God will raise up for you; to him you shall listen, according to all that you asked from Yahweh your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, “I can no more listen to the voice of Yahweh my God, and this great fire I can no longer see, or I will surely die.” And Yahweh said to me, ‘They do well in what they have spoken. A prophet I will raise up for them, from the midst of their brethren, like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him”. Deut 18:15–18

Jeremiah appropriated for himself this promise in his call (Jer 1:7, 9; 15:16). Deuteronomy had just named an array of mediators that Israel would encounter after entering Canaan, and said these must not be followed (Deut 18:9–14). People were to heed the voice of the prophet, “the prophet like Moses,” who would be the mediator acceptable to him. Mediation was sought in public worship, and here we see Jeremiah seeking to be a mediator of the covenant. One mediation appears to lie behind an early call to repentance, after which comes a communal confession of sin (Jer 3:21–25). Gunkel identified the confession as communal by the “we” and “our God” references in vv. 22b–23.34 The passage as a whole is a liturgy concluding chs. 2 and 3, which contain Jeremiah’s early preaching on apostasy and repentance. If Jeremiah happens to have been the liturgist, which is certainly possible, even though the text gives no indication that he was, he would be 32  See Lundbom, The Hebrew Prophets: An Introduction (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 29–31. 33  Lund Lecture, “Moses, The Mediator of the Covenant,” 14. 34  Hermann Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction, trans. Thomas M. Horner (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 14.

448

Lundbom

acting in the capacity of covenant mediator. Similar to what happens today in corporate worship, people join the liturgist in the confession of sin. The liturgy:35 Call to repentance: A cry on the bare heights is heard, the weeping supplications of Israel’s children; For they have perverted their way, they have forgotten Yahweh their God. Return, turnable children; I will heal your turning away.

Communal confession: Look we, we have come to you, for you are Yahweh our God. Surely, the Lie is from the hills, Noise of the Mountains; Surely, in Yahweh our God, is the salvation of Israel. The Shame has consumed what our fathers worked for, from our youth – their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters. Let us lie down in our shame and let our dishonor cover us, for against Yahweh our God we have sinned – we and our fathers, from our youth unto this day. We have not obeyed the voice of Yahweh our God. Jer 3:21–25

The call for repentance begins with a pathetic cry on treeless, windswept hills where people are engaged in Canaanite fertility rites. Their weeping and supplicating is probably for rain. Then comes the voice of Yahweh: “I will heal your

35  The translation and liturgical outline is drawn from Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday / New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 319–23.

Jeremiah as Mediator of the Covenant

449

turning away” (v. 22a). In the confession people say they will return to Yahweh, for the frenzy on the hills has been for “the Lie,” that is, Baal. The Canaanite deity is further disparaged by being called “Noise of the Mountains.” The people confess that only in Yahweh their God is the salvation of Israel. The prose in vv. 24–25 is expansion of the core confession, which is poetry. It adds that “the Shame” – again Baal and Baal worship – is responsible for having brought ruin to all for which prior generations have labored. People must now lie down in a shame of their own. In one of Jeremiah’s personal confessions he says that he stood before Yahweh to speak good for individuals who had dug a pit to take his life, asking that Yahweh take away his wrath from them (Jer 18:20). Whether his mediation was successful the text does not say. Probably it was not, for plots continued to be hatched against the prophet (Jer 18:18). Elsewhere in poetry of the book are laments, confessions, and a rejection of mediation. One lament was over a drought that had become particularly severe (Jer 14:1–6). Nobles and farmers were getting no water from the canals, and wild animals were abandoning newborns or dying themselves for a lack of food. The ground was cracked and dry as bone. What followed was another communal confession (Gunkel) and a petition for deliverance, perhaps again led by Jeremiah (14:7–9), but this time Yahweh answered with two judgment oracles – one on the nation, and one on the prophets preaching peace (14:10, 15–16). Mediation was thus rejected. Yahweh would not listen to Jeremiah as he did to Moses. The lament: Judah mourns, her gates languish; they are black to the earth, The cry of Jerusalem goes up. Their nobles send their young ones for water; they come upon the canals; They do not find water, their containers return empty. They are ashamed and disgraced, and they cover their heads, On account of the ground being cracked, because there is not rain in the land.

450

Lundbom The farmers are ashamed; they cover their heads, Because even the doe in the field gives birth and forsakes, because there is not grass. The wild asses stand on the bare heights; they pant for air like jackals; Their eyes fail, because of no herbage. Jer 14:2–6

The communal confession and petition: Though our iniquities testify against us, Yahweh, act for the sake of your name; For our backslidings are many, against you we have sinned. The Hope of Israel, its savior in time of trouble; Why will you become like a sojourner in the land, and like a traveler turned aside to lodge? Why will you become like a helpless man, like a mighty man unable to save? But you are in our midst, Yahweh, and your name upon us is called; do not leave us! Jer 14:7–9

Jeremiah then reports Yahweh’s response to these pious words: He will not accept the people, and promises judgment. People continue to wander after other gods, and they love it: So they loved to wander, their feet they did not restrain; Thus Yahweh did not accept them; now he will remember their iniquity, and call to account their sin. Jer 14:10 36 36  Translation from Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 691–710.

Jeremiah as Mediator of the Covenant

451

In the following narrative Yahweh tells Jeremiah not to pray on behalf of the people. Even if they fast and sacrifice, he will no longer accept them. Instead he will put an end to them by sword, famine, and pestilence. But Jeremiah says prophets are telling people that none of this will happen, and that there will be assured peace in the land. Yahweh says it is a lie. He did not send these prophets; they are simply deceiving the people (Jer 14:11–14). The divine response then contains another strident judgment oracle, this one against the prophets of peace. Yahweh says the streets of Jerusalem will be strewn with dead bodies of those to whom they are prophesying. There will be none to bury them (Jer 14:15–16). On yet another occasion, it happens all over again. Jeremiah utters a personal lament (Jer 14:17–19b), which is followed by a communal lament (Gunkel) and confession of sin (14:19c–22), and then one judgment oracle against the people. Jeremiah’s mediation is again rejected (15:1–4). The lament: Let my eyes run down with tears, night and day, and let them not stop; For a major shatter has been shattered, my dear virgin people, a most incurable stroke. If I went out to the field, then look! those slain by the sword; And if I entered the city, then look! the diseases of famine; For also prophet also priest, wander to a land that they do not know. Have you utterly rejected Judah? Does Zion your soul abhor? So why have you struck us down, that there is no healing for us? Jer 14:17–19b

The communal lament and confession: To hope for peace – and no good! for a time of healing – and look, terror! We know, Yahweh, our wickedness, the iniquity of our fathers; indeed we have sinned against you.

452

Lundbom Do not spurn, for the sake of your name, do not disdain your glorious throne; Remember, do not break your covenant with us. Are there among the nothings of the nations rainmakers? Or the heavens, do they give showers? Are you not the one, Yahweh, our God? We are hoping for you, indeed you, you have made all these. Jer 14:19c–22

People ask that Yahweh not break the covenant with them. But Jeremiah’s mediation is rejected, this time more forcefully than before. Yahweh says that even if Moses and Samuel were standing before him, the two great covenant mediators of the past, he would not incline to this people. He wants them out of his presence (15:1). They will ask where they are to go? The answer comes in two divine oracles: Thus said Yahweh: Whoever is to death – to death, and whoever is to the sword – to the sword, and whoever is to famine – to famine, and whoever is to captivity – to captivity. And I will appoint over them four families – oracle of Yahweh – the sword to kill and the dogs to drag away; and the birds of the skies and the beasts of the earth to devour and to destroy. Jer 15:2b–337

We see here an extraordinary turn of events. Jeremiah, the prophet like Moses, who has stood before Yahweh to plead for individuals and for the nation, is rejected as covenant mediator. He is told to pray no more. Elsewhere in the book Yahweh tells Jeremiah the same thing (Jer 7:16–20; 11:14–17). Muilenburg used to tell his students that Jeremiah was probably praying all the time. In one instance where Jeremiah is told to pray no longer, Yahweh says, “Do not pressure me” (Jer 7:16). Diviners and like practitioners in the ancient 37  Translation from Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 710–23.

Jeremiah as Mediator of the Covenant

453

world seeking mediation between the gods and people sometimes frantically cut themselves until the blood gushed, as the prophets of Baal did on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18:28). It was a form of manipulation to evoke divine pity, but Yahweh will submit to no form of manipulation. The mediator is simply to make his plea before Yahweh – sometimes with strong urging, to be sure – and accept whatever answer comes, and then relay that answer to the suppliant. During Judah’s last decade, Zedekiah sought out Jeremiah continually, asking him to intercede with Yahweh to bring about a deliverance of Jerusalem from Nebuchadnezzar, who was besieging the city (Jer 21:1–2; 37:3). Jeremiah’s mediation in each case was met with a divine “No!” One is reminded here of the friar-prophet of Florence, Savonarola, who was continually sought out for mediation by the Signoria and prominent citizens when it was feared the city would be sacked by Charles VIII of France. Jeremiah’s rejection as covenant mediator was not permanent, however. After the fall of Jerusalem, when the remnant community had fled Mizpah following the murder of Gedaliah, and had a mind to go to Egypt (41:17), it was decided that first they should ask Jeremiah to inquire of Yahweh. The people agreed to obey Yahweh’s voice, whatever Yahweh might answer. Jeremiah put the matter before Yahweh, and had to wait ten days for an answer. An answer came, showing that Jeremiah once again had standing as a mediator. Yahweh said the people should not go to Egypt, but should remain in the land. But mediation was again rejected, this time by the people, who refused to listen to Jeremiah, reneged on their promise to obey Yahweh, and went to Egypt anyway (42:1–43:7). But before the fall of Jerusalem, the “prophet like Moses” announced a new covenant from his place of confinement in the court of the guard (Jer 31:31–34). Muilenburg says: Jeremiah is here the mediator of [the] God of the new covenant as Moses was God’s mediator of the old; yet the new is understood in relation to the old, and all the magnalia, the mighty events of the old, are brought together to body forth the new. The assurances of God are given in a great first-person asseveration for eschatological time.38

The New Testament names the mediator of this new covenant as Jesus. Paul says in 1 Timothy:

38  Lund Lecture, “The Great Mediators of the Covenant,” 5.

454

Lundbom For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. 1 Tim 2:5–6

And the writer of Hebrews says: Therefore he [i.e., Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. Heb 9:15

And again: … and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel. Heb 12:24; cf. 8:6

Select Bibliography Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24A. New York: Doubleday, 1989. Charles, R.H. The Assumption of Moses. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1897. Charles, R.H. “The Assumption of Moses.” APOT 2:407–424. Charlesworth, James. “The Testament of Moses.” OTP 1:919–34. Gunkel, Hermann. The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction. Translated by Thomas M. Horner. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday / New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. Lundbom, Jack R. The Hebrew Prophets: An Introduction. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: Prophet Like Moses. Cascade Companions. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015. Muilenburg, James. “The Mediator of the Covenant.” Nils W. Lund Memorial Lecture. North Park College and Theological Seminary. November 20–21, 1963. Pope, Marvin H. Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 3rd ed. AB 15. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

chapter 23

Jeremiah’s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future Terence E. Fretheim It is common to think that the life of the God of the Old Testament, unlike the life of the world, cannot be considered in terms of temporality.1 This understanding is often just assumed to be the case, so powerful is the tradition regarding the atemporality of God.2 It can be claimed, however, that scattered across the OT are texts wherein “time” is a significant factor in the divine life. In this essay, I seek to show that Jeremiah reflects an understanding that Israel’s God has a past, a present, and a future.3

1  For several quotes on this matter from traditional scholarship, see James Muilenburg, “The Biblical View of Time,” HTR 54 (1961) 250 (e.g., God “stands above all time” or God is “set above the limitations of time”). The language of the title of this article stands in contrast to the thought of Ernst Jenni: “temporality, the breaking up of time into past, present, and future, distinguishes the creature from the Creator, who is not bound by the limits of time (Ps. 90:4)…. the transcendence of God over all time” (“Time,” IDB, 4:647–648). See also the view of Childs in fn. 15, below. For earlier discussions of God and time, see Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, OBT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 39–43; and Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 61–64. A number of my comments on Jeremiah texts are adapted from Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah, SHBC (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002). 2  On God’s relationship to time in the OT, see the references in Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology, trans. Leo G. Perdue, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 1: 219–26. 3  Jeremiah’s point of view stands in agreement with many other OT texts. For a statement on God’s relationship to time in the OT, see John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 2: Israel’s Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 34: “God’s eternity is not that God is outside time but that God is throughout time…. God makes plans, has changes of mind about plans, keeps in mind or puts out of mind events from the past, is slow to get angry, stays angry for a shorter rather than a longer time. God’s experience of time is different from that of human beings, but it is still an experience of time in the sense that God knows about before and after, about shorter and longer time, about looking forward and looking back. God embraces and is present to all time.” This is a helpful statement, but phrases such as “God is throughout time” and “God embraces and is present to all time” sound atemporal. Goldingay references my discussion in The Suffering of God.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_024

456 1

Fretheim

Beginning with Genesis 1–11

I begin with a look at Gen 1:1–2:4a, which, in view of its canonical placement “in the beginning,” provides an important perspective for considering this issue across the OT. God’s work of creating is specifically laid out in terms of a time frame; God created creatures in different ways with different effects on six different days. However lengthy one understands these days to be, God’s creating is presented in terms of the passing of time.4 God’s relationship with the world is understood to be the beginning and “opening chapters” of time. God opens up the creation into a historical world. This divine move into temporality entails change for God, as I shall show. So, in that creative process, God experiences the created order as it comes into being; that includes everything that exists, including its times. God so deeply experiences that becoming of creation that God calls everything “good,” including its time. The specification of “days” in Gen 1–2 exhibits an understanding that time was present from the very beginnings of God’s creative activity. In creating, God comes into relationship with that which is created, including their times and places. The temporal process – past, present, and future – is as real for God as the world is. In fact, it is even more accurate to say that, given God’s “Godness,” God experiences time more deeply than does any creature. By creating for six successive days, followed by resting on the seventh day, God acts in particular periods of time. God’s own life experiences specific times in creating and, finally, in rest. God’s life and work may be said to have a temporal shape, at least since the beginning of creation. God’s relationship with the world changes as the world changes, not least in view of the passing of time. The OT generally has a strong sense of time as linear;5 this is seen, for example, in its common use of temporal language linked to divine action, such as: when, once, then, the days are coming, at that time. Time for God is a journey to be made, a path to be trodden. Since creation, God has chosen to take that temporal journey with the world; God is always on the move with the world in all of its temporality. God is eternal, but not timeless. Indeed, God experiences

4  It is likely that a day, with its day/night rhythm, is understood to be a typical twenty-four hour period. For an earlier discussion of Gen 1–2 as a “story of the past,” see Terence E. Fretheim, “Were the Days of Creation Twenty-Four Hours Long?,” in The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986), 12–35. 5  There are also cyclical elements, evident, for example, in the recurrent passing of seasons.

Jeremiah ’ s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future

457

the movement of time from past to present to future more deeply than any creature. The temporal details of Gen 1–2 indicate that, in the process of creating, time does not lie outside of divine experience. God’s involvement in the world’s life, including its temporality, is direct and ongoing, even when God is resting. Climactically, God is twice stated to rest “on the seventh day from all the work that he had done [in creation]” (Gen 2:2–3). These verses not only testify to God’s resting, but God’s resting for a specific period of time. The seven-day sequence, climaxing on the day of rest (not named Sabbath here), suggests that the temporality in view is to be identified with “time” in the normal sense of that term. In Gerhard von Rad’s language, these days are to be “understood as actual days and as a unique, unrepeatable lapse of time in this world.”6 It is likely that in view of the pervasive usage of “day” in Genesis 1–2, the same kind of “day” is in mind throughout. In the creating of day and night, light and darkness, on the first day with an evening and a morning (1:3–5), the ordering of days is made clear. Time began with God’s ordering of creation in temporal terms and the seven-day time of God’s creating and resting establishes a temporal pattern for the world and God’s ongoing relationship to that world. God determines that the world’s time is also God’s time. God knows the days not simply as a specific period of time, but in their passing from day to day. Again and again in Gen 1–2, God does something on a particular day. A specific divine activity is temporally specified. Such divine moves mean that time is an actual experience of God, with explicitly stated effects upon God on the seventh day (“God was refreshed,” Exod 31:17; see also Exod 23:12); time and its passing is a genuine reality within the very life of God. Creating the world takes up actual time for God. By resting on the seventh day, God is thereby explicitly said to be personally experiencing the time of the created order. God has “moved into” that temporal order and made it an ongoing dimension of God’s own life. Time is as real to God’s experience as is any other dimension of the created order. Texts such as Exod 20:11 and 31:17 make sense only if the seven days are interpreted as actual days; at the least, these texts witness to early understandings of the meaning of “day” in Gen 1–2. That the seventh day is represented as a divine experience may be the reason why, unlike the first six days, “night” is not mentioned at this point (see Pss 139:12; 104:2). 6   Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 63. Odil Hannes Steck refers to the days as “seven real days” in World and Environment (Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), 99. Compare Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion, CC (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), who claims that Genesis 1 is “parabolic,” but still has to do with time, which “began with creation” (p. 90).

458

Fretheim

That the seventh-day rest is temporally specified in Gen 2:2–3 is revealing of a God who not only experiences the passing of time, but who takes “time out” to let the creatures be free to be the creatures they were created to be. In so resting, God thereby chooses not to exercise “control” over their lives. However one defines this time of divine “refreshment,” such unusual language for God implies that this particular time has been experienced by God and will have a positive effect upon the creatures.7 To use language I have used before, “The day of divine rest is revealing of a God who takes time seriously and takes a specific ‘time out’ to let the creatures have their own freedom to be what they were created to be…. God has freely chosen to include the community of creatures that have a past, present, and a future within the divine life…. By immersing the divine self in time, God sanctifies or hallows that very temporal reality (Gen 2:3).”8 At the same time, this divine resting text is revealing of the length of the previous uses of “day” in Gen 1. There is no language in this text (or other texts) to suggest that this divine experience of time is limited to this particular day. Rather, from this textual point on, Bible readers are invited to think of the temporality of God, that God’s relationship with the world is to be understood in terms of the passage of time. Or, from another angle, God has freely chosen to include the community of creatures that have a past, present, and future within the divine life. In effect, God immerses the divine self in the same temporality that is experienced by the creatures. Creation and time and God go together from “the beginning.” To speak of creation as coming into being along a timeline lifts up creation as dynamic process, and not simply divine product. God chooses to take time in creating rather than create instantaneously. This understanding of divine reality may be rooted in the fact that God does not do all the creating alone; God involves the creatures themselves in creational developments (Gen 1:11–13, 20, 24, 26). God, working interdependently, takes the time necessary for creation to come to be what it is.9 In sum, at least since the creation God has chosen that the divine life be temporally ordered. God is the eternal, uncreated member of this world community, but God also chooses to be a true and ongoing participant in the “ups 7  That the Sabbath is first commanded by God before the law is given at Sinai (see Exod 16:23–30) gives to Sabbath a creational orientation. 8  Fretheim, God and World, 62–63. 9  See Terence E. Fretheim, “Issues of Interdependence in Matters of Creation: An Old Testament Perspective,” in Eco-Reformation: Grace and Hope for a Planet in Peril, ed. Lisa Dahill and James Martin-Schramm (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2016), 125–39.

Jeremiah ’ s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future

459

and downs” of that story.10 Since the beginning of creation, wherein God takes time to create the world, God has freely chosen to enter into the time of the world and truly live in its flow. God’s relationship to the world is constituted from within its structures of time.11 To conclude this section, I note one other Gen 1–11 text that is related to issues of divine temporality, namely, Gen 6:6–7. God “is sorry” that God created humankind in the first place.12 Such a word from God assumes divine temporality. God knows what might (might!) have been and profoundly desires that things had not come to this. In this text, the past of God (what God once did – created humankind) is contrasted with the present of God (what the present situation now is for God – God is grieving). This “collision” of past and present in the divine life occasions a deep divine regret with the accompanying suffering for God. This text, too, is testimony to the temporality of God, who has so deeply entered into the world’s life that past and present and future are real for the divine life. I move now to reflections on God and time in the book of Jeremiah, lifting up texts that work with God’s past, present, and future time (or a combination thereof). 2

Jeremiah’s God Has a Past

2.1

God Remembers Thus says the Lord: I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruits of his harvest. All who ate of it were held guilty; disaster came upon them, says the Lord. Jer 2:2–313

God “remembers” what the divine relationship with Israel used to be like. God recalls a specific past situation early in the God-Israel relationship (youth; love 10  Sometimes it is suggested that God first entered into time and history in the Christ event. But such a perspective diminishes this OT material. 11  Neither timelessness nor the simultaneity of past, present, and future, would represent the view of any biblical tradition. John Goldingay speaks of a God who “lives in time” (Old Testament Theology, p. 64). 12  Other divine suffering texts illustrate this point more fully (see below). 13  All references to Jeremiah refer to the MT. Translations are taken from the nrsv.

460

Fretheim

as a bride; wilderness journey). In that past time, Israel loved and followed “me” as a bride loves her husband. This text, which undergirds everything that follows in Jeremiah, presents this fondly remembered relationship with Israel as a genuine past for God. This is the way things used to be for God. One “remembers” that an event occurred after it has occurred. This recollection is not a romanticized matter for God, as if this were an exaggerated or idealized divine remembrance.14 This is an accurate description of the way things used to be for God and Israel. In God’s own words, the present state of the relationship is so different from that earlier time and place. How things have changed!15 Such language assumes that the passing of time in this relationship with Israel is real for God; God engages in a lament because of something specific that has so changed in the relationship over time. Such lamenting is not something that is characteristic of every moment in the divine life. Things used to be different, even for God! The force of this statement for Jeremiah’s audience depends upon a divine recollection of an actual past. This divine remembrance does not refer to something that God had forgotten (see Ps 105:8–10; God remembers his covenant “forever”). Rather, this memory lifts up how different the God-Israel relationship is now compared to what it used to be. This memory is something to which God gives special attention at this time in the relationship with Israel.16 In other Jeremiah contexts, that divine remembering may refer to Israel’s iniquities (Jer 14:10) or to God’s covenant with Israel (Jer 14:21). Jeremiah calls 14  See Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 253. 15  For a more traditional understanding of divine memory in the OT, see Brevard S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel (London: SCM, 1962). In the examination of various divine memory texts, Childs concludes: “This evidence would seem to indicate that in terms of God’s memory time-sequence plays a secondary role. How the great acts of the past relate to the present and the future is not seen as a problem which bears upon God’s memory. His remembering is not conceived of as an actualization of a past event in history; rather, every event stems from the eternal purpose of God. God’s memory is not a re-creating of the past, but a continuation of the selfsame purpose…. His memory includes both the great deeds of the past as well as his continued concern for his people in the future…. This history is merely a working out of the one eternal act of divine grace” (pp. 42–43). “The problem of making a past reality contemporary is not involved in God’s memory. God is in no sense confined to the past within the barriers of time and space. He is always present” (p. 74). 16  See Lev 26:42, “then will I remember my covenant with Jacob”; certain situations occasion special moments of divine attention to a promise given genuinely in the past.

Jeremiah ’ s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future

461

upon God to bring to mind his earlier intercessory activity on behalf of the people (Jer 18:20). From Jeremiah’s perspective, this is a call for God to recall specific past events in their relationship; it does not suggest that time is different for himself and God, but that they are experiencing the same temporality. In Jer 31:20, God speaks of the divine relationship to Israel in terms of ongoing time: “as often as I speak against him, I still remember him.” God’s speaking against Israel and God’s remembering occurs often; that makes sense only if actual and differing times are in view, or have reference to anticipated divine actions in the future (Jer 31:34). The last-noted text suggests that there has been a “time” when God did “remember” Israel’s sin; but the “no more” refers to a temporal future in the relationship with God which Israel can anticipate. In Jer 15:15 Jeremiah calls upon God to remember him, to give special consideration to his difficult situation. For God to so “remember” entails a particular response with respect to that which is remembered. This divine move is not simply to bring some past event into one’s present mind, but to change the situation from that time (see Ps 106:45; Ezek 16:60). So, rejoice in God’s remembering and, in distress, plead for it. God “will remember their iniquity and punish” (14:10).17 An appeal for God to remember is to call upon God to act upon God’s already existing commitments to Israel. God is also said not to remember (or forget, Hos 4:6) certain matters (for example, sins, Jer 31:34; Isa 43:25, or people, Ps 88:6). Such texts indicate a change of status with regard to such matters for God; what was once remembered is now forgotten as far as having any negative effect on the relationship. For such passages to make sense, God cannot be said to remember and not remember (or forget) matters simultaneously; such divine actions must be viewed in terms of the temporal flow of events in terms of which God acts within the relationship of integrity with Israel and the world. Such remembering language implies that God has a past that God can bring to mind. God’s past is not to be collapsed into God’s present. From another angle, such “remembering” language implies that God has the ability to have memories. Memories are as real for God as genuine memories. God is able to recall a past that God has experienced with Israel. It may be said that God has “total recall” of this past, and experiences ongoing effects of that past, but, still, that God is the subject of the verb “remember” indicates that the past is truly past to God.

17  The common translation “punish” with God as subject is problematic. See Fretheim, God and World, 164–65.

462 2.2

Fretheim

God “Thought” I thought how I would set you among my children, and give you a pleasant land, the most beautiful heritage of all the nations. And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife leaves her husband, so you have been faithless to me, O house of Israel, says the Lord. Jer 3:19–20; see also 3:7

God “thought.” This repeated word is a specific divine recollection (with an emphatic “I”) of past inner-divine reflections. God recalls a specific past in the divine relationship with Israel. This is a divine remembrance of the way God hoped things would be, but over time proved not to be realized. This issues in a divine agony regarding those developments in the God-Israel relationship.18 These verses give to the people a close look into a past time for the divine heart, with continuing negative effects on the life of God. God voiced a hope that the people might see the extent to which their rejection has hurt God. But, what God had hoped for has not been realized,19 and God suffers from their faithlessness in the relationship. 2.3

God is “Weary of Relenting” You have rejected me, says the Lord, you are going backward; so I have stretched out my hand against you and destroyed you – I am weary of relenting. Jer 15:6

This ongoing contrariness of the people is a past experience of God that continues into present divine experience. God is “weary of relenting” because such unfaithfulness has been going on for so long (see Jer 4:28, “I have not relented nor will I turn back”). God has so often relented regarding an exercise of judgment over the years of Israel’s faithlessness that God experiences a present weariness of that kind of response. In view of the recurring sinfulness of Israel and its judgmental effects over time, God has become (!) weary of Israel’s lack of responsiveness (see also Isa 1:14, “I am weary of bearing them”; cf. Isa 7:13). 18  Compare Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 307, 318; see also Jer 31:20; Hos 11:8–9. 19  On divine hope not being realized, see the issue of divine “expectation” in Isa 5:1–7. See Terence E. Fretheim, “What Kind of God is Portrayed in Isaiah 5:1–7?,” in New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia, ed. Markus Zehnder (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2014), 53–68.

Jeremiah ’ s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future

463

This is a testimony to temporal developments in the divine life. God has not always been weary! 3

Jeremiah’s God Has a Present20 Am I a God near by, says the Lord, and not a God far off? Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them? says the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord. Jer 23:23–24

If God “fills” (‫ )מלא‬the world, that would include its structures of space and time. Wherever there is world there is time, an integral part of the created order. God is both near and far, in touch with every sphere of creation. This is an “ongoing present” for God. In creating the world and “filling” it, God enters into the space and time of this world and makes these realities God’s own time and space. And all such dimensions of this world are “good.” So, time – light and darkness; day and night; evening and morning – is good. Time is a dimension of the good created order that God “fills.” God determines that the world’s time becomes God’s time in the creative process.21 Certain other texts “fill out” what it means for the world to be filled with God. For example, some texts testify that the world is “full of the steadfast love of God” (Pss 33:5; 119:64; compare 36:5; 48:10; 57:10) and “the glory of God” (Isa 6:3; see Num 14:21; Ps 72:19; Hab 3:3). Wherever there is world, one can speak of the presence of the love of God. God shares the map of reality and is relational, indeed lovingly relational, with all that is not God, including time (see Isa 66:1–2). To say that the world is filled with God does not mean that the world ceases to be the world – or there would be nothing left for God to fill. The world and its creatures retain their integrity within a world that is filled with God. 20   See the helpful statement on “presently occurring events” by Neil B. MacDonald, Metaphysics and the God of Israel: Systematic Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006): “If God knows of presently occurring events at all, then God has to be in time, he has to have a history in this sense…. One’s knowledge of such events has to take place when the event is taking place. Otherwise it will not be knowledge of the event as a presently occurring event” (p. 77). 21  For discussion of this text from a different angle, see Werner Lemke, “The Near and the Distant God: A Study of Jer. 23:23–24 in its Biblical Theological Context,” JBL 100 (1981): 541–55.

464

Fretheim

Moreover, to say that the world is filled with the steadfast love of God means that God’s filling the earth is not a static or neutral or indifferent reality for God. God is not simply here and there; God is always lovingly at work in every nook and cranny of the universe, including its time. God’s love is a factor to be reckoned with in every time and place. Hence, everyone, everything, everywhere, and every time, has experienced the loving presence of God, though creatures may not name their experience in those terms (See Ps 139:7–12 for the comprehensiveness of the divine presence). The actual absence of God in the world is not recognized as a divine possibility in the OT.22 The language of God’s forsaking and abandoning (for example, Jer 12:7–13) is not a move from presence to absence, but a move to distance, to a less intense presence, with the effect that the forces that make for death and destruction will often have their way. The judgment texts in Jeremiah make especially clear that divine distance does not mean absence; in these texts God’s forsaking of Israel issues in an especially intense experience of the wrath of God. 3.1 Time and God’s Anger God’s anger is expressly described in historical terms in several Jeremiah texts. Examples include: “I will not be angry forever” (Jer 3:12); “Why have they provoked me to anger with their images, with their foreign idols (8:19); “deal with them while you are angry” (18:23); “The anger of the Lord will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his mind” (23:20[=30:24]). The divine anger has its time and a time when it is not, with effects on both God and world. God is not always angry. God is “provoked to anger” by specific historical actions or situations (‫ ;כעס‬see Jer 7:18–19; 8:19; 11:17; 18:20; 25:6–7; 32:29–32; 44:3, 8). Jeremiah 18:23 speaks of “the time of your [God’s] anger”; such temporal understandings of anger are even integrated into creedal formulations (Exod 34:6, “slow to anger”). But God’s anger can be turned aside by human repentance (Joel 2:13), or intercession (Exod 32:9–14), or by God’s own independent decision (Exod 4:14; Hos 11:8–9). The various Jeremiah references to divine anger are coherent only if placed along a time line: times of provocation, restraint, deferment, execution, and a time when such wrath comes to an

22  See Fretheim, Suffering of God, 60–67. For a different view, see Joel Burnett, Where is God? Divine Absence in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010). If God were ever actually absent, however, then issues of divine omnipresence would be called into question.

Jeremiah ’ s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future

465

end (see also Jer 6:15; Isa 48:9; 57:16; Ezek 16:42; Mic 7:18; Pss 103:9; 106:29). God’s anger is historical anger; it is not an eternal/unending disposition.23 Temporal language used for divine anger shapes our understanding of God’s experience of human life. There can be new experiences of worldly life for God. If God knows that something contrary to the will of God will occur in the future, one might think that God would be angry at that moment and not just at the time of its occurrence. The various elements associated with divine anger assume that issues of temporality are real for God in matters relating to judgment. The wrath of God is a contextualized reality. 3.2

Time and God’s Sorrow O that my head were a spring of water, and my eyes a fountain of tears, so that I might weep day and night for the slain of my poor people. Jer 9:1

Thus says the Lord of hosts: Consider, and call for the mourning women to come; send for the skilled women to come; let them quickly raise a dirge over us, so that our eyes may run down with tears and our eyelids flow with water. Jer 9: 17–18

For I am sorry for the disaster that I have brought upon you. Jer 42:10

The book of Jeremiah is replete with references to God’s sorrow over the judgment that has been experienced by Israel at the hands of the Babylonians (4:19–22; 8:18–9:3, 9:10, 17–19; 13:17; 14:17; 31:20; 42:10).24 The inward side of God’s anger is grief. To speak of the tears and anguish of God invites reflection regarding the time and place of weeping in the divine life. These Jeremiah texts do not suggest that God’s weeping is an ever-present reality for God; in the weeping references, God is responding to what has happened to the God-Israel relationship over time. God moves from not weeping to weeping; God also looks forward to a future when the weeping will be no more. Issues of time are important in thinking through this dimension of God’s relationship to Israel. 23  See also Ps 30:5: “His anger is but for a moment and his favor for a lifetime”; and Isa 54:7–8: “For a brief moment I abandoned you … In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love will have compassion on you.” 24  See Fretheim, Jeremiah, on these various texts. More recently, see David A. Bosworth, “The Tears of God in the Book of Jeremiah,” Bib 94 (2013): 24–46, and the literature cited there.

466

Fretheim

God will cry out from time to time: “How long!?” (Jer 4:14, 21; 13:27; 23:26; 31:22; Hos 8:5). Strikingly, God “is sorry” (‫ )נחם‬for the judgment and the way it was carried out by the Babylonians (42:10). God is sorrowful with respect to all of the pain that the community has had to experience at the hands of Babylonian forces. Babylon far exceeded the divine mandate of judgment and made the land and the people a waste (see Jer 25:12–14; Zech 1:15). God does not remove the divine self from levels of responsibility for the terrible effects of the overreaching of the Babylonian armies. But God is not always sorrowful. 4

Jeremiah’s God Has a Future

4.1

Divine Planning Thus says the Lord: Look, I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you from your evil way, and amend your ways and your doings. But they say, ‘It is no use! We will follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of our evil will. Jer 18:11–12

For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope Jer 29:11; see also ‫ עצה‬in 19:7; 49:20, 30; 50:45; ‫ זמם‬in 51:12

God is the subject of several words related to “planning” with respect to future action.25 Jeremiah’s language for divine planning and the execution of those 25  On divine planning, see Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1967). See especially the chapter entitled, “The Divine Plan in History” (pp. 68–97): “‘the divine plan’ in history is hardly suitable when we want to define what is typical of the OT view of history as a whole. Even when words which may be translated ‘plan’ are used, they do not denote a detailed scheme … it is entirely impossible to speak of the divine plan in history…. It is evident that we ought to use a less precise term” (p. 89). See also Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), on divine “plan” in Isa 14:24–27: “one must be careful to be precise about the meaning of this term…. Some have felt comfortable translating this [‫ ]עצה‬as ‘plan,’ meaning thereby that Isaiah thought Yahweh had a comprehensive plan about how the history of the world should unfold. This is way off the mark; Isaiah certainly does not think that history has been planned, from the very beginning, with a definite goal in mind, which would leave prophecy with

Jeremiah ’ s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future

467

plans raises issues regarding God and time. The same language is used to speak of divine and human plans (see ‫ עצה‬for both God and Nebuchadrezzar in Jer 49:20, 30; see also 50:45; 51:12; Mic 2:1–3; 4:12). This language invites readers to think of points of continuity in speaking about divine plans and time (we focus here on ‫ מחשבה‬in Jer 18:11–12; 29:11). The language of planning, and the explicit temporal distinction that the texts make between God’s planning and God’s action relative to the plan, assumes that temporal sequence is important for God. Past, present and future are important realities for thinking about divine actions in the world. These texts witness to a temporal succession – a before and after – in the divine planning and acting. In the language of Jer 51:12, “The Lord has both planned and done what he spoke concerning the inhabitants of Babylon” (cf. Lam 2:17; Isa 22:11; 37:26; Zech 1:6; 8:14). If there were no such distinction, then the word “plan” has no appropriate usage. Nicholas Wolterstorff says it well: “God is conceived and presented by the biblical writers as a being whose own life and existence is temporal…. God’s planning to bring an event about must take place before the event that has been planned. For otherwise it is not a case of planning.”26 God will relate to the world and its structures of time with ongoing integrity and consistency. The divine plan can be a negative plan (Jer 18:11; see 26:3; 49:20, 30; 50:45) or a positive plan (Jer 29:11). At the same time, how people interact with the God who plans will shape the nature of their future. “If you truly amend your ways and your doings … then I will dwell with you in this place” (Jer 7:3–7; see also 18:11; 26:13; 35:13). If the people follow their own plans (18:12; see Isa 30:1), then their future is cast in negative terms (Jer 18:13–17). God’s plan (or will) does not always get done in the life of the world; it can be successfully resisted by human action. At the same time, the people’s past wickedness does not necessarily give lasting shape to their future. “If you seek nothing to do but take the wraps off an eternally designed plan. ‘Planning’ [‫ ]יעצ‬as it is done by malak (King) Yahweh, is described by using the analogy about the ‘planning’ carried out by a king, who from time to time, in light of a certain configuration of events, has to make some decisions. Thus his ‘planning’ is always directed toward responding to a particular time in history and does not stretch out into a future that is not yet on the horizon … It is too easy to assume that this word refers to what is ‘eternally’ predestined. Taking all this into account, ya’ats [‫ ]יעצ‬means to ‘conclude’ or ‘decide’ in 14:24…. expressing the idea that Yahweh’s decisions are the result of deliberations that take into account all the variables that affect a concrete decision” (pp. 82–83). 26  Nicholas Wolterstoff, Inquiring about God: Selected Essays, Volume 1, ed. Terence Cuneo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 133, 152.

468

Fretheim

me with all your heart, I will let you find me, says the Lord” (Jer 29:13–14). There is nothing to suggest that God’s “if” is not a real “if” for God. What people do affects the shape that their future takes, even the future of God. If people do not seek God with all their heart, God will act differently in their future. God uses human beings or natural agents as instruments in and through which God’s plans are carried out. Sometimes commentators suggest that God acts in an unmediated way (at times?), but I would claim that God acts directly, but always through means. Remarkable correspondences exist between God and agents as the subject of the same verbs in Jeremiah.27 When addressing the issue of the identity of the planner of such events, the response is not to choose between God and the historical agent. God does not micromanage the activities of the agents; the agents can act in ways that are contrary to the will (and plan!) of God (see Jer 42:10; Zech 1:15). God’s plans (mentioned three times in Jer 29:11) are God’s designs for this people in view of God’s promises. God will change their lot from being exiles to being a restored people, reestablished in their own land (Jer 23:3, 8; 24:6). At the same time, God leaves room for genuine decisions on the part of human agents as they exercise their power. Hence, the agents may exceed the divine mandate, with profoundly negative effects. To speak of God as the subject of “planning” is not to suggest that God is the sole or only effective actor relative to the plan. The temporal space between plan and execution is theologically significant. In the time between the speaking and the execution there could be developments in the pertinent human community, including changes in the relationship between God and people, that could call for a change in the divine plans. God could, for example, reverse the divine word (see Jer 26:2–3) or decide to persist (see 29:10–14). For God to say in Jer 4:28, “for I have spoken, I have purposed: I have not relented nor will I turn back,” also assumes that God could consider relenting or turning back (see below). This language assumes that temporal sequence is important for God, that “before and after” are important to the divine reflection with respect to any divine planning and subsequent action. In some sense, we must speak of the history of the divine life in relationship to Israel and the world. This understanding might be related to a recurrent prophetic theme, namely, the call to the enemy to prepare well for battle (for example, Jer 51:11–12). Such a call is not empty rhetoric; it assumes that the enemy could bungle the job (as stated in Zech 1:15 and assumed in Jer 42:10). What God plans is important and indispensable to accomplish the divine objectives, but what people 27  See the list of agents in Fretheim, Jeremiah, 35–37.

Jeremiah ’ s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future

469

do in their interaction with the plan is understood by God also to be effective and important. God always works through means, and the means God uses can make a difference in the outcome, in view of which God may well have to change the divine plan. Inasmuch as God works in and through non-divine agents in carrying out the plans of both judgment and salvation (for example, Jer 50:1–3; 33:14–26; Isa 45:1–7), temporal factors inevitably come into play in the agent’s work and one is “stuck” with the language of temporality in speaking of both God and agent. God has chosen to enter into relationships with agents with whom time is inevitably associated and hence God’s action will be associated with temporal realities and affected by them. In Jer 29:10–14 God speaks of a specific period of time that has to pass (seventy years) before God acts on their behalf in the future. Divine plan language should be correlated with divine will language. What does it mean for God to have a will and to be in a relationship in which plans are important? God says: I did not send them, yet they went or ran or prophesied (past event; see Jer 23:21; 27:15; 29:9, 31)! God’s will was not done and that has a negative impact on the present situation. God chooses to enter into relationship with the world and its creatures, and because relationships are always in process, always changing, then what God wills for the relationship is always open to change in order to relate appropriately to that new temporal situation. We must speak of both constancy and change with respect to the will of God. In other language, we must speak both of the unconditional will of God and the circumstantial will of God, that is, the changing will of God in view of changing circumstances in the relationship. As people live and move through time, God’s will for the particulars of the relationship will change. This would mean that God’s will and God’s planning have genuinely temporal elements.28 Temporal language is also used in connection with appointed or set times for future divine action. The various “day of the Lord” texts could be cited (for example, Lam 2:21–22, “the day of your anger”; Isa 49:8; Ps 102:13). “Day” language occurs nearly 200 times in the prophets (for example, Jer 46:10, 21; 49:22; 50:27–31; 51:2), with particular reference to future times when God would act against Israel’s enemies on Israel’s behalf (for example, Jer 50:31; 17:16–18; 18:17; 39:16). More than one future event is involved. So, we should speak of “days” of Yahweh rather than one specific day.29

28  See the discussion in Fretheim, Jeremiah, 343–44. 29  See A. Joseph Everson, “The Days of Yahweh,” JBL 93 (1974): 329–37.

470 4.2

Fretheim

Divine Either/or Language Thus says the Lord: Go down to the house of the king of Judah and speak there this word, and say: Hear the word of the Lord, O King of Judah sitting on the throne of David – you, and your servants, and your people who enter these gates. Thus says the Lord: Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place. For if you will indeed obey this word, then through the gates of this house shall enter kings who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they, and their servants, and their people. But if you will not heed these words, I swear by myself, says the Lord, that this house shall become a desolation. Jer 22:1–5

This “either/or” language with God as subject is common in Jeremiah’s reflections about the future (see 12:16–17; 17:24–27; 21:8–10, 11–12; 22:1–5; 29:13; 38:17–18; 42:9–17; see also Isa 1:19–20). What does it mean for God to use such language? I focus on Jer 22:1–5. Two specific possibilities for the future are open to people and king,30 depending upon their exercise of justice. What the people of God do and say regarding matters of justice will have a genuine effect on the shape of their future. If they do obey this word, they will experience one kind of future; if they do not obey, they will experience another kind of future. Through the powers that human beings have been given by God, they are capable of giving shape to their future and to the future of others.31 For each of these future options to have integrity, they must be genuinely future possibilities, for both God and people.32 God explicitly states to king/ people that God will take into account their words and deeds in shaping future divine actions. For God to lay out two futures before the king/people, but know that only one of them is actually a possibility, would be deceptive. Divine deception is a possible understanding, but without some contextual indication that this is so (see 1 Kgs 22), it seems unlikely. All other “either/or” offers (listed above) from God would then be open to such an interpretation. That

30  Perhaps Zedekiah; the address could apply to any king of the Davidic dynasty, as is the case in Jer 21:11–12. 31  That the negative possibility has been realized at the time of writing is clear from what follows in 22:6–9. 32  Terence E. Fretheim, What Kind of God? Collected Essays of Terence E. Fretheim, ed. Michael J. Chan and Brent A. Strawn, Siphrut 14 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 33–34.

Jeremiah ’ s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future

471

God would engage in so much deception seems unlikely; all of God’s words regarding the future would thus be potentially untrustworthy. At the same time, it is said that the actions of king and people will not only affect their own future, they will affect God’s future as well. What God will do in the future is said by God to depend at least in part on what the people do. The decisions that the king/people make in their own lives (and in the lives of others) matter to God because of the genuine relationship that God has established with them. Such either/or language shows how deeply God has entered into Israel’s situation, including its time. God is faced with possibilities not unlike Israel, with all that such a dilemma means in terms of reflection, planning, and openness to alternative courses of action, depending upon the course of events. Where the divine perspective exceeds that of the human lies in God’s ability to delineate all of the possibilities of the future, and the likelihood of their occurrence, in view of the thoroughgoing divine knowledge of the past and the present. Yet God, too, moves into a future that is to some extent unknown. For exilic readers of this text, who would know which of the two options in Jer 22:1–5 had in fact occurred, hearing about this past offer from God would show them the degree to which God was open to alternative futures at that point in time when both options were still possible. This means that the devastating future that the readers have now experienced had not been set for all time in the mind of God. Their experience was not predetermined nor was it a matter of fate; there was something they could have (not) done with respect to their faith and life to make another kind of (positive) future possible. At the same time, hearing about this divine way of moving into the future from the prophet would enable the exiles to realize that their own future is not somehow set in stone, which, given Babylon’s hegemony, must have seemed to be the most likely possibility.33 4.3

The Divine “Perhaps” Thus says the Lord: Stand in the court of the Lord’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah that come to worship in the house of the Lord; speak to them all the words that I command you: do not hold back a word. It may be that [perhaps]

33  The image of God as a weaver or quilt-maker may be helpful in thinking this issue through. God is one who takes the threads and the patches of human words and deeds and weaves them into the quilt of their future, and, finally, even the shape of God’s future. God will see to it that nothing of value, whether resulting from divine activity or human activity, will be missing from that quilt.

472

Fretheim they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings. Jer 26:2–334

Two themes are lifted up in these texts that have implications for our reflections about time and God: God’s use of the language “perhaps”35 and “change my mind.” God is not represented in these texts as having already experienced the future, however much God may anticipate or foreknow that future. In God’s own words, a genuine future for God is in play here, a future which God has not yet experienced. There is room for spontaneity in God’s life. It seems clear from these “perhaps” texts that, at some level, God is uncertain as to how the people will finally respond to the prophetic word. God is certainly aware of the various possibilities regarding Israel’s response. Yet, in God’s own words, the nature of God’s own future is dependent to some extent upon what people do in moving toward that future. The future of the creation has not been totally shaped by what God has done in the originating of creation. The end of the creation will look different from the beginning – even for God, even with all of the continuities. That which is “new” in the life of the ongoing world is a reality for God as well as creatures. God can know novelty; God, who knows all the world’s possibilities, can experience the genuinely new for what it is. 4.4

God’s Relenting (Changing of Mind) Speak to them all the words that I command you…. It may be that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings…. Now, therefore, amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will change his mind about the disaster that he has pronounced against you…. Did he [Hezekiah] not fear the Lord, and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them? Jer 26:2–3, 13, 19

34  See also Jer 4:28; 18:1–12; 26:13, 19; 36:2–3, 7; 42:10; 51:8; Ezek 12:3. 35  On the “divine perhaps,” see Fretheim, The Suffering of God, 45–47.

Jeremiah ’ s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future

473

When the “planning” and “perhaps” texts are correlated with the language of divine relenting (cf. also Jer 18:7–10; 42:10),36 it is clear that the time between the divine plan and its execution is an important period, for both people and God. The interaction between God and people in the time that follows the articulation of the divine plan will determine whether the plan is put into effect and/or the shape it takes. The texts that speak of the “relenting” of God make it clear that to speak of God’s “plan” does not mean that the future is firmly set in place. The post-plan relationship between God and people can give the future a changing shape for both parties. So, for example, in Jer 26:18–19 God speaks a word of judgment about the future of Jerusalem (quoting Mic 3:12). But, then, the Lord “changes his mind”; God’s own words about the future do not come to pass, for God decided to change the nature of that future in view of human action. What human beings do can affect the shape of the future (see also Jer 29:13–14). There is nothing to suggest that the “if” of Jer 29:13 is not a real “if” for God. What people do and say in the wake of the divine word/plan affects the shape of the future, even the future of God. If people do or do not seek God with all their heart, that perspective will give shape to their future. 5 Conclusion Working with these various texts, it seems clear to this reader that the God of Jeremiah is imaged in terms of time, not timelessness or atemporality. In the process of creation and through the centuries God has chosen to enter into the time of the world and be God from within that temporal reality. God has freely chosen not to stand above or beyond the flow of time and history, as if looking down from some supratemporal mountaintop on all the times through the valleys of the ages. For the sake of God’s genuine relationship to the world and its creatures, God has chosen to live and move “inside time,” not outside of time. The book of Jeremiah witnesses to a God who truly shares in the past, the present, and the future of the world’s life and in such a way that readers are called to speak of a story/history of God. God has so bound himself in relationship to the world that God and world move through time together. For God to so relate to the world and its time is an act of divine self-limitation for the sake of a genuine relationship.

36  Regarding the “change my mind” language, see Terence E. Fretheim, “The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament God-Talk,” HBT 10 (1988): 47–70.

474

Fretheim

Time and space are good creatures of God and, as with all other creatures, are open to be filled with new experiences of both God and world: one day … something new; two days … something continuing and something new. Future time and space stand in continuity with past time and space; they are waiting to be filled, with new creations, with new experiences of the old, and with the effects of past and present words and deeds. The present moment will never hold still for Jeremiah’s God; time for God is always on the move. The genuine past of God flows into every present moment of God and world and gives shape to the content of that moment, which in turn creates a leaning into the future and gives shape to the future of both God and world. Select Bibliography Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1967. Bosworth, David A. “The Tears of God in the Book of Jeremiah.” Bib 94 (2013): 24–46. Brill, Gershon. The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Chan, Michael J., and Brent A. Strawn, eds. What Kind of God? Collected Essays of Terence E. Fretheim. Siphrut 14. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Childs, Brevard S. Memory and Tradition in Israel. London: SCM, 1962. Everson, A. Joseph. “The Days of Yahweh.” JBL 93 (1974): 329–37. Fretheim, Terence E. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. OBT. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Fretheim, Terence E. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology, vol. 2: Israel’s Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. MacDonald, Neil B. Metaphysics and the God of Israel: Systematic Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Miano, David. Shadow on the Steps: Time Measurement in Ancient Israel. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. O’Connor, Kathleen M. Jeremiah: Pain and Promise. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Padgett, Alan G. “The Difference Creation Makes: Relative Timelessness Reconsidered.” Pages 117–25 in God, Eternity, and Time. Edited by C. Tapp and E. Runggaldier. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011.

Jeremiah ’ s God Has a Past, a Present, and a Future

475

Preuss, Horst Dietrich. Old Testament Theology, vol. 1. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972. Steck, Odil Hannes. World and Environment. Nashville: Abingdon, 1980. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. CC. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Widmer, Michael. Standing in the Breach: An Old Testament Theology and Spirituality of Intercessory Prayer. Siphrut 13. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Inquiring about God: Selected Essays, Volume 1. Edited by Terence Cuneo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

chapter 24

God and Place in Jeremiah David J. Reimer 1 Introduction “Everywhere in Western thought, place counts for so very little, time and space for so very much.”1 So observes the philosopher Edward Casey, in recent decades one of the leading voices calling for a recovery of “place” as a focal point for scholarly attention. Casey chronicles reasons for its eclipse in modern thought, and subjects this displacement to philosophical scrutiny.2 Twenty years on from that work, two of the factors he identified as contributing to the neglect of place – eclipsed by “time and space” – stand out as both percipient and prescient: forced migrations with their disorientating displacements on the one hand; and on the other, “electronic technology,” which we might now describe as “living in the cloud” – a usage of “cloud” that Casey could not have anticipated. It is easier than ever to see “placelessness” as a typical contemporary condition. Time and space (as Casey notes) are prominent in our perceptions. In Christian theology, both are reflected in the divine attributes of God being eternal and omnipresent: “He is eternal in that He transcends time and yet penetrates every moment of time with his eternity (Ps 90:2). And He is omnipresent in that He transcends all space and yet bears up every point of space by His almighty and ever-present strength” (e.g. Ps 139:7).3 Yet it is fair to say that 1  Edward S. Casey, “Place in Landscape Archaeology: A Western Philosophical Prelude,” in Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, ed. Bruno David and Julian Thomas (London: Routledge, 2016 [first published 2008]), 44–50, here at 44. 2  Most fully explored in Edward S. Casey, The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997); cf. p. xiii. There are some resonances with the opening reflections in Oliver O’Donovan, “The Loss of a Sense of Place,” in Bonds of Imperfection: Christian Politics, Past and Present, by Oliver O’Donovan and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 296–320. 3  Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 136 (= Magnalia Dei: onderwijzing in de christelijke religie naar Gereformeerde Belijdenis [Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1909], 143). For further reflection on the divine attribute of omnipresence, cf. I.A. Dorner, A System of Christian Doctrine, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888), 1:240–43, also dealing with the deity in relation to both temporal and spatial in tandem: “The positive relation of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004373273_025

God and Place in Jeremiah

477

in the worlds of systematic theology and biblical studies alike, the concept of time has loomed larger than that of space. For example, we speak quite readily of Heilsgeschichte, brought to especial prominence for Alttestamentlers by Gerhard von Rad (although a much older theological concept). And beside “salvation history,” it is natural to think of a “grand narrative” stretching from creation to consummation, of generations and dispensations, the succession of the ages. It has inspired countless works relating not only to God’s action in history (e.g., von Rad, George Ernest Wright) and the qualifications and critique of this concept (e.g., Bertil Albrektson, Langdon Gilkey), but plenty of attention to the language of “time” in the Bible (e.g. James Barr, Simon de Vries).4 Yet the term “Heilsgeographie” springs less readily to our lips, in spite of Geoffrey Grogan’s best efforts.5 Even if we notice that the “grand narrative” (in Christian Bibles) begins in a garden and ends in a city, still, “space” let alone “place” has not had the theological traction of its partner, “time,” – this despite the growing in prominence of the theme of “land” in the study of the HB.6 Not that “space” is yet close enough to Casey’s insistence on “place,” even if “theological geography” is getting closer. In their edited volume, The Spatial Turn, Barney Warf and Santa Arias describe the new attentiveness to the spatial dimension: “With space and place at the centre of the analytical agenda, geographical thought has arguably played a major role in helping to facilitate interdisciplinary inquiry that offers a richer, more contextualized understanding God to time is Eternity … The positive relation of God to Space is expressed in Omnipresence or Everywhereness (Allenthalbenheit) …” (240). 4  God’s action in history: Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D.M.G. Stalker, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row, 1962–1965); G.E. Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London: SCM Press, 1952); critique by: Langdon B. Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language,” JR 41 (1961): 194–205; Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel, ConBOT 1 (Lund: Gleerup 1967). Time in the Bible: James Barr, Biblical Words for Time, 2nd ed., SBT 1/33 (London: SCM, 1969); S.J. De Vries, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). 5  G.W. Grogan, “Heilsgeographie: Geography as a Theological Concept,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 6 (1988): 81–94, 132. The term had surfaced before only infrequently, e.g., “Die Bindung der Geschichte an bestimmte Orte, die bei Hosea aber auch in anderen Texten zu bemerken ist, leitet uns an, neben der Heilsgeschichte auch von einer ‘Heilsgeographie’ zu reden.” [“The attachment of the narrative to particular places – which is noteworthy not only in Hosea, but in other texts too – leads us to speak of ‘Heilsgeographie’ also beside ‘Heilsgeschichte.’”] Edmond Jacob, “Der Prophet Hosea und die Geschichte,” Evangelische Theologie 24 (1964): 281–290, here at 288. 6  See, briefly, note 25, below.

478

Reimer

of human experience, social relations and the production of culture.”7 The “spatial turn” can be found across many disciplines in the last decade or so. Perhaps typically, biblical scholars have been less prepared to join in the “turn” (or less aware of the possibility), although there are some notable examples of those who have engaged with this agenda.8 While those involved in the “spatial turn” appear to be happy to bundle together a set of concepts (for example, on the first page of their introduction, Warf and Arias can use the shorthand: “the literal and metaphorical use and assumptions of ‘space,’ ‘place,’ and ‘mapping’ to denote a geographic dimension as an essential aspect of the production of culture”; see note 7), I am going to follow Casey in attending distinctly to “place.” This is not, I think, simply a matter of being terminologically precious.9 Nor is it rooted in the contrast of the “boundless” (“space”) and the “bounded” (“place”) which receives sustained reflection in the relevant secondary literature. As I hope will come clear in the next section, speaking of and thinking about “place” is an important element in engaging with Jeremiah’s God – and even with a response to him, if we are so minded. 2

Why “Place”?

My leading question in this essay is: how does attention to place illuminate the theology of Jeremiah? This question requires refinement on at least two fronts. (1) When I say “attention to place,” what precisely do I have in mind? (This has been to some extent anticipated in the more general introductory reflections, above, but it still requires some filling in, and firming up). And (2), what makes Jeremiah a fruitful object for this kind of attention? 7  Barney Warf and Santa Arias, “Introduction: The Reinsertion of Space into the Social Sciences and Humanities,” in The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Barney Warf and Santa Arias (London: Routledge, 2008), 1–10, here at 2. They go on to describe the seminal contributions of David Harvey and Edward Soja in particular as contributing to this development. 8  I have in mind Craig Bartholomew, Where Mortals Dwell: A Christian View of Place for Today (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011). The work responsible for alerting me to this energetic field of study was by Cynthia Parker, “Deuteronomy’s Place: An Analysis of the Placial Structure of Deuteronomy” (PhD Diss., University of Gloucestershire, 2014). 9  “Most of what [Georg Simmel (1858–1918)] calls ‘space’ is now understood as place, and this distinction is of major importance in the current debates.” P.J. Etherington, “Placing the Past: ‘Groundwork’ for a Spatial Theory of History,” Rethinking History 11 (2007): 465–93, here at 481, and see 480–83 for a broader consideration of this question.

God and Place in Jeremiah

479

2.1 Thinking about “Place” What, then, does it look like to attend to “place”? It is important to state at the outset that this is not a new “method” or procedure which produces a new “meaning” for the text under scrutiny via “place criticism.” Rather, it is simply to recognize, attend to, reflect upon, and respond to the placial dimensions presented to us by the text which is not only both time-bound and timeless, but is also place-bound yet placeless.10 As Tim Cresswell notes, the term is not “technical” (it is “everyday language”),11 but it is also fair to say that those using it “placially” have invested it with refined meaning. Perhaps counter-intuitively, attention to place enriches understanding of identity of persons. Jeff Malpas, writing of the “place-bound identity of persons,” notes that “it is not just persons who are tied to a place; … the very possibility of the appearance of things – of objects, of self, and of others – is possible only within the all embracing compass of place. It is, indeed, in and through place that the world presents itself.”12 In common with many who treat this theme, Malpas highlights the relational aspect of place: The crucial idea … is of place as an open region within which a variety of elements are brought to light through their mutual interrelation and juxtaposition within that region. Thus, rather than understanding place as a notion that provides a single principle in terms of which everything else is understood, the idea and image of place is deployed as a model within which the various elements at stake can be distinguished and assembled so as to allow the construction of a single complex structure.13 10  The following synthesis draws on theorists from several fields (Philosophy, Human Geography, Sociology in particular), and leans mostly on Edward Casey and Jeff Malpas. There is a voluminous scholarly literature: see Marco Antonsich, “Identity and Place,” Oxford Bibliographies (2013) doi:10.1093/obo/9780199874002–0030; a vast array of resources is collected at Bruce B. Janz’s “Research on Place & Space” portal, http://pegasus.cc.ucf .edu/~janzb/place/. 11  Tim Cresswell, Place: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (Malden: Wiley Blackwell, 2015), 6–7. 12  Jeff Malpas, Place and Experience: A Philosophical Topography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 14–15. In a more lapidary form, thus O’Donovan: “To speak of ‘place’ – it is a common enough observation – is to speak of a determinant of social identity” (“The Loss of a Sense of Place,” 303). 13  Malpas, Place and Experience, 18. Compare Anne Buttimer’s summary from Robert David Sack: “all humans live and act in a places, and places in turn shape action and experience” (Anne Buttimer, review of R.D. Sack, Homo geographicus, Ecumene 5 [1998]: 477–82, here at 477); also, Jennifer E. Cross, “What is a Sense of Place?”, 12th Headwaters Conference, Western State College (November 2–4, 2001): “relationships with and attachments to

480

Reimer

This helps to explain why, on this handling, the notion of place simply as “location” is resisted. It is not a matter of GPS or GIS, laden as we are with geolocating devices at every turn. Rather, this has to do with living and acting in ~scapes, be they landscapes, townscapes, or cityscapes, “literally grounding” the experience of the world as it presents [itself?] to those living and acting in it.14 Living and acting implies an embodied encounter, and this aspect of place is thoroughly explored in the literature. For Malpas, this is an intrinsic property of the acting self: “Embodiment, which is to say one’s extended, differentiated location in space, and the grasp of that embodiment, would thus seem essential to the possibility of agency, and so to experience and thought.” Or, as he puts it later: “Spatiality and embodiment – and so, also, the idea of the locality in which action is embedded – are essential to the possibility of agency.”15 The connection is differently developed by Casey, his analysis arising out of a different set of considerations (and with different conversation partners) than Malpas invokes. In reflecting on the homo geographicus, Casey writes: “The self of the place-self cycle from which we always begin is what Barbara Hooper calls a ‘body/self.’ Only such a self can be implaced: there is no subject of place except as embodied.”16 Bodies “go out to meet” their “place-world,” as well as “bear[ing] the traces of the places [they] have known.”17 Such reflections resonate with aspects of Oliver O’Donovan’s “Ethics as Theology” project. “The world was a reality before I was a reality, an object of attention to God, angels, and men before it was an object of my attention…. I know the world directly only as I stand within it, calling it ‘my world.’ My world is around me, interacts with me, conditions me and responds to me.” And this is the world in which “I find myself … attending to it, taking initiatives places are necessarily relational” (p. 13), going on to relate the notion of “transactional relationships between people and places” in the work of Fritz Steele, The Sense of Place (Boston: CBI, 1981). 14  Casey uses “placescape”; see “Place in Landscape Archaeology,” 49. 15  Malpas, Place and Experience, 133, 136. 16  Casey, “Between Geography and Philosophy: What Does It Mean to Be in the PlaceWorld?,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (2001): 683–93, here at 689. Casey cites Barbara Hooper’s “Bodies, Cities, Texts: The Case of Citizen Rodney King” via Edward Soja, printed in Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions, ed. E. Soja (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 359–71. Casey has an earlier sustained reflection on body and place: “How to Get From Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time: Phenomenological Prolegomena,” in Senses of Place, ed. Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso (Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1996), 13–52, esp. 21–24. 17  Casey, “Between Geography and Philosophy,” 688.

God and Place in Jeremiah

481

in respect of it, responsible for those initiatives. I find myself a distinct agent.”18 This notion of “world” is further developed when O’Donovan reflects on what it means to “love the world” and to “sin against it,” drawing on a range of uses of kosmos which point to a complex set of inter-relations, networks of meaning, and orientations between the self and the world the self inhabits. In dialogue with the biblical wisdom tradition, O’Donovan identifies folly as that sin which refuses to know the world rightly. “Folly is an objective failure to live in right relation to the world,” since “wrongly joined-up facts, however particular they may be, can become mistakes in living my life…. False generalities are even worse.”19 O’Donovan is expressly not engaging with a placial agenda. This convergence between O’Donovan’s unpacking of the acting self in relation to the world with what Casey and Malpas have to say about place and the identity of self suggests a cogency beyond merely theoretical “placial” perspectives. A final comment on theory: O’Donovan notes how we call “the totality of things ‘the world,’” even though our experience of it and encounter with it is “filtered.”20 This suggests another resonance with Casey’s reflections on how it is that “places gather.” As Casey puts it, “Places gather things in their midst…. Places also gather experiences and histories, even languages and thoughts. Think only of what it means to go back to a place you know, finding it full of memories and expectations, old things and new things, the familiar and the strange, and much more besides.” In this sinuous gathering, places order and connect – “the hold of a place,” as Casey puts it. In this meaningful assembling, the “hold of a place” also “keeps”: it keeps bodies, it also keeps memories.21 We recall that memory shapes expectation, and that in this matrix identity is forged. So we come full circle to place as the central factor in action and identity. Place is not simply location, then, and its meaning extends beyond that of its “everyday” use. 2.2 Thinking about Place and Jeremiah The language of place naturally has a different character in classical Hebrew, as indeed it does in other modern languages. Malpas observes that the “place/ space” distinction works well in English, but not, e.g., in French for which lieu “might be thought the most literal translation … [but] lacks the connotations 18  Oliver O’Donovan, Self, World, and Time. Ethics as Theology 1: An Induction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 10, 13. 19  Oliver O’Donovan, Finding and Seeking. Ethics as Theology 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 82; see more widely the whole of ch. 4, “The Good of Man,” 70–99. 20  O’Donovan, Finding and Seeking, 72. 21  Casey, “How to Get From Space to Place,” 24–25.

482

Reimer

that attach to the English ‘place’ … while éspace is often used in ways that cut across the senses of both ‘space’ and ‘place.’”22 Neither does Classical Hebrew provide a precise “place/space” opposition, but it is approximated: ‫ מקום‬gives “place,”23 and ‫ארץ‬, even as “land,” is something bounded, a landscape within which life is enacted, engaged, experienced. Especially in the phrase ‫אשר מקום‬ the sense of situatedness is well conveyed – note the contrast in Gen 13:14–15 [RSV]: “The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, ‘Lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are (‫)אשר־אתה המקום‬, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land (‫ )כל־הארץ‬which you see I will give to you and to your descendants for ever.’”24 Even if the precise semantic oppositions apparent in English do not find direct counterparts in classical Hebrew, the conceptual framework is signalled. There is, further, some resonance with the topos of land in HB/OT studies, with its attention to promise, possession, and environment – one of the HB’s great themes: how is this God the God of this people in this place?25 However, while there is some convergence in this work with my interest in Jeremiah and “place,” these theological reflections tends to objectify “land” in a way that the placial interest sketched above does not. Each of the books of the latter prophets has some element of placial interest, as a brief survey discloses – as well as helping to make the prima facie case that placial interest in Jeremiah eclipses the rest. The main comparators for Jeremiah are Isaiah and Ezekiel. Isaiah, while rooted in Zion traditions, nevertheless does not give prominence to “place,” although the places of encounter in the so-called “Isaiah Memoir” (roughly Isa 6–8) are significant. In Ezekiel, 22  J. Malpas, “Thinking Topographically: Places, Space, and Geography,” (February 2013), 21 n. 2, online: http://jeffmalpas.com/downloadable-essays/; published as “Pensando topográficamente: Lugar, espacio y geografía,” Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica 61 (2015): 199–229, here at 205 n. 5. Cf. Malpas, Place and Experience, 22 n. 10. 23  Cf. J. Gamberoni and H. Ringgren, “‫ ָמקֹום‬māqôm,” TDOT 8:532–44, which tends to focus on sacral associations; see also Mark Leuchter, “The Temple Sermon and the Term ‫ מקום‬in the Jeremianic Corpus,” JSOT 30 (2005): 93–109. 24  Another lexeme, ‫תבל‬, participates in this “semantic field” as the inhabited world which is subject to and sustained by divine power. 25  E.g. Walter Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002); Eryl W. Davies, “Land: Its Rights and Privileges,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, ed. R.E. Clements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 349–69; Ellen F. Davis, Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Norman C. Habel, The Land is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).

God and Place in Jeremiah

483

place is more developed, although Ezekiel’s distinctive places tend to be imagined, even where there is a place of encounter, as for example in chs. 1–3 by the River Chebar (Ezek 1:3; 3:15). The most striking and memorable places in Ezekiel are visionary: the great landscapes of the book (the urban space in chs. 8–11; the fields of battle with Gog of Magog in chs. 38–39; the new temple in the redistributed land in chs. 40–48) are in some sense “mindscapes.” The degree to which smaller prophetic books give prominence to place varies: both Amos and Micah begin with a placial attention: Amos in the foregrounding of its foreign nation oracles (Amos 1–2); and in the gazetteer of place names found in Mic 1 in particular. Jonah’s relationship to place is important, but as a book it remains sui generis. In several respects, however, place in Jeremiah is prominent to a much greater degree than the rest of the writing prophets. This is already hinted at in the distinctive mission given to the prophet as announced in Jer 1:10, to “pluck up, break down … build, and plant” (cf. 18:7, 9; 24:6; 31:28; 42:10; 45:4; among others), which uses the metaphors of field and town, farmer and builder, as Jeremiah’s leading activities – each element of the sequence tied to the landscape and the habitable places it contains. As will emerge below, the most immediately visible aspects of place in Jeremiah occur in prose passages, and this will be the focus of my attention. In this essay I will not be attending to the relationship of prose and poetry in the book. However, given the clear interest in the oracular pronouncements with the city and its inhabitants (e.g., 2:15; 4:7, 29; 8:14, 16; 9:10, etc.), “placial” aspects are by no means limited to the prose passages, so neither are they alien from the poetry.26 The book of Jeremiah shares with its pentateuchal counterpart, Deuteronomy, some significant and explicit attention to and use of place in its distinctive outlook. As is well known, Jeremiah’s language has some stereotypical or formulaic elements, often associated with the language of the “Deuteronomistic History,” even when distinct from it.27 Two phrases in Jeremiah draw attention to the importance of place, both of which can be paralleled in Deuteronomy (and DtnH to some degree), and to which may be added a third (for which there are no occurrences prior to 2 Sam 2:1):

26  One focal point for this in the poetry of Jeremiah is the distinctive use of ‫שפים‬, “bare heights,” as a locus for the emplaced experience of divine judgment (3:2, 21; 4:11; 7:29; 12:12; 14:6). In Isa 41:18; 49:9, it rather presupposes that judgment; and cf. Num 23:3. 27  E.g., the choosing of the place for Yhwh’s name in Deuteronomy (‫יהוה אשר־יבחר‬ ‫)המקום‬, appearing 21× in Deuteronomy, although not at all in Jeremiah.

484 1.

2.

3.

Reimer

“this place” (‫ )המקום הזה‬and variants: 30× out of sixty-four occurrences (= 47%); phrase is first used of Sodom (Gen 19:13–14); in Jeremiah, the phrase is fairly well distributed through the book, although there are clusters in chs. 7 (and “my place” = Shiloh); 16; 19; and 28; and all occurrences are in prose passages. “this land” (‫)הארץ הזאת‬: Jeremiah has nineteen of fifty-five occurrences (35%) (Gen 9×; Deut 6×; Num 5×; etc. Ezek 2×; Isa 2×); here again there is some clustering, and aside from ch. 16 (connecting, then, with ‫המקום‬ ‫)הזה‬, most come in the latter half of the book, with ch. 32 having special interest.28 “cities of Judah” (‫ )ערי יהודה‬is also prominent. There are forty-nine occurrences in the HB, of which twenty-three (again, 47%, or almost half) are found in Jeremiah (4:16; 9:10 [EVV 11]; 10:22 in oracular contexts), but only five in Samuel-Kings (however, 2 Chronicles has thirteen, for 27%, though 1 Chronicles has none). There are twenty-five verses in the HB with both “Jerusalem” and “cities of Judah” in the verse, of which eighteen (72%) are in Jeremiah (but only 2 Kgs 23:5 of Deuteronomy + DtnH). Attendant on this is the related “streets of Jerusalem” (‫ )חצות ירושלם‬which occurs 11×, all in Jeremiah (5:1; 7:17, 34; 11:6, 13; 14:16; 33:10; 44:6, 9, 17, 21), noting ch. 44’s repeated use.

More than for most of the writing prophets, Jeremiah’s provincial origins appear to mark his prophetic ministry and outlook (cf. Amos of Tekoa; Micah of Moresheth). He is the prophet from Anathoth (Jer 1:1; 11:21, 23; 32:7, 8, 9), a town of Benjamin, a factor of some significance for the story of property purchase in Jer 32. Two more brief observations buttress this impression. First, the two “triplet” texts in Jeremiah are both placial (7:4; 22:29).29 Both of these “triples” speak of estrangement from place: the place of encounter wrongly realized and rejected as meeting place by God. The famous three-fold repetition of “deceptive words,” which are “the temple of Yhwh” (7:4) uses a somewhat unusual phrasing, since ‫ היכל‬is not the way Jeremiah commonly refers to the temple 28  Ezekiel, by comparison, uses the distinctive ‫ אדמת ישראל‬phrase, found only in Ezekiel, and that 17× (Ezek. 7:2; 11:17; 12:19, 22; 13:9; 18:2; 20:38, 42; 21:7, 8; 25:3, 6; 33:24; 36:6; 37:12; 38:18, 19). 29  From the set of four in the HB; the others are Isa 6:3; Ezek 21:27. For a treatment of this small corpus, see David J. Reimer, “On Triplets in a Trio of Prophets,” in Let us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. I. Provan and M.J. Boda, VTSup 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 203–17.

God and Place in Jeremiah

485

(usually preferring ‫)בית יהוה‬: it aligns the temple with moments of crisis for the temple in the Samuel-Kings narratives.30 In 22:29, the tripled vocative “Land, land, land!” “provides a marked insistence on the land itself as witness to the judgment on Jehoiachin,” as well as remorselessly reminding hearer and reader alike that this is also the place from which “Jehoiachin’s presence and future is excluded.”31 And second, at the other end of the book, the dramatic narratives in the period of the Babylonian invasion (34:6–7), and the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem (chs. 40–44), during Gedaliah’s governorship and the events precipitated by his assassination – all these are deeply implicated in the particularities of Judaean geography, and marked by the claustrophobia of civil war that disrupts the status of “homeland” for the beleaguered civil populace. At stake in this dramatic narrative is the question of the “where” for the fidelity of God’s people, as well as for the prophet. Jeremiah himself has experienced by turns both freedom and constraint of movement earlier in the book – moving around Jerusalem at will in ch. 19, but detained and incarcerated by Pashhur in ch. 20 – and again after the fall of the city, granted freedom under the Babylonian captain Nebuzaradan (ch. 40), but constraint at the hands of his countrymen (ch. 43). Hanging in the balance at each point is a judgment about what it means to be faithful to Yhwh. Thus Jeremiah – book and prophet – foregrounds “place” as locus of encounter between God and people, and as the scene of living rightly with all that implies for the relationship of this people, this place, and this God. It remains to fill out this preliminary impression with closer analysis of a few key texts. 3

Texts and Analysis

The three pericopes discussed below each demonstrate some intersection with the language noted above, appearing with some prominence in Jer 19, and to a lesser extent the Temple Sermon as it appears in Jer 7. But each of these three passages offers a different perspective on place as a context for a Jeremianic perception of the relationship of God and people. The Temple Sermon (Jer 7) begins with the most poignant locus for that relationship; the sign act of the broken jug (Jer 19) acts out the nature of that relationship on the Jerusalem terrain; the estate purchase (Jer 32) extends the placial understanding beyond 30  Following an observation of William Holladay (cf. Reimer, “On Triplets,” 213). 31  Reimer, “On Triplets,” 209.

486

Reimer

the city of Jerusalem, and highlights the intersection of temporal and placial in Jeremiah’s theology. 3.1 The Temple Sermon: Jeremiah 7 The parallel passages of Jer 7 and 26 are clearly related, often treated together, and yet offer quite different perspectives on one prophetic performance at the temple gate: the threshold between the sacred and profane spheres of Judah’s life. It is the account of the prose sermon which contains the matter of interest for “place,” as the narrative of ch. 26 focuses rather on the participants in the drama. In ch. 7, it is very difficult to draw the boundaries of the “sermon,” although the most natural transition point to something “different” is at v. 16 where the oracle is now directed at Jeremiah himself, rather than the visitors to the Temple. This leaves vv. 1–15 as the “temple sermon” proper. Whether there is a core which represents the ipsissima verba of Jeremiah, and what that “core” might be, the passage now represents a coherent unity.32 Although there is widespread agreement concerning this demarcation, this does not extend to the analysis of its composition. As is widely observed, the essential power of the “sermon” is the juxtaposition of the false assumptions concerning the Temple with the impending judgement to be executed by the Temple’s Lord. Here, “wrongly joined-up facts” and “false generalities” (cf. O’Donovan, above) combine to devastating effect. It can still be wondered, what precisely is “this place” of which the prophet speaks? The connection noted above between the “place” (‫ )מקום‬and the centralization of worship in Deuteronomy strongly associates the place with Jerusalem and more specifically with its temple, given the cultic instructions involved (e.g., Deut 12:5; 14:23; 15:20; 16:2, 6, etc.). Although this temple is the site of the prophet’s words in Jer 7, the “place” is differentiated from the Temple itself. Mark Leuchter has dealt with this issue at some length, and demonstrates convincingly the way in which this passage shifts the Deuteronomistic sense of “place” as reference to “temple” to a reference to “land.”33 The transition is 32  William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume I: Commentary on Jeremiah I–XXV, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 164–69 provides a useful overview of schema, beginning with Skinner. Cf. the analysis of Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 454–59 who finds in the three paragraphs of the “sermon” three distinct oracles, balancing their apparent independence with marks of “continuity” between them. 33  Leuchter, “The Temple Sermon,” 101–03.

God and Place in Jeremiah

487

effected in the conditional statement of vv. 5–7: the protasis in vv. 5–6 offers a shortlist of restraints and actions bearing on the well-being of the community’s vulnerable and ensuring their care, culminating in fidelity. These behaviours imply slices of local life – notably, these are not cultic actions – and are lived out “in this place.” The apodosis in v. 7 explicitly identifies the “place” as the gifted land. This may be known as the “Temple Sermon,” but its object is life on the land. And yet, Shiloh is referred to in 7:12 as “my place.”34 Ominously, however, Yhwh’s place is referred to as a past dwelling, one no longer in use (‫אשר שכנתי‬ ‫ שמי שם בראשונה‬and cf. 7:14).35 Situated north of Bethel, and familiar from the stories of Samuel, it is deeply inscribed on the social memory of this community, distant in time, but still a place not so far away (about twenty miles north of Jerusalem). The in-gathering worshippers have their gaze directed outwards to the ruined shrine. The parallel passage in Jer 26 also recounts the delivery of this threat (26:6), and forms the climax of the brief summary of the sermon. The threat elicits a frankly hostile reaction (26:9) of “priests, prophets, and all the people” who call for Jeremiah’s life. Clearly, then, the alignment of Shiloh’s state with that of the “house of the Lord” is deeply unsettling.36 Looking at the block of tradition woven together in the “sermon,” the placial structure of the whole is marked by variagation and oscillation. Jeremiah takes up his position at the threshold, the “gate,” the access point for the “men of Judah” who come there to worship: the Temple is the centre of gravity towards which the people move – it gathers them, the place of their most important collective activities. It is the “temple” as well as “place” and “house” – but its identity is undermined by the false trust of those who gather there from the provincial towns. The inward flow of worshipers is met with their outward ejection announced in the divine word which will prove dependable and secure, in constrast to the words in which they trust. 34  Hosea 5:15 is the only other place in the HB where ‫ מקומי‬refers to a divine dwelling. There, too, it designates a place of estrangement between God and people. 35  The eleventh century date for the destruction of Shiloh is now regarded as a “scholarly consensus”: Mark Leuchter, “The Reference to Shiloh in Psalm 78,” HUCA 77 (2006): 1–31 (here at p. 2); cf. John Day, “The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary and Jeremiah vii 12, 14,” in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, ed. J.A. Emerton, VTSup 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 87–94. 36  Although falling outside the bounds of the “sermon” proper, the last mention of “this place” in Jer 7:20 sombrely asserts the desolation that awaits “this place” in consequence of action incommensurate with the gifted land, recalling the connection forged earlier in the chapter.

488

Reimer

The “sermon,” then sets two significant trajectories for understanding God and place in Jeremiah. First, it recognizes the centrality of the temple itself as the meeting place of God and people, while at the same time relativizing that place to see it embedded in a wider placial context, that of the land itself. If the temple is a “focal point,” then it is what might be called “fuzzy-focus” in which boundaries are blurred even while shapes are discernible. Shiloh itself contributes something to that fuzziness. But second, summoning Shiloh to witness shifts the terms of connection between God and place: permanence is undermined. As will be seen in each of the other two scenarios examined below, Jeremiah’s theology incorporates the possibility of placial severance – much as it also holds out the possibility of God being unresponsive to intercession, with that leading directly also to severance of relationship in a common place (Jer 15:1–2). A shared place, then, is the by-product of the character of the people fitting for this God to inhabit, even cohabit the place he provides for them. 3.2 Jug at the Gate: Jeremiah 19 Like much of Jeremiah, this passage, too, is susceptible of varied historicalcritical analyses. Yet even if redactionally composite, an insistent, coherent impression is conveyed by the present form of the text.37 Jeremiah 19 has the highest frequency of the “this place” (‫ )המקום הזה‬formula in the book, and so invites attention in this study. It falls into three unequal parts: (1) 19:1–9 The ‫בקבק‬, “jug,” purchased, audience assembled (vv. 1–2) + vv. 3–9 the speech instructions (3–5 motivation + 6–9 message); (2) 19:10–13 the ‫ בקבק‬is broken, the action explained (vv. 11–13, in terms echoing vv. 3–9); (3) 19:14–15 connects the action at the periphery (Potsherd [qere = ‫]חרסית‬ Gate + with the Topheth Valley to Court of House of Yhwh, v. 14). Once again, Jeremiah’s prophetic speech and action is “geolocated.” This is the only mention of this particular gate, although in conjunction with the Topheth, located somewhere in the Hinnom Valley (Ge-Henna).38 The Topheth itself 37  Cf. McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV, 443–59; his attention is largely on possible scenarios for literary growth. 38  J.A. Dearman, “The Tophet in Jerusalem: Archaeology and Cultural Profile,” JNSL 22 (1996): 59–71; Francesca Stavrakopoulou, “The Jerusalem Tophet: Ideological Dispute and Religious Transformation,” SEL 29–30 (2012–2013): 137–58; whatever the merits of the case for the Yhwh/Molek transference, the resonance of cosmology and topography is deftly portrayed. For possible associations with the “city-dump,” see Ronny Reich and Eli

God and Place in Jeremiah

489

was previously named in the long tail of the Temple Sermon in 7:31. Although precise identification of these sites is now uncertain, it is clear that the juxtaposition of the peripheral areas with the central temple court reflects in topographic terms the incompatibility of the deity whose place has been defiled by people whose actions lead to a severance of relationship (thus “this people and this city” broken together in 19:11). The phrase ‫ המקום הזה‬is used with an insistence here (vv. 3, 4, 6, 7, 12) that is approached (but not matched) only by the Temple Sermon of ch. 7, and the encounter with Hananiah in ch. 28. Here, the occurrences come in each subsection: twice each in the “motivation” (19:3–5) and “message” (19:6–9), once in the “interpretation.” Allied to each of these incessant repetitions of this place is the defiling actions of the populace as a whole, recounted in the “motivation” and finding a macabre counterpart in the “message,” with heinous feeding activities horrifically revisited on the people. The focus of the interpretation on “breaking” shifts the language and attention to the building metaphor, with the destruction of “houses of Jerusalem” (19:13) anticipating the destruction of Yhwh’s “house” from which the oracle is proclaimed (19:14). So things appear on the surface of this text. The welter of complex redactional propositions for this pericope obfuscates the intended identity of “this place.” Rudolph’s perception of the redactional elements in the chapter impelled him to assert that these references indicate “nicht Jerusalem, sondern das Tofet.”39 McKane, however, vigorously rejected this, as the Tophet is not mentioned in the central part of the chapter, opting instead to see the more natural reference in most cases to Jerusalem itself, and his own view of the development of the text sustains a consistent reference to the city.40 The complexity of the central section (19:10–13) makes clear why redactional solutions have been sought, with the Hebrew syntax of vv. 11–12 combining with the textual situation of the lxx to sharpen the sense that our present Hebrew text has a history.41 The sequence of ‫כן‬ … ‫כאשר‬ … ‫ ככה‬should be understood with ‫ככה‬ referring back to the sign action of v. 10, and ‫ כאשר‬initiating a new sequence which finds its culmination in the ‫ כן‬of v. 12: “Thus I will break this people and

Shukron, “The Jerusalem City-Dump in the Late Second Temple Period,” ZDPV 119 (2003): 12–18, here at 17. 39  W. Rudolph, Jeremia, 3rd ed., HAT 12 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Paul Siebeck, 1968), 126. 40  McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV, 449–50, the argument developed over 451–54. 41  Johannes Schiller, “Jeremia und das Tofet: Bemerkungen zur grammatischen Interpretation von Jer 19,11–12,” ZAW 123 (2011): 108–12, notes in particular the syntactic complications, although I do not follow his conclusions regarding topographic issues.

490

Reimer

this city [as Jeremiah has broken the jug in v. 10]. Just as a potter’s vessel is broken, … [12] so I will do to this place …”. The intervention of the Tophet as burial ground in v. 11b is jarring (and absent from the lxx). Whatever its redactional status (a marginal gloss awkwardly brought into the main text?), its contribution at just this point is significant. Just as the Tophet is the topographic inverse of the Temple, so too the “place” of the Temple is mirrored in the “no place” of the Tophet: burial in the Tophet is equivalent to severance from Yhwh.42 Another factor to attend to is Jeremiah’s “actions” – as directed, as well as narrated: he buys the jug, gathers “elders” of people and priests (cf. 26:7–9), breaks the jug in their presence, and walks from the site of the drama to the court of the “house of Yhwh.” Each one of Jeremiah’s actions – and not only the shattering of the jug – thus reinforces his words as they are enacted on the landscape. The move from periphery (valley, gate) to the centre (temple court) itself physically portrays the resolve of the Lord of judgement, and indicates disaster’s trajectory. Holladay aptly summarizes: Jrm is commanded to combine word and act in public proclamation of the inevitable doom of the nation. His vantage point will have the city behind him and the Valley of Ben-Hinnom ahead; he is to give a new symbolic name to the valley appropriate to its function, and to identify the grisly activity of child sacrifice in the valley with the fate of the city to his rear….43

Fixation on the literary development can deflect (and has done) appreciation of the way in which the episode weaves together locale and locution, action and audition (as in hearing) in the implied mapping of Jeremiah’s movements. The significance of the “symbolic action” extends beyond the shattering of the jug to the enacted oracle in the cityscape of Jerusalem and its environs. 3.3 Estate Purchase: Jeremiah 32:6–44 Jeremiah 32 provides one of the most significant placial passages in the book, and this by way of another “symbolic” action. It does not exhibit so much by way of place-related terminology, as “this place” with ‫ מקום‬is used only in 32:37, 42  The parallels to 7:30–8:3 are widely noted. Many EVV translate ‫ מאין מקום‬differently between 7:32 and 19:11, although in both cases the sense is that there “isn’t a place,” rather than there being “no more room.” The topographic aspects of 7:30–8:3 are striking in placial terms. 43  William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 206.

God and Place in Jeremiah

491

although on the other hand there are four instances of “this land” (32:15, 22, 41, 43). But its importance exceeds this formulaic level, as Jeremiah participates in a public action leading to a (private?) oracle which brings together place, people, and deity into a close and intertwined relationship. Again the passage is widely seen to have a complex literary history.44 While agreement on the analysis remains decidedly elusive, the passage forms a coherent whole.45 The broad outline remains clear and is widely agreed: (1) 32:6–15, a sequential account of Jeremiah’s purchase of a “field” (‫ )שדה‬at Anathoth from his uncle; (2) 32:16–25, the prophet’s subsequent prayer of post-purchase bewilderment; (3) 32:26–44, an oracular divine response. Although 32:1–5 stands slightly apart from the account of land purchase and its oracular aftermath, significantly it provides the narrative setting for that drama, set in the final moments of Judah’s national life as the Babylonians lay siege to Jerusalem.46 This activity of estate management comes at the moment when it seems least sensible to be attending to matter of place, and this inconcinnity provides the dramatic momentum for the episode as it unfolds. The careful account of the transaction itself in 32:6–15 comes during a period of detention (32:2), and while movement may at some point have been involved (if, that is, 37:12 is to be associated with land purchase), it is not necessary at this moment. In fact, the setting in the “court of the guard” might even 44  Conveniently outlined by William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 206–09; the end of the passage in particular is examined by Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “The Prophecy for ‘Everlasting Covenant’ (Jeremiah xxxii 36–41): An Exilic Addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction?,” VT 53 (2003): 201–23. 45  At this point concurring with the judgment of Mark Leuchter, “A Resident Alien in Transit: Exile, Adaptation and Geomythology in the Jeremiah Narratives,” HeBAI 7 (2018), forthcoming; I am grateful to Dr Leuchter for sharing a pre-publication copy of his article with me. The complexities of the chapter are also embraced but left unsettled in the applied studies of Eep Talstra and Reinoud Oosting, “Jeremiah 32: A Future And Its History – Actualisation in Writing and Reading,” in African and European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue, ed. G.O. West and Hans De Wit, Studies of Religion in Africa 32 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 197–218; and Janneke Stegeman, “Remembering the Land: Jeremiah 32 and in Palestinian Narrative and Identity,” Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte 26 (2013): 41–54. 46  And possibly related, then, to Jeremiah’s excursion to Benjamin, and the troubles that ensued, related in Jer 37:11–15: “um was es sich im einzelnen handelte, wissen wir nicht, ein Zusammenhang mit 32 6ff. ist wahrscheinlich …” Rudolph, Jeremia, 237.

492

Reimer

be seen to be fortuitous, if that provided not only a secure setting for handing over the silver amounting to the purchase price, but also an especially welcome number of trustworthy witnesses, patiently enumerated in 32:12. Talstra and Oosting draw attention to the emphatically public nature of the event, noting that it is not only depicted so in the account of vv. 6–15, but that this also forms an element in the climax of Jeremiah’s prayer (32:25).47 The very public nature of the account has some resonance with the prose account of the Temple Sermon in Jer 26, where the onlookers themselves form as a group one of the “characters” in that narrative, and whose responses provide a gauge leading eventually to the exoneration of Jeremiah. Here, the scenario is more compressed, the onlookers provide for the legal requirements of the transaction, as well as providing a public aspect to an event which took place in some sense behind closed doors. The legal aspect is an essential part of the transaction. It is essential to the account that the field – even if it remains geographically at some distance from the parties engaged in exchange – really does change hands, and that it comes into the possession of Jeremiah. In a sense the “absence” of the field only enhances the importance of the documentation, the presence and preservation of which is woven throughout the chapter, the “deed of purchase” (‫ )ספר המקנה‬appearing in vv. 11, 12 (twice), 14, and 16, with a reprise of the “deed” (‫ )ספר‬complete with witnesses in the concluding v. 44. Such is the importance of the documentation that it seems to Leuchter to overshadow the significance of the estate itself.48 There is reason to see the event as symbolic, for such it surely is – but whether this amounts to “place-attachment [being] subordinated to the meaning of prophetic speech – or better, prophetic text” (the italics are Leuchter’s) is another matter. What it certainly does is to ensure that “place-attachment” is understood wholly within the context of “divine attachment” (my phrase), that is, the right relationship of God and people is part and parcel of the real relationship of people and place. This accounts in part for the deeply troubling nature of the transaction for Jeremiah. The process is impeccable, and he has redeemed part of the clan estate. As Jeremiah turns to pray, 32:16 makes clear that the final act of ensuring the longevity of the deed has taken place, and that act of deposition becomes the occasion for prayer. Here Jeremiah gives vent to some cognitive dissonance: the carefully enacted transaction appears to be futile, and that in such a way as to potentially undermine the theological import of the Babylonian siege

47  Talstra and Oosting, “Jeremiah 32,” 205. 48  Leuchter, “A Resident Alien”.

God and Place in Jeremiah

493

(32:23–24).49 The paradoxical situation is stated sharply in the closing verse of the prayer: the purchase of the field at divine prompting, while Jerusalem is on the verge of collapse and Judah about to be crushed by Babylon, is “given” (‫ נתנה‬in the niphal), the implication being this, too, is a divine act. While the account merges “place” with “text,” it could be argued that Yhwh’s capacity to act is the central element of that nexus. Jeremiah’s prayer begins with a confession of divine sovereignty, “nothing is too hard (‫ )יפלא‬for you” (32:17) which receives a restatement as rhetorical question in the divine echo in 32:27. The bearing of divine sovereignty on the content of Jeremiah’s prayer and Yhwh’s response is not obvious. The prayer places the events of the exodus at the focal point, while in the divine response it is the effect of widespread ethical failure acting as provocation to judgment. The fulcrum, however, is the conundrum poignantly put at the end of the prayer: how can it be that land redemption – receiving the estate – and the rampant Chaldean triumph – effectively confiscating the estate – how can these contradictory events coexist, and both find their ultimate source in Yhwh himself? While Jeremiah’s confession has something of the character of the opening gambit of Ps 73, providing a platform from which a complaint may be lodged, Yhwh’s rhetorical restatement forces the conclusion: Yhwh has the capacity to make and unmake the relationship of God-people-place. The conclusion to the episode as a whole in 32:42–44 is, then, entirely fitting.50 It implies a return to lived processes as the desolate is again cultivated (32:43), although it is not their cultivation which is the focus of attention. Rather, it is a matter of transaction, as the very presence of this people on this land is itself the mark of restored relationship with Yhwh, which is not otherwise elaborated. Significantly, this is envisaged in a rapid but sweeping itinerary of the lived landscape, urban and rural, from Jerusalem into the provinces, the hills, coastal plains, even edging the wilderness (32:44). This broad landscape recognizes Jerusalem without assigning to it any special significance: it participates in the renewal of the gifted land again inhabited by the people of God. This conclusion is of a piece with the outlook of the prose passage 3:15–18 which both promotes Jerusalem and obviates need for the central locus

49  This incongruity is well explicated by Terence E. Fretheim, “Is Anything Too Hard for God? (Jeremiah 32:27),” CBQ 66 (2004): 231–36, here at 233. 50  This is the case whether the conclusion be deemed “authentic” (so, e.g., Rudolph, Jeremia, 207; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 207–08) or “redactional” (so e.g. Rom-Shiloni, “The Prophecy,” 206–07; followed by Leuchter, “A Resident Alien,” n. 30). The case appears finely balanced.

494

Reimer

of presence (ark).51 The formulaic conclusion, “I will restore their fortunes (‫ ”)אשיב את־שבותם‬likewise is consonant with the theological claims which emerge from the conjunction of prayer and response. The former situation – in which this community flourishes in this place in relationship with this God – is to be re-established.52 Ultimately, the combination of word and place must be maintained: it is not a matter of prioritizing either place-attachment or oracle. Jeremiah 32 both simplifies and complicates relation to the place that is the gifted land, those contrasting conditions attaching to the parallax experienced in taking up differing vantage points. It is complex, since ownership and tenancy are highly uncertain, and subject to the circumstances beyond the control of any subsistence farmer. It is not merely that the vagaries of weather can impede productivity, but the machinations of military powers can sunder land and people. However, quite simply, the force of the estate redemption episode and its oracular response asserts a fundamental relationship between this family and that field within the context of a rightly ordered life before Yhwh. This landscape persists as the locus of life and identity. These vantage points find their connection in the sovereignty of the Lord who as creator is ultimately also both destroyer and restorer. 4

Concluding Reflections

So a consistent picture emerges in Jeremiah’s theology of place. As God and people meet, so too God gifts a place of meeting. That gifted place is settled and stable, but only insofar as the people inhabiting that space in the presence of this God maintain a community fitting to that place in that relationship. While my analysis above has not attended to the dimension of torah in these texts (although a good amount of the literature cited does), it makes its contribution at just this juncture. The corollary is that if and as that people reject the vertical relationship with the deity in ceasing to be a rightly ordered 51  This prose finding a neat counterpart in the poetic oracle of 3:19–23 which elides land and offense; cf. n. 26, above. 52  For this understanding of the formula, see Jean-Marc Babut, Idiomatic Expressions of the Hebrew Bible: Their Meaning and Translation through Componential Analysis, trans. Sarah E. Lind, BIBAL Dissertation Series 5 (North Richland Hills: BIBAL Press, 1999), ch. 10; earlier, and still valuable, John M. Bracke, “šûb šebût: A Reappraisal,” ZAW 97 (1985): 233–44.

God and Place in Jeremiah

495

community, so the relationship is sundered, and the gifted place withdrawn. Thus it is that diaspora is the fundamental threat to the relationship of God and people, with its first biblical exemplar in Gen 3.53 Does this simultaneous assertion and relativizing of the place of encounter inform one of the puzzles of the book: Jeremiah’s ultimate departure to Egypt – even if that is under duress (43:6)?54 At least one can observe that the divine sovereignty both to make and to unmake a stable place-attachment in the bound of the gifted land makes Jeremiah’s departure with Johanan et al. explicable: the consistency at that point lies not in the staying or leaving, but in the recognition that the capacity to remain settled in the place of God’s choosing depends on God’s gift finding a fitting reception. Jeremiah’s departure to Egypt reflects his understanding of divine withdrawal, the converse of the exodus generation in the wilderness who persisted in the face of judgment (Num 14:39–45), demonstrating what it could look like to be faithful in the “wrong” place. In conclusion, then, I consider briefly three related questions involved in this account of Jeremiah’s theology of place. First, what is the relationship between word and place? This has been touched upon above, especially in consideration of Jeremiah 32, in which it was seen that we need not, indeed should not, choose between them or offer a prioritization. There is a “where” of the word. This is the case in two senses. In each of our passages, there is a word pointing to maintenance of a where, to the maintenance, withdrawal, or reestablishment of place in the encounter of God and people. But beneath that overt word/place relationship is the intertwining of a prior word which is bound up with the gifted place. Put another way, the “agent-self” meets this ordered world aided and enabled by the (torah) word which structures the life which flourishes, checked and reproved by the (prophetic) word which diagnoses danger, or envisages outcomes of disordered life signalling rejection of the relationship and the place of encounter which is integral to it (cf. Jer 44:29). Second, what is the relationship between centre and periphery? Although these terms have not featured in the discussion above, they are implicit in each of the texts considered. Jeremiah maintains a particular place where God and community meet, and yet does not provide for that particular place a central function. This place has nearer and farther horizons, which are both part of 53  The basis for this claim is developed in David J. Reimer, “Exile, Diaspora, and Old Testament Theology,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 28 (2010): 3–17. 54  I discuss this scenario at length in: “There – But Not Back Again: Forced Migration and the End of Jeremiah,” HeBAI 7 (2018), forthcoming.

496

Reimer

the same landscape. This place is bounded – although in Jeremiah those borders are not described or insisted upon – but without identifying a centre by whichever imagined metaphor we might choose, whether of gravity or hub or some other. If we are to speak of a placial structure, one could say that for Jeremiah that structure reflects the bounds of the ordered life which places the community in living contact with its wider membership, and in which God is acknowledged by recognition and respect, which is another way of saying, by worshiping the God who gifts this place. The outlines are covenantal. Third, and finally, how then is displacement to be understood?55 The eternal God who situates his creatures in time is also the omnipresent God who allocates his creatures a place. Jeremiah’s God insists upon, and yet transcends, particularity of place. Both the allocated time and the situated place are so ordered as to enable the communion between creature and Creator. But in the “wrong” place, however, one can (one should) recognize estrangement from the life-giving God who is ready and willing to “restore the fortunes” (32:44) of his people gathered again to the place of encounter. The experience of dislocation provides the vantage point for a renewed connection with the placegiving God and, at the same time, a new orientation to the situation of diaspora.56 Just as the judgements of the primeval history contained within them a remedy, so too the God of Jeremiah who builds and plants has a redemptive purpose in the tearing down and uprooting.57 Attending to place in the book of Jeremiah, then, promotes the sense that God’s “how” for the life of his people has a counterpart not only in a “when,” but also in a “where.” There can be a place of estrangement which is no place at all (cf. Jer 51:59–64), but so long as there is life and a rightly ordered orientation to the One who both uproots and plants, even the place of diaspora can point in the right direction (cf. Jer 45:1–5).

55  I would be tempted to use the term “dystopia” here, where its basic sense of a “troubled place” fits these considerations well. Unfortunately, it has already been commandeered for a futuristic literary genre. 56  For an elaboration of this train of thought, extending into the NT, see O’Donovan, “The Loss of a Sense of Place,” especially at 313–14. 57  Broadly on this theme, see Dale Patrick, Redeeming Judgment (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012).

God and Place in Jeremiah

497

Select Bibliography Brueggemann, Walter. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith, 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Casey, Edward S. The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Davies, Eryl W. “Land: Its Rights and Privileges.” Pages 349–69 in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives. Edited by R.E. Clements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Grogan, Geoffrey W. “Heilsgeographie: Geography as a Theological Concept.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 6 (1988): 81–94, 132. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Leuchter, Mark. “The Temple Sermon and the Term ‫ מקום‬in the Jeremianic Corpus.” JSOT 30 (2005): 93–109. Leuchter, Mark. “A Resident Alien in Transit: Exile, Adaptation and Geomythology in the Jeremiah Narratives.” HeBAI 7 (2018), forthcoming. Malpas, Jeff. Place and Experience: A Philosophical Topography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume I: Commentary on Jeremiah I–XXV. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. O’Donovan, Oliver. “The Loss of a Sense of Place.” Pages 296–320 in Bonds of Imperfection: Christian Politics, Past and Present. By Oliver O’Donovan and Joan Lockwook O’Donovan. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Reimer, David J. “Exile, Diaspora, and Old Testament Theology.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 28 (2010): 3–17. Reimer, David J. “On Triplets in a Trio of Prophets.” Pages 203–17 in Let us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by I. Provan and M.J. Boda, VTSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Rudolph, W. Jeremia. 3rd ed. HAT 12. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1968.

Index of Modern Authors Abegg, Martin Jr. 201, 307, 319 Aberbach, Moses 322, 325, 330, 332, 335, 337, 339 Abrego de Lacy, J.M. 60 Adams, James R. 163 Adams, Sean A. 359, 374–377 Adcock, James S. 48, 257–259 Adler, William 398 Aejmelaeus, Anneli 260 Ahn, John J. 106 Ahuis, Ferdinand 127–128, 147 Aland, K. 303 Albertz, Rainer 39, 43, 54, 201–202 Albrektson, Bertil 341, 466, 474, 477 Albright, W.F. 205, 208 Alexander, Philip S. 320–321, 326, 331 Allen, Leslie C. 30, 43 Allgeier, Arthur 395, 412 Allison, Dale C. Jr. 313 Alter, Robert 408 Amiran, Ruth 98 Andersen, Francis 110, 174–175, 230, 251, 283, 446, 454 André, Gunnel 104 Antonsich, Marco 479 Arias, Santa 478 Arneth, Martin 109 Assan-Dhôte, I. 375 Attridge, Harold W. 386, 392 Aune, David E. 389 Avioz, Michael 379, 391 Babut, Jean-Marc 494 Bach, Robert 242, 251 Baillet, Maurice 286–288 Baker, David W. 3, 24 Bakhtin, M.M. 26 Balás, David 416 Balentine, Samuel E. 113 Barnes, William E. 345, 357 Barnett, R.D. 198 Barr, James 153–155, 165, 169, 174, 342, 477 Barrett, C.K. 312 Bartholomew, Craig 478 Barton, John 122, 125, 359, 370, 378–379

Bauckham, Richard 359 Baumann, Eberhard 173, 190 Baumgarten, J.M. 306 Bavinck, Herman 476 Bay, Charles A. 90 Becker, Joachim 94, 99 Becking, Bob 93, 103, 109, 111, 183 Beckwith, Roger 346, 355 Bedford, P.R. 21 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 321 Begg, Christopher T. 379–381, 384, 388, 392 Ben Zvi, Ehud 40, 43 Berger, Paul-Richard 109 Berges, Ulrich 52 Berlejung, Angelika 55 Berlin, Adele 140, 177 Bernasconi, Rocco 320 Berridge, John MacLennan 145 Biddle, Mark E. 273–274 Bingham, D. Jeffrey 416 Birdsong, Shelley L. 258, 264, 278 Bjørndalen, Anders Jørgen 163–164 Black, Max 163 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 34, 43, 87, 157, 162, 387 Bloch, René 381 Bock, Darrell L. 314 Boda, Mark J. 15, 17 Bodner, Keith 60 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice 47, 255, 301, 396–397, 412 Borger, Rykle 173, 190 Bosworth, David A. 146–147, 465, 474 Bovon, François 312 Bozak, Barbara A. 287 Bracke, John M. 173, 190, 494 Brandscheidt, Renate 45, 65 Braulik, Georg 52 Brenac, Thierry 97 Breuer, Mordekhai 282 Brierre-Narbonne, J.-J. 336 Bright, John 46, 138, 144–147, 184, 190, 211, 229 Brock, Sebastian P. 343 Brody, Aaron J. 86, 91 Brooke, George J. 280, 301 Brown, Dennis 412

500 Brueggemann, Walter 111, 482, 497 Büchler, A. 333 Budde, Karl 197, 202, 209, 211, 229 Buechner, Frederick 437 Burkitt, Francis 355, 357, 395, 412 Burnett, Joel 464 Byrne, Ryan 5, 24 Callaway, Mary Chilton 379 Carbajosa, Ignacio 356 Carr, David 5, 17, 23–24 Carroll, John T. 312 Carroll, Robert P. 98–100, 105, 162, 165–166, 168–169, 194, 209, 305 Carter, Charles E. 73 Casanowicz, Immanuel M. 224, 229 Casey, Edward S. 476, 479–481, 497 Cassuto, Umberto 182 Castro, Federico Pérez 282 Chan, Michael J. 474 Chapman, Honora H. 379, 393 Charles, R.H. 441–443, 446, 454 Charlesworth, James H. 300–301, 306, 307, 319, 371, 441–442, 446, 454 Chen, Kenneth S.K. 89 Chester, Andrew N. 330, 339 Childers, Jeff W. 313 Childs, Brevard S. 455, 460, 474 Chilton, Bruce 320–321, 328, 330, 336, 339 Churgin, P. 330 Cinamon, Gilad 72, 91 Cohen, Naomi G. 323 Cohen, Shaye J.D. 382, 393 Collins, John J. 368 Comestor, Peter 420 Conzelmann, Hans 312 Cook, Johann 297, 299 Cook, L. Stephen 389 Cooke, George A. 101, 207 Crawford, Sidnie White 179 Crenshaw, James L. 173, 177 Cresswell, Tim 479 Crivelli, Paolo 115 Cross, Frank Moore 47, 284, 288–289 Cross, Jennifer E. 479 Cummings, John T. 199, 209 Curtis, Adrian 379 Dadon, Michael 69 Dahood, Mitchell 292

Index of Modern Authors Dalley, Stephanie 85 Daube, David 382 David, Marian 115 Davidson, Steed Vernyl 193, 209 Davies, Eryl W. 482, 497 Davies, Philip R. 5 Davies, W.D. 313 Davila, James R. 359 Davis, Christopher James Patrick 379 Davis, Ellen F. 482 Davis, Kipp 280, 292–293, 301, 309, 380 Day, John 487 De–Groot, Alon 72, 91 De Jong, Mayke 418, 434 De Jonge, Marinus J. 96, 382 De Lubac, Henri 431 De Vaux, R. 201–202 De Vries, S.J. 477 Dearman, J.A. 488 Delamarter, Steve 381 DeSilva, David A. 324 Di Lella, Alexander A. 321 Diamond, A.R. 126–131, 133, 140, 145, 147 Dietrich, Ernst L. 173, 190 Dietrich, Walter 93, 97, 111 Dietzfelbinger, Rudolf 395 Dijkstra, Meindert 106 Dille, Sarah J. 163 Dimant, Devorah 359, 370, 378 Dodd, C.H. 312, 319 Doering, L. 315, 319, 390 Dold, P. Alban 395, 412 Dommershausen, Werner 100 Doran, Robert 361, 369, 378 Dorner, I.A. 476 Dotan, Aron 282 Downing, F. Gerald 381–382 Drijvers, Han 355, 357 Driver, S.R. 190 Duhm, D. Bernhard 224, 269 Dümmler, Ernst 418 Dunn, J.D.G. 314–315, 319 Edwards, J.R. 312 Ehorn, Seth M. 374 Eichhorn, J.G. 277 Eichrodt, W. 149–151, 169, 178 Elayi, Josette 102 Elgvin, Torleif 292–293, 310–311, 319 Ellis, Richard S. 21

501

Index of Modern Authors Emery, Kent Jr. 429, 434 Enders, Markus 125 Engel, Helmut 278 Enmarch, Roland 109 Epp–Tiessen, Daniel 389 Erbes, Johann E. 356 Erzberger, Johanna 105 Eshel, Esther 284–286, 288–290, 296, 301 Eskenazi, Tamar Cohn 27 Eslinger, Lyle 172 Etherington, P.J. 478 Evans, Craig A. 303, 307, 316, 319 Everson, A. Joseph 469, 474 Everson, David L. 394 Fabry, Hans-Josef 96 Fairman, H.W. 208 Faust, Avraham 71, 73, 87, 91 Favale, Antonio 48 Fee, Gordon D. 312 Feldman, Louis H. 379, 382–383, 385–386, 388, 393 Ferda, Tucker S. 381, 393 Ferry, Joëlle 184 Filson, Floyd V. 313 Finkel, Irvin 109 Finkelstein, Israel 72, 74, 91 Finsterbusch, Karin 179, 274, 278, 281, 290, 301 Fischer, Georg 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 258, 263, 265, 278, 291, 295, 300, 373, 378 Fishbane, Michael 20, 24, 172, 293 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 173, 312 Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Anne 109 Fleming, Daniel 5, 24 Flesher, Paul V.M. 320–321, 328, 330, 339 Fleury, Dominique 97 Flight, John W. 197 Flint, Peter 201 Fohrer, Georg 19, 200, 209 Forbes, A. Dean 230, 251 Fox, Michael V. 113–115, 125 France, R.T. 313, 316 Freedman, David Noel 110, 174–175, 224, 229, 267, 282, 284, 446, 454 Fretheim, Terence E. 145–147, 251, 455–456, 458, 461–462, 464–465, 468–470, 472–474, 493 Frick, Frank S. 203, 205, 209 Friebel, Kelvin G. 20, 139, 147

Friedländer, M. 427 Friedman, Jerome 417, 434 Friedman, Richard Elliot 10, 170 Froehlich, Karlfried 422–423, 434 Fulton, Deirdre N. 87 Gadot, Yuval 72 Gamberoni, J. 482 Geiger, Ari 427 Gelston, Anthony 342, 345, 352 Geoghegan, Jeffrey C. 11 George, M.K. 158 Gericke, Jaco 113, 117, 122, 125 Gesenius, W. 152 Gesundheit, Shimon 48, 257, 260, 278, 302, 381 Geva, Hillel 70 Gilkey, Langdon B. 477 Gils, Pierre-Marie 425 Ginzberg, Louis 323 Giveon, R. 208 Gladson, Jerry A. 106 Glanz, Oliver 47, 233, 241, 247, 251 Gnuse, Robert 382–383 Goddard, Cliff 97 Goldingay, John 455, 459, 474 Goldman, Yohanan 31, 43, 258, 278 Goldwasser, Orly 5 Golstein, Ronnie 381 Gordon, Robert P. 326 Goren, Yuval 308, 310, 319 Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe 282 Gossai, Hemchand 101 Goswell, Greg 110 Gottheil, Richard 283 Gowan, Donald E. 175 Grätz, Sebastian 15 Graves, Michael 412, 416–418 Gray, Rebecca 382, 393 Graybill, Rhiannon 246, 251 Green, Barbara 26, 235, 251 Greenberg, Gillian 340–341, 343–345, 347–348, 354, 357 Greenberg, Moshe 36, 43, 178 Greenberg, Raphael 72, 91 Greenfield, Jonas C. 173 Greenhut, Zvi 72, 91 Grogan, Geofrey W. 477, 497 Gross, Karl 182 Grundmann, Walter 316 Gryson, Roger 395

502

Index of Modern Authors

Guillaume, Philippe 102 Gunkel, Hermann 131, 447, 454 Gurtner, Daniel M. 364, 378

Humbert, P. 336 Hutton, Jeremy M. 171 Huwyler, Beat 257–258

Haacke, Hrabanus 419 Habel, Norman C. 482 HaCohen, Aviah 284 Hagendahl, Harald 412 Halpern, Baruch 23 Hamilton, Victor P. 58 Har-Even, Benny 69 Haran, Menahem 8 Harrington, Daniel J. 375 Hartberger, Birgit 56 Harvey, David 478 Harvey, Richard 96 Hayes, John 73, 84, 348 Hays, Richard B. 171–172, 175, 189, 190 Hayward, Robert (C.T.R.) 320–321, 323, 328–329, 338–339 Healy, Mary 113, 125 Henderson, Joseph M. 146 Henneberg, Maciek 89 Henneberg, Renata J. 89 Henze, Matthias 310, 319 Herion, G.A. 149, 169 Hermann, Siegfried 10 Herzer, Jens 364, 372, 378 Hicks, R.L. 12, 24 Hieke, Thomas 51 Hill, John 57 Hobbs, T.R. 114, 125 Hóffken, Peter 110 Hoffman, Yair 63, 65 Hoffmeier, James K. 208 Holladay, William L. 46, 54–55, 99, 100–101, 103–105, 107–108, 114, 119, 129, 134–135, 147, 168–169, 171–173, 182–183, 185–187, 190, 232, 252, 291, 298–299, 305, 332, 485, 490–491, 493, 497 Holmgren, Fredrick C. 305 Hols, Edith 162 Hooper, Barbara 480 Horbury, William 96, 111 Horowitz, Wayne 85 Howard, George 313 Howe, Bonnie 162 Hubmann, Franz D. 46 Huffmon, Herbert B. 191, 199, 208–209 Huglo, Dom Michel 396, 412

Idelsohn, A.Z. 337 Ittmann, Norbert 127, 147 Jacob, Edmond 477 Jacoby, Norbert 274 Jamieson-Drake, David W. 5 Janz, Bruce B. 479 Janzen, David 15 Janzen, J. Gerald 46–47, 266, 284, 289–290, 296, 297–299, 302 Jastrow, Marcus 443 Jenni, Ernst 455 Jepsen, A. 31 Jindo, Job Y. 139, 148 Jobes, Karen H. 290, 296 Jobling, David 202 Johnson, Dru 113, 125 Jones, Barry Alan 40 Jones, Brian C. 247, 252 Joosten, Jan 262 Joüon, Paul 236, 243, 252 Joyce, Paul 36, 178 Justnes, Årstein 309 Kamesar, Adam 398 Kamin, Sarah 412 Kartveit, Magnar 149, 164, 169 Katz, Haya 74 Katz, S.T. 330 Kawashima, Robert S. 172 Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin 394, 398–399, 405–406, 411–413 Kelly, J.N.D. 397–398, 413, 416 Keown, Gerald L. 237, 252, 305 Kessler, Martin 232, 242, 252, 380 Keukens, Karlheinz H. 204, 210 Kinney, Angela M. 419 Kiraz, George A. 313 Klein, Michael L. 330, 339 Klein, Ralph W. 203–204, 290 Klepper, Deena Copeland 417, 427, 434 Knights, C.H. 203–204, 206, 210 Knowles, Michael 317, 319, 382 Koch, Christoph 150, 162, 164, 169 Köckert, Matthias 45 Koester, Craig R. 317

Index of Modern Authors Kokai, Victor Nagy 388 Kopeliovich, David 383–384 Koster, Marinus 352 Kovecses, Zoltán 97 Kraft, Robert A. 355 Kratz, Reinhard G. 180 Kraus, Matthew 413 Krey, Philip D.W. 415, 421 Krzyicki, Harry J. 89 Kuhn, K.H. 361, 378 Kuhrt, Amelie 109 Kutsch, Ernst 96, 151–158, 160, 165, 168–169 Kutz, Karl 294–295 Lakoff, George 97 Lalleman-de Winkel, H. 54 Lambert, David A. 331–332 Lange, Armin 280–281, 285–286, 288, 290, 296, 300, 302, 374, 378 Langlois, Michael 292 Le Déaut, R. 320, 321, 335–336, 339 Lee, Boyeon Briana 372 Leene, Hendrik 55, 66 Lemke, Werner 463 Lemmelijn, Bénédicte 186 Lenzi, Alan 4, 5, 7, 12, 24 Leonard, Jeffery M. 172 Lester, G. Brooke 172 Leuchter, Mark 3, 4, 9–11, 13–14, 17–18, 20–24, 210, 482, 486–487, 491–493, 497 Lev-Tov, Justin 87 Levene, Lee I. 320 Levenson, Jon D. 8, 196 Levey, S.H. 334 Levin, Christoph 154–155, 169, 260, 305 Levinas, Emmanuel 27 Levinson, Bernard M. 172, 180 Levy, Ian Christopher 415, 421 Lindars, Barnabas 318 Lipschits, Oded 71–73, 84, 90–91, 384, 387 Loewinger, David S. 282 Lohfink, Norbert 182 Longman III, Tremper 109, 110 López, José-Ángel Zamora 102 Lorenzini, Amleto 198 Lundbom, Jack R. 15, 19–21, 24, 30, 43, 48, 59, 70, 84, 87, 91, 98–101, 103–105, 107–108, 111, 114, 120, 132, 135, 137, 138, 140, 143, 145, 148–149, 167, 169–171, 173–174, 176, 182–188, 190, 210–211,

503 220–223, 225–226, 229–231, 235, 242, 252, 263, 265, 267, 271, 278, 292, 303, 305, 339, 391, 416, 437, 447–448, 450, 452, 454, 460, 462, 474, 486 Lyons, John 150, 164, 169 Lust, Johan 183 Macchi, Jean-Daniel 245, 252 MacDonald, Neil B. 463, 474 Maeir, Aren 5 Magen, Yitzhak 69 Maier, Christl 49, 66, 106 Maier, Michael P. 50, 57, 61, 66 Malamat, Abraham 73, 91 Malena, Sarah 5 Malpas, Jeff 479–480, 482, 497 Mandolfo, Carleen R. 27 Manfredi, Silvana 54 Marshall, I. Howard 314 Marsland, P.A. 90 Matthews, Kenneth A. 284 Matties, Gordon 37, 55 Maybaum, S. 330 Mayfield, Tyler D. 36 Mazar, Amihai 205 Mazar, Eilat 70 Mazar, Benjamin 70 Mazow, Laura 85 McCarter, P. Kyle 96 McClellan, Thomas L. 79, 81 McConville, J.G. 54 McCown, Chester C. 74, 75, 77, 79 McDonald, Lee Martin 359 McGeough, Kevin 87 McKane, William 47, 167, 169, 176, 182, 190, 236, 242, 252, 265, 272, 275–276, 328, 339, 345, 350, 357, 486, 488, 489, 497 McKeating, Henry 165 McKechnie, Paul R. 102 McKnight, Scot 316 McNamara, Martin 326, 332 McNutt, Paula M. 205 Meersseman, G. 423 Meier, J.P. 315 Mendenhall, G.E. 149–150, 169 Menken, Maarten J.J. 94–95, 11 Merz, Annette 314, 319 Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. 96, 111 Metzger, Bruce M. 314, 363 Meyer, Eduard 202

504 Meyers, Carol 88 Miano, David 474 Michaelis, J.D. 46 Michaels, J. Ramsey 318 Milgrom, Jacob 197, 201 Miller, David 390 Miller, Geoffrey D. 172 Miller, James Maxwell 348 Miller, Patrick D. 183 Min, Young-Jin 256, 302 Mingana, Alphones 361 Moatti-Fine, J. 375 Modrezejewski, Joseph M. 90 Moenikes, Ansgar 96, 99, 111 Moore, Carey A. 376 Morrison, Craig E. 356 Morrow, Amanda R. 170, 174 Movers, F.C. 46 Mowinckel, Sigmund 170, 183, 185, 190 Muffs, Yohanan 192, 210 Muilenburg, James 3, 24, 69, 437, 440–441, 443–447, 453–455 Mukenge, A. Kabasele 376 Mulder, Martin J. 167, 191–192, 210 Muraoka, T. 236 Murray, Robert 355 Mushayabasa, Godwin 356 Na’aman, Nadav 5, 74–75 Najman, Hindy 359, 378–379 Nave, Guy D. 386–387 Neujahr, Matthew 110 Neumann, P.K.D. 273 Neusner, Jacob 337, 356 Newman, Judith H. 377 Newsom, Carol 27 Nicholson, E.W. 185 Niditch, Susan 41, 43 Nodet, Etienne 379, 381 Nogalski, James D. 39, 43 Novenson, Matthew V. 96, 111 Nurmela, Risto 56 O’Connor, Kathleen M. 109, 128–130, 132–133, 135–137, 139–140, 142, 144–145, 148, 474 O’Connor, Michael P. 102 O’Donovan, Oliver 476, 479, 481, 496–497 O’Dowd, Ryan P. 113, 125 O’Reilly, Terence 429

Index of Modern Authors Ofer, Yosef 282 Oosting, Reinoud 491–492 Oredsson, Dag 88 Osuji, A.C. 64, 66 Otto, Eckart 51, 53 Padgett, Alan G. 474 Pao, D.W. 317 Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. 22, 245, 252 Parker, Cynthia 478 Parry, Robin 113, 125 Patrick, Dale 496 Patton, Corrine 59 Paul, Shalom M. 175 Paulien, Jon 172 Peels, H.G.L. 247, 252 Pereltsvaig, Asya 102 Perlitt, Lothar 153, 169 Perri, Carmela 172 Person, Raymond Jr. 263 Peter, Carl J. 424 Pietersma, Albert 261–262, 278 Pietsch, Michael 54 Piovanelli, Pierluigi 381, 393 Pitre, Brant 315–316, 319 Plater, W.E. 413 Polak, Frank M. 5, 24 Pongratz-Leisten, Beat 110 Pope, Marvin H. 438–439, 454 Porat, Ziva Ben 172 Porter, Barbara N. 21 Preuschen, Erwin 173, 190 Preuss, Horst Dietrich 455, 475 Puech, Émile 289 Purintun, Ann-Elizabeth 355 Quant, John F. 170 Raabe, Paul R. 230–231, 237, 246, 252 Rabin, Chaim 283 Rad, Gerhard von 26, 44, 128, 148, 180, 457, 475, 477 Raitt, Thomas M. 386 Rajak, Tessa 383 Ranke, Ernst 395, 413 Rebenich, Stefan 413 Reich, Ronny 488 Reiling, J. 389 Reimer, David J. 476, 484–485, 495, 497 Reiter, Sigofredus 415

Index of Modern Authors Rezetko, Robert 260, 272, 277–278 Riaud, Jean 364 Richards, I.A. 163, 169 Richelle, Matthieu 4, 6, 24 Richter, Sandra L. 21 Riemann, Paul A. 202, 203 Ringgren, H. 482 Robinson, J.A. 394 Robinson, Robert B. 238, 252 Rodgers, Zuleika 379 Rofé, Alexander 182, 232, 252, 380 Rom-Shiloni, Dalit 10, 14, 16, 24–25, 491, 493 Römer, Thomas 10, 379 Rose, Wolter H. 100, 111 Rosenberg, A.J. 428 Ross, James F. 195 Rossi, Benedetta 60, 66 Rudolph, Wilhelm 19, 182, 184, 225, 229, 269, 293, 489, 491, 493, 497 Russell, B. 124 Ryan, Thomas 415, 421, 423–424 Sack, R.D. 479 Saley, Richard J. 290 Samely, Alexander 320 Sanders, E.P. 333 Sanderson, Judith 186 Sanford, John 382 Saunders, Marc 262, 278 Scalise, Pamela J. 237, 252, 305 Schaefer, Konrad R. 56 Schäfer, Peter 96, 112 Schalit, Abraham 392 Schaper, Joachim 20, 25 Schechter, Solomon 326, 330 Schellenberg, Annette 113, 125 Schenker, Adrian 47 Schiffman, L.H. 336–337 Schiller, Johannes 489 Schlatter, Adolf 316 Schmid, Konrad 14, 183, 359, 378–379 Schnackenburg, E.J. 317 Schniedewind, William M. 4 Schökel, Luis Alonso 61, 66 Schoenfeld, Devorah 421 Schoettgen, Christian 439 Scholtissek, Klaus 96 Schorch, Stefan 185 Schroeder, Joy A. 414–417, 419, 434 Schürer, Emil 321–322, 324

505 Scolnic, Benjamin Edidin 369, 378 Seitschek, Otto 96, 112 Seitz, Christopher R. 18, 276 Shai, Itzhaq 5 Sharp, Carolyn 13, 25 Shead, Andrew G. 255, 258, 261–263, 265, 266, 270–272, 274, 276, 279 Shibles, Warren A. 162 Shiloh, Yigal 70, 81, 88 Showers, Renald E. 101 Shukron, Eli 489 Shutt, R.J.H. 386 Signer, Michael A. 421, 434 Silva, Moisés 290, 296 Skehan, Patrick W. 321 Skinner, John 127, 148 Smelik, Klaas A.D. 57 Smelik, Willem F. 320 Smit, E.J. 387 Smith, Barry D. 314 Smith, Jannes 261, 263, 279 Smith, J.W.N. 90 Smith, Lesley 420, 434 Smith, Mark S. 130, 134, 148 Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. 106 Smoak, Jeremy 23 Smolar, Leivy 322, 325, 330, 332, 335, 337, 339 Smothers, Thomas G. 237, 252, 305 So, Catherine Sze Wing 126 Soderlund, Sven 255 Soja, Edward 478, 480 Sommer, Benjamin D. 35, 44 Souter, Alexander 397 Sparks, H.F.D. 399, 413 Sperber, Alexander 283, 321 Spilsbury, Paul 386, 388, 392 Stager, Lawrence E. 209 Stavrakopoulou, Francesca 488 Stec, David M. 322 Steck, Odil Hannes 457, 475 Steele, Fritz 480 Stegeman, Janneke 491 Steiner, Richard C. 15 Sterling, Gregory E. 368 Stern, Ephraim 71, 75, 91 Stiglmair, Arnold 63 Stipp, Hermann-Josef 47, 258, 261–266, 268–269, 271–273, 275, 279, 290, 302 Strack, Hermann L. 282 Strauss, Hans 111

506 Strine, Casey L. 16 Stökl, Jonathan 110 Stone, Michael E. 363 Strawn, Brent A. 474 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 307 Stulman, Louis 131, 273 Stump, Eleanor 424 Sulavik, Andrew T. 415 Sweeney, Marvin A. 14, 26–28, 30, 32–39, 44, 99, 105, 177 Swetnam, James 101 Sysling, Harry 325–326 Szaif, Jan 115, 125 Talmon, Shemaryahu 202–205, 283 Talstra, Eep 491–492 Tamási, Balázs 372, 378 Tarrer, Seth B. 416, 434 Teixidor, Javier 207 Thackeray, H. St J. 262, 381, 389 Theissen, Gerd 314, 319 Thiel, Winfried 10, 53–54, 66 Thompson, John A. 46, 200, 210 Tigay, Jeffrey 186 Tigchelaar, Eibert 309 Timmer, Daniel C. 39 Tkacz, Catherine Brown 397–398, 413 Tov, Emanuel 47, 170, 179, 185, 190, 256, 258, 261–263, 268, 277, 279, 283–286, 288–290, 296–297, 300, 302, 375, 378 Trimpe, Birgit 50 Tuell, Steven 36 Tull, Patricia 26, 44 Tuval, Michael 382 Tyson, Craig W. 379, 393 Ulrich, Eugene 179, 201, 284, 290 Urbach, Ephraim E. 101, 330, 333 Vanderhooft, David 85, 90 Van der Branden, Alphons 101 Van der Louw, Theo A.W. 262 Van der Merwe, C.H.J. 406 Van der Toorn, Karel 4, 6–7, 22, 26, 180, 194, 196, 206–207, 210 Van Keulen, Percy S.F. 357 Van Liere, Frans 414–415, 420, 434 Van Noppen, J.P. 162 Van Peursen, Wido Th. 357 Van Wolde, Ellen J. 97

Index of Modern Authors Vlaardingerbroek, Johannes 173, 176–177 von Patsch, Hermann 314 Von Waldow, H. 131–132 Vonach, Andreas 48, 261, 279 Vroom, Jonathan 266–267 Wacholder, Ben Zion 101 Wagner, V. 314 Walser, Georg A. 261, 263, 279 Walter, Donald M. 352, 356 Waltke, Bruce K. 102 Wambacq, B.N. 208 Wanke, G. 275 Warf, Barney 478 Waschke, Ernst-Joachim 96 Watts, James W. 4, 8, 26, 230, 252 Webb, Robert L. 314 Weber, Robert 395 Weigold, Matthias 374, 378 Weinfeld, Moshe 52, 66, 152, 155–158, 165, 169, 179–180, 327 Weippert, Helga 54, 57 Weis, Richard D. 47, 257–259, 279, 290, 396, 399 Weiss, Judy 282 Weitzman, Michael P. 341, 344–346, 349, 351–353, 355–356, 358 Wellhausen, Julius 179 Wenthe, Dean O. 434 Wessels, Willie 105 Wessley, Stephen E. 426, 434 Westermann, Claus 457, 475 White, H.J. 397, 413 White, Marsha C. 198, 210 Whybray, Norman 162 Widmer, Michael 475 Wildberger, Hans 466 Williams, J.G. 202, 210 Williams, Peter J. 356 Williams, Ronald J. 409 Wilmart, D.A. 396, 413 Wilson, Robert R. 382 Wimmer, Donald H. 128, 148 Wise, Michael O. 307 Wöhrle, Jakob 39, 43 Wolff, Christian 379, 381 Wolff, Hans Walter 175, 177 Wolterstoff, Nicholas 467, 475 Woods, Julie 230, 232, 239, 244, 247, 252 Wright, B.G. 261

507

Index of Modern Authors Wright, G.E. 477 Wright, J. Edward 29, 44, 373 Wright, Jacob L. 93, 112 Würthwein, Ernst 416

Yeivin, Israel 283 Yellin, Joseph 73, 84 Young, C.P. 90 Young, James O. 115

Xella, Paolo 102

Zielger, Joseph 255, 360, 378, 395 Zimmerli, Walther 178–179 Zink, James Keith 374, 376 Zorn, Jeffrey R. 69, 73–75, 77–85, 88–92 Zuckerman, Sharon 87

Yardeni, Ada 284, 289, 294, 296 Yates, Gary 171 Yee, Gale A. 176

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings Old Testament Genesis 1–17 58 1–11 50, 59, 456–457, 459, 475 1–2 456–457 1 50–51, 457–458 1:1–2:4a 456 1:3–5 457 1:11–13 458 1:20 458 1:24 458 1:26 458 2:2–3 457–458 3 495 6:3 331 6:6–7 459 6:18 160 9:9–17 161 9:11 161 9:13 161 10 57 13:14–15 482 14:18 58 15 160, 165–166 15:7–21 159 15:9–10 165 15:17 165 15:18–21 160 15:18 152 17 160 17:1–14 158 17:2 160 17:4 160 17:7 160 17:9–14 159–160 17:11 159 17:13 159–160 18:22–33 438 19:13–14 484 19:15–29 438 20 438 20:7 64, 447

20:11 123 21:23 153 21:31 153 26:9 123 26:28 153 31:37 439 35:19–20 428 38:8 160 44:28 123 Exodus 2:14 123 2:18 208 2:21 208 3:1 208 3:3 64 3:7–22 440 3:10 446 4:1 62 4:14 464 4:16 62 4:25 159 5:1–6:9 440 5:20–21 62 5:21 51 6:9 62 7:1 62, 64 7:14–11:10 186 9:30 64 12:14 52, 316 12:17 52 12:42 52 13:3 52 13:8–10 52 13:11 59 13:14–16 52 14:11–12 62 15:14–15 56 15:24 62 16:23–30 458 18 208 18:10–12 208 18:13–23 208 19:6 61

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 19:16–19 440 20:11 457 20:14–17 9 20:18–19 440 21:2 166 22:1–4 119 22:15 144 23:10–11 323 23:12 457 24:3–8 161 24:4 62 24:7 316 24:8 313 25–31 58 25:10–22 52 25:16 158 25:22 158 26:33 158 29:2 98 29:31–35 316 31:17 457 31:18 52 32:9–14 464 32:9 186 32:10 60 32:11–13 60 32:30–32 441 32:31–33 7 32:32–33 14 32:33 8 33:1–17 441 34:1–4 52 34:6 464 34:10 153, 161 34:11–16 161 34:27–28 52 34:28 161 40:20 162 Leviticus 1–7 52 2:4 98 3:16–17 422 4:3 97 8–9 62 10:10–11 33 10:20 64 16–27 51

23:33–43 87 25:2–7 323 26 51 26:6 152 26:11 50 26:15 50 26:30 50 26:42 460 26:43 50 26:45 162 26:46 440 Numbers 6 201 6:2–7 201 6:24–26 23 10:29–32 208–209 11:1–3 441 11:29 64 12 62 12:6 64 13–14 442 14:13–19 60 14:21 463 14:39–45 495 15:8–15 316 16 62, 442 16:22 60 18:19 158, 167 21 50 21:28–29 50, 213 21:28 287 21:29 173 23:3 483 24:17 50, 213 25 56 29:12–40 87 31 56 32–33 50 Deuteronomy 1–11 179–180 1:22 188 1:25 188 1:26–46 442 1:45 188 2:26–3:11 56 3:20 188

509

510

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Deuteronomy (cont.) 4–5 50 4:2 51 4:9–14 440 4:13 161 4:27–30 59 4:29 51, 185 4:30 188 4:32–40 440 4:34 346 4:39 188 5–32 9 5:2–5 440 5:2 161 5:4–5 9 5:22–27 440 5:30 188 6:4–5 180 6:4 181 6:9 9 6:11 59 7:9 160 9:1 308 9:7–21 441 9:9 161 9:13 186 9:15 161 9:18 60 9:22–29 441 9:25–29 60 10:1–11 441 10:8 158 10:12 181 10:16 181, 188 11:8 308 11:20 9 12–26 180 12:5 58, 486 13 45, 53 13:1 51 13:2–6 64 13:7a 180 13:13–19 53 13:14 53 13:17 53 13:18 188 14:23 486 15:1ff 166 15:1–3 323

15:20 486 16:2 486 16:6 486 17:15 9, 186 17:16 188 17:18–20 9 17:18–19 9 18 45–46, 50, 61, 390 18:9–14 447 18:15–22 46 18:15–18 186, 437, 447 18:15 45, 46, 64 18:18 12, 45, 48, 64 18:18 (LXX)  48 18:20–22 64 20:5 188 20:6 188 20:7 188 20:8 188 22:1 188 22:2 188 23:4 56 23:8 56 23:14 188 23:15 188 23:16–34:12 51 24:1–4 53 24:4 188 24:13 188 24:19 188 26:1 180 26:8 346 27–29 180–181 27 9, 10, 179–180 27:3 9 27:8 9 27:26 9 28 50, 51, 65 28:15 180 28:31 188 28:60 188 28:68 188 28:69 161 29–30 186 29:4–5 207 29:11 153, 187 29:13 158 29:20–27 203 29:24 162

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 29:25–29 180 29:28 181 29:29 180 30 177, 180–181, 187, 189 30:1–10 170–172, 179–181, 186–189 30:1–5 185 30:1 180, 188 30:2–6 181 30:2–3 188 30:2 188 30:3–4 177, 188 30:3 170– 171, 173–174, 188 30:4 188 30:6 181, 188 30:8 188 30:9 177, 188 30:10 181, 188 30:11 181 30:14 181 31–34 186 31–32 9, 50 31:9–13 9 31:9 9, 158 31:11 9 31:12 9 31:16–20 161 31:19 19 31:22 19 31:24 9 31:25 158 31:26 9, 158 31:27 64 31:29 64 31:30 9 32 9, 51, 186 32:41 188 32:43 188 32:45 19 32:46 9 34:8 62 34:10 45, 62, 64 Joshua 9:11 152 9:15 153 11:10 53

19:5 204 24 153, 443 Judges 2:1 162 4:11 208 8:33 167 9:4 167 9:27 167 9:46 167 10:14 53 13 200 13:2–7 200 13:13–14 200 15:2 123 17 324 19:29 165 21:5 87 21:8 87 1 Samuel 1:22 201 3:1 443 7 75 7:1–11 443 7:5–6 87 7:5 60 7:9 60 8 443 8:22 443 9:21 375 10 75 10:1–2 96 10:5–13 201 10:12 201 11:5–11 165 12 443 12:12 443 12:23 60 15 444 17:8 153 20:26 123 20:42 153 23:18 153 25:18 195 2 Samuel 2:1 483 4 203

511

512

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

2 Samuel (cont.) 7 54 7:16 107 8 23 12:22 123 16:1 195 1 Kings 1:39 97 2:3 103, 153 2:26–27 63 5:26 152 8:21 162 8:23 158 9:17–19 348 15:19 152 15:22 74 15:16–22 79, 91 18 444 18:18 444 18:28 453 19 194 19:2 153 19:17 199 22 470 2 Kings 2:1–7 202 2:11 202 2:12 201–202 3:15–20 201 4:38–41 202 6:1–4 202 6:17 202 9–10 198 10 191, 193, 198, 203 10:23 198–199 11:4 153 13:14 201 17:14 46 17:15 158 18:12 153 19–20 62 20:13 348 22–25 381 22:3 35 22:8 382 23:3 153

23:5 484 24:7 220 24:18–25:30 54 25 263 25:3 71 25:12 74 25:13–17 362 25:24–25 85 25:26 60 1 Chronicles 2 204 2:55 202–204, 210 4:11–12 203 4:12 203, 205 4:31 204 9:33 203 2 Chronicles 8:4–6 348 15:12 153 15:14 153 33:12–13 331 34–36 381 34:8 35 34:9 323 35:25 62, 360, 381 36:12 62, 360 36:18 362 36:21–22 62, 360 36:21 366 Ezra 1:1–2:67 366 1:1–11 430 1:1 62, 360 4–6 15 7 15 9:12 367 10:3 153 10:5 153 10:18–19 367 12–26 15 Nehemiah 3:7 90 3:14 203 3:15 90

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 3:19 90 5:13 160 8 23 10:1 153 11–13 15 13:23–30 367 Job

5:23 152 6:12 425 9:33 438, 439, 441 16:19 439 19:25–27 439 19:25 439 31:9 144 31:35 439 38–41 439 42:6 439 42:10–11 174 42:10 170, 173

Psalms 2:7–8 311 14:7 170, 173 15 33 24 33 25:14 156, 158 25:15 158 25:18 158 30:5 465 33:5 463 36:5 463 37:31 327 48:10 463 53:6 170 53:7 173 57:10 463 67:6 (LXX) 345 68:7 345 70 203 71 203 72:19 463 73 493 78 172, 250, 487 78:10 156 83:5 156 83:6 152 85:2 173

88:6 461 89:4 153, 156 89:29 156 89:35 156 89:41 143 90–150 356 90:2 476 99:6–8 442–443 102:13 469 103:9 465 103:18 156 104:2 457 105:5–11 153 105:8–10 460 105:8 157 105:9 157 105:10 157, 160 105:11 157 106:29 465 106:45 461 111:9 160 119:1 327 119:33–35 327 119:64 463 126:1 170 126:4 170, 173 137 56 139:7–12 464 139:7 476 139:12 457 147:10 425 Proverbs 1:7 116 3:5–8 123 9:10 116 10–31 113–115 10:14 143 10:23 114 10:26 114 11:22 114 17:16 425 24:9 114 24:29 114 25:1–29:27 114 25:4–5 114 25:11 114 25:12 114

513

514

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Proverbs (cont.) 25:13 114 25:14 114 25:18 114 25:19 114 25:20 114 25:25 114 25:26 114 25:28 114 26:1 114 26:2 114 26:3 114 26:6 114 26:7 114 26:8 114 26:9 114 26:11 114–115 26:17 114 26:18–19 114 26:20 114 26:21 114 26:23 114 27:3 114 27:8 114–115 27:15 114 27:19 114 27:21 114 28:3 114 28:15 114 Ecclesiastes 1:13 123 1:16–17 123 1:18 425 2:1 123 2:2–9a 204 2:15 123 3:17 123 3:18 123 5:13 425 8:17 425 9:11 425 Isaiah 1–39 33, 44, 157 1–33 34 1:14 462 1:19–20 470

2:4 439 5:1–7 462 5:25–30 32 6–8 482 6 32, 446 6:3 463, 484 7:1–9:6 33 7:9 395 7:13 462 9 107, 110 9:1–6 34 9:6–7 100 10:27b–32 79 11:1–9 30 11:1–16 34 13–27 466 13:14b 213 13:19 213 14:24–27 466 15–16 247, 252 15:2–3 213 15:4–6 213 15:7a 213 16:6–7 213 16:8–10 213 16:11 213 19:24–25 250 21:5 98 22:11 467 24:5 158 24:17 213 24:18 213 28:14–22 157 28:15 157 28:18 157 29:1 93 29:14 425 30:1 467 31:8 369 32:1–8 34 32:4 345 36–37 33 37:26 467 39:2 348–349 40–66 34–35, 44 40–55 34–35, 43, 162, 337 40–48 52 41:8 483

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 42:6 162, 316 42:9 316 43:16–21 52 43:18–19 52 43:24 461 44:9–20 55 44:28 34 45:1–7 469 45:1 34, 97 48:9 465 49:8 162, 316, 469 49:9 483 51:6 335 51:9–11 171 52:13–53:12 35 53 316 53:10–12 316 54:7–8 465 54:10 158 54:14 143 55 35 55:8–9 123 55:9 123 56–66 35 57:16 465 58:7 395 60:6 55 60:18 55 61:1 97 65:17 335 66 35 66:1–2 463 66:13 117 66:16 369 Jeremiah 1–51 274–275 1–45 29 1–41 232 1–25 10, 17, 53, 63, 65–66, 119, 128, 132–133, 135, 147–148, 273, 291, 295, 328, 339, 345, 350, 357, 384, 486, 488–490, 497 1–24 139, 148, 259, 278, 301 1–20 107, 114, 120, 129, 132, 137–138, 140,

515

143, 145, 148, 170–171, 183, 186, 190, 213, 230, 252, 292, 416, 448, 450, 452, 454–455, 460, 462, 474, 486 1–10 27, 28 1:10 (LXX) 28 1–6 27 1 45–46, 63, 65, 132, 257, 274, 278, 301 1 (LXX) 274 1:1–42:1 424 1:1–3 27, 35, 392, 405 1:1 22, 63, 74, 229, 323, 382, 484 1:2–3 54 1:2 274 1:4–10 27 1:4 419 1:5 56, 63–64, 211, 228, 251, 322, 374, 420, 423 1:5a 419 1:6 64, 375, 423 1:7 46, 183, 186, 447 1:8 423 1:9–10 230, 276 1:9 12, 45, 48, 186, 212, 447 1:9 (LXX) 48 1:10 45, 63, 65, 182, 211, 251, 374, 483 1:11–19 28 1:11–19 (LXX) 28 1:11–14 63 1:11–12 41, 217 1:11 419, 423, 430 1:12 63 1:13–19 41 1:14 291 1:15–18 229 1:15 212, 229, 361 1:17 46, 224 1:18–19 360 1:18 63, 212, 446 2–20 268 2–10 132

516

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 2–6 28, 32, 35, 40 2–6 (LXX) 28 2 37, 447 2:1–2 28 2:1–2 (LXX) 28 2:1 27, 32, 419 2:2–4:2 32 2:2–3 459 2:5–9 215, 226 2:6 433 2:7 249 2:8 49, 122 2:9 351 2:10–12 217 2:10 351 2:12 217 2:13 343 2:14 212 2:15 212, 483 2:17 354 2:18 57, 401 2:19 214 2:20–25 10, 25 2:20 120, 212 2:21 213 2:23–28 117–18 2:23 120, 212, 347 2:25 120, 347 2:25b 212 2:26–28 119 2:26 107, 116–117 2:27 120 2:27a 119 2:27b 120 2:27c–28a 215 2:28 299 2:28a 219 2:28b 219 2:31 212 2:34 347 2:35 212 2:36 57, 119, 215 3 447 3:1–4:4 53 3:1 212, 218 3:2 352, 483 3:6–12 405

3:6–11 272 3:6 405 3:7 462 3:8 10, 12 3:11 12 3:12–18 182 3:12–16 305 3:12 53, 464 3:13 305 3:14–18 405 3:14 53 3:15–19 292 3:15–18 493 3:15 293 3:15a 421 3:15b 421 3:16–17 52 3:17 250 3:18 212, 344 3:19–23 494 3:19–20 123, 462 3:19 213, 293 3:20 116 3:21–25 447–448 3:21 212, 352, 483 3:22a 449 3:22b–23 447 3:23 216 3:24–25 449 4–6 55 4 51 4:2 250 4:3–6:30 32 4:4 188, 216 4:5–6:30 55 4:5 215, 288 4:6 212, 215 4:7 212, 214, 344, 483 4:9 214 4:11 345, 352, 483 4:13–16 288 4:13 212 4:14 466 4:15 212 4:16 230, 484 4:19–22 465 4:19 212–213 4:21 466

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 4:23–26 50, 57, 214, 225 4:28 462, 468, 472 4:29 212, 483 4:31 212 5:1–8 215, 226 5:1 215, 484 5:4–5 122 5:6 212 5:8 216 5:10 345 5:14–19 32 5:14 212 5:15–17 214, 225 5:15 212, 361 5:17 214 5:19 116 5:21 32 5:22 57 5:24 57 5:26 347 5:27 116, 348 5:28 348 6:1 212, 400 6:2 212 6:4–6 221 6:4–5 219 6:7 55, 116 6:8 212 6:9–15 55 6:12 291 6:13 389 6:14 213, 354 6:15 119, 212, 291, 465 6:16 94 6:16 (LXX) 94 6:19 49, 212, 361 6:20 55 6:22–24 213, 219 6:22 212 6:23 212 6:24 212 6:25 212 6:26c 212 6:27 63 6:28–29 55 7–20 273 7–10 27, 33

517

7 18, 51, 260, 381, 385, 393, 484–486, 489 7:1–34 405 7:1–15 385, 486 7:1–14 87 7:1–2 28, 283 7:1 27, 275, 419 7:3–7 467 7:3 489 7:4 58, 213, 264, 354, 484, 489 7:5–7 487 7:5–6 487 7:5 263 7:6 489 7:7 16, 487, 489 7:9 50, 215 7:11 94–95, 317, 433 7:11 (LXX) 94 7:12 487, 489 7:14 487 7:15–19 283 7:16–20 452 7:16 17, 60, 333, 408–409, 452, 486 7:17 484 7:18–19 464 7:18 422 7:20 487 7:22 50 7:25 50 7:27 350 7:27b 350 7:28–34 283 7:28 350 7:28a 350 7:29 352, 432, 483 7:30–8:3 284–285, 490 7:31 323, 353, 489 7:32 490 7:34 484 8:1–12 283 8:1–3 288, 405 8:2 57 8:3 188, 285, 289, 349, 352 8:4–5 212 8:4 285

518

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 8:7 57, 432 8:8 10, 49, 212 8:8b 10 8:9 119, 224 8:10–12 55 8:10 285 8:11 213 8:12 119, 212, 291 8:13–17 215, 226 8:14 483 8:16 212, 483 8:18–9:3 465 8:18–21 219 8:18–19 283 8:19 212, 245, 464 8:21–23 288 8:21 349 8:22 212 8:23 [9:1] 146, 465 9 337 9:1–5 288 9:1–2 283 9:2 289 9:7–15 283 9:8 [9] 285 9:9 [10] 285, 465 9:10 [11] 212, 483–484 9:12–15 405 9:12 [13] 49, 285, 361 9:14 [15] 285 9:15 [16] 188 9:16–18 [17–19] 465 9:16–17 [17–18] 465 9:16 [17] 425 9:18 [19] 212 9:22–10:21 47 9:22–25 289 9:22–23 95 9:22–23a (23–24a) 425 9:24–25 [25–26] 188, 230 9:25 [26] 291 10 47, 257, 259, 264, 278, 290, 301 10:1–18 48, 257 10:1–16 48, 290 10:1–11 290 10:1–10 361

10:1–5 289 10:2 250, 292 10:3–9 245 10:3–4 55 10:4 290 10:5–11 290 10:5a 290 10:5a (LXX) 285 10:5b 290 10:5b (LXX) 285 10:6–8 290 10:6 56 10:7 95, 245 10:9–14 283 10:9 285, 289–290, 400 10:9 (LXX) 285 10:10 245–246, 285 10:11–21 289 10:11 215, 290 10:11 (LXX) 285 10:12–13 57, 245, 288, 296 10:12 343 10:13 285, 291 10:14–15 245 10:14 119 10:15 212, 291 10:16 245 10:18 218 10:22 212, 353, 484 10:23 283 11–20 126, 129, 130–137, 146, 148 11–12 133, 134 11 127 11:1–17 136 11:1–14 133, 136, 405 11:1–13 10, 164 11:1–12 134 11:1 275, 419 11:3–6 283 11:3 164, 343, 353 11:4 50, 164 11:6 405, 484 11:7–8 122, 269 11:7 164 11:8 139, 265, 353 11:9 46, 139, 165 11:10b 168

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 11:11 361 11:12 54, 135 11:13 484 11:14–17 452 11:14 17, 60 11:15–16 135 11:15 135 11:17–18 405 11:17 135, 464 11:18–12:5–6 129 11:18–12:6 126, 133, 135–137, 139, 146 11:18–12:3 129, 137 11:18–23 130, 134, 138 11:18–21 51 11:18–20 136–138 11:18–19 146 11:18 138, 214 11:19–20 283 11:19 135, 138–139, 417, 433 11:19ab 137 11:19c 137 11:20 130, 137–138 11:21–23 130–132, 136, 138, 360, 405 11:21 134, 484 11:21a 138 11:22 138 11:23 134, 138, 212, 484 11:23b 138 12 127–128 12:1–17 134 12:1–6 130, 134, 137, 138 12:1–4 128, 138 12:1–4b 127 12:1–3 137–138 12:1 137–139 12:2 135, 137–138 12:3–7 283 12:3–4 147 12:3 95, 135, 137– 139, 285 12:3a 138 12:3b 138 12:3c 138 12:4 135, 137–139 12:5–6 128, 138

519

12:5 127, 128, 218 12:6 129, 135, 137–138, 360 12:7–17 136 12:7–13 135, 464 12:7 135 12:11 212 12:12 352, 483 12:13–17 283 12:13 139 12:14–17 249, 250, 272, 405 12:14 285 12:15 95 12:16–17 250, 470 12:16 57, 245 12:17 285 13–15 134 13 105, 128, 133 13:1–14 405 13:1–11 134, 136, 139 13:1–10ab 128 13:1–7 20, 283 13:1 127, 285, 299 13:2 127 13:3 285 13:4–7 127 13:4 285 13:6 407 13:8 354 13:9 353 13:10 136 13:11 116, 139 13:12–27 136 13:12–14 139 13:12 353 13:13–14 105, 108 13:13 105, 106, 291 13:14 129 13:17 465 13:22 56, 283, 286 13:24 188 13:26 56 13:27 283, 466 14–16 133, 139 14 51, 139 14:1–15:4 17 14:1–22 134, 136, 139, 141 14:1–6 141, 449

520

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 14:1 275, 419 14:2–6 449–50 14:2 424 14:3 119 14:4–7 283 14:4 119, 224, 285 14:6 285, 352, 432, 483 14:7–9 449, 450 14:10–16 405 14:10 212, 449–450, 460–461 14:11–14 451 14:11 17, 60 14:12 141, 261 14:13–18 55 14:14 46 14:15–16 141, 449, 451 14:15 141 14:16 484 14 :17–19b 451 14:17 146, 212, 214, 465 14:17b 135 14:18 141 14:19 50, 212 14:19c–22 451–452 14:20 129, 342 14:21 460, 304 14:24 467 15 127, 128 15:1–9 136, 139, 141 15:1–4 451 15:1–2 283, 488 15:1 17, 52, 60, 285, 443, 452 15:2–3 141 15:2 141 15:2b–3 452 15:4 141 15:5–9 135 15:6 462 15:7–9 141 15:10–21 126, 133, 135–136, 139, 146 15:10–14 130, 134 15:10–12 129, 140 15:10ff 130 15:10 127–130, 132, 140–142

15:10b 140 15:10c 140 15:11–14 132, 140–141 15:11ab 140 15:11c 140 15:12 40, 141 15:13–14 130–131, 140 15:14 140–141 15:15–21 127, 129–130, 134 15:15–18 140, 141 15:15 129–131, 135, 140, 461 15:15ac 140 15:16–18 140 15:16 135, 447 15:16ab 140 15:17 127–128, 141 15:17ab 140 15:18 64, 127–128, 140–141, 322 15:18a 135 15:19–21 128, 140–141 15:19 63, 65, 214 15:19b 127–128, 140 15:19d 140 15:20 140–141 15:20a 127–128 15:21 135, 140 16–17 134 16 128, 337, 484 16:1–18 405 16:1–13 133 16:1–9 129, 134, 136, 139, 141, 199 16:1–7 129 16:3–4 199 16:3 129 16:5 127–128 16:7 127–129 16:8–9 129 16:10–21 134, 136, 141 16:10–13 199 16:11 49 16:12 136 16:15 188, 212 16:18 249 16:19–21 245, 250 16:19–20 132 16:19 141

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 17 106–107, 127–128, 133 17:1–13 134, 136, 141, 147 17:1–4 269 17:1 141 17:2 141 17:3 143 17:5–10 129 17:5 141 17:8–26 283 17:10 396 17:11 59, 141 17:12–13 142 17:12 285 17:13 142, 216 17:14–18 126–130, 132–134, 136, 141–142, 146 17:14 142, 214 17:14a 142 17:14b 142 17:14c 142 17:15 135, 142–143 17:15a 142 17:16–18 469 17:16a 142 17:17 142–143, 147 17:17b 142 17:18 135, 142, 224, 285 17:18a 142 17:18b 142 17:19–27 133–134, 136, 405 17:20 285 17:22 285 17:23 136 17:24–29 107 17:24–27 470 17:24–25 106 17:24 285 17:25 105–107 17:26 261 17:27 143 17:19–27 106, 107 18–20 133–134 18–19 144 18 127–128 18:1–18 136, 143–144 18:1–12 133–134, 405, 472 18:1–6a 128 18:1 275, 419

521

18:2–4 127 18:2–3 317 18:3 353 18:6–10 143 18:6 116 18:7–10 473 18:7 483 18:9 483 18:11–12 466–467 18:11 467 18:12 143–144, 347, 467 18:13–17 467 18:15–19:1 283 18:17 188, 285, 469 18:18–23 126, 129–130, 133 18:18 49, 130–131, 144, 285, 360, 449 18:19–23 134, 136, 143–144, 146 18:19–20 127 18:19 128, 143, 147 18:19b 143 18:20 135, 143–144, 147, 449, 461, 464 18:20ab 128 18:20b 143 18:20c 143 18:20e 143 18:21–23 143, 144 18:21 285 18:22 143 18:22a 143 18:22b–23 127 18:22b 128 18:22c 143 18:23 128, 143–144, 464 18:23cd 143 18:23c 143 19 128, 337, 484–485, 488 19:1–15 133, 136–137, 143–144, 405 19:1–9 488 19:1–2 488 19:1–2a 127–128 19:3–9 488 19:3–5 488–489 19:6–9 488–489 19:7 466

522

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 19:8–9 288 19:9 285 19:10–13 488–489 19:10–11a 128 19:10 489–490 19:11–13 488 19:11–12 489 19:11 490 19:11b 490 19:12 489–490 19:13 489 19:14–15 488 19:14 58, 488–489 20 127, 145, 340, 485 20:1–6 58, 87, 133–134, 137, 145, 405 20:1–4 360 20:2–5 288 20:2–3 62 20:3 288, 407 20:5 353 20:6 214, 366 20:7–18 126, 137, 144–146 20:7–13 129–130, 133–134, 145 20:7–10 145 20:7–9 127–128, 288 20:7 64, 135, 144–145, 214, 425 20:8 135, 144–145, 147 20:9 46, 145 20:10 135, 145, 212, 301 20:11–13 145 20:11 119, 135, 145 20:12 145 20:13–15 288 20:13 145, 340 20:14–18 128–130, 133–134, 145, 283 20:14–17 425 20:17 322 20:18 145 21–36 30, 43, 99–101, 103–105, 108, 111, 132, 135, 148–149, 167, 169–171,

173–174, 176, 182–185, 188, 190, 210, 305 21–25 132 21–22 102, 108 21 337, 385 21:1–23:40 98 21:1–23:8 98 21:1–10 381, 385, 405 21:1–2 453 21:1 275, 283, 402 21:3 405 21:7–10 288 21:7 70, 288 21:8–10 470 21:8 285 21:9 286 21:11–12 470 21:12 105–106 21:13–14 213 21:13 212 22 54 22:1–23:8 (LXX) 30 22:1–6 405 22:1–5 470–471 22:2 105–106 22:3–16 283 22:3 396 22:4–6 288 22:4 105–106 22:6–9 470 22:10–28 288 22:11 288, 348 22:14 98, 285, 299 22:18–19 392 22:19 387 22:20 261, 288–289, 402, 404 22:23 212 22:24–27 405 22:24 95 22:25 286 22:26 366 22:28–33 288 22:28 212 22:29 213, 264, 484 22:30 105–106, 217 23 102–103, 105

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 23:1–8 29, 30–31, 34, 98–99, 103–105 23:1–8 (LXX) 42 23:1–4 99, 405 23:1 103 23:2 104 23:3 104, 188, 468 23:4 104 23:5–8 99 23:5–6 98, 105, 176 23:5 102, 104–105, 110, 337 23:5a 101 23:6–9 294–295 23:6 103, 427 23:7–8 294–295, 405 23:7 294 23:8 188, 294–295, 468 23:9–29:32 389 23:9–40 34, 55, 99 23:9 295 23:10 353 23:11 87, 409 23:11 (LXX) 409 23:12 212 23:18 215 23:19 269 23:20 464 23:21–22 215 23:21 469 23:23–24 463 23:25–28 405 23:25 213, 301 23:26 466 23:29 22 23:30–40 405 23:32 46 23:38 350 23:40 294 24–29 337 24:1–10 41, 405 24:1 54, 349, 401 24:5 116 24:6–7 288 24:6 468, 483 24:8 70, 116–117 24:9 188 25–52 278

523

25–36 182 25–35 268 25–31 (LXX) 47 25–29 276 25–26 276 25 18, 48, 232, 270, 276 25:1–29 405 25:1–14 132, 259–260 25:1–13 10 25:1 275 25:5–6 176 25:6–7 464 25:7–8 288 25:9 57 25:11–14 29 25:12–14 466 25:13–32:13 (LXX) 211 25:13–33 230 25:13 12, 275 25:13 (LXX) 28, 29 25:13a 230 25:14 246, 399 25:15–31:44 (LXX)  29 25:15–39 (LXX) 29 25:15–38 47 25:15–29 211, 231, 246 25:15–17 288 25:15 353 25:18–26 57 25:18 107, 232 25:20 269 25:21 232 25:23 292, 400, 403 25:24–26 288 25:24 268 25:26 232, 402 25:27 215 25:28–29 186 25:29 218, 246, 291 25:30 291 25:31 213, 246 25:33 405 25:37–38 246 26–52 54, 64, 65, 105, 114, 167, 168, 169, 171, 176, 190, 232, 236–237, 252, 265, 298, 305, 491

524

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 26–51 10 26–45 10–11, 14, 24, 53, 171, 210, 384 26–36 182, 276 26–29 64, 66, 380 26 41, 276, 361, 381, 384–385, 390, 392, 486, 487, 492 26:1–24 405 26:1–12 87 26:1–12 (LXX) 29 26:1 275, 343, 353 26:2–3 468, 471–472 26:2 51 26:2 (LXX) 401 26:3 467 26:4–6 18 26:4 49 26:6 487 26:7–9 490 26:7–8 360 26:7 58, 353, 389 26:8 389, 407 26:9 (LXX) 401 26:10–13 288 26:10 283 26:11 389 26:13–28 (LXX) 29 26:13 275, 353, 467, 472 26:14 (LXX) 401 26:16 46, 391, 389 26:17–23 390 26:18–19 473 26:18 401 26:19 472 26:20–21 400 26:23 400 26:24 297 26:25 (LXX) 402 26:27–28 (LXX) 286 27–30 288 27–29 58 27 211, 237, 302 27:1–28:58 (LXX)  29 27:1–22 405 27:1–3 288 27:1 275–276, 399

27:2 288 27:2 (LXX) 400, 402 27:4–6 (LXX) 300 27:5 245 27:6 57 27:7 399 27:9 389 27:10 188 27:12–14 269 27:12–13 70 27:13–15 288 27:13 399 27:15 188, 469 27:16 362 27:17 399 27:18 447 27:21 399 27:21 (LXX) 402 27:24 (LXX) 350 28 20, 33, 58, 200, 484, 489 28:1–17 405 28:1 389, 402 28:1 (LXX) 401 28:2–4 392 28:3 362 28:5 353 28:6 362 28:9 46 28:27 (LXX) 400, 402 28:28 (LXX) 348 28:44 (LXX) 400 28:56 (LXX) 292 28:59–64 (LXX) 29 28:59 (LXX) 276, 401 29–52 (LXX) 262, 375, 378 29–33 60, 187, 189 29 33, 51, 185, 340, 392 29 (LXX) 262 29:1–32 405 29:1–23 324 29:1–7 (LXX) 29, 286 29:1 275, 389 29:3 400 29:3 (LXX) 285 29:4–7 12 29:4 (LXX) 285, 286–287 29:5 (LXX) 286

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 29:6 106 29:8–23 (LXX) 29 29:8 389 29:9–31:34 282 29:9 469 29:10–14 29, 350, 468–469 29:11 59, 466–468 29:13–14 185, 468, 473 29:13 51, 470, 473 29:14 57, 170, 173, 185, 188 29:16–17 106, 108 29:16 105 29:21 402 29:24–32 106 29:24 401 29:25 265, 402 29:27 402 29:29 59 29:30–32 324 29:31 362, 469 30–34 276 30–33 14, 171, 179, 181, 183, 189 30–31 14, 32, 35, 53, 103, 111, 182–184, 287 30:1–5 (LXX) 29 30:1–4 405 30:1–2 183 30:1 275 30:2 12, 14, 362 30:3 57, 170, 173, 176, 183 30:4 (LXX) 286 30:5 212 30:6–11 (LXX) 29 30:6–9 288 30:6 212 30:7 184 30:9 105 30:10–11 60 30:10 399 30:12–16 (LXX)  29 30:12 56 30:15 218, 399 30:16 214 30:17–25 288 30:17 289 30:18–22 184

525

30:18 53, 57, 170, 173, 212, 289 30:20 212, 285 30:21 53, 186, 285 30:22 399 30:23 212, 269 30:24 464 30:31 188 31–36 391 31 51 31:1–44 (LXX) 29 31:1–9 288 31:2–4 (LXX) 286 31:2 (LXX) 401 31:3 (LXX) 401 31:4–5 214, 225 31:4 214 31:5 317, 428 31:5 (LXX) 401 31:7 (LXX) 286 31:7b 215 31:8 188, 212, 289 31:9 54, 285 31:10 188 31:11–14 288 31:12 285 31:15–16 428 31:15 212, 428 31:16–17 217 31:18 214 31:19–23 288 31:20 218, 461–462, 465 31:21 (LXX) 401 31:22 212, 431, 466 31:22 (LXX) 401 31:23–28 405 31:23 57, 170, 173 31:23 (LXX) 400 31:24 (LXX) 402 31:25–39 (LXX) 286, 287 31:25–26 288 31:26–31 (LXX)  287 31:26 (LXX) 287 31:27 168, 212 31:27 (LXX) 287 31:28 116, 483 31:28 (LXX) 287 31:29–31 (LXX) 300, 301

526

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 31:29–30 37 31:29 55 31:29 (LXX) 285, 287, 301 31:30 (LXX) 285 31:31–34 14, 52, 149, 166–167, 171, 183, 187, 189, 303–304, 312–313, 316–317, 405, 453 31:31 151, 168, 212, 304, 312, 314–317 31:31 (LXX) 402 31:32 50, 162, 167, 183, 304, 305 31:33 14, 16, 49, 122, 168, 187–188, 200, 305, 361 31:34 52, 313, 461 31:34 (LXX) 346, 400–402 31:35–36 184 31:35 245 31:37 (LXX) 285 31:38–40 405 31:38 212, 401 31:39 401 31:41–42 (LXX) 286 31:41 (LXX) 402 31:43–44 (LXX) 286 32–33 182 32 14, 17, 18, 258, 269, 279, 381, 385, 392, 484–485, 490–492, 494–495 32 (LXX) 47 32:1–44 405 32:1–5 14, 18, 491 32:1–2 54 32:1 275 32:2 491 32:5 270 32:6–44 18, 490 32:6–15 14–15, 18–19, 317, 491, 492 32:6–11 16 32:6ff 491 32:6 405 32:7–8 401 32:7 299, 323, 484

32:8 323, 484 32:9–15 429 32:9 484 32:9 (LXX) 292 32:10–12 362 32:11 492 32:12–16 371 32:12 15–16, 401, 492 32:14 16, 265, 269, 492 32:15 16, 430, 491 32:16–44 14, 16 32:16–25 18, 491 32:16 17, 492 32:17–25 16 32:17 245, 493 32:20 299 32:21 346 32:22 491 32:23–24 493 32:23 49, 263, 265 32:23 (LXX) 400, 403 32:24–25 286 32:24 70 32:25 17, 299, 492 32:26–44 16, 18, 491 32:27 493 32:29–32 464 32:29 270 32:32 107 32:34 87 32:35 323, 353 32:36–41 491 32:37 188, 430, 490 32:38 187 32:39 187–188 32:40 167, 303–305, 316 32:41 491 32:42–44 16, 493 32:42 116 32:43 491, 493 32:44 170, 173, 184, 492–493, 496 33 30, 105, 183–184 33:1–26 405 33:1–2 372 33:1 353 33:2 245 33:3 61

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 33:7 170, 173, 184, 344, 353 33:8 (LXX) 407 33:9 184 33:10–13 (LXX) 288 33:10 484 33:10 (LXX) 283 33:11 170, 173, 184–185 33:14–26 14, 29–31, 34, 42, 54, 105, 183, 271–272, 399, 469 33:14–16 105 33:15–16 105 33:15 105, 177, 337 33:16–20 288 33:16 31 33:17 105, 108 33:18 31, 191 33:18 (LXX) 401 33:19–21 14 33:19 34, 288 33:20–21 165 33:22 105 33:23 (LXX) 400 33:24 (LXX) 297 33:25 165 33:26 105, 108, 170, 183–184 33:36 176 34–37 (LXX) 288 34 381, 385, 392 34 (LXX) 302 34:1–22 405 34:1 275, 348 34:2–3 (LXX) 288 34:2 192 34:5 116 34:6–7 485 34:7 71 34:8–22 192 34:8 166, 275 34:12–20 165 34:13 162, 166 34:14–15 (LXX) 288 34:15 153, 166 34:18 152–153, 159, 166 34:18a 166 34:18b–19 165–166

527

34:18b 166 34:20 166 35–39 276 35–36 276 35 191–194, 196–197, 203–204, 206, 209–210, 260, 371 35:1–19 405 35:1–11 371 35:1 191, 275 35:1 (LXX) 402 35:2 195 35:3 195, 203, 401 35:4 401 35:6–11 195, 371 35:6–7 195 35:6 191, 195 35:7 204 35:8 195, 200 35:10 195 35:11 191, 407 35:13 46, 191, 467 35:16 194 35:18–19 196 35:18 371, 400 35:19 371 36–45 60 36–43 338 36 11–13, 17, 18, 20, 24–25, 192, 260, 276, 361, 381, 391–392 36:1–32 405 36:1 192 36:1 (LXX) 375 36:2–3 192, 472 36:2 11–13, 18, 230, 299, 362 36:3 (LXX) 400 36:4–32 371 36:4 11, 13, 192 36:7 343, 353, 472 36:9 343 36:10–14 (LXX) 350 36:10–11 400 36:12 401 36:16–17 11 36:18 405

528

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 36:21–25 426 36:21 (LXX) 402 36:23–24 20 36:23 13, 24 36:25 400–401 36:26 367, 402 36:27 (LXX) 402 36:30 105–106, 108 36:32 11, 18, 20, 272 36:36–41 14 37–52 19–21, 24, 70, 87, 91, 220–223, 225–226, 229, 231, 235, 242, 252 37–44 20 37–39 381, 385 37–38 58, 70 37 385–386, 392 37:1–40:6 258 37:1–21 405 37:1 276 37:3 17, 401–402, 453 37:4 408–409 37:6–9 (LXX) 288 37:10 219 37:11–16 383 37:11–15 491 37:12 491 37:13–14 401 37:13 402 37:15 62, 360 37:17–25 (LXX) 288 37:17 (LXX) 289 37:18–20 62 37:18 (LXX) 289 37:20 (LXX) 285 37:21 62, 70, 353 37:21 (LXX) 285 37:23 (LXX) 269 38 392 38:1–28 405 38:1–9 (LXX) 288 38:1 401–402 38:2 70 38:4–6 383 38:4 360 38:6–13 414

38:6 62, 402 38:8 (LXX) 289 38:9 70 38:9 (LXX) 285 38:11–14 (LXX) 288 38:12 (LXX) 288 38:15 405 38:17–18 470 38:19–23 (LXX) 288 38:19 391 38:20 40 38:24 405 38:25–26 (LXX)  288 38:28 349, 360 38:39 (LXX) 401 39–52 302 39–40 237 39 255, 349, 392, 396, 412 39 (LXX) 269 39:1–18 405 39:3 351, 402 39:4–13 271–272, 399 39:5 353 39:5 (LXX) 270 39:6 (LXX) 270, 405 39:7–8 (LXX) 401 39:7 430 39:7 (LXX) 299 39:9 297 39:10 74, 297 39:11–40:5 360 39:11–14 70 39:11 297 39:12 116 39:12 (LXX) 401 39:13 297, 402, 409 39:14 70, 297 39:14 (LXX) 269 39:15 270 39:16 469 39:20 (LXX) 299 39:21–22 (LXX) 346 39:23 (LXX) 263 39:24–25 (LXX) 286 39:25 (LXX) 299 39:29 (LXX) 270 40–44 60, 485

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 40–42 392 40 392, 485 40 (LXX) 29–30, 34 40:1–16 405 40:1–6 70 40:1 275, 297 40:4–6 70 40:5 63, 297 40:7–11 83 40:7–8 71 40:8 297, 402–403 40:9 83, 297 40:10 85, 297 40:11–12 72 40:11 297 40:12 83 40:13 71, 84, 297 40:14 84, 400 40:15 297 40:15 (LXX) 270 40:19 (LXX) 288 41:1–18 405 41:1 83 41:2 297 41:3 71, 83, 85, 88 41:4–8 87–88 41:4–6 87 41:4 407 41:7 407 41:10 83, 88, 297 41:11 71, 297 41:13–14 88 41:13 297, 407 41:14 297 41:16 71, 83, 88, 297 41:17–18 60 41:17 453 42–44 60, 232 42:1–43:7 453 42:1–22 405 42:1–6 60 42:1 297, 401 42:2–4 17, 61 42:3 (LXX) 401 42:4 301, 405 42:4 (LXX) 401 42:5 116 42:7–11 286

529

42:8 297 42:9–17 470 42:9 286–287 42:10 465–466, 468, 472–473, 483 42:11 407 42:14 286 42:18 116 42:18 (LXX) 400 42:20 17, 116 43–44 60, 392 43 297, 485 43:1–13 405 43:1–7 371 43:1 19 43:2–10 296, 300 43:2–4 62 43:2 297, 365, 401 43:2 (LXX) 299 43:3 299, 373 43:4–7 90 43:4–6 47, 296 43:4–5 297 43:5 298 43:6–7 90, 360, 364–365 43:6 90, 297, 381, 495 43:7–8 367 43:7 298–299 43:8–13 365 43:8–11 286 43:9 285–286, 299–300 43:10–13 381 43:10–11 (LXX) 400 43:10 57, 365 43:11 299 43:12 299 43:12 (LXX) 401 43:13 299 43:25 (LXX) 400–401 43:26 (LXX) 402 44 63, 366, 484 44:1–47:6 (LXX) 258 44:1–30 405 44:1–3 286 44:1 275, 299, 401–402 44:3 409, 464 44:3 (LXX) 401–402 44:4 (LXX) 408–409

530

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 44:6 484 44:8 464 44:9 484 44:10 49 44:11–14 365 44:12–14 286 44:13–14 (LXX) 401 44:13 (LXX) 402 44:15–19 60 44:15 402 44:16 46 44:17 107, 484 44:21 107, 484 44:23 49, 361 44:24 405 44:27 354 44:29 269, 495 44:30 401 45–51 236 45–46 276 45 18, 231 45:1–5 29, 371, 405, 496 45:1 233, 275 45:1 (LXX) 401–402 45:2 353 45:4–5 231 45:4 483 45:5 299 45:6 (LXX) 402 45:28 (LXX) 349 46–51 19, 28–29, 47, 57, 211, 230–231, 234, 237, 246, 247, 250, 251 46–49 257 46 57, 230, 232, 234–235, 238–239, 244, 275 46:1–12 28 46:1–2 405 46:1 234, 237, 241, 245, 275, 399 46:2–12 235 46:2–6 218 46:2 211, 220, 231, 233, 401 46:3–12 220

46:3–6 220, 221 46:3–4 215, 221, 223, 235–236, 239, 241–242 46:3 (LXX) 351, 402 46:5–6 221, 236, 241 46:5 212, 214, 218, 233, 236, 239, 241 46:6 212, 236, 239 46:7–8 218, 221, 236 46:7–8a 239 46:7 236 46:8b 219, 239 46:9–10 215, 218, 221–222 46:9 222, 236, 239, 242, 401 46:10 212, 222, 239, 247, 469 46:11–12 218, 236, 239, 242 46:11 212 46:12 212, 219 46:13–28 28 46:13 220, 222, 231, 234, 241 46:14–26 222 46:14–17 222–223 46:14–15a 239, 242 46:14 401 46:14 (LXX) 297 46:14a 223 46:14b 223 46:15–16 218 46:15 212, 218, 223 46:15b–16a 239 46:16–17 219 46:16 212 46:16b 239 46:17 216, 239, 353 46:18–19 238–239, 242 46:18 215, 233, 245 46:19 212 46:20–26 239 46:20 213, 215 46:21 212, 469 46:22 212, 216–217 46:23 215, 219, 233 46:24 119, 212 46:25–26 214

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 46:25 212, 234, 245, 246, 402 46:26 57, 233, 249, 365, 399 46:27–47:7 286 46:27–28 239, 244 46:28 188, 233 47 238, 275 47:1–7 28, 232 47:1 231–233, 234, 241, 275 47:1 (LXX) 297 47:2 212, 215, 233, 291 47:3 212, 285 47:4 212, 285–287, 401 47:5 217, 286 47:5 (LXX) 297 47:5b 241 47:6 217–218, 223, 241 47:7 217 47:8 (LXX) 297, 402–403 47:9 (LXX) 297 47:10 (LXX) 297 47:11 (LXX) 297 47:13 (LXX) 297 47:14 (LXX) 400 47:15 (LXX) 297 48–49 238, 385 48 50–51, 230, 234, 239, 244, 247, 252 48:1–47 28 48:1–2a 239 48:1 212, 224, 231, 233 48:2–4 286 48:2 401 48:2 (LXX) 297 48:2a 242 48:2b 239 48:2c 239 48:3–5 239 48:3 212, 401 48:3b 247 48:4–5 241 48:5 217, 401 48:6–8 239, 242 48:6 216 48:7 245, 286 48:7a 213

531

48:8 212 48:9 212, 239, 242 48:10 213, 239, 242 48:10 (LXX) 297 48:11–13 219, 239 48:11 (LXX) 297 48:12 212, 233 48:13 213, 245 48:13 (LXX) 297 48:14–15 238 48:14 212, 239, 242 48:14 (LXX) 297 48:15–16 239 48:15 212, 214, 217, 233, 245 48:16–17 242 48:16 (LXX) 297 48:17 239 48:17a 218 48:18–20 242 48:18 212, 217, 239 48:19–20 239 48:19 212 48:20 224 48:21–25 239 48:21–24 50 48:21 246, 401 48:22 401 48:23 400 48:24 402 48:25–39 286, 287 48:25 233 48:26–31 287 48:26 240, 242, 246, 287 48:27–28 242 48:27 240, 244, 287 48:28 212, 240, 287 48:29–31 213, 240, 300–301 48:29–31a 300 48:29 241, 285, 287, 301 48:30 213, 233, 285 48:31–32 247 48:31 402 48:32–34 213 48:32 218, 240, 242, 402 48:33–41 240 48:34–39 405 48:34 213, 346, 400–402

532

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 48:35–38a 213 48:35 233, 245 48:36 218 48:37 (LXX) 285 48:38 233 48:38b 212, 216 48:39 224 48:40 212, 216, 233, 343 48:41–42 286 48:41 216, 402 48:42 240 48:43–45 286 48:43–44 238, 240, 242 48:43 212–213, 233 48:44 212–213, 233 48:45–47 287, 399 48:45–46 50, 213 48:45 240, 287 48:46 240, 242, 245 48:47 57, 170, 173, 178, 233, 240, 246, 249–250 49 230, 234, 235, 240, 241, 244 49:1–6 29, 230 49:1–2 240, 244 49:1 212, 218, 231, 233, 245 49:1 (LXX) 297, 401 49:2 212 49:2a 233 49:2b 233 49:3–5 242 49:3–4 218 49:3 240, 245 49:4–5 238, 240 49:4 212 49:4 (LXX) 301 49:5 212, 233 49:6 57, 170, 178, 233, 240, 249–250, 399 49:7–22 29, 41 49:7–13 242 49:7–11 (LXX) 286 49:7–10 238 49:7–8 240 49:7 213, 218, 231, 233

49:8 212, 215, 217, 246, 291 49:8 (LXX) 297 49:9–10 213, 240 49:9 56 49:9 (LXX) 286–287 49:10 214, 286 49:11–13 238, 240 49:11 214 49:12 212, 218, 233, 246 49:13 233, 245 49:14–16 56, 213 49:14 242 49:14 (LXX) 286 49:14a 240 49:14b 240 49:15–16 238, 240, 242 49:15 212, 214 49:16 216, 233 49:17–19 240 49:18 213, 233 49:19–21 213 49:19 212, 216, 218, 223 49:20–22 240 49:20 247, 466–467 49:21 219 49:22 212, 216, 469 49:23–27 29 49:23–24 240 49:23 215, 231 49:24 212, 216 49:25 240 49:26–27 240 49:26 213, 217, 233 49:27 213 49:28–33 29, 247 49:28 53, 212, 231, 233, 238, 240, 242, 247 49:29 212, 240 49:30 215, 217, 219, 233, 238, 240, 242, 248, 466–467 49:30b 213 49:31–32 238, 240, 242 49:31 213, 233, 247 49:32 188, 233 49:33 212, 240 49:34–39 29, 230, 232

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 49:34 231, 233–234, 241, 275 49:35–39 241 49:35 212, 216, 233 49:36 188 49:37 233, 246 49:38 233, 245 49:39 57, 170, 173, 178, 233, 249–250 50–51 19, 41, 57, 231–232, 238, 252 50 211, 276 50 (LXX) 297 50:1–51:58 29 50:1–3 469 50:1 234 50:2–10 (LXX) 296, 300 50:2 119, 153, 215, 224, 245, 400, 402 50:2 (LXX) 297, 401 50:3 212, 214 50:3 (LXX) 299 50:4–6 300 50:4–6 (LXX) 296 50:4–5 (LXX) 297 50:4 177, 233 50:5 167, 303–304 50:5 (LXX) 298 50:6 216 50:6 (LXX) 297 50:7 216 50:7 (LXX) 298–299 50:8–11 (LXX) 286 50:8 214 50:9 212 50:9 (LXX) 285–286, 299–300 50:10 233 50:11 216, 219 50:13 212, 246 50:14 218, 223 50:14c 213 50:15 247 50:15c 213 50:16b 213 50:17–18 57 50:18 212, 233, 246 50:20 177, 219, 233 50:21 233, 402

533

50:22 212 50:23 215 50:24 350 50:25 246 50:26 217 50:27–31 469 50:27 212, 291 50:28 213, 247 50:29 218, 223, 246 50:30 213, 233 50:31–32 213 50:31 212, 216, 233, 246, 291, 469 50:32 212, 216 50:33–38 369 50:33 233 50:34 214, 216 50:35–38a 214, 223–24 50:35–37 214, 217 50:35 224, 233 50:37 216 50:37c 216 50:38 213 50:38a 225 50:38b 219 50:40 213, 233 50:41–44 219 50:41–43 213 50:41 212 50:42 212 50:43 212, 216 50:44–46 213 50:44 216, 218, 223 50:45 247, 466–467 50:46 212 51 56, 211, 276 51:1–3 (LXX) 286 51:1 212, 233, 401 51:1 (LXX) 299, 401–402 51:2 469 51:3 214 51:6 246–247 51:7–8 246 51:7 215 51:8 219, 472 51:8b 217 51:9 246 51:9b 219

534

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 51:11–12 468 51:11 247 51:11a 218, 223 51:11bc 213 51:12–14 (LXX) 286 51:12 215, 218, 223, 466–467 51:12a 213 51:14 216, 245 51:14b 213 51:15–16 245 51:15 (LXX) 402 51:17–18 245 51:17 119 51:18 291 51:19 245 51:20–23 214, 219, 225 51:22b 217 51:24 225, 233, 246 51:25 215, 225, 233 51:26 233 51:27 215–216, 400, 402 51:28 348 51:29 212 51:29b 213 51:30 401 51:31–35 (LXX) 29 51:31 275 51:33 212, 219, 233 51:34–45 215, 219, 226–227 51:34 226 51:35 212, 219 51:35 (LXX) 299 51:36–37 226 51:36 214–215, 233, 247 51:36a 226 51:37–38 226 51:37 212 51:38–40 226 51:38 215, 216 51:39 233, 246 51:40 216, 226 51:41–43 226 51:41 219 51:42–43 226 51:42 215 51:43 212

51:43b 226 51:44–49 269 51:44 212, 214, 217, 226, 245–246, 354, 400 51:44b 216 51:45 212, 246 51:46 59 51:47 212–213, 246 51:48 212, 233 51:49 217 51:52 212–213, 233, 246 51:53 212, 219, 233 51:54 212 51:55 212 51:56 246, 292 51:57 233, 245–246 51:58 56, 228–229, 233, 249 51:59–64 29, 211, 229, 405, 496 51:59–64a 12, 19–21, 24 51:59 233, 275–276, 401 51:60–64 360 51:60 19, 211, 362 51:63–64 219 51:64 229, 274 51:64b 22 52 28, 54, 58, 60, 255, 261, 263, 279, 337, 392, 396, 412 52:1–34 405 52:1 401 52:2–3 399 52:6 70 52:7 263 52:12–14 70 52:12 297 52:12c 59 52:15 269, 297, 399 52:16 74, 297 52:17–23 70, 362 52:24–27 70 52:26 297 52:27–30 271 52:28–30 399 52:29 70 52:30 83, 297

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 52:31–34 59 52:31 400 Lamentations 1:1 163 1:1 (LXX) 360 1:11 70 1:19 70 2:11–12 70 2:14 170, 173 2:17 467 2:19–21 70 2:21–22 469 4:4–5 70 4:8–11 70 5:4 70 5:9–11 70 Ezekiel 1–24 178, 356 1–3 35 1 8 1:1–3 35 1:1–2 36 1:1 36 1:3 483 2:8–3:4 8 3:15 483 5:12 70 5:15–17 70 6:11–12 70 7:2 484 7:15 70 8–11 36–37, 483 8:1 23, 36 8:3 36 11:17 484 12 37 12:3 472 12:19 484 12:22 484 13 55 13:9 484 14:1 23 14:21 70 16:8 153 16:20 37 16:42 465

16:53–58 178 16:53–54 177 16:53 170, 173, 178 16:59 153 16:60 461 17:13–14 152 17:13 153 17:18–19 153 18 37, 55 18:2 37, 55, 484 20–38 484 20:1 23, 36 20:42 484 21–37 36, 43, 178 21:7 484 21:8 484 21:9–17 369 21:27 484 22:9 55 22:18–21 55 22:20 117 24:1 36 25–48 178 25:32 38 25:3 484 25:6 484 26:1 36 29:1 36, 178 29:14 170, 173, 178 29:17 36 30:20 36 31:1 36 32:1 36 32:17 36 33:21–39:29 38 33:21 36 33:24 484 34:12 117 34:23–25 316 34:25 152, 160 35:15 117 36:6 484 36:11 344, 353 37:1–14 38 37:12 484 37:15–28 38, 39 37:24 39 37:25–27 316

535

536

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Ezekiel (cont.) 38–48 178 38–39 8, 38, 483 38:11 213 38:18 484 38:19 484 39:23–29 178 39:25–29 181 39:25 170, 173, 177–178 40–48 8, 38, 337, 483 40–42 38 40:1 36 43–46 39 43:7 39 45 39 Daniel 7 110 9:2 62, 360 Hosea 1–3 445 2:14 144 2:19–20 445–446 2:20 152, 446 3:1–5 42 4:6 461 4:15 445 5:1 87, 445 5:15–6:3 176 5:15 487 6:2 311 6:6 311 6:11 170, 173, 175–176, 178 8:1 158 8:5 445, 466 10:4 153 10:5 445 11:4 426 11:8–9 462, 464 11:9 123 12:11 445 Joel 2:13 464 4:1–3 [3:1–3] 177 4:1 [3:1] 170, 175, 177

Amos 1–2 483 1:4 213 1:14 213 4:4–5 445 5:1 160 5:4–5 445 6:5 93 7–9 41 7:1–9 446 7:1–6 60 7:7–9 41 8:1–3 41 9 95 9:11–15 42 9:11–12 110 9:11 100 9:14 170, 173, 175–176 Obadiah 1–8 213 1–5 56 1–4 41, 213 5–6 41 10–16 41 Micah 1 483 2–5 109 2:1–3 467 3:12 41, 473 4:12 467 5:1 100 7:18 465 Nahum 3:5 56 3:19 56 Habakkuk 1:5 307 2:13 56, 249 3:3 463 Zephaniah 2:7 170, 173 3:7 123

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 3:14–20 177 3:17 177 3:19–20 177 3:20 170, 173, 177 Haggai 2:20–24 42 Zechariah 1–8 56 1–6 41, 42 1:6 467 1:15 466, 468 2:15 [2:11] 250 3:8 100 3:9 55 4 41 5 41 6 42 6:12 100 8:14 467 9–14 56 9:9 317 11:12–13 317 12–14 42 13:1–7 369 14 56 Malachi 2:10–17 41 3:22 41 4:4–6 444–445 New Testament Matthew 2:17–18 317 2:18 428 5:9 438 5:17–20 318 9:27 100 11:29 94 13:22 425 13:57 383 16:13–16 317 16:14 65 17:1–8 445

19–28 313 21:5 317 21:12–13 317 21:13 94 26:28 313–314 27:7–10 317 Mark 9:2–8 445 11:15–18 317 11:17 94, 433 14:1 433 14:24 313 Luke 1:15 201 7:33–34 201 9:28–36 445 10–26 312 19:28–24:53 312 19:45–46 317 19:46 94 22:19 316 22:20 312, 317 23:27–28 425 John 12:14 317 13:34 318 Acts 3 46 3:22 46 7:37 46 15:3–4 95 15:16 95 Romans 9:4 314, 319 11:27 314, 319 1 Corinthians 1:31 95 3:16–17 354 5:7 315 8:1 425 11:24–25 316 11:25 312, 314

537

538

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

2 Corinthians 3:5–6 315 3:6 314 3:7 315 3:8 315 10:17 95 12:16 425 Galatians 3:19 441 1 Timothy 2:5–6 454 Hebrews 8:6 442, 454 8:8–12 317 8:8 314 8:13 317 9:15 314, 318, 442, 454 12:24 314, 318, 442, 454 James 5:2 425 5:5 95 1 John 2:7–8 318 2 John 5 318 Revelation 14:11 95 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Baruch 1:1 365, 375 1:8–9 363 1:21 376 2:20–23 375–376 2:20 376 2:24 376 6 324 2 Baruch 2:1 372

2:15 365 2:22 446 5:5 372 6:1–9 364 6:7 364 9:1 372 9:2 372 10:1–5 365 10:2 372 33:1–2 372 77:19 365 3 Baruch Praef. 2

365

4 Baruch 1:1 372 2:1 367, 372 2:2 367 2:3 367 2:4 368 2:5–6 368 3:1–20 372 3:7 372 3:9–11 363 3:12–24 366 3:15 365 3:16 372 3:18–19 363 3:21–22 372 4:4 363 4:6 365 4:12 366, 372 5:1–35 366 5:17 372 5:19 365–366 5:29 366 6:2 366 6:4–10 366 6:8 366 6:15 372 6:19 372 7:5 365 7:13 372 7:21 362 7:24 362, 372 7:28 366 8:3–7 367

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 9:1–14 367 9:14–20 367 9:22 367 9:24–29 367 9:30–31 367, 370 9:32 367 1 Enoch 90:19 369 91:12 369 1 Esdras 1:26 360 1:45 360 1:57 360 2:1 360 2 Esdras 2:17–19 370 Eupolemus Frag. 4 Frag. 4.4 Frag. 4.5

361 361 363

4 Ezra 10:21–22 363 10:21 363 10:22 363 Gabriel Inscription (or Vision of Gabriel) 16–19 311 17–19 310 19 310 54 310 57–79 311 57 310 80–83 311 History of the Rechabites 4:1 371 5:2–3 371 7:2 371 8–10 371 8 371 8:2–6 371 8:3 371

10:4 371 10:5–8 371 12:3–5 371 12:3 371 12:9 371 13:5 371 16:1 371 Epistle of Jeremiah 1–8 362 1 362, 365 4 361 11 361 39 361 57 361 Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon §8 362, 372 §12 366 §§15–17 361 §22 366 §26 370 §27 361 §§28–29 364 §30 365 §32 367 §§36–37 367 §38 366 §41 366–367 Jubilees 49:15 316 Lives of the Prophets 2:1 366, 370 2:8–9 367 2:11 363 2:14 369 2:15 369 2:19 369 1 Maccabees 3:46 87 2 Maccabees 1:19–36 361 2:1–8 322 2:1–5 360

539

540

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

2 Maccabees (cont.) 2:1–3 363 2:1 361–362, 370 2:2 361, 365 2:3 361 2:4 363 2:5 363 3:1 368 15:11 368 15:13–16 368, 446 15:20–27 368 Ps.-Philo (LAB) 56:6 374

1:18 306 1:20 306 1:24 306 2:10 306 2:18 306 5:1–3 306 5:11 306 5:18–19 306 9:11 308 1QSa 2:11–12 308 2:20–22 316

Sibylline Oracles 2.249 369

1QSb 1:2 306 3:25–26 307 5:5 307 5:20–29 307 5L20–21 307

Sirach 49:6–7 360, 374, 380 49:7 374

1QH 10:28 306 12:39 306

Testament (Assumption) of Moses 1:14 442 3:12 441–442 11:17 442

1QpHab 2:3–4 307

Ps.-Phocylides 53 374

Qumran / Dead Sea Scrolls CD

1:4 305 3:10 305 3:12–16 305 3:13 305–306 6:14–15 306 6:15–17 306 6:17–18 306 6:18–19 306 6:19 306 8:21 306 19:33–20:1 306 20:10–13 306

1QS 1:7–8 306 1:16 306

1Q34bis 3.ii.5–6 306 2QJer (2Q13) = Jer 48:25–39 = Jer 48:26–31 = Jer 48:45

286–288 287 287 287

4QJera (4Q70) = Jer 7:30–8:3

283–285 284–285

4QJera (4Q71) = Jer 10:2 = Jer 10:4 = Jer 10:15, 18

289–292 292 290–291 291

4QJerb (4Q72) = Jer 20:3

288–289 288

4QJerd (4Q72a) = Jer 43:2–10

296–300 296

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings = Jer 43:4–6 = Jer 43:4–5 = Jer 43:5 = Jer 43:6 = Jer 43:7 = Jer 43:9

47 297 298 297 298–299 299–300

4QJere (4Q72b) = Jer 50:4–6

300 300

XJer? = Jer 48:29–31

300–301 301

F.Jer 1 = Jer 3:15

292–294 293

F.Jer 2 = Jer 23:7–8 = Jer 23:8

294–295 294 295

4Q385b 1.i.6–7 365 1.ii 366 4Q509 97+98.i.7–8 306 Philo and Josephus Philo Spec. Leg. 2.146 316 Josephus Against Apion 1.40–42 388 Antiquities 1.240 388 4.125 387 4.142–144 386 4.196–301 390 4.307 387 4.312–313 387 5.108 386 5.351 387 7.153 386 9.166–168 386 9.242 385

10.35 390 10.61 390 10.66 390 10.78–185 380 10.78–79 324 10.78 366 10.79 374, 387 10.80 362, 382, 392 10.88–93 390, 392 10.93–95 392 10.95 367 10.97 387, 392 10.104 386, 390 10.106–107 388 10.106 392 10.110–115 392 10.111 392 10.113 392 10.115 383 10.116–117 392 10.117–130 392 10.123 387 10.126 384 10.127 391 10.131–134 392 10.135–141 392 10.139 384 10.144–150 392 10.154 392 10.155 392 10.156 392 10.159–177 392 10.169 88 10.178–182 392 10.179 365, 381 10.180–185 365 10.180–182 381 10.181–185 392 10.181 385 12.89–90 349 Life 1 382 War 3.351–354 383 6.286 389 6.288–291 389

541

542

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Targums and Rabbinic Literature ʿAmidah §4 339 §5 330 §6 339 §10 337, 339 §14 337 §15 337 §17 337

Seder ʿOlam Rabbah 26:51–52 39 26 365 Sifre Numbers on Num 6:22

331

Tanhuma Noah §5 331

Babylonian Talmud

Targums

Megillah 16b 365

Neofiti and Onqelos Deuteronomy 32:1 335

Sanhedrin 97a 100 Sukkah 52a 311 Yoma 9b 374 Midrashim Genesis Rabbah 82.10 428 Exodus Rabbah 31.16 374 Song of Songs Rabbah 5 365 Mekilta deRabbi Yishmael Shirta 5:37–39 331 Vayassaʾ 70–73 335 Numbers Rabbah 11:7 331 Pesiqta Rabbati 29 374

Neviʾim Isaiah 8:21 331 Jeremiah 1:1 323 1:2 324 1:5 324 1:16 327, 329 1:18 324 2:3 323, 338 2:7 328 2:8 328 2:10 324, 338 2:11 328 2:13 329 2:17 326, 328 2:19 326, 329, 333 2:21 330 2:22 329 2:23 330 2:24 326 2:25 330 2:32 329 2:37 332 3:6 329 3:8 329 3:11 329 3:12 329, 334 3:13 332 3:14 329

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 3:21 329 4:1 331 4:3 332 4:9 328 4:15 324, 330, 338 4:22 329 4:28 332 5:1 334 5:4 325 5:5 325 5:7 328–329 5:13 328 5:19 328 5:23–28 335 5:26 328 5:28 328 5:29 335 6:6 332 6:16 327 6:29 338 7:8–9 328 7:13 325 7:16 333 7:31 323, 330 8:5 329 8:16 330 8:22 324, 335, 338 10:11 324, 338 11:10 327 11:16 325 11:19 326 12:5 325, 338 12:25 326 13:17 325 14:10 334 14:13–15 328 14:20 332 14:21 304, 329, 333 15:4 324, 331 15:6 329, 331 15:15 329 16:10 332 16:11 327 16:20 328 17:4 323 17:25 107 18:15 327–329 18:23 332

19:4 327 19:5 323, 330 19:13 327 22:6 334 22:21 325 23:5 334 23:6 334 23:15 328–329 23:16 328 23:23 335 25:6 327 25:13 332 27:7 329 27:9 329 27:15 329 27:16 329 27:19–21 329 27:22 329 28:1 328–329 28:5 329 28:10 329 28:12 328–329 28:15 329 28:17 329 29:10 329 30:9 336 30:11 333 30:18 336 30:21 336 30:24 336 31:6 325 31:12 336 31:18 333, 337 31:19 326 31:20 326 31:21 326 31:22 326 31:23 337 31:26 325–326 31:31 304 31:32 304 31:38–40 336 32:7 323 32:8 323 32:11–12 323 32:11 327 32:35 323, 330 33:6 330

543

544

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Jeremiah (cont.) 33:12–13 336 33:15 334 33:16 334 33:20–21 338 35:4 328 35:17 332 44:3 327 44:5 327 44:8 327 44:15 327 47:4 324 46:25 324 46:28 333 50:4–5 338 51:27 324 Hosea 6:1–3 326 Micah 4:8 336 7:14 335 Habakkuk 3:2 335 Ketuvin Job 3:5 322 Song of Songs 8:5 326 Lamentations 1:18 324 2 Chronicles 33:12–13 331 35:25 324 Church Fathers and Christian Writers Apocalypse of Paul 49 367

Aquinas De Veritate Q.1, A.1–3

115

Augustine De doctrina christiana 2.16 395 Epistulae 71.6 395 Retractationum 1.21.3 395 Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica 9.39.2–5 361 9.39.5 363 Hugh of St. Cher Postilla super Ieremiam 197r 422 197v 422 199v 432 198r 433 199v 433 Jerome Commentariorum in Jeremiam 1.1.17 404 1.1.18 404 1.2.1 404 1.2.10 404 1.2.26 404 1.2.42 404 1.2.43 404 1.3.21 404 1.3.33 404 1.4.5 404 1.4.14 404 1.4.28 404 1.4.29 404 1.4.44 404 1.5.1 404 2.5.27 404

545

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings 2.5.31 404 2.6.28 404 2.6.43 404 2.7.1 404 2.7.4 404 2.8.8 404 2.8.24 404 2.9.26 404 2.10.10 404 2.10.24 404 2.10.31 404 2.11.2 404 2.11.10 404 3.13.9 404 3.13.16 404 3.13.20 404 3.15.14 404 3.15.23 404 3.15.28 404 3.17.11 404 3.17.15 404 3.17.34 404 4.18.9 404 4.19.1 404 4.20.1 404 4.20.4 404 4.21.18 404 4.22.29 404 4.22.37 404 4.22.40 404 4.23.7 404 4.23.22 404 4.23.25 404 4.23.32 404 4.23.33 404 4.23.46 404 5.25.26 404

5.25.49 404 5.27.14 404 5.29.8 404 5.29.15 399 5.29.17 404 5.29.27 404 6.30.11 404 6.30.13 404 6.31.4 404 6.31.48 404 6.31.49 404 6.31.50 404 6.31.51 404 6.31.82 404 6.31.86 404 6.32.42 404 6.32.46 404 6.32.55 404 Epistulae 20.2 398 34.4 398 Interpretatio Job Praef. 399 De viris illlustribus 135 398 Ancient Near Eastern Sources Bod-Ashtart = KAI 16

102

Larnax Lapethos 2 = KAI 43.10–11

101