The Dialogues of Jeremiah: Toward a Phenomenology of Exile 9781463236212

Citation preview

The Dialogues of Jeremiah

Gorgias Biblical Studies

38

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on the history, theology, redaction and literary criticism of the biblical texts. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the field of Biblical Studies. Studies of language and linguistics, the archaeology and cultures of the Ancient Near East, Judaism and religion in general each have their own series and will not be included in this series.

The Dialogues of Jeremiah

Toward a Phenomenology of Exile

Mitchel Modine

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܘ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0376-4

ISSN 1935-6870

Reprinted from the 2009 Gorgias Press edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

‫‪DEDICATION‬‬

‫‪To Marnie‬‬ ‫אשׁת חיל מי ימצא? רחק מפנינים מכר‬

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents..................................................................................................vii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ix Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................xi Introduction .............................................................................................................1 1 Framing the Dialogues............................................................................... 17 Multivocality in Jeremiah ......................................................................... 19 The Bible as Perception Literature......................................................... 29 Recent Commentaries .............................................................................. 46 Useful Historical Studies.......................................................................... 58 2 Dialogues with God ................................................................................... 81 Punishment for Abandoning Yahweh to Serve Other Gods............. 83 Perceptions of Devastation ..................................................................... 87 Returning to the Iniquities of the Ancestors ...................................... 106 Punishment for Failure to Repent........................................................ 111 Punishment with the Possibility of Redemption................................ 120 No Intercession or Redemption ........................................................... 131 Punishment for the Sins of the Rulers................................................. 135 3 Dialogues with Religious Opponents.................................................... 141 Jeremiah and the Priests......................................................................... 142 Jeremiah and the Devotees of the Queen of Heaven ....................... 147 Jeremiah and the Prophets..................................................................... 155 4 Dialogues with Survivors ........................................................................ 171 Experiencing (Real or Imagined) Advantage in the Exilic Period .. 172 Hope for the Future ............................................................................... 178 Accepting Babylonian Rule.................................................................... 188 Resisting Babylonian Rule...................................................................... 199 5 Dialogues with Political Leaders ............................................................ 209 Others Agreeing with the Dominant View......................................... 210 Before the Destruction........................................................................... 216 vii

viii

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

After the Destruction ............................................................................. 232 Dialogues with a (Re-) Constituted Community ................................. 241 Life Will Return to Normal ................................................................... 242 Life Will Be Different............................................................................. 259 Conclusion........................................................................................................... 269 Summary of the Dialogues .................................................................... 270 Examination of Alignments .................................................................. 273 Prospects for Further Study .................................................................. 276 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 281 Index..................................................................................................................... 297 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have many people to thank for their roles—large and small, direct and indirect—in bringing this book to life. I am certain to miss a few, but they are no less important for not being mentioned. Thanks must be extended to the many teachers who shaped my thinking along the way. Two in particular planted within me interest in this most difficult of prophetic books: Dr. Herbert Huffmon and Dr. Joseph Coleson. I also had the chance to meet and work with several fine Jeremiah scholars who sharpened my thinking in various respects. Again, I can mention two who were especially helpful: Dr. Louis Stulman and Dr. Alex Varughese. I thank also my colleagues at Asia-Pacific Nazarene Theological Seminary, who modeled for me the balance between a full-time teaching load and an active personal research agenda. Finally, I thank Dr. Steve Wiggins, my initial contact with Gorgias Press. He answered the many questions I had through the process and helped provide the opportunity that my doctoral committee said my work demanded. On a personal level, my brother and his wife, Mike and Lisa Modine, were helpful beyond their knowing. They opened up their home to me and made writing the dissertation on which this book is based that much easier. Also, my parents, Wayne and Marilyn Modine, expressed unfailing support and encouragement through the long labor first of completing a PhD and second of preparing the results of that pursuit for public consumption. Finally, I thank my best friends Jason Vickers and Andy Wood. Though their academic and research interests are different than mine, together we have been friends for twenty years. These deep friendships have been and will be a source of comfort as well as of the impulse to improve. Above all, I dedicate this book to the wonderful woman who came into my life about as unexpectedly as did the publishing opportunity. I dedicate this volume to my wife Marnie. I never would have suspected I would come halfway around the world to find you, but every minute of our time together has proven the trip to have been worth it.

ix

ABBREVIATIONS AB

Anchor Bible

AOTC

Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries

BBB

Bonner Biblische Beiträge

CurTM

Currents in Theology and Mission

DI

Deutero-Isaiah

ET

English Translation

HBT

Horizons in Biblical Theology

HDR

Harvard Dissertations in Religion

HSM

Harvard Semitic Monographs

ICC

International Critical Commentary

ITC

International Theological Commentary

JAAR

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JSOTSupp

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series xi

xii

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

LXX

Septuagint

MT

Massoretic text

NIB

New Interpreter’s Bible

NICOT

New International Commentary on the Old Testament

OAN

Oracles Against the Nations

OBT

Overtures to Biblical Theology

OTL

Old Testament Library

PTMS

Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series

RevExp

Review and Expositor

SBL

Society of Biblical Literature

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SOSupp

Symbolae osloenses Supplement

SJOT

Scandinavian Journal of Theology

UF

Ugarit Forschungen

VT

Vetus Testamentum

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

INTRODUCTION

Is it perhaps the case that our distinctively non-Greek, modern perspective is already too operative as son as we construe certain logoi in a Platonic dialogue as “arguments” in a sense approximating that determined in modern ‘symbolic’ logic? Is it perhaps the case that in this sense there are no arguments in the Sophist, nor perhaps in any Platonic dialogues—that precisely what certain dialogues show forth regarding logos precludes their assuming such a form? Is it perhaps the case that the bindingness which some—if not all—Platonic logoi exercise upon us is of a different order? Is the relevant bindingness perhaps such as can least of all be measured by something like a “logical” refutation? Must be not resolutely refuse to rest secure in the “achievements” of modern logic if we are to prepare ourselves for a re-thinking of the Platonic reflection on logos? Is it so preposterous to suppose that even we moderns must attend to our ignorance? Perhaps it is to this that we must first of all attend if we are to be capable of gaining an originary access to some Platonic dialogues.1

The thesis of this work is that the diverse perceptions of the exile preserved in the Book of Jeremiah present to us genuine options within ancient Israel, mainly post-destruction, for understanding and responding to the events of the Babylonian Exile. In Louis Stulman’s words, “the book of Jeremiah is a labyrinth of thick theological interpretations of suffering.”2 One cannot assume that the Book of Jeremiah is exhaustive of the options, but it does seem to include a wide range of responses. By engaging in a synchronic John Sallis, Being and Logos: Reading the Platonic Dialogues (3rd ed.; Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1996), xiv. For more on the importance of Sallis’ methodology for the present study, see below. 2 Louis Stulman, “Jeremiah as a Polyphonic Response to Suffering,” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (eds. John Kaltner and Louis Stulman; JSOTSupp 378; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 304. 1

1

2

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

study of the varied perceptions of the exile, one can discover an important dialogue taking place concerning the reasons for, the character of and the possibilities for life after the exile.3 At the outset, two words of clarification are necessary with regard to the title of this work. The title The Dialogues of Jeremiah grows out of the assumption stated in the previous paragraph. To put it another way, the coherence of Jeremiah is, I contend, precisely to be found in its incoherence.4 At first glance the metaphor appears problematic, for it is clear from reading the text that only rarely does God engage in a strictlytermed dialogue with anyone. However, Jeremiah is quite often shown to be in debate.5 Jack Lundbom, in his study of Jeremiah as an example of ancient 3

Michael Fishbane comments on the Pentateuch are instructive:

At the very least, the Pentateuch, with its diverse legal corpora, reflects a great historical compromise among competing religious groups regarding which no record has been preserved. The coexistence within one document of such diverse and contradictory materials is thus a de facto indication that an exegetical modus vivendi was worked out; that, to use a later rabbinic formula, all the Pentateuchal teachings, both ‘these’ and ‘those’ (their origins and redacted nature notwithstanding) are the words of God. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 264. 4 That the problem of coherence and incoherence in Jeremiah has been a topic of great interest to scholarship can be demonstrated by the number of times terms such as “chaos,” “coherence,” “crisis,” “struggle,” and “troubling” appear in titles published on the topic over the last three decades. In the 2000s: Martin Kessler, ed. Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004) and Carolyn Jackson Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero-Jeremianic Prose (London: T & T Clark, 2003). In the 1990s: A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, eds., Troubling Jeremiah (JSOTSupp 260; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) and Stulman, Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998). In the 1980s: Christopher R. Seitz, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah (New York: DeGruyter, 1989. In tangible ways, scholarship has lived up to the tone set for the prophet’s ministry in Jer 1:10, and typified in Walter Brueggemann’s two-volume commentary: To Pluck Up, To Tear Down: A Commentary on Jeremiah 1-25; To Build, To Plant: A Commentary on Jeremiah 26-52 (International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988, 1991). 5 A number of perceptions in the Book might be viewed as being ascribed to Jeremiah, but they almost always occur in contexts of divine oracles. Moreover, the theological claim of the Book is that the prophet speaks the words of Yahweh,

INTRODUCTION

3

Hebrew rhetoric, noted precisely the virtue of the idea of dialogue as a view into the unique contribution of this Book: Jeremiah was a prophet of dialogue… Jeremiah is not a prophet who simply calls out the divine word. He is a person willing to discuss—indeed to argue—with the people. But his aim is not to overpower. There is always the opportunity for rebuttal, and if the audience keeps silent it is because they have nothing to say. This strategy of course paid off, because by allowing the people to participate in the dialogue, the people were thereby helped to live finally with the difficult answers that inevitably had to be given.6

Something similar can undoubtedly be said about the Book as a whole. I contend that reading the divergent perceptions of the exile as a dialogue of the community finds a way through the incoherence without having to make recourse to increasingly complex source-critical theories, as was the strategy in previous generations. This strategy proves to be a fruitful for understanding the fundamental impact of the exile on the Book, even if it was not as pervasive for the society. Engaging in a similar strategy with regard to the content of Plato’s dialogues, John Sallis wondered “whether we are also destined to remain at a distance from the matters fundamentally at issue in the dialogues. Can we from our distance rejoin the movement of those matters, the movement which constitutes the very way of Platonic dialogue?”7 Certainly the same question may be asked, albeit in a different way, of the both implicit and explicit dialogues of Jeremiah. Sallis continued: The speaker is Socrates. Strictly speaking, Socrates is the only speaker in the Republic. The Republic is a narrated rather than a performed dialogue. It is narrated rather than a performed dialogue. It is narrated by Socrates— which is to say that it does not present the event itself but rather Socrates’ such that the two can rightly be viewed as interchangeable. The instances in which Jeremiah complains against God—for example the lament and thanksgiving in 20:7-18—appear not to reveal perceptions of the exile as such. For the most part, when Jeremiah speaks, he is shown to agree with Yahweh’s judgment upon the nation of Judah. 6 Jack R. Lundom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1975; repr. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 126-7. Though Lundbom’s angle of approach is different from mine, nevertheless his recognition of the dialogical character of the Book of Jeremiah is important. 7 Sallis, Being and Logos, xiv.

4

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH recounting of the event. The entire Republic has the form of a Socratic recollection. However, the recollection is not very far removed in time from the original. Almost at the beginning of the opening sentence Socrates informs us that the event which he is about to recount happened ‘yesterday.’ So, the conversation is being recounted on the day after it took place.8

This statement demonstrates well how Sallis treats the Platonic dialogues, and how I in turn treat the dialogues—both implied and explicit—in the Book of Jeremiah. It makes a difference whether it is a narrated or performed dialogue, or in Bakhtin’s words, between reporting and reported speech, though that distinction is not quite helpful for the present approach. To state clearly: there are explicit dialogues in the Book of Jeremiah. These fall into performed dialogues as with the Queen of Heaven devotees (ch 44) and narrated dialogues, such as between Zedekiah and Jeremiah (chs 37-38). There are also implied dialogues—and this is my particular contribution—between the various and seemingly contradictory perceptions ascribed to Jeremiah and Yahweh throughout. The subtitle Toward a Phenomenology of Exile needs similar explanation. I am not employing the term “phenomenology” here in its fully-developed Husserlian sense. I am instead applying the base definition of the word, or the suggestion that the way in which one perceives events and one’s relationship to them is more important than objective responses to stimuli. In terms of the phenomenology of exile, one is moving a step away from the dictionary definition in a different direction than did Husserl and his followers. Simply put, the greater emphasis is placed here on the phenomena, on the perceptions themselves, rather than those who may or may not have held them according to the Book of Jeremiah. This book therefore seeks to describe as comprehensively as possible the collection of phenomena in terms of possible responses to the exile. Three general assumptions govern the material that follows. First, the experience of the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century B.C.E. stands in a prominent position in terms of its influence on the character of the biblical writings as a whole. At least since the pioneering work of Charles C. Torrey in the early 20th century,9 the pervasive significance of the exile as claimed Ibid., 314. Torrey’s central claim in this regard was that the exile “was in reality a small and relatively insignificant affair, has been made, partly through mistake and partly by the compulsion of a theory, to play a very important part in the history of the 8 9

INTRODUCTION

5

by the Bible has been called into question. Nevertheless, that the exile has profound importance for the Book of Jeremiah cannot be gainsaid.10 Therefore, these dialogues between the various perceptions of the exile represent one of the most fruitful areas of investigation for the interpreter. Second, along these lines, I am not concerned with the degree to which the different perceptions can be identified as belonging to this or that group within 6th century B.C.E. Judah and/or Babylonia, even assuming such identification is possible and that one could establish a relatively stable methodology for doing so. In other words, the content of the dialogue itself is more important than the identity of the participants in the dialogue, though the Book more-or-less consistently identifies the speakers involved. Third, this method specifically avoids a pernicious temptation of this type of investigation, namely to organize the material into extremely discrete units based on ever-so-slight changes in perspective or content.11 On the contrary, it is not even certain that the diverse materials need to come from

Old Testament.” Torrey, “The Exile and the Restoration,” in Ezra Studies (New York: Ktav 1970), 285. 10 The difficulties of reconstructing the life of the prophet Jeremiah are wellknown. As I do not think it necessary to enter into such discussions, throughout the balance of this work, I will refer to the Book as both “The Book of Jeremiah” and, simply, “Jeremiah.” See William Holladay’s masterful commentary (2 vols.; Hermenia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986, 1989) for a different strategy. 11 In 1982, Walter Brueggemann noted positive and negative implications for this kind of atomized readings: These…studies have attempted to identify in the text theological tendencies which they believe reflect layers of literature and therefore different stages of editoral work. One can learn a great deal from those careful analyses. But I am doubtful of such a method, for it appears to be yet another return to the dissection of the text. Methodlogically such a process requires that wherever there is a literary tension or incongruity, it is resolved (or better dissolved) by splitting the elements apart and assigning them to different sources or authors. And that in principle robs the literature of its sophistication and tension which permits communication which is subtle and not flat. While the work is done with great care, I do not believe it greatly advances our understanding of the text. Brueggemann, “Recent Developments,” in Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter Wolff, The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (2nd ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 133.

6

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

diverse sources, for it is known from psychology that persons may indeed have different perceptions at different times, or even simultaneously. George Steiner recognized as much when he wrote: “At moments of historical stress, mythologies of the ‘true past’ follow on each other at such speed that entirely different perspectives coexist and blur at the edges.”12 In other words, this approach avoids the question of “development” in the thought of Jeremiah, for example, since such a contention is difficult to prove in any case. It must be recognized that the full details of any such conversation regarding the perceptions of the exile are not recoverable. This is so because the reader does not have the actual words of this or that person or group, but only what the Book of Jeremiah assigns to them.13 That is, the various editors and redactors of the Book ascribed these perceptions to the prophet Jeremiah, to God and to any of a number of other persons and groups.14 In addition, two points must be noted about the final form of the 12 George Steiner, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), 30. This point will become significant especially in the dialogues concerning life after the exile (see chapter 6). 13 For the suggestion that the material in the Hebrew Bible can be traced back to dialogues and disagreements among various parties, see Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (2nd corr. ed.; London: SCM Press, 1987). Smith argued that one could specifically identify these parties, arguing from the evidence of the text. He suggested that the perspective of what he termed the “Yahweh-alone party” finally carried the day. I agree with Smith that greater emphasis has been given to those perceptions that bolster the concerns of the dominant redactional or even, perhaps, compositional party (that is, of the deuteronomistic editors), but this is by no means the only party whose opinions are preserved in the Book of Jeremiah. However, by use of the word “party” I am not suggesting that each of the disparate elements in the Book of Jeremiah can be traced to a particular person or group of persons in 6th-5th centuries B.C.E. Judah and/or Babylon and/or Egypt. After all, individual people and groups can have ambivalent or contradictory perceptions of a given situation. In my estimation, all the text allows us to say is that these perceptions were ascribed to the prophet Jeremiah, to God and to any of a number of other persons and groups. We are ultimately unable to inquire after the reasons for so ascribing these opinions or whether those persons to whom they are described may or may not have so believed. 14 In narratological terms, the Book of Jeremiah contains in the main the “reported speech” of Jeremiah, of God and of various others both friendly to and opposed to Jeremiah the prophet. Conversely, we also find some “reporting speech,” or narration from the point of view of the implied author of the text. On the concepts of “reported speech” and “reporting speech” and their relevance for

INTRODUCTION

7

Book of Jeremiah. First, it is extant in two principal editions, the Septuagint (LXX) and Massoretic Hebrew text (MT).15 Secondly, the Book reached these final forms a rather long time after the events of the exile with which the Book is principally concerned. Ultimately, however, regardless of when the Book reached its final forms (LXX Vorlage first and MT somewhat later), at least something of the variety has been preserved in each version.16 The investigation to follow focuses on The Book of Jeremiah because its comprehensive grasp of the exilic period exceeds that of other biblical materials that purport to deal with this time period. The Book of Ezekiel, for example, situates itself after the first deportation of the leading citizens of Jerusalem, and presents the prophet himself as dwelling among the exiles (Ezekiel 1:1). The Book of Jeremiah, by contrast, includes material situated all along the spectrum of the exilic time period, with the possible exception of the end of the exile and the return of ‫ בני הגולוה‬in the Persian period; as Peter Ackroyd maintained, “Jeremiah is the first of the known prophets who actually experienced the disaster of 587.”17 One can confidently say that a failure to reckon with what the Book of Jeremiah has to say with regard to the exile will result in a severely diminished understanding. It is a book with far-reaching implications, unique for that if for no other reason. I will contend in what follows that Jeremiah is by no means “just another biblical scholarship see Robert G. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History Part One: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993). Polzin drew, as he himself admits, on the work of 20th century Russian literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin. 15 On the differing recensions reflected in the LXX Vorlage and the MT of the Book of Jeremiah, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), esp. 319-327. 16 In his magnificent 1986 commentary on Jeremiah, Robert P. Carroll made such a suggestion: “The Book of Jeremiah can be read as a collection of stories and accounts which attempt to explain 587, and the traditions hostile to the [false] prophets belong to one favoured explanation of where blame was to be placed.” (Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986], 74). My work draws inspiration from his suggestion that, to my knowledge, has not been developed by subsequent scholarship. The possible exception to this statement comes in the work of Louis Stulman (see below). For our present purposes, the history of the composition of the Book of Jeremiah is less important than the reasonably complete picture it renders of the range of options contemporary people had available to them for coming to terms with the reality of exile and its consequences. 17 Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 50.

8

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

prophetic book.” Instead, the tension in which this book comes into its own and which it reflects in its content, calls for a new way of dealing with crisis. The situation is surely analogus to what is going on in the Platonic dialogues. As John Sallis notes: “The situation in which Socrates’ practice originated was one of virtually unmitigated tension. However, Socrates’ way of pursuing his concrete practice was such that it served eventually to transform the very situation of the practice.” 18 Though many of the prophetic writings dealt with the punishment of exile for specific theological sins, Jeremiah seems to occupy pride of place in its scope and variety. In addition, Psalm 137, among others, makes reference to a nonspecific time either after the first deportation or perhaps after the destruction of Jerusalem, and deals with reactions and responses to the situation of the exile. The Book of Jeremiah has a different viewpoint than Psalm 137, again, because the latter is concerned with external responses to stimuli rather than a collection of perceptions, not to mention that many of the Jeremianic materials deal not only with the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem but also the events leading up to it. Only with regard to the end of the exile does the Book of Jeremiah pale in its treatment when considered against some other biblical materials, most notably DeuteroIsaiah. We will see in the investigation to follow that, while the Book of Jeremiah does not deal with the end of the exile as such, one may indeed find some materials therein that speak to what is to come after the exile and lay the groundwork for some of the ideological disputes that would form the basis, in part, of the disagreements between the ‫ בני הגולה‬and the ‫עם‬ ‫ הארץ‬in the Ezra-Nehemiah material. Thus the importance of the Book of Jeremiah for understanding the events and ideology of the exilic period cannot be overstated. John Hill aptly summarized the importance of Jeremiah for the study of the exilic period: The book begins and ends in exile, and is to be read from the viewpoint of a community in exile… The progression from judgment to restoration, found in the book of Ezekiel, does not exist in Jeremiah. While there are promises about an end of the exile, this is not yet in sight. The exile is unended.19

Sallis, Being and Logos, 51. John Hill, Friend or Foe?: The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 17. 18 19

INTRODUCTION

9

I follow Hill in reading the Book of Jeremiah from the perspective of the exilic period. As I will demonstrate in the discussion of the history of scholarship, Hill’s methodology—particularly the synchronic approach that he advocated—has greatly informed mine, although I approach the Book of Jeremiah from a decidedly larger perspective. That is, Hill’s focus on how Babylon came to be viewed in the Book of Jeremiah forms but a part of the investigation I undertake. Judean society in the sixth century B.C.E. and beyond dealt with the life- and community-altering events of the destruction and exile in a myriad of ways, and the Book of Jeremiah reflects the effort to come to terms with these events and, ultimately, to (re-) construct the community in light of them.20 Louis Stulman commented along the same lines: The book of Jeremiah is a complex and multifaceted response to these tragedies [of destruction and exile]. It dares to speak of the horrors of war and of people whose lives are wracked with unspeakable pain. The text bears witness to a ‘moment’ so terrible that it defies ordinary categories… Jeremiah, written by and large in the shadow of the wreckage, attempts to make symbolic sense of the upheaval and help survivors cope with the devastation. More precisely, the book’s plurality of voices and claims, representing various sectors of the community, converge in prose and poetry to come to terms with war, invasion, exile, and the accompanying existential dilemmas.21

I futher argue that scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah, at least through the twentieth and on into the twenty-first centuries, has generally failed to take adequate account of the significance of alternative voices coming to expression in the Book. A few exceptions exist, however (see Chapter One), and it is these exceptions that form the ideological backdrop of the investigation I attempt in the present work. On the one hand, Robert Carroll recognized nearly three decades ago that one does not find in the Book of Jeremiah any sort of unified composition: “No single image of the prophet exists in the tradition. [Instead, it is] made up of many streams of tradition flowing into a single reservoir constructed by the traditionists over

This is essentially the argument advanced by Kathleen O’Connor, who called the Book of Jeremiah a “survival story” for those who experienced the trauma of exile. O’Connor, “How the Book of Jeremiah Confronts Disaster,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL; Philadelphia, Pa., 20 November 2005. 21 Stulman, “Polyphonic Response,” 303-4. 20

10

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

a lengthy period of time.” 22 On the other hand, Jack Lundbom captured the same idea when he persuasively argued: “one cannot properly understand the parts of the Jeremianic speech unless he first understands the whole… We have long known that Jeremiah was a prophet of dialogue.”23 To this end, I have identified dozens of texts in the Book of Jeremiah that reveal perceptions of the exile. Though the texts selected for study have to do with various aspects of this general topic, they are organized according to the particular voices to whom they are ascribed: God, Jeremiah, and so on. Some are as short as one or two verses, while others stretch to an entire chapter. The texts come from both poetic and prosaic sections. The texts in question are examined for their contribution to the overall picture of the perceptions of the exile as well as how they relate to other texts ascribed to the same character or class of characters. We are primarily interested throughout in the options that, according to the Book of Jeremiah with its rather diverse contents, were available for understanding the reasons why the exile came about, what the character of life during the exilic period would be, how long the exile would last and what possibilities might exist for life after the exile is concluded. In what follows, I have found the approach employed by John Sallis in his study of the Platonic dialogues to be helpful. Simply put, Sallis attempted to free his material from traditional lines of interpretation, setting aside the sedimented language and traditional concepts that obstruct access to what is originally at play in the Platonic dialogues. It requires unhinging and displacing the alleged theories and doctrines of Platonic thought so as to return openly to the dialogues themselves. Thus, such a reading would be open: open to all that remains questionable in the dialogues, to all that is left open in their play of questioning; open also to the dialogical form of these texts and to all that pertains to this form, open to their multidimensionality, to their multivocity, to all the dramatic elements that belong to them. Such a reading would open, as it were, a theatre in which these plays could again be enacted.24

“Setting aside the sedimented language and traditional concepts that obstruct access to what is originally at play” in Jeremiah not only means not asking the old historical-critical questions all over again, but also freeing 22 Robert P. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant: Uses of Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (London: SCM, 1981), 249. 23 Lundbom, A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric, 149. 24 Ibid., xiii.

INTRODUCTION

11

Jeremiah from the constraints of a supposedly pervasive Deuteronomistic retouching. The Deuteronomists may in fact have had a lot to do with the final form of the Book of Jeremiah, but this is irrelevant to a phenomenological approach such as that being considered in this book, except insofar as the lengthy editing process preserved more-or-less intact the range of possible perceptions in the Book. Opening “a theatre in which these plays could again be enacted,” similarly, is to bracket questions of coherence and incoherence. It bears repeating that one of the central claims of this book is that to search for coherence in Jeremiah is to enter a road that may as well be marked with Dante’s inscription at the entrance to hell. It would be much better, then, to read Jeremiah from a different standpoint. This strategy is by no means easy, for while it involves simply reading Jeremiah “again for the first time,” Sallis notes: “Simply to read the dialogues is no simple matter at all; on the contrary, it is a task that makes great demands upon us.”25 While the methodological foundation laid by Sallis will be referred to throughout this book, a few other points bear mentioning in the introduction. On the one hand, there is a contrast between Jeremiah and the Platonic material in that, whereas Jeremiah is not written explicitly as a dialogue, The Republic, the Sophist, the Meno, and the rest of these “writings are dialogues, and, most significantly, the author does not appear as a speaker in any of the dialogues.”26 It has already been noted, and has become something of an axiom in Jeremiah study, that it is difficult to impossible to isolate the ipsissima verba of the prophet with anything approaching the degree of confidence exercised in such a program by historical-critical scholarship. Plato is not a speaker in any of the dialogues and, while Jeremiah is, this does not in any way mean that the reader is presented with the actual words of Jeremiah as opposed to the actual words of Plato. The implication of this for Jeremiah study is clear: not only is it impossible to separate out what is original to Jeremiah from what is secondary (or tertiary) redaction, but it is further impossible to make any sort of coherent statement concering “what Jeremiah the prophet thought” about a given subject or about his prophetic office as a whole. Sallis discusses this issue with reference to Plato in the following:

25 Ibid., 3. The phrase “reading again for the first time” comes from Marcus Borg’s Reading the Bible again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally (New York: HarperCollins, 2001). 26 Sallis Being and Logos, 2.

12

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH it is highly questionable whether there is any such thing as the philosophy of Plato—that is, whether philosophy as presented in the Platonic writings is such as can ever be appropriately spoken of in such a phrase— that is whether philosophy can ever be the philosophy of someone or whether, on the contrary, such a phrase does not already betray a falling away from the demand placed on philosophical thought, a falling away in the direction of opinions, which indeed are the possessions of particular [people] and particular cities… the fact remains that in the dialogues Plato never says anything. This means that when we preface a statement from a dialogue with the words “Plato says,” we usually are proceeding on the basis of certain unquestioned assumptions regarding the character of the dialogues; and nearly always we are saying more than we are justified in saying. It is we, not Plato, who say “Plato says,” and accordingly, it is incumbent upon us to give testimony for what we say. Such testimony is not to be given simply by noting and labeling as Plato’s own a certain set of opinions put form by one whom we take simply as spokesman for Plato; nor, on the other hand, is it to be given by seeking some nonapparent set of opinions behind those that are presented in the dialogues through the mouth of Socrates and the other major speakers.27

Surely “the philosophy of Plato” and “Plato says” in the above quote can be replaced with “the theology of Jeremiah” and “Jeremiah says” without much further being needed in the way of translation. For that matter, with regard to the Book of Jeremiah, “Yahweh says” is a phrase fraught with just as much peril as the phrase “Jeremiah says.” Sallis continued: “It is required that the play of interpretation be conjoined to the play of the dialogue… This is to say that the interpreter must become—though in a different way—one of the interlocutors of the dialogue.”28 The way in which this is done in Jeremiah is to ask after not only the content of a particular saying but to whom it is ascribed, for this often makes a great deal of difference. That differing perspectives were ascribed to Yahweh or to Jeremiah— which amount to the same thing—for example, probably meant that those doing the ascribing desired to give their opinions a little further weight than might otherwise have been the case. The reader should expect in such a case for the ascriber to remain unidentified. By contrast, a perception ascribed to one of Jeremiah’s opponents—Zedekiah, say—might have been so ascribed in order to show that such an opinion disagreeing with the majority view was therefore to be considered suspect or not worthy of the attention of faithful people undergoing the experience of exile. The Book of 27 28

Ibid., 1-3. Ibid., 22.

INTRODUCTION

13

Jeremiah exhibits a certain source-bias in favor of the ‫ גולה‬community, to be sure, but this in no way means that it does not provide at least something of a window into the perspectives of others, even when it flatly disagrees with them. The study that follows divides the dialogues of Jeremiah into six chapters based on Jeremiah’s implicit or explicit dialogue partner or partners. The first chapter reviews recent scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah, looking for ways in which scholarship has moved beyond the traditional historical-critical categories, which have proven to leave behind some insoluble difficulties. Several recent offerings have made a move not only toward synchronic treatments of the Book of Jeremiah but also toward treating the material in the Book as reflective of perceptions of world events and powers that might have been held by some of those who experienced or reflected upon the trauma of exile. Other recent scholarly treatments of the Book of Jeremiah specifically suggest that the Book was produced or, at least, edited with the exiles and their experience in mind. I am especially concerned here with some works that move in the direction of seeing Jeremiah as a confluence of voices. After these new models for Jeremiah scholarship are examined, the presentation will move on to studies of a more general nature having to do with seeing biblical documents as “perception literature,” or providing insight into the internal responses as reflected in the literature. Finally, we will examine a few recent commentaries on the Jeremiah in order to gain a general survey of the state of the field. The second chapter begins the phenomenological investigation with a description of dialogues with God. Recalling again that very few actual dialogues are preserved, what is at stake here is the dialogue between the various positions ascribed variously to God, the prophet, or some other person or group. It will be noted that the dialogues in which Yahweh is involved primarily deal with various aspects of the exile as punishment.29 The dominant viewpoint of the Book of Jeremiah is that the events of the exile represented Yahweh’s punishment for various violations of the covenant. The texts in this section contribute in various ways to a rather fulsome picture of this viewpoint, and we will see that some of these 29 When one examines all allusions or explicit references to the exile in the Book of Jeremiah irrespective of Mowinckel’s (and others’ traditional division into source complexes, one discovers that perceptions of the exile as punishment, in particular by Yahweh, seem to be dominant both in the number and variety of the perceptions presented.

14

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

perceptions in fact appear to debate with one another over, in particular, the question of whether the punishment of exile was inevitable or whether it could have been avoided. Chapter three considers dialogues with survivors of the deportations. The main content of these dialogues are various perceptions of advantage during the exile. These perceptions will be divided into three groups. First, the Book of Jeremiah assigns perceptions to certain persons who believe that they are blessed because they survived the deportation. That is, their survival of the destruction and deportation apparently led them to believe they were at a distinct advantage. Second, we find reports of some persons who apparently benefited from the imperial force occupying Judah during the exilic period. The implied narrator of the Book of Jeremiah generally refrains from negative comment with respect to the latter, whereas the former often come under rebuke (in, inter alia, the vision of fig baskets in chapter 24). Finally, we will consider in this chapter some of the materials in favor of the ‫בני הגולה‬, which appear to reflect and/or prepare for some of the ideological debates that would become central in the Persian period in general and in the Ezra-Nehemiah material in particular. Chapter four considers dialogues with religious opponents. Some of these opponents are Yahwistic officials of various positions. Others are competing prophets, most notable among these Hananiah. The religious opponents of Jeremiah in the book include not only other Yahwists, however. For certain texts expressing the idea of exile as punishment have a rather different perspective than that ascribed to Yahweh and to Jeremiah. The Book ascribes to the devotees of the Queen of Heaven a disagreement with the dominant viewpoint not in the respect of an offended deity, but rather in the identity of the deity so offended. This alternative viewpoint found in the Book of Jeremiah contributes a datum for the different ways experience of destruction and exile. Chapter five details dialogues with political leaders. These dialogues include interaction with leaders and those perhaps aspiring to positions of leadership before, during, and after the exile. Most often, these dialogues have to do with the proper stance to be taken toward the empire. The options are, quite simply, to accept Babylonian rule in various ways or to reject it in various ways. Many examples of each of these two general orientations can be adduced. It will be noted again that these are not dialogues as such between Jeremiah and the leaders, for in some of these materials—especially Ishmael’s assassination of Gedaliah—Jeremiah does not even figure as a participant.

INTRODUCTION

15

Chapter six examines dialogues with a (re-) constituted community, dealing with perceptions of the end and aftermath of the exile. Whereas the end of the exile as such does not play a role in the Book of Jeremiah—at least in the way it does, for example, in Second Isaiah—one still may find ample material regarding the possibilities for life after the exile is over. The release of Jehoiachin (52:31-34), the prophecy setting the length of the exile at 70 years (25:11-12; 29:10-14) and the confession of faith (16:14-15; 23:78), though perhaps the best known of such texts, are certainly not the only ones dealing with the end of exile. On the one hand, some perceptions have to do with life returning basically to normal after the exile comes to an end. On the other hand, however, Second, certain texts carry perceptions of the life of the nation being changed after, and as a result of, the experience of exile. A final word on text selection concerns the omission of the Oracles Against the Nations. While these certainly contain perceptions of exile, we have excluded them because they seem not to deal with the exile and restoration of Judah. The possible exception to this is the Oracle Against Babylon, but even this holds only ancillary relevance for perceptions of the exile of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem. The downfall of Babylon would have much more significance for something like Deutero-Isaiah or Psalm 137, as noted. This is perhaps the case because of the reality that, for the Book of Jeremiah, the end of the exile is not directly in view, whereas by the time at least of the initial proclamation of DI fortunes had begun to turn in favor of Persia and Cyrus the Great.

1 FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

We need in advance an understanding of the way of Platonic dialogue. However, we have no such understanding in advance but can come to have it only by a thoughtful and careful reading of the dialogues, not only because such reading is what first really exposes us to the exemplification of this way but also because this way as such embodies what the dialogues themselves make manifest with regard to the connection between logos and the process of becoming manifest. The circularity is evident: we need already to have read the dialogues in order to know how really to read them.1

Scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah throughout at least the last 100 years has been in large measure concerned with the redactional history of the book. Bernhard Duhm2 and Sigmund Mowinckel3 set the standard for twentieth-century scholarship. Duhm originally separated the traditions lying behind Jeremiah into three primary sources, and this proposal was further refined by Mowinckel into a three-source theory: source A referred to the authentic poetic traditions, source B to the biographic material, and source C to the deuteronomistic redaction of the material. Regardless of whether a given scholar does or does not subscribe in detail to this theory or various permutations of it, without 1 2

Sallis, Being and Logos, p. 13 (emphasis original). Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr,

1901). Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia. (Kristiania: J. Dybwad, 1914). 3

17

18

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

doubt scholarship has in large measure been conducted with reference to it.4 Thankfully scholarship has now begun to reframe the questions, and thus newer possibilities have been opened up for examination of Jeremiah. Scholarship is finally beginning to take adequate account of the alternative voices which come to expression in the Book of Jeremiah. While one should not expect the perceptions presented here to represent the ipsissima verba of the prophet Jeremiah or of anyone else, this has in fact been a stated goal of much of previous scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah. I contend, in contrast, that the search for the original words of the prophet Jeremiah or anyone else in the Book is probably misguided at best and fruitless at worst. The various perceptions that we find in the Book of Jeremiah regarding the reasons for, the nature of and the responses to the disaster of destruction and exile are reflective, rather, of a society struggling to deal with an epoch-making event, regardless of the history behind the text and the degree to which the material represents anyone’s actual words. In what follows, the works discussed will be divided into four groups. The first group deals more specifically with the issue of multivocality in the Book of Jeremiah. The goal here is to notice how reading Jeremiah as a dialogue moved beyond some of the older critical problems. For that matter, while perceptions are not the same as realities, nevertheless gaining the widest grasp possible of how the people experiencing the events and their successors understood them is indispensable for an accurate understanding of the era. The works discussed in the second group consider, in various ways, the Bible as perception literature. Though in a slightly different way than the older critical models, these works locate the Book of Jeremiah within the wider historical and literary contexts out of which it arose. In so doing, they shed further light on the variety of perspectives offered therein. The third group is comprised of a few recent commentaries on Jeremiah. These will illustrate the move away While William Holladay as early as 1975 could indicate several problems with the three source theory (“A Fresh Look at “Source B” and “Source C” in Jeremiah,” VT 25:2 [May 1975]: 394-412), the alternatives to it have still tended toward atomizing the text of Jeremiah into the work of various parties, rather than the synchronic treatment that I am advocating. 4

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

19

from questions of source criticism and toward reading Jeremiah as a dialogue. Finally, the fourth group includes a few useful studies on the history of the exilic period. Although these studies are primarily still within the older generation of scholarship, and thus concerned with source-critical questions, neverthelss they remain helpful in framing the conversation.

MULTIVOCALITY IN JEREMIAH Christopher Seitz Christopher R. Seitz developed what would become a foundational pillar for the present study.5 In some ways, he anticipated Hill’s largely negative judgment on the Duhm/Mowinckel strand of 20th century scholarship (see below) when he wrote: “Critical evaluation of Jeremiah has reached an impasse precisely because literary argumentation alone is not able to produce a coherent description of the growth of the book.”6 This realization, as will be seen, led Hill to adopt a synchronic approach which bordered on the ahistorical, especially in his leaving the LXX to one side. Seitz protected himself from this criticism by focusing on the character of Jeremiah the prophet, while at the same time recognizing that “it is impossible to engage a strict literary analysis of the text without at the same time developing certain expectations about the religio-historical outcomes of the analysis.”7 On the character of the prophet, Seitz likened the variegated nature of the material in the Book to the complex personality of its namesake: Jeremiah is a man in conflict—in conflict with God, himself, and especially the community in which he lives and to whom he must address a difficult word. This type of conflict is significant in the Book of Jeremiah; it is in no small measure related to the fact that Jeremiah is the prophet who delivers a divine word

5 Christopher R. Seitz, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah (New York: DeGruyter, 1989). 6 Ibid., 229. 7 Ibid., 3.

20

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH regarding a judgment he himself must witness and whose outcome he must personally share.8

In addition, Seitz maintained: “In order to comprehend the message of the prophet Jeremiah one cannot lose sight of the nature and complexity of Judahite society for this period.”9 On the book’s comprehensive grasp on the exilic period, Seitz wrote: The dramatic vision of judgment and the reality of a revered and deported community left its mark on the literature of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as it did on the various other literatures of the period… But it is the Book of Jeremiah alone which straddles the events of both 597 and 587, spanning the whole ‘exilic age.’ It is this fact which makes it a distinctive witness to the exilic period. In one sense, it is a pre-exilic, exile, and postexilic work, depending on whether ‘exile’ is construed as 597, 587, or even for that matter 582 B. C.10

However, even though Seitz was correct in this emphasis, he still committed an error in perspective. For an example, consider the following statement: “Like 2 Kings 24, the Jeremiah traditions stress the severity and finality of 597 events from the Judahite perspective.”11 Based on this statement, one may accuse Seitz of failing to have dealt satisfactorily with 587-6, the discussions afterward, 582, and the sojourn into Egypt. In short, this was a far too truncated presentation, in spite of its attention to detail. In addition, Seitz was caught up, like many in his era, in the problem of the ipsissima verba of Jeremiah the prophet. This leads naturally into a discussion of the relationship between the material in the Books of Jeremiah and Second Kings. Both of these books deal in a real way with the end of the kingdom of Judah, though with respect to the Book of Jeremiah Seitz correctly noted “The majority of his [Jeremiah’s]12 book

Ibid., 3-4. Ibid., 31. 10 Ibid., 103-4. 11 Ibid., 202. 12 Here one notes again that Seitz was overly concerned with the identification of the Book of Jeremiah with Jeremiah the prophet, part of the legacy of William Holladay. 8 9

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

21

contains material which situates itself in the post-609 years.”13 Seitz went on to clarify the relationship between the Deuteronomistic History and the Book of Jeremiah: Discussion will doubtless continue over the circumstances surrounding the composition of the Dtr History. Yet it should be obvious that, no matter how one assesses the significance of this twenty-year period [from the death of Josiah to the sack of Jerusalem], it plays a most central role in the book of Jeremiah. For although Jeremiah’s prophetic career actually began in 626,14 many years before the death of King Josiah (609), compared with what is known about his actual life and preaching after 609 these earliest years are the most difficult to reconstruct.15

According to Seitz, the importance of the final two decades of Judahite independence cannot be overstated. Emphasizing a point that Robert P. Carroll also noted (see below), Seitz laid out a way for understanding the growth of the book of Jeremiah that did not appeal strictly to older source-critical methods. He wrote: “Literary analysis of the Jeremiah tradition will be on more firmer ground if it is first established that an actual conflict did occur between those in the land and those in exile during the period of transmission and interpretation of the Jeremiah tradition.”16 Seitz argued that the prophet Jeremiah ultimately would cast his lot with the people of the land: there is good reason to assume that important links exist between the background and position of ‘the people of the land’ and the prophet Jeremiah—especially in terms of their respective attitudes toward the proper place of Judahite monarchy and society within a changed and more threatening

Ibid., 72. Though, as we have said, the present work is not concerned with the reconstructed details of the prophet Jeremiah’s life, it should be noted that taking the year 626 as the beginning of the prophet’s career is now generally thought to be incorrect. 15 Ibid., 20 (emphasis original). Compare this statement from later in the book: “There is wide critical consensus for viewing Jeremiah 37-45 as a unified narrative describing Judah’s last days, set forth in a series of separate but coherent episodes.” Ibid., 236. 16 Ibid. 7. 13 14

22

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH political arena. These attitudes in turn have important implications for reactions to the Exile which were forming in this period, now found in the present Book of Jeremiah and other exilic material.17

This appears similar to the central contention of this book that the variety of material in the Book of Jeremiah should be read as a dialogue between perceptions of the exile. Seitz’s summary of Judah’s final years and their impact on the Book of Jeremiah is in the main quite helpful, even though he made certain errors in the historical record. Seitz’ summative statement on the whole period is brutal but realistic: “It may be worth concluding with the general observation that at no point in Judah’s long history does she face the kind of sustained internal and external disruptions that she does from the reign of Amon to the Fall of Jerusalem in 587.”18 Mark Biddle Mark Biddle’s Polyphony and Symphony in Prophetic Literature: Rereading Jeremiah 7-2019 cleared the path for the present study even more than Seitz. First of all, Biddle recognized that a better way of reading Jeremiah must be found than the older source-critical investigation in the manner of Duhm and Mowinckel. He suggested that this new way of reading could precisely be had through viewing the various materials as the expression of different voices. As noted above, ascribing a given opinion to Jeremiah or to Yahweh may well have served to give it a little more weight in the conversation than might otherwise had been the case had it come down attached to a lesser-known speaker. The result, as Biddle correctly notes, is that the reader “hears various Jeremiahs…various YHWHs, various incarnations of the people, various personifications of Jerusalem, and various incarnations of the postexilic worshipping community. They dialogue with one another on the pages of the book of Ibid., 69. Ibid., 27. 19 Mark E. Biddle, Polyphony and Symphony in Prophetic Literature: Rereading Jeremiah 7-20 (Studies in Old Testament Interpreation 2; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996). 17 18

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

23

Jeremiah.”20 As noted above, these dialogues are not dialogues in the traditional sense, “a discourse in and through which certain deeds are accomplished by certain of the speakers with respect to other participants in the dialogue.”21 Nevertheless, there is an indubitable conversation going on between them. The dialogical, or even dialectical, character of Jeremiah calls for great caution on the part of the interpreter. Biddle wrote: “Without some method for discering the distinctiveness of these voices, the reader risks hearing their dialogue as cacophony instead of the intricate polyphony intended at least by later stages of the redactional process.”22 As has been noted, I am not so worried as is Biddle about being lost in cacophony, for it is precisely in the din of these clashing voices that the ultimate coherence of Jeremiah—if indeed there is any—may be found. Reading Jeremiah as a dialogue respects the text, including its development, will seek to hear the text’s various voices—whether speaking from different historical contexts or as a function of literary characterization— on their terms. Such an approach views the book of Jeremiah in its final form as the proceedings of an open forum.23

This describes precisely the angle of approach taken in the present volume. It does not matter, in a reading like this, whether and to what extent the contents of the dialogue represent anyone’s actual words, for a consistent reading “must reflect an awareness than an author may assume multiple voices.”24 Indeed, in defining the necessary reading strategy, Biddle clearly recognized two principal problems. These problems are created when applying any method in a less than careful manner. Biddle pronounced a plague on both the houses when he wrote: Both classical historical-critical and newer literary-critical approaches exhibit a methodological tendency to homogenize Ibid., 7. Sallis, Being and Logos, 18. 22 Biddle, Polyphony and Symphony, 7. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid., 5. 20 21

24

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH voices, to treat poetry somewhat one-dimensionally, and to overlook nuances of voice and characterization. Both are enchanted with the awareness that “Jeremiah,”either the historical person or the literary personage, really or fictively, spoke/wrote the words contained in the book.25

This error is the particular temptation of synchronic reading strategies, namely to consider only Jeremiah’s voice as the locus classicus of investigation. The “persona” of the prophet is not the same as the implied author of the book. This is how Biddle marks a key point that must be kept in view throughout the course of this book. The book of Jeremiah ascribes these various perceptions to Jeremiah, to Yahweh, and to a number of other people. The content of the perceptions is the most important consideration, although it certainly does make a difference that a given perception is ascribed to a particular person, even if this does not in any case mean that the perception represents that person’s actual words (see above). However, just as both historical-critical and new literary criticism fall under Biddle’s gaze, diachronic readings are also susceptible to error. If synchronic readings tend to harmonize the differing perspectives, diachronic readings strain credulity when they “automatically equate multiple voices with multiple authors.”26 Thus the question of authorship in Jeremiah is not an easy one to ask. It is one of the walls over which historical-scholarship has Ibid., 5-6. Ibid., 6. Jacques Berlinerblau’s critique of “monoauthorism,” or the assumption that a given biblical book—Jeremiah, say—could only have been written by one person—is on point: 25 26

Both the Bible and the Rabbis concur that one person is generally responsible for writing and transcribing a given text. Yet, the authors of the biblical books identified by the Rabbis are often not actually mentioned in the Bible. With the exception of their claim that the Book of Jeremiah was composed by Jeremiah…some of their ascriptions directly contradict those made in the Hebrew Bible. Jacques Berlinerblau, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 25.

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

25

found itself unable to climb. Therefore, a reframing of the question is necessary. As will be shown immediately below, with respect to the work of Walter Brueggemann, the final editors of the Book of Jeremiah thought it necessary to retain the conflicting perceptions, and it is much to the benefit of subsequent readers that they did so, even if it calls for great caution when entering the field. Walter Brueggemann Walter Brueggemann suggested one of the principal reasons for the complexity of Jeremiah was that “it consists of the swirling of several interpretive voices, each of which offers a strong reading of the historical-theological crisis that occupies the book.”27 Thus this little text set the stage for the interpretation offered here. Brueggemann staunchly refused to prefer one or another of these swirling voices to the exclusion of rivals and this, I think, is the proper way forward through the difficult final form of the Book. Modern readers of Jeremiah can take their cue from the ancient redactors, since “the final form of the text has permitted the several contesting voices to stand alongside one another without noticeable harmonization.”28 While, as I have noted, there does seem to be a certain degree of consistency in some of these perceptions, or the claims of the contesting voices, nevertheless the differences that exist are not to be explained away, for they are an integral part of the final form of the text and the impression that it communicates to readers. This is similar to Louis Stulman’s contention that Jeremiah is “a rich labyrinth of voices and countervoices” that surely typifies the struggles of a vibrant community trying faithfully to interpret its experience.29 Brueggemann went on to suggest three principal ways in which the plurality of voices in Jeremiah have been dealt with in previous scholarship. The first strategy, associated with the name of William Holladay, “understands the poetry and the prose to be intimately connected to each other, with all of it bearing the stamp 27 Brueggemann, The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1. 28 Ibid., 2. 29 Louis Stulman, Jeremiaih (AOTC; Nashville, Abingdon, 2005), xviii.

26

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

of the personality of the prophet. Thus, as scholars have sorted out what is ‘authentic’ for the prophet, Holladay judges most of the material as ‘genuine.’”30 Subsequent scholarship has not followed Holladay’s line, though this does not discount its importance. As has already been made clear, I think it best to avoid the question of development in the thought of the prophet, and the way to do so is to sever this connection between the perceptions in the book and the life of the prophet. Such a connection is difficult to sustain at any rate, and may only lead to unnecessary frustration or varying degrees of dogmatic absolutism. The second option delineated by Brueggemann for dealing with the plurality in voices comes from the one who, in many respects, is the anti-Holladay in Jeremiah studies, the late Robert Carroll. Carroll was firmly convinced that details of the prophet’s life could not be reconstructed, since the book has been so thoroughly redacted and supplemented by the Deuteronomists. Brueggemann summarized rather simply: The consequence of Carroll’s approach is to minimize interest in the person of the prophet, to see the function of the book somewhat later, and to recognize that the book is a powerful ideological statement that makes ready use of the legacy of the prophet, to which we no longer have any direct access.31

30 Brueggemann, Theology of Jeremiah¸4. A slightly different take on Holladay’s work was offered by the present author: “The most telling implication…of such a close identification of the prophet with the Book is the difficulty of dealing with material that appears contradictory. Holladay did apparently recognize something of the diversity of the material, attributing it to a development in the prophet’s understanding of Yahweh’s stance toward the people.” Mitchel Modine, “The Great Turn Turns Twenty-One: A Sketch of Jeremiah Studies since Carroll, Holladay, and McKane” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion, Nashville, Tenn., 13 March 2007), 4. Holladay’s own comments are instructive: “If this is a valid reconstruction of the prophet’s career, it exposes the shift of his perception of Yahweh’s will through several decades.” William Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress: 1986, 1989), 1:10. 31 Brueggemann, Theology of Jeremiah, 4.

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

27

Carroll’s ultimate judgment was that the task of the interpreter is therefore to be understood differently that trying to reconstruct the prophet’s life based on what of the material in Jeremiah might go back to his preaching. Carroll wrote: “Each exegete must produce a reading of the text consistent with the inconsistencies of the book and dependent on sophisticated interpretive judgments.”32 Consistent with the wider postmodern turn, Carroll moved beyond questions of historical identification. In so doing, he prodvided important direction for future study. It is for this reason that the connection between his work and the present study should be abundantly clear. Brueggemann attached the third strategy to the name of Louis Stulman. Stulman, unlike “Carroll…does not believe that the prose passages constitute a distoring imposition on the poetry but rather function as a way to guide the reader through its complexity.”33 Thus, in a way, Stulman represents a middle ground between the extremes of Holladay and Carroll.34 Approaching the book as a unified whole is the center of Stulman’s reading strategy, and the present project, on the whole, follows a similar line. Whatever connection, then, the contents of the book may have, or may have had, with the details of the prophet’s life, now—in a bad parody of Shakespeare—the way forward is to note that the Book is the thing, much more than the prophet. Jeremiah preserves something of a wide range of options for Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah (Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 62. 33 Brueggemann, Theology of Jeremiah, 5. 34 The liveliness of the scholarly conversation about Jeremiah makes it very difficult to place certain scholars on the continuum. The only ones who are secure in their positions are those holding down the extremities of the spectrum, i.e., Holladay and Carroll. Thus, for example, in a previous offering I suggested Stulman was more like Carroll than either of the others (Holladay or McKane) comprising the great turn. I further noted that it was McKane who represented the medium position rather than Stulman. While Stulman is certainly not as extreme as Carroll in Carroll’s methodological doubt, nevertheless he is also not as extreme as Holladay in Holladay’s methodological trust. Modine, “The Great Turn,” 5, 9-10. See below for the point that, no matter what in Jeremiah is authentic to the prophet, all of it is still genuine ancient material—admittedly, some more ancient than others— reflecting perceptions of the exile. 32

28

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

understanding the exile and related events, and considering it as a whole will go a long way toward defeating some of the walls which the older historical-critical scholarship found itself unable to climb. After detailing these three strategies, Brueggemann went on to describe the particular approach he would use. This approach is exactly on par with what I am proposing in the present work. He wrote: In any case, we may observe that interpreters now are not as inclined as in earlier generations to conjure distinctive “literary sources.” Rather, we may think of these several distinct perspectives within the book as crucial interpretive voices in the community that insisted on a hearing and that, for whatever reason, were given a hearing in the final form of the text. A move from “source” to “voice” permits us to understand the variety and tension in the book as part of its organic coherence, albeit a quite complex coherence. Thus the book is not a scissors-and-paste job but rather an ongoing conversation among zealous advocates concering the crisis faced by the community of Israel at the demise of Jerusalem.35

Brueggemann’s suggestion is thus well within the parameters of contemporary Jeremiah scholarship. The “great turn” of Jeremiah studies in 1986 mapped out directions for the future. Though it is true that the majority of scholarly opinion has followed Carroll as opposed to Holladay, this does not mean that Holladay’s program is totally without merit. The work of Jill Middlemas, for example, to be considered in the next section, surely demonstrates an effective use of the lines of investigation set forth by Holladay. In summary, scholarship has moved beyond the old vexing questions not by hammering through a new solution—which could, later, be challenged—but by reframing the question. As was noted above, interpreting the differing and contradictory materials in Jeremiah as voices rather than sources is not without its problems. Most notably, this strategy could take on the characteristics of source criticism while merely changing the name and ostensible target of the investigation. So, for example, in what follows one could posit a group of persons in 6th century Judah 35

Bruggemann, Theology of Jeremiah, 5 (emphasis original).

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

29

who believed that punishment had no possibility for redemption, over against another group believing the opposite, over against yet a third group who emphasized that the problem was not the sin of apostasy as such but the failure to repent of it that constituted the largest problem. In other words, 21st century scholarship must take seriously the realization that the words preserved in Jeremiah are probably not the actual words of anyone recoverable to history. Nevertheless, all of these contradictory opinions are genuine ancient material, revealing different perceptions of the events related to the destruction of Jerusalem. The methodology being advanced here, therefore, calls into question a distinction recently drawn between perception and tradition. In arguing against a tendency to discount the testimony of ancient persons as reliable sources of historical information, Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman wrote: we consciously take our stand against an intellectual tradition, reaching at least as far back as Plato and certainly underlying the scientific view of the world…which marginalizes testimony in favor of such things as perception. We propose, rather, that reliance on testimony is fundamental to knowing about reality in general—as fundamental as perception, memory, inference, and so on.36

I agree with Provan, Long, and Longman in that perception should not be considered in such a manner that excludes testimony. However, I believe the correction lies in another direction entirely. That is, the perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah represent the testimony of various persons. Though the identity of those rendering the testimony cannot be recovered, nevertheless the testimony has been preserved.

THE BIBLE AS PERCEPTION LITERATURE Considered in this section are a variety of works that laid the groundwork for treating the Bible as perception literature. It will be shown that while reading Jeremiah as the conversation between 36 Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 45 [emphasis original].

30

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

competing voices is a relatively recent strategy, it is a development upon wider trends in biblical scholarship. Indeed, this strategy is in direct keeping with the postmodern turn, reframing the questions that historical criticism found itself unable to answer, and hopefully finding some creative solutions in the process. Peter Machinist An early model for this approach appeared in Peter Machinist’s 1983 article “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah.”37 While this piece had a different imperial context in mind, nevertheless it is important, for as Machinist observed: the danger of writing about the Neo-Assyrian empire from the Assyrian evidence alone is that we may finally view it too much in the categories which the Assyrians—i.e., their ruling elites— wanted us to, and so fall into a new kind of confinement, not unlike what our predecessors faced, before the Assyrian evidence was discovered.38

Machinist here argued against what has become a sort of persistent disease among critics of the Bible, namely the assumption that the extra-biblical records are in every case superior to biblical account, the latter’s presentation having been hijacked by the ideology which its authors supported and enforced.39 The above statement could easily also be made about the Book of Jeremiah and its concern with the neo-Babylonian period and the exile. According to Machinist, First Isaiah is vitally important with respect to the presentation it gives of the Assyrian empire. This is due to the fact that, as of his writing, “the Biblical corpus is still by far our major outside source on Assyria… The Bible is important, thus, not only because of the volume of material it supplies, but

Peter Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” JAOS 103:4 (1983), 719-37. 38 Ibid., 719. 39 For a clarification of this point, and in particular a critique of the notion of so-called “voluntaristic ideology,” see Jacques Berlinerblau, “Ideology, Pierre Bourdieu’s Doxa, and the Hebrew Bible,” Semeia 87 (1999): 193-214. 37

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

31

even more, because of the variety of that material.”40 Machinist went on to observe that the grasp of the biblical materials is wide in two respects. First, there is a tremendous variety of materials involved in describing the contact between Assyria and Israel. Second and more importantly, however, the Hebrew Bible has a comprehensive grasp on the details of Assyrian history.41 Though the middle of the eighth century is more important for Machinist, he provided an analogy for my work in treating various passages in First Isaiah from the perspective of the comprehensive knowledge of the Assyrian empire that these passages convey. Machinist asked the question: What is the image of Assyria presented here? Quite clearly, it is that of an overwhelming military machine, destroying all resistance in its path, devastating the lands of its enemies, hauling away huge numbers of spoils and captives to its capital or elsewhere in the realm, and rearranging by this devastation and deportation the political physiognomy of the entire region.42

In these passages from First Isaiah, one cannot help but also hear the 6th century Book of Jeremiah proclaiming that resistance to the Babylonian overlords will result only in further devastation (see e.g., 2:16-18; 44:1-14, 24-30).43 It becomes clear in this material that the charge cited regarding the Book of Jeremiah of pro-Babylonianism on the part of Jeremiah44 would be comparable Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image,” 719-20. Cf. Kenneth A. Kitchen: “As the…Mesopotamian dates show, the Hebrew writers in Kings, etc., have the Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs impeccably in the right order, and for Assyria) in close succession, corresponding to the frequent Assyrian interventions in the Levant… Thus the writers of Kings, Chronicles, and Isaiah and Jeremaiah come out well here in terms of accuracy and reliability.” On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 23. 42 Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image,” 722. 43 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations from Jeremiah refer to the MT order. 44 It should be noted that there is some textual warrant for this idea, since such a charge is in fact made against Jeremiah in 37:13MT, possibly connected with his purchase of the family plot of land in chapter 32MT, a connection that we will consider in chapter four. We 40 41

32

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

to accusing Isaiah of holding pro-Assyrian sympathies. What is more important to note is “this picture of Assyria [in First Isaiah] owes something to Isaiah’s—or his circle’s—actual observation of Assyrian activities in Syria-Palestine, made either directly or through other witnesses.”45 This, again, is the same kind of material we find in the neo-Babylonian period and Jeremiah. After his discussion of relevant passages from both First Isaiah and the neo-Assyrian material, Machinist reached his most striking conclusion. He suggested at the end of everything that ultimately First Isaiah drew inspiration from none other than the self-presentation of the empire: Whether, then, for Isaiah himself or the circle that followed, it appears to be no accident that the image of Assyria to which they were responding was also that defined and promulgated in the official literature of the Neo-Assyrian kings. In other words, in Isaiah we are evidently dealing with the effects of Assyrian propaganda.46 may cite two recent treatments of this topic that come to opposite conclusions. On the one hand, Walter Brueggemann suggested that in “its final form the book of Jeremiah has a decidedly pro-Babylonian slant, mediated through the Baruch document and perhaps powered by the authority and influence of the family of Shaphan” (“At the Mercy of Babylon: A Subversive Rereading of the Empire,” in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence [ed. Martin Kessler; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004], 119). On the other hand, closer to the perspective that will be developed in this work, Ronald Clements wrote: “If we are to look for indications why Jeremiah is so vehemently opposed to Zedekiah’s policy, we can…leave aside the absurd notion that Jeremiah was completely unpatriotic and pro-Babylonian in his sympathies” (Jeremiah [Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1988], 127). Herbert Huffmon agreed with Clements when he wrote: [The Book of] Jeremiah represents a theology dominated by the question of the possible future for the people. Jeremiah [the prophet] is not to be characterized as proBabylonian, though many of his contemporaries so viewed him, but as pro-Israel.” Huffmon, “Jeremiah of Anathoth: A Prophet for All Israel,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies (ed. William Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo and Lawrence H. Schiffmann; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 267. 45 Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image,” 722. 46 Ibid., 729. John R. Hill agreed with this kind of assessment: “Even in the most anti-Babylon part of the book [of Jeremiah], Babylon

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

33

To make this assertion is not the same as saying that Isaiah had consciously adopted the propaganda of the empire. Perhaps, rather, the propaganda was so pervasive—and backed up by actual demonstrations of Assyrian military might in Syria-Palestine!— that First Isaiah could not help but be affected by it. The same is true for the Book of Jeremiah later—the putative “proBabylonian” material could have been based in an extensive and effective Babylonian propaganda machine, as well as in direct and malicious displays of Babylonian power in the sight of all Judeans. Machinist concluded: Far from giving us another, differently based view of Assyria, as we might have initially expected, the evidence of Isaiah becomes an important witness to the official Assyrian perspective, and to its persuasiveness both generally, and specifically on the development of Israelite thought.47

Thus the experience of empire and specifically the experience of being subjected to imperial power formed the backdrop not only of Jeremiah, but of other prophetic materials as well. Thus it becomes clear that it is of little avail merely to assign these perspectives to the work of traitorous prophets, acting in antithesis to the will of the nation. David Vanderhooft David Vanderhooft’s The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets48 is more closely relevant to the goal of the present work than Machinist’s article. Vanderhooft consciously followed Machinist’s lead,49 with two important differences. First, whereas Machinist ultimately concluded that the the imperial propaganda machine greatly affected the perspective on Assyria given by First is not portrayed unambiguously as the alien other. This is the distinctive characteristic of the book of Jeremiah.” Hill, Friend or Foe?: The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 20. 47 Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image,” 737. 48 David S. Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (HSM 59; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999). 49 In fact, he cites the article with which we began this section no less than four times in his book.

34

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Isaiah, Vanderhooft maintained that such was not quite the case for the Babylonian materials and their influence upon the Book of Jeremiah. The official literature produced by the Babylonian empire did not have quite as marked an effect on the presentation of the Hebrew prophets because “the texts were not intended to be read as straightforward political propaganda: like many other Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, they were often not deposited in locations accessible to human viewers.”50 This statement is part of Vanderhooft’s larger argument that “There is no sense that Babylon claims Assyrian imperial heritage.”51 The second caution that Vanderhooft sounded was that “the tendency to view Mesopotamian civilization primarily as illustrative of matters biblical deprecates the value of comparative research, which risks degenerating into the procedure Samuel Sandmel derisively labeled ‘parallelomania.’”52 Thus he sought to “reverse the usual focus within biblical studies and ask…how the biblical texts illuminated the phenomenon of Babylonian imperialism.”53 Such a program is important because: [a]ny empire is concerned by definition with the domination of conquered people. The perspective of the conquered, however, is often harder to obtain than that of the conquerors. The reverse is true of Judah and Babylon, since in this case the vanquished wrote the history; that is to say, the biblical writers, and the prophets in particular, produced perhaps the most influential portrait of Babylon to survive antiquity.54

If the perspective of the conquered is important, then a fuller appreciation of that perspective is indispensable. As the perspectives of the conquered and of the empire will understandably be different, so also is the perspective of the conquered not a unified matter. Further advancing his point, Vanderhooft wrote:

Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire, 12. Ibid., 32. 52 Ibid., 1. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid., 5. 50 51

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

35

Empire is fundamentally a dipolar relationship involving a superior and an inferior group. Babylon was politically dominant, and asserted as a corollary of that dominance the supremacy of its imperial ideas… Resistance to and acquiescence in these ideas would naturally have developed among conquered people. Examination of the subjugated component of this dyadic imperial relationship contributes to an understanding of the dialectical aspect of imperialism.55

Vanderhooft maintained “the Neo-Babylonian empire could not have existed had the Neo-Assyrian kings not established geopolitical hegemony over a wide territory before leaving a political vacuum.”56 In an earlier context, he articulated the Babylonian military strategy in the territories vacated by the Assyrians: The Babylonian military strategy of 617…included efforts to control territory along the Middle Euphrates that was still under Assyrian domination. Their successes, even if ephemeral…, were a cause for alarm in the West, where Egypt determined by this year (if not earlier) to ally itself to its former enemy, Assyria, and to fight actively against the Babylonians. The court of Josiah in Judah probably also recognized the emerging might of Babylon by this time. Although the Assyrians made several ill-fated attacks into Babylonia later on, little strong evidence survives to show that they controlled territory in Babylonian as late as 617, although the exact date of Nippur's conquest…remains uncertain.57

Vanderhooft set these descriptions of Babylonian rise to power over against the somewhat abstract nature of the Babylonian royal propaganda. “Elements of the imperial worldview,” he wrote, “emerge from the inscriptions, but they must be described at a relatively high level of abstraction; it is not possible to articulate a set of operative imperial principles.”58 Furthermore, “the rhetoric of universal hegemony in Nebuchadnezzar's texts is meant to point to his newly expanded Ibid., 115. Ibid., 51. 57 Ibid., 28-9. 58 Ibid., 62. 55 56

36

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

imperial power, but the scribes appear to have recognized a disjunction between the rhetoric and the reality.”59 This situation is all the more interesting when one turns to the biblical view of the Babylonian empire. The general imperial strategy was to enhance the center at the expense of the periphery, over against the dominant procedure of the Assyrians preceding them and the Persians following them, namely, selective fortification of peripheral areas with a view toward preventing encroachment from outside powers. As Vanderhooft wrote: “The meager amount of material evidence for Babylonian pressure in Judah is telling. Given that Babylonian hegemony over the region lasted for a period of about sixty years—forty-five years in the era after Jerusalem's destruction—the imperial administration in the periphery was poorly developed.”60 Also telling, and particularly important for the present purpose, is Vanderhooft’s assertion that “[t]hrough the lens of the prophetic writings it is possible to investigate the ideas and institutions of imperialism from the perspective of a subjugated community.”61 The major part of this perspective on the imperial power is that it understands the Babylonian empire in terms of the Assyrian empire. This rough equation of the two imperial contexts is made regardless of the fact, as Vanderhooft noted, that the Babylonian rhetoric—as best as it can be understood—seemed to distance itself from the Assyrian self-understanding. Vanderhooft wrote: “The biblical writers came to see a close connection between the Assyrian and Babylonian regimes. Elsewhere, in fact, particular language and intellectual responses to Assyrian domination were appropriated and applied to the later situation under Babylon.”62 Vanderhooft’s argument in this connection can best be elucidated by a summary of his statements regarding two paradigmatic prophets of the respective imperial contexts—Isaiah and Jeremiah. With respect to the prophecies of Isaiah, Machinist, as mentioned, argued that the perceptions of the Assyrian empire found there were affected in significant ways by the Assyrian royal

Ibid., 40. Ibid., 109. 61 Ibid., 116. 62 Ibid., 122. 59 60

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

37

propaganda. One might reasonably extend the effect of this propaganda into the realm of anti-Babylonian rhetoric. Vanderhooft suggested that the Isaianic anti-Babylon oracles were interpolations from the early 6th century B.C.E.63 Nevertheless, “the impression is gained that the Isaianic influences already demonstrate an established tradition of thought about the role of Babylon as an imperial power.”64 That is, the anti-Babylonian material in Isaiah is on the one hand a reflection of Assyrian antiBabylonian rhetoric; and, on the other hand, stood in a long line of thought about the rise and importance of the Babylonian empire for the formation of the biblical text. With respect to the Book of Jeremiah and the impression of Babylon as an imperial power contained therein, Vanderhooft wrote at length concerning how the people of Judah responded to the situation created by the rise of Babylon to the status of a world power: The momentous changes in Near Eastern geopolitics during this era [the rise of Babylon under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar], coupled with Nebuchadnezzar's efforts to transform Babylon into the most splendid city in the world, permeate Jeremiah's prophecy. The wrenching debates in Judah concerning political alignment and religious practice (the two were inseparable in Jeremiah's thought, as they were for his contemporaries and forebears) are often phrased with the awareness of Babylonian imperial policies and procedures firmly in view. Jeremiah was an advocate of capitulation to Babylon hegemony, and sharply criticized both other prophets and members of the Judean royal court who were not. The thrust of Jeremiah's program was to insure continued existence of the kingdom of Judah, subservient to Babylon if necessary, in order to preserve cultural and religious autonomy.65

The anti-Babylonian oracles at the end of the Book of Jeremiah MT (and in the middle of the LXX text) constitute a different case than that outlined above. Vanderhooft’s presentation clarified many of the issues regarding the relationship between empire and subject. In this he has been helpful, yet he also still writes rather Ibid., 124. Ibid., 134. 65 Ibid., 135. 63 64

38

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

confidently regarding the historical Jeremiah, something that has proven (especially through the work of Robert Carroll) rather precarious. John Hill One of the most formative texts in the establishment of this new critical method is John Hill’s Friend or Foe?: The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT.66 In terms of his general approach, Hill agreed with Daniel L. Smith(-Christopher; see below) that the best way to understand the Book of Jeremiah is from the perspective of those who have experienced exile. In making this point, Hill appealed not only to the apparent historical location of the text right within the exilic period, but also to the hint in the Book of Jeremiah of an historically open-ended exilic experience. On the one hand, Both the superscription and conclusion of the book share an important common feature: they both refer to the events of 587. [The Book’s temporal framework] moves from the time of Josiah through to the year 560, when the community is still in exile. The book is thus contained in an “exilic envelope.” It begins and ends in exile, an exile which still continues.67

Furthermore, “[t]he book of Jeremiah reached its final form in the post-exile period, but its shape gives rise to the fiction that the exile has not yet ended.”68 On the other hand, with respect to an open-ended exile, Hill maintained, first, “The book begins and ends in exile, and is to be read from the viewpoint of a community in exile;” and, second, “The progression from judgment to restoration, found in the book of Ezekiel, does not exist in Jeremiah. While there are promises about an end of the exile, this is not yet in sight. The exile is unended.”69

John R. Hill, Friend or Foe?: The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT (Leiden: Brill, 1999). 67 Ibid., 26. 68 Ibid., 27. A biblical warrant for this statement can be found in Daniel 9:1-2, which indicates that the exilic period extends even up to the Seleucid/Maccabean period. 69 Both quotes in this sentence are from ibid., 17. 66

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

39

A synchronic reading of the final MT form of Jeremiah formed the background of Hill’s presentation. After having summarized the movement of 20th century scholarship on Jeremiah as essentially following the program of Duhm and Mowinckel (see above),70 he commented that A century of research, dominated by historical-critical approaches to the text, has produced…no scholarly consensus. The situation does not reflect negatively on the quality and depth of historical-critical scholarship but can be attributed to other factors. One is the nature of the book itself and the difficulty of imposing on it clear-cut solutions which answer every question. The other is that the trajectory of twentiethcentury Jeremiah studies, set largely by the work of Duhm and Mowinckel, has run its course.71

In contrast to this dominant stream of scholarship that has failed to produce a consensus, Hill argued that attention to the final form of the text is essential. Hill constantly dealt with the theme that works “which are based on a preference for the LXX as the superior text, or which concentrate only on redactional processes, have not given sufficient weight to the present text, and the significance of Babylon as a literary figure within it.”72 While Hill thus provided an excellent example for the present work in his emphasis on a reading “from below” of the exile and attention to the final MT form, I still believe his presentation to be unnecessarily truncated in two key aspects. First, Hill argued against relying on the LXX on the grounds that 70

Two statements typify this summary: “While the book's compositional history have [sic] dominated Jeremiah research, recent years have seen the appearance of studies whose concern has been the world of the text’” (9). Hill’s ultimate conclusion is that “there are few significant issues about which a consensus exists” (10). 71 Ibid., 218. 72 Ibid., 117. For more on the same question, compare the following statement of Bob Becking: “It is possible to assume that two diverging collections of material related to the prophet Jeremiah have circulated independently at a time. The question of the superiority of one version over the other, consequently, is of a literary-critical and redaction-critical nature.” Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30-31 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 42.

40

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

such an approach fails to reckon sufficiently with the final form of the text. The same charge could in fact be made of Hill, in that he does not take sufficient account of the two distinct final forms of the text. On the one hand, it does not follow from allowing the LXX recension onto the table that one considers the LXX to be the superior text.73 In fact, one need not take a decision either way with regard to such text-critical questions. It is important, however, to note the differences between them. The second apparent shortcoming of Hill’s text concerns the possibility that the final form of the text may well be at some years’ distance from the events it relates. An important implication follows from this realization. The Vorlagen of the LXX and MT, insofar as these can be reconstructed,74 stand closer to the events of the period. Thus, I argue, these Vorlagen more accurately reflect what must have been a lively conversation. Nevertheless, the final forms retain enough diversity conclusively to demonstrate the conversation, no matter what further perceptions might have been left out in the redactional processes.

In fact, as will be shown, reading Jeremiah with the strategy advocated here has very striking implications for the old question of the relationship between the LXX and MT recensions. 74 The LXX Vorlage is the reconstructed Hebrew text translated by the LXX; the Vorlage of the MT, by contrast, to the extent that such exists, consists of the traditions or sources used by the MT redactors. Thus the Vorlage of the MT is apparently much more extensive than that of the LXX. Again, while textual criticism and the redactional history of the book of Jeremiah as such do not figure prominently in the present work, it cannot be ignored that the final forms reflect a certain process of growth over time. On the reconstruction of the Vorlage of the LXX, the works of Louis Stulman and Alexander Varughese are consulted with profit. See Stulman, The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah, with English Translation (ed.; Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985). Stulman’s seminal dissertation was published as The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research (SBLDS 83; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986; Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1982). Alexander Varughese further elaborated on Stulman’s basic point in his “The Hebrew Text Underlying the Old Greek Translation of Jeremiah 10-20” (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1984). 73

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

41

Although his argument at times would seem to be a bit overconfident in reconstructing the history of the exilic period and in particular the person of Jeremiah, Hill nevertheless opened wide the door for a more comprehensive understanding of the disparate materials in the Book of Jeremiah. It is not sufficient in the present environment to re-examine questions of textual criticism and redactional history. Neither will one succeed, however, as I argue against Hill, merely to take only one of the available extant forms of Jeremiah as the final arbiter. Only by examining both the LXX and MT forms—and especially the reconstructed Vorlagen of the former—them can one gain the fullest possible picture of the range of options in the Book of Jeremiah for understanding and surviving the liminal event of the Babylonian exile. Jill Middlemas Jill Middlemas’ volume went a long way toward redefining the map of the history of antiquity.75 Recognizing that the biblical materials—Jeremiah included—betray a certain source bias in favor of the exilic community, Middlemas proposed that the exilic period be renamed “the templeless age.” According to Middlemas, there are five interrelated benefits to this change of name.76 First, it defines the period in question rather sharply as between the destruction of the first temple in 587-6 B.C.E. and the dedication of the second temple in 515 B.C.E. The traditional designation is problematic when it is used in the singular, because there were at least two different deportations, and a third (582 B.C.E.) mentioned only in Jeremiah. She suggests that the use of the singular tends to obscure the fact that multiple deportations are in view. The second difficulty with the traditional language is that it tends to ignore the fact of refugees, those who chose to flee Judah rather than undergo forced relocation. Later on, I will have occasion to refer to these people, for example the remnant of the community after the assassination of Gedaliah, as “voluntary 75 Jill Middlemas, The Templeless Age: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the “Exile,” (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007). 76 The following is a summary of ibid., 3-5.

42

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

exiles.” It is important to keep the refugees in view, for, at least in the case of the Judeans of the 6th century, refugees took at least some measure of control over their own lives in response to a situation of domination by a foreign power.77 In other words, not all the people who left Judah in the 6th century were exiles. Middelmas’ third point is an important extension of the earlier realization, the legacy of Charles C. Torrey, that there was a significant population left behind in Judah, certainly larger than that portion of the population deported to Babylon.78 The name “exilic period” participates yet again in the Bible’s particular source bias, and modern readers who perpetuate it rather unnaturally prejudice interpretation in favor of those who experienced the deportations, as opposed to the voluntary exiles and the remant in the land. Although she made a valid point, I believe she may have overstated the case when she noted that the “people who remained in Judah did not regard the forced relocation of of some citizens in any special way.”79 The dialogues following the various deportations, including the pro-Egyptian party encouraging King Zedekiah to rebel against Babylon, the post-assassination community declaring their intent to flee to Egypt, and any number of others surely are a testimony to the fact that the deportations were not considered any small matter, even if the devastation they represented may not have been as significant as the biblical materials biased in favor of the ‫גולה‬ community would lead readers to believe.

77 See Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (Overtures to Biblical Theology; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), esp. 78-83 for an entrée into the light modern refuge studies might shed on the exilic period. 78 See, for example, Hans M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land (SOSupp 28; Oslo: Scandinavian Univeristy Press, 1996). 79 Middlemas, The Templeless Age, 4. This statement seems to directly contradict one made a few pages later: “Historical references to the remaining inhabitants of Judah, although sketchy, at best suggest that the aftermath of war resulted in widespread physical devastation and significant human tragedy” (16). Since “significant human tragedy” is a term allowing for a wide berth of definition, it must certainly allow for a feeling of devastation at a portion of the population—no matter how small—being forcibly removed from the homeland.

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

43

Fourth, Middlemas suggested the “myth of the empty land” (see above) is a natural outgrowth of insisting on the nomenclature of “exilic period.” Barstad and others have already made extensive protest against this idea, and Middlemas thus suggested “it is wise to be cautious about the use of the terms exile and exilic.”80 The interrelatedness of these points being abundantly clear, one wonders whether Middlemas has not fallen to the error of overcorrection. Her first point, that there were multiple exiles, is valid, but she has perhaps put too fine of a distinction on her five points. Nevertheless, it is important to consider the implications of terms employed rather than uncritically adopting the viewpoint of certain voices represented in the biblical text. As I will show throughout the remainder of this work, the ‫ גולה‬community represents but one of the voices swirling around (to cite Bruegeemann’s delightful phrase) in Jeremiah, albeit a rather important one, if only because of its pervasive influence. Middlemas’ fifth reason for eschewing the traditional language of exile and exilic is the most important. Defining the end of the exile is a notoriously difficult problem, and Middlemas recognized this when she wrote: “In fact, the exile in certain respects never ceased.”81 While this is certainly not a new insight, it bears repeating nonetheless. On the one hand, it recalls the statement from Hill cited above and variously throughout the following, that in Jeremiah “the exile is unended.”82 On the other hand, the unending nature of exile recalls a haunting phrase from Jeremiah with a none-too-clear significance: “Do not weep for the one who has died… Weep rather, for the one who is going away, because he shall never come back to see the land of his birth.” (Jer 22:10).83 These five reasons lead Middlemas to propose the alternative term “templeless,” as this is a more comprehensive term for the Ibid., 5. Ibid. 82 Hlll, Friend or Foe?, 17. 83 True enough, as will be seen, vv 11-12 of the passage indicate a reference to Jehoahaz, but it could just as easily refer to Jehoiachin or to any of the deportees since, as is well-known, none of the “returnees” were, in the strict sense of the term, returning to anything. 80 81

44

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

communal shock represented by the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. She wrote: “However we understand the significance of the temple, it cannot be denied that it represented the central sanctuary of the kingdom of Judah in the preexilic (or the First Temple) period and that of the province of Yehud in the post exilic (or Second Temple) period.”84 As she further wrote in the preface: “‘Templeless’ has been chosen, not because it rolls easily off the tongue, but because it captures a sense of the time itself.”85 There are further complications to the phrase, which Middlemas did not consider as they did not serve her purpose. On the one hand, it must be borne in mind that the period before the dedication of the first temple was also a templeless age, though certainly not in the same sense as the period between 587-6 and 515 B.C.E.86 On the other hand, however, the destruction of the second temple by the Romans began a new templeless age that lasted from 70 C.E. onwards and which is, like the exile in the traditional nomenclature rejected by Middlemas, unended and, for the foreseeable future, unending. In a sense, then, Middlemas does not go far enough in her characterization of the 6th century B.C.E. as the “templeless age.” It is not the lack of a temple that sets this period off from any other, but the loss of the temple through violent means. This conception has in its favor the strengthening of the ties between the 6th century B.C.E. and the period following 70 C.E., with the additional connection that both are time of major contribution to the extent, in terms both of population and area, to the Diaspora. Though certain non-centralized shrines existed during the period prior to the first temple, they are not referred to in the literature as Middlemas, Templeless Age, 5. Ibid., ix. A simpler solution would perhaps be to consciously think of the exile in terms of the broader complex of events. It is beyond question that the biblical materials, and in particular Jeremiah, are biased in favor of the exilic community, but this in itself is not sufficient reason to invent a new term without taking into account the additional problems such a term introduces. That is, by renaming the exilic age the “templeless age,” Middlemas rightly corrected some of the overemphases of the past, but at what cost? 86 See, for example, 1 Sam 7:5-7, in which Yahweh is shown not at all disturbed by the fact of not having had a house built or that, therefore, the land is templeless. 84 85

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

45

temples, such designation being reserved for “the temple of Solomon,” “the first temple,” the “second temple,” “the temple of Herod,” and so on. In keeping with Middlemas’ correct suggestion that the lack of a temple in the sixth century is the precisely important point in defining the nature of the catastrophe, it should be further noted that “templeless” implies “temple loss.”87 The importance of Middlemas’ work for the present project is manifestly clear in how she went on to describe various responses to the templeless/templeloss in the literature. Though her treatment of Jeremiah, and in particular the older source or tradition-complex theories making it up, leaves something to be desired, she did rightly notice that the book has a comprehensive focus in terms of interpreting and responding to the events of the sixth century. She wrote: “The prophetic collection attributed to Jeremiah is extremely helpful in interpreting one response to the disaster, as many of the prohecies stem from just after the destruction of the temple in 587 and date up to the time of the death of Gedaliah.”88 It has already been noted, of course, that seeing Jeremiah as one response to the events surrounding 587-6 is suspect. Jeremiah, in fact, encompasses several different responses, and through the remainder of this book a great number of contradictory responses will come to the fore. It is important to note that, in its total effect, the final form of Jeremiah was a trenchant response or, more properly, a collection of competing trenchant responses, to the exile and all its related events. In her understanding of the literary growth of Jeremiah, Middlemas showed her membership card in the tradition of William Holladay (see below on the “great turn” of 1986). She noted:

87 The division and naming of the successive epochs of Israelite and Judean history according to the presence or lack of a temple could also be taken to the following extreme: The “pretemple age” “or first templeless age” preceding the foundation of the first temple; the “intertemple age” or “temple loss age” or “second templeless age” from 587-6 to 515 B.C.E.; the “second temple age” from 515 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.; and, finally, the “posttemple age” or “third templeless age” or “second temple loss age.” from 70 C.E. onwards. 88 Middlemas, Templeless Age, 69.

46

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH Certain features of the book of Jeremiah suggest that it underwent editorial activity… Instead of being random additions in a rolling manner by which oracles were continually updated in different time periods to meet new situations affecting the community…the editorial additons shape the material, clarify the speaker, and offer a theological interpretation.89

It is unclear from this statement how the rolling corpus as suggested by McKane or the “interplay of many traditions” suggested by Carrol could not have also contributed to shaping the material, clarifying speakers, and offering theological interpretations.90 In other words, the different ways one might view the growth of the Book of Jeremiah each have their merits and demerits. However, as the critical discussion on the book has reached an “impasse” (the term belongs both to Christopher Seitz and John Hill; see below), a new way is called for. Though I consciously follow the lines laid down by Carroll much more than those laid down by either Holladay or McKane—as will become clear below—nevertheless I am not as dismissive of the alternatives as Middlemas seems to be. In fact, it may be that all three of these major lines are correct in some measure and incorrect in others. At the end of the day, Middlemas’ contribution is important even if she did not take full account of the logical implications of her suggestions.

RECENT COMMENTARIES Walter Brueggemann wrote that the scholarly world witnessed a “turn of Jeremiah studies in 1986, with the publication in that year of the three formidable commentaries of William Holladay, Robert Carroll, and William McKane… [It would take some time] to assess or appreciate fully how decisive these commentaries and the work around them were for the refocusing and redefinition of Jeremiah studies.”91 Now, twenty-three years after the publication Ibid., 70. Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah (Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: Westminder, 1986), 60. 91 Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), viii. He referred to Robert 89 90

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

47

of these three great commentaries, one can better understand their implications for succeeding scholarship. In the previous discussion of recent scholarly offerings, it has become clear that study of the Book of Jeremiah has moved away from historicalcritical paradigms and on to a “recognition that the tradition of Jeremiah is an ideological offer that seeks to authorize a particular authoritative version of reality.”92 This section will briefly describe these three important commentaries. In addition, examination of three other commentaries published since 1986 will demonstrate some of the directions in which Book of Jeremiah studies have gone since the great turn. Robert Carroll First, Robert Carroll’s commentary is quite insistent that the “few details of [Jeremiah’s] life which appear in the text are tantalizingly incomplete.”93 On the basis of this, and in spite of attempts to the contrary by other scholars (such as, inter alia, Holladay), Carroll expressly rejected any attempts to line up the material in the Book of Jeremiah with specific events in the life of the prophet. For Carroll, then, it is not important when—or if—the historical Jeremiah said certain things attributed to him in the Book. The sayings in the Book and whatever one can reconstruct of the prophet’s life are thus to be considered separately from one another, if the latter’s sparseness is even worth pursuing: The…anthologies traditionally known as the prophetic books are collections of discrete and disparate sayings. These sayings acquire their shape and force through the work of editors who have provided the secondary stages of the traditions by supplying details of speakers, places and occasions of utterances. Such details are not an integral element of the sayings and poems Carroll, Jeremiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); William Holladay, Jeremiah 1-2 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986, 1989); and William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (2 vols.; ICC 19; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986, 1996). 92 Bruggemann, Jeremiah, x [emphasis original]. It should be noted that Brueggemann’s commentary was issued before his own turn to the notion of multiple voices—or, in the language of the quote, multiple authoritative versions of reality—as typified in The Theology of Jeremiah. 93 Carroll, Jeremiah, 33.

48

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH collected together, but are clearly editorial. It is in the development of the individual traditions that the so-called biographical elements appear (lacking in many of the anthologies) and at this level the “life” of the speaker may be constructed to carry the tradition or appear as an epiphenomenon of the anthology.94

Carroll’s commentary has been quite influential for the present work, in that I maintain diffidence regarding the historical details that may lie behind the perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah. That is, I am careful to maintain that, following Carroll and others, the Book of Jeremiah (or, perhaps more appropriately, the editors/compilers of what would become the Book of Jeremiah) attributes the perceptions found therein to the prophet Jeremiah, to God, or to any of a number of other persons or groups. It is not important whether identifiable historical persons or groups lie behind these perceptions, though that certainly is not outside the realm of possibility. Regardless of the answer one offers to this question—and certainty will never be achieved—it is clear that that the diverse perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah were preserved for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was to show something of the range of options available for understanding the exile. At the end of the day, wrote Carroll, it is impossible “to unite all these diverse elements into one large body of work reflecting a unity of editing and background. They must be seen as the product of different groups within the Judean territory struggling for power and position over a long period after the fall of Jerusalem.”95 William Holladay In contrast to Carroll, William Holladay’s 1986 commentary demonstrates a much more confident stance regarding, first, the possibility of reconstructing the details of the prophet Jeremiah’s life; and, second, separating out the original words of the prophet from later editorial accretions. It should be noted, indeed, that the questions of the prophet’s biography and the prophet’s original words are rather combined in Holladay’s understanding. Holladay 94 95

Ibid., 34 [emphasis original]. Ibid., 70.

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

49

wrote: “I have become convinced that the data for a reconstruction of the chronology of Jrm’s 96 career, and for the establishment of fairly secure settings for his words and actions, are attainable, and this commentary is based upon such a reconstruction.”97 This positivistic outlook with regard both to the life of the prophet and to the setting(s) of the saying(s) permeates Holladay’s commentary throughout. Brueggemann asserted that, “Holladay’s work is important as a summary of the most notable gains of history-oriented study. And while scholarship since then has not followed him, his work is an important reference point in that regard.”98 While I consider Brueggemann’s comment a bit too dismissive, I do agree that Holladay’s presentation is profoundly affected by his insistence on the connection between the Book of Jeremiah and the history it purports to relate. The most telling problem for such a close identification is the difficulty of dealing with material that appears contradictory, as for example the differing treatments of the concept of the remnant (see below, esp. chapters five through seven). Holladay did apparently recognize something of the diversity of the material, attributing it to a development in the prophet’s understanding of Yahweh’s stance toward the people. He wrote: “If this is a valid reconstruction of the prophet’s career, it exposes the shifts of his perception of Yahweh’s will through several decades: a prophetic career which we can come to know in unparalleled detail.”99 The use of the word “perception” in this statement is important for the present project. Even though Holladay was convinced that the Book of Jeremiah reflects the prophet’s words to a great degree, he recognized that there is some diversity in this material. One rather significant implication of the close identification of the prophet Jeremiah and the words attributed to him, according to Holladay, is the value of the Book of Jeremiah for solace in later times of comfort: The explanation of this siglum, unique to Holladay’s commentary, is as follows: “Jer refers to the book of Jeremiah, and Jrm to the man Jeremiah.” Holladay, Jeremiah (2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986, 1989), 1:xi. 97 Ibid., 1:1. 98 Brueggemann, Jeremiah, viii. 99 Holladay, Jeremiah¸ 1:10. 96

50

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

it is not only in extent of words and narrative that Jrm stands out for us, but in the range of his experience. He spoke out during the closing years of the Judean monarchy and saw that monarchy fall to Babylon, he found himself isolated from his fellow citizens and more than once under threat of death at the hand of the authorities, and in all of this he continued to proclaim the word of Yahweh. It is no coincidence, then, that in time of peril those who are nourished on the Bible rediscover Jer.100

Of course, if one takes a less confident stance regarding the reconstruction of the career of the prophet Jeremiah, then one will not be as able to say that the Book of Jeremiah presents such a comforting influence. On the other hand, however, if the compilation of the Book came at a much later time (as Carroll and those who follow him seem to suggest), then the contention of this present work that the perceptions of the exile represents the range of possible understandings finds more sure footing. That is, recent scholarship has determined, against Holladay and others, that the historical figure of Jeremiah is not nearly so important for coming to terms with the Book of Jeremiah. William McKane William McKane wrote the third great commentary on the Book of Jeremiah published in 1986. Whereas Carroll and Holladay represent extreme positions regarding the possibility of reconstructing the details of the prophet Jeremiah’s life, McKane was more interested with providing an alternative proposal for the literary growth of the Book of Jeremiah. McKane struck a mediating position between the extremes of Carroll and Holladay when he wrote that one should proceed on the assumption that some chapters have biographical value and an exegesis which expunges this entirely should be refused. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether one can have such thoroughgoing Deuteronomic narratives…and yet retain biographical content relating to the prophet Jeremiah.101

100 101

Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:1. McKane, Jeremiah, 2:cxxxiv.

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

51

The enduring contribution of McKane’s work is the notion of a nucleus of the Book of Jeremiah that was later supplemented throughout the period with more material. He wrote: “the corpus of the book of Jeremiah…is the product of a long growth extending into the post-exilic period and generally, if not universally, the shorter text of [LXX] is a witness to a more original Hebrew text than that of MT.”102 McKane’s work is most helpful in understanding the literary growth of the Book of Jeremiah, however long one supposes that to have taken. While the present work is not directly concerned with such matters, the differences primarily between the LXX and the MT (and the reconstructed Vorlage to the LXX) certainly play a role in describing the perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah. McKane, as has been seen, concluded that [LXX] gives us access to a Hebrew text which is shorter than MT, and so enables us to identify expansions of the Hebrew text in the period which lies between the Hebrew Vorlage of [LXX] and MT. This is a conclusion which is not free from assumptions, but, even so, there is no firmer method than this and none which is so disciplined by objective control, and it is the right point of departure for examination of the concept of a rolling corpus… The expansions…are often scribal rather than editorial. They have exegetical, interpretative, harmonizing functions, and they do not look beyond the small pieces of text to which they are attached, in some cases individual verses. Other expansions (e.g. 25.1-7; 8-14) can be associated with a broader editorial intention, but not with an overarching editorial plan or a systematic theological tendency.103

McKane’s argument is thus rather evidentiary: “One should require a particularly sharp argument before assenting to a speculative kind of criticism which contradicts the indications of a more solid, textual evidence.”104 He apparently was interested neither in the kind of theological/ideological speculation that characterized Carroll’s work, nor with the concerted efforts of Holladay to identify the ipsissima verba of the prophet and then Ibid., 2:clxxii. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:l-li. 104 Ibid., 1:l. 102 103

52

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

connect them with specific events in his life.105 His primary interest “is associated rather with a curiosity about the history of the Hebrew text, and with attempts to reconstruct that history in order to enhance our understanding of the extant text.” 106 It is for this reason that we can conclude McKane’s work inhabits a middle ground between the extremes represented by Holladay and Carroll. As I have already made clear, I rely much more on the work of Carroll than that of either Holladay or McKane. Put rather simply, Carroll’s commentary presaged in a way the others did not the way in which I treat the diverse material related to the exile in the Book of Jeremiah. It is sufficient, in my view, to consider the various and sometimes apparently contradictory perceptions alongside one another. Such a methodology contrasts with the suggestions that the material represents traceable development either in the viewpoint of the historical Jeremiah (Holladay) or in the Book of Jeremiah (McKane). Walter Brueggemann Brueggemann’s 1998 commentary Exile and Homecoming represented a compilation and revision of his earlier two-volume commentary on the Book of Jeremiah.107 Thus while he was unable originally “to assess or appreciate fully”108 the import of the 1986 commentaries of Carroll, Holladay and McKane, in the revised version he demonstrated that, by and large, the approach advocated by Carroll (or variations of it) have carried the day. Brueggemann wrote: “Robert Carroll has contributed most decisively to the counterperspective that seeks to distance the text of Jeremiah from any recoverable historical connection… As will be clear, Carroll’s new initiative has gained an important following in subsequent scholarship.”109 In light of this observation and, more importantly, Brueggemann’s suggestion that Holladay’s Ibid. Ibid. 107 To Pluck Up, To Tear Down: A Commentary on Jeremiah 1-25 (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988; To Build, To Plant: A Commentary on Jeremiah 26-52 (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). 108 Brueggemann, Jeremiah, viii. 109 Ibid., ix. 105 106

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

53

commentary represents an “important…summary of the most notable gains of history-oriented study,”110 his final judgment upon the three great 1986 commentaries appears rather odd. While his observation regarding Carroll’s commentary and its influence on later study is correct and consistent with his summary of it, his inclusion of Holladay’s work in the following statement appears to contradict his earlier assessment: The cumulative effect of these studies is to loosen the grip of historical-critical methods on Jeremiah studies. Heretofore, as elsewhere in Old Testament studies, historical criticism was the single acceptable method of reading. Now it is clear, given current perspectives, that the book of Jeremiah is not a “record” of what happened, but rather a constructive proposal of reality that is powered by passionate conviction and that is voiced in cunning, albeit disjunctive artistic form. This means that the book of Jeremiah is a rich and open field for venturesome interpretation, none of which can claim to be “objective”111 and none of which is likely to dominate or defeat alternative perspectives.112

Brueggemann recognized that “new studies of the book of Jeremiah suggest that the book is a primal matrix in which both to face the immense problems of biblical faith and to appropriate the most elemental, demanding, and bracing of that faith for contemporary engagement.”113 He then suggested that the primary battleground, so to speak, in studies on the Book of Jeremiah since Carroll, Holladay and McKane is between “ideological” and “canonical” approaches. He drew a basic distinction between these two approaches in that ideological approaches eschew the claims for God and divine activity explicitly made by the text of the Book of Jeremiah, whereas canonically oriented approaches “insist that the book of Jeremiah, as we have it, is framed to make a large and serious theological affirmation.”114 He concluded this discussion of these rather large alternative categories by suggesting that “[b]oth ‘ideological’ and ‘canonical’ approaches tend to view 110 111

Ibid., viii. However, McKane in fact make a claim for objectivity (see

above). Ibid., xi [emphasis original]. Ibid., x. 114 Ibid., xi. 112 113

54

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

the tradition of Jeremiah ‘from the outside…’ It is possible, however, to ‘go inside,’ to follow where the text itself seems to point, without premature judgments grounded in past interpretive commitments. Such ‘inside’ work is never fully innocent, but it can be more-or-less so.”115 Brueggemann’s commentary thus provides an excellent point of direction for the present work, for I seek precisely to approach the Book of Jeremiah “from the inside,” to describe what the Book itself has to say regarding the perceptions of the exile. Jack Lundbom Jack R. Lundbom’s commentary in the Anchor Bible116 also demonstrated some of the ways in which scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah has moved following the foundation laid in 1986. Whereas Brueggemann’s work largely influenced by Carroll (see above), Lundbom appeared to follow more in the footsteps of Holladay when he wrote: Collections of oracles, confessions, dialogues, liturgical compositions, and other prophetic utterances, supplemented by a rich corpus of historical, biographical, and autobiographical material written in another hand[!], combine to give us the most complete profile of a Hebrew prophet, also one of the best profiles of any figure in the ancient world.117

In the introduction to his multi-volume work, Lundbom demonstrated a thoroughgoing historical-critical orientation, emphasizing matters of textual criticism (i.e., MT vs. LXX), literary genre (poetry vs. prose), and positivism regarding the reconstruction of the prophet Jeremiah’s life based on the evidence in the text.118 Nevertheless, Lundbom spent considerable time detailing his methodological standpoint. He maintained:

Ibid., xii. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah (3 vols.; AB 21A-C; New York: Doubleday, 1999-2004). 117 Lundbom, Jeremiah, p. 1:57. 118 Ibid., pp. 1:57-68. 115 116

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

55

A commentary brings together a variety of disciplines, each employing its own methodology. Its purpose is to explicate the meaning of the biblical text, by whatever means possible. The present commentary, in the interest of fulfilling this broad aim, has made considerable use of rhetorical criticism.119

His work does in fact live up to his assertion that a proper biblical commentary will employ many different models. He follows after Holladay in the close reconstruction of the prophet’s life. He follows after Carroll in recognizing that the Book of Jeremiah is a compilation of various sources. He follows after McKane in the concern for the literary history of the text. Yet, at the same time, he departs from the three who precipitated the great turn in studies on the Book of Jeremiah and inquires after the way in which the Book and the discrete materials that compose it and together generate “its impact on single and multiple audiences, beginning with the original audience, and extending to current audiences made up or hearers or readers, individually or members of a group.”120 Lundbom then went further, focusing on rhetorical criticism’s concern with the text: Rhetorical criticism in the book of Jeremiah must begin with the text, i.e., the biblical text. There really is no other place to begin. Extrabiblical sources telling us about the prophet and audiences he addressed in the late seventh and early sixty centuries B.C. are nonexistent. Also largely nonexistent are outside sources corroborating the biblical text. Speaker, text, and audience data are all within the book of Jeremiah, and only there. Occasionally one biblical text appears to corroborate another, e.g, 7:1-15 and 26:1-19; 7:30-34 and 19:1-15, but again, this is simply the result of inner-biblical exegesis. Seldom, if ever, does rhetorical criticism of a modern text labor under such conscription.121

Lunbom’s close work with the text is important for the present volume, yet I will not spend as much time in concern with the audience as do rhetorical critics like Lundbom. I am not primarily concerned with how the Book of Jeremiah might have been received. Ibid., p. 1:68. Ibid., p. 1:70. 121 Ibid., p. 1:73. 119 120

56

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Louis Stulman Louis Stulman’s 2005 commentary122 is the last of the six commentary works with which we will deal in our summary of recent investigation of the Book of Jeremiah. Stulman, like Brueggemann, seemed to follow the example of Robert Carroll who, as has already been noted, has wielded the greatest amount of influence among the big three upon subsequent work on the Book of Jeremiah. At the outset of his commentary, Stulman made a statement that exactly describes the approach of the present work: When Sigmund Mowinckel argued in 1914 that Jeremiah not only lacks any semblance of order, but also is completely haphazard, he set the stage for modern Jeremiah scholarship… With this assumption in place, few have even broached the book as a unified whole. When one does, however, Jeremiah’s jumbled character “makes sense,” not by standards of linear logic but as a rich labyrinth of voices and countervoices which emerge out of the wreckage of a national disaster that defies ordinary categories.123

Stulman’s statement also reflects Lundbom’s contention “that Jeremiah was a prophet of dialogue.”124 The dialogue of voices and interests that the Book of Jeremiah appears to represent attempted to come to terms with the life- and community-altering events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile. Stulman thus recognized a quite important point, and in the process provided a way out of the impasse noted by John Hill (see above) that has beset many of the key arguments of twentieth-century scholarship related to the Book of Jeremiah. By moving the discussion back out to a consideration of the Book as a whole, Stulman thus Louis Stulman, Jeremiah (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005). Stulman, Jeremiah, xviii [emphasis added] 124 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1975; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 149. Although Lundbom here was making a different point, namely that (the historical) Jeremiah as represented in the Book of Jeremiah was willing to debate and discuss his conclusions with others, the present writer believes this to be a most apt description of the perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah. 122 123

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

57

corrected an imbalance that favors the poetry in the Book of Jeremiah to the prose: Since the work of Bernhard Duhm and Mowinckel at the turn of the last century, there has been a clear predisposition…to denigrate the prose materials in Jeremiah… In contrast to these negative assessments, I propose that the prose material is actually the key to understanding the final form of Jeremiah.125

While the present work is not concerned with the prose material as such, this material along with the poetry shows much in the way of the perceptions of the exile, and is thus quite important in terms of the overall tenor of the Book. Stulman also argued that the Book of Jeremiah dealt in a profound way with issues relating to theodicy and the survival of the nation of Judah in the midst of the tragedy of the exile. Thus his commentary is reminiscent of the work of Daniel Smith(Christopher) (see below), especially in the latter’s regard for the survival strategies126 developed by oppressed peoples. Stulman wrote: “Whether the nation will survive is not the issue. What is at stake is the developing character of the embattled nation.”127 When the present discussion turns to the dialogues with survivors and political leaders (chapters five and six), this significance of this idea will again be felt. It is perhaps appropriate to end our summary of Stulman’s commentary with his comments in the introduction to his work regarding the “survival story” of Jeremiah: From survival literature, ancient and contemporary, we know that such upheaval not only causes physical and emotional devastation, but also evokes probing questions about ultimate reality. Where is God? How can such random and obscene acts of violence occur? Is it possible to live through the darkness and Stulman, Jeremiah, xviii. See Religion of the Landless and A Biblical Theology of Exile (above). Kathleen O’Connor advanced a similar argument when she called the Book of Jeremiah a “survival story” for those who experienced the trauma of exile. O’Connor, “How the Book of Jeremiah Confronts Disaster,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Philadelphia, Pa., 20 November 2005). 127 Stulman, Jeremiah, xx. 125 126

58

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH embrace life again? Jeremiah is a penetrating response to the multifaceted configurations of evil and the apparent silence of God.128 It is a “survival manual” for people living on the brink of despair… The hope that Jeremiah holds is not for a return to the old world, which is gone forever, but for a new start as survivors in a faraway place. Exile, thus, was not an end but the beginning of a new life and a new community.129

The six commentaries described in this section represent a reasonable cross-section of recent developments in studies of the Book of Jeremiah. The three great 1986 commentaries altered the course of scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah near the end of the twentieth century just as Duhm and Mowinckel did so at its beginning. As scholarship moves on in the twenty-first century (including the present work), emphasis will doubtless continue on the final form of the Book of Jeremiah as well as the ideological character of the Book and the variegated claims that its constituent materials advocate.

USEFUL HISTORICAL STUDIES Peter Ackroyd In his Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C.,130 Peter R. Ackroyd devoted a section to the examination of the Book of Jeremiah, with particular attention to its understanding of exile. In many ways, Ackroyd produced the most comprehensive mid-twentieth-century work dealing with the issues involved in the exile. Ackroyd set about in his first chapter to dispel the myth that the period following the exile lacks significance for Hebrew Bible study. He titled the first section, “Revaluation,” and in it he complained of recent studies having unfairly glossed over the period of the exile and later as a 128 It should be noted that “God” is not completely silent in the Book of Jeremiah, for indeed plenty of perceptions of the exile are assigned to Yahweh! After all, the perceptions assigned to Jeremiah (chapter 3) and to Yahweh (chapter 2) together make up the majority of the material coming under investigation in the present work. 129 Ibid., 1-2. 130 Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968).

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

59

devolution from earlier, more lofty literary outputs like that found in the “great” prophets of the 8th-7th centuries B.C.E.131 Alongside the main goal of his study, he engaged in a reassessment of the later prophetic material: This reassessment can be treated only incidentally to the main theme, but it is important that it should be in mind if only to enable us to clear out minds of the feeling that a preoccupation with the later stages of prophecy must inevitably be rather dull. The commentator who chooses them as his field is not, in fact, to be pitied as having to deal with what is pedestrian; he is fortunate in having so rich a field to cultivate.132

Ackroyd was careful, as we have seen, to maintain that a treatment of the 6th-and-later-centuries prophets was only incidental to his main purpose, a search after a more comprehensive understanding of the exile and restoration. Above all, one should not, Ackroyd declared, treat the exilic period as merely an historical prelude to New Testament times: The Christian has…no right to deny that to those who are unable to accept [the idea that the Christ event necessitates a reevaluation of the Old Testament] the Old Testament may nevertheless be a meaningful and vital document which enriches faith and knowledge of God the more it is read and studied.133

Thus, on the one hand, this material is not to be regarded merely as a run-down from the previous heights to which Hebrew prophecy had risen. On the other hand, neither is it to be regarded merely as a run-up to the subsequent heights to which the New Testament would rise for the later Christian movement. Most to be pitied, according to Ackroyd, are studies that commit both

From the preface: “the revaluation of Old Testament prophecy on the simple assumption that for its full understanding we must take it as a whole, and not begin as is often done from certain notions derived mainly from eight-century prophets and make these the criteria for the assessment of later and supposedly degenerate types.” Ibid., xiii. 132 Ibid., p. xiv. 133 Ibid., 2-3. 131

60

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

errors in service of an ideologically- or dogmatically-driven exegetical agenda.134 With regard specifically to the role of the Book of Jeremiah in understanding the exilic events, Ackroyd effectively presaged the argument of this book when he concluded: “The book of Jeremiah thus presents a variety of insights—some of which are to be closely associated with the prophet himself, even where they are not necessarily consistent with one another.” 135 Of course, I would add to this there are many other persons and groups with whom this “variety of insights” in the Book of Jeremiah is to be associated.136 On the comprehensiveness of the Book of Jeremiah’s relationship to the events of the exilic period, Ackroyd wrote: Jeremiah is the first of the known prophets who actually experienced the disaster of 587. Yet although this is true, it is clear that by far the greater part of the Jeremiah material is directed primarily toward the years leading up to this moment, and the discovery of the prophet's mind in regard to the event itself is not easy. We may, in fact, detect various lines of approach, and recognize that in the form in which we now have the material, this diversity has in some measure been overlaid by particular kinds of presentation.137

134 Ackroyd continued: “Not infrequently one suspects that dogmatic closure of the mind precludes such rich appreciation [of the Old Testament], so that the Old Testament provides mere confirmation of convictions already held.” Ibid., 3. 135 Ibid., 61. 136 In another context, Ackroyd recognized something of the fuller point of my thesis (Ibid., 51):

as we are concerned less with portraying individuals and their thought, and more with understanding the mind of a period and its significance, we need only to avoid using any material which is virtually certainly of much later origin—though even this, in so far as it reflects on the situation in the sixth century B.C. from a greater distance, is not without relevance in the development of thought. 137 Ibid., 50.

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

61

Ralph Klein Ralph W. Klein’s Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation138 devoted an entire chapter to the reactions to the exile in the Book of Jeremiah. In this, however, one notices a difference between Klein’s work and the present effort. I am not interested in reactions alone, as this term implies having gone through the experience of exile139 and survived it. I am not limiting my investigation to those whose task it was to reconstitute communal identity once the crisis was past, but also to the attempts to understand what was going on in anticipation before the events, what was happening, that is, between 597-6 and the “end” of the exilic period, whenever one may reckon that to be, along with any later perceptions included in the Book of Jeremiah.140 Klein suggested that his interests were precisely along the lines of redaction criticism.141 He contrasted this to an emphasis on source criticism, and so the absence of names such as Duhm and Mowinckel from his bibliographic summary142 is thus understandable. Klein occupied himself on the one hand with a separation of emphasis on the Book from emphasis on the prophet; and, on the other hand, with an attention to deliverance. One discovers, however, with regard to the first, that he often failed in to sustain the distinction.143 With regard to the second,

138 Ralph W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). 139 See Smith(-Christopher), Religion of the Landless, passim, for the importance of “from-below” readings of exile. 140 Again from Ackroyd: “Both the beginning and the end of the period are open, and the decision where to begin and where to end must be made without laying ourselves open too easily to the charge of arbitrariness.” Exile and Restoration, 12. 141 Klein, Israel in Exile¸ 44. 142 Ibid., 45, nn. 6-7. 143 For example, while Klein suggested that his “approach is more that of redaction criticism than that of source criticism,” he nevertheless admitted rather confidently that the Book of Jeremiah very closely revealed the opinions of the historical Jeremiah: “These materials [in the Book of Jeremiah that diverge from the Deuteronomistic viewpoint] are the closest we can come to the ‘real’ Jeremiah, and they will form the

62

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Klein argued the opposite position than that which Hill and Vanderhooft would subsequently take up, namely that by the end of the Book of Jeremiah the end of the exile is in view.144 At best, according to Klein, it is a hazy view.145

Ernest Nicholson In Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah,146 Ernest W. Nicholson laid out a convincing case for the contents of the Book of Jeremiah having been shaped with the exiles in mind. While Nicholson’s limiting the investigation to the prose material immediately demonstrates a difference between his work and the present project, nevertheless his work is a very important precursor for the move beyond the historical-critical impasse described by Hill (see above). He concerned himself with the elucidation of the reasons why the material in question was edited to create the final form of the book as we have it: Of particular relevance for our present purposes is the possibility that much of the prose material in the book, and especially the sermons and discourses, grew and developed within such a circle of traditionists, for, as we shall see, it is precisely in this material that the evidence for such a circle is at its clearest. If such a possibility can be sustained then the problem of the origin and provenance of this material becomes one of attempting to determine the particular theological tradition upon which it is

basis for our discussion of the prophet’s own reaction to exile.” Ibid., 445. 144 “In short, 29:10-14, because of its Deuteronomistic language, as well as 25:11-12 and 27:7, because of their probable late date, cannot be used to show that Jeremiah himself prophesied a return from the Exile and an end to Babylonian power.” Ibid., 52. 145 “At the same time, if 51:59-64 is authentic, Jeremiah believed in the eventual downfall of Babylon, an idea expanded into a new gift of the land by the D redaction in 29:10-14 and other passages… Thus instead of following Jeremiah and rejecting any hope for a return from exile, D announced that exile would have a happy ending.” (Ibid., pp. 52, 62). 146 Ernest W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970).

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

63

based and which it seeks to present as well as the identity of the circle in which such a tradition had its home and the historical context and religo-sociological situation in which it emerged.147

Nicholson would ultimately conclude that the “circle of traditionists” who had such a significant role in the formulation of the prose discourses in the Book of Jeremiah were to be identified with the Deuteronomic perspective.148 Nicholson’s basic argument was that 1) there is no distinction between the sources lying behind the prose “biographical” narratives and the prose sermons; and 2) that the prose material betrays affinity with and therefore the editorial activity of the Deuteronomistic School: In other words, the view here advanced is that the division of the prose in Jeremiah into two separate sources with different origins as held by most commentators cannot be sustained and that both the homiletical material as well as the narratives (the so-called biographical passages) assumed their present form at Nicholson, Preaching, 4-5. Ibid., 21, inter alia. From the perspective of the present work, this is a truncated view of the matter; the Deuteronomists, after all, were but one group among many (cf., for example, the work of Morton Smith). Comparing the shaping of the traditions of the Book of Jeremiah to similar work on the Book of Ezekiel, Ronald Clements opined: 147 148

As it is now preserved, this prophetic book [Jeremiah] reveals a most instructive example of the way in which the work and sayings of a particular prophet have been remembered and applied to a particular situation at the hands of a very distinctive theological circle. It is neither Jeremiah's 'disciples' nor the figure of Baruch that has imparted the special stamp to the book of Jeremiah that we now have. Nor yet is it the Deuteronomic school who have simply wrested the sayings of Jeremiah from their original setting and added their own words under the guise of the preaching of Jeremiah. Rather it is the consequence of a most fruitful [combination] of the traditio of Jeremiah's prophecies with the situation that the Deuteronomic school found itself faced with in Judah after 587 B.C. Clements, “The Ezekiel Tradition: Prophecy in a Time of Crisis,” in Israel's Prophetic Tradition (ed. Richard Coggins, Anthony Phillips and Michael Kibb; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 129.

64

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH the hand of one and the same circle, that is the Deuteronomists.149

Nicholson based this project on both literary and theological considerations, the latter of which receive the greater amount of attention.150 Thus he reflected, in a way, the traditional categories of B- and C-source material as inherited from Mowinckel, which started down the road of increasingly interpreting Jeremiah in synchronic terms. Nicholson’s direction is continued and developed in the work of Robert P. Carroll, for whom ultimately nothing of the historical character or words of the prophet can be reconstructed with any certainty.151 The present work sets this issue of strict historicity aside. At the end, we will reflect on these assignments and make appropriate comments on their historicity. Nicholson began his second chapter on “Literary Considerations” by restating his thesis that “against the widely accepted152 view that the material in question [the prose sections of Jeremiah] is the result of a purely literary activity on the part of Baruch or other authors or both, the possibility that other creative processes...have contributed to the prose tradition of the book of Jeremiah has been raised.”153 Such a statement fits with the nucleus of my presentation, in keeping with Carroll's insistence that the Book of Jeremiah could be read as a collection of stories Ibid., 38. In this way, Nicholson restricted the range of perceptions for study to those which seemed to fit the theological concerns of the deuteronomistic redactors, whereas the present work conscisously avoids such a restricted view. 151 Carroll, Jeremiah 70, 74, inter alia. Nevertheless my work draws inspiration from his suggestion that, to my knowledge, has not been developed by subsequent scholarship. Further support for this idea comes from Ronald E. Clements: “[with] the book of Jeremiah, it is rather jumping to conclusions to assume that the process of editing which the book displays and the supplementation of the original Jeremianic prophecies by later additions, must be ascribed to a circle of the prophet's disciples." One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 69. 152 It should be noted that, while this was the widely accepted view when Nicholson wrote, it has been called into question at least since Carroll. 153 Nicholson, Preaching, 20. 149 150

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

65

arising from different loci of interest in the exilic and post-exilic community and Albertz’s recognition (see below) that different bodies of biblical material could see the events of the exile differently owing to the differing circumstances of their historical location. Nicholson also accepted the widely held view that the prose material has a “Hebrew style and vocabulary which is closely akin to that of the Deuteronomistic corpus in Deuteronomy-2 Kings.”154 From this realization—which, as has been shown, has been virtually axiomatic within Jeremiah studies since the time of Duhm, with significant modification and refinement at the hands of able scholars such as Mownickel, Thiel155 and others—Nicholson went on to describe three main ways in which the solution to this problem has been treated. That is, according to Nicholson, there are three principal ways to account for the presence in the Book of Jeremiah of language and motifs akin to the deuteronomistic style: a) that Jeremiah himself invented the style known as deuteronomistic; b) Jeremiah borrowed from this characteristic style which was already in rather widespread use; or c) Jeremiah's disciples, who carried on the tradition of his words and shaped them for later generations, were significantly influenced by the deuteronomistic tradition. Nicholson also paid close attention to the differences between the textual traditions represented by the LXX and the MT, a point which other scholars have taken up.156 The main point to be taken from the significantly shorter length of the LXX is “that this prose material represents a tradition which evolved over a period of time and of which the LXX at least in some places very probably represents and earlier stage in its fixation in writing than the textual tradition behind the MT.”157 Late twentieth-century scholarship on Jeremiah has also come to a consensus on this point, that the material represented in the final form of Jeremiah took a rather long time to be assembled. Ibid., p. 21. Winfred Thiel, Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion des Jer 1-25; Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion des Jer 26-42 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1973, 1981). 156 Most notably Stulman and Varughese (see above). See also Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolist: Fortress, 1992). 157 Nicholson, Preaching, 27-8. 154 155

66

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Nicholson clearly had this consensus opinion in mind when he continued: In view of these considerations it may be concluded that the correct procedure in dealing with the problem of the origin of the prose sermons in Jeremiah is to accept them as having arisen out of the circumstances in which the oracles and sayings originally delivered by Jeremiah himself were transmitted and subjected to the influence of a distinctive theological tradition.158

Nicholson thus picked up on three important points in moving forward the discussion on the Book of Jeremiah—the question of deuteronomistic influence upon it, and in particular on the prose traditions. First, he stressed that the attribution of the prose tradition to Baruch or to some other writer or group of writers amenable to Jeremiah was not sufficient to explain the material. He recognized that there were other, more creative, possibilities for explaining the origin of this material. Furthermore, he understood that the affinity between the language and style of the Book of Jeremiah and the deuteronomistic history could not be denied. He suggested three different ways of viewing this dependency, and ultimately concluded that the deuteronomists had shaped pre-existing Jeremianic material,159 rather than the other way around. Finally, he took note of the wide divergence between the LXX and MT traditions and inquired after the implications this difference might have for explaining the growth of the prose traditions. He ultimately suggested that the differing textual histories and therefore different final forms were direct evidence for the growth of the prose tradition of the book of Jeremiah over a long period of time, represented by two different yet interrelated textual traditions. The third and longest of Nicholson's five chapters examined theological considerations related to the origin, growth, and development of the Jeremiah prose tradition. Nicholson asserted that

158 159

Ibid., 28 This contention is closer to Holladay’s position than Carroll’s.

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

67

If these [theological considerations] can also be identified with the theological purposes and intrests [sic] of the Deuteronomists as represented in the corpus of literature which derives from them, then we shall have a plausible solution to the problem of the provenance of the Jeremianic prose tradition.160

Of course, this leaves open the question of the degree to which one may say a given passage in the Book of Jeremiah comports with the theological outlook of the deuteronomists, or to what degree the passage must demonstrate such affinity before it can be properly termed deuteronomistic, and so forth. Such questions, however, lie as we have said, outside the scope of the present project. In sum, Nicholson was concerned to show how the material in the Book of Jeremiah, originally produced in a context prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, has been shaped in order to speak to the needs of the exilic community. The importance of this shaping, both after the first deportation of 597 BCE and after the final destruction of Jerusalem in 586, cannot be overstressed. The realization that a document such as the Book of Jeremiah could be edited in such important ways in order to demonstrate its relevancy for new situations establishes the beginnings of biblical exegesis.161 However, that the editing of the Book of Jeremiah was not so thorough as to erase the remnants of the dissenting or alternative perceptions of the exile that this dissertation is dedicated to examine indicates that these minority opinions were certainly thought by the editors of the Hebrew Bible to be important enough to preserve. Daniel Smith-Christopher Daniel L. Smith set forth in his Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile162 to establish sociological parameters for understanding the experience of exile. In particular, he focused mostly on surviving the experience of exile Nicholson, Preaching, 38. On exegetical activity demonstrated within the Bible itself, cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation. 162 Daniel L. Smith, Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile (Bloomington, Ind.: Meyer-Stone, 1989). 160 161

68

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

with one’s individual and communal identity intact. Thus he laid out “mechanisms for survival”163 by which this identity can be preserved. The important contribution of Smith’s study is the serious attention he paid to the real-world experience of exile: a good beginning point for the study of the Babylonian Exile is the construction of such an exegetically “alternative” worldview, in this case a worldview constructed from the perspective of those who have known exile. The importance of such a new view of the Babylonian Exile if we consider that the Exile is arguable the most significant biblical event that challenges the place of the Exodus event as the “foundational event of biblical history.”164

The confession of faith in Jeremiah 16:14-15; 23:7-8, with its emphasis on return, fits the bill. Although the end of the exile as such does not play a role in the Book of Jeremiah, there are several few hints in that direction. The motif of altering personal and communal self-understanding in significant ways in order to preserve identity in the face of disaster formed the major part of Smith’s work. Smith provided a paradigm for my work precisely in his construction of constructing a viewpoint of exile from the standpoint of those who have had such an experience. In particular, he provided a perspective from which to view the attempts of various groups to understand, to explain, and ultimately to survive the reality of the exile, as described by the Book of Jeremiah.165 This perspective is constituted by what he calls “mechanisms of survival” for negotiating significant events such as destruction and exile. The four “mechanisms of survival” that Smith laid out include adapting the structures of the society to conform with the present circumstances, bifurcating societal leadership, creating or embellishing identity-preserving ritual

Ibid., 10-11. Ibid., 5 (emphasis original). 165 I should make clear, however, that by the use of the word “groups” I do not suggest the existence of identifiable parties lying behind this or that perception of the exile in the book of Jeremiah. I will of course identify who holds given viewpoint throughout the course of my presentation, at least insofar as the text allows for such identification. 163 164

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

69

practice, and the creation of new hero stories, “with the hero as a new role model for the group.”166 One can see these four techniques operative in the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah advocates submission to the Babylonian authorities as the surest path to survival,167 including remaining behind in the land of Judah following Gedaliah’s assassination. This advocacy on Jeremiah’s part leads in time to a division in the leadership between Gedaliah and his supporters on the one hand and the partisans attached to Ishmael ben Nethaniah on the other (Jeremiah 41 MT).168 For embellishment of ritual practice we need look no further than that which we considered above—the alteration of the central affirmation of faith from a focus on the exodus to a focus on the return from exile. Finally, the stories of the Hebrew youths excelling in a foreign court—notably the Joseph cycle in Genesis and, some centuries later, the four friends in Daniel and Esther in Persia169—exhibit the kind of hero stories Smith, Religion of the Landless, pp. 10-11. At least the text claims that he advocates such a policy. 168 Moreover, after the assassination of Gedaliah there is further division in leadership, with Johnanan ben Kareah and his associates disagreeing with Jeremiah over the virtue of fleeing to Egypt away from an expected violent reaction of the empire to Ishmael’s violent rebellion. 169 On such stories as these, Smith wrote: 166 167

The two elements of the hero stories of exiled peoples that appear to be most consistently important are (1) the similarity of the hero’s fate to that of the community, and (2) the ability of the hero to overcome his or her circumstances armed with the “weapons” available to the community in their social circumstances (piety, cleverness, etc.). Ibid., 11. For reference to the success of the Jewish youths in the Babylonian court as reflected in the Book of Daniel, see Danna Nolan Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6 (JSOTSupp 72; Sheffield: Almond, 1988) and, more directly, Lawrence M. Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends (HDR 26; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). When the focus of the present work turns to dialogues with political leaders (chapter 6), we will have occasion to consider a kind of political acumen that the text appears to ascribe to the prophet Jeremiah, and which appears to exceed that of his contemporaries.

70

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

of which Smith made mention. Such heroes established good role models for a community redefining its own identity in a political and social context characterized by domination by a foreign power, a condition under which the Jews would live for most of the rest of the biblical period and later. Whereas Religion of the Landless provides a bridge between those works dealing with the exile “from below” and those presenting second-order historical and theological reflection, Smith-Christopher’s later work170 belongs more in the latter category. In the editor’s foreword, Walter Brueggemann maintained that Smith-Christopher’s work “has matured from his first offer of a published dissertation171 to a sophisticated proposal that will evoke the engaged attention of both scholars in the field and church practitioners.”172 Brueggemann went on to situate Smith-Christopher’s work as a moderating voice in the increasingly skeptical environment surrounding the history and extent of the exile: Smith-Christopher has addressed the difficult question of the historical status of the exile, building upon his recent, more technical scholarship. There is now a powerful skeptical opinion among some scholars, especially in Britain, concerning the deep characterization if exile reported in the Old Testament text.173 That opinion suggests that exile is largely an ideological construct designed to advance the influence and legitimacy of one segment of emerging Judaism. Against that view, SmithChristopher exhibits his powerful capacity as an historian and offers a persuasive critical case that the testimony of the text itself is to be taken seriously as an authentic witness to an historical crisis that becomes, in the text, a profound theological pivot point.174

170 Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (OBT; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2002). 171 The reference here was to Religion of the Landless. 172 Walter Brueggemann, editor’s foreword to A Biblical Theology of Exile, by Smith-Christopher, vii. 173 For an example of this skeptical stream of scholarship, see Robert P. Carroll’s article “The Myth of the Empty Land,” Semeia 59 (1992), 79-93. 174 Brueggemann, editor’s foreword, vii-viii.

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

71

Since Smith-Christopher did in fact take the biblical text as the primary datum for the events in question, his work is thus quite similar to mine. I am, however, not particularly concerned to show whether and to what extent the perceptions accord with the realities, which elude us in detail. This later work was written with the task of biblical theology in mind, and as such does not deal specifically with the Book of Jeremiah. Nevertheless, Smith-Christopher made significant reference to the Book, and thus still provides insight for my own project. It is apparent that he engaged in the kind of second-order reflection that would necessarily follow from the kind of examination I am undertaking. Smith-Christopher, by contrast, extended the discussion of what the Hebrew Bible had to say about exile into an examination of the implications these data have for biblical theology. In describing the relationship between biblical theology and historiography, Smith-Christopher wrote: It has been my impression that many contributors to the field of biblical theology often thought of themselves as engaging, at least partly, in the discipline of historiography, but that a certain discomfort with “contemporary applications” of biblical analysis led to many scholars treating biblical theology itself as an exclusively “historical” enterprise. In this narrower differences, what biblical theologians are supposed to do is draw conclusions about what the ancient Israelite writers of the Bible experienced, what they “believed,” and how they lived, particularly in relation to their religious ideas and practices. While some of these biblical theologians may have had an unstated assumption that their analysis had modern religious implications, their books in biblical theology usually stopped short of developing these interests.175

While Smith-Christopher’s work, like his earlier offering, had more interest in responses and reactions to exile than does mine, nevertheless along the way he paid significant attention to the biblical text: “the central assumption of this work…is that the specific Babylonian exile must be appreciated as both a historical human disaster and a disaster that gave rise to a variety of social

175

Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology, 2-3.

72

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

and religious responses with significant social and religious consequences.”176 Smith-Christopher correctly noted that the exilic experience and the community that was involved in it were very important for the formation of the Hebrew Bible. He wrote: today it is far more common to read the postexilic community as not only fully co-opted as faithful citizens of the Persian empire, but also to read Ezra and Nehemiah as official minions, and perhaps the entire Pentateuch as “official Persian documents,” suggesting that both the persons and their literary products were involved in willful collaboration with the state structures of Persian imperial rule.177

Smith-Christopher confessed to his having been influenced by postcolonial thought. It must be accounted significant that the explanation of the events is not at all to be found in the superior military might of the conquerors. At the same time, however, this theologically-driven resistance to the power of the state, SmithChristopher warned, is not to be understood merely as a nationalistic program: “Part of the way forward, I argue, is to regard texts associated with the Babylonian exile with the presumption of resistance, but not necessarily a resistance based on nationalist aspiration, even if this was not entirely absent.”178 As I have indicated above, Smith-Christopher cited the Book of Jeremiah extensively but did not deal with its full contents. He did deal in an extended fashion with both Ezekiel and DeuteroIsaiah, both considered by many to be located within the exilic community more directly than the Book of Jeremiah. One place where the omission of consideration of the Book of Jeremiah may have weakened his work is in Smith-Christopher’s assertion that “[i]t is the clever and wise insight of the diaspora community that their life as the people of God is far more important than the success or failure of the empire.”179 This statement ignored the contribution to the discussion of a document like that found in Jeremiah chapter 29 MT, with the famous injunction to “pray for Ibid., 6 (emphasis original). Ibid., 22-3. 178 Ibid., 24 (emphasis original). 179 Ibid., 188. 176 177

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

73

the welfare of the city, for in its welfare shall be found your welfare.” This statement demonstrated that, indeed, the fate of the people was tied up with the fate of the city, at least to a point.180 At the end of the day, a presentation like SmithChristopher’s still is very helpful for my investigation. Although I contend it would have been better had Smith-Christopher paid more attention to the Book of Jeremiah, nevertheless he has contributed a proposal for the development of an exilic biblical theology that cannot be ignored. This kind of theology appreciates the experience of exile and yet transcends it in significant ways. That is, it moves forward from the experience of exile—having experienced it—but does not leave this experience silent. Rather, it allows the experience of exile and the diasporic lifestyle to which it gives rise to inform second-wave reflection at all levels of society. Rainer Albertz Rainer Albertz’ encyclopedic work Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E.181 was the “first comprehensive presentation of the exilic period” since Ackroyd (see above).182 Albertz’s work engaged, in part, in a discussion of the different perceptions of the exile that come to light in different biblical materials. He highlighted one particularly neglected point: The astonishing aspect of this account [Jeremiah 40] is that the conquest of Jerusalem meant not simply destruction, annihilation, death, and deportation but for a portion of the population improved circumstances and for certain individuals even liberation… In short: for at least some of the Judeans under the governorship of Gedaliah, the exilic period offered a new opportunity for salvation and prosperity, albeit in return for recognizing Babylonian sovereignty.183

As will be shown, this is not the only point in the Book of Jeremiah in which a seeming support for the empire is evidenced. 181 Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. (trans. David Green; Atlanta: SBL, 2003). 182 Ibid., xi. 183 Ibid., 6. 180

74

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Albertz thus recognized that the perceptions of the exile—and for that matter, the realities of exile—are different in different texts. Albertz demonstrated this contention in a summary fashion in his first chapter. Citing relevant biblical texts, he discussed three different ways in which the exile comes to be understood.184 First, he described the exile as a “lost opportunity,”185 citing Jeremiah 39-43 (MT). The “lost opportunity” to which Albertz alluded was salvation in the face of the (coming) exilic events.186 Second, he suggested that the exile represented the (temporary) end of history,187 citing the Book of Second Kings. According to Albertz, the whole of the historical presentation seems to have been leading to the ultimate tragic end of exile, both that of the people the northern kingdom by the Assyrians and that of the people of the southern kingdom by the Babylonians. He noted that, while the Book of Jeremiah holds out at least a slim hope for restoration and life after the exile, the judgment of the Books of Kings is that this is the end to a long and sordid history: In the overall historical tradition of Genesis through Kings, the land is not simply a given; together with the Torah, it is the most significant gift of Yahweh to Israel… From the perspective of this biblical account, the deportation of the Israelites from the land to which God had brought them meant the termination of Israel’s history.188

Furthermore, Albertz noted that “[u]nlike the book of Jeremiah, the books of Kings assess the exile absolutely negatively.”189 It 184 As the present project will demonstrate, these three ways are just the beginning of the issue in terms of the divergent ways in which the exile is understood in the Bible. 185 Ibid., 4. 186 By contrast, the present project will show, particularly in chapter 5, how some persons appeared to benefit, or at lease believed themselves to be at an advantage, in the context of the exilic events. 187 The adjective “temporary” is put into parenthesis in Albertz’s text. 188 Ibid., 9. Albertz cited as textual warrant for his contention, inter alia, the quick succession of submission to the Babylonians under Jehoiachin, rebellion 189 Ibid., 8.

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

75

should be borne in mind that many people remained in exile well past 539 B.C.E., along with some who “returned,” and so the idea of exile as the end of history is a bit overstated. In spite of Albertz’s apparent diffidence, he seems to argue rather too strongly for the exile as a final end.190 We will return below to the divergences Albertz noted between the Book of Jeremiah and the Books of Kings. Albertz not only recognized that the accounts in the Book of Jeremiah and the Books of Kings diverge wildly191 from one another, but he also noted that these differences stem from the latter’s theologically-informed interpretation of the events: “Quite clearly, the vision of total deportation reflects a different theological assessment. If the exile is Yahweh’s absolute judgment on his rebellious people, it had to involve virtually the entire nation.”192 This is not to set up a false dichotomy between “objective” historical reporting and theologically-informed (or, perhaps, -biased) historical reporting.193 It is, rather, merely to concede the point that different materials within the Hebrew Bible viewed the events of the period differently, and that those differences can be traced back—with due diffidence—to different and often competing theological and historical interests. The context of this discussion in Albertz’s attempt to explain the relative lack of attention in the biblical materials specifically to

In defense of Albertz, however, he is working with the data of the Book of Second Kings, and allows his argument to be guided by the biblical text. 191 It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to re-open the question of deuteronomistic influence on Jeremiah, perhaps the most enduring point of consensus in Jeremiah scholarship since Duhm and Mowinckel. Albertz commented in another context: “The narrative tradition in Jer 39-43, with its wealth of detail, clearly stands closer to the events than the account in 2 Kgs 24-25; not to mention 2 Chr 36; it is clear that the account in Kings can be accurate only in broad detail” (Ibid., 82). Nevertheless, the differences Albertz mentioned between the Books of Kings’ and the Book of Jeremiah’s reporting of the events immediately preceding and following 587, seem to call such a relationship into question. 192 Ibid., 11. 193 See Jacques Berlinerblau, “Ideology, Pierre Bordieu’s Doxa, and the Hebrew Bible” for why such a distinction is no longer tenable. 190

76

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

the history of this period: “The differing perspectives of the biblical books suggest that…certain theological assessments of the exilic period turned it into a historical ‘black hole’ hardly worth recounting and ultimately defying description.”194 While Albertz dealt with the period of the final siege and ultimate destruction of Jerusalem in 587, I will argue later that such ideas also come into play between the deportations of 598/7 and 587/6, specific discussion of which may be found in Jeremiah chapter 29 MT (see below). The third biblical way in which, according to Albertz’s summary, the biblical materials view the exile is as a Sabbath for the land. In connection with this, he cited the Book of Second Chronicles.195 He began with the odd assertion that “[t]oday we generally date the end of the exile in the year 539, accepting the Chronicler’s conception.”196 Even though Albertz offered no justification for this claim, it does not detract much from his summary of the theological claims that the Book of Second Chronicles makes regarding why the exile came about. He wrote: “The Chronicler does not find any concrete historical information Albertz, Israel in Exile., 4. Ibid., 12. 196 Ibid., 12. It is well known, as indicated above, that a rather significant Jewish community continued in Babylonia for some time after 539. Even without this, however, dating the end of exile with the accession of Cyrus is a tricky proposition. Jon Berquist, for example, maintained that “Persian policy did not call for forced or speedy relocation; instead, it created a system of values in which relocation became an attractive option for small minorities of the population over the period of several decades.” Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 25-6. Philip R. Davies took a more caustic approach to this question that did Berquist when he wrote: 194 195

The Persians did seek to redevelop the province [Yehud] economically and culturally. To that end they transported people into Yehud… The biblical story wishes to persuade us of a mass migration of ‘Israel’ to Babylon…later returning with the original “law of Moses.” In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ (2nd ed.; JSOTSupp 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 94-5. See also Middlemas, The Templeless Age.

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

77

concerning the period of the exile worth reporting. Instead, he embeds his meager account of the exilic period in a complex of theological interpretations.”197 These include the idea that the length of the exile was prophesied by Jeremiah,198 that the exile was designed to provide a Sabbath rest for the land and that the length of the exile was set at 70 years.199 “In the Chronicler’s view,” wrote Albertz, “it is ultimately God’s word spoken through the prophets that governs history.”200 Albertz devoted his second chapter to an in-depth summary of the history of the exilic period. Noteworthy in the early pages of this chapter is his explanation of the comparably easy treatment of the prophet Jeremiah by the Babylonians, to which reference will be made later (40:1-6). Albertz summarizes his argument in the following manner: That the Neo-Babylonian kings did not lightly destroy foreign temples is clear… That said, we must remember that the Babylonians were quite familiar with Judean partisan conflicts…201 That [Nebuchadnezzar] was far from wishing to eradicate Yahwism as such is shown by his appointment of Gedaliah, a prominent member of the faction that had been trying to reform and renew Yahwism since the days of Josiah, as his governor, as well as by his offer of special protection to the prophet Jeremiah, one of its most eloquent supporters during the conquest (Jer 39:1ff.), and even a generous living in Babylon (40:4).202

Albertz, Israel in Exile, 13. Albertz here betrays a too-close identification of the conceptions that the Book of Jeremiah ascribes to the prophet with the words of the prophet himself. 199 Ibid., 13. The first and third of these owe direct allegiance to the Book of Jeremiah; the second borrows in large measure from the Book of Leviticus. 200 Ibid., p. 14. 201 On these partisan conflicts, see Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics. The contention that the Babylonians would have knowledge of, or concern for, squabbles among conquered peoples is by no means a sure one! 202 Albertz, Israel in Exile, 55-56. 197 198

78

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

When Albertz turned his gaze toward the literature of the exilic period, he included in addition to material from the latter prophets what he termed “The Exilic Patriarchal History.”203 Naturally, what concerns us here is his treatment of the Book of Jeremiah. A quick glance at this material shows that he pushed rather far the consensus to which reference was made earlier, namely deuteronomistic influence upon and editing of the Book of Jeremiah. The way he did this was to posit three separate deuteronomistic editions of the Book of Jeremiah. He assessed the state of the consensus thus: “Present-day scholarship, therefore, presents us with two more or less irreconcilable hypotheses: the model of a large-scale Deuteronomistic redaction and a variety of models based on small-scale accretions.”204 Albertz provides a helpful chart to summarize his conclusions as to which texts belong to which of the three deuteronomistic redactions posited.205 Furthermore, this chart indicated something of what I have been arguing, namely that the Book of Jeremiah probably at least began to be assembled during the neoBabylonian period or perhaps into the Persian period. We may now summarize Albertz’s contentions regarding the deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah. He suggested that not only does the Book of Jeremiah evidence the most extensive deuteronomistic redaction,206 but also that it is here that the identity of the deuteronomists is made most plain. He wrote:

Ibid., 246ff. Ibid., 304. He went on to suggest that the difficulty “is related to the bewildering variety of texts within the book of Jeremiah” (Ibid.). The way forward, I believe, is to examine the variety of texts without making first recourse to deuteronomistic redaction, either on a small or a large scale. However, in that the dominant perceptions of the exilic events in the book of Jeremiah more than likely reflect the (or a) perspective of the deuteronomists, the question of deuteronomistically-influenced editing will also be addressed below. 205 Ibid., 321. Albertz dates his JerD1 to c. 550 B.C.E.; JerD2 to 545540; and JerD3 to 525-520 (i.e., into the Persian period and during the beginning stages of the Temple’s reconstruction). Late- and postdeuteronomistic additions continued to adhere until the third century BCE. 206 Ibid., 303. 203 204

FRAMING THE DIALOGUES

79

In contrast to other biblical authors, it is comparatively simple to identify the Deuteronomistic redactors of the book of Jeremiah and their social milieu, since they have given us in their book a literary memorial of the political faction to which they belonged. Many of the deuteronomistically presented episodes and all the Jeremiah narratives take aim at the coalition of religious nationalists who, appealing to Zion theology (Jer 7:4), espoused the inviolability of Jerusalem and expected and imminent reversal of the capitulation of 597 (28:2-4) and, to the bitter end, miraculous deliverance from God (21:2; 37:3-11).207

The works considered in this chapter constitute only a very selective part of the available scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah—and some of these works do not deal with the Book of Jeremiah in any significant way. Nevertheless, this collection is illustrative of recent scholarship as regards understanding the exile. First, while the general trend of scholarly work has moved away from the search for the ipsissima verba of the prophet, the general tendency has still been to pay more attention to the dominant perspective attributed by the Book to the prophet or to God, to the end that alternative perspectives are not considered, or are considered only as aberrations. Second, the developing consensus that the final form of the Book of Jeremiah comes from a much later time208 can tend toward divorcing the perceptions of the exile from the experience of the exile, as well as the clear textual divergences between the LXX and the MT. Finally, these disparate materials are rather indicative of a document or collection that at least began to be assembled shortly after the events related, and that sought to preserve some of the range of available options for understanding the events of the Ibid., 325. Thus Robert Carroll: “The different cycles of material in the book reflect distinctive interests and these may be identified with various social circles active after the fall of Jerusalem and during the Persian period.” Jeremiah, 70. Stulman seems to argue for a closer connection between the Book of Jeremiah and the events of the Babylonian period: “the threatened social world of the Jewish community in Babylon, for which Jeremiah was first written, is always in the purview of the reader… The book grows out of concrete social realities… To ‘disincarnate’ Jeremiah from them runs the risk of ‘spiritualizing’ the book, which violates the prophetic genre itself.” Jeremiah, 10 (emphasis original). 207 208

80

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

early 6th century B.C.E. Such consensus points must always remain tentative, but they point to some possibilities of moving forward by examining the whole Book of Jeremiah.

2 DIALOGUES WITH GOD

Socrates’ drawing out of Cephalus’ opinion about justice and his subsequent refutation of it constitute the first step of a kind of ‘collection of opinions’ that will continue to the end of Book I [of the Republic]. Such collecting involves, in general, rendering explicit and examining the opinions which otherwise remain with all their directive force just beneath the surface. Examining them takes especially the form of letting them collide with one another in such a way as to bring the respective inadequacies, or at least their points of conflict, into view. The most striking result of such discipline is the arrival at a realization of one’s own ignorance… But this is not the only result: the collision of opinions also can serve to purify them, to set free whatever limited grasp of truth is present in them.1

My attention falls first to the dialogue between the various perceptions ascribed to Yahweh. I am concered with gaining a sense of the options advanced in the 6th century2 for understanding the exile. As suggested above, the ascription of a given perception to Yahweh or to Jeremiah served to give it more forcefulness in the ongoing conversation than if it had been ascribed to a “minor” player. That is, whoever did the ascribing may well have wanted to give more strength to a personal or group opinion. Sallis, however, cautioned that to “read a dialogue thoughtfully and carefully does not mean to ferret out the opinions of which the dialogue would be the expression but rather to make explicit what the dialogue makes manifest regarding the matters which it puts at issue.”3 This method moves beyond Sallis, Being and Logos, 328. This does not imply that some of the perceptions could be much later editorial additions. On the contrary, as my predominant reading strategy is synchronic, questions of relative dating are unimportant. I am concerned only for the dating of the Book as it claims for itself, namely between 627 and 560 B.C.E. 3 Ibid., 3. 1 2

81

82

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

questions of historical attribution in significant ways. Further, it is in line with Sallis’ use of the dialogues of Plato. He wrote that establishing limits with regard to dialogue is a most arbitrary question: it can never be a matter of simple determination of the limit, of a limit that would be simply determined in advance, pregiven as that within which one is to place oneself and to remain. For the very determination, the very placing and holding of oneself within the limit, cannot but broach a transgression and a displacement.4

As argued above, when the Book ascribes a given perception to Jeremiah it almost always makes him agree with the perceptions ascribed to Yahweh, such that Jeremiah’s perceptions generally do not warrant separate treatment. Yet, within these perceptions are genuine dialogues in which Jeremiah does engage from time to time, and these are the more important things to consider when inquiring after what “Jeremiah” thought about the exile. Mary Chilton Callaway recognized a possible implication of the wide variety of perceptions ascribed to Jeremiah: The complexity of the figure of Jeremiah in the biblical book is at least in part a result of the various groups responsible for preserving the prophet’s words and vying to shape the his life into a story compatible with their own. That no one succeeded fully, so that the ‘historical’ Jeremiah has eluded the grasp of readers from the very beginning, is a testimony to the vigorous interpretative activity that characterized the formation of the book of Jeremiah. The process of shaping the prophet into a figure who resembles his readers was already deeply inscribed on the biblical text itself.5

In other words, in the perceptions of the exile as punishment—the most frequently encountered perception in the Book—the limits between Yahweh’s speeches and Jeremiah’s speeches are difficult to determine. It may well be that such differentiation is ultimately of little significance, for the theological thrust of the Book is that Jeremiah, by and large, speaks for Yahweh. For that matter, the limits of “what Jeremiah thinks” or “what Yahweh says” are themselves arbitrary, owing to the principal problem noted by interpreters of Jeremiah past and present, namely the obvious differences and distinctions in the sayings. A tendency of twentieth-century Ibid., xv. Mary Chilton Callaway, “The Lamenting Prophet and the Modern Self: On the Origins of Contemporary Readings of Jeremiah,” in Inspired Speech, 50. 4 5

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

83

scholarship, as we have discussed, has been to accept this dominant perspective as the “right” perspective, and the alternative perceptions presented as aberrations or as foils to the main argument. Sallis sounded a similar caution with regard to Platonic thought: “What is of utmost importance here is that we let the exhibition unfold instead of invoking those answers which we all too easily gather up from post-Platonic thought and with which we almost inevitably cover up what is genuinely questionable in the questions which Socrates has posed.”6 How such “postJeremianic” thoughts might affect, or infect, interpretation comes down to a simple yet indispensable point. In the 6th century, several things assumed by the Book of Jeremiah were not at all clear to the populace at large, namely, that: the Babylonian invasion was the judgment of Yahweh; that specific sins such as idolatry or apostasy had been what angered Yahweh so; that the deportations would last as long as they did; that reliance on Egypt was a misguided strategy; and so on. As the investigation of the dialogues proceeds, opportunity will present itself to explore these and many other options coming to expression in the dialogues. Throughout this investigation, I will follow the MT order of the texts.7 The dialogue among perceptions ascribed to Yahweh will be organized according to general theme. While, as might be expected, there is significant agreement among these perceptions, significant variations can also be found. It is these variations that form the heart of the present study.

PUNISHMENT FOR ABANDONING YAHWEH TO SERVE OTHER GODS The accusation that the people have abandoned Yahweh to serve other gods is one of the central claims of the Book of Jeremiah. Various statements ascribed to Yahweh—and some ascribed to the prophet in the context of oracles—speak to several aspects of this claim. The reader should keep in mind, however, that it is not at all clear that the targets of the prophetic critique had in fact abandoned Yahweh in the time of Ibid., 215. This choice does not imply any sense of superiority of the MT to the LXX. Furthermore, where the MT and LXX recensions differ, this will be noted as further evidence of the variety of the differing perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah. Throughout the balance of this work, biblical references with numbers only refer to the MT of Jeremiah. References to the LXX translation will appear as, e.g, 25:14LXX. References to other biblical books will be cited with the Book title. 6 7

84

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

national crisis. In fact, the opposite is more likely to be the case. Though some may have indeed left the Yahweh cult because of Yahweh’s failure to deliver the people, most probably had not.8 Again, however, the “Yahwehalone party” (Morton Smith) was convinced that Yahweh could only be properly worshiped in a certain way—that is, exclusively—whereas the predominant mode of popular religion in Judah was likely some form of syncretism.9 Idolaters are Ashamed: 2:26-2810 The first text for consideration compares the shame of the house of Israel in its idolatry to the shame of a thief caught in the act. 2:26-28 (26) Like a thief who is embarrassed when he is caught, thus the house of Israel is embarrassed: they, their kings, and their officials, their priests and their prophets, (27) saying to a tree, “You are my father!” and to a stone, “You are my mother!” To me they turned their backs, and not their faces, but when evil came upon them they cried, “Arise and save us!” (28) Now, where are the gods that you have made for yourselves? Have they risen up and saved you when evil came upon you?

For as numerous as your cities are your gods, O Judah!11 8 For some examples of scholarly opinion that certain groups had indeed left Yahweh to worship others, see the dialogue between Jeremiah and the devotees of the Queen of Heaven (chapter 3). It will be shown there, however, that this opinion is founded upon the erroneous definintion of polytheism as “serial monolatry.” 9 With regard to the Deuteronomists’ call to return to Yahweh Hans Walter Wolff suggested: “The non-cultic character of the return is noteworthy. The passionate concern for warding off the foreign cults shows no corresponding positive interest in carrying out certain Yahweh rituals. This is especially true of the Jerusalem Temple.” Hans Walter Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work,” in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, 98; repr. from ZAW 73 (1961) 171-86. 10 All translations are the author’s unless otherwise noted. 11 LXX plus: “and they have sacrificed to Baal as many times as there are streets in Jerusalem.”

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

85

Demanding attention first is the idea that can be seen elsewhere (e.g., 11:13), that the Judeans are accused of having just as many gods as they do cities. Parke-Taylor suggested, that 2:28 is the primary text in the doublet with 11:13.12 The contribution of this passage to the understanding of perceptions of the exile has to do, not with the character of the language used (perhaps having to do with a lawsuit), but rather with the specific idea that the people of Israel/Judah are/should be embarrassed because of their forays into theological infidelity. Comparison between the Gods: 10:11-16 The next text to be considered is tied with to the language from 2:26-28 by the idea of the sinner being embarrassed by sin. 10:11-16 (11) Thus you shall say to them: “Let the gods, who did not make heaven and earth, perish from the earth and from under heaven.” (12) The one who made the earth by his power, established the world by his wisdom, and stretched out the heavens by his thought. (13) When he makes his voice heard, there is a rumbling of water in the skies; he makes smoke rise up from the ends of the earth, he makes lightning for the rain, and brings forth wind from his storehouses. (14) Everyone is shown to be stupid, lacking knowledge. All the goldsmiths are ashamed because of their idols, because the things they have made are deceitful— they have no breath in them. (15) They are a fantasy, a figment of imagination; in the time of their doom they will be destroyed. (16) The Portion of Jacob is unlike these; for he is the one who made all things. And Israel is his very own tribe; Yahweh Tseba’oth is his name.

The new aspect of this motif of theological error that the present passage contributes is the contrast of the idols made by human hands to Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases, (SBLMS 51; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 186. 12

86

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Yahweh, the God who made the heavens and the earth. This passage thus demonstrates a connection with the anti-idolatry polemics found in Deutero-Isaiah. Expounding on a doublet between this passage and 51:1519, Parke-Taylor wrote: “The most probable conclusion is that the passage 10:12-16 was composed by an author who stood in the Jeremianic tradition, but was acquainted with the DI polemic against idolatry and with Psalms praising Yahweh as the creator of the world, controlling winds and waves.”13 The only differences between the MT and the LXX are the fuller divine name in the last verse of the MT and the plus in MT of “When he makes his voice heard” in v. 13. In both recensions, the central point is made that the idols are worthless in comparison to Yahweh. While there is not a specific accusation made against the people here, this text offers ideological background for the dominant view. The intimation is that with the removal of the false gods the people might turn to Yahweh and the devastation of the land might be avoided. Though, as noted, it was not at all clear that the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem were at the behest of Yahweh, this is in fact the dominant view of Jeremiah. According to this view, Yahweh punished the people for their failure to live up to the Mosaic covenant precisely through all of these things that were taking place in the land.14 This was therefore an alternative strategy for dealing with the cognitive dissonance resulting from what was happening.15 For later reconstruction it is important to note that this view was written down, a key principle for considering what alternatives might have existed for persons in the past. Historian Niall Ferguson suggested that when considering counterfactuals in history, there must be an operative principle guiding what alternatives ancient people might have had: “How exactly are we to distinguish probable unrealised alternatives from improbable ones?... The answer to the question is in fact very simple: We should consider as plausible or probable only those alternatives which we can show on the basis of contemporary evidence that contemporaries actually 13 Parke-Taylor, Formation¸ 180. For an expanded treatment of the antiidolatry polemics within the biblical prophets in general and DI in particular, see Michael B. Dick, Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999). 14 A wonderful alternative to this can be found in the perceptions of the Queen of Heaven’s devotees. 15 The term “cognitive dissonance” is the legacy of Leon Festinger. For the application of cognitive dissonance theory to prophetic study, see Robert P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Congitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament (New York: Seabury, 1979).

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

87

considered.”16 An important corollary to this idea is that “we can only consider those hypothetical scenarios which contemporaries not only considered, but also committed to paper (or some other form of record) which has survived—and which has been identified as a valid source by historians.”17 Sallis is once again helpful: “In examining these [answers given to a particular question] it is imperative that we should avoid assuming in advance that we know in general what constitutes an appropriate answer to this kind of question.”18 Contemporary readers of Jeremiah more or less agree, if not with the dominant view, at least that the dominant view is a valid opinion. Facile, “literal” readings of the text, and even some of the older historical criticism—which often tore down “literal” readings—tend to adopt the dominant perspective as the only correct interpretation of the events. This is probably so because of the enduring cultural significance of the Bible in Western society. Yet it is helpful to realize that the dominant view of Jeremiah is but one of several options, and that even within the dominant view there is significant variation, if not outright separation. Louis Stulman indicated how this dominant view made sense of the disastrous situation: The dominant voice in the book of Jeremiah maintains that Judah is to blame for its troubles, that life is not spiraling out of Yahweh’s control, and that the world is by and large orderly and morally manageable. Although the prose sermons in Jeremiah do not hold a monopoly on these claims, they articulate them most forcefully while organizing a range of poetic and prose texts that make similar and counter assertions.19

PERCEPTIONS OF DEVASTATION The texts making up this sub-section have do to in a more specific way with the devastation of the land that follows on the people’s sinfulness, according to the dominant view. This is another aspect of what we considered above as to the perceptions concerning the people having followed after other gods. Niall Ferguson, “Virtual History: Towards a ‘Chaotic’ Theory of the Past,”’ in Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (ed. Niall Ferguson; New York: Basic Books, 1999), 86 [emphasis original]. 17 Ibid., 87 18 Sallis, Being and Logos, 65. 19 Stulman, “Polyphonic Response,” 305. 16

88

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Creation Undone: 4:18-31 The first example of these perceptions is the well-known poem describing the unraveling of the very fabric of creation. This adds to the dominant idea in that not only is the promised land to be taken away from the people and the people themselves made to serve their enemies in a foreign land, but the creation itself is reversed in a most devastating way. “The extreme images” in this text, wrote Walter Brueggemann, “all point to the stunning assertion that death is coming in Jerusalem soon. The metaphors are to be understood with powerful concreteness, yet they all point beyond themselves to this overriding fact of the historical crisis of Jerusalem.”20 4:18-31 (18) Your ways and your deeds have brought these things upon you. This is your bitter punishment, for you have pierced your own heart. (19) How long, how long, will the walls of my heart tremble? Why is my heart agitating within me, without any rest? For my spirit has heard the sound of the war-horn and the sound of war! (20) Crash upon crash is sounded and the whole land is devastated! Suddenly my tents were destroyed, my dwellings disturbed. (21) How long will I have to look at the regiment flags and hear the sound of the war-horn? (22) For my people are foolish; they do not know me. Foolish children they are, failing to understand. They are skilled in evil but ignorant of good. (23) I looked at the land, and see! It was desolate void! and at the heavens, and they were not lit up! (24) I looked at the mountains, and see! They were quaking! and all the hills shook themselves. 20

Bruggemann, Jeremiah, 57.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

89

(25) I looked, and see! There were no humans, and all the birds of the air had flown away! (26) I looked, and see! The Garden of God was a desert! and all the cities were overthrown because of Yahweh—because of his fierce anger! (27) For thus says Yahweh: The whole land shall be devastated But I will not bring an end to it. (28) Because of this the land shall weep and the skies will be darkened because of this. For I have stated my intention and I will not relent from it or turn back from it. (29) From the sound of cavalry and archers all the city is taking flight. There are going into the bush and up into the rocky hills. All the cities have been forsaken and there is not a single inhabitant remaining in them. (30) Indeed, you have been devastated because you clothed yourselves with scarlet, because you have decked yourselves with gold. You have made your eyes bigger with makeup and beautified yourself for vanity. Those who lusted after you, who sought your soul, have rejected you. (31) Then I heard a sound like one writhing with birth-pangs, a roaring like one giving birth for the first time— the voice of Daughter Zion crying out, her face all contorted: “Woe is me! For darkness surrounds me and my life is in peril!”

This text is one of the primary pieces of evidence in support of the claim made above that the perceptions ascribed to Yahweh and to Jeremiah ultimately do not warrant separate treatment. It is here that the present work diverges from the influential methodology of Sallis, mainly due to the nature of our respective material:

90

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH In the dialogues philosophical activity is presented in the person of Socrates; and in most, if not all, of the dialogues in which this is not obviously the case the activity and speakers are, nonetheless, to be understood in relation to Socrates… Either directly or indirectly the presentation of philosophical activity is accomplished is mostly, if not entirely, a presentation of Socrates’ practice.21

While it is true that genuine prophetic activity—by which is meant the activity of a prophet authentically sent by Yahweh in contrast to those whom the LXX calls “false prophets”—is presented in the person of Jeremiah, throughout the perceptions of the exile Jeremiah seems never to speak on his own authority. Socrates, however, does precisely this in the Platonic dialogues, though this may be another example of desiring the words of the author or a group of contributors (Plato?) to have a more authoritative character. Sallis seemed to recognize this when he noted, in a statement that could surely also be applied to Jeremiah: “Most of what we learn about Socrates we learn from what he says or from what others say about him. It is primarily through the presentation of Sotratic logoi and of the other logoi connected with or provoked by Socratic logoi that philosophy itself is presented in the dialogues.”22 Robert Carroll correctly noted that “[n]othing in the text indicates who the speaker might be, and the redactional framework of 1.1 (‘the words of Jeremiah’) can hardly be extended to the point where it must necessarily provide reliable information about the original meaning of the individual poems in the collection.” 23 Were these perceptions considered separately, however, one would not expect that those attributed to Jeremiah to disagree with those attributed to Yahweh. Especially if, as we have seen, the Book of Jeremiah is heavily influenced by the deuteronomistic worldview, then agreement between the prophet and the deity is something to be sought after and demonstrated. Regardless of the identity of the speaker, however, “the poem should be understood as an expression of the community’s disturbance and disintegration under the onslaught of the enemy from the north.”24 Brueggemann concurred with this assessment: We may ask about the function of this dangerous poem. We must stress that it is a poem. It is not a blueprint for the future. It is not a prediction. Sallis, Being and Logos, 7. Ibid., 9. 23 Carroll, Jeremiah, 167. 24 Ibid. 21 22

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

91

It is not an act of theology that seeks to scare into repentance. It is rather, a rhetorical attempt to engage this numbed, unaware community in an imaginative embrace of what is happening. The world is becoming unglued. The poet has the awesome burden of helping his people sense that their presumed world is in jeopardy, because God’s holy patience is fully ended.25

There are some minor differences between the MT and the LXX in this text. Verse 22LXX has “the princes of my people” for MT’s “my people.” MT has a plus in v. 23a, an accusation that the people are “stupid.” The text as a whole holds great promise for inner-biblical exegesis. Michael Fishbane commented on the reversal of creation motif, indicating that “the rhetoric of Jer. 4:23-6 underscored the anticipated destruction of the created world by referring to a known creation account… Gen. 1 has been freely reused for new stylistic and rhetorical purposes.”26 The reversal of creation brings an entirely new and much more serious dimension to the judgment on the people’s sinfulness. The only mitigation of this judgment comes in v. 27 with the phrase “I will not make a full end of it.” This phrase is used several times in the Book of Jeremiah, particularly in the OAN. The final major part of the text has to do with a judgment on the nation personified as a woman. It will do no good, according to this text, to make oneself pretty for the lovers, because they have all rejected Israel. This is a statement about the unreliability of political alliances. A development upon this theme can be found in the discussions following the assassination of Gedliah and the desire to go to Egypt to flee the supposed exacerbated wrath of the Babylonians. Pluck Israel Clean: 6:9-15, 22-30 An interesting point of the following text is the invocation of the name “Israel,” over against Jeremiah’s Judah. A similar idea will be seen in the lone citation from the OAN, the vision of Israel and Judah being reunited (50:4-10; chapter 6). I contend that possibilties for postcolonial readings abound in texts like this. Moreover, basic assertion of the dominant view that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was the doing of Yahweh—even if such a view did not win general acceptance—is itself a postcolonial move. For the moment, however, this text concerns the

25 26

Bruggemann, Jeremiah¸61. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 321.

92

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

inability or unwillingness (and there is an ever-so-subtle distinction between the two) of the people to hear and the despair that flows from it. 6:9-15, 22-30 (9) For thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth: Pluck the remnant of Israel completely clean like a vine. Pass your hand again, like a vintager, over its branches. (10) Against whom have I spoken and borne witness, that it might be heard? Their ears are blocked, so they cannot pay attention. Look! the word of Yahweh has become for them an object of scorn; they will not take delight in it. (11) But I am filled with the wrath of Yahweh; I cannot hold it in any longer, pouring it upon their children in the streets, and the company of youths gathered together. For the men and the women shall be seized, the old and very aged. (12) Their houses shall pass to others, their fields and wives as well, for I will stretch out my hand against the inhabitants of the land—Oracle of Yahweh. (13) For from the small to the great, all of them are hell-bent on gain, and from the prophets to the priests, all of them deal falsely. (14) They offer to treat the wounds of my people contemptuously, saying, “Peace! Peace!” when there is no peace. (15) They are put to shame because they commit abominations, but even though they are shamed they feel no shame; even though they are corrupted they do not realize it. Therefore they fall among the fallen. In the time of their punishment they stagger—says Yahweh… (22) Thus says Yahweh: See! People have come from the north-land, and a great nation from the furthest parts of the earth. (23) They take up bow and javelin. They will be cruel and unmerciful. Their voices will roar like the sea.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

93

They ride on horses, arrayed against you like warriors, O Zion! (24) We have heard the report of them! Our hands fail, pain seizes us, like a woman in labor. (25) Do not go out to the field or walk on the road! For the sword of your enemies is there— terror all around! (26) My poor people, put on sackcloth and cover your heads with dust. Mourn, as for an only child; wail bitterly, for the destroyer is soon coming upon us. (27) A refiner of my people have I made you— A tester— You are to note and test their ways. (28) They are copper and iron. They are steadfast and defiant. They deal basely, All of them act improperly. (29) The bellows puff; the lead is consumed by fire. The smelter smelts to no effect; the dross is not burned off. (30) They are called, “Rejected Silver,” for Yahweh has rejected them.

The most striking differences between the MT and the LXX of this passage concern, first, the identity of the speaker in v. 11. LXX indicates clearly that Yahweh is speaking, Kai ton qumon mou e0plhsa ‘I have allowed my wrath to become full,’ whereas an unidentified speaker in the MT recension—possibly the prophet Jeremiah, though it need not be so—says ‫‘ ואת המת יהוה מלאתי‬but I am filled with the wrath of Yahweh.’ Second, the LXX has a fuller form of the critique of the priests and prophets in v. 13. Aside from seemingly inverting the word order (i.e., ‘prophet and priest’ to ‘priest and prophet’), the LXX makes explicit what is implicit in MT through the use of the term yeudoprfhthj ‘false prophet.’ Finally, both the subject and the object of the verbs are changed in vv. 27-28. Whereas MT suggests that Jeremiah—or, more properly, the unnamed recipient of

94

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

the message—has been made one who tests the people, according to LXX the recipient of the message has been tested, with the stipulation that such a person will know the identity of the one who does the testing (that is, God) when once it has been completed. The different versions of this text yield profound insight into the perceptions of the exile. In LXX the recipient of the message takes on a somewhat passive role, and in MT the recipient takes on an active role, commanded by Yahweh to communicate the message that has been given. The idea that the people’s ears are stopped up and their hearts unclear so as to prevent deep assimilation of the message recalls the statement in Isaiah 6:9-10, and thus puts the Book of Jeremiah again within the deuteronomistic worldview. According to this mindset, not only do the people refuse to hear the word of Yahweh and repent of their sins, but indeed their sin is so great that they cannot turn away from it and act in a manner consistent with the covenant stipulations. In addition to Isaiah 6:910, Holladay made a further suggestion with regard to linkages between this passage in Jeremiah and the Isaianic corpus: An excellent parallel is Isa 17:4-6, a passage doubtless genuine to Isaiah: the reaping (v 5) is a judgment on Israel (v 4), and the gleanings (v 6) represents [sic] a small remnant. So here: the gleaning process represents, as one would say, a “mopping-up operation” upon a people already previously punished. The whole passage is negative in direction, and Jrm’s question in v 10 is rhetorical in the same was as the diction of 5:1 was; one notes the negative implication of ‫ל־מ ִ י‬a “against ַ‫ﬠ‬ whom?”27

The statements in vv. 12-15 that the fields and houses of the people will be given over to spoil, along with the indictment of the people for pursuing ill-gotten gain and the prophets and the priests for dealing in falsehood, are duplicated in 8:10-12.28 Interestingly enough, fields and houses are indeed given over to some of the poorest of the land at the behest of Nebuchadrezzar (see 39:10). Parke-Taylor commented on this doublet:

Hollladay, Jeremiah 1, 213. The particular accusation in vv. 13-15 involving social sins is embodied further in 34:13-22. The specific infraction dealt with in that latter passage has to do with the tendency of those in power to renege on their promises of allowing slaves to go free, as the law commanded them to do. 27 28

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

95

To define the relationship between 6:13-15 and 8:10b-12 is difficult in view of the differences in text and orthography, the fact that 8:10b-12 is missing in the LXX, and the question as to whether Yahweh or the prophet is the speaker… The fact that 8:10b-12 is missing in the LXX indicates that these verses were not present in the Hebrew Vorlage. This is a preferable explanation, rather than the assumption that the double was consciously omitted by the translators.29

According to the perspective represented by this text, all the people— leaders and followers, small and great—have failed in their respective responsibilities and therefore no one will be spared the wrath that is to come (see also 5:1-5). It cannot be overstressed that this is but one particular perspective, and one that cannot be ascribed to a specific person or group of people, even though it may have certain affinities with what has become known as the deuteronomistic perspective. The difficulty with ascribing statements such as this to the deuteronomists is one of nuance. The deuteronomistic perspective, as I will argue, is neither monolithic nor unique, though it is undoubtedly pervasive in the Bible and particularly in Jeremiah. The segment 6:22-30 is illustrative of the Enemy from the North motif, as also found in the opening visions of the Book. Here it serves to document the ferocity of the invading armies of the empire. The army will be so ferocious that the people will not be able to expect any mercy. This will tie in later to the idea that resistance to the foreign armies is surely the way that leads to death, whereas submitting to their authority is the way to survive. This is a word that, indeed, will not be received with gladness (cf. 6:10). On the rhetorical composition of this passage, Lundbom wrote: The present poem is widely—though not universally—read as a dialogue between Yahweh and Jeremiah… A better reading is one that divides the poem equally, attributing vv 27-28 to Yahweh and vv 29-30 to Jeremiah. This has Yahweh giving an initial assessment of things in v 28, which is what happens in 5:1-2 and Ezek 22:17-18, the two passages most often cited in connection with the present one. It also explains why a testing is called for in the first place. If Jeremiah is taken to be the speaker in v 28,

29 Parke-Taylor, Formation, 95, 97. Holladay agreed with Parke-Taylor and suggested that a “variant form of vv 12-15 appears in 8:10-12, but those verses are missing in chapter 8 of G [i.e., LXX] and must be judged a secondary variant.” Jeremiah 1, 215.

96

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH then he would be judging the people twice, once before the testing (v 28) and once after (v 30).30

On the imagery of the prophet Jeremiah being sent to test the people for their worthiness, a point that reinforces the picture of seemingly irredeemable sinfulness, McKane’s comments are helpful. He wrote: “The smelting imagery in vv. 29-30 has…not asserted that there is no silver, but only that the separation of the silver from the base elements cannot be achieved and that the verdict passed by the assayer on Judah will be ‘Reject Silver—’ silver incapable of refinement.” 31 Thus the clear perception is that Judah’s sinfulness cannot be turned back. The effects of this disastrous condition are, in part, described in next text. Personal Tragedy Resulting from Sin: 16:1-15 The perception ascribed to Yahweh that Jeremiah should not marry or have children in chapter 16 brings a personal note of personal tragedy into the description of the corporate tragedy about to come upon the land. This command is given alongside a declaration that the devastation of the land is to have significant consequences for the society as well. 16:1-15 (1) The word of Yahweh came to me: (2) Do not take a wife for yourself, and do not have sons and daughters in this place. (3) For thus says Yahweh concerning the sons and the daughters that are born in this place, and the mothers who bear them, and the fathers who father them in this land: (4) they will die of deadly diseases. They shall not be mourned nor buried, and they will be like dung on the face of the ground. Sword and famine and the birds of the air will consume them and the beasts of the earth will eat their corpses. (5) Thus says Yahweh: Do not go into a house of mourning, do not lament for or console them, for I have removed my favor, my covenant faithfulness, and my mercy from this people—Oracle of Yahweh. (6) Both great and small will die in this land, and they will not be buried, and no one will mourn for them or bewail them or cry for them. (7) They shall not break bread for a mourner 30 31

Lundbom, Jeremiah, 1:447. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:154.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

97

to comfort him for a loss, nor offer him a cup of bereavement for the loss of a father or mother. (8) Nor shall you enter a house of feasting, to sit with them to eat and drink. (9) For thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Israel: Look! I have going to remove from this place, from before your eyes, the sound of mirth and gladness, the voice of bridegroom and bride. (10) So when you declare to this people all these things, if they say to you, “Why has Yahweh brought this great evil upon is? What is our iniquity and what is our sin that we have sinned against Yahweh our God?” (11) you shall say to them, “It is because your ancestors abandoned me—Oracle of Yahweh—and went after other gods and served them and worshiped them. But as for me, they have abandoned my Torah and have not kept it.” (12) But you have done even worse than your ancestors, each one stubbornly following after one’s own evil heart, so as to refuse to listen to me. (13) I will cast you out of this land and into a land that you do not know—you and your families—and there you will serve the other gods day and night, and I will not give you any respite (14) Therefore the days are coming—Oracle of Yahweh—when they shall no longer say, “As Yahweh lives who brought up the Israelites from the land of Egypt,” (15) but rather “As Yahweh lives who brought up the Israelites from the land of the north and from all the lands to which he had banished them.” And he shall return them to their land that he gave to their ancestors.

Uncharacteristic of the relationship between LXX and MT, the Greek recension represents a different text with a fuller identification of God. The LXX has “Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel,” in v. 1 whereas MT merely reads, “The word of Yahweh came to me.” The content of the message is revealing. The prophet is here commanded to leave off all concern for his future and for the people. A more extreme form of the same command can be found in 9:1-5. The prophet is not to intercede on the people’s behalf, for such pleas will go unheeded by the deity. Indeed, all hope for the land seems to be lost, and all sounds of joy and gladness have been removed from the land. This stands in marked contrast to the final two verses of the passage, which presage to a certain degree the restoration from the various places of exile in rather unexpected ways, namely, that the restoration from exile will become in later days even more important in the collective memory of the people than the earlier defining act of divine deliverance on their behalf, the exodus from Egypt. The primary theme developed in this section comes to expression again in v. 11. Yet there is an added stipulation. Not only is it maintained

98

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

here that the ancestors of the people have gone after other gods to serve them—symptomatic of their having abandoned Yahweh’s Torah—but also it is suggested that the present generation has done even greater evil by following after the ancestors’ example. This text thus can be profitably read against, on the one hand, the oracle in ch. 3 comparing the sins of Apostate Israel and Treacherous Judah (3:6-11),32 and, on the other hand, with the deuteronomistic ideology with which this dominant perspective in the Book of Jeremiah seems so closely aligned. A further development on the theme comes in v. 12. This verse proclaims that, as a judgment on the people’s sins in serving other gods—which the present generation pushed to an even greater degree than their ancestors—the people will be thrust out of their land into a land their have not known, and there they will serve other gods day and night. Whereas the people had chosen to serve the other gods in defiance of their covenant relationship, now, according to this text, they will be forced to serve other gods in an unknown land, because they will have been removed from their own promised place of habitation. Stulman highlighted the contrast rather well when he wrote: “Because of the depth of its sin, the nation’s destiny is all but certain. Its culture will not survive (16:1-13). While one can discern isolated voices of hope (e.g., 16:14-15), these faint echoes are again submerged beneath an ocean of despair. Disobedience and divine judgment thus unify these chapters [1617].”33 He went on to comment on the shocking nature of the command of Yahweh that Jeremiah not marry or have children thus: “celibacy and childlessness express more than the cessation of conventional social interaction. They represent a fundamental reversal of the natural order of life.”34 Carroll, however, cautions against a too-literal reading of this text as a statement regarding the marital status of Jeremiah the prophet. He wrote: The editing of 16.1-9 may in its final form be moving in the direction of making a statement about the life of its protagonist, but it has not transformed the rest of the material into a consistent account of this motif. It is therefore a better reading of the text as it now stands to interpret it as a series of statements addressed to the community rather than an autobiographical account of the marital status of Jeremiah.35

32 See also the allegory of the sisters Oholah (=Israel) and Oholibah (=Judah) in Ezekiel 23. 33 Stulman, Jeremiah, 158. 34 Ibid., 161. 35 Carroll, Jeremiah, 341.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

99

In any case, Jeremiah’s purported singleness fits well with the notion of exile as punishment.36 The new confession of faith in 16:14-15 will be dealt with later in the dialogues with the (re-) constituted community (chapter 7). Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, believing the instruction to be secondary, suggested that “[i]t was inserted here to soften the threat.”37 Carroll went further, saying “the force of v. 13 is nullified by the belief that there would be a return from exile at some future time.”38 But rather than suggesting that the destructive or punitive viewpoint of v. 13 is invalidated by the announcement that the exile will end, I would suggest that the two ideas have been placed side by side in order to indicate the reality that exile could in fact be viewed in different ways—and even by the same person or group of people—namely as both ending and unending, hopeful and hopeless. It is, however, again, the hopelessness characteristic of certain perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah that is the focus of the final text under consideration, as Yahweh again accuses the people of having abandoned their god to serve other gods. Indelibility of the People’s Sinfulness: 17:1-4 In addition, many texts dealing with this motif include also the idea that these sins are indelible. An example of this can be found in the following: 17:1-4 (1) The sins of Judah are written down with an iron pen with a sharp stylus they are engraved on the tablet of their heart and on the horns of their altars, (2) while their children memorialize their altars and their sacred poles alongside green trees upon high hills, 36 A parallel text containing a perception of personal tragedy for the prophet Jeremiah can be found in chapter 20. On that chapter, Edward Greenstein wrote: “Jeremiah calls the day of his birth accursed. This may mean that he is cursing the day; but it may rather mean he is merely describing it. That is, from the prophet’s point of view, the day that would ultimately lead to his miserable life must have borne a curse.” Edward L. Greenstein, “Jeremiah as an Inspiration to the Poet of Job,” in Inspired Speech, 103. 37 Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard,, Jeremiah 1-25, 218. 38 Carroll, Jeremiah, 344.

100

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH [and upon] the mountains. (3) I will bring to ruin your wealth, all your treasure [and] your high places because of your sin within all your boundaries. (4) You will forfeit, because of your own action, the inheritance that I gave you and you will serve your enemies in an unknown land because you have lit the fire of my anger— it will burn forever!

These verses clearly sound a negative tone with regard to the people’s condition of sinfulness. If the sins of Judah are written down with an iron pen or a sharp stylus, it would seem as though forgiveness is impossible. This idea will be placed in direct contrast with later texts which seem to moderate the threat of judgment, like the activity in the potter’s house in chapter 18.39 An even more marked contrast comes in chapter 7, the “Temple Sermon,” which includes the charge of serving other gods, but in a context of the possibility of redemption contingent upon repentance. The last two verses of this text form one half of a doublet with 15:1314. LXX does not have 17:1-4, while its parallel in chapter 15 does occur. This fact is interesting in light of Parke-Taylor’s contention that “there is a consensus among exegetes that 17:3-4 is the primary passage, secondarily inserted after 15:12,”40 although this question of original location of the two Though this particular text will not be investigated in the thesis, others expressing the theme that judgment can be avoided can be found later in this chapter. 40 Parke-Taylor, Formation¸28. In agreement with Parke-Taylor’s assessment are Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard,, Jeremiah 1-25, 208; William R. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 449; McKane, Jeremiah, 1:345; and Carroll, Jeremiah, 328. In contrast to these others, Jack R. Lundbom took the evidence of the LXX seriously: “These verses (15:13-14) are repeated with certain changes in 17:3-4, where they are better integrated into the context. The duplication, however, does point to their original independence, which may or may not receive indirect support for the LXX’s omission of 17:1-4.” Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 737. Stulman (Jeremiah, 167) agreed with Lundbom. G. V. Smith’s comments on the relationship between these two texts are quite helpful: 39

Although most reject xv 13-14 as secondary, it is our contention that these verses are a second quotation given by the prophet in his prayer. This quotation comes from a different context (presumably xvii 3-4) where God was speaking about the exile of Judah. Jeremiah purportedly

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

101

verses is not relevant to this investigation. More importantly, the commentaries on this passage often refer to the concept of irony. Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, stated that “[t]he irony is clear: Judah has forsaken or abandoned her covenantal inheritance. Therefore Yahweh will abandon Judah to her enemies, and she will find herself exiled from her inheritance in a land that she has not known.”41 This passage is ironic in two respects. First, as already noted, the ancestors were supposed to teach the children how to be faithful, but the children learned instead how to follow after other gods. Jack Lundbom observed: “The children are here [in vv. 2-3] said to remember previous syncretistic worship, reinforcing the point that sin is permanently engraved on Judah’s heart and altars.”42 Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard contrasted this passage and the use of the metaphor of something being written upon the heart in the book of Proverbs. The metaphor functions there in a similar way, but to a dramatically different end: “The reference to a tablet being written upon was surely intended to call to mind Judah’s covenantal relationship with Yahweh… Here it is Judah’s sin, not her covenant love and faithfulness, that has been written upon the heart!” 43 A further ironic point created by considering this passage alongside others in the Book of Jeremiah, within the deuteronomistic corpus has to do with the relationship between Judah and the other nations in terms of their responses to Yahweh. Louis Stulman suggested that such a contrast was being drawn here: “Whereas the nations will one day turn from their idols to Yahweh, Judah continues to turn from Yahweh to idols.”44 McKane commented in a similar fashion: “The passage is about Judah’s infatuation with idols, not sabout a superficial appropriation of Yahweh’s cult.”45 Thus the sin is much deeper than mere lack of proper attention to Yahweh. Further, Lundbom compared this text to its context. He wrote: “Taken in tandem with the poetry of 16:19-21, where it is anticipated that nations will places these two very different statements of God side by side. They serve as a basis for his complaint against God who has promised on the one hand strength and success to Jeremiah (xv 11-12) and on the other hand destruction for Judah (xv 13-14). “The Use of Quotations in Jeremiah XV 11-14,” VT 29:2 (April 1979), 230. 41 Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25, 224. 42 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 1:778. 43 Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25, 223. 44 Stulman, Jeremiah, 166. 45 McKane, Jermiah, 1:384.

102

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

confess their lies, acknowledge Yahweh’s power, and know Yahweh’s name, we can only wonder…what will happen to Judah with its irradicable sin. Will she once again confess Yahweh’s name and be his redeemed people?”46 Thus, according to the perspective suggested in this text, Judah’s sins have been so numerous and so continuous that it appears that the stain cannot be wiped clean. Heterodox Practices Condemned: 7:30-34 The contribution of the following text to the picture we have been constructing is the idea that the people of Judah have set up detestable things—i.e., idols—in the Temple and have participated in certain pagan religious practices, including most prominently child sacrifice. 7:30-34 (30) Because the children of Judah have done what I consider evil— Oracle of Yahweh—and set up their detestable things in the house, on which my name has been set, to make it unclean, (31) and have built the high places of Topheth in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, with the intent of burning their sons and daughters in the fire. I did not command them to do this! It didn’t even cross my mind! (32) Therefore, the days are surely coming—Oracle of Yahweh—when no one will mention Topheth or the valley of Ben-Hinnom any longer, but instead of the Valley of Slaughter, and they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. (33) Such will be the inheritance of this people—being eaten by the birds of the air and by the beasts of the earth. There will be no one to chase them away. (34) I will remove from the cities of Judah and the outskirts of Jerusalem the sounds of joy, of mirth, the voice of the bridegroom and the bride, and the land shall fall into ruin.47

A doublet in this text concerns the change of name from Topheth to the Valley of Slaughter. Unlike the doublets we have seen in earlier contexts, this phrase occurs in three different texts. Parke-Taylor suggested “the texts have sufficient phraseology in common to lead to the conclusion that 19:15-16 and the references to Topheth in 19:11, 12 show that use has been made of 7:30-31 and also, in abbreviated form, in 31:34-35. ”48 Another doublet in this passage, this time used in a total of four different verses, Lundbom, Jeremiah, 1:779. There are no significant differences between LXX and MT in this passage. 48 Parke-Taylor, Formation, 195. 46 47

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

103

speaks of the removal of mirth and gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the bride, from the land. In contexts already cited this seems to be a description of the character of exile, and particularly the results of the people’s sins which exceed the sins of the ancestors and lead directly into the devastation of the land and the removal of the people from it so as to serve their enemies in a foreign land. Parke-Taylor’s comments are again helpful: The repetition of these phrases, adapted to different contexts, is an indication of the way in which the sermonic passages have been built up… I believe a good case can be made regarding 7:34 as the primary passage… Whatever the precise relationship between these passages may be, we can conclude that in the process of redaction freedom was exercised in using well-known stereotypical formulae, considered to be part of the Jeremiah tradition.49

The present text has Yahweh protesting that an idea such as child sacrifices could not possibility have originated with Israel’s God. The last verses of the text include, together with the change of name, a motif that we have seen before, namely the desecration of the dead bodies of those who have committed sin.50 According to McKane, “there is an allusion [in this text] to the post-Josian relapse into idolatry of which we hear elsewhere in Jeremiah (44) and in Ezekiel.”51 This interpretation falls in line with an idea we have seen operative in other texts, namely that the ancestors taught the descendants to sin rather than teaching them to be faithful. We have already considered some texts that deal with the devastation of the land flowing out of the people sinfulness. The reversal of creation in chapter 4 and the desecration of the dead bodies in chapter 7 are emblematic of a much wider body of material in the Book of Jeremiah— namely, that the sinfulness of the people not only affects their status as the favored nation of Yahweh, but also has implications for the entire created order as well.

Ibid., 196. Another example of this motif can be found in 8:1-3. 51 McKane, Jeremiah, 1:178. Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard,, Jeremiah 1-25¸ p. 125 made a similar point. They went on further to suggest that “in addition to perverted Yahwism and the worship of Baal, the cult in Jeremiah’s time may have been related to that of the Queen of Heaven (7:16-20).” Ibid., pp. 125-6. 49 50

104

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

The Land Shall be Unclean: 19:1-13 Finally, the sign-act of breaking the pottery jar in chapter 19 indicates in a demonstrable way the destruction of the land. This text hearkens back to the motifs we considered earlier, especially the indelibility of the people’s sin. 19:1-13 (1) Thus said Yahweh:52 Go and buy a potter’s earthenware jug, and [with] some of the elders of the people and the priests (2) go to the Valley of Ben Hinnom,53 which is at the entrance of the Potsherds Gate, and speak there the words that I tell you. (3) You shall say: Hear the word of Yahweh, O Kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem! Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Pay attention [to] everything that makes your ears tingle. (4) Those who have brought evil on this place by abandoning me and profaning this land, offering incense to other gods with whom they have no relationship, they, their ancestors, and the kings of Judah. And they have filled up this place with the blood of innocents. (5) They have built high places for Ba`al and they have made their children into burnt offerings for Ba`al. I did not command this! I did not say this! This didn’t even enter into my mind! (6) Therefore the time is coming—Oracle of Yahweh—when they shall no longer call this place Topheth and the Valley of Ben-Hinnom but the Valley of Slaughter. (7) I will frustrate the plans of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those who are trying to kill them, and I will feed their bodies to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. (8) I will make that city an object of appalling derision, so that all who pass by it will be appalled by it and will make fun of all its wounds. (9) I will make them devour the flesh of their sons and daughters, and each one will devour the flesh of his neighbor because of the hardship that they experience at the hands of their enemies who are trying to kill them. (10) Then you shall shatter the jug in the sight of the men who have come with you, (11) and you shall say to them, Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth: In this way will I shatter this people and that city, just as I shattered the potter’s vessel—it cannot be put back together again. In Topheth they will bury until there isn’t any more room to bury. (12) Thus I will do to this place—Oracle of Yahweh—and to its inhabitants. I will make that city like Topheth. (13) The houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of Judah shall be unclean like that place Topheth—all the

52 53

LXX: “Thus said Yahweh to me” [emphasis added, implicit in MT]. LXX: “Go forth to the burial place of the sons of their children.”

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

105

houses on whose roofs were made burnt offerings to the whole host of heaven and drink offerings poured out to other gods.

As indicated above, this text includes a sign-act that defines Yahweh’s intentions for the land. The accusation, by now familiar, that the people have abandoned Yahweh in favor of other gods with whom they do not have a relationship54 is tied in with the shedding of innocent blood, a motif that will be developed further in the Temple Sermon with its possibility for redemption tied to ceasing sacrifice to other gods and ceasing shedding innocent blood “in this place” (7:6-7, see below). Thus one can see linkages between that message and the material here in chapter 19, which advances the case for seeing the exile as punishment by an angry deity. Lundbom examined differences between this text and 7:30-31, another passage that deals with Topheth and the Valley of Ben-Hinnom. He concluded: What follows [the sign-act of the jug]…is a judgment on the city for covenant violations… The corresponding Temple-Valley Oracle (7:3031) contains only indictment, focusing on idol worship and child sacrifice. The present oracle ends as the Temple-Valley Oracle ends, with Yahweh saying…he never even gave them [child sacrifice, etc.] a thought.55

Thus the indictment is not only that the people have abandoned Yahweh, but also they have engaged in things that are abhorrent to God—two sins for the price of one! This has the added benefit, from the viewpoint of the dominant perspective, of precluding any further sort of “innocent” The phrase ‫אלהים אחרים אשׁר לא־ידעום‬, ‘other gods whom you have not known’ (19:4), is important. The NJPS translators refer the phrase in v. 4 back to Deuteromomy 11:28 as having the force of gods ‘who have not proved themselves to you.’ The note at Deuteronomy 11:28 refers the reader to Hosea 13:4, ‫אלהים‬ 54

‫זולתי לא תדע‬, ‘a (true) god like me you have never known.’ The sense is that the deity has proven to be faithful by actions on behalf of the people. In the context of the Book of Jeremiah—and indeed the Hebrew Bible as a whole—the dominant view holds that Yahweh has proven to be faithful through actions on behalf of the people and the covenant demands placed on the people. In contrast, according to the dominant stream of tradition in the Book of Jeremiah, the people have gone after other gods who have not proved themselves worthy in a similar manner, and thus have violated the relationship that Yahweh desired to establish with them through delivering them from Egypt. 55 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 1:841.

106

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

syncretism on the part of those accused of doing these things. Kelvin Friebel also noted the intrinsic connection between the action reported in this text and its setting: “The message-content of this nonverbal communication was transmitted through the combination of the action with the artifact, and was enhanced by the locale at which it was performed.”56 Alexander Varughese, by contrast, interpreted this text primarily in light of the focus of the perceived attack. He wrote: “Yahweh’s judgment is directed primarily against the political powers who were clearly the architects and promoters of pagan worship in the backyard of the temple. The judgment would result in the total defilement and destruction of the houses of the kings of Judah (v. 13).”57 Thus, according to this perception, the people cannot say that they were combining practices of other religious systems with the worship of Yahweh, for such a combination and such practices did not even cross Yahweh’s mind as something that could be done.

RETURNING TO THE INIQUITIES OF THE ANCESTORS Our Shame is Great: 9:11-18 The ancestors, according to the dominant view, were charged with teaching their children how the covenant came to be and what stipulations were accepted on the people. However, what the ancestors in their actions taught them to do was be unfaithful to Yahweh and to chase after other gods. This point is made explicit in the following: 9:11-18 (11) Who is the person who is wise enough to understand these things? To whom has the mouth of Yahweh spoken, that one should understand what has happened, why the land has been destroyed, laid waste like a desert, with none passing through it. (12) Yahweh said: Because they abandoned my Torah, which I gave to them. They did not listen to my voice or follow after it, (13) but they went stubbornly after their own way and followed the Ba`alim, as their ancestors taught them to do. (14) Therefore, thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: See, I will make this people eat mushy wood and drink bitter beer. (15) I have

56 Kelvin G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication (JSOTSupp 283; London: T & T Clark, 1999), 116. 57 Varughese, “The Royal Family,” 323.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

107

scattered them among nations that they do not know, they and their families. And I have sent against them the sword to devour them. (16) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth: Pay attention! Call for the dirge-singers, and let them come! And send for the mourning women, and let them come! (17) Let them quickly start a dirge for us, that our eyes may flow with tears, our pupils with water. (18) For the sound of a dirge has been heard in Zion: How we are spoiled! How great is our shame! For we must leave our land,

abandon our dwellings!58 The text begins with a call for wisdom on behalf of those who desire to understand why the events have taken place. Yahweh is represented as answering in 9:12 with what the reader has come to expect. This text fits well into this category of explaining the events of the exile in terms of punishment by Yahweh coming about because of imitating the ancestors in their sins. Indeed, the central claim of the Book of Jeremiah comes into view here as well, namely that the people have abandoned Yahweh to serve other gods. In addition, this text also contains statements regarding the devastation of the land, which will be taken up separately. Verse 13 continues with one of the central charges of the Book of, namely, that the people have gone after other gods, as their ancestors taught them to do. As noted, this idea lies within the deuteronomistic worldview. The next verse contains a doublet with 23:15a. Parke-Taylor commented on this that the complete phrase ‫מ ְ ַ בר ָ או ֺת א ֱ ה ֵ י י ִ שׂ ְ ר ָ א ֵ ל‬ ‫ֹה־אה ָ צ‬ ָ ‫ ְהו‬occurs ְ ‫יכּ‬ thirty-one times in the book of Jeremiah(MT) but is always incomplete in the LXX.”59 The final four verses round out the description of the despair that falls on the inhabitants of the land because of the things that have happened to them. The overall sense that one gains from this passage is that the sins of the people have indeed brought these events about, and the devastation that ensues is therefore to be expected.

58 There are no significant differences between MT and LXX in this passage, other than a difference in versification. 59 Parke-Taylor, Formation¸ p. 82.

108

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

John A. Thompson’s suggestion regarding this passage is pertinent. He indicated that this text might represent a merging between the perspective of the deuteronomists and that “original” to Jeremiah when he wrote: These verses [11-15] are clearly designed to offer an explanation of the judgment referred to in vv. 9-10 ([Eng.] 10-11). They are often regarded as being the work of the Deuteronomic editors of Jeremiah’s biography and preaching… But if this were the case, the explanation is hardly other than what Jeremiah himself would have given. It was always his view that breach of the covenant would lead to precisely this kind of destruction. 60

Conspiracy Theory: 11:9-17 11:9-17 (9) Yahweh said to me: “There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (10) They have returned to the iniquities of their ancestors in antiquity, who refused to hear my words. They have gone after other gods to serve them. The House of Israel and the House of Judah have broken my covenant which I established with their ancestors. (11) Therefore thus says Yahweh: Watch out! I am going to bring evil on them from which they will not be able to escape. They will cry out to me but I will not listen to them. (12) The townspeople of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will wander about and they will cry out to the gods whom they have offered incense, that they might be saved, but the gods will not save them in the time of their distress. (13) For you have as many gods and you do cities, O Judah; and O Jerusalem, you have set up altars in as many open spaces as you can find, altars of shame, for offering incense to Ba`al. (14) But as for you, do not pray on behalf of this people, nor lift up a cry on their account, since I will not hear them when they call out because of their wickedness. (15) Why should my beloved be in this house, when they carry out their [evil] designs? The holy flesh will pass away from you, because you take pride in your evil. (16) Yahweh named you Productive Tree, beautiful and fruitful in form. But with the sound of a great tempest he will set fire to it and burn up all its branches. 60

312.

John A. Thompson, Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980),

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

109

(17) Yahweh Tseba’oth who planted plant you has pronounced disaster upon you on account of your evil, O House of Israel, O House of Judah. You have brought these things on yourselves, because you angered me by offering incense to Ba`al.61

This text stands out in particular for the emphasis on the people’s having returned to the sins of the ancestors in scoffing God’s covenant with them. Thus it accords well with the perspective of deuteronomistic theology, according to which the parents were to teach the children how to be faithful, but instead the children have learned to be unfaithful by following the example of the parents.62 Stulman commented: “What makes the conspiracy [11:9] so dangerous is that it is against God. The Judeans have resolved to follow their ancestors’ example of disobedience and unfaithfulness.”63 The multiplication of altars to Ba`al is a feature of several similar texts in the Book of Jeremiah. This led Geoffrey Parke-Taylor to “conclude that 11:13 has borrowed from 2:28, with the added complication (perhaps originally a phrase in the margin) which associates ‫ בֹּשׁ ָ ת‬with ‫ ﬠ ַ ל‬.”ַ ‫בּ‬64 This text also exhibits an unusual feature, namely that intercession on behalf of the people is forbidden. This prohibition is found in several places. In this text, the prohibition of intercession links back to the earlier material in the passage, specifically in the line from v. 14 “I will not hear them when they call out because of their wickedness.” This recalls the statement of v. 11: “They will cry out to me but I will not listen to them.” The traditional motif of the people crying out to God and thereby invoking a divine response for the people’s benefit is here reversed presumably because the sin of the people is so great that Yahweh cannot bear to have 61 There are no significant differences between the LXX and the MT in this passage. 62 Walter Brueggemann wrote that the “substance of the ‘revolt’ is given in v. 10 in highly stereotyped language of the tradition.” Walter Bruggemann, Jeremiah, 111. Andrew Blackwood wrote: “The classic example of such iniquity is the tragedy of Baal-Peor, described in Numbers 25:1-3, and mentioned specifically in Hosea 9:10.” Andrew W. Blackwood, Jr., Commentary on Jeremiah (Waco, TX: Word, 1977), 119. 63 Louis Stulman, Jeremiah, 123. 64 Parke-Taylor, Formation, 186. Parke-Taylor located this pair in what he termed “other doublets within the book of Jeremiah” (185), or doublets that are not found within the confessions; the material on prophecy or the monarchy; chapter 26 or the OAN material (xii).

110

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

further contact with them. Samantha Joo noted that texts like this are key to the “centripetal theme of the book” of Jeremiah: Despite the problems inherent in delineating the development of the book, the centripetal theme of the book…is the question, “Why was Judah captured and Jerusalem, with its palace and temple, destroyed?…[T]he simple answer is because “you abandoned me and served foreign gods in your land” (‫ עזבתם אותי ותעבדו נכר ארצכם‬5:19b). According to the authors of the book of Jeremiah, therefore, the blame for the disaster would lie with the people and their sins. Why would God punish unless he was initially provoked to anger? However, would the people (the audience) have agreed with the authors of the book of Jeremiah? If they did, Jeremiah would not have needed to prophesy nor would the disciples have composed the book… The onerous task that now lies before the authors of the book of Jeremiah is to convince the self-claimed innocent people of their responsibility in their own demise without undermining the idea of God’s mastery over history.65

Robert Carroll commented on this text66 in terms of covenant theology, and in particular that of the deuteronomistic perspective. “Questions about the identity of the covenant,” he wrote, “are irrelevant in that there is only one covenant: the covenant made at Sinai as presented by the Deuteronomists.”67 Carroll prudently emphasized that historical questions such as the particular covenant to which this statement refers are not as important as asking how texts like this function within the overall sweep of the Book of Jeremiah. Carroll went on to describe the relationship between the various covenants in the theology of the Book of Jeremiah. He particularly emphasizes the danger of too close identification of this perspective with the theology of the deuteronomists: Thus there is a cluster of notions associated with berit in the Jeremiah tradition and, although the Deuteronomistic concept of the broken covenants is given at greatest length, it would be unwise to take the Deuteronomistic ideology as the heart of the matter. There is more to be Samantha Joo, “‘Was It Me They Were Bent on Provoking to Anger?’ Says YHWH. ‘Or was It not Themselves, to the Shame of Their Face?’: A Study of Hik`is (‘to Provoke to Anger’) in Deuteronomistic Theology and the Book of Jeremiah,” (PhD diss., Brandeis University, 2003), 2-3. Joo, like others, too readily equated the words of the prophet Jeremiah with what the Book assigned to him. 66 Carroll divided chapter 11 into sections comprising vv. 1-14 and vv. 15-17. 67 Carroll, Jeremiah, 269. 65

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

111

said about berit than is apparent in 11.1-13, and the tradition clearly embodies elements which require to be dealt with in a dialectical manner.68

The idea of the people abandoning Yahweh to serve other deities is found in many other texts in the Book of Jeremiah as well. For example, at the close of the second vision opening the Book, Yahweh is recorded as saying: “I will pronounce my judgments upon them / for all their evil / in forsaking me— / offering incense to other gods / and bowing down to worship handcrafted things” (1:16). This accusation is interesting in the light of the Josianic reform whose effects were certainly still being felt at the time of this oracle. The deuteronomistic history itself presents the exile as coming about because of the sins of King Manasseh, even in spite of the great and faithful things that Josiah accomplished (2 Kings 24:3; see also below on 15:1-4). In this connection, Alexander Varughese noted: “Though Manasseh was not the only irresponsible Davidic king, it is likely that he represents all the wicked kings of Judah who were ultimately responsible for bringing Yahweh’s judgment upon their nation.” 69 The alternative explanation offered by 11:9-17 is not that Manasseh’s sins were too great, but implies rather that Josiah’s faithfulness did not go far enough. Peter Craigie argued for a similar interpretation: “The passage suggests a reformation which brought about only a short-lived improvement.” 70

PUNISHMENT FOR FAILURE TO REPENT Though the previous unit had more examples, this does not mean that it is more significant in terms of the perceptions ascribed to Yahweh. Perhaps it is a dominant view within the dominant view, but not more than that. It is an error to suggest that a particular perception is correct on the strength of the mere fact that it is mentioned more than anything else. On the contrary, Ibid., 271. Alexander Varughese, “The Royal Family in the Jeremiah Tradition,” in Inspired Speech, 322. 70 Peter Craigie, Page H. Kelley and Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC 26; Dallas: Word, 1991), 171. We will encounter this idea of the Josianic reform being less than satisfying further on in our discussion. William McKane made a similar statement: “In v. 10 ‫ קשׁר‬is defined as a relapse to sins of earlier generations 68 69

(‫ )אתותם הראשׁנים‬and this suggests a reformation which effected an improvement for a time but which did not last.” Jeremiah, 1:239.

112

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

it may well be that the more something is mentioned, the more the collectors of Jeremiah felt that it needed defending. Either way one resolves this question, however, understanding lies instead in the direction of participating in the dialogue, even if by simply sketching out the ideas communicated. Sallis recognized something of this when he ultimately concluded: “Reflection on the way of Platonic dialogue proved to be inseparably joined to engagement in the movement on that way.”71 For Jeremiah and the exile, then, it is much more important to allow the dialogues between the perceptions to act in accordance with what they are trying to do rather than to impose a system of meaning from the outside. Such systems of meaning and interpretation appear all the more forced in proportion to their creativity and extensiveness. Thus older source-critical models are ever more complex, attempting to make sense of the whole. Allowing the dialogues to stand by themselves frees the critical reader from having to make these more or less arbitrary decisions about source, setting, and meaning. Sallis is again instructive: It has become evident that to respond to a Platonic dialogue is not so much a matter of taking certain features into account…but rather a matter of letting ourselves into the movement which the dialogues are directed towards provoking, of letting ourselves into philosophy, of beginning (playfully) to philosophize.72

Apostate Israel and Treacherous Judah: 3:6-11, 19-25 I suggested above that the text which next occupies the attention could very well serve as a foil to the generational accusation in 16:11ff. This text is as only oracle that claims a date in the reign of Josiah, the other references being the temporal reference in the superscript and the summary of Jeremiah’s ministry attributed to the prophet himself. The latter of these, 25:1-25, 29, will be considered alongside the passage from chapter 3. Mary Shields indicated that “Jer 3.1-4.4 is a complex unit, [and] its integral relationship to ch. 2…needs to be addressed, since [ch. 2] sets the stage for 3.1-4.4 in several ways.”73 This contextual relationship is not as important for the present project, although some perceptions in Jeremiah 2 will be Sallis, Being and Logos, 533. Ibid., 179. 73 Mary E. Shields, Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetorics of Intertextuality, Metaphor and Gender in Jeremiah 3.1-4.4, (JSOTSupp 387; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 7. 71 72

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

113

considered briefly elsewhere. Instead, it is more important to note that the perception of this text is that Judah is committing the same sins as did Israel; “the former Northern Kingdom is presented as a bad example which Judah should cease following.”74 Moreover, Robert Wilson noted that within this perception “a confession of guilt is actually put on the lips of the people, perhaps as an example of what is required.”75 3:6-11, 19-25 (6) Yahweh said to me in the days of King Josiah: Have you seen what Apostate Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and played the whore under every green tree. (7) I said to myself, “After she has done all these things she will return to me,” but she did not return to me, and her sister, Treacherous Judah, saw it. (8) So I took note of what Apostate Israel did by committing adultery and I gave her a bill of divorce and sent her out. But Treacherous Judah, her sister, did not pay attention and went off to play the whore also. (9) Because of her reputation for adultery she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and with wood. (10) Indeed, in spite of all these things Treacherous Judah, her sister, did not return to me with all her heart, but instead deceptively”—Oracle of Yahweh. (11) Yahweh said to me, “Apostate Israel is more righteous than Treacherous Judah…” (19) Indeed I said [to myself], How gladly will I adopt you as children! And I gave you a desirable land, the most beautiful inheritance of all the nations. I thought that surely you would call me “Father,” and would not turn away from following me. (20) But instead [as] a woman acts treachoursly with her companion, so you have acted treacherously with me, O House of Israel—Oracle of Yahweh. (21) A voice is heard on the bare heights: wailing for the house of Israel, and a plea for favor! Their ways are perverted, they have forgotten Yahweh their God. (22) Turn, O turning children, [and] I will heal your turnings! “Look! We are coming to you, for you are Yahweh our God!” (23) Surely deception comes from the hills,

Ibid., 8. Robert R. Wilson, “Poetry and Prose in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Ki Baruch Hu, 421. 74 75

114

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH confusing noise from the mountains. Surely with Yahweh our God is Israel’s deliverance! (24) But the Shameful Thing has eaten up the toil of your fathers since we were young: their flocks, their herds, their sons, and their daughters. (25) Let us lie down in our shame, and let our humiliation cover us, for we have sinned against Yahweh our God, we, our fathers, and our children even up to this day and we have not listened to the voice of Yahweh our God

The final verse of this text further emphasizes the perception of multigenerational sinfulness, thus adding to the idea that, not only is the exile due to having angered Yahweh, but also the offensive activities have been going on for a significant amount of time. Ronald Clements added the point of defining national identity: The condemnation of “faithless Israel” in 3:6-11 has a double purpose. On the one hand it reestablishes the claim that Israel is one people, a conviction that had so powerfully molded the policies of Josiah. Israel must indeed then acknowledge its guilt if it is to become once again a part of the single nation of God’s people. The reaffirmation of the guilt of the Northern Kingdom, however, did not serve to exonerate Judah but to show that Judah had been every whit as faithless as had the sister kingdom in the north.76

In a similar vein, McKane wrote that “Yahweh’s divorce from Israel is legally attested. He has issued her with a written document which apparently makes the divorce between him and her final… But the intention of vv. 6-11 in connection with vv. 12-13 is to establish that the divorce is, nevertheless, not final.”77 Furthermore, not only have the stated sins—abandoning Yahweh, failing to live up to the stipulations of the covenant, and so on—been going on for a long time, but they also have been the focus of prophetic warnings for a long time.

76

Ronald E. Clements, Jeremiah (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1988),

77

McKane, Jeremiah¸ 1:65.

34-5.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

115

In comparing MT and LXX on this passage, one finds little more than cosmetic differences. These include a change of pronouns in v. 19,78 so that MT has Yahweh speaking throughout, and LXX has perhaps the prophet— but in any case the human speaker of the passage—lending assent to the words of the deity. If one were to take LXX as the point of departure rather than MT, therefore, this text would be placed among those specifically attributed to Jeremiah, or perhaps to various other speakers. The point, however, is not to argue over who might be speaking in the passage,79 but to consider how what is said contributes to the overall picture. To what has already been presented, this text adds a further emphasis on the longstanding nature of Judah’s sinfulness, on both the generational and the political levels. The sin of the people is generational in the sense that “we have sinned against Yahweh, / we, our fathers, and our children.” It is political in the sense that, according to this perception, the judgment upon the northern kingdom of Israel should have proved a warning to the southern kingdom that similar judgment would fall upon those committing similar sins. Prophetic Warnings Unheeded: 25:1-29, 33 The passage from chapter 25 seems to connect well to the oracle dated during the reign of Josiah because of its emphasis on the long duration of the prophetic warnings issued to the people. Whereas the previous text couched the accusation of prolonged sin in terms of failure properly to appreciate what happened to the northern kingdom, 25:1-29, 33 employs language specific to the prophet Jeremiah, namely that he has been speaking the word of Yahweh to the people for an extended amount of time, but with negative result: 78 Again, it is not important for my thesis which reading was original and which secondary. Two other differences in this passage should be mentioned, though they seem insignificant in terms of the content of the passage. The first is the removal of the designation “Rebel Israel” in MT in favor of “House of Israel” in LXX. Secondly, in v. 21 LXX reads, “A voice from the lips is heard” for MT’s “A voice is heard from the bare heights.” 79 Shields argued that interpretation of this text hinges a key change between it and the one immediately preceding in 3:1-5. She wrote: “In vv. 6-11 the metaphorical language of sexual promiscuity is taken to new allegorical level through the vehicle of a change in point of view. The effect is a kind of distancing. The reader takes a step back from the confrontation of direct address to view, through the eyes of the prophet, God’s description of the behavior of two nations.” Shields, Circumscribing, 82.

116

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

25:1-29, 33 (1) The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim ben Josiah, King of Judah (which was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon), (2) which Jeremiah the prophet spoke concerning all the people of Judah to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: (3) “From the thirteenth year of Josiah ben Amon King of Judah until now—these twenty-three years—the word of Yahweh has been coming to me and I have relayed it to you early and often, but you did not listen. (4) Yahweh has early and often been sending you his servants the prophets, but you did not listen, nor did you open your ears to hear. (5) [They] said, ‘Turn away, each one of you, from your evil ways and your evil deeds and dwell in the land that Yahweh gave to you and your ancestors forever and ever. (6) Stop going after other gods to serve them and worship them and do not anger me with the works of your hands, so that I might not do evil to you.’ (7) But you did not listen to me—Oracle of Yahweh—therefore I am angered because of what you have done, to bring evil on yourselves. (8) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth: Because you would not listen to my words, (9) look! I am sending for all the tribes of the north land—Oracle of Yahweh—and for Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon my servant, and they will come against this land, against its inhabitants, and against all these nations around about. I will exterminate them and I will set them up as a derision, a horror, and a desolation forever. (10) I will take away from them the sounds of joy and celebration, the voices of bridegroom and bride, and the sound of the mill and the light of the lamp. (11) That whole land will become a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the King of Babylon for seventy years. (12) When the seventy years are over I will punish the King of Babylon, that nation—Oracle of Yahweh—and the Chaldeans for their sins, and I will make them an object of horror forever. (13) I will bring upon that land all the things that I promised to do to it, everything written in this book of the prophecies of Jeremiah concerning all those nations. (14) For they too shall be enslaved by many nations and great kings, and I will mete out upon them the full measure of their punishment on account of the works of their hands. (15) For thus said Yahweh ‘Elohe Yisra’el to me: take this cup of wine—of wrath—from my hand and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. (16) Let them drink and get drunk and pale before the sword which I am sending against them. (17) So I took the cup from Yahweh’s hand and I poured it out on all the nations to which Yahweh had sent me: (18) Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and her kings and princes to make them a desolate ruin, a hissing and a curse, as they are this day; (19) to Pharoah King of Egypt, to and his servant and his officials and all his people; (20) to those who dwell on the steppes; to all the kings of the land

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

117

of Uz; and to all the kings of the Philistines—Ashkelon, Gezer, and Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod; (21) to Edom; to Moab; to the Ammonites; (22) to all the kings of Tyre and all the kings of Sidon; to the kings of the coastland across the sea; (23) to Dedan, Tema, and Buz, and all those who have their hair clipped; (24) to all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the steppe-dwellers; (25) to all the kings of Zimri and all the kings of Elam and all the kings of Media; (26) to all the kings of the north, whether far from each other or near to each other—all the royals lands where are on the earth. Last of all the King of Sheshach shall drink. (27) Say to them: “Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Drink and get drunk and stagger and fall down, and do not get up again, because of the sword that I am sending among you.” (28) And if they refuse to take the cup from your hand and drink it, you shall say to them: “Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth: You must drink! (29) If I am doing this evil to the city that bears my name, then how can you escape the evil? You will not escape, for I am calling the sword against all the inhabitants of the earth— Oracle of Yahweh Tseba’oth. (33) In that day, the earth shall be covered from one end to the other with the slain of Yahweh. They shall not be mourned, or gathered up and buried; they shall become as dung on the face of the earth.

In significant contrast to some of the other passages we have considered so far, there are major differences between the LXX and the MT of chapter 25. The most glaring difference is the divergence of the textual lines after v. 13. However, others are important as well. First, in v. 3, LXX lacks the messenger formula, offering only, “I have been speaking to you.” With this and the elimination of the reported speech of the prophets in vv. 5ff, the LXX unequivocally makes Yahweh the speaker in this passage. Further, in v. 7, MT represents an expanded form of the accusation, whereas LXX ends after, “you did not listen to me.” The MT also has a longer text in the reference to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon as the servant of Yahweh. Commenting on this identification, Lee Cormie wrote: “Jeremiah even interpreted conquest by a foreign empire as the vehicle of Yahweh's deliverance from oppression.”80 Finally, reference specifically to Babylon as the nation who will be served for 70 years is absent in the LXX.

Lee Cormie, “Revolutions in Reading the Bible,” in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis (ed. David Jobling, Peggy L. Day and Gerald T. Sheppard; Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1991), 181. Most interesting about this suggestion is the possibility it opens up for linking this passage to the so-called “pro-Babylonian” stance of some of the perceptions attributed to the prophet. This idea will be further examined in chapter 6. 80

118

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

In terms of the content of this passage,81 we will deal in greater depth with the judgment of desecration of the dead later on in the statements ascribed to the prophet. I have already mentioned the historical duration of the prophet’s words, and have suggested that this ties chapter 25 in with chapter 3 in terms of the historical/theological significance of both the breaking of the covenant and the warnings of judgment to come for having broken it. This passage also includes an idea we will see again in the Temple Sermon below, namely the idea that the judgment could in fact be averted if only the people will cease doing what they have been doing—going after other gods. The force of the negative imperative in v. 6 is clearly to stop doing something, rather than prohibition of it. Evidence for this assertion can be found in v. 5, with the positive imperative to “turn away, each one of you, from your evil ways and your evil deeds.” In addition, understanding the command of v. 6 in this way links this passage internally to what we have already seen in this section—the durative nature of both sin and punishment—but also externally to the larger sweep of deuteronomistic theology of which this passage is surely an exemplar. This external connection thus establishes Jeremiah the prophet, at least according to the perceptions attributed to him, as standing within the line of prophets stretching all the way back to Moses. On this connection back to Moses, Ronald E. Clements wrote: Overall it is clear that the historical figure of Moses has exercised a powerful role on the part of the editors of Jeremiah 1-25 in shaping a portrait of the office and role of Jeremiah as a prophet. At the same time a reverse influence is also evident on the part of the Deuteronomists in which the portrait of Moses has been shaped according to Judah's encounter with prophets such as Jeremiah.”82

Here I will deal with the “expanded” MT version. Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 114. While this statement, on its face, fails to deal with the textual reference at the end of Deuteronomy that there never has been a prophet like Moses, this is a minor point. However, a different, interesting possibility presents itself. This perception of Jeremiah as a prophet like Moses could exhibit the same kind of perspectival differences for which we are arguing in the Book of Jeremiah, this time within the deuteronomistic history and the texts influenced by it (such as Book of Jeremiah). In addition, we should not forget the obvious difference in perspective between Deuteronomy 18 and Deuteronomy 34, the former suggesting that a prophet like Moses would come later, the latter that Moses is a prophet without equal. 81 82

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

119

No One is Righteous The next text recalls the attempt of Abraham with Yahweh regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18:24-32. 5:1-5 (1) Run around the streets of Jerusalem, look around and discover, trying in the whole area to see if you can find anyone, if indeed there is anyone who acts justly, who seeks truth, and I will forgive it. (2) If they say, “As Yahweh lives!” they are thereby swearing falsely. (3) O Yahweh, do your eyes not seek for truth? You strike them, and they do not feel pain. You consume them, but they refuse to accept discipline. They have set their faces like stone, refusing to turn back. (4) Then I said to myself, Surely the poor are foolish, for they do not know the ways of Yahweh, the judgments of their god. (5) So I will go to the rich, and speak to them! Perhaps they will know the ways of Yahweh, the judgments of their god. But even they had broken the yoke,

had burst the bonds.83 Here the challenge is to find just one Judean or Jerusalemite who remains faithful to the stipulations of the covenant. The idea of swearing falsely is one often encountered in the book of Jeremiah. This is seen, for example, in the Temple Sermon, which indicts the people for attempting to salve their sinfulness through an appeal to the inviolability of the Temple and the land. The text continues with the declaration that the people refuse to accept correction. According to this text, this refusal to repent is an affront to the very character of Yahweh. Even though Yahweh seeks for truth, and even though he strikes against them for swearing falsely, they have set their faces like stone—they refuse to accept correction and also refuse to turn 83

There are no significant differences between MT and LXX in this passage.

120

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

back from their evil ways. The speaker in this text, then, in an introspective moment, suggests that the problem lies in the fact that those who have been previously considered are the poor, too foolish to do the right thing. This theory is disproven, however, when the speaker realizes that even the rich are unable to maintain faithfulness. 84

PUNISHMENT WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF REDEMPTION Several examples have been cited above of the perception that the sinfulness of the people has been so great as to make redemption impossible. Yet the Book of Jeremiah presents differences precisely on this point. Therefore, falling next under investigation are a few texts ascribed to Yahweh which consider redemption as a possibility, with the connected idea that the punishment of exile might be averted if repentance becomes a reality. These texts deal with some of the same topics we have seen in earlier contexts, particularly the sin of going after other gods, which is one of the central accusations in support of God’s punishment of the people.85 Zion—This Way!: 4:1-8 4:1-8 (1) If you return, O Israel—Oracle of Yahweh— Return to me, Turn away your destestable things from my face And not turn away again, (2) And swear, “As Yahweh lives!” Truthfully, justly, and righteously, Nations will bless themselves by you And take their glory in you. (3) For thus says Yahweh To the people of Judah and Jerusalem: Till the untilled ground, And do not sow among thorns. (4) Circumcise your hearts to Yahweh, Clear off the blockage of your hearts, O people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, 84 This comparison between the rich and the poor recalls the accusation in 6:13-15 that the small and the great (or the poor and the rich) together are hell-bent on gain. 85 A further text along these lines is the story of the potter’s house in chapter 18.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

121

Lest my wrath flash forth like fire Because of the evil of your doings. (5) Proclaim in Judah And announce in Jerusalem, Say: “Blow the horn in the land!” Cry out and say: “Gather together! Let us go up into the fortified cities!” (6) Set up a signpost: “Zion—this way!” Take refuge without delay! For I am bringing evil from the north, And great disaster. (7) The Lion has gone up from his thicket, The destroyer of nations has come forth, To make your land a desolation. Your cities shall be ruined, Without inhabitant. (8) For this, put on sackcloth, Mourn and wail; For the fiery anger of Yahweh Has not been turned away from us.

A portion of this text (v. 4b) is duplicated in chapter 21:12b. According to Parke-Taylor, the “absence of a translation for ‫ ִ פ ְ נ ֵעי מ ַר ֹ ַ ל ְ ל ֶ יפ ֶ ם‬in ‫מ‬ 21:12bLXX indicates that only the first part of 4:4b was repeated in 21:12b, and the final phrase ‘because of the evil of their doings’ (in which the 3rd pl. suffix is substituted for the 2nd pl. suffix of 4:4b) was added to the Hebrew text later.”86 Beyond this, however, there appear to be no other significant differences between MT and LXX. Concerning the content of this passage, the promise to relent from punishment is not explicitly stated, though from the context it is clear. This passage records Yahweh as saying that punishment will come from the north-land, a motif also found in other contexts. While it is not directly stated that the punishment will be turned back, nevertheless this text links with the idea that the nations will bless themselves through the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem having turned away from their evil deeds. This recalls the blessing given to Abram back in Genesis 12:1-13, 18:18.

86

Parke-Taylor, Formation, 64.

122

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

This passage also uses the metaphor of a lion rising up from a thicket. On first glance, this metaphor would seem identify the enemy from the north as the Babylonians under Nebuchadrezzar. However, as Lundbom commented: “The lion as a metaphor for the enemy was common throughout the ANE and used often in the prophets.”87 This is in line with what Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard wrote: The identity of the foe is not specified, but the geographical orientation is significant. The north was a direction from which danger constantly threatened. From the north, Israel had been defeated in 722 B.C., and throughout the decades of Jeremiah’s life, northern foes threatened, most significantly the Babylonian empire by the last decade of the seventh century B.C. But in addition to the literal foe that might come from the north, the direction might have held various threatening connotations in the popular consciousness of the time.88

The final line appears to interpret this passage as responsive to the circumstances of the exilic period, and in particular as using motifs that might have been especially relevant for those experiencing the events.89 The Temple Sermon: 7:1-15 7:1-15 (1) The word came to Jeremiah from Yahweh, saying, (2) Stand in the gate of the Temple of Yahweh and speak there this word: Hear the word of Yahweh all Judah, those who come in through these gates to worship Yahweh. (3) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Correct your ways and your doings, and I will come and dwell with you in this place. (4) Do not look for your security in the words of deceit, saying, “They are the Temple of Yahweh! The Lundbom, Jeremiah, 1:337. Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25, 73 [emphasis added]. 89 We may in this regard return to an argument of Ernest Nicholson, considered in the previous chapter: 87 88

In view of these considerations it may be concluded that the correct procedure in dealing with the problem of the origin of the prose sermons in Jeremiah is to accept them as having arisen out of the circumstances in which the oracles and sayings originally delivered by Jeremiah himself were transmitted and subjected to the influence of a distinctive theological tradition. Nicholson, Preaching, 28.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

123

Temple of Yahweh! The Temple of Yahweh!” (5) For if you correct your ways and your doings, if you start to be diligent about seeing that justice is done between one person and another; (6) if you stop taking undue advantage of the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow; if you stop shedding the blood of innocents in this place, and if you stop going after other gods to your own hurt—(7) then I will dwell with you in this place, in the land which I gave to your ancestors forever and ever. (8) See! You are looking for your security in words of deceit, which are not able to bring it about. (9) Will you go on stealing, murdering, and philandering, and swearing deceitfully, and burning incense to Ba’al, and going after other gods to whom you are not connected, (10) and then come before this temple on which is called by my name cry “We are safe!” just long enough for you to be able to keep on doing these terrible things? (11) Has a den of robbers been made out of this temple that is called by my name? I have seen these things for myself—Oracle of Yahweh. (12) Please go to my place in Shiloh, where I had placed my name in times past, and take a look at what I did to it because of the evil of my people Israel. (13) And now, because you have done all these things—Oracle of Yahweh—even though I continued speaking you to you and calling after you (and you would not answer), (14) I am going to do to the temple which is called by my name, in which you place your trust, and to the place which I gave to you and your ancestors, just as I did to Shiloh. (15) I will send you out of my presence, just like I sent out all your kinfolk, all the offspring of Ephraim.

More significant than the passage from Jeremiah 4, however, is the Temple Sermon. In considering the LXX and MT recensions, one notices, first, v. 1 is not found in the LXX. If one follows the LXX, then, this sermon is entirely the words of Jeremiah rather than the words of Yahweh. 90 Secondly, the promise, “I will dwell with you,” in v. 3MT is the result of a textual emendation. LXX apparently took from its Vorlage a more accusative sense for the ‫את‬, whereas the form in MT indicates the preposition ‘with.”91 A greater difference between MT and LXX comes in v. 10. The declaration of the people that “We are safe” (MT) is in LXX “We have not 90 This view is mitigated somewhat by the presence of the messenger formula in v.3. Furtheromore, as we have seen, according to the dominant view, the word of the prophet and the word of Yahweh are co-extensive. Furthermore, Jeremiah is not named in the LXX passage at all, opening up the possibility of an unnamed speaker as we have seen above in other contexts. With verse 1, therefore, the MT makes explicit that in the Temple Sermon Jeremiah is speaking Yahweh’s words to “those who come in through these gates to worship Yahweh.” 91 Verse 7 has a similar construction, which LXX again took as a causative particle.

124

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

committed all these abominations.” The LXX seems to indicate the perception of a plea of innocence. The force of the MT, by contrast, is that the people are taking sanctuary in the Temple because they have committed abominations. The sermon concludes with the declaration that if the ways are not corrected, then punishment will surely come. This sermon has been the focus of much debate in recent studies on the Book of Jeremiah, particularly in light of the apparent disjunction between the material in this chapter and the dominant deuteronomistic ideology.92 The primary locus of dispute between the deuteronomistic tradition and that attributed to Jeremiah comes as a result of the disenfranchisement of the local priests, among whom Jeremiah might be counted. Lundbom, however, cautioned against such a reading when he wrote: “Jeremiah is still too often set over against the Deuteronomic institution of his day…for the rhetoric of Jeremiah is clearly the rhetoric of Deuteronomy, which was also the prevailing rhetoric of the Deuteronomic institution in his day.”93 Lundbom here agreed with James D. Newsome, Jr., who suggested that [t]he prophet's reply to the spiritual crisis occasioned by Josiah's death in 609 was thus that of an uncompromising demand for moral obedience to God. There is no suggestion in the preaching of Jeremiah that he opposed the ministrations of the Temple priests, so central to Josiah's reforms, or that he felt that the ritual practiced in the House of God was detrimental

92 The clearest attempt to interpret the Temple Sermon as a polemic against the Deuteronomists comes in the work of Theodor Seidl, “Jeremias Tempelrede : Polemik gegen die joschijanische Reform?: die Paralleltraditionen Jer 7 und 26 auf ihre Effizienz fur das Deuteronomismusproblem in Jeremia befragt” in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung,” (ed. Walther Groß; BBB 98; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 141-79. Robert Wilson commented similarly:

As a Levitical priest, Jeremiah should have supported the reform and yet, with the possible exception of Jer. 15:16, the book gives no indication that Jeremiah even knew of the reform, much less supported it… The solution to this apparent problem is probably to be found in the fact that the reform was neither as pervasive nor as Deuteronomic as 2 Kings 2223 suggests. Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 243. See the above quote from Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard on 11:9-17. 93 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 146.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

125

to Judah's life. Rather, it was a simple matter of priorities. To the prophet's mind the worship of God was of no benefit, no matter how pure its forms, unless it led to a sharpened awareness of moral and social obligation on the part of both the individual and the nation. If justice and mercy live, so will Judah. If not, Jerusalem will become a desolation like Shiloh, the old Hebrew shrine destroyed by the Philistines which had stood in ruins these four centuries.94

If Newsome and Lundbom represent one side of this debate,95 then arguments for the alternative position can be found in the work of John Skinner and Thomas Overholt. In his classic treatment Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah, John Skinner also argued for a fundamental separation between the presentation of the Book of Jeremiah and the deuteronomistic ideology based in the Josianic reform: “Like all the prophets, Jeremiah had broken with the popular delusion that the bond between Yahwe and Israel was naturally indissoluble… He had also…risen above the more subtle delusion of the Deuteronomists that an ethical bond with Yahwe could be established by a superficial reform of religion.”96 Overholt suggested that the Temple Sermon came out of a position against the fundamental goals of the deuteronomistic/Josianic reform, and in particular using the rhetoric of the reform against itself. The fact that Josiah’s life was cut short in a violent way, according to this perspective, was clear evidence that God did not favor what had taken place: James D. Newsome, Jr., By the Waters of Babylon: An Introduction to the History and Theology of the Exile (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), 41. 95 Furthermore, Jay A. Wilcoxen commented that the “political background indicates that this content of the sermon was not an attack on the Josianic program. On the contrary, it was an attack on a reversal of the Josianic program.” Wilcoxen, “The Poltical Background of Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon,” Scripture in History and Theology (ed. Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt; PTMS 17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 162 (emphasis original). Wilcoxen continued: “The content of Jeremiah’s sermon indicates, then, that it was an attack on the old tradition of the special sanctity of Zion. The political background indicates that that was an attack upon the new policies of Jehoiakim, not the older policies of the Josianic reform. This conclusion is both important and surprising, for it indicates that Josiah’s reform did not involve an unqualified assertion of the inviolability of Zion… In some manner, the Josianic program had held together the old promise of Yahweh concerning David and his great city with other traditions that must have placed certain qualifications upon that promise.” Ibid., 164-5. 96 John E. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922), 265. 94

126

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

The reform of 621 BC should be seen both as another indication of growing political independence from Assyria and as a focal point for a resurgence of religious optimism, and…it was precisely this optimism which became one of the basic points of contention between Jeremiah and the people. But now Josiah was suddenly dead and his son Jehoahaz, whom the people had wanted to be king, deposed by Pharaoh Neco and replaced by Jehoiakim. Yahweh had apparently responded negatively to widespread reform and obedience, and this surprising turn of events seems to have rendered the fact of Josiah's death so embarrassing to the basic presuppositions of the prophets and the Deuteronomic school regarding a theology of history that we have in the Old Testament materials something that amounts to a 'conspiracy of silence' about this tragic occurrence.97

Jay Wilcoxen interpreted the Temple Sermon along the same lines as Overholt, working from the standpoint of the standing in the popular mind of the two kings following Josiah—Jehoahaz elected by the people, and Jehoiakim selected by Egypt. He concluded: The political situation at the time of Jeremiah’s temple sermon, then, can be summarized as follows. Two forces were at work within the kingdom of Judah, one favoring the continuance of Josiah’s policies and one opposing them. Each of these forces had aligned itself behind a son of Josiah as the champion of its interests.98

We have seen, in summary, that both sides of the polarity between repentance and deliverance as possible or impossible can be found in the Book of Jeremiah. Keeping in mind the warning of Claus Westermann that “it is a dangerous and confusing generalization to say that the prophets are only or exclusively preachers of repentance,” 99 careful readers must pay attention to the ambiguity in the Book of Jeremiah concerning not only the perceptions of the exile, which we are exploring, but also the role of prophets in Israelite/Judean society in general.

97 Thomas W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood: A Study in the Theology of the Book of Jeremiah (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1970), 5-6. 98 Wilcoxen, “The Poltical Background,” 161. 99 Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (trans. Hugh Clayton White; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 21.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

127

Narrative of the Temple Sermon: 26:1-24 The next text coming under investigation is purportedly the narrative of the delivery of the Temple Sermon preserved in chapter 7. We see here a report of powerful royal aides coming to the prophet’s assistance, perhaps setting up some of the speeches and opinions attributed to the prophet after 587-6 and during the governorship of Gedaliah. 26.1-24 (1) In the accession year of Jehoiakim ben Josiah King of Judah this word came from Yahweh: (2) Thus says Yahweh: Stand in the court of the House of Yahweh and say everything I command you to say to all the citizens of Judah who come to the House of Yahweh to worship—don’t hold anything back! (3) Perhaps they will hear and repent of their evil ways, then I will relent of the evil that I had intended to do to them, because of the evil of their deeds. (4) You shall say to them: Thus says Yahweh: If you do not listen to me by walking in my Torah that I gave to you, (5) by listening to my servants the prophets whom I sent to you early and often, but you did not listen. (6) I will make this house just like Shiloh and this city a curse before all the nations of the earth. (7) The priests, the prophets, and all the people heard Jeremiah saying these things in the House of the Lord. (8) When Jeremiah finished saying everything that Yahweh had commanded him to say to all the people, they seized him, saying, “You must die! (9) Why have you prophesied in the name of Yahweh, saying, ‘Like Shiloh shall this House be, and this city shall be put to the sword, and no one will be left alive in it?’ All the people assembled against Jeremiah in the House of Yahweh. (10) When the officials of Judah heard about it they also went up from the palace to the House of Yahweh and sat down in the opening of the New Gate of Yahweh. (11) The priests and the prophets said to the officials and all the people, “The death sentence is warranted for this man who prophesied against this city in the way you heard with your own ears!” (12) Then Jeremiah said to all the officials and all the people, “Yahweh sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that you heard. (13) Now, amend your ways and your deeds, and obey the voice of Yahweh your God, and Yahweh will relent of the evil which he spoke concerning you. (14) As for me, Look! I am in your hands to do to me what you consider good and right. (15) Only know this! If you kill me then the blood of an innocent man will be upon you and this city and all its inhabitants, for truly did Yahweh sent me to you to say in your hearing all these words.”

128

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH (16) Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, “This man has done nothing deserving of the sentence of the death, for he has spoken to us in the name of Yahweh our God. (17) Then some of the elders of the land stood up and said to all the assembled people, (18) “Micah of Moresheth was a prophet in the days of Hezekiah King of Judah, and he said to all the people of Judah, ‘Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth: Zion shall be as a plowed field, and Jerusalem as a ruin, and the Temple Mount like a ruin.’ (19) Did Hezekiah King of Judah execute him? Instead, did not all Judah seek the favor of Yahweh and he relent from the evil which he had spoken concerning them? But we have brought an even greater evil upon our own lives!” (20) There was another man who prophesied in the name of Yahweh, Uriah ben Shemaiah from Kiriath-Jearim, and he prophesied against this city and against this land using the same words as Jeremiah. (21) King Jehoiakim and all his warriors and officials heard his words and the king sought to kill him. When Uriah heard about it, he fled and went to Egypt. (22) King Jehoiakim sent Elnathan ben Achbor and several others with him to Egypt. (23) Then brought Uriah back from Egypt and took him before King Jehoiakim, who had him put to the sword and his body cast out into the mass grave.” (24) But the hand of Ahikam ben Shaphan was with Jeremiah to prevent him from being handed over to the people and killed.

This text is linked thematically not only with chapter 7 but also with chapter 36. Chapter 36 is the report of the burning of the first scroll containing the written prophecies of Jeremiah, as we have discussed above. Parke-Taylor wrote: “There is clearly a connection intended between Jeremiah 26 and 36… In the doublet 26:3=36:3, the hope is held out that a positive response to Jeremiah’s proclamation will avert Yahweh’s judgment.”100 The LXX of this passage makes more explicit the idea that the contradictory prophets are “false prophets.”101 Beyond that, there seems to be remarkable correlation between the two recensions. This chapter also provides a key insight into the interplay of different perceptions of the exile. The contrast is shown in the charge that the priests and the (false) prophets make regarding Jeremiah. These people miss the conditional aspect of the judgment, which is made explicit in 7:5ff and Parke-Taylor, Formation¸ 205. In this passage, among others, the LXX translators employ the neologism yeudoprofhthj, ‘false prophet,’ which does not occur in the Hebrew Vorlage. 100 101

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

129

26:12ff. Within the context of chapter 26, admittedly, the possibility of the punishment being relented is not made explicit until after the charge against Jeremiah. This narrative in chapter 26 seems more concerned with the reaction to the message than with the content of the message itself. Seen in this way, the differences between chapters 7 and 26 fade from significance. It is therefore possible that Jeremiah’s detractors deliberately misrepresented his message, turning it into one of unconditional doom for the Temple and city rather than, as in its “initial” form,102 a double-sided message of threat for continued disobedience on the one hand, and promise for renewed faithfulness on the other. Another somewhat curious feature of this text is the fact that the accusers of the prophet are not specifically identified. There are groups such as the priests and the prophets and the third group is the even more vague “all the people.” Is this term to be understood as the ‫?עם הארץ‬ Alternatively, are these people merely those citizens of Judah who come to the House of Yahweh to worship (as if a distinction could be drawn between those who do so and the rest of the citizens of Judah)? Whoever these people might be, the narrative suggests that they attend to Jeremiah’s word. We saw above, in our discussion of 6:22-30, that the enemy from the north material is reminiscent of the idea that comes to expression, for example, in chapter 21 that the way to life is to submit to the conquering army, for resistance to the army of the Babylonians is futile. Indeed, according to a certain perception ascribed to Jeremiah the prophet, Yahweh has called Nebuchadrezzar and the Babylonians to conquer the land and punish the people for their sins. Clearly, this is not a word that would be received with gladness, and the narrative of chapter 26 indirectly indicates the people’s refusal to listen. That refusal characterizes the largest measure of response to the words ascribed to Jeremiah the prophet and, for that matter, to Yahweh. Two groups who are similarly vague in their identity answer the charge made by “the priests, the prophets and all the people.” “The officials and all the people”—oddly enough, the miscellaneous designation “all the people” is used to describe both the complainants and respondents—respond to the charge that Jeremiah does not deserve the sentence of death. The justification for this opinion is given in the same words that Jeremiah used in his own defense, namely that he had spoken to them in the name of Yahweh their God. It is interesting that the story ascribes such an opinion 102

That is, its initial form within the Book of Jeremiah.

130

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

to those who would sit in judgment over Jeremiah. That other people recognize Jeremiah as a true prophet is key for the ultimate vindication of the dominant view. Even though some people believe Jeremiah’s testimony, nevertheless the trial continues with the attestation of two precedents involving prophets who proclaimed similar words presumably at the behest of Yahweh. The first precedent is a known biblical prophet, Micah of Moresheth, who was active during the time of King Hezekiah. “Some of the elders of the land” describe what happened to Micah, asking rhetorically whether King Hezekiah put him to death for proclaiming this word. Their question expects a negative answer, and in fact they supply such when they suggest that King Hezekiah feared Yahweh, with the subsequent result that the punishment that Yahweh had intended for the land was averted. Jeremiah is reported as saying these very things after the delivery of the oracle (vv. 1314). The people defending Jeremiah suggest to the assembly that it is about to commit a grave injustice, as Jeremiah himself suggested in v. 15 (“If you kill me then the blood of an innocent man will be upon you and this city and all its inhabitants, for truly did Yahweh send me to you to say in your hearing all these words.”) The second precedent cited is different. One might expect that if “some of the elders” rise up to Jeremiah’s defense, then “the rest of the elders” might rise up on the side of the prosecution, although this is not made explicit in the text. Further, if “some of the elders” cite a precedent that would tend to set Jeremiah free, then “the rest of the elders” might cite the precedence of Uriah ben Shemaiah, which would tend in the opposite direction—a guilty verdict upon Jeremiah and a death sentence for him. The precedent of Uriah is interesting because that prophet’s message (during the same reign, incidentally, as the present case under consideration) is compared directly with the words of Jeremiah in v. 20.103 Yet the text is not explicit regarding who it is that cited the precedent of the prophet 103 A further interesting point to note with regard to the precedent of Uriah ben Shemaiah: the king who sent to Egypt to have this prophet brought back and eventually killed is the same king said to be in power during this trial of Jeremiah, in which Uriah is cited as a precedent. Yet, the temporal context of chapter 26 is the “beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim.” This might even be Jehoiakim’s accession year. See, e. g., Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 103: “By this understanding the reference is to the period in a king’s reign before his first New Year’s Day, at which point his first regnal year is reckoned. This is evidently the mode of reckoning regnal years used in Judah at this period.” This means that the precedent cited is a very recent one, perhaps even occurring earlier in the same year.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

131

Uriah. Indeed, it is possible that this second precedent is not even brought up at the trial per se, but is rather an editorial comment on the case. If that is true, then the oddity I have indicated regarding the relationship between the two precedents fades from view. However, this would introduce a new problem in that the editors interrupt the court case for comment. I think it better, therefore, to understand that the opponents of Jeremiah’s words, the “prosecutor,” or “the rest of the elders,” should be understood as those who cite the negative precedent of what happened to Uriah ben Shemaiah or, more properly, cite a precedent in support of what they suggest be done in the present case. The conclusion of the trial is also quite curious affair. After the story of Uriah ben Shemaiah’s brief existence as a fugitive in Egypt, King Jehoiakim sending soldiers down to retrieve him and, having returned him to Judah, executing him, we come across a matter-of-fact comment that an important figure intercedes on behalf of Jeremiah. No information is given as to how the case might have been adjudicated, which is unusual in the light of the two precedents cited in the case. The trial is merely over without being decided, as if adjourned. In a development that will be important for us later in our treatment of responses to the disaster of exile (cf. 40:1-6) , Ahikam ben Shaphan protects Jeremiah from execution. By way of summarizing the perceptions ascribed to Jeremiah within the general rubric that the exile came about because of the punishment of Yahweh for the people’s sinfulness, we find some changes of emphasis, but no real disagreements between the various perceptions observed so far. We are thus justified in treating these together as expressions of the dominant view of the Book of Jeremiah, namely that the events of the Babylonian siege and ultimate destruction of Jerusalem are controlled by Yahweh, because the deity is using these events to punish the people for their sinfulness. Coming next into focus are some texts ascribed neither to Yahweh nor to Jeremiah. In terms of their content, however, they fit with the dominant view that the exile is the punishment of Yahweh.

NO INTERCESSION OR REDEMPTION Some other statements attributed to Yahweh stand in stark relief to what was seen immediately above. The texts in this section indicate that repentance is impossible and, moreover, that intercession will not avail anything. In fact, as we will see, even if some pious individuals from Israel’s collective past were to come before Yahweh with pleas for mercy, even this will meet a deaf ear from the deity.

132

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Concerning the Droughts: 14:1-12 14:1-12 (1) The word of Yahweh that came to Jeremiah concerning the droughts: (2) Judah is in mourning, her gates languish, Darkness is over the land, and deep darkness has come over Jerusalem. (3) The nobles sent their servants for water. They came to the cisterns, but did not find any water. They returned with empty vessels. Ashamed and humiliated, they covered their heads. (4) Because of the ground there is dismay, because there has not been any rain in the land. The ploughmen are ashamed, they cover their heads. (5) Even the doe in the field forsakes her new-born fawn, since there are no sprouts. (6) Even the donkeys stand on bare heights, snuffing at the air like jackals. Their eyes look longingly, for there is no herbage. (7) Though iniquities testify against us, O Yahweh, do [this] for your name’s sake! For great are our apostasies and sins against you. (8) O Hope of Israel, its deliverer in time of trouble, why are you like a stranger in the land, Like a traveler stopping only for the night? (9) Why are you like a man who is surprised, like a warrior who cannot carry the day? You are among us, O Yahweh, and your name has been set upon us— do not forsake us! (10) Thus says Yahweh concerning these people: Truly they love to totter about. They have not restrained their feet, so Yahweh takes no pleasure in them, and now he will remember their iniquities and punish their sins. (11) Yahweh said to me, Do not pray for the good of these people. (12) When they fast, I will not listen to their outcry, and when they bring up

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

133

whole burnt offerings I will not be please with them I am about to make an end of them with sword, famine, and pestilence.104

The idea of the nobles’ servants returning from the cisterns without water recalls the statement from 2:13 that the people have abandoned Yahweh in order to hew out for themselves “cracked cisterns that cannot hold any water.” The final two verses form a command to Jeremiah not to intercede on behalf of the people. Nancy Lee suggested that the perception of this text is that punishment has now become inevitable (see elsewhere for contrasting views on the possibility of redemption). Lee wrote that Jeremiah 14 “marks a significant turning point in the movement of the book. The people have reached a point of no return in regard to coming exile. Jeremiah offers a plea of defense for the people… But Yahweh ignores his plea, ignores the people’s lament, their fasting, and bringing offerings.”105 In addition, Robert Carroll had noted earlier that this text drew on more traditional motifs of appeal for divine aid in the midst of distress: This lack of an external referent of the section is an important point in its interpretation and a principle of some consequence for the understanding of much of the book of Jeremiah. Drought and the ravages of war were (and still are) common features of life in the areas which produced the tradition. Though specific experiences of each devastation may have given rise to some poetically expressed responses, the composition represents a distillation of such responses plus theological reflections on a wider range of bitter experiences.106

Moses and Samuel Cannot Intercede: 15:1-4 We will see this command not to intercede in other contexts, but perhaps more significant here is the linkage between this text and 15:1-4. In 14:1-12, Jeremiah is forbidden to intercede; in 15:1-4, the curious statement is made 104 As with some other texts already considered, LXX exhibits only a few minor differences. 105 Nancy C. Lee, “Exposing a Buried Subtext in Jeremiah and Lamentations: Going After Baal and…Abel,” in Troubling Jeremiah, 117-18. 106 Carroll, Jeremiah, 308. Lee also recognized that this text could have reference to more than one disastrous event: “I propose that the term [‫הבצרות‬ ‘troubles/distresses/droughts’] refers to the ‘matters of the (the time of) the hardships’ including siege and drought.” Lee, “Exposing a Buried Subtext,” 112, n. 75.

134

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

that even if Moses or Samuel were to come to the people’s defense, Yahweh would not hear. 15:1-4 (1) Yahweh said to me: Even if Moses or Samuel stood before me, my face would not turn toward this people. Send them away from my presence and let them go! (2) If they say to you, “Where should we go?” you shall say to them, thus says Yahweh: Those destined for death, to death; those destined for the sword, to sword; those destined for pestilence, to pestilence; those destined for captivity, to captivity.

(3) I am appointing over them four kinds of punishment—Oracle of Yahweh—the sword to kill, the dogs to drag, the birds of the air and the beasts of the field to devour and to destroy, (4) and I will make them an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth on account of Manasseh ben Hezekiah king of Judah because of what he did in Jerusalem.107 The new feature of this text is the idea of the four-fold punishment. In addition, this text maintains that the sins of King Manasseh were so great as to eliminate any possibility of the punishment being turned back (see 2 Kings 24:3). Varughese commented on how this text represented a reversal of what the people might have respected from the prophet: Jeremiah 15.1-4 is an oracular response to the people’s lament in 14.19-22. However, the divine response is not what the nation hoped to hear; instead of the promise of salvation, the nation hears Yahweh’s rejection of any attempt of mediation on behalf of the nation, even by such great mediators as Moses and Samuel. The nation is now faced with the prospect of total destruction… Yahweh will make the kingdom of Judah an object of extreme repugnance to all other earthly kingdoms, and the blame for this shameful and tragic fate of Judah is placed on Manasseh… The Jeremiah tradition singles out here the most villainous, cruel, and corrupt Davidic rule as the responsible party for the nation’s ruin… Though Manasseh was not the only irresponsible Davidic king, it is likely that he represents all the wicked kings of Judah who were ultimately responsible for bringing Yahweh’s judgment upon their nation.108

107 108

There are no significant differences between MT and LXX in this passage. Alexander Varughese, “The Royal Family,” 322.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

135

PUNISHMENT FOR THE SINS OF THE RULERS Certain texts in the Book of Jeremiah single out the leaders of the people for not living up to the demands of the covenant. This is well in line with the dominant deuteronomistic mindset, for as Martin Noth commented, the deuteronomists “judged the kings according to their attitude to the exclusive legitimacy of the Temple in Jerusalem. From this standpoint he was bound, with only a few exceptions, to pass a negative judgment on almost all the kings.”109 As we shall see, not only are the rulers often condemned for sinning and leading the people in sin, but the kinds of judgment that fall upon the leaders are usually particularly harsh, including desecration of dead bodies and cutting off of all descendants from the land. This last is applied in particular to kings, though some other officials, such as Shemaiah the Nehemalite, also come under fire. All the Leaders will be Punished: 13:12-14 13:12-14 (2) And you shall say this word to them: “Thus says Yahweh ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Every jar should be filled with wine.” And when they say to you, “Don’t we know that every jar should be filled with wine?” (13) say to them, “Thus says Yahweh, Look! I am going to fill all the inhabitants of this land, and the kings who sit on David’s throne, the priests, the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with drunkenness. (14) And I will smash them one against another, parents and children alive—Oracle of Yahweh—no compassion, no pity, and no mercy will keep me from destroying them.110

The first text forms a doublet with 21:7b, whose context will be considered later. Concerning this doublet, Parke-Taylor observed: “The most satisfactory explanation of the data is that 13:14b was later added to 13:12-14b, as was 21:7 to 21:3-6… This is a good example of piecemeal addition at a later stage in the evolution of prose sections of the book, probably the work of learned scribes.”111 No one will be spared from the judgment, and the rulers are specifically called out for judgment because, though they had the specific responsibility to lead the people in faithfulness, 109 Martin Noth, The History of Israel (Translated P.R. Ackroyd; New York: Harper, 1960), 233. 110 There are no significant differences between the MT and the LXX in this short passage. 111 Parke-Taylor, Formation, 198.

136

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

instead they led them into sin. Clements stated the apparent intent of this passage succinctly: “The prophetic meaning of this saying is then made perfectly explicit in verses 13-14 that Jerusalem, including its leading inhabitants (‘kings, priests, prophets’), will be made drunk with the ‘cup’ of God’s anger.”112 Shallum Will Die in Exile: 22:10-12 While Babylonia proved to be the primary place to which the people were exiled, some persons were also earlier exiled to Egypt. King Jehoahaz, seemingly the last of the popularly chosen kings, was one of the most prominent to suffer this particular fate:113 22:10-12 (10) Do not weep for the one who has died, And do not lament for him. Weep, rather, for the one who is going away, Because he shall never come back To see the land of his birth. (11) For thus says Yahweh to Shallum ben Josiah King of Judah, the one who succeeded Josiah his father, but who has gone away from this place: he shall not return here ever again, (12) but in the place where he has been exiled he will die and he will never see this land again.114

This context of this passage is an oracle against the royal house of Judah. Specifically, Shallum (whose throne name was Jehoahaz), a king popularly elected by the ‫עם־הארץ‬, is singled out. A few months after the Battle of Megiddo in 609 B.C.E. in which King Josiah was killed, the Egyptian Pharoah deposed his successor Jehoahaz. Eliakim, another son of Josiah, replaced him, taking the throne name Jehoiakim. That this text is directed to Jehoahaz, then, makes an interesting point regarding the place to which people might be exiled. The deportation of Jehoahaz to Egypt, never to return (according to this text), thus presages in a certain way later developments within the Book of Jeremiah. Carroll suggested a fuller interpretation of this text, however: “The contrast between the dead one and the exiled one hardly reflects the respective fates of Josiah and Clements, Jeremiah, 86. Chapter five will consider some others who, after the assassination of Gedaliah, chose self-exile in Egypt (43:1-11). 114 There are no significant differences between LXX and MT in this passage. 112 113

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

137

Shallum… It is more likely that the poem is a contrast between two people, one of whom has been killed but the other deported. The point of the poem is…that the fate of the exiled one is even worse than that of the dead.”115 Another attractive option is that “the one who has died” refers to those killed in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and “the one who has been taken away” to the deportees. Such a reading would not only answer Carroll’s expansive reference, but would also comport well with the fact that the later “returnees” were ideological and not historical repatriates. Regardless of the specific identities invoked, however, this perception stands in marked contrast to some others that we will consider later. Jehoiakim’s Line will be Ended: 36:27-31 36:27-31 (27) The word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah after the king had burned the scroll containing the words Baruch wrote down on Jeremiah’s dictation: (28) Go back and get another scroll and write on it all the original words which were on the first scroll that Jehoiakim King of Judah burned. (29) And concerning Jehoiakim King of Judah,116 you shall say: “Thus says Yahweh: You burned that scroll saying, ‘How can you write in it that the King of Babylon will certainly come and subdue this land, leading humans and animals away from it in captivity?’ (30) Therefore thus says Yahweh to Jehoiakim King of Judah: No more of his line will sit upon the throne of David, and his own corpse will be exposed to the heat of the day and the cold of the night. (31) I will punish him and his descendants and his servants for their iniquity, and I will bring upon them and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem and upon everyone in Judah all the evil that I threatened, even though they did not listen.

This text is the story of Yahweh’s command to Jeremiah to create another scroll after King Jehoiakim destroyed the first one. The new scroll contains an additional oracle against the king. Specifically, the king falls under judgment because he has failed to heed the words contained in the scroll, and the oracle announces the removal of his offspring from the land. Some of the commentary on this passage concludes that chapter 36, in the words of Clements, “is the most informative narrative in the entire Old Testament concerning the preservation of the prophecies in writing.”117 John Bright had earlier commented: “the scroll here described marks, so far as we know, Carroll, Jeremiah¸ 424. MT plus: “concerning Jehoiakim King of Judah.” 117 Clements, Jeremiah, 210. 115 116

138

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

the first step in that process through which Jeremiah’s sayings were collected and given literary fixation, and which ultimately resulted in the Jeremiah book as we have it today.”118 Another emphasis is thematic examination of the context of chapter 36. Clements suggested “it must be concluded that the central purpose of the narrative is to demonstrate the rejection of the word of God by the responsible authorities in Jerusalem, especially King Jehoiakim.”119 Patrick D. Miller wrote: “The text focuses on the king and his servants, for their reaction to the scroll is what this incident is all about. But the text was first heard by the people—and like king, like people. The threatened judgments will come upon the people of Judah and Jerusalem,”120 because they themselves have followed the bad example their leaders set for them. Along these lines, Norman Gottwald had suggested much earlier that the focus of this text was indeed on Jehoiakim. In contrast to Miller’s emphasis on the reaction to the prophetic oracles ascribed to Jehoiakim, however, Gottwald wrote that the important feature of this text was the devastating nature of the judgment against the king: Although Jeremiah may have been wrong in the detail of his prediction, the general sense of his warning was entirely correct: Jehoiakim’s proEgyptian policy came to a disastrous end. In fact, it is not beyond possibility that the king’s life was taking in a court uprising and that Jeremiah’s prophecy of the dishonoring of the corpse did come true.121

In summary, I have considered the statements attributed to Yahweh under a variety of headings. Significant variation among these statements has been demonstated. However, the tendency of twentieth-century scholarship to attribute these differences to different factions or parties active in late 7th-early 6th century B.C.E. Judah has been resisted. Different parties may in fact be behind these different perceptions, yet the point is that the editors seem to have preserved something of the range of options 118 John Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; New York: Doubleday, 1965), 181. It is possible, alternatively, that this episode represents the kind of pious fiction seen in the 2 Kings 22 narrative of the discovery of the law book that began King Josiah’s reform. 119 Clements, Jeremiah, 211. These two emphases are not to be set over against one another, as demonstrated by Clements’ working with both. 120 Patrick D. Miller, Jeremiah (NIB 6; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 840. 121 Norman K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near East (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 256.

DIALOGUES WITH GOD

139

available for understanding the events of the exile. That the holders of the various perceptions—and, for the most part, the text does not allow us to make firm statements regarding the identity of these people—ascribe their ideas to Yahweh should not be surprising at all.

3 DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

Thus, by proceeding from a preliminary understanding of the character of the Platonic dialogues, which are themselves a distinctive kind of logos, we have in our reading come upon the thematic development of the question of logos in certain dialogues. It is appropriate that we now let the peculiar reflexivity which the dialogues involve in this regard assert itself explicitly—that reflexivity consisting in the fact that the dialogues, as logoi, take up thematically the question of logos, so that in bringing something to light about their theme they also bring to light something about themselves.1

In the theological rhetoric of the Book, Yahweh has authorized Jeremiah to speak the divine word. One may also argue from the opposite direction, namely that Jeremiah is shown, by content of the perceptions ascribed to him, to agree with those perceptions ascribed to Yahweh. Because he is so presented, he must have been so authorized by God. Either way, it is clear that Jeremiah and Yahweh are shown to so completely agree—Jeremiah’s complaints against God (e.g., chapter 20) notwithstanding—that to describe the words of Yahweh is to describe the words of Jeremiah, and vice versa. Whereas it was noted in chapter 2 that Yahweh only rarely enters into a dialogue properly so called, Jeremiah is rather often depicted in dialogue. Most of these dialogues, moreover, are by nature conflicts. It is helpful, therefore, to remember the programmatic statement of Jack Lundbom: Jeremiah was a prophet of dialogue… Jeremiah is not a prophet who simply calls out the divine word. He is a person willing to discuss—indeed to argue—with the people. But his aim is not to overpower. There is always the opportunity for rebuttal, and if the audience keeps silent it is because they have nothing to say. This strategy of course paid off, because by allowing the people to participate in the dialogue, the people were 1

Sallis, Being and Logos, 176.

141

142

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH thereby helped to live finally with the difficult answers that inevitably had to be given.2

This statement captures well the general presentation of the prophet through the Book. What is most interesting, however, is that in at least some of the dialogues, it is Jeremiah who has nothing to say. Bearing in mind that the consistent presentation of the prophet is as one who speaks the word of God, the silence of Jeremiah is most striking. These dialogues have many complex dimensions. First, they involve both Yahwistic and nonYahwistic opponents. Second, they occur in diverse times and places. Finally, they are resolved in a myriad of ways ranging from the prophet enjoying complete victory to suffering rather ignominous defeat. Again, as in the previous chapter, some categories have more examples than others, but that does not minimize the importance of the latter. The dialogues will be examined in ascending order of the number of occurrences.

JEREMIAH AND THE PRIESTS Attention will repeatedly turn in this chapter to the exchange of letters in Jeremiah 29. These letters offer a glimpse into some rather sharp disputes of the exilic period. As one can expect, the letters are presented in a manner favorable to Jeremiah. In the process, the criticism offered of him sounds like so much bluster. The impression given off from these letters is, therefore, a vindication of Jeremiah’s authenticity as a prophet of Yahweh, and indeed this contributes to the emerging picture of the prophet in the context of the dialogues in which he participates. The chapter as a whole may profitably be described as a dispute over leadership among the exiles in Babylonia and the remnant in Judah, at a time between the deportations in 598-97 and 587-86. 29:1-7, 10-14, 24-32 (1) These are the words of a letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the remainder of the exiled elders, to the priests and to the prophets,3 and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled from Jerusalem to Babylonia—(2) after Jeconiah the king, the queen mother, the officials and the ministers, and the artisans and smiths of Judah had left Jerusalem—(3) by the hand of Elasa ben Shaphan and Gemariah ben

2 3

Lundom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric, 126-7. LXX: “false prophets.”

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

143

Hilkiah whom Zedekiah King of Judah had sent to Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon in Babylon: (4) “Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el to all the exiles whom I have exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon: (5) Build houses and live in them, plant vineyards and eat of their fruit. (6) Marry and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters as wives, so that they may give you sons and daughters; flourish there instead of wasting away. (7) Seek the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray to Yahweh on its behalf, for in its welfare shall be found your welfare. (10) “For thus says Yahweh: when Babylon’s seventy years are over, I will visit you and I will fulfill for you the promise to return you to this place. (11) For I know the plans I have for you—Oracle of Yahweh— plans of welfare and not disaster, to give you a hopeful future. (12) When you call for me and come and pray to me, then I will listen to you. (13) If you search for me you will find me, if only you seek me with all your heart. (14) I will be found close by to you—Oracle of Yahweh—and I will restore what belongs to you. And I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places to which I banished you—Oracle of Yahweh— and I will bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you.” (24) And to Shemaiah the Nehemalite you shall say: (25) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Because you sent letters in your own name to all the people who are in Jerusalem, and [especially] to Zephaniah ben Maaseiah the priest and to all the [other] priests, saying, (26) “Yahweh made you priest after Jehoiada, in order that you might control for the House of Yahweh every crazy person who wants to be prophet, to put them in the stocks and the pillory. (27) Now, why have you not rebuked Jeremiah the Anathothite who is prophesying before you? (28) For he has actually sent a message to us in Babylon, saying, ‘It will be a long time, build houses and live in them, plant vineyards and eat their fruit.’” (29) When Zephaniah the priest read this letter in the hearing of Jeremiah, (30) the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah: (31) Send a latter to all the exiles, saying, “Thus says Yahweh to Shemaiah the Nehemalite because Shemaiah prophesied to you, even though I did not send him, and made you trust in falsehood, (32) therefore thus says Yahweh: Look! I will punish Shemaiah the Nehemalite and all his descendant, and there will not be any one of his line living among these people and they will not see the good things that I am about to do for my people—Oracle of Yahweh—for he has urged disloyalty toward Yahweh.”4

4

24-32.

See below for a discussion of some differences between MT and LXX of vv.

144

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

This chapter begins with the perception that Jeremiah sent a letter to “the priests, the prophets, the rest of the elders of the exilic community, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon” (v. 1). While the identity of the third of these groups in particular is unclear, what is apparent from this passage (with further evidence from v. 3) is that Jeremiah is described as a person of significant enough standing in the Judean community to have access to royal correspondence and to address the whole community. “If,” as Daniel Smith commented, “the letter refers to a genuine exchange of ideas between Palestine and Babylonia, then aspects of ch. 29 represent an important political document.”5 The content of this letter ascribed to Jeremiah had to do with perceptions of the character of life in the exile, especially including an injunction to pray for the city of Babylon, since God had sent the people there for the long haul. The remainder of the chapter includes reference to letters (MT) ostensibly written by “Shemaiah the Nehemalite” to all the people in Jerusalem and to the priests, and an oracle ascribed to Jeremiah in response to it. The contents of the letter ascribed to Shemaiah dealt with the issue of authority. Specifically, the perception of this letter is that the priest Zephaniah has been given authority to deal harshly with the “madmen who play at being prophets,” and so, according to Shemaiah, Jeremiah should have been dealt with in this way. The letter ascribed to Shemaiah had presumably been written after that ascribed to Jeremiah, since the latter is quoted in v. 28. That Zephaniah the priest is said to have read this letter to Jeremiah (v. 29) further indicated the standing and authority that the narrators assumed Jeremiah to have held. The narrative indicates that, upon hearing the contents of Shemaiah’s letter, Jeremiah spoke an oracle of Yahweh charging Shemaiah with deception and adding that he will have no progeny in the land nor any share in the future good that God will do. The charge against Shemaiah which is ascribed to God (by Jeremiah) is similar to that ascribed to God (by Jeremiah) laid at the feet of the prophets in Babylon— not being sent by Yahweh and therefore preaching deceptive words that did not come from Yahweh. Daniel L. Smith contributed greatly to the understanding of this chapter as reflecting a dispute over leadership between the deported leaders and those in Judah, and, in particular, disputes about the stance that both

Daniel L. Smith, “Jeremiah as Prophet of Nonviolent Resistance,” JSOT 43 (Fall 1989): 98. 5

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

145

the exiles and the remnant are to take with regard to the interests of the conquering power. He wrote: We are left with vv. 5-7 as the essence of the letter from Jeremiah. There is virtual unanimity among commentators that this letter is authentic, or based on an authentic tradition. The most cautious note, however, is…that the economy of language…probably derives from an editor who is working on the basis, and perhaps authority, of a Jeremianic prophetic tradition with pro-Babylonian tendencies.6

The scholarly consensus has now called into question whether an authentic kernel of a letter would later be called into question. Smith went on to comment: “The whole of Jeremiah 29 gives us insights into the social psychology of a group under stress. We hear in this chapter about rumours, emotional upheaval, and divisions of leadership with their conflicting strategies for survival and faithfulness.”7 Klaas Smelik’s work on this passage presented a cautious but stark alternative to the confidence expressed earlier by Smith that the letter, as it stands, somewhat realistically represents the opinions of Jeremiah. According to Smelik, it may very well be that we have in chapter 29, at least in summary form, an exchange of correspondence between the exile and the remnant. However, he suggested, “it is also possible that the authors have introduced a letter here not because they had a copy of it before them when writing this chapter, but because they had to cope with the difficulty that in their book Jeremiah could not address the exiles in Babylonia personally.”8 Although Smelik argued against seeing the letter as reaching

Ibid., 97. Ibid., 103 [emphasis added]. 8 Smelik, “Letters to the Exiles: Jeremiah 29 in Context” SJOT 10:2 (1996), 284. Karel van der Toorn made a similar argument, although he apparently proceeded from the assumption that the letter, in the main if not entirely, is authentic: 6 7

If there is good reason to assume the historical reliability of Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles, it follows that the prophet used the written medium to reach a contemporary audience which he could not address in person. This is a prophetic letter… The prophet had recourse to the written word not to preserve his message for posterity, but as a means of communication over a physical distance.

146

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

back to an authentic core, nevertheless he recognized that the function of this text within the literary document of the Book of Jeremiah is the most important thing to consider: “As soon as we approach the text as a literary creation by the authors, whether they have made use of an original letter or not, such a distinction is not relevant anymore.”9 I agree with Smelik that the function of Jeremiah 29 is to describe a very important dispute over leadership, and particularly a dispute over how one is to behave in the context of imperial domination. This text has been classified (by itself) as a dialogue between Jeremiah and the priests specifically because of the charge made by Shemaiah. Notice has come to the priest Zedekiah that Jeremiah should be punished as a madman. In Jeremiah’s dialogues with political leaders (chapter 5), Jeremiah’s supposed “pro-Babylonian” stance will be investigated. The complaint of Shemaiah may be related to this accusation. Returning again to the methodology of John Sallis, one finds an interesting parallel between this passage and Jeremiah 29. Socrates, according to Sallis, argues that he is not a madman, but rather is “possessed,” in a manner of speaking, by his philosphy: He thus introduces, in effect, a division of madness into two kinds, ordinary human madness and divine or god-sent madness. From this division Socrates then proceeds to make a further division of divine madness into three kinds, that involved in prophesy [sic], that which deals in purifications and sacred rites, and that exemplified in the poet. Socrates speaks briefly of the goods received by [people] as the fruit of such kinds of madness. Then he concludes this first part of his speech by proposing a fourth kind of divine madness: love.10

If Jeremiah is a madman, he is only so because he is zealous for the word of Yahweh (see 1 Kings 19:10). According to the alternate view, Jeremiah should not be allowed to prophesy because he is a madman, weakening the resolve of the people to resist the occupying forces. Thus the lines of the dispute are clear: it is a matter of the authority of Jeremiah to speak the words that he claims are from Yahweh. Shemaiah was convinced, as many of Jeremiah’s opponents throughout the book Karel van der Toorn, “From the Mouth of the Prophet: The Literary Fixation of Jeremiah’s Prophecies in the Context of the Ancient Near East,” in Inspired Speech, 196. 9 Smelik, “Letters to the Exiles,” 285. 10 Sallis, Being and Logos, 132-33.

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

147

were convinced, that Jeremiah was speaking his own words—or perhaps the words of Baruch (see 43:3)—but in any case not words that Yahweh has commanded him to speak. Shemaiah claimed that Zedekiah should have done his duty, authorized by Yahweh, and eliminated Jeremiah for acting at being a prophet but really being a madman.

JEREMIAH AND THE DEVOTEES OF THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN The dialogue between Jeremiah and the devotees of the Queen of Heaven is very significant for the Book’s testimony to differing perceptions of the exile. Such is also the case with the exchange of letters reported in chapter 29. The Queenists11 disagree not with the basic idea that the destruction and exile represents punishment by an angry deity, but rather on the identity of the punishing deity. The limited nature of this evidence is obvious,12 but it is nevertheless a straightforward alternative to the dominant view. Previous scholarship has failed to take the Queen of Heaven material seriously as an alternative viewpoint. Strikingly, even though some feminist scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah naturally finds fertile ground for its work in this material, even here the cult of the Queen is far too often treated as a mere foil to the dominant view. The dialogue between Jeremiah and the Queenists appears in two texts. The first of these is more directly an indictment of the practices associated with the cult of the Queen of Heaven, whereas the second purports to be a direct statement of the Queenists’ perceptions and theology. A closer look at this material may support the contention that these perceptions very well could have represented viable options for understanding why the events of the exile came about. That the Book of Jeremiah is the only book that includes this material supports a basic argument of this dissertation, namely that the editors/compilers of the Book of Jeremiah have created a document that preserves something of the range of options for understanding why the events of the exile came about. That this is the case leads one to wonder why this material is given such short shrift, for this is certainly not justified by the dearth of examples. 11 In what follows I will use this shorthand to refer to the devotees of the Queen of Heaven. 12 A recent graduate thesis on the Queen of Heaven material in the Book of Jeremiah is Annette Grace Zimondi, “The Prophet Jeremiah and the Queen of Heaven” (M.A. Thesis: Vanderbilt University, 2004).

148

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Indictment of Queen of Heaven Cult: 7:16-20 This first text involving the Queen of Heaven presents itself as a description of the practices associated with her cult from the perspective of its detractors. Put another way, this is a Yahwistically-oriented denigration of the cult of the Queen of Heaven, and thus a further indictment upon the people for failing to keep their covenant with Yahweh. This text occurs within a context of Jeremiah the prophet having been forbidden to intercede for the people, an idea treated at greater length above (11:9-17; 14:1-12). 7:16-20 (16) As for you, do not pray for this people, do not raise up a cry and pray on their behalf, because there is no chance that I will hear you. (17) Haven’t you seen what they are doing in the cities of Judah and the outskirts of Jerusalem? (18) The children pick up sticks, the fathers get the fire going, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods in order to anger me. (19) Have they tried to anger me?—Oracle of Yahweh. Haven’t they brought shame upon themselves? (20) Therefore, thus says ‘Adonai Yahweh, surely my wrath and my fury will be poured out on this place, upon human and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the earth, and it will burn and never be put out.

Considering the relationship between the LXX and the MT, one finds something rather intriguing. In verse 18, instead of the declaration that the “women knead dough to make cakes ‫למלכת השׁמים‬13 ‘for the Queen of Heaven,’ the LXX translates “their women knead dough, to make cakes for the host of heaven.” The LXX apparently interprets the phrase ‫למאכת‬ ‫‘ השׁמים‬for the work of heaven,’ perhaps a deliberate misreading.14 Typical of such polemic, this text denigrates the practices of the Queenists without demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of them. The entire cult is dismissed with the judgment that its practitioners are “bringing shame upon See below on the “corrected” pointing of the MT, which is not represented by the phrase as it appears here. 14 Susan Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth Century Judah (HSM 46; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 5 n. 1. She continued: “as is commonly recognized, the Masoretic pointing is an apologetic attempt to remove any hint that the people of Judah worshiped the Queen of Heaven” (Ibid.). 13

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

149

themselves.” This text is thus a reflection again of the dominant view, namely that the exile came about because the people went after other gods, like the Queen of Heaven. However, the fact that mention of the cult of the Queen of Heaven remains in a Book so thoroughly edited in a manner consistent with the ideology/theology of the deuteronomists must be taken seriously as a datum for the existence of a significantly different point of view. The context of the chapter 7 polemics against the cult might lead one to suggest that these alien practices are what caused Yahweh to forbid the prophet’s intercession. But on a closer reading this is shown not to be the case. The reason, rather, is that there is “no chance” that Yahweh will hear the prophet’s intercession on behalf of the people. This is the same language we saw above, and in particular in the passage indicating that even if Moses or Samuel were to stand before Yahweh, not even then would the deity relent from the promised punishment (15:1-4). Beyond the command of God that the prophet not intercede for the people, however, the interesting part about this text is the understanding— dim though it is—that the cult was a family affair.15 However, even though the editors/compilers of the Book of Jeremiah may not have possessed fully accurate knowledge of how the cult worked, Moshe Weinfeld believes that the presentation is fairly accurate: “A description of the ways in which the king and the queen of heaven were worshipped in Judah is given by Zephaniah and Jeremiah, and this description is confirmed by Assyrian sources.”16 Weinfeld went on to say: All the elements which we have found in these texts as denoting offering incense and pouring out a libation, altars on the roof and prostrating (on the roof), piling up wood for kindling the fire, mixing (kneading), and making cakes, reflect what is contained in the biblical views we have quoted. What distinguishes this cult is its private character. It is not practised in the temple court but on the roofs of houses (Jer. 19:13), and those participating in it are, as can be seen from Jer. 7, the members of 15 Angela Bauer noted in this connection: “Though mentioned together with their families, the women are not identified by them. ‘The women’ (‫)ַ שׁ ִ ים‬,‫ נּ‬not ַ ‫‘ ה‬the mothers,’ ‘daughters,’ or ‘sisters’ are in charge here. Explicitly the emphasis is on the women in their roles beyond family boundaries, not restricted to their patrilineal identification.” Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading (Studies in Biblical Literature 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1999), 77. 16 Moshe Weinfeld, “The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and Its Background,” UF 4 (1972), 149.

150

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH the household. The principal features of this cult, which is directed to the host of heaven, and primarily to [Ishtar] the queen of heaven,17 are the burning of incense and libations. The altars which were set up were of the portable type, as were also the incense altars…in contrast to the large ones in temples.18

Saul Olyan, however, argued that a distinction should be drawn between the presentations in Jeremiah 7 and 44MT (LXX 51): “The cult of the Queen of heaven does appear to be centered around the home in Jer 7, but possibly not in Jer 44. Hermopolis letter 4.1 mentions a temple to the Queen of Heaven in Egypt, the setting of the discourse in Jer 44. Surely a temple does not suggest a private cultus.”19 Susan Ackerman made an interesting point concerning the reliability of the polemic against Queenists when she wrote: The sayings appended to Jeremiah’s temple sermon come from the hands of the Deuteronomistic editors of Jeremiah. This means that we do not in fact know from Jeremiah 7 whether Jeremiah himself prophesied against the cult of the Queen of Heaven or…whether the Deuteronomistic editors are accurate in locating the cult in late pre-exilic Jerusalem. But Jer 44:15-19, 25 indicates that the Deuteronomistic tradition is reliable.20

Ackerman thus makes even more explicit the relationship between the Queen of Heaven material in chapters 7 and 44MT. She suggested, as regards chapter 44, “it [is] clear that Jeremiah himself rejected the worship of the Queen of Heaven.”21

17 The ambiguity in Weinfeld’s statement regarding the focus of the cult perhaps indicates that he takes the “corrected” pointing as his starting point (see above). 18 Weinfeld, “The Worship,” 153. 19 Saul M. Olyan, “Some Observations Concerning the Identity of the Queen of Heaven,” UF 19 (1987), 173. Zimondi’s M.A. thesis essentially argued along the same lines as Weinfeld and Olyan (see note 12). 20 Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, 6. 21 Ibid., 7. The remainder of Ackerman’s treatment of the cult deals with the attempt to identify which particular deity is meant by the epithet “Queen of Heaven.” Such was also the task that lay before Olyan and Weinfeld in the articles noted above. For our purposes, the identity is adequate as “The Queen of Heaven.”

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

151

Debate on the Reasons for Destruction and Exile: 44:15-23 Even more interesting than the chapter 7 polemic is the debate set in Egypt between the Queenists and Jeremiah. It is here that we find the alternative explanation of the reasons behind the exile ascribed to the Queenists. Aside from the interesting light it casts on the perceptions of the exile, the setting of this debate in Egypt recalls the exile of King Shallum/Jehoahaz to Egypt (22:10), of whom it was said that exile is a worse fate than death. 44:15-23 (15) Then all the men who knew that their wives were offering incense to other gods, all the women who stood in the great assembly, and all the people who were living in Pathros in the land of Egypt, answered Jeremiah: (16) “We will not listen to the word which you spoke to us in the name of Yahweh! (17) Instead, we will continue doing that which was commanded of us, offering incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink-offerings to her, just as we, our ancestors, our kings and our princes have done in the cities of Judah and the outskirts of Jerusalem. Then, we had our fill of bread and good things, and no evil ever came upon us. (18) From the time that we ceased offering incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink-offerings to her, we have lacked everything, and we have died by the sword and by famine. (19) And when we offer incense to the Queen of Heaven and pour out drink-offerings to her, is it without our husbands’ knowledge that we make cakes in her image and pour out drink-offerings to her?” (20) Then Jeremiah said to all the people, to the men and the women and all the people who answered him this way, saying: (21) “Didn’t Yahweh remember and set upon his heart the incense that you offered in the towns of Judah and the outskirts of Jerusalem, you, your ancestors, your kings, your princes, and all the people of the land with them? (22) When Yahweh could no longer stomach your evil doings and all the abominations that you committed, your land became a horror, a desolation, and a curse, without inhabitant—just as it is today. (23) Because of your incense offerings, and your sins against Yahweh, and your refusal to listen to the voice of Yahweh or to walk after his laws and his statutes, therefore all this misfortune has been brought upon you, as is still the case.

152

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

This second text mentioning the Queen of Heaven and the cult associated with her, as stated, is the more important of the two.22 The importance of this text as a window into the varied perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah is demonstrated in four ways. First, 44:15-23 offers more comment than 7:16-20. Second, the reference to the Queen of Heaven in chapter 7 is a polemic sideswipe, whereas in chapter 44 we encounter a somewhat broader picture of what was involved in the cult of the Queen of Heaven. Third, the Queenists are represented in chapter 44 as speaking for themselves, rather than, as in chapter 7, merely described. While chapter 7 is a bit more detailed in terms of describing the involvement of all the family members in the cult, chapter 44 reports the women’s direct speech in defending their actions, apparently with the full support of their husbands. Fourth, and most importantly, chapter 44 presents in a succinct way the conflict over the interpretation of the events of the exile that purportedly exists between Jeremiah, the prophet of Yahweh, and the Queenists. The astounding feature of this text is the content of the Queenists’ speech. According to the text, these people are reporting their experience that, as long as they carried out their responsibilities with regard to the cult of the Queen of Heaven, they found blessedness. However, as soon as they began to neglect these responsibilities they found failure and, in addition, have seen many of their number die by the sword and famine. This statement is remarkable for two reasons. First, in spite of the obvious differences, the Queenists seem to follow a similar line of thinking as do the deuteronomists, particularly in the way judgment and redemption follow, respectively, on sinfulness and faithfulness. Secondly, the declaration that the people have suffered death by the sword and famine employs typical language of the judgment sections in the Book of Jeremiah. Thus, even the conclusion that the Queensits and the representatives of the dominant view of the Book disagree on the reasons that the exile came about needs a bit of qualification, for they use the same reasoning process, drawing on their different theologies to interpret the common experience in completely contrasting ways. A comparison between chapter 44 and chapter 51LXX reveals another significant difference between this passage and the earlier one in chapter 7. Whereas chapter 7LXX omits direct reference to the Queen of Heaven, in order to harmonize one side of the accusation with the other (see above), chapter 51LXX does in fact, mention the Queen of Heaven directly. The only other difference between chapter 44MT and chapter 51LXX is a cosmetic one: LXX omits “to other gods” in v. 15, without significant alteration of the meaning. 22

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

153

The relationship between the cult of the Queen of Heaven and the cult of Yahweh has been an important part of the discussion of this material. It has also, unfortunately, been subjected to much error and misstatement. A few examples of this can be mentioned. James Sanders interpreted the cult in terms of polytheism, though the following statements indicate a drastic misunderstanding of polytheism: “Polytheism was the mode by which they thought about reality. If one god can’t do that job, find one that can… Polytheism…would have sealed up the fate of Yahweh, so to speak; he simply had not measured up.”23 Sanders suggested elsewhere: “Some of the voluntary exiles in Egypt were “worshipping the Queen of Heaven because they felt Yahweh had indeed abandoned them.”24 The context of Jeremiah 44/51LXX suggests not that the devotees of the Queen had tried out Yahwism and found such religion to be lacking; rather, according to them, Josiah/Hezekiah’s enforcement of Yahwism in Jerusalem has caused the devastation because it entailed abandonment of the Queen. In short, it was not at all a question of Yahweh failing them; rather, they had failed the Queen! In reality, this theology was just like the deuteronomists and the majority opinion of the Book of Jeremiah. The only difference between them is that they involved different deities. As indicated, the point of the Queen of Heaven material in the Book of Jeremiah seems to be rather straightforward: to present an alternative perception of the exile. The major differences between chapter 7 and chapter 44 mentioned above stem, in large measure, from the fact that the destruction of Jereusalem has taken place between the two chapters. On the one hand, the threat in the Temple Sermon is that the temple and the city will be destroyed if the people do not amend their doings. Included with the “sins” that the dominant tradition notices are most assuredly the practices associated with the cult of the Queen of Heaven, and indeed such practices may render ineffective any intercession the prophet might offer on behalf of the people. On the other hand, the debate in chapter 44 purportedly takes place not only after the Temple has been destroyed, but also after both of the first two deportations. Philip King summarized the content of the debate aptly: Jeremiah and the Jewish refugees in Egypt were on a theological collision course over the interpretation of history. Jeremiah considered the cultic practice of the Queen of Heaven as responsible for the disaster of 586 23 James Sanders, “The Exile and Canon Formation,” Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (ed. James M. Scott; New York: Brill, 1997), 54. 24 Ibid., 53.

154

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH B.C.E. in Judah and Jerusalem. In the eyes of the people of Judah, all their trouble began with the reform of Josiah, which outlawed the cult to the Queen of Heaven, a religious devotion that had been the reason for their earlier prosperity. Jeremiah insisted that exclusive loyalty to the Lord, the God of Israel, had been the only reason for success in the past. Despite Jeremiah's denunciation of the Queen of Heaven, the Jewish refugees persisted in worshipping the mother goddess as the way to guarantee security and prosperity in Egypt.25

The dispute centers on which deity the people should follow. Angela Bauer described the relationship between the two deities in a helpful way. She wrote that the devotees’ speech regarding the implications of making and stopping to make offerings to the Queen of Heaven and to pour out libations to her reiterates the connection between worship and well-being that the speakers outline. By implication their assertion accuses Jeremiah’s God for their present condition. Unlike the Queen of Heaven, YHWH did not provide.26

Susan Ackerman believed that the “devotion [to the Queen of Heaven] in the face of persecution [by Jeremiah and other devotees of the Yahweh cult] indicates that the worship of the Queen of Heaven was an important part of women’s religious expression in the sixth century.”27 C. F. Whitely commended further on the enduring nature of the cult: It is similarly thought that the worship of the Queen of Heaven had been abandoned from the time of Josiah’s reforms till the Jews went into exile 25 Philip J. King, Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1993), 106. King overstated his case somewhat when he suggested the debate was between Jeremiah and “the people of Judah,” whereas the Book of Jeremiah ascribes this debate to a particular segment of the people of Judah. 26 Bauer, Gender in the Book of Jeremiah¸152. Bauer did do a better job than Sanders (see above) by accusing Yahweh of the exile, but still misses the point that this text is not a comparison of deities per se. Rather, the devotees of the Queen of Heaven appear not to particularly concern themselves with Yahweh, except insofar as the worship of Yahweh interfered with their worship of the Queen. 27 Susan Ackerman, “‘And the Women Knead Dough:’ The Worship of the Queen of Heaven in Sixth-Century Judah,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (ed. Peggy L Day; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 110. In my opinion, the suggestion that the worship of the Queen of Heaven was the exclusive domain of the women fails to deal adequately with the nature of the cult as it is presented in the Book of Jeremiah, including all of the family rather than only the women.

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

155

in Egypt, and that therefore the only time Jeremiah could have witnessed this worship in Judah was before the reformation… Apart, however, from this assumption it is questionable if Jeremiah xliv can be accepted as offering evidence for the discontinuation of this particular kind of worship for a period after the reform. The Jeremianic authorship of the passage is in doubt, but even if we accept that the prophet did rebuke the Jews in Egypt for this idolatry, there is nothing in the chapter itself to denote that it ever ceased in Judah… The implication here is that the Judeans as a whole continued to worship the Queen of Heaven until the fall of Jerusalem when it became inpracticable to do so. Verse 22, moreover, represents this idolatrous practice as the immediate cause of the disaster which overtook the city.28

The final two sentences of the above quote are symptomatic of the treatment the Queen of Heaven material. That is, the Queensits are not considered in their own right as having an opinion on the events of the exile, but rather as a foil to the dominant presentation of the Book of Jeremiah. We may conclude that it was not at all clear to the people of Judah generally that there existed a causal relationship between failing the Yahweh cult and the events of the early 6th century.

JEREMIAH AND THE PROPHETS In the following section, attention turns again to debates between Jeremiah and other Yahwists. In particular, the debates between Jeremiah and the prophets are important loci for the differing interpretations of the exile. As will be shown, the differences between MT and LXX are significant here as well, in particular with LXX’s designation of Jeremiah’s opponents as “false prophets,” making unambiguous what is only implicit in MT, namely that it is Jeremiah and not the others who speak the authentic word of Yahweh. Hananiah: The End Will Be Soon: 28:1-17 .The perception ascribed to the competing Yahwistic prophet Hananiah disagrees with that ascribed to Jeremiah, maintaining that the power of Babylon will be broken quickly. The alternative ascribed to Jeremiah developed into the enigmatic predication of seventy years for the length of the exile. Here focus is on the attempt ascribed to Hananiah to dismantle 28 C. F. Whitely, “The Date of Jeremiah’s Call,” in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies (ed. Leo G. Perdue and Brian W. Kovacs; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1984), 79-80.

156

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

the perception of accepting Babylonian rule ascribed to Jeremiah. At least for the moment, Hananiah rather conclusively wins the debate. 28:1-17 (1) It happened in the fourth year of the reign of Zedekiah King of Judah, in the fifth month, that Hananiah ben Azzur the prophet,29 who was a Gibeonite, said to me in the temple—in the presence of the priests and all the people, (2) “Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: I have broken the yoke30 of the King of Babylon! (3) At the end of two years I will bring back to this place all the vessels of the House of Yahweh that Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon took from this place and brought to Babylon. (4) And I will bring back Jeconiah ben Jehoiakim King of Judah and all the exiles of Judah who went to Babylon to this place—Oracle of Yahweh—for I am about to break the yoke of the King of Babylon.” (5) Then Jeremiah the prophet said to Hananiah the prophet in the sight of the priests and all the people who were standing in the House of Yahweh, (6) The prophet31 Jeremiah said, “Indeed! May Yahweh in fact do so! May Yahweh fulfill your word which you prophesied concerning the return of the vessels of the House of Yahweh and all the exiles from Babylon to this place! (7) But, please, just listen to this word to this word which I am about to speak in your hearing and in the hearing of all the people. (8) The prophets who were before me and you in the old days prophesied against many nations and great kingdoms, concerning war and famine and pestilence.32 (9) If a prophet prophecies peace then when the word of that prophet comes about can you really know if Yahweh sent that prophet.” (10) Then Hananiah the prophet took the cross bar of the yoke off of Jeremiah the prophet’s neck and broke it. (11) Hananiah said in the sight of all the people, “Thus says Yahweh: Just like that will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon after two years, from off the necks of all the nations!” And Jeremiah the prophet went home.

29 In 35:1LXX we see again the neologism yeudoprofhthv, ‘false prophet.’ This instance seems to be unique among the other occurrences, however, in that this is a narrative rather than a polemic against the other (false). The effect of calling Hananiah a “false prophet” from the outset is to condition the reader against the perception ascribed to Hananiah. This is not to mention the issue we will consider later, namely, whether the deuteronomistic test for prophets is properly applied in Hananiah’s case. 30 The imperfect tense in Hebrew seems to fit better with the context of a soon-approaching end to the exile. 31 The repetition of the title of Jeremiah is an MT plus. 32 LXX ends with “concerning war.”

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

157

(12) Later the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah, after Hananiah the prophet had broken the crossbar of the yoke on Jeremiah the prophet’s neck, (23) Go and say to Hananiah, Thus says Yahweh: You have broken a wooden crossbar, but I will make after it an iron crossbar. (14) For thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: I will put an iron yoke on the necks of all these nations, to make them serve Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon, and they shall serve them and all the living things of the field will I give to him. (15) So Jeremiah the prophet said to Hananiah the prophet, “Listen, Hananiah!33 Yahweh did not send you, and you have not convinced the people to believe your lies. (16) Therefore thus says Yahweh: Look! I am about to kick you off the earth. This very year you will die for you have encouraged apostasy to Yahweh.” (17) And Hananiah died that very year, in the seventh month.34

A point that must not be missed is that Hananiah, according to the text, is a Yahwistic prophet.35 This immediately sets up an important tension. Louis Stulman appropriately captured the importance of the conflict ascribed to Jeremiah and Hananiah for the future of the nation: In this newly emergent symbolic world, there are two conflicting and mutually exclusive visions of the future for ‘all nations’ but especially for the people of Judah (chs. 27-29.). Both articulate new configurations of hope and salvation. Both present fresh ideological scripts for a reenvisioned community. And both claim to be authorized by God. The text, however, clearly presents one as dangerous and malevolent. Although these two conflicting voices come to the fore in the prophetic confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah (in ch. 28), Hananiah’s voice apparently represents widely held perceptions of the world and Judah’s future in it.36

By situating the prophetic conflict of chapter 28 in this way, Stulman paved the way for my contention that the Book of Jeremiah might very well have been designed to preserve alternative perceptions of the exile. The nationalistic tinge of this perception certainly could have played well in the time between the two deportations. Joep Dubbink wrote that since “part of The direct address to Hananiah is not found in LXX. LXX says merely, “Hananiah died in the seventh month.” 35 The LXX, as noted, explicitly calls Hananiah a “false prophet.” Admittedly, it is not explicit in MT that Hananiah is a prophet of Yahweh, but he speaks in the name of Yahweh, thus making adjudication between him and Jeremiah necessary (see Deut 18:15-22). 36 Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 74 [emphasis original]. 33 34

158

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

the judgment announced by Jeremiah has taken place…the prophet might be expected to gradually gain supporters. But the opposite is the case; the theology of unconditional trust in YHWH…is rooted so deeply that even the appearance of the Babylonian armies [does] not lead to a” modification of the prevailing public opinion.37 The perception that Jeremiah’s words continue to be opposed is interesting in that it makes problematic the deuteronomistic test for prophecy. Even though, in Stulman’s words from another context, “Hananiah [subsequently] dies, thus revealing a ‘Deuteronomistic vindication’ of Jeremiah’s message,”38 not even this was enough to turn public opinion in Jeremiah’s favor. Perhaps this is so because those experiencing the presence of an invading army might very well have readily received the perception ascribed to Hananiah.39 A futher issue to be dealt with is the timing of Hananiah’s death, as he is not even given the opportunity to have his prediction come true—and thus show himself to be an authentic Yahwistic prophet—before the judgment of death is carried out. In light of this, Sallis raised an interesting point regarding the nature of proof in Western thought: Especially through the influence of modern symbolic mathematics, the relevant sense has become so attenuated that the word ‘proof’ has almost entirely lost the root sense of ‘apodeixis’ and has to some extent even taken on a contrary and decisively non-Greek sense. ‘Apodeixis’ means a showing forth, an exhibiting of something about something, a making manifest of something so that it might be seen in its manifestness. Thus, for the Greeks a proof was anything but a mere technique of the sort that could be employed in almost total detachment from content and that 37 Joep Dubbink, “Getting Closer to Jeremiah: The Word of YHWH and the Literary-Theological Person of a Prophet,” in Reading the Book of Jeremiah, 28. 38 Louis Stulman, “Jeremiah the Prophet: Astride Two Worlds,” in Kessler, ed., Reading the Book of Jeremiah, 55. See below for more on the timing of Hananiah’s death with respect to the deuteronomistic test for prophets. 39 In this connection, Daniel Smith-Christopher made a most curious statement: “Jehoiachin himself, recognized by the Deuteronomistic Historian and by Zedekiah as the true ruler, was deported to Babylon [in 598-97].” Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile, 58 [emphasis added]. While this perception ascribed to Hananiah was treasonous in that it spoke against the present ruler of the land, Zedekiah, it was intensely nationalistic in that it recognized the oppressor Babylonia instituted Zedekiah’s rule. It does not follow from this, however, that Zedekiah accepted Jehoiachin as the legitimate ruler, not least because this would necessitate considering himself illegitimate.

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

159

could serve as an appropriate substitute for insight into the matter itself in its manifestness.40

This sort of detachment seems not to pertain in the question of true and false prophecy. This question was, by all accounts, a vitally important one to the editors of the Bible. According to the the test of prophets in Deut 18, the content of the prophecy was a matter of decisive importance, in terms of the coming true (or not) of that content.41 Even if this verification principle was not consistently applied in such a way as to avoid logical problems, Hananiah’s death (presumably at Yahweh’s hand!) does seem to follow the pattern. Bob Becking drew a further contrast between this text and the Book of Consolation: The fact that the expressions [“break the yoke, burst the bonds”] occur four times in the speech of Hananjah might give rise to the idea that they are the expression of too optimistic a theology. There is one fact that distinguishes Jer. 30:8. from Jer. 28… Hananjah is only speeking [sic] about a hopeful future leaving open the theological question as to the cause of the threat.42

Therefore, while the perception ascribed to Hananiah was sure to have been a more popular word—at that time—than that ascribed to Jeremiah, nevertheless the Book of Jeremiah still leads in a particular direction. That this is so does not lessen the powerful effect of presenting all the available options for understanding and responding to the disasters of the exile and the destruction of Jerusalem. A comparison between this debate and that between Jeremiah and the Queenists yields interesting results. Whereas in Jeremiah 7. and 44. the perspective ascribed to Jeremiah significantly outweighs that ascribed to the devotees of the Queen of Heaven, in the debate with Hananiah the field is more even. The text ascribes victory to Hananiah in the first round. However, Jeremiah, according to the text, is ultimately vindicated by

Sallis, Being and Logos, 136-7. As a side note, one should not fail to notice that this text attributes to Jeremiah a significant modification of the deuteornomistic test for prophets, namely that they should only be subjected to the verification-by-hindsight test if they preach well being for the people and the land (28:9). This apparently exempts from examination prophets like Jeremiah, who preach woe as well as weal. 42 Bob Becking, Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30-31 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 154. 40 41

160

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Hananiah’s death two months later43 even before the latter’s prediction could be proved untrue (by the deuteronomistic test) through failing to come to pass. The perception ascribed to Hananiah suggests, in effect, that the purgative function of the exile will supplant the punitive, and that the king and other principal leaders will soon be returned, indeed within two years. With the debate ascribed to Hananiah and Jeremiah, then, the Book of Jeremiah suggests again that the experience of the exile necessitates a change in how the community defines a proper relationship to God. We have already noted that the dispute between Hananiah and Jeremiah has a vastly different character than the dispute between Jeremiah and the devotees of the Queen of Heaven. The key difference is that Hananiah, according to the text, was a Yahwistic prophet, and thus it was possible that his was the true word and Jeremiah’s the false. This is especially the case since the content of the message ascribed to Hananiah certainly fits in rather well with some of the long-standing notions making up the nationalistic theology of Judah, as Daniel Smith noted: Hananiah must be seen as a prophet who stood firmly in the traditional role of preaching an orthodox message containing allusions both to the inevitability of Zion, and God’s trustworthy protection and aid through a quick return from Exile. Hananiah then, was not perceived as a false prophet by the people during his confrontation with Jeremiah. Indeed, the message of the prophets in the Exilic community proves, if not Hananiah’s own influence, then the wide range of similar prophetic views.44

In the context of the letters purportedly exchanged between the remnant in Jerusalem and the exiles in Babylon the question of true and false prophecy was shown to be important (see further below). Here, in the debate ascribed to Jeremiah and Hananiah, this question is also significant. On the importance of adjudicating between Yahwistic prophets, Thomas Overholt wrote:

43 Cf. LXX, however, which indicates only that Hananiah died “in the seventh month,” over against MT’s “Hananiah died that year, in the seventh month” (28:17, emphasis added). Thus in one instance (false prophet), LXX is more specific, while in the other it is less specific. 44 Smith, “Jeremiah as Prophet,” 98.

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

161

The major dilemma posed by a confrontation between two prophets (e.g., Jer 28) was that of the hearers, who had to decide how they would respond to the two conflicting pronouncements. But instead of recognizing the dynamics inherent in such a situation, the tendency has been to attempt to formulate a set of concrete rules capable of being applied in a rather mechanical way by anyone desiring a way out of the dilemma. Yet these conflict situations seem to be one clear indication that the people had a vital role in the dynamics of the prophetic process.45

Elsewhere, Overholt argued: “To all outward appearances Hananiah was also a true Yahweh prophet. If he is to be shown otherwise this must be done from the point of view of the message with which he came before the people.”46 While there are elements in the tradition (e.g., Deuteronomy 18) by which a prophetic word was to be judged, nevertheless there is a certain sense in which these tests are found wanting. Ultimately, the question of the length of the exile, as it is framed in the debate ascribed to Jeremiah and Hananiah, concerns how the community is to respond to the exile. Overholt suggested that, even in the absence of universally applicable criteria, the need to decide, if possible, between the two or more conflicting prophetic claims was still an important one. Further, one can very easily surmise that the all of the prophets active during the period of the Book of Jeremiah—Uriah ben Shemaiah (ch. 26.), Micah of Moresheth (ch. 26), Ahab ben Koliah and Zedekiah ben Maaseiah (ch. 29.)—not to mention Hananiah and Jeremiah, had adherents. Overholt wrote: “It is evident that both Jeremiah and Hananiah had a following, and it seems equally clear that the followers of each could find some legitimate grounds for believing that their man’s message was faithful to the tradition and relevant to the current historical situation.”47 The care thus required for a proper reading of this debate is similar to that noted by Sallis: Even as effective court rhetoric must be capable of concealing differences between things, especially in the sense of being able, by proceeding by 45 Thomas W. Overholt. “Jeremiah and the Nature of the Prophetic Process,” in Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt (eds.). Scripture in History and Theology (ed. Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt; PTMS 17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 130. 46 Overholt, Threat of Falsehood, 40. We further considered above Crenshaw’s “message-centered” criteria for separating authentic from inauthentic prophecy, and the problems attendant upon these criteria. 47 Overholt, “Jeremiah and the Nature,” 140-1.

162

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH sufficiently small steps, to make a transition from anything to its opposite without being detected. But in order for a speaker to be able to do this effectively, he needs to know what he is concealing; he can shift undetected from one thing to its opposite through intermediate steps only if he is aware of the relevant sameness and difference involved at each of these steps. Yet, presumably, in order to know how a thing is like and unlike other things one must know that thing itself in its truth. Thus, it appears that there can be no effective rhetoric independently of the knowledge of things. The perfection of speech—ironically, even the perfecting of that deceptive power on which the standard court speech depends—requires that the things be manifest in their distinct being. The perfection of speech must be understood in reference to the manifestness of what the speech is about. However, it is of utmost importance to observe that this does not mean that beautiful speech is mere expression of something already achieved in a prior seeing of things in their distinct being.48

A less than sufficiently careful reading of this debate, then, can lead the interepreter into problems. The most dire implication is to quickly to write off Hananiah as deceived and deceptive. This is perhaps reflected in LXX’s making unambiguous that Hananiah is a false prophet. Yet it could also lead the reader into two related misunderstandings of the nature of prophecy. On the one hand, an authentic prophet is only very rarely a lone voice crying in the wilderness. On the other hand, competing prophets most certainly had their competing groups of disciples. Along the same lines, Smith argued that a reframing of the discussion is necessary. He agreed, essentially, that what is at issue in the debate is how the community is to conduct itself: Once the issue is seen in terms of conflicting advice on strategy for exilic existence, then the division between Hananiah and Jeremiah is an example of a split between two political spokespersons in a community under domination and control. The split is between those who advocate limited co-operation and social resistance and those who advocate open and frequently violent rebellion.49 The frequency of this split appears to be in

Sallis¸Being and Logos, 169. While it cannot be said that Hananiah supports rebellion against Babylonia, it may be reasonable to surmise that some in the community, hearing his message, might want to hasten along the return of the exiles. One thinks, for example, of Ishmael from the time after the second deportation. 48 49

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

163

the nature of the social configurations resulting from domination and minority existence.”50

Seen in this way, the debate about the length of the exile is not really a debate about how long the exile will last after all. Rather, it is ultimately a debate concerning how the nation is to conduct itself in the situation of exile. According to the perception ascribed to Jeremiah, submission to the Babylonians and acceptance of a long exilic experience is the way to life. According to the perception ascribed to Hananiah, however, the negative fortunes of the nation would soon be turned around, implying that the power of the imperial state should be resisted, for this is the way that Yahweh wills it. . Jeremiah: Exile Will Last 70 Years: 25:11-14; 29:10-14 ..Perhaps the most enigmatic phrase within the Book of Jeremiah has to do with the perception ascribed to the prophet—in two different places, 25:11 and 29:10—that the Babylonian exile will last for a period of seventy years.51 On the attempts to force the events of the exilic period to conform to this prediction, Parke-Taylor wrote: ”Rather than take this as a precise figure…the better solution is to regard ‘seventy years’ as a round figure, a life-time, as in Ps 90:10. Jeremiah thought of the period of exile as God’s inevitable judgment upon his people.”52 As these two texts in which this perception is ascribed to Jeremiah essentially duplicate one another, we will consider them together.

50 51

Smith, “Jeremiah as Prophet,” 102. Carroll wrote:

In conjunction with this alternative approach to the interpretation of the seventy years [i.e., a lifespan or generation, not a precise figure] it should be noted that an Esarhaddon inscription contains a reference to the seventy-year period during which Babylon would lie desolate… The god Marduk decrees seventy years against Babylon until such times as he becomes reconciled with the land he has punished (cf. 29.10).” Carroll, Jeremiah, 495. 52 Parke-Taylor, Formation, 77.

164

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH 25:11-14 (11) That whole land will become a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the King of Babylon53 for seventy years. (12) When the seventy years are over I will punish the King of Babylon, that nation—Oracle of Yahweh—and the Chaldeans for their sins, and I will make them an object of horror forever. (13) I will bring upon that land all the things that I promised to do to it, everything written in this book of the prophecies of Jeremiah concerning all those nations. (14) For they too shall be enslaved by many nations and great kings, and I will mete out upon them the full measure of their punishment on account of the works of their hands.54 29:10-14 (10) “For thus says Yahweh: when Babylon’s seventy years are over, I will visit you and I will fulfill for you the promise to return you to this place. (11) For I know the plans I have for you—Oracle of Yahweh— plans of welfare and not disaster, to give you a hopeful future.55 (12) When you call for me and come and pray to me, then I will listen to you. (13) If you search for me you will find me, if only you seek me with all your heart. (14) I will be found close by to you56—Oracle of Yahweh— and I will restore what belongs to you. And I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places to which I banished you—Oracle of Yahweh—and I will bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you.”

Both doublets can be found in the LXX Vorlage, with the only differences between the recensions coming in various minor MT pluses. That both of these texts should be preserved in both of the major recensions indicates that this prediction was seen as contributing something of value. Moreover, these two passages are interesting in terms of the prominence of chapters 25 and 29 elsewhere in this study. That is, the experience of the exile serves to refashion the old theological traditions in order to create an environment in which the people’s faithfulness to those traditions can be renewed. Seen in this way, the development upon theological tradition demonstrates the punitive, purgative and catalytic function of the exile. Coming as they do from different contexts within the narrative framework of the Book of Jeremiah and the exilic period, these two texts set up an important contrast

LXX: “they shall serve among the Gentiles.” LXX does not have 25:14. 55 LXX 36:11 reads, “For I will devise for you a device of peace, and not evil, to do all these things for you.” 56 LXX 36:14 ends here. 53 54

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

165

regarding the coming disaster, on the one hand; and a past disaster, on the other hand. On this contrast, John Hill commented: While the prophet is forbidden to intercede for the people while they were still in the land of Judah before the disaster of 597, the exiles in the days after the disaster are told to intercede for the welfare of the city whose king captured them and their land. Such a directive surely turns upside down the orthodox and expected.57

In other words, chapter 25 sets the temporal context of the first perception of a seventy-year-long exile as apparently beginning in the fourth year of Jehoiakim/first year of Nebuchadrezzar, and so before the actual destruction of the land. This text “turns upside down the orthodox and expected” by suggesting, as has been the province of the dominant view throughout the Book of Jeremiah, that Jerusalem and Judah were in fact not inviolable. On the other hand, chapter 29 implies that the seventy years begin during the reign of Zedekiah—without specifying a year. Mark Leuchter noted further: The initial response to the exile among these deportees would not have been one of unilateral complacency. The Josianic reform program was motivated by a spirit of independence and a desire to reclaim the glories of the past associated with David’s reign, and despite Josiah’s death and the influence of Egypt upon the administration of Jehoiakim, it appears that a substantial number of the people in the royal court believed in a degree of Jerusalem-centricity and the inviolability of the Davidic covenant.58

Two examples from recent scholarship on these two texts exemplify how this text has been treated. On the one hand, Leuchter viewed this as a perception of change specifically in Jeremiah’s thought. He wrote: “It is indeed Jeremiah’s analysis of the shifting nature of history that accounts for the degrees of dissonance that resonate through the various strata of his prophecies and the shape of the book that bears his name.”59 The argument of the present work is that the perceptions cannot be traced back to historical individuals; however, I agree with the basic point that the Hill, Friend or Foe?, 151. Mark Leuchter, “Jeremiah’s 70-Year Prophecy and the ‫לב‬/‫ שׁשׁך‬Atbash Codes,” Biblica 85:4 (2004), 516. 59 Ibid., 504-5. 57 58

166

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

disparate materials in the Book of Jeremiah reflect discussion, development and debate regarding the meaning and significance of the exile. On the other hand, Daniel Smith suggested that the perception of a seventy-yearlong exile can be seen as a development upon the thought of Jeremiah from a later time. Smith wrote: “Despite the significance of the 70-years theme for later generations, it seems most likely to me that the ‘original letter’ did not contain the hoped-for return; for had it done so, it would have the effect, as Volz argued, of undercutting the impact of Jeremiah’s advice.”60 .. The Discrediting of the Prophets of Falsehood: 29:8-9, 15-32 I turn again to the letters sent between Jeremiah and some of the members of the exilic community (chapter 29). Under specific investigation here is the attack ascribed to Jeremiah upon prophetic rivals preaching among the community of exiles in Babylonia. The perception revealed in this text is that certain others who claim the role of prophet have deceived the people into continued unfaithfulness. 29:8-9, 15-32 (8) “For thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Do not let the prophets, soothsayers, and diviners who are among you deceive you and do not pay attention to the dreams they dream. (9) For they are prophesying lies to you in my name; I did not send them—Oracle of Yahweh (15) But you have said, “Yahweh has raised up for us prophets in Babylon.” (16) For thus says Yahweh to the king who sits on the throne of David and to all the people who live in this city, our relatives who did not go out with us in exile. (17) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth: Look! I am sending against you sword and famine and pestilence and I will treat them as bad figs which cannot be eaten. (18) I will chase after them with sword and famine and pestilence and I will make them a horror before all the kingdoms of the earth, a curse and an object of horror and hissing and scorn among all the nations where I banished them. (19) After they did not listen to my words—Oracle of Yahweh—when I sent to them my servants the prophets early and often, but they did not listen—Oracle of Yahweh. (20) But you, listen to the word of Yahweh, all you exiles whom I have sent from Jerusalem to Babylon. (21) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el concerning Ahab ben Koliah and Zedekiah ben Maaseiah who are prophesying to you falsely in my name. Look! I am giving them over to the hand of Nebuchadrezzar King of Judah and he will kill them in your sight. (22) Then the whole 60

Smith, “Jeremiah as Prophet,” 96.

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

167

community of Judah will use them as a curse in Babylon: “May Yahweh make you like Zedekiah and Ahab whom the King of Babylon roasted in the fire!”— (23) for they did stupid things in Israel, committing adultery with their neighbors’ wives and speaking false words in my name which I did not command them. I am the one who knows and bears witness— Oracle of Yahweh. (24) And to Shemiah the Nehemalite you shall say: (25) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Because you sent letters in your own name to all the people who are in Jerusalem, and [especially] to Zephaniah ben Maaseiah the priest and to all the [other] priests, saying, (26) “Yahweh made you priest after Jehoiada, in order that you might control for the House of Yahweh every crazy person who wants to be prophet, to put them in the stocks and the pillory. (27) Now, why have you not rebuked Jeremiah the Anathothite who is prophesying before you? (28) For he has actually sent a message to us in Babylon, saying, ‘It will be a long time, build houses and live in them, plant vineyards and eat their fruit.’” (29) When Zephaniah the priest read this letter in the hearing of Jeremiah, (30) the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah: (31) Send a latter to all the exiles, saying, “Thus says Yahweh to Shemiah the Nehemalite because Shemiah prophesied to you, even though I did not send him, and made you trust in falsehood, (32) therefore thus says Yahweh: Look! I will punish Shemiah the Nehemalite and all his descendant, and there will not be any one of his line living among these people and they will not see the good things that I am about to do for my people—Oracle of Yahweh— for he has urged disloyalty toward Yahweh.”

The middle portion of this text (vv. 16-20) is not found in the LXX Vorlage, but it is included in the MT presumably as evidence for the disputes between Jeremiah and the other prophets who, according to the perspective ascribed to Jeremiah, are preaching falsehood. However, the allusion made to the vision of the baskets of figs in chapter 24 ..places this text squarely among those that seem to set up (or reflect) some of the ideological debates in the post-exilic period. If this is the case, moreover, then this text has linkage both to the material in support of the exiles in the first deportation, as well as to the replacement of the exodus with the return from exile as the primary locus of the community’s declaration of faith in Yahweh. However, the absence of these verses from LXX might indicate that such linkages came from a later time. Although we are not interested in the relationship between the two recensions per se, what is important for our purposes is the vastly different picture that the LXX presents of the exchange between Jeremiah and the “false prophets” who oppose him. Klaas Smelik cautioned specifically

168

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

against trying to tease out what is original from what is added, leading interpretation in the same direction we are taking: the biblical text does not have the structure of a common letter from this period. On the contrary, it contains formulas typical of written prophecy… [One result of this reality is that] many exegetes tend to make a distinction between the authentic parts of the chapter, the parts which have been derived from Jeremiah’s letter, and later additions. As soon as we approach the text as a literary creation by the authors, whether they have made use of an original letter or not, such a distinction is not relevant anymore.61

Especially significant in this regard is the lack of reference to the judgment due to be executed on those who survived the first deportation in the LXX. If one stipulates that the LXX is earlier than the MT, then the addition in the MT of the judgment on those remaining in the land must have been added to enforce the perception of blessedness held by those who were in Babylon and who thought themselves to be the ones who would reestablish authentic worship of Yahweh in the land. This is indeed the impression we cull from other parts of the Book, and especially from chapter 24. Smelik summed up this passage well: At last, we have a complete image of the LORD—as far as this text is concerned. On the one hand, he reacts to evil deeds by sending evil to the perpetrators. On the other hand, he has mercy with his people and gives them a new future and hopeful expectations. In this new situation, created by the LORD, the exiles will answer to his call and search for him. Reacting to their positive response, the LORD will bring an end to their captivity and lead them back to their own land. Mark the sequence: God takes the initiative, his people responds and only then there will come an end to their hardships.62

An oracle ascribed to Jeremiah in vv. 8-9 concerns the prophets whom the people had claimed as their own (v. 15). This in effect indicates that Jeremiah’s status with the exiles in Babylonia may have been somewhat modest, whatever authority he may have claimed. Jeremiah’s attack on Ahab and Zedekiah for deceiving the people, without any precise reference to the content of their message, nonetheless allows us to see that their 61 Klaas A. D. Smelik, “Letters to the Exiles: Jeremiah 29 in Context” SJOT 10:2 (1996), 284-5. 62 Ibid., 288.

DIALOGUES WITH RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS

169

contrasting perception is that the exile would be short—a stance that would fit well with their execution by the king of Babylonia. Indeed, the only reference to the message of these prophets (no specific words are ascribed to them) is that their words are “false.” Regardless of what these “prophets” may or may not have said, it is important also to recognize, according to the viewpoint ascribed to Jeremiah, that God did not send them, and that this falseness is seen as confirmed by their alleged immoral activity.63 It is my contention that determining which prophet is true and which false is not as important as recognizing that the disputes between them are surely emblematic of a society coming to terms with a great military, theological and practical crisis. The disputes ascribed to Jeremiah and the “false” prophets form a significant block of material in the Book of Jeremiah. John MacLennan Berridge succinctly stated the importance of such disputes for the understanding of the Book: the strength of Jeremiah's denunciation of those [false] prophets is in part to be attributed to the fact that at times, Jeremiah himself shared his people's insecurity when confronted by these prophets. Not only are the 'false' prophets rebuked by Jeremiah for having promoted false hopes amongst his people, but, as is clear, for example, from 4:10, Jeremiah's own hopes were sometimes encouraged by the message of peace proclaimed by these prophets.64

Chapter 29 deals with certain of these issues, particularly in respect of the continuing role that prophecy has in the community after the majority of the citizenry have been deported to Babylon. There is significant ambiguity within this chapter, however. That is, it suggests that those who survived the first deportation will be in line for even worse punishment than that already experienced by the exiles, even though the text seems to be an indictment of those who were exiled in 598-97. In this chapter we have considered various dialogues between Jeremiah and religious opponents. While the majority of these dialogues See James Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion (Berlin: DeGruyter, 1977), esp. 49-62, for “message-centered” and “person-centered” criteria for adjudicating between true and false prophecy. Crenshaw also highlights, in particular, an ambiguous evaluation of the value of accusations of immoral behavior (such as we find in chapter 29) for determining a prophet’s validity. 64 John MacLennan Berridge, Prophet, People, and the Word of Yahweh (Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1970), 110. 63

170

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

concerned debates with other prophets, some others were noted as well. The non-Yahwistic opposition of the Queenists proved to be most interesting because of the similar arugment the opponents made. I have maintained by goal of not tracing the variegated materials back to various individuals or parties having particular stake in the editing of the Book of Jeremiah or various literary strands in the Book’s journey to its final form. Instead, I argued it is enough to observer that the editors/compilers of the Book of Jeremiah have, at least in part, maintained a rather comprehensive record of the options available for understanding the events of the exilic period. At least, the Book of Jeremiah includes perspectives not found elsewhere (particularly that ascribed to the devotees of the Queen of Heaven.) .

4 DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

Thus, to read the dialogues thoughtfully and carefully is identical with gaining access to the dialogues in their originary character; and the latter, in turn, is equivalent to our engaging ourselves with the dialogues in such a way as to let that manifestation of which the dialogues consist come to fulfillment. This engagement involves two requirements: first, that we pose questions to the dialogue and, second, that we comport ourselves to the dialogue in such a way as to free it to respond to the questions posed.1

If the various deportations and the destruction of Jerusalem were undoubtedly important for the Book of Jeremiah, then no less so is the question of what to do with the survivors. In other words, the judgment of exile was threatened as Yahweh’s ultimate punishment for the sins of the people. Those who escaped, therefore, might have considered themselves blessed by Yahweh as a result. The dominant view is, in general, opposed to this belief, such opposition finding expression in a number of related texts. In addition, the survivors of the deportations were faced with critical questions relating to how they were to respond to the situation in which they now found themselves. The options were rather simple: to support Babylonian rule or to resist Babylonian rule. As will be shown, either option could be taken in a variety of ways. On the one hand, Jeremiah’s theologically-motivated acceptance of the imperial situation led on more than occasion to his being accused of treason. On the other hand, the most extreme form of resisting Babylonian rule came to expression in Ishmael’s assassination of the Babylonian governor. Examination of the dialogue between these perceptions will reveal that while Jeremiah or Yahweh are not always directly involved, nevertheless they are very important in their insight into some of the critical debates of the exilic period.

1

Sallis, Being and Logos, 5 (emphasis original).

171

172

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

EXPERIENCING (REAL OR IMAGINED) ADVANTAGE IN THE EXILIC PERIOD The first group of texts includes perceptions ascribed to various persons who survived the deportations, whether in Judah or in Babylonia. Very little is presented in the texts under investigation as to the veracity or fallibility of these perceptions. Where such evaluation is found, it is almost exclusively negative with regard to the ‫ עם־הארץ‬and positive with regard to the ‫בני הגולה‬. Occasion will be had to question this evaluation, but for the most part the presentation is unambiguous. The Baskets of Figs: 24:1-10 I turn first, then, to the perception attributed to the remnant left behind in the land after the deportation of the last popularly selected Davidic monarch Jehoiachin. Jehoiachin, incidentally, is often portrayed as the legitimate ruler over against his imperially-selected uncle Zedekiah.2 24:1-10 (1) Yahweh showed me two baskets of figs standing before the House of Yahweh, after King Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon exiled Jeconiah King of Judah and all the officials, artisans, and smiths from Jerusalem and took them to Babylon. (2) The figs in the first basket were excellent, like they had just come off the tree, but the figs in the second basket were rotten, no longer edible. (3) Yahweh said to me: What do you see, Jeremiah? And I said, “The good figs are excellent, but the bad figs are rotten, no longer edible.” (4) The word of Yahweh came to me: (5) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Like these good figs I will regard for good the exiles of Judah whom I sent out from this to the land of the Chaldeans. (6) I will set my eyes upon them for good and return them to their land. Their children I will not destroy—I will plant them rather than pulling them up. (7) I will give them a heart to know me—for I am Yahweh—and they will be people for me and I for them God, because they have returned to me with all their hearts. (8) But like the rotten figs that were inedible, so I will treat Zedekiah King of Judah and the officials, and the remnant of Jerusalem, which remains in this land, and those who are living in the land of Egypt. (9) I

For more on the perception that Jehoiachin is the legitimate ruler and not Zedekiah, see the dialogue between the competing prophets in chapter 28. 2

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

173

will make them a horror, an evil, to all the kingdoms of the earth,3 a disgrace and a proverb, a byword and a curse, in all the places where I banish them. (10) I have sent against them sword and famine and pestilence to kill them off in the land that I gave to them and to their ancestors.

The vision of the two baskets of figs is as clear a statement as possible that those who avoided the first deportation should not consider themselves blessed for having done so.4 At the same time, While one does not find here a statement attributed directly to those who avoided the deportation, such certainly lies below the surface in the critique leveled against them. As Brueggemann noted: The actual narrative verdict is given in v. 8, which parallels v. 5. It is equally astonishing, only now we are prepared for it. The people who remained in the land must have reckoned themselves as blessed. They had watched the sorry events of 598 and had noticed that they were untouched. Public life continued to function for them. To have this negative judgment announced in that context must have been remarkably polemical. It is interesting that the verdict is no so delicately given… Here the statement is flat and one-dimensional: they are bad.5

3

LXX: “I will cause them to be dispersed among all the kingdoms of the

earth.” The investigation here is specifically vulnerable to the fallacy of begging the question, for it assumes general agreement with the proposition ascribed to both Yahweh and Jeremiah that the event in question was punishment for sin. While I have noted above that this correlation was not at all clear to the population at large, it seems appropriate to assume agreement with it for the present purpose. To investigate 24:1-10 from the standpoint of those who did not believe that the deportation was divine punishment, while theoretically possible, appears to complicate the issue unnecessarily. At the very least, there were some who agreed that the deportation came about because of sin, and that therefore those who were not deported had not sinned, or at least not in that way. It was surely to these persons that this text was directed. A similar perceived difficulty was captured by Sallis when he wrote: “The very project of a logos about logos involves from the outset a curious reflexive complication: it is an inquiry regarding logos which itself takes the form of a logos and thus already takes for granted that which is to be investigated” (Being and Logos, 184). 5 Walter Brueggmann, “A Second Reading of Jeremiah After the Dismantling,” Ex Auditu 1 (1985), 161. 4

174

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

The important point to notice is that the response to the perception of blessedness set up (or possibly reflected) later disputes between the “returning exiles”6 and the people of the land: “The explicit identification of the good and bad figs in Jer. 24.5-10 is but one example of redaction that shaped Jeremiah’s words into an affirmation of the exilic community.”7 Daniel Smith-Christopher suggested a strong connection between this material and the Book of Ezekiel: “the evidence of conflict in Ezekiel between exiles and those back in the land suggests organized life in both locations as well as deeply dividing ideas about land possession (cf. Ezek 33:23-29; compare the “good” vs. “bad” figs in Jer 24:1-10).”8 John Walton advanced a further connection between this text and other, similar biblical materials: The interpretation that the object lesson turns on analogy…is cogent, valid and widely recognized. There would not necessarily be a need to look further. On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that this object lesson belongs to the form critical category of vision oracle which shows direct parallel to four other passages in the Old Testament: Amos vii 7-9, viii 1-2; Jer. i 11-12, 13-14.9

Smith-Christopher and Walton thus highlighted an important idea in the interpretation of Jeremiah 24, though for our purposes SmithChristopher’s insight is more important. The connection between Jeremiah, on the one hand, as one who avoided deportation in all three instances;10 and Ezekiel, on the other, as one who ministered precisely among those whom the Babylonians had deported, is particularly significant. The correct 6 I place quotes around this phrase because it is now something of a consensus position to recognize that the returnees—perhaps with a few exceptions—can only be called so in an ideological and not an historical sense. That is, these persons had a kind of “institutional memory” of living in the land, though most of those deported would surely have died either en route to or while living in Babylonia. 7 Mary Chilton Callaway, “The Lamenting Prophet and the Modern Self: On the Origins of Contemporary Readings of Jeremiah,” in Inspired Speech, 50. 8 Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile, 64. 9 John H. Walton, “Vision Narrative Wordplay and Jeremiah XXIV,” VT 39:4 (October 1989), 508. 10 We will see later how this statement is ambiguous. While, according to the text, Jeremiah did in fact avoid exile to Babylon (and the Book of Jeremiah, of course, is the source for the third deportation), he was forcefully included in the “voluntary exile” to Egypt.

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

175

view, according to this text, is that, as Walton suggested: “Just as one would get rid of the bad figs, so the Lord intends to get rid of Zedekiah and those who remain in the land.”11 Christopher Seitz also wrote on this connection, coming at it from the perspective of the end of exile:12 there is no hint in the Book of Ezekiel of a restoration apart from the fate of exile… The situation is not as unambiguous in the Book of Jeremiah. The prophet Jeremiah is, of course, not deported in 597; for that matter, he is a survivor of the 587 deportation. For over eleven years he functions as a prophet in Judah, contemporaneous with Ezekiel’s prophetic career in Exile.13

The prophet is not to be considered among the “bad figs,” but rather, because the choice was his to stay in Mizpah or go to Babylon, he is to be counted blessed according to how his life is presented in the Book of Jeremiah. Furthermore, Jeremiah’s decision to remain in the land under the protection of the Babylonian governor meshes well with the advice he gives to Johnanan ben Kareah, et al., in the discussions following the assassination of Gedaliah. Ernest Nicholson took note of this connection, as well as enforcing the linkage between chapters 24 and 29, as already discussed.14 He noted that chapter 24 is important for the understanding of the Book of Jeremiah as a whole, because in drawing a sharp distinction between those who had undergone judgement and were in exile after 597 B.C. and those who had been untouched by that judgement and remained in Judah, it would have continued to be of relevance for those in exile throughout the exilic period and who regarded themselves as the “good figs” through whom alone renewal would come as against those who remained in Judah. That this is so is evidenced by the conclusion amongst the “bad figs” of those who fled to Egypt (Jer. xxiv. 8), which very clearly presupposes the situation brought about after 586 B.C. and the murder of Gedaliah and the flight of the Judean community to Egypt. This means that the composition of chapters xxiv and xxix was motivated primarily by a

Walton, “Vision Narrative Wordplay,” 508. We have already seen how the end of the exile is not the concern of the Book of Jeremiah per se, but there are some hints in this direction, particularly in the dispute between the prophets Hananiah and Jeremiah in ch. 28. 13 Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 159-60. 14 A further connection between chapters 24 and 29 is the latter’s reuse of the image/metaphor of the figs (see 29:17). 11 12

176

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH specifically theological and political intention, for they seek to assert the claims of the Babylonian diaspora to be the true remnant of Israel though whom alone renewal and restoration would be wrought by Yahweh as against those who either remained in Judah or lived in Egypt during the exilic period.15

Robert Carroll made a similar argument: “I would read the vision of Jeremiah 24 as reflecting pro-deportation values entertained in Jerusalem by whomever in that community (unknown to us now) would have had reasons for supporting Babylonian or Persian parties in Jerusalem, as opposed to older, non-deported factions in the city.” 16 Consider further, in this connection, the methodological assertion of Walter Brueggemann that “The distinction between pre-587 and post-587 materials is not simply in the interest of chronology. The historical, sociological context of the community is very different and therefore later materials have a quite different pastoral agenda.”17 The Poorest of the Land: 39:8-18 The following perception differs from the previous one in that it does seem to affirm a perception of blessedness for those in the land after the deportation(s). Certain people apparently did see their positions relative to the larger society improve once the Babylonian empire took control of the situation in Jerusalem. In particular, these were the poor of the land, who perhaps had less of a stake in Judean society as a whole, and thus less to lose from its takeover. 39:8-18 (8) The Chaldeans burned down the king’s palace and the houses of the people, and they set fire to the walls of Jerusalem. (9) Nebuzaradan the chief of the guards exiled the remnant of the people that was left in the city, and those who had gone over to him—all those people who were left over—to Babylon. (10) But some of the poor people, who had nothing, were left in the land of Judah by Nebuzaradan the chief of the guards. He gave them gardens and vineyards at that time. (11) Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon gave orders concerning Jeremiah to Nebuzaradan the chief of

Ernest W. Nicholson, Preaching, 110. Robert P. Carroll, “Deportation and Diasporic Discourses in the Prophetic Literature,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, 79. 17 Brueggmann, “A Second Reading,” 156. 15 16

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

177

the guards: “Take him and set your eyes upon him, and do not do anything bad to him, but give him whatever he asks of you.” (13) So Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, and Nebushazban the Rabsaris, and Nergal-sarezer the Rab-mag, and all the commanders of the Babylonian king sent (14) and had Jeremiah brought from the prison house. They gave him to the care of Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan, that he might have freedom in a house. So he dwelt among the people. (15) The word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah while he was still in the prison house: (16) Go and say to Ebed-Melech the Cushite: “Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: see I am going to fulfill my words against this city for evil and not for good, and they shall come true on that day in your presence. (17) But I will save you on that day—Oracle of Yahweh; you shall not be delivered into the hands of those whom you dread. (18) I will rescue you, and you will not fall by the sword. You shall escape with your life, because you trusted me—Oracle of Yahweh.

If only the LXX of Jeremiah were extant, a quite different picture of the perceptions of the exile would emerge. Chapter 39 is an example of the that seem to support the contention.18 Geoffrey Parke-Taylor suggested simply: “The LXX of 39:13 is missing; in fact, the complete unit of 39:4-13 is missing in the LXX. This is to be explained as the result of haplography.”19 With regard to the doublet between vv. 3 and 13 of this chapter, ParkeTaylor went on to comment that “Jeremiah 39:13 serves as a gloss correcting the names in 39:3 and adding the name of Nebuzaradan to those of the other officials mentioned in 39:3.”20 The remainder of the differences between MT and LXX are cosmetic.21 That which would specifically be lacking from our picture of the perceptions of the exile without the MT plus is precisely that which is focus in this section. The poorest of the land are given fields and vineyards to tend at the command of the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan, who also is

18 It will be shown, however, in consideration of the whole of the perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah these differences are ultimately not of sufficient number or character to sustain this contention. The question of the relationship between the LXX and MT of Jeremiah might, on this basis, need to be reopened. 19 Parke-Taylor, 210. Samuel Feigin, however, argued that “this verse [39:13], as well as the preceding two verses, is surely an interpolation and is omitted in the LXX.” Samuel I. Feigin, “The Babylonian Officials in Jeremiah 39:3, 13,” JBL 45:12 (1926), 149. 20 Parke-Taylor, Formation, 210. 21 See Stulman, The Other Text, 134-8.

178

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

involved in the choice given to Jeremiah in 39:12; 40:4. The most notable dialogue from this character comes in 40:2-3, something one would hardly expect from a non-deuteronomist, and a Babylonian at that (see below). Here Nebuzaradan is presented as giving a kind of justification to the perception of blessedness that we assume to have been the domain of those who survived the first deportation. One should further notice that this text occurs within the context of the final destruction of Jerusalem and the capture of King Zedekiah, so those who are the beneficiaries of Nebuzaradan’s supposed graciousness are in fact survivors of both of the deportations. This move surely is designed to provide goods for the benefit of the empire at the expense of the peripheral territories, but again the concern here is not with the relationship of the perceptions and their consequences, even if unintended, for events in the wider context. What is important for our purposes is that the actions of the Babylonian general—whatever his precise motivation— apparently gave justification to those who believed themselves blessed by Yahweh because they were not taken away in the deportations.22

HOPE FOR THE FUTURE The idea that the exile was a vehicle for divine punishment does not in any wise exhaust the perceptions of the exile. Certain perceptions indicate that the situation after the first deportation of exiles from Judah to Babylonia was in fact a time of celebration rather than lament. According to these perceptions, the exilic period was a time of celebration because the people had been shown Yahweh’s favor in the midst of a very difficult situation. Like the ambiguity found in the perceptions of exile as punishment, a similarly unsettled situation reigns here. That is, the idea that the exile An entirely different line of inquiry could proceed from this passage to social inequities in pre-Babylonian Judah. That is, one could examine the positions of those to whom the imperial land grants are given with regard to social status in the fluctuating periods of Judah’s national independence. Such an investigation is beyond the scope of the present project, although one suspects that these people were among the economically depressed strata of Judean society prior to the Babylonian takeover. Louis Stulman suggested as much: “Although the act is apparently done for economic expediency, the benevolence shown is noteworthy. Whereas the Jerusalem regime had trampled on the poor and exploited their subjects (see, e.g., 34:8-22), Nebuzaradan, a Babylonian military official, relieves the plight of those ‘who owned nothing.’” Louis Stulman, Jeremiah (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 317. 22

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

179

represents an advantageous situation is attributed, for different reasons, both to those who avoided the first deportation; and those who did not avoid it but nonetheless survived the journey.23 On the one hand, those who avoided the first deportation could take solace in the declarations that while exile had followed as punishment for sin, further punishment could be avoided with proper repentance. Whether or not such people actually repented is immaterial; they could merely attribute their having avoided the punishment of exile as Yahweh having relented from the promised punishment. On the other hand, while the Book of Jeremiah does not deal with the return from exile as such, those who survived the journey to Babylonia could take comfort in the thought that their descendants (though probably not they themselves) would one day once again experience the blessedness of God in the land. Thus, the ambiguity present in the perception of exile as advantageous also contributes to, rather than obscures, understanding. The diversity of persons to who, is ascribed the perception of exile as advantageous demonstrates the importance of a close examination of this material. This section will examine three texts in which a perception of hope for the future is expressed. First is the prayer ascribed to Jeremiah after the purchase of a plot of family land. Second, the vision of the baskets of figs will be considered again for its positive implications for the ‫בני הגולה‬. Third, the end of the book and Jehoiachin’s elevation among the exiled kings will be explored for its note of ambiguous hope. Jeremiah’s Prayer after the Land Purchase: 32:6-15 Even within the generally pessimistic tone that pervades the speeches and actions ascribed to Jeremiah, an additional perspective appears in the prayer attributed to Jeremiah following the purchase of the land plot in Anathoth. This action suggests that houses and fields will again be bought in the land. Thus it is at least a glimpse of hope about what might follow the exile, a perception examined in detail in our treatment of the responses to the (coming) disaster.

23 This, of course, does not even mention those who avoided both deportations, experiences of and disputes with whom form part of the narrative crux of post-exilic documents such as Ezra and Nehemiah (which refer to such people as the ‫‘ עם הארץ‬people of the land’).

180

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

32:16-25 (16) After I had given the deed to Baruch ben Neriah I prayed to Yahweh saying: (17) “Ah, Lord Yahweh, look! You made the heavens and the earth with your mighty power and your outstretched arm! Nothing is impossible for you! (18) You show mercy to the thousandth generation, but you visit the iniquity of the fathers on the bodies of their children after them. O great and mighty God, whose name is Yahweh Tseba’oth, (19) great in plan and mighty in deed. Your eyes take in all the ways of mortals, so as to repay everyone for their deeds, the proper results of his actions! (20) You performed signs and wonders in the land of Egypt with lasting effect, and earned a name for yourself in Israel and among all mortals which lasts to this day. (21) You brought out your people Israel from the land of Egypt with signs and wonders, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, inspiring great terror. (22) You gave them this land, which you promised their ancestors to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey, (23) and they came and took possession of it. But they did not listen to your voice or your torah, nor did they live according to it. What you commanded them to do they did not do, and so you visited upon them this entire calamity. (24) Look! The siege mound is up against the city! The city has been given into the control of the Chaldeans, that they might make war against it with sword, famine, and pestilence. It has come about just as you said it would. (25) But you, O Lord Yahweh, have said to me, Buy the field with money and call forth witnesses, when the city is in the control of the Chaldeans!24

In terms of content, this short prayer that is attributed to Jeremiah offers many perceptions of the exile. First, one finds again the idea of the iniquity of the ancestors being visited on the children. However, even here there is a contrast to the idea that the punishment or ill effects of the ancestors’ iniquities is always to be visited upon the children. For in v. 19 the declaration is made that Yahweh’s “eyes take in all the ways of mortals, so as to repay everyone for their deeds, the proper results of their actions!” Again, the issue is not which of the two perceptions is original and which secondary; rather, what is important is that both have been preserved. This has been done, perhaps, precisely because something of the range of 24 Though there are some differences between MT and LXX in this passage, these seem not to be significant for the purposes of the present project. From an expressly text-critical perspective, Andrew G. Shead exhibits patient work on chapter 32MT/39LXX in The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions (JSOTSupp 347; London: T & T Clark, 2002), esp. 125-64.

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

181

options for understanding the events—and, indeed, for theological shifts in the early 6th century and later—was thought worthy of preservation by the authors/editors/compilers of the Book of Jeremiah. This passage offers a unique contribution to the study of the perceptions of why the exile happened. Jehoiachin et al. are Favored by God: 24:3-7 I return to Jeremiah 24 and the vision of the two baskets of figs before the Temple of Yahweh25 with a different question in mind. Here the focus is on the perception that the exiles of the first deportation are blessed by Yahweh. Indeed, in order for the survivors in Judah of the first exile to be described as not in fact being blessed by Yahweh for having avoided the first deportation, but actually as in for even greater subsequent punishment at the hands of the deity, it allows the perception that those who were exiled to Babylonia in 598-97 were the chosen ones of Yahweh. Lipschits noted the importance first deportation for the perceptions of the exile: In summary, it may be said that, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the nation’s elite, a gap appears between the perception of events in Judah and the outlook prevalent in Babylon. This finds expression in the…viewpoint prevalent in Judah and Egypt…expressed in the description of Gedaliah’s rule and Jeremiah’s “biography…” [Some perceptions] stressed the fact that the land of Judah had been totally emptied, and focused on the destruction of Jerusalem, totally ignoring the existence of the “people who remained,” and expressing support for Jehoiachin and the House of David… In contrast, [other perceptions]…focused on the “remnant” in Judah and made no mention of those who had been deported to Babylon… Here we find the…identification of the House of David as being responsible for both the destruction of Jerusalem and the failure of the restoration process afterward.26

In Lipschits’ terms, Jeremiah 24:3-7 clearly fits within those perceptions focusing on the exiles in Babylon. According to this perception, those exiled are the ones through whom or through whose descendants a new life in the land would be established. Note that in both the vision and its 25 See above for the translation of the whole of chapter 24. Only the section relevant to the present discussion is repeated here. 26 Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 355-6.

182

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

interpretation, the good figs are described before the rotten ones, perhaps indicating further the perception that the exiles of the first deportation are of greater importance. 24:3-7 (3) Yahweh said to me: What do you see, Jeremiah? And I said, “The good figs are excellent, but the bad figs are rotten, no longer edible.” (4) The word of Yahweh came to me: (5) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Like these good figs I will regard for good the exiles of Judah whom I sent out from this to the land of the Chaldeans. (6) I will set my eyes upon them for good and return them to their land. Their children I will not destroy—I will plant them rather than pulling them up. (7) I will give them a heart to know me—for I am Yahweh—and they will be people for me and I for them God, because they have returned to me with all their hearts.27

The texts dealing with the release of King Jehoiachin from prison and the suggestion that those who first went into exile in 598-97 B.C.E. are blessed fit together nicely, for both elements support the favored status of the (later) ‫בני הגולה‬. Thus, in part, they lay the ideological groundwork for later biblical materials dealing with the restoration of the land in the Persian period. Also important for the immediate context of the Book of Jeremiah, however, is the promise that a text like this might have held for the end of the exile. Though, as stated, the Book of Jeremiah does not deal with the return from exile as such, nevertheless “[t]here was a need for assurance that the deportation did not nullify the identity of that community as the people of Yahweh.”28 Walther Zimmerli suggested that the perception revealed in this text specifically addressed an overturning of expectations. In the process, he argued against the position advocated here: the main characteristic [of Jer 24] is not an announcement of Yahweh's intentions for the future, but an evaluation of the disastrous events for Judah that had already taken place. What would seem to be the obvious assessment of them is to be turned upside down. Yahweh's future belongs not to those who appeared in these events to have been preferentially treated by Yahweh's judgment but to those who had already been

27 28

There are no significant differences between MT and LXX in this passage. Brueggemann, “A Second Reading,” 164.

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

183

judged—provided that they returned to Yahweh, as the condition attached to verse 7 states.29

I do not quite agree with Zimmerli, though he does correctly emphasize that more explicit statements of the promise of restoration can be found elsewhere. Nevertheless, interpreters should be wary of too quickly slighting the hope that does come to expression in this text. It is a conditional hope, to be sure, just like some of the conditional statements regarding punishment considered in the last chapter. Yet the conditional nature of the hope expressed—and the ambiguous nature of the hope expressed in the next text to be considered—need not lead one to bracket the hope in favor of those texts in which it is made explicit. Thus I argue that a greater significance could be had from this perception of the exile. In summary, regardless of whether this perception was or could have been an extension of deuteronomistic themes into the late- and post-exilic periods, it had an important role to play in the Book of Jeremiah. The importance of Jehoiachin and his elevation among the other exiled kings cannot be overstressed, as Norman Gottwald observed: From Judean and Babylonian sources we conclude that Jehoiachin was regarded by both parties as the legitimate king of Judah, whereas Zedekiah was a temporary appointee looking after the king’s affairs in his absence. Some Judeans may have planned it otherwise, but both in character and by virtue of his ambiguous position Zedekiah was ill fitted to win any large allegiance, even among those who wished to rebel against Babylon.30 More importantly, the perception that God actually had blessed those who experienced the first exile to Babylonia fed into later ideas held by those who subsequently “returned” from exile. According to this perspective, the first exiles were those with whom God could rebuild the nation, if only they learned from the past and were faithful to those religious traditions that had been bequeathed to them. Elevation of Jehoiachin among the Exiled Kings: 52:31-34 The final chapter of the Book of Jeremiah has often been treated as a much later addition, explained away as having borrowed from the similar ending 29 Walther Zimmerli, “Visionary Experience in Jeremiah,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition, 112-13. 30 Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth, 258 [emphasis original].

184

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

to 2 Kings. That may be so, yet the close connection between Jeremiah 52 and 2 Kings 25 has led some commentators to believe that here is conclusive evidence for deuteronomistic influence upon, if not authorship of, the Book of Jeremiah.31 From my perspective, the last chapter should not be so quickly relegated to the discard pile. On the contrary, this chapter provides a perception that the exile is not a matter of finality. Moreover, that the Book of Jeremiah ends with a note regarding the fate of King Jehoiachin in exile seems to indicate the central importance of the exile for the Book as a whole. As John Hill recognized: The book begins and ends in exile, and is to be read from the viewpoint of a community in exile… The progression from judgment to restoration, found in the book of Ezekiel, does not exist in Jeremiah. While there are promises about an end of the exile, this is not yet in sight. The exile is unended.32

It is certainly a note of concern that Jeremiah is absent from this entire chapter and its account of the fall of Jerusalem. However, as there are many significant texts that do not involve the prophet directly, and especially since we have noted that even those texts involving the prophet or

31 The theory that the influence and/or authorship moves in the opposite direction—i.e., from Jeremiah to the Deuteronomistic History—has also been expressed. One example of this argument comes from E. Theodore Mullen, who wrote: “If such connections as might be made between the prose sermons of Jeremiah and the deuteronomistic narratives are indicative of some such common tradition, this prophetic figure himself might serve as some type of ‘model’ for the description of the implied author of our materials.” E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries (Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 43. William Doorly made a similar argument from the standpoint of intentional authorial obscurity:

The authors do not self-consciously provide us with any details concerning themselves… This is illustrated for us in the fact that Jeremiah…is not mentioned in the Deuteronomistic history. It is our contention that the absence of references to Jeremiah in the closing chapters of DH was a conscious decision of the school we call the Deuteronomists of which Jeremiah was a leading member. William J. Doorly, Obsession with Justice: The Story of the Deuteronomists (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1994), 30. 32 John Hill, Friend or Foe?, 17.

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

185

putatively reporting his words do not in any case have a unified perspective, that chapter 52 does not involve the prophet Jeremiah directly is immaterial. For that matter, even in the texts when Jeremiah appears, the reader is not given much in the way of connection to the “historical Jeremiah,” assuming such could be recovered. Sallis suggested something similar is going on in the Platonic dialogues with the person of Socrates: the personal identity of the “prophet” is not as important as the message he proclaims: “Most of what we learn about Socrates we learn from what he says or from what others say about him. It is primarily through the presentation of Sotratic logoi and of the other logoi connected with a provoked by Socratic logoi that philosophy itself is presented in the dialogues.”33 52:31-34 (31) In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, on the twenty-fifth34 day of the twelfth month, King Amel-Marduk of Babylon, in his accession year, took note of Jehoiachin, King of Judah.35 He released him from prison, (32) spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat at court above those of all the other kings who were with him in Babylon. (33) He took away his prison clothes and [Jehoiachin] ate at the king’s table the rest of his life. (34) A regular allotment of food was given him by the order of the king of Babylon, each day until he died—all the days of his life.

The elevation of King Jehoiachin is significant for the dominant perspective of the Book of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomistic History in that he is apparently the last king of Judah not put in place by a foreign power. In looking at the last few verses of the Book of Jeremiah, one is of course struck by their similarity to the ending of the Book of 2 Kings, as indicated above. This similarity has indeed provided the basis for much speculation on the nature of this passage at the end of the Book of Jeremiah. Brueggemann speculated on some of the theological possibilities of this ending: The main line of the plot of chapter 52 is one of destruction, despair, and deportation. In the midst of that sorry plotline, this little paragraph permits an opening which may let God keep God’s powerful promise… Sallis, Being and Logos, 9 LXX: “twenty-fourth day.” 35 LXX: “he raised the head of Jehoiachin and shaved him.” 33 34

186

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH God can give dominion to Babylon…and God can take it from Babylon… In 52:31-34 Babylon still has power; but there is another visible king, Jehoiachin, who continues to be present and known. Might Yahweh choose to give power back to him? We do not know. Such a turn is politically unlikely; it is nonetheless theologically possible.36

Ultimately, the elevation of Jehoiachin to a place of honor among the exiles is a note of only ambiguous hope. Jan Jaynes Granowski affirmed as much in her literary study of the rendition of these verses in 2 Kings: “Perhaps simply because of their placement—at the end of a substantial historical narrative—the verses have long intrigued but disappointed readers. Readers usually have great expectations for endings.”37 Granowski ultimately concluded that the interpretation of the end of 2 Kings38 must realize that pessimism coexists with optimism; judgment stands side by side with hope… The larger context of DtrH, which 2 Kgs 25:27-30 does not conclude, militates against a finally pessimistic theological reading of these final four verses. After all, Jehoiachin’s death39 in exile is not “the end” of the people of God known as Israel… This same canonical context, however, also argues against a finally optimistic reading. Jehoiachin’s end does toll the death knell for the monarchy. After Jehoiachin, no more Davidic kings will rule in Judah.40

Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 494. Jan Jaynes Granowski, “Jehoiachin at the King’s Table: A Reading of the Ending of the Second Book of Kings,” in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (ed. Danna Nolan Fewell; Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Westminister John Knox Press, 1992), 175. 38 For our purposes, we are indeed justified in coming the same conclusion regarding the end of the Book of Jeremiah. 39 The death of Jehoiachin is described in neither 2 Kings 25 nor Jeremiah 52, though it is a reasonable inference from the texts that he did in fact die in exile. It is unclear whether the note that Jehoiachin received an allowance from the King of Babylonia “all the days of his life” (2 Kings 25:30; Jeremiah 52:34) refers to the life of Jehoiachin or the life of Amel-Marduk. 40 Granowski, “Jehoiachin at the King’s Table,” 186-7. Granowski’s statement on the finality of the exile of Jehoiachin for the Davidic monarchy overreaches the evidence a bit. This is so because Zedekiah—also a Davidide!—is made king in Judah by Nebuchadrezzar. Granowski would have found confirmation of this in 2 36 37

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

187

Hans Walter Wolff argued the significance of this note lay in exactly the opposite direction: “In all of this one cannot say that DtrH combined his idea with any specific hope. Considering his open-ended view of history, concretes and predictables would be absurd. As in the days of the judges and the kings one should, rather, count on completely new arrangements by Yahweh.”41 This disagreement typifies the puzzlement with which the elevation of Jehoiachin has vexed commentators. Bustenay Oded is symptomatic of this difficulty: “These special conditions granted by Nebuchadrezzar42 to Jehoiachin may have been due to either Jehoiachin's voluntary surrender to the Chaldaeans or because Nebuchadrezzar…could have planned to use Jehoiachin against Zedekiah…by returning him to and reinstating him as king in Jerusalem.”43 These statements by Oded and Granowski above fail to consider the importance of the perception of Jehoiachin’s release for understanding the exile. Oded Lipschits, by contrast, interpreted the release of Jehoiachin in terms of its importance for the perceptions of exile: In the description of Jehoiachin’s release from prison after 37 years…an important message was delivered to the exiles in Babylon: accepting Babylonian authority and demonstrating the patience and willingness to continue to live in exile under Babylonian rule can be profitable. In exile, too, it is possible to live in dignity and to rehabilitate national life. In this short description, there are suggestions of the great expectations among the exiles when Jehoiachin was freed, and it may have been this event that impelled the exiles to make peace with life in exile, at least temporarily.44

The perception of the text is that Jehoiachin is released from prison and given an honored place among all the other exiled kings, but he remains in Kings 24:17a short distance back from the passage on which she expounded. However, one might indeed argue that the Davidic monarchy as an independently ruling family did in fact come to an end with the exile of Jehoiachin and the elevation of Mattaniah/Zedekiah. In either case, the perception of the text is that the Davidic family line remained alive, and thus provided hope for the end of the exile (see further chapter 5). 41 Wolff, “The Kerygma,” 99. 42 Oded apparently mistook Nebuchadrezzar for Amel-Marduk. 43 Bustenay Oded, “Judah and the Exile,” in J. Maxwell Miller and John Hayes, eds., Israelite and Judaean History (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), pp. 435-88 [quote from p. 481]. 44 Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 356-7.

188

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

exile. This note was sounded also in 22:10-11 (with regard to Shallum/Jehoahaz), supporting the assertion of Hill above.

ACCEPTING BABYLONIAN RULE A far greater number of texts deal with the choice that was before those who survived the deportations regarding their attitude to the empire. Though they represent an oversimplification, the binary categories of acceptance and resistance are helpful at least as heuristic devices. It is to be expected that within these choices a considerable variety could be found. I do not think it necessary, as stated above, to continually divide the texts in question in terms of subtle differences between parties, but rather to recognize that this diversity has been preserved as a dialogue between the options. The final redactors of the Book of Jeremiah were keen to preserve not only the content of these dialogues, however, but also many of the purported identities of the holders of the various positions and some of the settings in which these occur. According to Sallis, these details are critically important in understanding the nature of a dialogue: A dialogue has both a middle as well as extremities or members. It has, on the one hand, its central speeches and, on the other hand, its dramatic details, variously alluded to, regarding the setting of these speeches and the characters who deliver them; these details, no less than the speeches, are fitting with respect to one another and with respect to the whole.45

In light of this, attention turns first to a collection of perceptions that aruge for accepting the situation of Babylonian rule. These are ascribed to various persons and submit in various ways, but they seem to all cohere around the stance of a more-or-less willing subject of the empire. Jeremiah Given a Choice: 40:1-6 The special treatment given to Jeremiah after the destruction of Jerusalem is a key point in the impression being formed of him by the editors. He appeared to benefit from the situation of exile and deportation, in the sense that his apparent loyalty to the empire—though his stance was ultimately misunderstood, as I will argue—was rewarded by safe passage to wherever he might choose to go. Again, the theme developing here is that whereas the perception of blessedness generally pertained between 598-97 and 58745

Sallis, Being and Logos, 16.

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

189

86, actual benefits for the remnant in Judah could be found after the final destruction of Jerusalem. 40:1-6 (1) The word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh after Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard released him from Ramah, when he took him bound in fetters along with all the captives of Jerusalem and Judah who were being exiled to Babylon. (2) The captain of the guards took Jeremiah and said to him, “Yahweh your god proclaimed this evil on this place. (3) Yahweh came and did just as he said because you sinned against Yahweh and did not listen to his voice, and that is why this has happened to you. (4) Now, see, I release you today from the fetters which were on your hands. If you want to go with me to Babylon, come, and I will look after you, but if you do not want to come to Babylon with me, you don’t have to. Look! The whole land is yours to go wherever you please.” (5) [Jeremiah] still did not turn back. “Or return to Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan whom the Babylonian king has installed over the cities of Judah, and stay with him among the people, or go wherever you want to go.” The chief of the guards dismissed him and gave him an allowance of food. So (6) Jeremiah came to Gedaliah ben Ahikam at Mizpah, and stayed with him among the people who were left in the land.46

This text narrates the release of Jeremiah from prison and the choice given to him to go off to an apparent life of security in Babylonia, to stay in Judah with Gedaliah and all the others left in the land, or to go elsewhere. The text indicates that Jeremiah chooses to remain in the land, setting up the prophet’s involvement in the aftermath of Gedaliah’s assassination by Ishmael ben Nethaniah. This text follows on the heels of a parallel description of Jeremiah’s release from prison and the choice given to him.47 Immediately after this text comes the narrative of Gedaliah ben Ahikam’s elevation to the governorship of Judah. Thus 40:1-6 presents a difficulty in its placement, making reference to Gedaliah in the context of the choice given to Jeremiah. Nevertheless, this ambiguity of placement is not as important as the statement apparently being made by Jeremiah’s desire to remain in the land with Gedaliah and the others. Peter Ackroyd suggested that this choice made all the difference in terms of the point being driven home concerning the situation after the deportations:

There are no significant differences between MT and LXX in this passage. As we have seen above, the LXX Vorlage lacks the reference to Jeremiah’s release in chapter 39 (46LXX). 46 47

190

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH There is no direct indication in the book of Jeremiah of his attitude to the exiles after the destruction of the city in 587. But an indirect light is shed on this question by the narrative of his refusal to accept the offer of protection in Babylon, made to him by Nebuzaradan, and his choice of remaining in Judah with the newly appointed governor Gedaliah (40.1-6). This may be linked with his advocacy of a policy of submission to Babylon as offering the only hope for the future, for Gedaliah as governor, supervised by the Babylonian soldiers who were sent to be with him, represents that part of the community which was willing to accept Babylonian overlordship.48

Ackroyd went on to maintain that “Jeremiah's decision to stay with Gedaliah suggests that he saw here, in submission to Babylon, a real hope of revival, the possibility of the fulfillment of his own hopes as expressed in his redemption of a piece of family property.” 49 Gerald L. Keown agreed with this assessment when he defined prophetic hope with regard for Jeremiah 40:1-6. He wrote: “Hope within the prophetic tradition often is possible only on the far side of judgment. So it is with the climax of sinful Judah. The prophet himself becomes an illustration of renewed hope.”50 A further possibility for understanding not only that Jeremiah is given a choice and an insight into why he might be described as having taken this particular decision is highlighted by John Skinner. Skinner approached this question by suggesting that a plausible historical context for the choice given to Jeremiah is rooted in the activity of Gedaliah, with Nebuzaradan responding to Gedaliah and, as in the text, Jeremiah responding to Nebuzaradan:

Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 56-7. Ibid., 35. 50 Gerald L. Keown, “Jeremiah 40:1-6” RevExp 88:1 (Wint 1991), 71. In contrast to Ackroyd and Keown, I believe that the perception of Jeremiah choosing to side with Gedaliah might indicate the desire of the editors/compilers to demonstrate Jeremiah’s political acumen. Such a move would perhaps enhance the authenticity of the prophet’s message (as it proved to be/reflected the correct interpretation of events). Yehezekel Kauffman provided for this assertion: “Thus the prophecies of Jeremiah faithfully reflect the political changes of his time.” (The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile [tr. Moshe Greenberg; Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1960], 352). By extension, then, the complex and somewhat contradictory web of statements attributed the prophet Jeremiah are given more credibility. 48 49

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

191

Gedaliah would have made enquiries about Jeremiah, and then applied for his release partly on the ground of personal and family friendship, and partly perhaps because he needed his support in the difficult task that lay before him. Such a request, accompanied by information about the prophet which could not fail to commend him to the Babylonian government, could not reasonably be refused, and Jeremiah was accordingly set at liberty to go where he would.51

In my estimation, the deeper meaning to support of the Babylonian governor assigned to Jeremiah is to be found in the following aspect. The message consistently attributed to Jeremiah’s is that submission to the Babylonians is the way of life (cf. 21:3ff inter alia). Therefore, according to this perception, submitting to the governor whom the empire has established becomes emblematic of submitting to the empire that Yahweh has allowed to destroy Jerusalem.52 Gedaliah ben Ahikam Declared Babylonian Governor: 40:7-16 The perceptions of blessedness considered generally considered quite wrong by the editors of the Book of Jeremiah occur in contexts purportedly prior to the final destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Those remaining in the land, from King Zedekiah53 on down, are described as thinking that they had avoided the judgment of Yahweh by not being caught up in the deportation. Some of those who had gone to Babylon are similarly described as thinking that a renewed life in the land would someday be had by them or at least by their descendants. By contrast, the benefits for survivors described as granted by the Babylonians are assigned to a time after the final destruction of Jerusalem. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 274 [emphasis added]. This idea will figure prominently in the discussions following the assassination of Gedaliah. The Johanan ben Kareah party is described as convinced that the Babylonians will retaliate forcefully because their chosen leader has been killed, thus betraying implicit acceptance of the perception ascribed to the prophet Jeremiah that submission to Babylon and to Yahweh (as the lord of history) are virtually synonymous. 53 Indeed, the elevation of King Zedekiah to the throne by the Babylonians after the exile of Jehoiachin could be further cited as an example of perceiving someone as benefiting from the supposed benevolence of the empire (see below), and thus also of having a reason to boast in his personal situation after the first deportation, as against those who, according to the dominant view, merely thought that they had been blessed by God because they had survived the first deportation. 51 52

192

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

One further notices that not only are the perceptions of blessedness held by those who ostensibly benefited from imperially sponsored advancement but also they are not called out for ridicule by the Book of Jeremiah. The text coming under investigation in this subsection follows directly upon the choice given to Jeremiah as to whether he will go to Babylon or remain in the land. We will further see below how the elevation of Gedaliah sets up the rebellion of Ishmael and some of the perceptions of the role of Babylonia in Judah’s last days. 40:7-16 (7) The officers of the army who were out in the field, and the men with them, heard that the Babylonian king had established Gedaliah son of Ahikam in the land in charge of the region, and that he had put him in charge of the men, the women, and the children—of the poorest of the land—those who had not been exiled to Babylon. (8) So they with their men came to Gedaliah at Mizpah—Ishmael ben Nethaniah, Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah; Seraiah ben Tanhumeth; the sons of Ephai the Netophathite; and Jezaniah son the Maacathite. (9) Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan promised them, saying, “Do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans. Stay in the land and serve the Babylonian king and it will go will with you. (10) I am staying in Mizpah to attend upon the Chaldeans who are coming to us. As for you, gather wine and figs and oil and put them in your own vessels, and settle in the towns you have occupied.” (11) Also, all the Judeans who were in Moab, Ammon, and Edom, or other lands, heard that the Babylonian king had allowed a remnant to stay in Judah, and that he had put Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan in charge of them. (12) All these Judeans returned from the places to which they had been banished to the land of Judah. They came to Gedaliah at Mizpah, and they gathered lots of wine and figs. (13) Johanan ben Kareah, and all the officers of the army in the field, came to Gedaliah at Mizpah (14) and said to him, “Do you know that Baalis King of Ammon has sent Ishmael ben Nethaniah to kill you?” But Gedaliah ben Ahikam did not believe them. (15) So Johanan ben Kareah said to Gedaliah in secret at Mizpah, “Let me go and kill Ishmael ben Nethaniah, before anyone knows about it. If not he will kill you and all the Judeans who have congregated around you will be dispersed, and all the remnant of Judah will die!” (16) But Gedaliah ben Ahikam said to Johanan ben Kareah, “Don’t do that! For you are lying about Ishmael!”54

54

There are no significant differences between MT and LXX in this passage.

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

193

It is apparent from this text that there was a tradition of long-standing connection between Jeremiah and Gedaliah’s family. It is my argument that the support of Gedaliah assigned to Jeremiah would be consistent with the explicit profile of the prophet and the content of his message that has been presented up to this point in the text. Specifically, submitting to the Babylonians by placing himself under the care of Gedaliah follows in a real way the advice the prophet had been described as giving throughout the text. Gedaliah is here presented as one whose political naïveté very quickly leads to his undoing. Gedaliah, sensibly enough, first instructs those who remain with him to have no fear in serving the Babylonians. The text then assigns to Johanan ben Kareah a warning to Gedaliah of an imminent threat from Ishmael ben Nethaniah. That Johanan is the one to deliver news of the coming attempt on Gedaliah’s life presages in an important way the perceptions of Babylonia as an imperialistic power discussed in the next chapter. That is, by attempting to save Gedaliah’s position, Johanan, in a way, could be perceived as advancing the stake of the Babylonian empire in the continuing life of Judah. Gedaliah’s fatal naïveté is described as his refusal to heed Johanan’s warning. According to John Thompson, Gedaliah is described as a leader who could not accept the fact that others were less sincere than he was in his desire to reestablish a stable Judah [under the Babylonians]. His sheer transparent magnanimity made him incapable of a critical assessment of people or of situations. This mistake, which many noble men in Israel and elsewhere both before and since have made, cost him his life.55

However, the assumption that Ishmael was less sincere in the designs he had for the future of Judah as suggested by Thompson is gratuitous. At the very least, he is presented as anti-Babylonian and pro-independence. The broader narrative context of this material in the Book of Jeremiah has, thus far, yielded a quite rich diversity of viewpoints as to how the situation following the destruction of the city might be handled. Two Dialogues of Jeremiah: 2:16-18; 44:1-14, 24-30 The Book of Jeremiah often ascribes perceptions to the prophet that make him appear as one who generally accepts the situation of Babylonian domination and rule over Judah. In illustration of this point, we may cite a 55

657.

John A. Thompson, Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980),

194

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

few statements from the literature regarding the political advice ascribed to Jeremiah. Norman Gottwald suggested that the political advice ascribed to Jeremiah the prophet was rather in line with other prophetic advice on international matters: “Jeremiah’s attitudes toward international relations bear many similarities to those of his prophetic precursors… Sometimes the dependence in phraseology is evident, but the general scantiness of ‘new ideas’ in Jeremiah does not imply that he merely imitated his predecessors.”56 David S. Vanderhooft summarized very well the connection between the Book of Jeremiah and the wider geopolitical situation: The momentous changes in Near Eastern geopolitics during this era [the rise of Babylon under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar], coupled with Nebuchadnezzar's efforts to transform Babylon into the most splendid city in the world, permeate Jeremiah's prophecy. The wrenching debates in Judah concerning political alignment and religious practice57 (the two were inseparable in Jeremiah's thought, as they were for his contemporaries and forebears) are often phrased with the awareness of Babylonian imperial policies and procedures firmly in view. Jeremiah was an advocate of capitulation to Babylon hegemony, and sharply criticized both other prophets and members of the Judean royal court who were not. The thrust of Jeremiah's program was to insure continued existence of the kingdom of Judah, subservient to Babylon if necessary, in order to preserve cultural and religious autonomy.58 Norman K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth, 239. On such debates as they are possibly reflected in the Book of Jeremiah, Oded Lipschits noted that 56 57

it may be said that a great change took place during the Babylonian exile in the perception of Babylonian rule and in the ways that authors and editors described it. The portrayal shifts from a terminal view of the destruction and deportation to a recognition of the possibility of restoration under Babylonian rule, both in exile and in Judah. A realization began to dawn on the second-generation exiles: opportunities for rehabilitation hinged on their willingness to accept Babylonian rule. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 357. 58 Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire, 135. Consider further this statement from Marvin L. Chaney: Biblical Palestine was ringed by societies more populous and powerful than itself. A significant role for these superpowers in the political

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

195

A short poetic fragment cautions against seeking deliverance from political oppression through alliances with other political powers. 2:16-18 (16) Also, those in Memphis and Taphanes will lay bare your head (17) Is this not what has been done to you because you forsook Yahweh your God at the time he was leading you in the way?59 (18) And now, what good is it for you to go the way of Egypt to drink the waters of the Nile? And what good is it for you to go the way of Assyria to drink the waters of the Euphrates?

The perception in this text attacks the decision to make recourse to Egypt or Assyria—both of whom, of course, were players on the larger political scene before the rise of the neo-Babylonian empire,60 and also historic enemies of the people of Israel and Judah. Donald Wiseman, in his study of the Babylonian Chronicles, spoke to the purported historical background of economies of Palestine did not begin with their defeat and exile of the national leaders of Israel and Judah. Long before they were able to dominate these states outright, they never ceased meddling in the affairs of their smaller neighbors, who occupied the land bridge where superpower interests met and clashed. Marvin L. Chaney, “Debt Enslavement in Israelite History and Tradition,” in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis, 128. 59 This verse is worded slightly differently in LXX: “Has not all this happened to you because you forsook me, says Yahweh your God?” 60 For Assyria to have been a nation in which Judah could have taken recourse from the Babylonian threat, this text should be dated prior to the beginning of the siege of Harran in 610. Robert Carroll noted, however: “The reference to Assyria in v. 18 has led many commentators to assume that Assyria was still powerful at this period and that therefore this unit should be dated to the 620s, at the beginning of Jeremiah’s ministry. This is to ignore the rhetorical nature of such poetry.” Carroll, Jeremiah, 129. In other words, it is not important that the perception ascribed here to Yahweh (and delivered through the prophet) lines up with historical reality. Rather the point is that recourse should not be made to other nations, because according to “the Deuteronomistic history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah such foreign alliances constitute apostasy from Yahweh” (Ibid., 128).

196

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

this and similar statements in the Book of Jeremiah: “We also know that when Nebuchadrezzar made his final attack on Judah and Jerusalem in 588586 B.C., the Egyptians were still considered to be the potential allies of Judah.”61 Ultimately, regardless of the history behind this text, an alliance with Egypt apparently was considered a live option by the editors/compilers of the Book of Jeremiah. It is perhaps important that the perception represented by this passage can be found in both poetry and prose sections of the Book of Jeremiah. Furthermore, the disagreement between the perception ascribed to the prophet Jeremiah and the perception ascribed to the devotees of the Queen of Heaven takes place, according to chapter 44MT, outside of the land—in Egypt, to which the people have fled after the assassination of Gedaliah. The perception ascribed to Jeremiah in this passage is that the people have continued in the same sins that characterized the former period and have landed them in the similarly bad situation in which they now find themselves. 44:1-14, 24-30 (1) The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the Judeans who were living in the land of Egypt, living in Migdol, Tahpanhes, Memphis, and in the land of Pathros: (2) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: You saw all the evil that I brought upon Jerusalem and on all the cities of Judah. They are a ruin today, and no one dwells in them. (3) Because of the bad things they did in order to anger me—going and offering incense to and serving other gods, with whom they had no relationship—neither they, nor you, nor your ancestors.62f (4) Even though I sent them my prophets early and often, saying, “Do not do these abominable things that I hate,” (5) they did not listen and they did not open their ears to turn from their wicked ways and stop offering incense to other gods. (6) So I poured out my wrathful anger, and it consumed the cities of Judah and the outskirts of Jerusalem, so that they became a horror and desolation, as they are today. (7) Now thus says Yahweh ‘Elohe Tsebao’th ‘Elohe Yisra’el: why have you determined to commit such great evil, so that every man, woman, child and infant in the midst of Judah shall be cut off, and no remnant shall be left to you? (8) Because you are angering me with the works of your hands: offering incense to other gods in the land of Egypt

61 Donald J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1956), 31. 62 The final clause in v. 3, indicating multi-generational sin, is not found in LXX.

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS to which you have gone to live as refugees, you shall therefore be cut off and become a curse and a mockery before all the nations of the earth. (9) Have you forgotten the evil of your ancestors, the kings of Judah and their wives, and your own evil and that of your wives that they did in the land of Judah and the outskirts of Jerusalem? (10) No one has shown contrition to this day, and no one has shown reverence. No one has walked in my torah or my statutes which I gave to you and to your ancestors. (11) Therefore thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: See! I have set my face against you for evil, in order to cut off all of Judah,63 (12) I have taken the remnant of Judah who have decided to go to Egypt as refugees, and they will be completely wiped out in the land of Egypt. They will fall by the sword [and] by famine. The whole lot, from the least of them to the greatest by sword and by famine they will die and they will be a hissing, a curse, and a mockery. (13) I will punish those who live in the land of Egypt just has I punished Jerusalem with sword, famine, and pestilence. (14) No one will get out or escape from the remnant of Judah who went down to Egypt to live there as refugees to return to the land of Judah. Even though they all desire to return and dwell there, they will not return, for no one will escape. (24) Then Jeremiah said to all the people and to their wives, “Hear the word of Yahweh all you Judeans who are in the land of Egypt! (25) Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: You and your wives have done what you promised, namely, ‘We will continue to fulfill the vows we made to offer incense to the Queen of Heaven and to our out drink offerings to her.’ So, then, fulfill the vows that you made to her! (26) Therefore, hear the word of Yahweh, all you Judeans who live in the land of Egypt: See! I swear by my own great name, says Yahweh, that none of the people of Judah in the land of Egypt shall ever again swear by my name saying, “As Adonai Yahweh lives!” (27) See! I am watching over you for evil and not for good; all the Judeans who are living in the land of Egypt will perish by sword and famine until they are all gone. (28) Those who escape from the sword shall return from the land of Egypt shall be few in number. All the remnant of Judah who went to Egypt as refugees will learn whose word is true—mine or theirs! (29) This shall be a sign for you—Oracle of Yahweh—that I will punish you in this place because you will know that my word will indeed be fulfilled against you for evil. (30) Thus says Yahweh: See, I am giving Pharoah Hophra, King of Egypt into the hand of his enemies and those who seek his life, just as I gave Zedekiah King of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon his enemy, who sought his life.

63

The phase “to cut off all Judah” is not found in LXX.

197

198

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

The perception demonstrated in this text is that the people have been put under the authority of Babylonia because they continually refuse to listen to the words of the prophet, which are coextensive with the words of God. A text such as this is relevant to perceptions of Babylonia as an imperial power because the people have sought refuge in Egypt, even though according to this perception, it will prove not to be so. Louis Stulman wrote: Judah has been entirely unwilling to “hear” Jeremiah as well as other prophets sent by Yahweh; in addition, the present and ancestral communities have willfully disregarded Yahweh’s Torah (44.10). Thus, Judah’s entire history is construed as one of obduracy and incognizance, leading to the present disaster… This word [of God] is faithfully declared by Jeremiah, God’s spokesperson, but it is decisively rejected by king and people.64

In the MT, this text comes just before the OAN material, and in the LXX near the end of the Book as a whole. Thus the “end” of the Book of Jeremiah ascribes to the prophet a perception largely consistent with what has been ascribed to him earlier. Not only were the remnant who went down to Egypt not blessed, but also were they (and their new hosts) due to receive even greater punishment from Yahweh’s hand. Carolyn Jackson Sharp indicated rather succinctly the divergence between two lines of thought represented by the perceptions in this passage. She wrote: an outline of the two different perspectives interwoven in ch. 44 shows a first perspective concerned with the full destruction of all Judah because of the sins of the ancestors of Jeremiah’s audience. The remnant in Egypt must be destroyed in order to make a full end of Judah, and not a single survivor will escape this throughgoing destruction. A second perspective presses the issue of the apostasy of the Judean community in Egypt itself and works its indictment of Jeremiah’s current hearers… In this second view, the diaspora Judeans are to be cut off from the midst of Judah that clearly has continued to exist as an object lesson, desolate and without inhabitant (v. 22). Provision is made for the escape of survivors who will

64 Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 90. It should be noted that, by the time one comes chapter 44, there is no king left who could accept or reject the words ascribed to Jeremiah. Nevertheless, Stulman’s point is essentially correct that the perception of this text is that the situation is as it is because the prophetic word has been decisively rejected.

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

199

straggle back to the land of Judah as mute testimony of the LORD’S rejection of the Judean diaspora in Egypt.65

Indeed, according to these perceptions, the people failed to improve their performance even in the face of this continued threat. Ronald Clements also recognized the importance of the consistency of the perceptions attributed to Jeremiah from beginning to end: The last prophecies we hear from [Jeremiah] constituted a warning concerning the idolatry and spiritual death that would inevitably ensue for those who had fled there (43:8-13; 44:1-30). Far from Egypt’s providing a new birthplace of hope, it would provide a graveyard for Judah’s aspirations. This unexpected series of events in which the narrator shows clearly Jeremiah’s choice to stay in Judah and the unwillingness with which his ultimate removal to Egypt took place, has an important bearing on understanding the circumstances of Jeremiah’s hope for Israel’s renewal and also of the complex literary structure of the book.66

RESISTING BABYLONIAN RULE As noted above, the other general rubric for responding to Babylonian domination is to resist. Using the means at one’s disposal to resist the power of the empire is a natural reaction to the condition of being dominated. Such resistance need not take the form of violent rebellion, though it certainly could. The Book of Jeremiah evidences several perceptions of Judean persons resisting the Babylonian empire in various ways. I will consider perceptions ascribed to Ishmael and Johanan. Ascribed to Ishmael—Taking Matters into His Own Hands: 41:1-18 The perception that Babylonian rule should be resisted violently is demonstrated by the actions ascribed to Ishmael ben Nethaniah, said to be of the royal line (‫המלוכה מזרע‬, 41:1). Ishmael’s motives are not directly spelled out in the Book of Jeremiah, but are indicated only by his actions as representing his speech or thoughts. However, in the text’s description of

Jackson Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah, 75. Ronald Clements, “Jeremiah’s Message of Hope: Public Faith and Private Anguish,” in Reading the Book of Jeremiah, 145. 65 66

200

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

him as “of royal descent and one of the king’s commanders” a commitment to the continuation of the Davidic rule seems likely. 41:1-18 (1) It happened in the fourth month that Ishmael ben Nethaniah ben Elishama, who was of royal descent and one of the king’s commanders,67 came with ten men to Gedaliah ben Ahikam at Mizpah. They had a banquet together at Mizpah. (2) Then Ishmael ben Nethaniah got up with the ten men who were with him and stabbed Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan with a sword, and killed him—the one whom the king of Babylon had set in charge over the land. (3) Then Ishmael killed all of the Judahites who were there with Gedaliah at Mizpah, and all of the Chaldeans who were found there and all the fighting men as well.68 (4) On the second day after Gedaliah was killed, when no one yet knew about it, (5) eighty men came from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria with their beards shorn off, their clothes torn,69 carrying meal offerings and incense to be offered in the Temple of Yahweh. (6) Ishamel ben Nethaniah went out from Mizpah70f to meet them, walking and crying. As he approached them he said to them, “Come to Gedaliah ben Ahikam.” (7) And when they had come into the city Ishmael ben Nethaniah and his men killed them and threw them in a cistern. (8) But there were ten men with them who said to Ishmael ben Nethaniah, “Do not kill us for we have stores hidden in a field: wheat, barley, oil, and honey!” So Ishmael relented and did not kill them along with their fellows. (9) (Now the cistern into which Ishmael had thrown the bodies of the men he killed was the great cistern which King Asa had made on account of Hoshea king of Israel. This is the one that Ishmael ben Nethaniah filled with corpses.) (10) Then Ishmael carried off all the rest of the people who were in Mizpah, including the daughters of the king—all the people over whom Nebuzaradan the captain of the guards had set Gedaliah ben Ahikam. Ishamel ben Nethaniah arose early and prepared to cross over to the Ammonites. (11) But Johanan ben Kareah, and all the army officers with him, caught wind of all the horrible things Ishmael ben Nethaniah did. (12) So he took all his men and went to do battle with Ishmael ben Nethaniah; and they encountered him at the great pool of Gibeon. (13) When all the people who were with Ishmael ben Nethaniah saw Johanan ben Kareah and all the army officers with him they were relieved; (14) all the people whom Ishmael had carried off from Mizpah turned back and went over to MT plus: “One of the king’s commanders.” MT plus: “All the fighting men there as well.” 69 LXX plus: “beating their breasts.” 70 MT plus: “from Mizpah.” 67 68

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

201

Johanan ben Kareah. (15) But Ishmael ben Nethaniah escaped from Johnanan ben Kareah with eight men and fled into the territory of the Ammonites. (16) Johanan ben Kareah and all the army offices with them took all the rest of the people whom he had rescued from Ishmael ben Nethaniah[, who had taken them] from Mizpah after he killed Gedaliah ben Ahikam— the men, soliders, women, children and eunuchs whom [Johanan] had brought back from Gibeon. (17) They set out, and they stopped at Geruth-Chimham, near Bethlehem, on their way to go to Egypt. (18) They were afraid of the Chaldeans because Ishmael ben Nethaniah had killed Gedaliah ben Ahikam whom the Babylonian king had set in charge over all the land.

Even in the face of the implicit Ammonite involvement in Ishmael’s plot against Gedaliah, the Babylonian-appointed governor of Judah (40:14) , it seems that the attempt to overthrow the Babylonians might have gained support among the populace. However, as we saw with the debate ascribed to Hananiah and Jeremiah, we find quite the opposite perception. Ishmael’s violent action is presented as something that the people do not appreciate, and indeed they are fearful of Ishmael when he takes them captive after killing Gedaliah. The story thus conditions itself to be read in a manner unfavorable to Ishmael, whose ambition goes against the view ascribed to Jeremiah to Yahweh in various places, namely, that submission to Babylonia is the way to survive. The Book of Jeremiah does not offer much in regard to Ishmael’s motives. Neither does it report much of Ishmael’s speech, indeed attributing only a short sentence to him. This absence notwithstanding, this chapter is nevertheless a good example of perceptions of the propriety of resisting Babylonian rule. Robert Carroll noted the ambiguity connected to the ambitions of Ishmael when he wrote that it seems illogical that a small band of guerillas would be able to overpower what had to have been a significant Babylonian military contingent at Mizpah, especially in light of the fact that the Babylonian army had already effectively destroyed what remained of the Judean military. However, Carroll recognized that one of the most significant problems attaching to the ambitions of Ishmael is the brutal nature of his activity. Carroll wrote: “Even as a fiction Ishmael ben Nethaniah is a difficult character to understand. His killing of Gedaliah and the Babylonian soldiers is the act of a patriot, but his slaughter of the pilgrims is an outrage and suggests a psychotic bandit.”71 Louis Stulman 71

Carroll, Jeremiah, 711.

202

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

essentially agreed with this interpretation: “Jeremiah 40.7-41.18 is probably the most grisly section in the book. It is saturated with violence, brutality, and duplicity… Whether fueled by patriotic zeal or sheer madness, the murderous acts are indefensible.”72 More significant with regard to the assassination of Gedaliah, however, is the interruption this and the following events represent in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem. The city having been destroyed and the majority of the leading citizens having been deported, apparently any threats to Babylonian hegemony over the region had been removed. Ronald Clements interpreted this chapter as a harbinger of developments within Yahwism: “The brief interlude of respite for the miseries of Judah under the governorship of Gedaliah…appears to have held sufficient promise to provide a basis for the hope Jeremiah had voiced when he [had some years earlier] purchased the plot of ancestral land in Anathoth. Yet such a brief interlude of hope was short-lived and, after Gedaliah’s untimely murder…a major reorientation was needed.”73 In the next chapter, attention will be drawn to the dialogues about going down to Egypt, as well as moving back to the immediate reaction to Ishmael’s activity somewhat later. Louis Stulman’s judgment on the implications of the events reported in ch. 41 is striking: “The events surrounding the death of Gedaliah are not only dream-shattering, but also theologically embarrassing. The savage acts fly in the face of principal tenets of the book, which are that life makes moral sense, that actions have consequences, and that the universe is morally coherent.”74 I think Stulman has engaged in a bit of overreaching moralization of this narrative. While Ishmael’s actions indeed make this “the most grisly section of the book,”75 I think the offense created by Ishmael is not best expressed in terms of the moral fabric of the universe, but rather in similar terms to Johanan and his associates’ fear of military retribution by the empire. Ascribed to Johanan et al.—Seek Refuge in Egypt: 43:1-11 The second text demonstrating a perception of resisting Babylonian rule follows closely upon the events related in the text we considered above. After Gedaliah is assassinated by Ishmael, the text reports fear rising among the community of survivors that the imperial reaction to this impudence Stulman, “Polyphonic Response,” 313. Clements, “Jeremiah’s Message,” 145. 74 Stulman, Jeremiah, 326-7. 75 Ibid., 326. 72 73

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

203

will be swift and severe. Immediately preceding Johanan and his associates’ declaration that they will save themselves in Egypt is their request for an oracle from Yahweh made of Jeremiah. The desire to go into “voluntary exile” in Egypt is consistent with other appeals to Egypt made throughout the Book of Jeremiah. Furthermore, the response ascribed to the prophet, that the people should remain in the land, is also consistent with many other examples of this view. 43:1-11 (1) When Jeremiah had finished speaking all these words—all the words of Yahweh their God—to all the people to whom Yahweh their God had sent him, (2) Azaraiah ben Hoshea76 and Johanan ben Kareah and all the arrogant77 people said to Jeremiah, “You are lying! Yahweh our God did not send you to say, ‘Do not go to Egypt as refugees!’ (3) Instead, Baruch ben Neriah has incited you against us so that you can give us into the hand of the Chaldeans to kill us or exile us to Babylon.” (4) So Johanan ben Kareah and all of captians of the army and all the people did not listen to the voice of Yahweh to remain in the land of Judah. (5) Johanan ben Kareah and all the captains of the army took the remainder of the Judeans and all those who had return from other nations who had come to Judah to live as refugees, (6) men, women, and children, and the daughters of the king, and all those whom Nebuzaradan the chief of the guards had left with Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan, along with Jeremiah the prophet and Baruch ben Neriah. (7) They went to Tahpanes in the land of Egypt, because they did not listen to the voice of Yahweh. (8) The word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah in Tahpanes: (9) Take some big stones, and embed them in mortar in the brick structure at the entrance of Pharoah’s house in Tahpanes in the sight of some of the Judeans. (10) Say to them, “Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Look! I am sending for my servant Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon, and I will set his throne up on top of these stones which I have embedded. He will set up his splendor above it. (11) Then he will go out and strike the land of Egypt, delivering those destined for the plague, to the plague; those destined for captivity, to captivity; those destined for the sword, to the sword.

This text contains the perception of Johanan et al. that remaining in the land after the assassination of Gedaliah will result in the final end of the community. Johanan ben Kareah, who is, according to the text, one of the 76 77

LXX reads “son of Maaseiah.” MT plus: “arrogant.”

204

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

principal figures in the community after Gedaliah’s death, and those who accompany him are naturally fearful that the reaction of the empire will be violent. This represents a shift in the perceptions ascribed to Johanan and his associates based on the action ascribed to Ishmael. Prior to Ishmael’s rash actions, the perception ascribed to Johanan et al. is that they support Gedaliah and determine to remain in the land as opposed to going to Babylonia. After Ishmael murders Gedaliah and the others, however, they become fearful of Babylonia and ready to seek refuge in Egypt, an enemy of the Babylonians. Furthermore, this shift is more directly indicated by the two kinds of statements attributed to Johanan himself. First, in chapter 40, Johanan tells Gedaliah of the plot against his life, but the Babylonian governor fatally downplays his warnings. In chapter 43, he and his associates determine to follow whatever instructions God gives them through Jeremiah. However, even though they had made this declaration, when an answer that they do not want comes back, they determine to go their own way. This is an interesting development in light of their previous concern for preserving Judah as a province under imperial control. The text merely calls those who refused Jeremiah’s word ‫כל־האנשׁים‬ ‫‘ הזדים‬all the arrogant people,’78 a designation with inescapable polemical thrust. In spite of the limited information the text gives us, however, we may speculate that, whatever the direct motivation, these persons felt that a “voluntary exile” to Egypt was better than staying around to see how the Babylonians reacted to the disruption and assassination of their provincial administrative structure. The decision to go to Egypt in resistance to the words ascribed to Jeremiah typifies the strife within the community reported by the text. Gottwald suggested that although the leaders “rejected [Jeremiah’s] counsel and elected to flee to Egypt…they did not fail to take the prophet and his scribe with them as necessary protection against the hazards of life in a new land.”79 Whatever protection the presence of the prophet might have assured aside, Gottwald continued, “Jeremiah seems to have deepened his belief that Nebuchadezzar would conquer Egypt and there rule over the Seeing that LXX Vorlage lacks this description, we are led to the conclusion that the opponents of Jeremiah the prophet in this passage were not universally understood as worthy of disdain. See Louis Stulman, The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah, with English Translation (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), 157-60. 79 Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth, 291. 78

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

205

few surviving Jews just as he had in Judah.”80 The important point of contrast is that the “last words” of the prophet in chapter 44 come in a debate against non-Yahwists, whereas here the prophet is said to have his final doings with other worshippers of the God of Israel, his potential “followers.” Although the perception of the Book of Jeremiah is that the prophet never did achieve complete success in winning people over to his view,81 nevertheless saying that the survivors of the catastrophe, or at least those who had gone down to Egypt and had forced Jeremiah to go with them, thereby abandoned the worship of Yahweh ignores what I believe is a more important question, namely, the reversal of the Exodus implied by the decision to seek refuge in Egypt. Walter Brueggemann noted that the thematic element of a return to Egypt was an important one for the final shape of the Book of Jeremiah when he wrote: In the imaginative construal of historical reality, as shaped by the canonizers of the book of Jeremiah, this devastating, deathly return to Egypt brings the story of Yahweh’s life with Israel full circle from the Exodus, so that this foolish choice is presented as the negation and nullification of the entire story of rescue which constituted Israel.82

The importance of the voluntary exile to Egypt for the perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah cannot reasonably be disputed. This is so because this decision ascribed to some of the prophet’s contemporaries is certainly a reasonable choice in the face of such events as reported. However, while one recognizes that the Book of Jeremiah presents and enforces a certain viewpoint, it cannot in any wise be assumed that all of the survivors of the catastrophe83 fled to Egypt after the murder of Gedaliah.84 On the contrary, the fact that the Book ascribes to Jeremiah advice to Ibid. Some success must be granted the prophet in that the Book was produced in the first place, although this statement again falls victim to question begging. 82 Walter Brueggemann, “The ‘Baruch Connection:’ Reflections on Jeremiah 43.1-7,” in Troubling Jeremiah, 373. 83 One should bear in mind here the earlier distinction between the remnant left after the first deportation and those who survived the exile to make homes, plant vineyards, etc. in the imperial capital (cf. 29:5). 84 Jack Lundbom correctly noted this in connection to the request for an oracle in 42:1-3: “The group [of voluntary exiles] was probably small, but the conclusion should not be drawn that their departure from Mizpah left Judah devoid of inhabitants.” Lundbom, Jeremiah, 3:130. 80 81

206

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

remain in the land in spite of these events indicates that such an option was possible (at least according to the view ascribed to Jeremiah), and it is a reasonable assumption that some did in fact remain in the land. Indeed, 44:14 suggests a perception that many of the refugees do want to return to the land of Judah eventually.85 John Thompson agreed with this assessment: There must have been many Judeans left in the land after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., many of whom did not gather at Mizpah with Gedaliah.86 The reference [in 43:5] must therefore be to the particular group that had fled as far as Bethlehem, among whom were some who had taken refuge in Transjordan and had recently returned to Judah (40:11-12) . It is not even possible to say that all the Judeans in the vicinity of Mizpah joined the fleeing group. In the days when the exiles returned, there were certainly Judeans living in the former Judah.87

In my estimation, Thompson goes off the track when he concludes that those remaining in the land—regardless of how large or small such a community might have been—ultimately lack significance for the Book of Jeremiah: “There seemed to be little hope for the poor group left behind if one thought of future renewal. As for the group that fled, these comprised rebels against Yahweh’s will and would be understood by the Babylonians as rebels against themselves.88 Thus in no way was there any hope for the

Later on I will examine in greater detail the oracle Jeremiah gives in response to the leaders’ request for guidance. One point deserves mention here, however. In 42:17-18, the editors attribute to Jeremiah a declaration that no one who deigns to go to Egypt will survive, thus contrasting to the promise of some refugees returning in 44:14. 86 Recall also the choice given to Jeremiah: “Look! The whole land is yours to go wherever you please” (40:4). 87 Thompson, Jeremiah, 669. It is precisely in this connection that I have argued how the Book of Jeremiah may, in part, have contributed to the disputes between the ‫ בני הגולה‬and the ‫ עם הארץ‬in the Ezra-Nehemiah material. It bears repeating that those who are in the land when the “exiles return” do contend, on their own behalf, that they are descended from those who were left in the land, and indeed were also among those to whom the Babylonians had given land and vineyards after the deportation of the leading citizens (cf. 39:8-18, inter alia). 88 This particular statement by Thompson will be important for a subsequent investigation, namely whether by pursuing and ultimately defeating Ishmael, Johanan ben Kareah and his associates were not in fact serving the interests of the empire! 85

DIALOGUES WITH SURVIVORS

207

future.”89 While it is true that some perceptions in the Book of Jeremiah do judge the voluntary exiles in this manner, with certain disagreements in detail, the text does not warrant speculation regarding hope for the future of those who fled to other parts of Judah or remained in Mizpah after the assassination of Gedaliah.90 Throughout this chapter, I have considered various perceptions that the events of the exilic period were not exclusively negative, but could in fact be turned to the advantage of certain people within the community. We noted how this stood in marked contrast to the dominant tone of the Book of Jeremiah that the exile was the direct result of the punishment of an offended Yahweh. This alternative opinion was attributed, moreover, not only to the remnant in Judah but also the exiles in Babylonia. As the investigation proceeded, we noted that the perceptions of the exile as blessedness were presented in two distinct ways. In some instances, these perceptions were presented as faulty ideas in need of correction. In other instances, however, certain people are reported as having actually experienced benefits as a result of the exile of some of their compatriots. Those who are singled out for critique in terms of the even greater punishment that was waiting for them are those who had initially experienced the benevolence of the empire. This aspect highlighted a further contrast between the dominant viewpoint and the less commonly noted alternatives. According to the dominant view, submission to the Babylonians would be the way to keep one’s life and even experience some benefits. However, it is apparent from the perceptions explored in this chapter that those who followed this advice and did in fact receive some benefit from the situation were the very ones who were due for even greater punishment. Thus the texts considered in this chapter are emblematic once again of the argument we have been building throughout our entire investigation. Not only are conflicting perceptions laid side by side on a large scale, but also ambiguity cannot be avoided even within the presentation of seemingly similar ideas. The Book of Jeremiah thus presents Thompson, Jeremiah, 669. Thus Robert Carroll argued: “What remains behind in Judah ceases to have any significance for the tradition and may be deemed not to exist. But this nonexistence should not be confused with social reality; it is but an ideological blank space in the tradition.” Carroll, Jeremiah, 723-4. Louis Stulman’s position, on the other hand, calls for more nuance: “the narrative…plays down pro-Egyptian versus pro-Babylonian politics, even though they are bubbling beneath the surface of the text… [T]he Judeans remaining in the land refuse to ‘listen’ to Yahweh… Those who sought the will of God decide to reject it.” Stulman, Jeremiah, 337. 89 90

208

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

a rich tapestry of ideas, including within its pages a significant range of possible options for understanding the events of the takeover of the land of Judah by the Babylonians and the subsequent destruction of the city of Jerusalem, along with two or three deportations of significant numbers of people.

5 DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

Just as one does not have, prior to speaking, an exhaustive vision of the things, which would then only get ‘expressed’ in speech, so, likewise, a knowledge of the soul and of the soul’s relation to speech does not simply precede speech. On the contrary, speech belongs to the way by which we come to have such knowledge. This is most evident in the case of the soul: we learn about the soul of another, not so much by seeing (in whatever form) but by speaking with him. The peculiar involvement of this issue is indicated by the fact that, whereas, on the one hand, the perfection of speech would appear straightforwardly to require a collection and division exercised on souls and speeches, on the other hand, the very practice of collection and division by which the perfection of speech would be accomplished is itself an affair of speech, even a perfected speech, a beautiful speech.1

Jeremiah’s interactions with political leaders form an important theme throughout the Book. Indeed, the purported refusal of the leadership to listen to Yahweh’s word through the prophet is the principal source of the critique leveled against them. Along the way, as has already been seen, the impression rendered of Jeremiah is of one who can see better than any of his contemporaries into the true meaning behind events. The texts examined in this chapter will be organized as follows. First, I will examine two texts repeating the dominant view of the Book but putting it into the mouths of rather unusual proponents. Second, I will consider some texts purportedly from before the destruction of Jerusalem, with a view toward what they reveal of what might be termed “Jeremiah’s political philosophy.” Third, I will examine some dialogues that took place during the time after the destruction of Jerusalem, having in the main to do with how the remnant in Judah should respond to the situation after the assassination of Gedaliah. 1

Sallis, Being and Logos, 173.

209

210

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

It seems that a common theme runs throughout, namely that Yahweh has orchestrated the events and that Babylonia is therefore a tool in Yahweh’s hand. Thus there is a theological spin put on the events by Yahweh and Jeremiah, whereas those with whom the prophet enters into dialogue seem mostly focused on the political aspects of the events. In the ideology of the Book, Jeremiah is thus presented as one who is more aware than his contemporaries of the “deeper meaning” behind political events. He is described through his speeches and actions as one in possession of a political acumen superior even to those who are placed in political authority, whether by the Babylonians or by the Judeans. Put simply, he is more politically adept even than those who have spent considerable time in the highest levels of political discussion and intrigue. By doing so, the Book reinforces its own political stance, although as I have indicated this stance is probably not monolithic owing to the composite nature of the evidence. Yet it must be borne in mind throughout that this composite nature does not question the Book’s overall historicity.

OTHERS AGREEING WITH THE DOMINANT VIEW As an entrée into this dimension of Jeremiah’s dialogues, I will consider a couple of texts that interpret the fall of Jerusalem in deuteronomistic terms. Although this “dominant view” is most often ascribed either to Yahweh or to Jeremiah, these texts are interesting in that they attribute this view to various other persons. While the number of such texts is very small, especially compared with the number and variety of similar perceptions ascribed to Yahweh or Jeremiah, nevertheless they provide important insight into the main argument of the Book. The second of these two texts, furthermore, is the more interesting of the two, not merely because it directly identifies the holder of the perception, but especially because of who it is that holds it. “Mighty Nations:” 22:8-9 The first text appears to be a non-specific prophecy of persons viewing the destruction of the city and wondering why it has come about. In a way, it fits well within the general category of ANE city laments. In demonstrating a question-and-answer style of memoralizing, this text moreover presents a kind of ironic twist on the deuteronomistic principle of interpreting sights to later generations.

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

211

22:8-9 (8) Mighty nations will cross over this city and a man will say to his neighbor, “Why has Yahweh done this to this great city?” (9) They will say, “Because they abandoned the covenant of Yahweh their God, worshiped other gods and served them.”2

The interpretation of the events is similar to what can be found repeatedly within the perceptions ascribed to Yahweh and to Jeremiah. The people abandoned the covenant of Yahweh, worshiped other gods and served them. Nothing more specific than that is articulated in this passage. Carroll cautioned arguing on the basis of texts such as this that the dominant view of the Book of Jeremiah commanded universal acceptance. Carroll wrote: The familiarity of the speakers with Deuteronomistic covenantal terminology should not be read as evidence that foreigners were well versed in such theology, but it is to be understood as a conventional form of expression. It allows the editors to relate a specific disaster in terms which validate their own ideology (cf. Nebuzaradan’s impeccably correct theological assessment of the fall of Jerusalem in 40.1-3).3

Several commentators made special mention of the dialogical appearance of this text, a feature that makes it important for the argument being advanced here. Speaking of the relationship between this text, prediction, and retrospect, McKane wrote: “A fundamental question is whether we are to explain the question-answer procedure which is found in the prose of the book of Jeremiah (5.19; 9.11-15; 16.10-13; 22.8f)4 as a device for giving expression to the proleptic certainty of the historical prophet Jeremiah that judgment will fall on Jerusalem in the future,” or if these texts are retrospective. McKane concluded that it was the latter.5 Carroll made a similar comment: “The question-and-answer style of the piece, providing a justification for what has happened, links it to other uses There are no significant differences between LXX and MT in this passage. Carroll, Jeremiah, 421. 4 We have considered all of these other texts mentioned by McKane within the statements attributed to Yahweh or to Jeremiah. Our division thus draws a distinction between this text and the others. McKane also made note of such a distinction: “22.8f, however, do not fit so well into a context of Jewish agonizing and search for explanations after the fall of Jerusalem as do [the others]…where the answers are given in the form of ‘word of Yahweh’ (prophetic oracles).” McKane, Jeremiah, 1:521. 5 McKane, Jeremiah, 1:520 (emphasis original). 2 3

212

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

of the style in the tradition… This particular form of the question is used by foreigners rather than the people of Yahweh.”6 The point seems to be that non-Judeans understand the situation better than the people of Judah. Furthermore, a text from the annals of Ashurbanipal seems to be parallel to this one: Whenever the inhabitants of Arabia asked each other: “On account of what have these calamities befallen Arabia?” (they answered themselves:) “Because we did not keep the solemn oaths (sworn by) Ashur, because we offended the friendliness of Ashurbanipal, the king, beloved by Enlil!”7

Walter Brueggemann brought the dialogue form of this text into comparison with the immediate context of chapter 22: “In v. 9 the reason for destruction is theological without ethical specificity. One may argue that the two different reasons reflect different theological traditions and different editorial layers.”8 General Nebuzaradan: 40:2-3 The second non-Israelite speaker to whom the dominant view of the Book of Jeremiah is ascribed is the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan. The statement comes in the context of the choice given to Jeremiah as to where he would go, to Babylon or to Mizpah. This choice was examined in the previous chapter.

Carroll, Jeremiah, p. 421. Translation by A. Leo Oppenheim in James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 300. Carroll (Jeremiah, p. 421) noted the relevance of the Ashurbanipal text for Jeremiah 22, as did Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, (Jeremiah 1-25, 303). The latter correctly noted that this “form is clearly related to treaty curses,” and thus is not theological in the same way as is the parallel statement from the Book of Jeremiah. That is, the offended party is the king, not the deity in the Assyrian parallel. Though the offense against King Ashurbanipal is grievous because the king is the “beloved of Enlil,” the text does not seem to indicate a offense directly against the deity, as is demonstrably the case in the Book of Jeremiah. 8 Brueggemann, Jeremiah 197 [emphasis added]. Brueggemann was writing about the relationship between the somewhat non-specific vv. 6-7 over against the more direct explanation in vv. 8-9, but the language he used of seeing these two reasons as stemming from different theological traditions is indeed in line with my thesis. 6 7

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

213

40:2-3 (2) The captain of the guards took Jeremiah and said to him, “Yahweh your god proclaimed this evil on this place. (3) Yahweh came and did just as he said because you sinned against Yahweh and did not listen to his voice, and that is why this has happened to you.”9

The only difference between LXX and MT here is an MT plus in the final phrase. This text is perhaps the most interesting text one among those that articulate the dominant view that the exile represents Yahweh’s punishment of the people. There seems no particular reason that a Babylonian general would on his own adopt the dominant perspective articulated in the Book. Though it is possible that Nebuzaradan picked propaganda from Judeans, it is more likely that the narrator supplied this episode to prove a point. It is intended to show that even the Babylonians agree with the dominant viewpoint. The enemy, like the “mighty nations,” knows the situation better than the Judeans. Keown, Scalise, and Smothers made essentially the same point: “It seems particularly consistent to the book of Jeremiah, if not the prophetic tradition in general, to have a word from the LORD delivered by a Babylonian official.”10 This resonates with an earlier statement by Norman Gottwald: “The actual speech attributed to Nebuzaradan in 40:2-5a is in the nature of a sermon summarizing Jeremiah’s religio-political outlook and is typical of the tendency to put Yahwistic speeches in the mouths of sympathetic foreigners.”11 John Thompson, however, suggested that the “Chaldean commander was evidently aware of what Jeremiah had been saying, for he took up his views in a brief summary in order to justify recent events.”12 Failure to note the clearly propagandistic nature of Nebuzaradan’s speech has led to misunderstanding even by the very perceptive Robert Carroll, who wrote: In the present state of the text MT presents an absurd picture of the preacher going into exile and being made the recipient of a sermon preached to him by the pagan military commander Nebuzaradan. At some The first verse of the chapter, which leads one to expect a prophetic oracle, is not taken up, as Keown et al. recognized: “Whatever one chooses to do in order to resolve the problems this text presents, it seems clear that the initial verse of Jer 40 remains problematic.” Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, 234. 10 Ibid., 235. 11 Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth, 286. 12 Thompson, Jeremiah, 652. 9

214

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH point in the redaction an oracular statement by Jeremiah about the fall of the city given in Deuteronomistic language has been turned into a pious outburst by the Babylonian soldier. Once again the biblical writers present the heathen as first-class Deuteronomists, and only the Judaeans appear to be theologically illiterate (cf. 22.8-9). If the two strands are untangled, a story of Jeremiah’s deportation with the exiles is found to be mixed up with a proclamation about the city’s fall.13

I am advocating a middle ground in the understanding of this text. I grant that it is unlikely that Nebuzaradan would ever speak the lines attributed to him, yet I do believe the words ascribed to him that are preserved are historical in the sense that they preserve, to a degree, the range of options available for understanding the events of the exile. In light of this, I believe a much better interpretation of the rationale behind the deuteronomistic statement attributed to the Babylonian general is as an example of what Walter Brueggemann called “laughing at the state.” 14 On attempts such as this to resist an imperial power, Daniel Smith-Christopher wrote: Surely the frequency of the motif that “it’s all because of our sins” in cross-cultural settings would lead one to reconsider the possibility that it is among the effective coping strategies of a people in crisis. After all, if one’s suffering is because of one’s own oversights, and not because of the power of the emperor and his armies, then this holds out considerably more hope about a future restoration, given appropriate spiritual recovery.15

The insistence of the Old Testament on a Yahweh-originated and –directed sequence of events in the early 6th century BCE thus can be very profitably seen as a resistance to the power of the state, in this case the power of the Neo-Babylonian empire. Furthermore, putting words into the mouth of a Babylonian general that agree with the dominant viewpoint expressed in the Book of Jeremiah further enforces the act of resistance these texts create. Smith-Christopher continued, he suggesting that viewing the events as the result of the people’s sinfulness as is characteristic of the deuteronomistic history can have ambiguous results. “Laughing at the state” aside, Carroll, Jeremiah¸ 699. “Perhaps the ultimate act of resistance to the state is to ‘laugh at the state’ and so to create emotional and social space for an emancipated alternative.” Brueggemann, editor’s foreword to A Biblical Theology of Exile, ix. 15 Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile, 81. 13 14

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

215

“[t]heologies of ‘God’s punishment,’ an interesting feature of the Deuteronomistic History, could lead to a destructive self-image and a sense of hopelessness in renewing or reviving a people’s social and religious identity or existence.”16 Both of the texts considered in this section have centered on one theme: the events of the exile have come about because the people failed to live up to the covenant that Yahweh their God has established with and for them. Each of the texts considered in this section has contributed something to the discussion, and we have further seen that a great element of ambiguity can be seen in this collection. The primary locus of the ambiguity has been between the possibility that punishment could be avoided—typical of many texts dated before the destruction of the city— and the inevitability of punishment, but ambiguity can also be demonstrated in other contexts as well. The ascription of the dominant view to Nebuzaradan provides a bridge to the remainder of this chapter. The general task is to examine Jeremiah’s dialogues with political leaders. Alternatively, the focus is on perceptions of the role of Babylonia in the last days17 of Judah, and in particular examining the best response to the empire. In many ways, the texts to be considered here go beyond that which was considered in the last chapter. This is so because, first, they come mostly from a wide range of purported temporal contexts; and, second, because Jeremiah himself seems to be more involved in the discussions, whereas in the text considered in the last chapter he was largely absent. At the same time, these perceptions represent a range of options similar in scope to that which has already been investigated. That is, the Book of Jeremiah offers several kinds of response to the Babylonian presence. The texts under investigation here reflect a diversity of content similar to perceptions of the exile as punishment and perceptions of advantage and disadvantage during the exile. The Babylonian domination and subsequent conquest of Judah takeover also had implications for the phenomenon of prophecy in Judah. As Rex Mason noted:

Ibid., 107. “Laughing at the state” is not included in the quote. Though the present work is not, it bears repeating, interested in specific matters of historicity, I take this phrase to refer in general to the declining years of Judean independence. The Book of Jeremiah, as has been indicated, is concerned with the time period just before and during the exile, whenever such a period may be said to have begun and ended. 16 17

216

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH In fact, in seems far more likely that prophecy began to die, or change, after the exile, not because of its failure but because of its “success.” The judgement of the exile was seen as confirmation of the prediction of those prophets who had not cried “peace” when there was no peace, while the prophets of the exile showed how the “hope of salvation” element in their preaching could be seen as applying to the time beyond the exile.18

BEFORE THE DESTRUCTION Recognizing that the term is anachronistic, there does seem to be a kind of political theory that is ascribed to Jeremiah through the various texts under consideration. In general terms, this theory can be described as a reasoned acquiescence. In my view, it is not sufficient to call Jeremiah a “proBabylonian sympathizer” or a “Judean traitor,” both of which amount to the same thing. Though this is in fact the charge laid on Jeremiah, ascribed to various opponents, it does not adequately capture the political nuance that the editors of the Book ascribe to him. A clue for the accuracy of this assertion can certainly be had precisely, on the one hand, in the accusations by his contemporaries and, on the other, in the belief apparently held by Nebuchadrezzar and Nebuzaradan about him, which led to his being granted safe passage to wherever he wanted to go (cf. 40:1-6). Surely this belief was being set up as the incorrect interpretation of Jeremiah’s statements in both cases. Three texts will come under investigation in what follows. Though only one of them is ascribed to Jeremiah specifically, they all seem to agree on the general point that submitting to Babylonian rule is the way to preserve life. The theological point thus being made is that Yahweh is in control of the events, and therefore neither resistance against the empire nor arrogance on the part of the empire will ultimately stand. If the people had merely followed the instructions they had previously been given— according to these texts—not only could they have avoided the judgment of exile to begin with, but they could survive in the face of exilic events and live a fruitful life even in a situation in which their land is not their own. The Way of Life is Set before You: 21:8-10 The verse immediately prior to the text under consideration forms a doublet with 13:14, considered in the dialogues with God. A link was also 18

142.

Rex Mason, “The Prophets of the Restoration,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition,

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

217

forged between the text to be investigated here and the choice of Jeremiah to remain in the land under the governorship of Gedaliah (40:1-6). 21:8-10 (8) To this people you shall say: Thus says Yahweh: Look! I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death. (9) Those who remain in this city will die by word and famine and pestilence, and those who go out of it and cross over to the Chaldeans besieging it will live; he shall have his life as spoils. (10) For I have set my face against this city for evil and not for good—Oracle of Yahweh—into the hand of the Babylonian king it shall be delivered, and he will destroy it with fire.19

I have already considered how the supposed “pro-Babylonian” stance of Jeremiah needs modification in order to accurately represent the perceptions ascribed to the prophet. Clements recognized that examination of that which is attributed to Jeremiah is ambiguous with regard to the political orientation of the prophet: The reader of the extant Book of Jeremiah cannot but be struck be the surprising absence of any form of clear-cut political assessment or any firm indication of a partisan political stance. Instead we find with Jeremiah, and consistently throughout the book of his prophecies, an intense concentration on purely religious issues and a profound insight into the nature of religion.20

This text forms a doublet, on one hand, with 38:2; and on the other, as indicated above, with 13:14.21 The choice is given to resist and die or submit and live, with the resisters being given over to the by-now familiar triad of sword, famine and pestilence. Interestingly, ‫‘ דבר‬pestilence’ is missing from both passages in the LXX.22 Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard ignored this absence, though correctly noting that the “oracle seems to begin with a clear choice, and one might expect clear-cut positive or negative There are no significant differences between MT and LXX in this passage. Ibid., 127-8. 21 Parke-Taylor, Formation, 202-4. There is a further doublet at the end of these verses to the promise given to Baruch, which Parke-Taylor mentions in passing on 202. 22 The far-reaching connections this text has with various other offerings in the Book of Jeremiah leads Parke-Taylor to admit that “[t]he word ‘doublet’ is perhaps inappropriate as a description of some passages with many phrases in common.” Ibid., p. 204. 19 20

218

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

outcomes.”23 They went on to make a curious suggestion regarding the implications that would follow from the choice presented here: “If the people stay in the city, they will die. But if the people will go out and surrender to the Babylonians, they will live. They will be captives, but they will have their lives.”24 This suggestion seems odd because the text does not warrant calling those who might have taken the prophet’s advice and submitted to Babylonian hegemony “captives.” While the second deportation is yet to take place, according to the literary context, and while indeed many more captives were taken to Babylon following the destruction of the city predicted in this passage, this text has a far greater range of implications than merely the time period between the deportations. The evaluations of this passage by Philip King and Louis Stulman can be profitably set up against one another to gain a picture of how the proBabylonian statements of the prophet have been understood in recent scholarship. On the one hand, King wrote that Jeremiah “did not enjoy being misjudged, persecuted, and cursed; nor did he relish being condemned as a collaborationist and traitor for urging Judah to surrender to Babylon as a way of averting a worse fate.” 25 In spite of the reactions his words might have received—and the reaction is largely negative, for according to the text Jeremiah never achieved success in converting people to his worldview in his own lifetime—the text shows Jeremiah to be unflinching in his perseverance with the ideals and words he believed Yahweh to have given him. Stulman, on the other hand, opted to see this text as playing an important role within the argument of the Book of Jeremiah, rather than revealing the political stance of the prophet as such.26 Thus, Stulman took a much less historical approach than King when he wrote: “the prose discourse declares that the destiny of Judah as a reimaged Craigie, Kelley and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25, 288. Ibid., 289. 25 King, Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion, 7. 26 This is in agreement with the statement of Clements above that the Book of Jeremiah does not indicate anything relating to a political affiliation ascribed to the prophet. While indeed, as we have noted, the identity of the political “party” (for lack of a better term) of Jeremiah the prophet is unclear, the Book of Jeremiah is certainly concerned with events on the international political scene. Consider the investigation of Jeremiah’s involvement with Gedaliah ben Ahikam (40:1-6). What is clear from the evidence of the text is a calculated political submission to the power of the Babylonians is ascribed to Jeremiah the prophet, for to take this action is to ensure one’s life, even though freedom in such a situation is severely limited. 23 24

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

219

community depends in large measure on its response to Babylonian subjugation, which…is couched in theopolitical terms representing Yahweh’s sovereign rule over Judah.”27 We have already seen how the suggestion in this text that going over to the Babylonians is the way of life offers multiple points of connection with other texts in the Book of Jeremiah. This text has a further link, not yet mentioned, with chapter 26 and the trial of Jeremiah. Rather than a betrayal of his country, this perception ascribed to Jeremiah spoke to the possibility of the continuation of life in the land, arguing that the power of the Babylonians could not in any wise be resisted. All the Nations Should Take on the Yoke of Babylon: 27:1-22 This text has a dual temporal reference. The main content of the oracle is a message to King Zedekiah that he should submit to Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon in order to save his life. It looks back, however, to the advice given to all the nations round about that they should take Babylon’s yoke upon their necks, lest the empire destroy them for refusing to submit. 27:1-22 (1) In the accession year of Jehoiakim ben Josiah King of Judah this word came to Jeremiah from Yahweh.28 (2) Thus said Yahweh to me: Make for yourself the straps and crossbar of a yoke and put it on your neck. (3) And send something to the kings of Edom, Moab, the Ammonites, Seir, and Sidon by the messengers who have come to Jerusalem to Zedekiah King of Judah. (4) Command them to deliver the following message to their lords: “Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el:, thus you shall say to your lords. (5) I myself made the earth and the land and the beasts that are on the face of the earth. By my great power and my outstretched arm, and I give it to whomever I decide is worthy. (6) Now I have giving all these lands to Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon, my servant. I am also giving him all the living things in the field for his service. (7) All nations shall serve him, his son, and his grandson until his empire comes to an end, and many nations and great kings will overcome him.29 (8) If there is any nation or kingdom that does not serve Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon and take the yoke of the King of Babylon on its neck, then I will punish that nation with the sword, famine, and pestilence—Oracle of Yahweh— until they are killed by his hand. (9) As for you, do not listen to your 27 Louis Stulman, “The Prose Sermons as Hermeneutical Guide to Jeremiah 1-25: The Deconstruction of Judah’s Symbolic World,” in Troubling Jeremiah, 60. 28 Verse 1 not in LXX. 29 Verse 7 not in LXX.

220

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH prophets and your diviners and your dreamers and your soothsayers and your sorcerers when they say to you, ‘Do not serve the King of Babylon,’ (10) for they are lying to you in order to lead you away from your land. I will banish you and destroy you. (11) But as for the nation who allows its neck to go under the yoke of the King of Babylon to serve him—I will leave it on its own land—Oracle of Yahweh—to till it and dwell in it.” (12) To Zedekiah King of Judah I say the very same thing: submit your necks to the yoke of the King of Babylon and serve him,” and his people will live. (13) Why should you and your people die by famine and pestilence just like Yahweh promised to do to the nations that refused to submit to the King of Babylon?30 (14) Do not listen to the words of the prophets who say to you, “Do not serve the King of Babylon!” for they are prophesying lies to you. (15) For I did not send them—Oracle of Yahweh—and they are prophesying falsely in my name, with the result that I will drive you out and destroy you, you and the prophets who prophesied to you. (16) And to the priests and all the people I say, Thus says Yahweh: do not listen to the words of your prophets who prophesy to you saying, “See! The vessels of the House of Yahweh will be returned from Babylon for they prophesy falsely to you. (17) Do not listen to them!31 Serve the King of Babylon and live! Why should this city become a ruin? (18) If they are prophets, and if the word of Yahweh is with them, then let them intercede with Yahweh Tseba’oth so that the vessels that are still left in the house of Yahweh and the palace of the King of Judah may be prevented from going to Babylon. (19) For thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth concerning the columns, the sea, the stands, and the rest of the vessels that remain in this city,32 (20) which were not taken by Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon when he exiled Jeconiah ben Jehoiakim King of Judah from Jerusalem to Babylon, along with all the nobility of Judah and Jerusalem. (21) For thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el concerning the vessels that remain in the House of Yahweh and the Temple of the King of Judah: (22) to Babylon they will go33 and there they will be until the day I visit them—Oracle of Yahweh—and bring them up and return them to this place.

One of the enduring trends of recent scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah has been to assume the influence of the Deuteronomistic worldview upon the traditions associated with the prophet. This influence, which many still Verse 13 not in LXX. LXX ends v. 17 here. 32 LXX v. 19 mentions only the vessels. 33 LXX v. 22 ends here. 30 31

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

221

take as axiomatic, has been extended into the construction of a comprehensive pro-Babylonian stance, which is then attributed to the prophet Jeremiah. The prophet is thereby understood primarily as a purely literary figure composed out of the two streams of Deuteronomistic theology and pro-Babylonian political orientation. I suggest here that the judgment that Jeremiah is a pro-Babylonian sympathizer requires a good deal of nuancing.34 Yet, among perceptions like this ascribed to Jeremiah, a certain ambiguity can be noticed. Perceptions of Babylonia as the instrument of Yahweh must be set against those expressing ultimate hope for Babylon’s defeat (cf. esp. chs 50-51 MT). The existence of these contradictory materials has given rise to various attempts to resolve the tension. On the one hand, scholars such as Klaas Smelik argue that the later, antiBabylonian sentiments ascribed to Jeremiah (most notably in the OAN) were included precisely to counter the judgment that the prophet was a traitor: “To exclude misunderstanding, the authors moreover composed an extensive prophecy against Babylon in which they introduced no new thoughts but in which they could broadly showcase Jeremiah’s repugnance toward Babylon.”35 J. G. Amesz took into account the benefits that the narrative reports Jeremiah received because the imperial officials apparently also believed he was supporting their interests: in a confrontation with his opponents the prophet was accused of a proBabylonian stance in his preaching (chaps. 27-29). After the fall of Jerusalem he even received preferential treatment from the Babylonian occupation (39:11-14). In spite of these events, the reader must not doubt Jeremiah’s ‘nationalist’ (pro-Judahite) attitude. Indeed, Jeremiah pleaded for subjection to Babylon, but this does not mean that he was an accomplice of the Babylonian king. The prophet longed just as much as his fellow-Judahites for the fall of Babylon, but he also realized that patience was needed (25:11). The writers of the book, by their reapplication of the words of the prophet, wished to counteract a 34 Ronald Clements provided support for this call for nuancing. Writing on the choice to support or rebel against the Babylonians, characterized as taking a decision between life and death (a text that we will consider immediately below), Clements wrote: “If we are to look for indications why Jeremiah is so vehemently opposed to Zedekiah’s policy, we can…leave aside the absurd notion that Jeremiah was completely unpatriotic and pro-Babylonian in his sympathies.” Clements, Jeremiah, 127. 35 Smelik, “The Function of Jeremiah 50-51 in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Reading, 97.

222

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH misunderstanding about Jeremiah’s attitude. No new thoughts appear in the oracles against Babylon, but instead Jeremiah’s aversion of Babylon is strongly emphasized.36

I do not think such positivistic assertions with regard to the “real” viewpoint of Jeremiah the prophet are warranted; indeed, I argue that it is not even necessary to adjudicate between the contradictory viewpoints ascribed to Jeremiah the prophet at different times. In another article, Smelik offered a more nuanced position regarding the apparent discontinuity among the various opinions attributed to Jeremiah at different times and places. He argued correctly that Jeremiah, according to the text, opted for one of the prevailing political options available to Judeans in the time of Babylonian hegemony over the region: To clarify: during the time of Jeremiah, a fierce battle raged between those who strongly relied on support from Egypt to withstand Babylon’s onslaught and those who opposed a covenant with Egypt and who would rather have befriended Babylon, Egypt’s enemy. The pro-Egyptian party was apparently more influential that the pro-Babylonian party: twice Judah had rebelled against Babylon, although both times with fatal results for the land. Thus, Jeremiah appears to have belonged to the unpopular proBabylon party. Thus, it does not appear as a surprise when we read in chap. 27 how Jeremiah proclaimed during the fourth year of King Zedekiah (594/3 B.C.E.) that the king of Babylon must be served, since YHWH himself had granted world dominion to Nebuchadnezzar.37

The perception of this text is that the political options available to the people are to be understood as a dichotomy between faithfulness and unfaithfulness to God. As a result, the option ascribed in this text to the prophet’s opponents—fleeing to Egypt rather than submitting to Babylon—is given less than fair treatment by the dominant viewpoint, as noted by Alexander Varughese: The final blame for the national catastrophe is placed on Zedekiah, who refused to submit to the yoke of Babylon (27.12-13). [According to the text] submission to Babylon is submission to Yahweh’s will… The events 36 J. G. Amesz, “A God of Vengeance? Comparing YHWH’s Dealings with Judah and Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Reading, 115. 37 Klaas A. D. Smelik, “An Approach to the Book of Jeremiah,” in Reading, 12.

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

223

of 587 show that Zedekiah chose the alternative—that is, resistance to Babylon and thereby to Yahweh’s will.38

Carroll further noted: “In 27:9-18 the prophet Jeremiah is represented as saying ‘Do not listen to your prophets,’ where presumably he himself is exempted from the force of this warning. The tendency for the text to deconstruct itself at this point should be noted.”39 Finally, Amesz noted that the dichotomy between Egypt and Babylon is curious: “Nevertheless, the disagreement between choosing submission to Babylon or refuge in Egypt is not as stark as the Book of Jeremiah makes it appear: the judgment oracles against Babylon and Egypt suggest that the prophet did not make a choice for one or against another.” 40 Much more important is what this passage has to say about the rule of God. Drawing on this theme, Norman Gottwald suggested that this perception ascribed to Jeremiah has its roots in a particular theology of creation: The mighty creator wills the world rule of Babylon not merely punish his apostate covenant people but to chastise the earth for its sins… The warnings against foreign alliances with Egypt and Assyria are not paralleled with warnings against vassal alliances with Babylon. The ad hoc punishments of Assyria are now to be followed by an ordered world domination which through vassal service will educate the nations and purge them of their arrogance and wantonness. Nebuchadnezzar is even described by Yahweh as “my servant,” a most unexpected term of intimacy if not of actual endearment. Pax Babylonia is the plan of Yahweh.41

38 Alexander Varughese, “The Royal Family in the Jeremiah Tradition,” in Inspired Speech, 325-6. 39 Carroll, “The Polyphonic Jeremiah,” 83. Carroll, for all his rhetorical skill, missed the qualification of the injunction to not listen to the prophets, namely that the prophets to be avoided are those who advise against submission to Babylon. 40 Amesz, “A God of Vengeance,” 108. 41 Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth, 260. Herbert Huffmon recognized a similar point when he wrote:

[The Book of] Jeremiah represents a theology dominated by the question of the possible future for the people. Jeremiah [the prophet] is not to be characterized as pro-Babylonian, though many of his contemporaries so viewed him, but as pro-Israel. This stance did not demand political independence. The survival of God’s people Israel at that time meant, for Jeremiah [the prophet], submission to God

224

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

John Hill picked up on the motif of the theology of creation when he wrote: “Behind the imagery of vv. 5-6 stands the creation tradition of Genesis 2, according to which (the original) Adam is given authority over all of the created world. Nebuchadnezzar is a new Adam.”42 Lying behind Hill’s argument is the idea that Yahweh will create a new world through those who had been exiled to Babylon, as noted elsewhere. The idea that the God of Israel is in control of the events represents, at least in part, an ideological resistance to the power of the empire. “Accordingly,” Smelik wrote, “the book of Jeremiah presents the God of Israel as the Creator and Governor of the whole world.”43 Work for the Advancement of Babylon: 29:1-14 The next perception coming under consideration is that support of the imperial interests is the way for the community in exile to flourish. I return to the letter to the exiles to examine its consistency with the advice given to the survivors of the deportation(s), viz. that they should submit to the Babylonians (see, e.g. 40:7-16). The focus of our attention now s what 29:114 ascribes to Jeremiah concerning the way in which the exiles are to conduct their lives in Babylon. 29:1-14 (1) These are the words of a letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the remainder of the exiled elders, to the priests and to the prophets,44 and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon—(2) after Jeconiah the king, the queen mother, the officials and the ministers, and the artisans and smiths of Judah had left Jerusalem—(3) by the hand of Elasa ben Shaphan and Gemariah ben Hilkiah whom Zedekiah King of Judah had sent to Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon in Babylon: (4) “Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el to all the exiles whom I have exiled from Jerusalem to Babylonia: (5) Build houses and live in theologically and submission to Babylonia politically… Jeremiah [the prophet] sought the continuation and revival of God’s people. Herbert B. Huffmon, “Jeremiah of Anathoth: A Prophet for All Israel,” 267. 42 John Hill, “‘Your Exile Will be Long:’ The Book of Jeremiah and the Unended Exile,” in Reading, 156. 43 Smelik, “An Approach,” 8. 44 LXX 36:1 “false prophets.”

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

225

them, plant vineyards and eat of their fruit. (6) Marry and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters as wives, so that they may give you grandchildren; flourish there instead of wasting away. (7) Seek the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray to Yahweh on its behalf, for in its welfare shall be found your welfare. (8) “For thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Do not let the prophets, soothsayers, and diviners who are among you deceive you and do not pay attention to the dreams they dream. (9) For they are prophesying lies45 to you in my name; I did not send them—Oracle of Yahweh (10) “For thus says Yahweh: when Babylon’s seventy years are over, I will visit you and I will fulfill for you the promise to return you to this place. (11) For I know the plans I have for you—Oracle of Yahweh— plans of welfare and not disaster, to give you a hopeful future. (12) When you call for me and come and pray to me, then I will listen to you. (13) If you search for me you will find me, if only you seek me with all your heart. (14) I will be found close by to you—Oracle of Yahweh—and I will restore what belongs to you. And I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places to which I banished you—Oracle of Yahweh— and I will bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you.”

The perception evident in this text seems to fit well with the situation in which the target audience of chapter 29 found itself. The exilic community really did not have the same choice that the remnant in Judah did, to accept or reject—and even flee from—Babylonian rule. The encouragement of a supportive stance toward the imperial world of Babylonia thus became linked to the idea that the exile was certainly to last some time. Jeremiah 29, Gerhard von Rad wrote, “meant, of course, a change in the deportees’ attitude to Babylon. She is no longer the enemy. She carries the people of God upon her bosom, and therefore it was fitting for prayer to be made for her.”46 This lack of ambiguity with regard to the exiles’ position in relation to Babylon led John Hill to question whether the letter ascribed to Jeremiah can even be cited as evidence of the prophet’s political activity: the advice given by Jeremiah to the exiles in 29:4-7 MT has been seen as an expression of the prophet's political realism. He counsels them to submit to Babylon because Judah and the exiles had no way of resisting Babylonian power. Such an approach has led to the neglect of the fuller

LXX 36:9, “They are prophesying unrighteous words!” Gerhard von Rad, The Message of the Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 180. 45 46

226

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH significance of 29:4-7 MT, whose extraordinary language signals an extraordinary understanding of the figure of Babylon.47

With Hill, I recognize as problematic the assertion that the advice ascribed to Jeremiah the prophet both to the exiles and to the remnant was to submit to the Babylonians, as opposed to rebelling against them. Klaas Smelik also noticed this difficulty, approaching it from the standpoint of the language used in the advice given to the exiles. He wrote: “While the name ‘Babylon’ recurs eleven times in the chapter, it is missing in verse 7. This suggests a deliberate avoidance of the name here. The exiles are not supposed to seek the peace of their oppressor.” 48 Given the difference of situation between the exiles and the survivors, the perceptions ascribed to the prophet presumably had to change. Hill noted how this change took place when he wrote the following: “The place of exile is home. Such a description of life in Babylon is not presented as a pragmatic strategy which the exiles should adopt because of Babylon's position of dominance, but rather has a profound theological underpinning which highlights how radical is the portrait of Babylon in Jeremiah 29 MT.”49 The “new nationalism” that this text attributes to Jeremiah ties the fate of the nation to the fate of the empire. Jack Lundbom argued for a different way of reading this text, namely that the establishment of the Judean community at Babylon (or Egypt, John R. Hill, Friend or Foe?, 11-2. Klaas Smelik, “Letters to the Exiles: Jeremiah 29 in Context,” SJOT 10:2 (1996), 291. This is a curious statement, admittedly; it would be better to suggest that the absence of the name might indicate that “the city to which [Yahweh] has exiled [the people]” possibly has a wider reference than simply Babylonia. (cf. Lundbom, Jeremiah, 2:351, who indicated precisely this). 49 Hill, Friend or Foe?¸145. Hill also established a link between the letter to the exiles in Jeremiah 29 and the dispute with the prophet Hananiah in chapter 27 that centered on how long the exile would last: 47 48

As in Jeremiah 27 MT, the representation of the figure of Babylon in Jeremiah 29 MT is startling. Common to both chapters is the metaphorical association of Babylon with Judah, and the consequent tension between identity and difference in that relationship. What is particular to Jeremiah 29 MT is its representation of Babylon as a place which resembles Judah. Although a place of exile, life in it is to be no different to that in Judah. Ibid.

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

227

Nippur or any number of other places) in this time period had dramatic implications for the history of religion. He wrote: “What is good for your city in Babylonia will be good for you… Prayer for the welfare of a foreign (=heathen) nation is a radical idea in the OT, but Jeremiah shows himself once again to be an untiring man of prayer.” 50 Perhaps this is yet another aspect of the support of the interests of the ‫בני הגולה‬, as I have argued elsewhere. It is well known from the history of the neo-Babylonian and Persian periods that Yahwistic religion became of necessity a multi-national phenomenon. The diaspora soon became so widespread as to sunder the connection between the land and the religion, though the land would still retain a significant place in the mythological underpinnings of the religion.51 John Skinner wrote: “The Letter to the Exiles made an advance towards the conception of a universal religion, free from local and political-ecclesiastical conditions. But it also reveals certain limitations which seem to restrict the scope of its underlying principle.”52 Ralph W. Klein suggested that in the letter to the exiles “Jeremiah rejected any hope for a return from exile (29:4-7). Instead, he urged the people to settle down for the long haul.”53 Klein further noted with regard to “build houses” injunction: Jeremiah’s advice about houses, gardens, and marriage suggests that he considered it possible to survive in land which other people would have called unclean (Amos 7:16; Hos. 9:1ff). This survival, moreover, was a long-range proposition—a house or a family is not built in a few days! In a sense, Jeremiah said that exile should be home, that there would be no reversing the collapse begun in 597. The very best “figs” were those who had already begun the exile (24:4-5).54

Listen to What You Are Told and Live: 38:2-3, 17-23

50 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 2:352. At the very least, the perception ascribed to Jeremiah here certainly tends in the direction of expanding the focus of Yahwistic religion away from direct identification with the land of Judah/Israel. 51 Further biblical evidence for this can be seen in, for example, Ezekiel’s vision of the ‫ כבד יהוה‬leaving the Temple (Ezekiel 9-11, passim) and coming to dwell with the exiles, over against Psalm 137’s question: “How can we sing Yahweh’s song in a foreign land?” 52 Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 298. 53 Klein, Israel in Exile, 50. 54 Ibid., 51.

228

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

The text under consideration next describes the end of the siege of Jerusalem, a time when the need to decide between resistance and surrender became especially acute. The declaration is made again that Yahweh has given the city into the hand of the Babylonian King. Paradoxically, the Book of Jeremiah here resists the power of the state by now encouraging the survivors to submit to the power of the state. That this move can be made is due to the theological foundation that has been consistently built throughout similar perceptions in the Book of Jeremiah.55 Even though the attempts made by Judeans to reassert their independence from Babylon— the appeals for aid from Egypt, returning to the worship of previously disregarded deities or attempting violent military rebellion—and even though each may have some advantages, according to these perceptions these options are all demonstrably unfaithful to God. Again, it does not matter if such a judgment is fair to the alternative positions;56 what is important for our purpose here is that the text mentions the alternative positions in the first place. 38:2-3, 17-23 (2) Thus says Yahweh: those who remain in this city will die by sword, famine, and pestilence, but the one who goes out to the Chaldeans will live; he will have his life as a booty. (3) Thus says Yahweh, I will give this city into the hand of the army of the Babylonian king, and he shall capture it. (17) Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, “Thus says Yahweh ‘Elohe Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: if you go out to the officers to the Babylonian kings you will save your life and this city will not be destroyed with fire, and you will

55 In this connection, Gottwald noted: “Jeremiah sees Babylon as the world power instituted by Yahweh; therefore, Nebuchadnezzar will find sufficient force to impose Yahweh’s will on the nations.” (Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth, 275). Thus, resistance of Babylonian rule, according to this perception, is futile. 56 If the Book of Jeremiah treated more fully the devotees of the Queen of Heaven, for example, we might have been able to see some syncrestistic elements between their worship and Yahwism, but the text again presupposes the correctness of the viewpoint ascribed to Jeremiah, so that it makes little difference what the devotees of the Queen may have actually practiced. Nevertheless, the devotees of the Queen of Heaven are not explicitly syncretistic Yahwists, in contrast to those who appeal for help from Egypt (Jehoiachin and Johanan inter alia) or Ishmael ben Nethaniah, who seemingly attempts to reassert the power of the Davidic dynasty. With respect to the latter, we have no warrant for assuming that these persons had abandoned Yahwistic religion, except for the fact that the Book of Jeremiah in the main suggests that their faithfulness to Yahweh had waned.

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

229

live in your own house. (18) But if you do not go out to the officials of the Babylonian king this city shall be given over into the hand of the Chaldeans and they will destroy it with fire, and you will not escape from their hand.” (19) King Zedekiah said to Jeremiah, “I am concerned about the Judeans who have defected to the Chaldeans, that they might turn me over to them so that they might abuse me.” (20) Jeremiah said, “They will not hand you over. Listen to the voice of Yahweh, to what I tell you, so that it may go well with you and you might save your life. (21) But if you refuse to surrender, this is what the Lord has shown me: (22) All the women who are left in the Judean king’s palace will be led out to the Babylonian king; and they will say, The men who were your friends have seduced you and vanquished you. Now that your feet are sunk in the mire, they have turned their backs [against you]. (23) They will bring out all your wives and your children to the Chaldeans, and you will not escape from their hand. For you will be captured by the hand of the Babylonian king, and this city will be destroyed with fire.57

In the main, the Book of Jeremiah, brooks no other possibility for deliverance, escape and survival than by acting in accordance with what the prophet or Yahweh has to say. For the most part, the words of Yahweh and Jeremiah become nearly indistinguishable, in part because of the desire of the deuteronomistically-inclined editors to present their man as fulfilling their own test of prophecy’s authenticity.58 Mark Roncace noted that the text under consideration employs several shifts in point of view: The narrator in this episode [38:2-3] juxtaposes multiple and contrasting points of view, which again creates an entertaining scene. First, the narrator quotes Jeremiah’s speech addressed to the people (vv. 2-3), but it is quote via the “hearing” (‫ )שׁמע‬of the officials. This is to be differentiated from direct speech (“Jeremiah said”) and from another character quoting direct speech (as in 37:19). Furthermore, since the quotation is of prophetic speech prefaced with the messenger formula, it is actually the narrator quoting Jeremiah’s speech which is quoting God’s speech. Unlike 37:6-10, in which there was some ambiguity concerning whose perspective was being voiced, Yahweh’s or the prophet’s, and There are no significant differences between MT and LXX in this passage. This is not to mention the development within the criteria Deuteronomy 18 ascribed to Jeremiah—perhaps coming from yet another quarter of society and thus further complicating the picture of perceptions of the exile. 57 58

230

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH 37:17, where the prophet did not explicitly speak in the name of Yahweh, here there is no immediate reason to doubt that Jeremiah is presenting the words of the deity.59

On the response of the Jerusalem leadership to this word—regardless of whom it is ultimately ascribed—Gottwald suggested that the narrative played out in the way it does mainly because of the ambiguous position of Zedekiah: “if [Zedekiah] succeeded in pacifying Judah altogether he stood to be dismissed in order to make way for Jehoiachin’s restoration, whereas if he headed or even permitted revolt he might soon follow in his predecessor’s train. This dilemma helps to account for the vacillating appearance which Zedekiah gives.”60 Patrick Miller similarly indicated: “The problem…is the continuing misreading of the situation by these leaders and their refusal to allow any agenda or plan for national survival other than their own. They assume that Jeremiah’s path—always, of course, presented as that of the Lord of Israel—will bring harm to the people.”61 From Miller’s perspective, the leaders refuse to allow Jeremiah’s viewpoint a fair hearing; from the perspective articulated in the present work, the viewpoint attributed to Jeremiah refuses to allow alternatives a fair hearing.62 Lipschits also advanced this point, indicating that the perception of this text is that “the officials [are] the principal protagonists accountable for the destruction of Jerusalem… It becomes unequivocally clear from the story that the king’s fear of the officials is what causes him to prolong the war until Jerusalem capitulates.”63 The counterintuitive nature of the perceptions ascribed to the prophet cannot be overstressed.64 The charge that Jeremiah the prophet was a pro59 Mark Roncace, Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and the Fall of Jerusalem (Library of Biblical Studies [JSOTSupp] 423; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 68. 60 Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth, 258. 61 Patrick D. Miller, Jeremiah, 850. 62 As has been recognized, the Book of Jeremiah most likely does not contain the original words of any historical person or group. We merely have what the writers/editors ascribed to these persons and groups. While on the one hand the Book of Jeremiah thus renders a reasonably complete picture of the perceptions of the exile, on the other hand some of the perceptions that disagree with the dominant view are often seemingly presented in a rather incomplete, pejorative or polemical fashion. 63 Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 318. 64 Roncace’s comments are again helpful. He wrote: “A prophet, of course, can give counsel, but it is essential to know for whom he is speaking. The lack of the oracle formula in v. 20 contrasts noticeably with v. 17 which could imply that

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

231

Babylonian sympathizer at best and a Judean traitor at worst has a great deal of merit when one considers the totality of the statements attributed to him. The word of Yahweh in this passage, and in particular the promise to Zedekiah that he would not be handed over to the Babylonians by those who had already surrendered, seem to run against the grain. As Keown et al. pointed out, it “is doubtful that any action on the part of Zedekiah would divert the wrath of the Babylonians. He is a rebellious vassal who has dared to challenge the suzerain. While surrendering the city might save it from destruction and avert much loss of life, Zedekiah himself likely faces a no-win situation.”65 The perception of this text is thus not only that Zedekiah is really a man with few options left, but also he is demonstrated to be an ineffectual leader with regard to his own territory: In the exchange between the princes and the king Zedekiah is exposed as a ruler who cannot control his officials. This may be a correct reading of the story, but Zedekiah could hardly have defended Jeremiah against such a charge of treason without revealing himself to be a traitor as well…but even the king cannot release a traitor like Jeremiah and permit him to undermine further the attempt to repulse the Babylonians.66

Keown, Scalise, and Smothers argued that the prophet by this point in the narrative was not concerned with deliverance from Babylonian oppression; the point for that had long passed, and conquest of the promised land by the Babylonians was a fait accompli. Now the point is not so much resistance, but finding life within the context of being dominated by the imperial power. Seen in this way, the injunction to give the city of Jerusalem over to the Babylonians appears similar to the instructions given in Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles in chapter 29: “Surrender to the Babylonians offers the hope of narrow escape, life as a prize of war, but better than no escape at all. Jeremiah offers no hope of deliverance; rather, he suggests that the LORD himself is responsible for giving the city ‘into the

Jeremiah is speaking for himself (i.e. giving counsel)… It may be a “vision” from Yahweh, but it is reported to the king in Jeremiah’s words.” Roncace, Jeremiah, 99. It is likely that something can be made of the differences in perceptions indicated by their ascription to either the prophet or to Yahweh, but the text does not directly allow us to do so, for the Book of Jeremiah essentially represents the words of the prophet as the words of God. 65 Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, 225. 66 Carroll, Jeremiah, 680.

232

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

hand’ of the Babylonians.”67 Ronald Clements further widened out the scope of this passage, assuming that the destruction of the city, though likely, was not inevitable: The narrative of these events of the final months of Jerusalem’s agony in 588-587 B.C. also brings to the surface a further easily misunderstood theological nuance. Zedekiah’s vacillating attitude to Jeremiah’s message, half believing the truth of his warnings and yet failing to act upon them, together with Jeremiah’s insistence that even to the last those who would flee to the Babylonian lines had a way of escape point to one firmly held conviction. Jerusalem’s defeat, the destruction of the temple and even the ending of the reign of the Davidic kings were not to be regarded as inevitable events. They are presented as the product of human obstinacy and of a willful disregard of the word of God. In this way these narratives skillfully reject any acceptance of a deterministic or fatalistic view of human history.68

AFTER THE DESTRUCTION Ascribed to Gedaliah ben Ahikam—Remain in the Land with Me: 40:7-16 I turn now to a perception ascribed to Gedaliah, which seems on the surface to agree with most of what was ascribed to Jeremiah. He was placed in charge of the province of Judah by the Babylonians as a replacement for the rebellious Zedekiah. Zedekiah himself been placed on the throne by the Babylonians in order to replace the go-it-alone-or-Egyptian-oriented Jehoiachin. 40:7-16 (7) The officers of the army who were out in the field, and the men with them, heard that the Babylonian king had established Gedaliah son of Ahikam in the land in charge of the region, and that he had put him in charge of the men, the women, and the children—of the poorest of the land—those who had not been exiled to Babylon. (8) So they with their men came to Gedaliah at Mizpah—Ishmael ben Nethaniah, Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah; Seraiah ben Tanhumeth; the sons of Ephai the Netophathite; and Jezaniah son the Maacathite. (9) Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan promised them, saying, “Do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans. Stay in the land and serve the Babylonian king and it will 67 68

Keown, Scalise, and Smothers. Jeremiah 26-52, 223. Clements, Jeremiah, 222.

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

233

go well with you. (10) I am staying in Mizpah to attend upon the Chaldeans who are coming to us. As for you, gather wine and figs and oil and put them in your own vessels, and settle in the towns you have occupied.” (11) Also, all the Judeans who were in Moab, Ammon, and Edom, or other lands, heard that the Babylonian king had allowed a remnant to stay in Judah, and that he had put Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan in chage of them. (12) All these Judeans returned from the places to which they had been banished to the land of Judah. They came to Gedaliah at Mizpah, and they gathered lots of wine and figs. (13) Johanan ben Kareah, and all the officers of the army in the field, came to Gedaliah at Mizpah (14) and said to him, “Do you know that Baalis King of Ammon has sent Ishmael ben Nethaniah to kill you?” But Gedaliah ben Ahikam did not believe them. (15) So Johanan ben Kareah said to Gedaliah in secret at Mizpah, “Let me go and kill Ishmael ben Nethaniah, before anyone knows about it. If not he will kill you and all the Judeans who have congregated around you will be dispersed, and all the remnant of Judah will die!” (16) But Gedaliah ben Ahikam said to Johanan ben Kareah, “Don’t do that! For you are lying about Ishmael!”69

The task at present is to evaluate the advice ascribed to Gedaliah that those remaining with him at Mizpah should submit to the Babylonians along with him. Preliminarily, we may say that this advice does not surprise the reader for two reasons. First, Gedaliah accepted the Babylonian designation of him as their representative. Second, although Gedaliah is presented in the texts dealing with his governorship as favored by both Yahweh and the Babylonians—his good standing with God being evidenced, in part, by the perception that Jeremiah the prophet decided to remain with him (40:16)—is also demonstrated to be a bit too trusting of others, especially in refusing to heed Johanan ben Kareah’s warning with regard to the designs of Ishmael ben Nethaniah. The elevation of Gedaliah sets up the putative rebellion of Ishmael, along with some other responses to the disaster. That the text presents Johanan as the one to deliver news of the coming attempt on Gedaliah’s life presages in an important way the responses ascribed to Johanan that we will consider in the next section.70 That is, through the perception of attempting to preserve Gedaliah’s life, Johanan is, though perhaps unknowingly, 69 There are no significant differences between the MT and LXX of this passage. 70 Herein Johanan is presented as implicitly pro-Babylonian.

234

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

advancing the claims of the empire on the life of the people remaining in the land. Oded Lipschits interpreted this passage in a similar way when he wrote: “The account of Gedaliah’s time and the biography of Jeremiah reflect a tendency toward reconciliation with Babylonian authority. These sections emphasize the possibility of national rehabilitation under Babylonian rule immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem.”71 Johanan: Unknowingly Advancing the Empire: 41:11-18 It seems quite plausible that Johanan ben Kareah’s battle against Ishmael ben Nethaniah—even though he failed to capture or kill him—should have served to ameliorate any question as to the potential loyalty of Johanan and his associates to the Babylonians.72 I further suggest that this prompt action by Johanan provides unstated support for the theologically motivated assertion attributed to Jeremiah that submission to the Babylonians was the surest way to preserve life. Thus the advice Jeremiah is said to give is consistent with other statements attributed to the prophet in terms of the best response to Babylonian control. Submission to the Babylonians, and not seeking recourse in any other world power, will create the possibility for long life in the land. Otherwise, the land will be abandoned and those who refuse to submit will never see it again (see 44:1-14, 24-30). 41:11-18 (11) But Johanan ben Kareah, and all the army officers with him, caught wind of all the horrible things Ishmael ben Nethaniah did. (12) So they took all their men and went to do battle with Ishmael ben Nethaniah; and they encountered him at the great pool of Gibeon. (13) When all the people who were with Ishmael ben Nethaniah saw Johanan ben Kareah and all the army officers with him they were overjoyed;73 (14) all the people whom Ishmael had carried off from Mizpah turned back and went over to Johanan ben Kareah.74 (15) But Ishmael ben Nethaniah escaped with eight men from Johnanan ben Kareah and fled into the territory of the Ammonites. (16) Johanan ben Kareah and all the army offices with them took all the rest of the people whom he had rescued from Ishmael ben Nethaniah[, Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 349. Unstated, though certainly implicit, in the text is the idea that Johanan has become the de facto leader of the Judeans remaining in the land (and eventually deciding to flee to Egypt). 73 MT plus: “they were overjoyed.” 74 LXX merely: “they returned to Johanan.” 71 72

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

235

who had taken them] from Mizpah after he killed Gedaliah ben Ahikam— the men, soliders, women, children and eunuchs whom [Johanan] had brought back from Gibeon. (17) They set out, and they stopped at Geruth-Chimham, near Bethlehem, on their way to go to Egypt. (18) They were afraid of the Chaldeans because Ishmael ben Nethaniah had killed Gedaliah ben Ahikam whom the Babylonian king had set in charge over the land.

This text also highlights an interesting similarity between Johnanan and Ishmael, although on the surface of the text they oppose one another. Both, each in his own way, seek support from nations other than the Babylonians for help against the empire. Whereas Ishmael ostensibly has nationalistic— and perhaps dynastic—ambitions, according to the text he has been sent by the Ammonites to make trouble for the Babylonians in Judah. That Ishamel’s plan was ultimately Ammonite in origin—and, one can presume, foundational for greater ambitions on the part of the Ammonite King Baalis (41:10)—is so according, at least, to the warning ascribed to Johanan (40:14). Further support for this Ammonite connection comes in the fact that, in the text under consideration here, Ishmael flees to Ammonite lands after being routed by Johanan (41:15). The perception of this text is that Johanan and those associated with him, regardless of their request for a directive oracle from the prophet (see above), had already determined to go to Egypt in order to flee from the wrath they thought was to come. Thus a significant debate ensues between the perceptions assigned to Jeremiah the prophet and those assigned to the leadership of the community. Skinner argued along the same lines, maintaining that deciding to “abide in the land, trusting in the promise of Yahwe and the clemency of the king of Babylon, was the cause of safety and of duty; to go down to Egypt was an act of apostasy and rebellion, which would be punished by all the evils they sought to escape.”75 Brueggemann supported the counter-intuitive nature of the perceptions assigned throughout this material to Jeremiah: “The empire is a place where God’s inclination for mercy can indeed be effected in a concrete, public way. Babylon can enact what God grants.”76 According to the argument advanced in this chapter, the convergence of the work of the empire and the designs of God come together in the perceptions attributed to Jeremiah, namely, that any sort of rebellion against the empire would meet with an unfortunate end. Johanan and Ishmael are both perceived as having rejected or rebelled, respectively, against the empire, even though 75 76

Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, p. 338 [emphasis added]. Brueggemann, “At the Mercy,” p. 125.

236

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

until Johanan and his associates acted on their resolve to go to Egypt they had advanced the interests of the empire in thwarting the ambitions of Ishmael. Robert Carroll took an alternative position. He wrote that “having failed to prevent the assassination of Gedaliah and not having captured Ishmael he [Johanan] is not able to hold the people together in the land of Judah. Ishmael has effectively killed off any positive future in the homeland.”77 Carroll is correct with respect to how things might have appeared to Johanan and his associates. Although they dealt with Ishmael, they assumed that they would not be accepted by Babylonia as successors to Gedaliah. Granted, the text does not speculate with regard to what the empire might have thought of Johanan’s defeat of Ishmael. However, the text does in fact consistently ascribe to Jeremiah the perception that it is best to remain in the land and submit to the Babylonians. Oracle Request after the Failed Pursuit of Ishmael: 42:1-3 42:1-3 (1) Then all the commanders of the army, along with Johanan ben Kareah, Jezaniah ben Hosheah78 and all the people from the least to the greatest drew near (2) to the prophet Jeremiah and said, “Intercede with Yahweh your God on our behalf and on the behalf of this remnant. For we remain but few out of many, as you can see. (3) Let Yahweh your God tell us where we should go and what we should do.”

This passage presents the perception of the desire of Johanan and his associates, after they have pursued but failed to capture Ishmael, to follow God’s guidance. We have already considered above the response to this request ascribed to Jeremiah. Therefore, we need only make some summary comments here. The viewpoint ascribed to Jeremiah is that submission to the Babylonians will lead to life. We have seen that this advice is consistent with the perceptions ascribed to Jeremiah and to Yahweh throughout the Book of Jeremiah. The refusal of the people to heed the advice of the prophet, even in the face of their promise to do whatever word he brings them from God as to what they should do, is striking. Lundbom commented that the perception ascribed to Johanan and his associates indicates that they have already taken a decision to go to Egypt, and are now seeking confirmation of that decision:

77 78

Carroll, Jeremiah, p. 713. LXX: “Azariah ben Maaseiah.”

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

237

The request [in v. 3] is sufficiently ambiguous, making one wonder again if the decision to go to Egypt has not already been made (cf. 41:17). If it has, the question may simple be which route to take… The request now is for Yahweh’s favor regarding the journey they have undertaken. Citing their diminishing numbers, the people ask that Jeremiah’s God tell them which way to go and what they should do.79

Jeremiah’s Answer to Johanan: 42:4-22 In the immediate context of the following passage, Gedaliah has been assassinated and Johanan and his fellow soldiers, having routed the rebel Ishmael, have determined to flee to Egypt. In response to the perception that the Babylonians will retaliate for what Ishmael has done, the text ascribed to them a request to Jeremiah for an oracle. According to the text, they determine to do whatever Yahweh tells them to do through the prophet. The answer ascribed to Jeremiah is in line, as we have already suggested, with the previously expressed perceptions generally in support of accepting Babylonian rule. 42:4-22 (4) Jeremiah the prophet said to them, “I hear you! Look! I will pray to Yahweh your God as you asked, and whatever is the word that Yahweh answers you I will declare to you and I will not hold anything back from you.” (5) They said to Jeremiah, “May Yahweh be a witness against us for truth if we are not faithful. Whatever Yahweh your God sends to you, thus we will do. (6) Whether it is good or evil, we will obey the voice of Yahweh your God to whom we have are sending so that it may be good for us when we obey the voice of Yahweh our God.” (7) Ten days later, the word of Yahweh came to eremiah. (8) He called Johanan ben Kareah and all the captains of the army who were with him, and all the people—both small and great. (9) He said to them: “Thus says Yahweh ‘Elohe Yisra’el, to whom you sent me to bring your request:80 (10) If you indeed remain in this land, then I will build you up rather than break you down; I will plant you rather than pluck you up; for I regret the bad things I did to you. (11) Stop being afraid of the King of Babylon of whom you are afraid. Do not be afraid of him—Oracle of Yahweh—for I am with you to rescue you and deliver you out of his hand. (12) I will give you grace, and he will be gracious to you and return

79 80

Lundbom, Jeremiah, 3:130, 137. LXX has only “Thus says Yahweh.”

238

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH you to your own land.81 (13) But if you say to yourselves, in disobedience to the voice of Yahweh your God, (14) ‘We will not remain in this land; instead, we will go down to the land of Egypt which has not seen any fighting and has not heard the sound of war-horns, where they are not hungry for bread—there we will remain,’ (15) now, therefore, hear the word of Yahweh, O remnant of Judah!82 Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: If you completely make up your mind to go to Egypt and you go there to settle, (16) then the sword that you fear will catch up to you in the land of Egypt, the famine that you worry about will chase after you in Egypt and you will die there. (17) Then all those who have made up their minds to go to Egypt and settle there will die by sword, famine, and pestilence, and none of you will avoid or escape the punishment which I will inflict on you. (18) For thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Just as my anger and my wrath were poured out on the inhabitants of Jerusalem so also will my wrath be poured out on you if you go to Egypt; you will become an object of woe, a curse, and a mockery, and never again will you see this place! (19) Yahweh said to you, O remnant of Judah, do not go down to Egypt! Mark well this day (20) that I know you were deceitful in your hearts when you sent me to Yahweh your God, saying, ‘Pray on our behalf to Yahweh our God; and whatever it is that Yahweh our God shall say to us we will do!’ (21) Therefore I told you this day that you have not listened to the voice of Yahweh your God concerning everything that he sent me to tell you. (22) Now, mark well that you shall die by the sword, famine, and pestilence in the place where you have decided to go and settle.

This perception ascribed to Jeremiah has significance on two fronts. First, suggesting that the way through the impasse is to submit to the Babylonians and, therefore, refuse to take solace in Egypt is consistent with the viewpoint attributed to Jeremiah throughout the previous sections of the material. Secondly, it may well be routing of Ishmael’s forces might be seen as softening the Babylonian response (see below). The dual significance of this text is well recognized by recent scholarship. Keown et al., for example, commented simply: “The response is consistent with the convictions the prophet repeatedly professed during the years of the political crisis; hope for the future continues to exist only in submission to Babylonian suzerainty.”83 Walter Brueggemann, however,

81 LXX employs first-person verbs throughout: “I will give you mercy, and I will be merciful to you, and I will return you to your own land.” 82 MT plus: “O remnant of Judah.” 83 Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, 251.

DIALOGUES WITH POLITICAL LEADERS

239

examined the issue a bit more thoroughly. He wrote: “In its final form the book of Jeremiah has a decidedly pro-Babylonian slant, mediated through the Baruch document and perhaps powered by the authority and influence of the family of Shaphan.”84 Later on, Brueggemann provided support for the argument being advanced here: “This announcement reflects a political judgment and a political interest that cooperation with Babylon is a safer way to survival.”85 Yet again, however, Brueggemann demonstrated affinity with the statement of Hill quoted above in which it is suggested that the position and image of Babylon in the text renders problematic the judgment that this oracle is merely politically motivated: “Our historical-critical propensity is to say that the oracle of Jer 42:9-17 simply reflects a wise, pragmatic political decision. Such a reading, however, ignores the casting of the speech in which the ‘I’ of God’s mercy directly shapes the ‘he’ of Nebuchadnezzar’s policy. That rhetorical linakge is crucial for the argument of the whole of the tradition.”86 The contribution of Jeremiah 42/49LXX to the perceptions of the role of Babylonia thus is an ambiguous one in need of much nuancing. The text presents Jeremiah as arguing for remaining in the land under Babylonian authority and not fleeing to Egypt for security and safety.87 The perception ascribed to Johanan and his associates is that salvation is to be found in Egypt. By contrast, here Jeremiah is said to advocate the view that remaining in the land is the only viable option. Robert Carroll noted that this perception dealt with a particular way of viewing the exile: “Only forcible deportation to Babylonia seems to be valued in the book, and any form of voluntary emigration elsewhere is condemned outright.”88 Though this assertion is true according to many perceptions in the Book of Jeremiah, it omits some alternatives. From my perspective, the issue with regard to political maneuvers in this time period is one of taking matters into one’s own hands or trusting in the God to whom the prophet Jeremiah is described as bearing witness. John Sallis described how Socrates 84 Walter Brueggemann, “At the Mercy of Babylon: A Subversive Rereading of the Empire,” in Reading, 119. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid., 120. 87 Below the possibility is raised that the request of Johanan et al. was disingenuous from the outset. That is, the people may have already made up their minds as to how they should act. Moreover Jeremiah 44:20 seems to indicate such a perception. 88 Robert P. Carroll, “The Polyphonic Jeremiah: A Reading of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Reading, 85.

240

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

functions in the Platonic dialogues as a divine spokesman, and the connections between Socrates and Jeremiah are readily apparent. Sallis wrote: Serving as the god’s spokesman, Socrates delivers the oracle’s question to himself, and he replies to himself and thus to the oracle for which he speaks. This is to say that Socratic logos, insofar as Socrates directs it to himself, is dedicated to the renewal of his awareness of ignorance and the correlative sense of proper limit—to the renewal of that on the basis of which Socrates was originally willing to oppose even the god himself, that which, however, turned out to be brought to light still more forcefully and significantly through the interpretation of the god’s saying. As spokesman for the god, Socrates addresses himself in such a way as to re-enact the interpretation of the saying.89

However, the picture is a bit more complicated than might at first appear. Johanan ben Kareah took matters into his own hands in the attempt to save his life and those of his compatriots after the assassination of Gedaliah. He could have merely fled, but instead he pursued Ishmael. Failing in their attempt to capture Ishmael, Johanan and his associates then chose to flee, being afraid of the Babylonian response to Ishmael’s actions.

89

Sallis, Being and Logos, 53.

6 DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

We could rest assured with the standard opinion that Socrates is less important in the Sophist than in those dialogues in which he speaks throughout, only if we could be assured that it could never be important for a philosopher to listen rather than to speak. We are not thus assured; and so, rather than surrendering to the all too easy assumption that with the Sophist there is some kind of ‘development’ beyond Socrates— whatever that might mean!—we should, instead, wonder whether perhaps a need for the philosopher to listen might not be at issue in the Sophist.1

The task of this chapter is to investigate the perceptions in the Book of Jeremiah of the end and aftermath of the exile. Put another way, I am exploring here the dialogues related to the formation, or reformation, or reformation, of a community that has experienced a traumatic event of an at least psychologically large scale. George Steiner commented on the importance of such reformation language when he wrote: “The ability of the race to recover from local or widespread disaster, the resolve to ‘continue history’ when so much of it has been frustration and terror, seem to originate in those centres of concsiouness which “imagine ahead,” which extrapolate but at the same time alter the model.”2 Debates like this are thus critically important in the life of a society, and therefore what is preserved in the Book of Jeremiah is doubtless authentic in general sweep, even if not in specific detail. While, as has been noted, the end of the exile as such does not have a specific role to play in the Book of Jeremiah, nevertheless many perceptions seem to deal with what will come next. Throughout the investigation I will note how each of these texts contributes to the understanding of the 1 2

Sallis, Being and Logos, 464. George Steiner, After Babel, 160.

241

242

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

character of life after the exile, with special attention to the nuances that exist among texts attributed to persons and times from between the two deportations and after the destruction of Jerusalem, for indeed the event of the shocking downfall of Jerusalem, the ruination of the temple and the apparent end of the Davidic monarchy certainly had a major impact on the developing ideological options. These dialogues will be examined in two groups, a rather stark contrast that mirrors the one examined earlier, namely, accepting or resisting Babylonian rule. On the one hand, some perceptions have to do with life returning basically to normal after the exile comes to an end. On the other hand, certain texts carry perceptions of the life of the nation being substantially changed after, and as a result of, the experience of exile. Furthermore, as has already been the case, I will have occasion to return to some texts already discussed in detail elsewhere. That statements ascribed to a given person fit under more than one thematic umbrella underscores my contention that the Book of Jeremiah reflects, in part, a lively conversation going on in the years immediately following the subservience and later destruction of Jerusalem and indeed on into the subsequent generations as well. That is, a sure sign of a trenchant dialogue is the multidirectional implications of the statements contributing to it. Sallis sounds a parallel theme with regard to Plato’s Phaedrus: Here there is no mere description of nature—neither ‘for its own sake’ nor for out ‘aesthetic enjoyment.’ Here there is no mere painting of a scene in the sense of a concrete context essentially unrelated to the issues later developed in the speeches about love and the conversation about rhetoric. On the contrary, one of the most fundamental features of every Platonic dialogue consists in its exclusion of all such merely external connections; what is put at issue in the discussion that takes place in a dialogue and the concrete context in which the discussion is presented as taking place are never extrinsic to one another but rather belong essentially together through the mirroring of each in the other, that is, belong together in the mirror-play.3

LIFE WILL RETURN TO NORMAL The common element of the first group of perceptions dealing with the end of the exile is the suggestion that life will return more or less to normal after the exile is concluded. In other words, the idea coming to expression in 3

Sallis, Being and Logos, 105.

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

243

these perceptions is that the experience of exile was purgative in addition to punitive. Thus a life basically resembling that which was enjoyed prior to the exile will be restored, but with the removal of the offending elements that led up to the exile in the first place. Yahweh makes three contributions to the dialogue that take this perspective. A secondary point made by these speeches is the idea that the nations who oppressed and defeated Yahweh’s people will themselves be defeated. In part, the defeat of the nations serves the purpose of punishing them for the devastation that they visited upon Judah.4 In a way, these texts build upon a perception of vengefulness, though this is not the only role such texts fill. They also serve to reinforce something we have already noticed, namely the perception that the events occurring in Judah are at the behest of Yahweh. The perception serves two purposes: not only does it proclaim that Yahweh is the Lord of History, but it also forms the basis of an important ideological resistance to the power of the imperial state. The People Will Be Returned to Their Land: 12:14-17 I have already noted the various forms of the perception of exile as punishment by an angered deity, even including ascription of the events to a deity other than Yahweh. It appears, however, that regardless of what the Book of Jeremiah assigns to a given person or group concerning the reasons for the exile, the various perceptions seem to agree that destruction of a land entails primarily the abandonment of that land by the major—or only—deity. Once the term of punishment is concluded, the fortunes are 4 On the oracles against the nations in the prophets in general and Jeremiah in particular, Jared J. Jackson writes: “The OANs have not received much attention lately, despite the vigorous study of prophets in recent years.” Jackson, “Jeremiah 46: Two Oracles on Egypt,” HBT 15:2 (December 1993), 136. Though this book will fit with Jackson’s definition and not deal directly with the OAN, nevertheless a similar ideological move takes place there as in the texts under investigation here. According to the view being espoused here, the fortunes of the nations—Judah included—apparently constitute a zero-sum game. That is, negative fortunes for Judah necessarily imply positive fortunes for the other nations, and most especially Babylon as the conquering power and the one whom the dominant view suggests is a tool in Yahweh’s hand for the purpose of punishing the people for their sins. Conversely, turning the fortunes of Judah back around toward the positive negates the previously positive treatment of the other nations. Once again, while the other nations receive mention in this context, the majority of the attention falls upon Babylon, in the long oracle or series of oracles against that nation in chs. 5051MT/27-28LXX.

244

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

often reversed as the deity returns the people to their land, cured of their propensity to fail in their cultic or other obligations. We turn our attention first to a text that makes explicit the relationship between the fate of Judah and the fate of the other nations: 12:14-17 (14) Thus says Yahweh: as for all those wicked neighbors who encroach upon the heritage that I bequeathed to my people, to Israel, Look! I will pluck them up from their land, and I will pluck up the House of Judah from among them. (15) After I have plucked them up I will return and have compassion on them and return each one to his own inheritance and his own land. (16) And if they indeed learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name—“As Yahweh lives!”—just as they once taught my people to swear by Ba`al then I will build them up in the midst of my people. (17) But if they do not listen, I will pluck up that nation, pluck it up and destroy it—Oracle of Yahweh.5

According to such a perception, the reversal of fortune for Judah has implications for Babylonia (and other oppressors) as well. The fortunes of the conquering nation must be turned around, in order to make way for new blessings to come for the benefit of the deity’s people and their land. As Walter Brueggemann wrote: With magisterial sweep, the prophet asserts Yahweh’s sovereignty over the nations and announces that God will now displace the nations from the land of Israel. This odd assertion is consonant with the oracles against the nations articulated by various prophets. For Jeremiah, God is in the business of plucking up, that is, displacing peoples who are disobedient. The Jeremiah tradition is mainly preoccupied with plucking up Judah, but here the shoe is on the other foot. No nation is named, but one thinks of Babylon in this context. Babylon has been Yahweh’s agent in plucking up Judah and sending Judah into exile. But now the process is inverted and this nation is in turn to be plucked up and driven out.6

Louis Stulman further noted: “This obscure text seemingly explores the fate of those who have devoured, destroyed, trampled down, and made God’s beloved, God’s heritage, a desolation (12:7-13) . Will these ‘evil neighbors’

5 6

There are no significant differences between MT and LXX. Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 124.

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

245

get what they deserve? Will God act justly and take vengeance?”7 However, what happens to the nations around Judah, according to this text, is not at all what we might expect. The relationship of the nations to Israel, and in particular the transition toward monotheism8 that seems to be coming into play here, is a difficult one. On the one hand, “[i]t is arguable…that universalist ideas are not confined entirely to the post-exilic period (cf. Gen 12:1-3) and that Jeremiah was capable of such thinking.”9 Thompson developed on this point, nothing that it has become almost axiomatic to assign references to exile to an exilic or postexilic date. But there is no necessary reason to reject such references as we find here as necessarily preexilic. Yahweh’s ultimate purpose for his people, or rather, for the remnant of his people, was to display compassion toward them once again and to restore each man to his heritage and to his land.10

Miller extended the quasi-universalistic aspect of this text in suggesting that “The last two verses not only announce the restoration of Judah but also make the same promise to other nations. The text then outruns anything we have yet heard from Jeremiah: the call to the nations to convert to Yahwism… The text betrays a powerful universalistic impulse.”11 Albertz argued that this was further evidence of the involvement of the Deuteronomists: “In the first part of the book…they included Judah’s neighbors in the Deuteronomistic theology of history of their predecessors.”12 On the other hand, however, I have identified this text as speaking a word of hope for Judah, promising redemption by Yahweh from among the neighbors who had encroached on God’s heritage. This 7 Louis Stulman, Jeremiah, 129. Stulman went on to consider this text as an example of the deconstruction of binary thinking: “If the first readers hoped to straightjacket God into clear-cut categories of judgment and salvation, judgment for others and salvation for them, they would be sorely disappointed” (Ibid.). 8 Contra Yehezkel Kaufmann: “Not from monolatry to monotheism, but from monotheism to monolatry was the path of Israel's religious evolution.” Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (tr. Moshe Greenberg; Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1960), 148. 9 Thompson, Jeremiah, 360. 10 Ibid., 361. 11 Miller, Jeremiah, 680. For more on the universalistic aspect of late exilic and early-post exilic prophecy, see the treatment of Hyun Chul Paul Kim, Ambiguity, Tension, and Multiplicity in Deutero-Isaiah, (New York: Lang, 2003). 12 Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile, 341.

246

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

contention seems to have fueled much discussion in previous work on this passage. Carroll, for his part, did not hesitate to blow down suggestions that this text carried hope for the people of Judah: This is not a statement about Yahweh’s intention to have mercy on his people whom he has destroyed, but is about his intentions towards Israel’s neighbours… Yet v. 14…hardly makes sense in this context. All these nations are envisaged as having been plucked from their own lands…and as experiencing Yahweh’s compassion in being restored to their own lands. Then they are represented as living in the midst of Yahweh’s people, built up by Yahweh…because they have become Yahwists… Not permanent Yahwists, for they may still be plucked up yet again and destroyed. Their security depends upon conforming to Judean religious standards… The neighbors are the peoples among whom Judah lives after its restoration to its own land, hence the unit is about post-exilic times and proseltyzing among the heathen… This unit should therefore be seen as a fragment belonging to such discussions, but couched in terminology from the Jeremiah tradition and its Deuteronomistic redaction.13

Yet, against Carroll, one could argue that the quasi-universalistic nature of this text does in fact speak a word of hope for Judah. If one reads this text as a promise of Yahweh to restore his people, then v. 14, seen by Carroll as an enigma, makes better sense in the context. The interesting development in this passage is the idea that turning around the fortunes of Judah does not necessarily mean that the other nations need to be brought low, but indeed that their conversion to worship of Yahweh, the true God could be possible, thus resulting in blessing for them and even greater blessing for those through whom the nations of the world should bless themselves (cf. Genesis 12:3). Furthermore, this text is another aspect of a theme running through the Book of Jeremiah, namely that Yahweh, the God of Judah, is the Lord of All History. Write it Down—Fortunes will be Turned: 30:1-24 I turn next to another perception attributed to Yahweh that seems to lie along the same trajectory as the promise for redemption in chapter 32. We find here again the idea that the people will be returned to their land at a future time yet to be determined, but assumedly in the near term. If this assumption is correct, this text sounds a somewhat contrary note to some 13

Carroll, Jeremiah, 291-2.

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

247

of the statements attributed to Jeremiah regarding the length of the exile. The main content of the text is a command from Yahweh to Jeremiah to write down the words that he has been given, for soon the situation will change. When placed alongside the notion of the deity having inflicted a seemingly incurable wound upon his people, this command highlights the importance of the interplay already seen operative between punishment for sin on the one side, and redemption from punishment on the other. 30:1-24 (1) The word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh: (2) Thus says Yahweh ‘Elohe Yisra’el: Write down in a book all the words that I spoke to you. (3) For see, days are coming—Oracle of Yahweh—when I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel and Judah, says Yahweh, and return them to the land that I gave to their ancestors to possess. (4) These I the words which Yahweh spoke to Israel and to Judah: (5) For thus says Yahweh: A sound of trembling has been heard— dread without release! (6) Ask, and see: surely men do not have babies! So why do I see all the men with hands on their privates, like women about to give birth? Why have all the faces turned pale? Woe! (7) For great is that day, without any like it! It is a time of trouble for Jacob, but he shall be delivered from it. (8) In that day—Oracle of Yahweh Tseba’oth—I will shatter the yoke from off their necks, the cross bars I will rip off. Never again shall another nation enslave them, (9) but they will serve Yahweh their God and David their King whom I will raise up for them. (10) But as for you, do not be afraid, O my servant Jacob!—Oracle of Yahweh— and do not be dismayed, O Israel, for, see! I am about to bring you back from far away and your family from their land of captivity. Jacob will return and rest, will be at ease with no one to bother him, (11) for I am with you—Oracle of Yahweh—to deliver you! I will make a full end of all the nations where I scattered you. Surely I will not make a full end of you!

248

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH I will not spare you from judgment but I will punish you fairly. (12) For thus says Yahweh: Your injury is incurable, your wound severe. (13) No one pleads your case concerning your wounds— there is no healing for you. (14) All your lovers have forgotten you; they no longer seek you, for I have struck you like an enemy strikes with cruel discipline, on account of your great iniquity, and your many sins. (15) Why do you cry out over your punishment, that your wound is incurable? Because of your great iniquity and your many sins I have done these things to you. (16) Therefore all who devour you shall be devoured and all of your enemies shall go into captivity. Those who plundered you shall be plundered, and all who pillaged you I will give over to be pillaged. (17) For I will bring healing to you and cure you of your wounds—Oracle of Yahweh. Even though they called you, “Outcast!” or “That Zion, whom no one seeks out!” (18) Thus says Yahweh: I will restore the fortunes of Jacob’s tents and I will have compassion on his dwellings. The city shall be rebuilt on its mound, and the fortress in its rightful place. (19) Thanksgiving shall go out from them, the sound of rejoicing. They shall flourish instead of wasting away and they shall be glorified instead of being trivialized. (20) His children shall be as of old, and his community shall be established by my grace. I will punish all those who oppress him. (21) His chieftain shall be one of his own, and his ruler shall come out from among him. I will bring him near, that he may approach me, for who would otherwise dare to approach me?—Oracle of Yahweh.

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

249

(22) They will be to me people, and I to them God. (23) See! The storm of Yahweh goes out in a raging tempest upon the heads of the wicked. (24) The burning anger of Yahweh shall not turn back until it has fulfilled the purpose of his heart. In the latter days you will perceive it.

There are a number of differences between this text and its equivalent in chapter 37LXX. First, vv. 10-11, 15 and 22 are not in LXX. Second, in v. 12 LXX reads, “I have brought destruction upon you,” for MT’s “Your wound is incurable.” Third, for “I will have compassion on his dwellings” in v. 18MT, LXX has “I will have pity on his prisoners.” Fourth, also in v. 18, where MT reads “the fortress in its rightful place,” LXX has “the people will settle according to their custom.” Finally, the last phrase of v. 19, “and they shall be glorified instead of being trivialized,” is an MT plus. This largely poetic chapter carries a perception we have not yet quite seen, namely the cohesion of judgment and restoration. That Yahweh is spoken of in this text as both the one who brings devastating punishment on his people and turns around to give them hope for a new future iterates in the strongest possible terms a view consonant with the dominant viewpoint of the Book of Jeremiah, namely, that the God of Israel is the Lord of History. Karel van der Toorn argued that Jeremiah 30-31MT betrays convincing evidence of the perceptions originally ascribed to the prophet being reused in later contexts: The Book of Consolation (Jer. 30-31), a collection of salvation oracles for Israel and Judah, [is probably inauthentic]. The divine order to ‘write down in a scroll all the words that I have spoken to you’ (30.2) is patterned after 36.2—an indication of the secondary nature of this fictitious scroll. What follows are predications of a return of both the Judean and the Israelite exiles, the restoration of the Davidic kingship, the unification of Ephraim and Judah, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. These were hopes and expectations that were cherished by many in the early post-exilic period; there are no grounds for assuming that the historical Jeremiah entertained a similar vision of the future. The insertion of these prophecies by a post-exilic redactor is meant to legitimize the aspirations of the post-exilic community in Judah by putting them under the authority of Jeremiah… The prophet, in this view, is not only the man of the day

250

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH but—unbeknownst to the historical prophet—the man of the future as well.14

Perceptions such as this, as we have suggested, serve also ideologically to resist the power of the state, when military resistance proved futile. Bernard Gosse argued that this juxtaposition of judgment and redemption, both having their source in Yahweh, precisely fits in with the ultimate design of the Book of Jeremiah as shaped by its redactors: “Pour les rédacteurs du livre de Jérémie, cet ultime dessein est celui qui rend comprénsible l’ensemble des dessien de Yahvé, rapportés dans le livre de Jérémie, et il se situe à la fin des jours, c’est à dire à l’époque des rédacteurs de 30,24 et des passages qui sont lies à ce verset.”15 A new element in this text that we have not confronted before is the perception expressed in the final verse that Yahweh’s word will not turn back until it has accomplished its purpose. This reminds the reader of the similar statement from DI in Isaiah 55:11. Bob Becking suggested that the idea in this Jeremiah passage of a deity inflicting a people with illness or calamity has long-running antecedents in the social milieu of the Hebrew Bible: The infliction of an incurable would by a deity, or instrumentally by a human being, is a motif that has been used in the ancient Near East at different times and in various literary contexts. The motif is, in my view, an expression of the model of divine force majeure. Within the texts…it is a human being, or a people, who is or will be punished with an incurable wound for crossing a border that should not have been crossed. This border had been marked by law, taboo, custom or the like and was part of the social code. The deity, as guarantor of the social order, is seen as empowered with forces to restore the order. Within this model a vassalrelationship or a covenant-concept can function, but not necessarily so. Both treaty and covenant can be seen as written expressions of the social code and the divine guarantee.16

Becking elsewhere considered the redemption aspect that is coming to play here. Specifically, he dealt with the potential conflict that is presented by the perception that Yahweh will burst the bonds of servitude that had Van der Toorn, “From the Mouth of the Prophet,” 200. Bernard Gosse, “Le rôle de Jérémie 30,24 dans la rédaction du livre de Jérémie,” BZ 39:1 (1995), 93. 16 Bob Becking, “The Times They are A Changing: An Interpretation of Jeremiah 30,12-17” SJOT 12:1 (1998), 20. 14 15

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

251

been laid on the people. Since this is precisely the word/action attributed to Hananiah, Jeremiah’s prophetic opponent in chapter 28, one is struck by the apparent discontinuity among some of these perceptions. Becking correctly dismissed the contradiction with the following: The difference between Hananjah and Jer. xxx 8 is that the former sees the ‘breaking of the yoke’ as an escape from the threat. For Jer. xxx 8 the ‘breaking of the yoke’ is a metaphor indicating the LORD’s final answer after the ruination of his people. Hananjah is only speaking about a hopeful future. Hananjah leaves open the theological question concerning the cause of the threat. The author of Jer. xxx 4-11. however, states that…‘Jacob’ will not be left unpunished by the LORD.17

Fields Shall Again be Purchased : 32:36-44 The second perception ascribed to Yahweh involves the oracle given after the story of Jeremiah’s purchase of a family land plot. This response maintains that nothing is too wondrous for Yahweh, and that he indeed can turn around the fortunes of nations, in effect declaring what we have already seen that Judah’s God is at the helm of the events of history. The following oracle expands upon the theme noticed in the exposition of Jeremiah 12 above, namely that the Judahites will be plucked out of the lands to which they had been exiled and will return to their land. 32:36-44 (36) But now, certainly, says Yahweh ‘Elohe Yisra’el, concerning this city of which you say, “It is being delivered into the hands of the king of Babylon through the sword, through famine, and through pestilence”: (37) See! I will gather them from all the lands to which I have banished them in my anger and my wrath, and in tremendous rage; and I will bring them back to this place and let them dwell securely. (38) They shall be my people, and I will be their God. (39) I will give them an undivided heart and nature to respect me for all time, and it shall be well with them and their children after them. (40) I will sign a new everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them and I will treat them with graciousness; and I will put into their hearts reverence for me, so that they will not turn away from me. (41) I will take joy in doing good things for them, and I will plant them in this land faithfully, with all my heart and soul. 17 Bob Becking, “‘I Will Break His Yoke from off Your Neck: Remarks on Jeremiah xxx 4-11,” in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: (ed. A. S. van der Woude; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 76.

252

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH (42) For thus says Yahweh: As I have brought all this terrible calamity upon this people, so I am going to bring upon them the very great fortune that I have promised for them. (43) Fields shall again be purchased in this land of which you say: “It is a desolation, without man or beast; it is delivered into the hands of the Chaldeans.” (44) Fields shall be purchased, and deeds written and sealed, and witnesses called in the land of Benjamin and the area around Jerusalem, and in the towns of Judah, the towns of the hill country, the towns of the Shephelah, and the towns of the Negeb. For I will restore their fortunes—Oracle of Yahweh.

One finds three minor differences between LXX and MT here. First, in v. 36 LXX reads “banishment,” instead of “pestilence” as in MT.18 Second, the LXX translator apparently read ‫ אחר‬or ‫ אחד‬in v. 39, indicating that Yahweh “will give [the people] another way.” Third, in v. 40 there is an MT plus with “and I will treat them with graciousness.” One of the operating understandings of the present work is that the Book of Jeremiah in particular is not unified, but instead present a variety of perspectives on the nature, cause and significance of the events of the exile, and not only as ascribed to different persons. That this is all the more the case with passages such as this regarding an end to/return from exile led Robert Carroll, among others, to proclaim: “Many voices in the prophetic scrolls give expression to the hope that things would be restored to a repristinated past in the reversal of the deportations. As usual with hope, they were partly right and, I believe, almost wholly wrong.”19 That Carroll could use the language of many voices contributed to the kind of dialogical investigation that I am undertaking. Furthermore, the dialogue that seems to come to expression in the prophetic books is most certainly, as I have argued, reflective of a conversation within Judahite society that was determined to navigate the situation presented by the destruction of Jerusalem by the 18 On this, Shead commented: “In its seven other biblical uses, a)postolh& only translates words in the ‫ שׁלח‬group, in line with its basic sense of ‘sending away.’” A possible interpretation here is “‘a plague sent by God…’ This suggestion has found broad acceptance, although it does not link a)postolh with ‫דבר‬, and so

requires a strange sort of exegesis by the translator if his Vorlage read ‫דבר‬.” Andrew G. Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions (JSOTSupp 347; London: T & T Clark, 2002), 209. 19 Robert P. Carroll, “Deportation and Diasporic Discourses in the Prophetic Literature,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, 85.

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

253

Babylonians and the deportation, in several stages, whether forced or voluntary, of many of the leading citizens. Thus Dalit Rom-Shiloni opined that this text “reflects some of the internal controversies between the prophets and their contemporaries usually within the exilic and post-exilic sixth century BCE prophecy.”20 That this text “reflects some of the internal controversies” demonstrates its importance for the thesis being advanced here. RomShiloni went on to argue that the text does not allow specific identification of the person or persons holding the perception described in this text: “the speakers are left anonymous, hiding behind the separate second plural pronoun ‫אתם‬.”21 As previously suggested, the diversity of the perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah is more important than the diversity of persons to whom these opinions are described. Working with this text, Walter Brueggemann argued along the same lines. More specifically, his treatment focused on the prayer attributed to Jeremiah that precedes the text under investigation. I think, however, his comments can apply equally well to the oracular response assigned to Yahweh. This is so because, in Brueggemann’s mind, this text serves as ideological support for the maintenance of orthodox Yahwism in the face of the challenge presented by the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, texts like this attempt to justify the power of God and God’s promises for the people. Brueggemann wrote: “The issue of theodicy, in the world of ancient Israel…is rather a concrete pastoral crisis, because Israel, with Job-like determination, clings passionately and relentlessly to the conviction that coherent moral sense can be made of its lived experience by reference to the will, purpose and commands of Yahweh.”22 Rom-Shiloni also recognized the element of theodicy coming to play in this passage: Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “The Prophecy for ‘Everlasting Covenant’ (Jeremiah XXXII 36-41): An Exilic Addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction?” VT 53:2 (2003), 203. 21 Ibid., 204. This is in contrast to my identification of this text as being attributed to Yahweh. Then again, as we have seen in different contexts, perhaps the very fact that the unidentified ‫ אתם‬see their words confirmed by Yahweh lead in the direction of a more precise identification of them, or at least with what they were willing to do, according to the text, in arguing for their position over against the alternative possibilities. 22 Walter Brueggemann, “A ‘Characteristic’ Reflection on What Comes Next (Jeremiah 32.16-44),” in Prophets and Paradigms (ed. Stephen Breck Reid; JSOTSup 229; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 19. 20

254

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Thematically, the passage predicts the people’s return from the lands of their exile. The relative clause ‫‘( אשׁר הדחתים שׁם‬from all the lands to which I have banished them’) restores God’s place as the author of the exile. Hence, the phrase stresses the contradiction between God’s previous judgment and His role in the salvation.23

Rom-Shiloni’s treatment of this passage quite nearly approaches the methodology I have been employing throughout this study, even though she suggested that study of the Book of Jeremiah still concerns the relationship between authentic words of the prophet and literary developments based upon them.24 On the one hand, she noted that in spite of the apparent reluctance of the text to identify those to whom this perception is assigned, the content of the perception seems very clearly to lay some of the ideological groundwork for the continuing debates within Judean society after the exile: This contrast between the calamitous fate of Jerusalem on the one hand, and the new hope and deliverance for the exiles on the other hand, accommodates the point of view otherwise known in Jeremiah as that of the hdwhy twlg (“The Judean exiles,” Jer. xxiv 5), those who were led to Babylon with king Jehoiachin in 597 BCE… The prophecy…is another testimony to the polemics between the exile and the remnant.25

On the other hand, she recognized that the promises for the end of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah—such as they are—present a marked contrast to the dominant viewpoint that is usually attributed to Jeremiah the prophet or to God: “Jeremiah considered the exile as a final penalty of doom with no return… In contradistinction, the author…Jer. xxxii 36-41…predicts continuity and renewal of the covenant only to the exiles, specifically those led from Jerusalem with king Jehoiachin (vv. 37-41, as also Jer. xxiv 5-7).”26 Rom-Shiloni argued that this text not only contrasts itself to perceptions of the enduring nature of the punishment of exile, but also constrasts with other ideas in the Book of Jeremiah having to do with renewal:

Rom-Shiloni, “The Prophecy,” 210. Ibid., 201. 25 Ibid., 205. 26 Ibid., 222. 23 24

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

255

in comparison with other renewal prophecies in Jeremiah, our prophecy seems to be an independent one, introducing an alternative presentation of the new relationship between God and the exiles. In certain thematic and lexical details it is close to the prophecies of Ezekiel and DeuteroIsaiah, but still not similar to them.27

Both Rom-Shiloni and Brueggemann conclude their treatments of this particular oracle of salvation by indicating that it does not conform to expectations. That is, it presents an entirely different picture of the hope for restoration, both with respect to the majority of other statements attributed to Yahweh and to the prophet—having to do with the permanence pf punishment—and with respect to other prophecies of salvation. Brueggemann suggested that a certain portion of the texts in the Book of Jeremiah dealing with the end of exile include the idea that the exile was a purgative as well as a punitive experience. That is, the relationship that had been broken down through the nation’s unfaithfulness to the covenant stipulations will be reestablished with the nation being better able to maintain them in the future. Brueggemann wrote: “Thus the old assumptions about Israel’s recalcitrance which cause the construct to be used primarily for threat and open-ended uncertainty are now overcome by an assurance, in which both parties are sure to do the right deeds and yield the best consequences.”28 Rom-Shiloni, moreover, declared that the standard identification of the prophecies of Jeremiah with the Deuteronomistic worldview proves insufficient when one comes across texts like this: Thus, though the prophecy for ‘the everlasting covenant” (Jer. xxxii 3641) is but one exilic prophecy, it suggests the possibility that within the exilic level in Jeremiah there may be independent prophecies coming from different anonymous exilic authors, that are not confined to the Deuteronomistic authors. Under the prophet’s name they wrote independent prophecies, some of which put forth a conception of the exile that the prophet himself would have opposed.29

Ibid., 221. Brueggemann, “A ‘Characteristic Reflection,” 29. 29 Rom-Shiloni, “The Prophecy,” 223. Admittedly, this statement goes behind the perceptions presented in the Book of Jeremiah to questions of development in the thought of the prophet, but nevertheless the point can be made that the different and somewhat contrasting perceptions ascribed to the prophet contribute to the reasonably complete picture of the available options. 27 28

256

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Ascribed to Jeremiah—Field Bought as Surety of a Future: 32:1-15 In the earlier portion of chapter 32, one finds Jeremiah exercising his right of redemption of a family plot of land, even though at that point “title” to the land is basically worthless. This text primarily involves action attributed to the prophet, with an interpretation of the acted parable in turn attributed to Yahweh. 32:1-15 (1) The word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah in the tenth year of Zedekiah (which was the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar.) (2) At that time the army of the Babylonian king was besieging Jerusalem, and Jeremiah was shut up in the king’s prison house. (3) For Zedekiah King of Judah had put him in prison, saying, “How can you prophesy, ‘Thus says Yahweh: This city is about to be given into the hand of the Babylonian king, and he will capture it. (4) And Zedekiah King of Judah shall not escape the hand of the Chaldeans, but he shall be given over into the hand of the Babylonian king, and he shall speak to him face to face and see him eye to eye. (5) Then Zedekiah shall be brought to Babylon, and he will remain there until further notice—Oracle of Yahweh. When you battle against the Chaldeans you will not have success?’” (6) Jeremiah said, “The word of Yahweh came to me saying, (7) Look! Hanamel son of Shallum your uncle will come to you saying, ‘Buy yourself my field which is in Anathoth, for the right of succession is yours, that you may purchase it.’ (8) And so Hanamel the son of my uncle came to me, just as Yahweh had said, at the king’s prison house, and said to me, “Please buy my field in Anathoth, in the territory of Benjamin, for the right of possession out of redemption to buy it belongs to you.” So I knew that this was the word of Yahweh. (9) “So I bought the field in Anathoth from Hanamel the son of my uncle, and I weighed out for him the silver—seventeen shekels of silver. (10) Then I wrote the contract on a scroll, sealed it and had it attested by witnesses, and I weighed out the silver in a balance. (11) I took the scroll of the purchase contract, the sealed text and the open one, (12) and I gave the scroll of the purchase contract to Baruch ben Neriah ben Machseiah in the presence of Hanamel son of my uncle and in the presence of the witnesses who had signed their names on the scroll of the purchase contract and in the presence of all the Judeans who were living in the king’s prison house. (13) I commanded Baruch in their presence, saying, (14) ‘Thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth: Take these documents, this scroll of the purchase contract—the sealed copy and the open copy, and put them in earthen jars, so that they may stand for lots of days. (15) For thus says Yahweh Tseba’oth God of Israel: Homes and fields and gardens shall be bought in this land again.’”

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

257

Slight differences exist between the LXX and the MT. LXX v.5 ends after the note that Zedekiah will be brought to Babylon. In v. 6, one finds a variation in the messenger formula; LXX: “the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah;” MT “Jeremiah said: the word of Yahweh came to me, saying.” These do not seem to greatly affect the passage, however. This perception of Jeremiah’s purchase of a family plot of land in Anathoth has long occupied the attention of scholars.30 At least on a surface level, this action with various prophetic oracles attached,31 has to do with planting hope for the future after the land of Judah, the city of Jerusalem and the Temple of Yahweh have been torn down and overthrown.32 Geoffrey Parke-Taylor commented in the following way with regard to this passage’s ability to speak to the power that hope within Judean society for a positive end after exile may have had in the society as a whole: Since the theme of return from the exile is prominent in the book of Jeremiah…the important question is whether or not this hope was part of the future expectation of Jeremiah himself. The key passages in this regard have to do with Jeremiah’s purchase of Hanamel’s field at Anathoth (Jeremiah 32) and his letters to the exiles in Babylon (Jeremiah 29).33 A possible parallel text is Jeremiah 37:11-16, which reports Jeremiah leaving the city to attend to the purchase of a field. The perception of the prophet’s opponent in that text is that by leaving the city he is going over to the Chaldeans, a charge that the text has Jeremiah deny. 31 See above for the prayer attributed to Jeremiah invoking the tendency of the people to follow after the sins of their ancestors, as well as the declaration attributed to Yahweh that the exile has come about because of the sins of the rulers as synecdochal representatives of the people. Further, the promise of Yahweh is that the people will be returned to their own land, and Jeremiah’s purchase is thereby interpreted as a sign of this promise. Cf. Robert Carroll’s summative contention that “the redactors develop that point [the symbolism of Jeremiah’s action] in a series of lengthy additions (vv. 16-44).” Robert P. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant, 134. 32 Thus this text captures the essence of the promises in the commissioning account of Jeremiah in 1:1-10; the building and planting does not occur until after the tearing down and overthrowing, but the tearing down and overthrowing are not the final word of the tradition. This idea can profitably be set against our earlier contention, made at several points, that the Book of Jeremiah—though not dealing with the return from exile as such—points in the direction of setting up a way of living life in faithfulness to God after the exile is concluded. 33 Parke-Taylor, Formation, 77. See above for more on the “letters to the exiles.” Other scholars have recognized the somewhat incongruous nature of this 30

258

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Regardless of the historicity of this account, it is clear that the tradition concerning this incident in the prophet’s life has been utilized for the purpose of communicating hope for a quick end of the exile. Likewise, Ronald Clements suggested specifically that 32:1-15 has “been edited and revised in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.”34 Gerhard von Rad had earlier noted the importance of this perception for the restoration of life in the land: “All [Jeremiah] says is that, in the land which at the moment is lying waste, conditions will return to normal and life will go on again.”35 Thus one should read this text without asking more of it than it can bear, but nonetheless realize that it functions within the Book of Jeremiah in a particular way. Furthermore, Robert Carroll wrote that the inclusion of this perception was important for the editors of the Book of Jeremiah: The editors are concerned with the story as a symbolic gesture. Jeremiah’s act of faith in buying property at a time when it probably could not be given away free is a pledge for the future… The symbolic nature of Jeremiah’s action gives hope for the future… Here then is an ordinary action which is given further symbolic meaning in the context of the tradition.36

That the hope for the end of exile could be couched in such economic terms, moreover, and specifically in terms of the right of redemption so that the name of Hanamel, Jeremiah’s cousin, would not be wiped out from memory in Israel (cf. Leviticus 25:25, inter alia) forges a further link between this passage and the letter to the exiles in chapter 29. The advice ascribed to Jeremiah that the people should flourish instead of wasting away in Babylon, building homes and planting vineyards, is, in my estimation, related to the promise generated by Jeremiah’s purchase of the plot of land. The people in exile will return to the land to participate in the buying and selling of houses, gardens and vineyards; therefore, they should flourish in Babylon so that they will be ready to leave when the time comes to return. action ascribed to Jeremiah. For example, Gottwald wrote: “The purchase of Hanamel’s field seems to have remained an isolated event while the main force of the prophet’s preaching continued to be relentlessly negative.” Norman K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth, 282. 34 Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy, 124. 35 Gerhard von Rad, The Message of the Prophets, 181. 36 Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant, 134.

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

259

This is so even though the Book of Jeremiah ends before the end of the exile, as Parke-Taylor observed: “Jeremiah’s hope for the future (32:14) points to a distant future after a lengthy period of exile (29:5, 28). This hope, in its later developed form as expressed in this doublet, was editorially inserted probably during the exile.”37

LIFE WILL BE DIFFERENT Other perceptions of the end and aftermath of exile indicate that, while life will indeed be restored in the land, it will be of a markedly different character than before. Among these perceptions, the change in the character of life in the land involved two interrelated aspects. First, one finds a perception of new confession of faith developing out of the experience of exile. Second, one finds two perceptions of the people and their leaders having the opportunity to improve their relationship to God. Perceptions of Return as a New Exodus: 16:14-15; 23:7-8 Coming first under investigation is the perception of a new confession of faith developing after the exile. The doublet we will consider here is striking considering the central place of the Exodus in literary materials coming from and/or reflecting upon previous eras. That the Book of Jeremiah includes a perception of such a theological change is of primary importance for the attempts to explain the exile and its aftermath in terms of the role it would have in shaping society well on into the initial restoration period and beyond. Here one may recall Steiner quote from the Introduction: “At moments of historical stress, mythologies of the ‘true past’ follow on each other at such speed that entirely different perspectives coexist and blur at the edges.”38 16:14-15 (14) Therefore the days are coming—Oracle of Yahweh—when they shall no longer say, “As Yahweh lives who brought up the Israelites from the land of Egypt,” (15) but rather “As Yahweh lives who brought up the Israelites from the land of the north and from all the lands to which he had banished them.” And he shall return them to their land that he gave to their ancestors.

37 38

Parke-Taylor, Formation, 79. George Steiner, After Babel, 30.

260

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

23:7-8 (7) Therefore the days are coming—Oracle of Yahweh—when they shall no longer say, “As Yahweh lives who brought up the Israelites from the land of Egypt,” (8) but rather “As Yahweh lives who brought up and led the offspring of the house of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands to which he had banished them.” And he shall return them to their land.

On this doublet, Parke-Taylor suggested that “23:7-8 fits the context better than does 16:14-15.”39 This suggestion seems to run contrary to the evidence from LXX since 23:7-8 do not appear there. This can be taken in another way, however. Evidence may be adduced in favor of Parke-Taylor’s position by the very fact of the MT plus in chapter 23, based on the supposition that the compilers of the MT recognized the fitness of the new confession of faith within the context of chapter 23, and further that they saw no reason to delete it from chapter 16. The only other difference between MT and LXX Vorlage in this passage is the cosmetic difference between “Israelites” and “house of Israel” in 16:15. Along with providing a key insight into the range of options available for coming to terms with the events of the exile, the Book of Jeremiah also includes diverse materials describing some of the ways in which the society altered itself in response to the exile: “the oath is to be replaced by another oath in which the emphasis will shift to the expected return of the people of Israel not only from the north country, but also from other lands of the diaspora.”40 Bob Becking thus understood the value of a shift like this in the national identity of the Judeans: “The faith in the God of the Exodus has been pivotal for Ancient Israel. Nevertheless, the textual unit forsees a shift in which this clear symbol will be changed into a new one based on a new historic ‘event.’”41 The number and variety of texts speaking to various aspects of the end of the exile confirm our earlier suggestion that while the Book of Jeremiah does not deal with the return as such, nevertheless texts such as these do lead in this direction. The importance of this particular change in the common stock of national identity cannot be overstressed. This development led Michael Fishbane to a reevaluation of his project of Parke-Taylor, Formation, 75. Ibid., 74. 41 Bob Becking, “Sour Fruit and Blunt Teeth: The Metaphorical Meaning of the  in Jeremiah 31,29” JSOT 17:1 (2003), 15. 39 40

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

261

innerbiblical exegesis: “The projected supersession of the old exodus by the new in Jeremiah adds a new dimension to this enquiry into inner-biblical typologies… [O]ne may cautiously propose that the typologies considered thus far instatntiate analogical relationships of structural similitude and of proportion.”42 Though he argued from the methodology of source criticism, Dale Patrick nevertheless made an interesting suggestion: If we can locate the Covenant Code source in the Elohist, we have an important clue to its origin and identity. The Elohist Source was probably composed in the northern kingdom during the ninth century and transplanted, along with other northern traditions…to Judah in the aftermath of the destruction of Israel in 721 B.C.43

According to the Ezra/Nehemiah tradition, some of those who oppose the rebuilding of the Temple, or whose help with it is refused by the dominant party, come from the area of the old northern kingdom. The supersession of northern interests by southern ones is perhaps typified by the supersession of the exodus tradition by a new one,44 developing in the time of the Book of Jeremiah, that praises Yahweh not as much for delivering the people from Egypt as for returning them back to the land that he had promised to give their ancestors (chapter 16), back to the land that belonged to them as an inheritance (chapter 23). In a methodology similar to mine, Overholt argued for the importance of this text and the development of traditions that it represents from a literary/theological standpoint: “What is important is that Jeremiah's freedom to transcend the old traditions and offer a new interpretation of the people's present situation is based ultimately in his recognition of Yahweh's freedom to change the forms through which he will relate himself to his people.” 45

Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 362 [emphasis original]. Dale Patrick, “The Covenant Code Source,” VT 27.2 (April 1977), 156-57. 44 Note, however, Herbert Huffmon’s contention that “the traditions of the Exodus upon which [the Book of] Jeremiah draws can hardly have been restricted to the Northern Kingdom… [Rather, the prophet] Jeremiah is a prophet of the Lord who draws upon various traiditons and insights to advocate a theology for all Israel.” Huffmon, “Jeremiah of Anathoth: A Prophet for All Israel,” 268, 271. 45 Thomas W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood: A Study in the Theology of the Book of Jeremiah (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1970), p. 44. 42 43

262

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

The Future Corrected Community: 31:1-9, 27-36 Along with the perception of a new confession of faith, we also see perceptions of a particular opportunity for the people to improve themselves after the exile. The two texts ascribed to Jeremiah discussed in this section exemplify the new concept of exile as a catalyst for change. Thus these perceptions typify again the perspective of the dominant view that the experience of the exile was purgative as well as punitive. The first perception of improvement for the people comes from the “Book of Consolation” in chs. 30-31. The specific text coming under consideration contains several ideas found in other perceptions of the end of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah, especially the notion that corporate responsibility for sin will fade in favor of each person being punished for their own misdeeds. 31:1-9, 27-36 (1) In that time—Oracle of Yahweh—I will be God over all the tribes of Israel and they will be a people for me. (2) Thus says Yahweh: The people found favor in the desert, escaping the sword. Israel is going to a place of rest! (3) From of old Yahweh has made his intentions known: I loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have showered faithfulness upon you. (4) I will build you up again, O maiden Israel! Again shall you take up your timbrels and go out with the sounds of the dancers. (5) Again shall you plant gardens on the hills of Samaria; you shall plant gardens and rejoice over them. (6) For the day is coming when watchmen shall proclaim on the heights of Ephraim; they shall arise and take themselves to Zion to Yahweh their God. (7) For thus says Yahweh: Raise a shout for Jacob and cry out for the first of the nations. Make it heard! Sing! Say: “Yahweh has saved his people, the remnant of Israel!” (8) See! I am bringing them from the land of the north and I am gathering them from the far corners of the earth the blind and the lame among them, the pregnant and the child-bearing together,

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

263

in a great assembly they shall return. (9) They shall go out in weeping, but in tenderness will I lead them— I will guide them to streams of water. In the upright path they will not stumble because I will be for Israel like a father, and Ephraim like a first-born child for me… (27) See, the days are coming—Oracle of Yahweh—when I will sow the seed of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, the seed of humans and the seed of animals. (28) For just as I have been watched over them to pluck up and to tear down, to destroy and to overthrow and to hurt, so also am I watching over them to build and to plant—Oracle of Yahweh (29) In those days they shall not say any longer: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge,” (30) because everyone will die for their own sins. All of humanity has eaten sour grapes, and everyone’s teeth will be set on edge! (31) See! The days are coming—Oracle of Yahweh—when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. (32) It will be different than the covenant I made with their ancestors in times past, taking them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. They breached this covenant, even though I had married them—Oracle of Yahweh. (33) Instead, this covenant which I am about to sign with the house of Israel in days to come—Oracle of Yahweh—I will set my law upon their inmost beings and upon their hearts. I will be god for them and they will be people for me. (34) No longer will any of them say to their neighbors or to their families, “Know Yahweh!” for they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest—Oracle of Yahweh— and I will forgive their iniquities and not remember their sins any more. (35) For thus says Yahweh: who gives the sun to light up the day and establishes the moon and the stars to light up the night; who stirs up the sea, making its waves roll, whose name is Yahweh Tseba’oth: (36) If I should cancel any of these statutes—Oracle of Yahweh only then would Israel quit being my nation for all time.46

The perception in this chapter is prominent among those attesting to the hope that the exile will not be the final word in the history of the nation. Rather, according to this perception, the way to move forward from the

46

Chapter 38LXX does not have vv. 35-36.

264

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

exile is for the community to undergo some change.47 Bob Becking took note of the way in which the perception of hope in chapter 31 might have functioned in the society: “This divine promise of a renewed relationship will certainly have helped people to cope the reality they met with. In the end the poetical composition summons to leave their fear behind by daring to live in freedom and to follow the divine, but dissonant voice of hope.”48 Along the same lines, Gerhard von Rad indicated that part of the “new thing” in this text and others like it in the Book of Jeremiah is the perception of change in the character of the relationship between Yahweh and the people. Further, this change includes a fundamental alteration in the way in which God’s word is communicated to the people. Von Rad wrote: If we understand Jeremiah correctly, the new thing is to be that the whole process of God speaking and man's listening is to be dropped. This road of listening to the divine will had not led Israel to obedience. Yahweh is, as it were, to by-pass the process of speaking and listening, and to put his will straight into Israel's heart.49

Walter Brueggemann suggested that the power of a text like this would be in its reapplication of the old notion of vicarious suffering—that is, an older view of the Judahites, assumedly present in the collective memory—was that the iniquity of the ancestors was often visited upon the children. An example of this motif is found in the Exodus Decalogue: “For I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the iniquity of the parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me” (Exodus 20:5) . Brueggemann wrote: “Surely there were in Israel in the exilic period continuing and vigorous proponents of the old proverb quoted in Jer 31:29 and Ezek 18:2, who remained to be convinced that the exile was a time and place of radically new possibility.”50 Michael Fishbane hit the same note when he suggested “Jeremiah rejects the older traditum of 47 Other perceptions indicate that the exact character of the necessary change was apparently a matter of debate. Two prominent examples present themselves. On the one hand, the perceptions ascribed to the devotees of the Queen of Heaven suggested that the abandonment of her cult resulted in the exile, and its restoration was the way to restoration for the people. On the other hand, the perception ascribed to Hananiah (ch 28) that the punishment of exile would only be brief, apparently with no change necessary in the character of the nation. 48 Becking, Between Fear and Freedom¸ 302. 49 Von Rad, The Message of the Prophets, 182. 50 Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 686.

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

265

vicarious guilt by citing and rejecting the old proverb that spoke of fathers who ate sour grapes but whose sons’ teeth were set on edge thereby… As he himself remarks, this new teaching was a teaching of hope for the postexilic period.”51 Becking commented further on this phrase: “Jer. 31:29-30 is a word on the threshold looking beyond the threshold. This stress on personal responsibility should be interpreted against this historical background. After the threshold of exile much will be changed. A new belief system is needed, as is reflected in the words of the new covenant.”52 Fishbane very ably summarized the importance of the perceptions relating to the possibilities of life after the exile: And since Jeremiah’s aggadic exegesis is an imaginative—not scholastic— application of one covenenantal law to Israel’s social-religious life, the vitality of his discourse must be judged solely by its capacity to address the religious consciousness of its hearers, not to reinterpret the civil case from which it is derived. Jeremiah’s task is not to reveal a new law or to interpret the older one; it is rather to renew the nations’ allegiance to the covenant and the God who is the divine source of its prescriptions. The prophet thus alludes to the ‘reproved’ son who does not ‘listen’ in order that the entire community of Israel may be warned of misdeeds, and advised to amend them.53

Becking further noted that the “theme of God as creator functions as an ultimate motivation for the promise of the new covenant…the firmness of God’s creation and the reliability of the laws of nature together underscore the trustworthiness of the promises of YHWH for a renewed and deepened relationship.”54 I contend that this notion of Yahweh as creator fits well with the perception in the Book of Jeremiah that Yahweh, God of Israel, is the Lord of History. Thus the domination of the land by the Babylonians was orchestrated by Yahweh and will continue only so long as Yahweh will allow. The Coming Reunification of Judah and Israel: 50:4-10 My only foray into the Oracles against the Nations comes here, for it is only here, in the context of Babylon’s downfall. This is so because of one particular important implication of this downfall. While the perception Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation¸ 337. Becking, Between Fear and Freedom¸ 242. 53 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 316-7. 54 Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 272. 51 52

266

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

considered above described how the people could improve the conditions that immediately brought about the situation of exile, in this present perception an even older problem is addressed—the fissure between Israel and Judah. The perception is that this division serves as an emblem, if not a cause, for many of the nation’s principal ills, and thus the reunification of Judah and Israel could serve as a hallmark of the promised future under the rule of Yahweh.55 In this connection, Robert Carroll noted that the “motifs of repopulation…and reunion of Judah and Israel…are elements to be found in other prophetic traditions of the exilic period.”56 50:4-10 (4) In those days and at that time—Oracle of Yahweh—the house of Israel and the House of Judah will come together and they shall weep as they go to seek Yahweh their God. (5) They shall ask for Zion; in that direction shall their faces turn. They shall come and attach themselves to Yahweh an eternal covenant that they shall not forget. (6) My people were like lost sheep. Their shepherds led them astray; they led them out among the mountains. On the mountains and the hills they go, they have forgotten their resting place. (7) All who encountered them devoured them, and their foes said, “We will not be held guilty,57 for they sinned against Yahweh, the true pasture, the hope of their ancestors, Yahweh.” (8) Flee from Babylon, leave the land of the Chaldeans, and be like the goats that lead the flock.58 (9) For see, I am rousing and leading an assembly of great nations against Babylon. From the lands of the north they shall draw up their lines against her. There she shall be captured. Their arrows are like those of a skilled warrior which never fail to hit the mark. (10) Chaldea shall be despoiled, all her spoilers shall be satisfied—Oracle of Yahweh.

Robert Wilson noted an important point in connection with a parallel text in Jeremiah 32: “There is no reference to the Northern Kingdom and the poetic notion that Ephraim and Judah are to be restored together is apparently rejected.” “Poetry and Prose in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Ki Baruch Hu, 424. 56 Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant, 213. 57 LXX: “Let us not leave them alone.” 58 LXX: “Be like serpents before sheep.” 55

DIALOGUES WITH A (RE-) CONSTITUTED COMMUNITY

267

It is apparent from the Book of Jeremiah that, as noted above, the fortunes of the nations constitute a zero-sum game. This is demonstrated in the fact that, in any given set of national enemies, negative fortunes for one necessarily imply positive fortunes for the other.59 Although this perception occurs in the context of an oracle against Babylon, Alice Ogden Bellis noted that this text still primarily concerns the fortunes of Judah and Israel. She wrote that although “the overall concern of all of the poems in Jeremiah 50 is the fall of Babylon, the theme of the first poem is God’s forgiveness and restoration of God’s people, who are described as sheep.”60 Indeed, although in the present project the Oracles Against the Nations have largely been left to one side, some of the perceptions found in this material deal with the exile, and in particular the possibilities for life afterward. Bellis noted further that the “poem is primarily an attempt at a theological explanation of the events of 587 and a resolution of the problem created by the destruction and exile of Yahweh’s own people by the Babylonians… Yahweh declares that he will forgive the remnant which he has determined to persevere.”61 Thus the perception in this text is that the present situation is about to be reversed. Bellis noted: “The contrast between Babylon’s and Israel’s futures, which are a reversal of their present situations, completes the multiple contrasts the poet sets up. By juxtaposing the present and future situations of Babylon and Israel in a variety of ways through the poem, the poet emphasizes the double secondary theme.” 62 Furthermore, Robert Carroll recognized that this text represents a significant development upon the perceptions of Babylon elsewhere in the Book of Jeremiah. He drew an analogy between the relationship the oracle against Babylon has to the rest of the tradition and the different ways in which the Roman Empire is presented in New Testament materials:

59 This is most directly the case in the Book of Jeremiah with regard to Babylon, though others are mentioned. The Oracles Against the Nations material has largely been left out of our investigation as it seems not to deal directly with the perceptions of the exile. 60 Alice Ogden Bellis, “Poetic Structure and Intertextual Logic in Jeremiah 50,” in Troubling Jeremiah, 179. 61 Ibid., 181. 62 Ibid., 182. While Bellis’ treatment delved into the entirety of chapters 50-51 and the several poems contained therein, this statement is, in my estimation, particularly relevant to the “first poem” of 50:4-10.

268

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH In spite of the benevolent views of the Babylonians taken in the tradition (cf. similar views taken of the Romans in the gospels), the anti-Babylonian oracles in Jer. 50-51 are an exception to the Realpolitik of the tradition, just as the attitude towards Rome taken by the NT Apocalypse is an exception to the Realpolitik of the gospels and the writings of Paul), the Babylonians were not nature’s gentlemen, extending kindness and charity to the human race.63

By framing his discussion of the oracle against Babylon in this way, Carroll recognized something else to which we have not paid particular attention, namely, the development of Babylon into the paradigmatic representation of evil for the Jews and, later, for the Christians. For the Jews, Nebuchadnezzar came, in the Book of Daniel, to represent the persecutor of its time—the Seleucid emperor Antiocus IV Epiphanes. For the Christians, Babylon came, particularly in the First Peter and Revelation, to represent the persecutor of their time—the Roman Empire. Thus the Book of Jeremiah, as we have argued, prepares for and/or reflects later perceptions of the covenant that it claims Yahweh desired to establish with his people. We have dealt in this chapter with perceptions of the end and aftermath of exile in the Book of Jeremiah. These perceptions were attributed to various persons and reflected various aspects of the debate. The diversity of these materials conclusively demonstrates the thesis that the Book of Jeremiah represents, in part, a distillation of a very important conversation that went on during the exilic period. One consistent theme operative throughout has been the confession, having its roots in the common stock of theological tradition, that Yahweh God of Israel is the Lord of History. However this confession is worked out—and we considered several different possibilities—it results in a trivializing of the power of the colonizer.

63

Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant, p. 240.

CONCLUSION

The other side of the conflict can be seen if we attend to Socrates’ repeated reference to his state of inspiration. Even before he began the speech, he spoke of something welling up within him and suggested that the speech he knew had been poured into him. At the beginning of the speech he invoked the assistance of the Muses, and at the very end of his speech he finally broke out into verse.1

This study has approached the Book of Jeremiah as a whole focusing on the various perceptions of the Exile and related events. I have found a quite interesting range of perceptions, frequently in conflict with one another. Further, we have even found some contradictory perceptions ascribed to the same person or party. Though this dialogue is mostly only implied, our investigation suggests that the divergent materials can be explained as attempts by those responsible for the Book of Jeremiah as we have it, whatever their own circumstances, to understand what had taken place. If we set the older historical-critical questions aside and instead attend to the final forms of the text (i.e., both LXX and MT), we discover what appears to have been a lively debate going on throughout the last years of the kingdom of Judah and on through to at least several decades later. This is in itself a significant result, even if the persons or parties to whom the perceptions are ascribed cannot be identified with certainty and even if we cannot “date” or otherwise sequentially arrange the various perceptions. First, we will summarize what we found in our examination of the perceptions of the exile. Along the way, we will highlight some of the principal agreements and disagreements among these perceptions. Second, we will examine how the perceptions we have identified line up in terms of some of the theories for the literary divisions of the Book of Jeremiah. This

1

Sallis, Being and Logos, 128.

269

270

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

is not a matter of identifying historical sources per se—for, as we have noted, scholars regard such precise identification as probably impossible.

SUMMARY OF THE DIALOGUES The dialogues were organized under five major headings, based on the purported dialogue “partners.” In the second chapter, perceptions ascribed to Yahweh were discussed. These ranged through multiple categories, many of which dealt with some of the principal debates supposed to have taken place in the years leading up do and during the exile. What I called the majority or “dominant” view held that the offended deity was Yahweh, the god whose official temple was in Jerusalem. The texts that were identified as generally agreeing with this dominant view contributed in various ways to a rather complete picture of this viewpoint. I indicated that perceptions ascribed to Jeremiah were so close to those ascribed to Yahweh that there was not sufficient reason to consider them separately.2 Each of these, however, seemed to express a slightly different nuance of the general theme that the exile came about because of Yahweh’s punishment of the people for their sins. The third chapter described dialogues with religious opponents. It was noted that Jeremiah is reportedly involved with a range of opponents. For the most part, these disputes center on Jeremiah’s authenticity as a prophet and his loyalty to his native land.3 All of this should have been expected, particularly since the perception was ascribed to Jeremiah that the way to life was precisely to submit to Babylonia. Babylonia and Nebuchadrezzar 2 I suggested in the course of the investigation that this is perhaps so because, regardless of the person or group to whom a particular perception may trace its lineage, a possible motivation for attributing such a perception to the prophet or to Yahweh might have been to lend it greater credibility in the conversation that we assume was taking place. Moreover, the affinity between the perceptions assigned to Jeremiah and to Yahweh is not surprising given the apparent concern of the deuteronomistic editors—who had a strong hand in the present form of the Book—to demonstrate the authenticity of their protagonist’s witness (cf. Deut 18:15-22; see Jer 28 for an important development of this theme). 3 I noted throughout that the ascription of a strict “pro-Babylonian” stance to the prophet Jeremiah is an overreading of the evidence. This error was ascribed to both Judeans and Babylonians. Rather than being “characterized as proBabylonian…, [the prophet should be seen] as pro-Israel,” as maintained by Herbert B. Huffmon in his article “Jeremiah of Anathoth: A Prophet for All Israel,” 267.

CONCLUSION

271

were the agents of Yahweh, according to Jeremiah. In other words, the dominant view takes a kind of postcolonialist stance, arguing against the power of the state in the midst of a theological interpretation of history. Yet the disputes with religious opponents did not end there. Jeremiah also engaged in dialogue with the devotees of the Queen of Heaven, who were said to argue in the same way as did the Deuteronomists in support of an entirely different conclusion. It was, in fact, this particular discussion that formed the nucleus of the present project.4 Chapter four turned to some of the dialogues with the survivors of the deportations. First, some people—particularly the poor and those in lower classes—actually did enjoy some benefit or advantage during the exilic period. Included among these was Gedaliah, appointed the Babylonian governor over Judah. Second, Jeremiah was said to have combated the assertion that, because the first deportation was God’s punishment for sin, then those who had not been deported either had not sinned or had benefited from God’s relenting from the promised punishment (cf. ch 18).5 Third, I described some of the possible responses to the situation of Babylonian rule. The options were shown to be fairly stark: resist or accept. Each of these two options had several different possibilties demonstrating a fair amount of nuance within the general categories. Chapter five detailed some dialogues with political leaders. Throughout the Book, Jeremiah is said to have significant involvement with political leaders both in Judah and in Babylonia. Before I turned to these specific debates, I also examined two texts ascribing the dominant viewpoint to other parties. The perception ascribed to the first, unidentified, group (the text calls them only “mighty nations”) interpreted the destruction of Jerusalem as Yahweh’s abandonment of the city because of the people’s abandonment of Yahweh, thus in line with the perceptions ascribed to Yahweh and to Jeremiah. In addition, the text ascribed this view to a Babylonian general whom, one might suspect, should rather give actual “credit” for the destruction of Jerusalem to Babylonian deities, such as Marduk. Following this discussion, I divided the dialogues of Jeremiah with these leaders by their reported temporal contexts: before or after the The first appearance of the devotees of the Queen of Heaven (Jer 7) occurred in a context of an attack upon them ascribed to Yahweh. 5 These perceptions are chiefly to be found in Jeremiah 24 in the vision of the two baskets of figs. This chapter represents only the vision ascribed to the prophet maligning the “bad figs,” those left behind after the first deportation. The viewpoint of these persons regarding their status as favored by Yahweh is only implicit in the text. 4

272

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

destruction of Jerusalem. Though there is some distinction between perceptions from before and after the first deportation, for the most part it seems that the major watershed event is the destruction of Jerusalem. The sixth chapter explored some of the debates within the community after the destruction of Jerusalem. These had to do with the character that life should take after the exile is completed. Just as the choices available to people with regard to Babylonian rule were rather stark, so these were as well. The basic options, with similar nuances as in the earlier discussions, were that life would return basically to normal after the exile or that it would be significantly changed in one way or another. Within those dialogues that maintained life would be different, a number of texts overturned some old conditions and beliefs, both positive—the history of the exodus—and negative—the division between the kingdoms. In summary, I noted at various points in the course of our investigation some of the agreements and disagreements between the various perceptions of the exile. First of all, within the dialogues with God, perceptions assigned to Jeremiah and to Yahweh regarding the reason why the exile came about, I found a great deal of consistency among them. Nevertheless, some of these perceptions in fact appear to dispute with one another over, in particular, the question of whether the punishment of exile was inevitable. Another point of disputation had to do with the specific character of the sins that led to the exile. Whereas both groups of perceptions included material on the people’s abandonment of Yahweh to serve other gods and their failure to repent, some of the perceptions assigned to Jeremiah seemed to rest more on a human level. That is, these perceptions emphasized that the people were following after the negative examples of the ancestors and included eyewitness accounts, as it were, of the devastation of the land that followed after the people’s sinfulness. Related to the disagreement over the possibility of avoiding punishment that we saw in the perceptions attributed to Yahweh, there was an interesting disagreement over the idea of the remnant. The remnant left after the first deportation thought itself to be blessed for having avoided Yahweh’s judgment as suffered by the leadership deported in 598-7. The contrary perception ascribed to Yahweh held that the only hope for continuing life in the land lay with the “good figs,” or those who had gone to Babylon to reinvent the community there. Along these lines, the final sections of chapters three and four widen out the focus to the period after the exile is concluded. One finds a similar attitude in the Book of Ezekiel, with the attendant vision of the glory of Yahweh leaving the Temple in Jerusalem to come and dwell with the exilic community in Babylon (see

CONCLUSION

273

Ezekiel 10-11). However, during the period of the “voluntary exile” in Egypt, the oracle assigned to Jeremiah maintains that Yahweh will wipe out all those who have gone down to Egypt, except a very small remnant. I contend that this perception seemingly contradicts the other materials that argue against the place and importance of the remnant. Three other principal disagreements demonstrate the thesis that the varied perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah represent a fairly complete picture of the options for understanding the events. These have to do with disputes over the deity offended, the length of the exile and the proper stance the people should take toward the Babylonian Empire. With regard to the theological dispute, the viewpoint attributed to Jeremiah espoused that going after a god/goddess other than Yahweh was a key indictment of the people. By contrast, the devotees of the Queen believed that abandoning her cult resulted in their dire situation. Significantly, the Book of Jeremiah represents a text formation tradition that does not seek to level through any particular perception in favor of any other. Instead, contradictory perceptions are ascribed to different people, and sometimes even to the same person. The editors/compilers of the Book apparently did not see seen the resolution of the tension between these diverse elements as a matter of first importance. Rather, presenting the widest possible range of perceptions seems to have been their aim. While we recognized that these perceptions may or may not reflect that actual words of anyone, the perceptions themselves are real. At any rate, the Book of Jeremiah itself is an authentic historical document. The reasonably complete picture it presents of the perceptions of the exile bears witness, as we have argued, to the importance of these events for the life of Judah during the neo-Babylonian period and beyond.

EXAMINATION OF ALIGNMENTS The history of source- and traditional-critical scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah is well known. It will be helpful to compare the strategy used here against some of the previous schema scholarship has used. This will show in a rather direct way how the approach taken here is different. I have noted throughout the course of the study disagreements among the various perceptions. These disagreements contributed to my overarching metaphor of dialogue. However, as the following summary will show, the differences we have found line up only haphazardly with the principal literary divisions.

274

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

In what follows, my synchronic literary investigation will be tested as follows.6 First, we will examine how the perceptions we have identified line up along the sources identified by Mowinckel,7 followed in general by much subsequent scholarship (with various modifications).8 Second, we will examine whether there is any difference with the perceptions in terms of poetry and prose9—an important distinction for previous scholarship. Third, we will also consider the differences between the LXX and the MT, in order to see if these differences affect the distribution of perceptions of the exile.10 As for Mowinckel’s A/B/C schema, it appears that the dialogues are fairly evenly distributed among the tradition-complexes. That is, the perceptions of the exile do not come exclusively, or even predominantly, from one or the other of his principal divisions. This indicates fairly strongly that, regardless of what “sources” or “tradition-complexes” might have contributed to the Book of Jeremiah, in its final form all of this is genuine ancient material (see below) coming to terms with the reality of the exile(s) and the destruction of Jerusalem.11 It might be interesting to

In this conclusion, the texts are discussed in MT order, without regard to where they fit in the previous discussion. The primary goal here is not an exhaustive survey, but instead to see where certain texts stand out as exceptions. 7 Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremiah (Kristiana: J. Dybwad, 1914), p. 20, 24, 31. 8 I have chosen to deal with Mowinckel alone because his is the gold standard for twentieth-century discussions of “sources” or tradition-complexes in the Book of Jeremiah. Since Mowinckel took a much different approach than I, it is to be expected that in many places my textual divisions will not line up with his. That is, some of my citations are shorter or longer than his, and some fit with more than one of his categories. In order to avoid unnecessary complication, when these divergences occur we will simply note their alignments without additional commentary. 9 Recognizing that the division between poetry and prose remains a matter of considerable debate, we will follow here the BHS as a “neutral” source. Where a text contains elements in both poetry and prose, we will include it under both columns. 10 In this, we will cite texts judged in the chapters to have “significant differences” between the LXX and the MT. For explanation of these differences, consult the relevant section in the chapter. 11 Again, this is not to enter into the debate whether the exile was really as severe as the Book claims. I am concerned only for the claims the Book makes and not for their verification, however one might set oneself about such a task. That the 6

CONCLUSION

275

examine whether certain perceptions show up more often in particular tradition-complexes than others. Though this is beyond the scope of the present investigation, I strongly suspect that it would prove to be so. Considering the different texts in terms of their content also clearly reveals a distinction between poetry and prose. Looking at the texts as a whole, the perceptions of the exile occur more-or-less the same in poetic passages as in prose passages. When the investigation turns to content, however, one finds a rather remarkable difference. Although the perceptions of exile as punishment occur fairly evenly in poetry and prose, others are found almost exclusively in prose. These include dialogues about: the response to the situation of Babylonian rule, whether positive or negative; dialogues about advantage during the exilic period, whether “real” or “imagined;” and dialogues about how to reconstitute the community after the experience of exile. One must be careful to exercise diffidence in drawing conclusions based on these distinctions, however. It might be the best strategy merely to note the distinction, though that does not seem to be especially satisfying either. It is within the differences between LXX and MT that the most striking result comes to the fore. The relationship between these two versions—and, assumedly, Hebrew Vorlagen—of Jeremiah has been a staple fixture of Jeremiah studies since the rise of critical scholarship. However, in considering the dialogues about the exile, the agreements and disagreements among the perceptions, one finds that relatively few differences occur between the LXX and the MT. The implications of this will be more fully drawn out below in suggestions for further investigation. It can be stated here that from this perspective of this work the differences between the two versions are not significant enough to warrant treating them separately. Indeed, out of all the texts considered, only sixteen were discovered to betray what I called “significant” differences between the LXX and MT. Moreover, some of these were the result of LXX “pluses,” rather than the MT “pluses” in terms of which these differences are most often described. This summary of how the identified perceptions of the exile align with important literary and textual divisions in the Book of Jeremiah has been rather revealing. We note different degrees of significance for each of the three areas we examined. First, comparing our results with Mowinckel’s tradition complexes, we conclude on the basis of this analysis that one gains a quite different picture when approaching the Book of Jeremiah in a exile was critically important for the Book of Jeremiah cannot reasonably be questioned (see above, Introduction).

276

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

synchronic way. Second, when we compare the perceptions we have identified to the differences between poetry and prose in the Book of Jeremiah—which has occupied many a scholar’s attention12—we note that the majority of perceptions of the exile occur in the prose sections, an interesting result of our study. Finally, the comparison of our results to the differences between the LXX and the MT of the Book of Jeremiah yielded the most interesting result of this entire analysis. We conclude that, from the perspective of the perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah, the differences between the LXX and the MT are not overly significant.

PROSPECTS FOR FURTHER STUDY In defining prospects for further study, one must first acknowledge what has and has not been done in the present project. What I have done is to lay out the range of perceptions of the exile without attempting to resolve the tensions that appear between them. In addition, by adopting a synchronic stance we have specifically avoided the question of historical development. A diachronic stance, by contrast, must see the divergent materials ascribed to the prophet in terms of historical progression either of the Book itself or the prophet’s own thought. On the one hand, those perceptions that argue against those ascribed to the prophet are seen as a foil to the main argument of the Book rather than a genuine opinion that could have been held by someone. On the other hand, the somewhat less divergent—but still rather varied—perceptions ascribed to the prophet represent progression in the prophet’s thought, with the result that “earlier” perceptions are thought no longer to be valid expressions the prophet’s thought. In my estimation, such a procedure fails to do justice to the perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah. Nevertheless, as I have maintained throughout the project, even in spite of the wide range of perceptions we find in the Book of Jeremiah, a certain perspective on the events does seem to rise to prominence. This comes to expression in the perceptions ascribed to Yahweh and to certain

Robert Wilson recently reiterated the importance of considering the poetry and prose materials in the Book of Jeremiah together: “it must be remembered that, while, this [non-biographical prose] material can be isolated for the purpose of analysis, it remains intimately related to the rest of the book, and for this reason a full discussion of the poetry-prose problem in Jeremiah must eventually involve a treatment of the poetic oracles and the biographical prose as well.” Wilson, “Poetry and Prose in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Ki Baruch Hu, 413. 12

CONCLUSION

277

others which, though at points in tension, for the most part maintain consistency. In light of this, it would be interesti interesting to examine how the perceptions of the exile might have appeared differently if the prominent viewpoint had been not exclusively Yahwisitic. One thinks in this connection particularly of the devotees of the Queen of Heaven. The plentiful archaeological evidence for non-Yahwistic “popular religions” in 6th century B.C.E. Judah aside, the possibility remains for a somewhat imaginative proposal regarding how the Book of Jeremiah might have appeared if its central task were to support the cult of the Queen of Heaven rather than the cult of Yahweh. Exploring the material in this way is, in my estimation, a logical extension of the argument made in the present project with regard to the Queen of Heaven cult, namely, that it should not be treated as a mere foil to the prominent Yahwisitic orientation of the Book or of the perspective ascribed to the prophet. A second prospect for further study concerns the possible application of the theories of Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin to the Book of Jeremiah. In particular, one could explore Bakktin’s notion of hearing or representing multiple voices in a literary work. As mentioned briefly earlier, Robert Polzin’s work on the Deuteronomistic History13 takes its cue from Bakhtin. Given the close relationship of the Deuteronomists to the Book of Jeremiah—regardless of its character—using Bakhtin as a model to explain the divergent voices coming to expression in the Book of Jeremiah certainly could prove fruitful. Furthermore, the distinction Bakhtin’s interest in the “authoritative word” over against “the internally persuasive word” might prove fruitful. Third, along the lines of the relationship between the Deuteronomistic History and the Book of Jeremiah, a somewhat larger project growing out of the present one could be to re-open the question of Deuteronomistic influence upon the Book of Jeremiah. We have noted that a comprehensive view of the perceptions of the exile in the Book of Jeremiah might serve to destabilize the consensus position that Jeremiah, both Book and prophet— is inextricably tied to Deuteronomistic theology. While it is certainly true that the dominant viewpoint of the Book of Jeremiah lines up fairly well with the theology of the Deuteronomists, we have demonstrated that the Book of Jeremiah contains much that both enhances and contradicts this 13 Robert G. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist. See also his Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History Part Two: 1 Samuel (Bloomington:Indiana University Press, 1993), esp. 147-151; and David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History Part Three: 2 Samuel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993).

278

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

view. One wonders, therefore, if reading the Book of Jeremiah exclusively in terms of Deuteronomistic theology in fact fails to do justice to the complex and comprehensive vantage point it holds. A fourth prospect for further study returns the focus to the perceptions ascribed to Jeremiah. Determining what was and what was not “authentically Jeremianic” stood as a principal concern of twentieth-century scholarship on the Book of Jeremiah, as we have seen. Whatever criteria one applies to this question, a certain amount of material in the Book will be left to one side. All of this material, however, is genuine ancient material, and one cannot justifiably bracket this or that perception because it seems not to be “authentically Jeremianic.” Holladay’s resolution to this question was to posit a fairly well-defined progression of development in Jeremiah’s thought (see above). A different way to investigate this topic, however, is through consideration of the proclamation-feedbackproclamation/revelation-feedback-reveleation prophetic process described by Thomas Overholt.14 This process serves as a model for dealing with successive revelations from the same prophet. A clear case in the Book of Jeremiah where this model can be applied is the proclamation/response/new revelation sequence in the debate between Hananiah and Jeremiah in Jeremiah 28. An investigation such as this could prove a rather important supplement to the synchronic study in which we have engaged here. A fifth project growing out of the present one would be to examine other prophetic collections, most notably the similarly lengthy Books of Isaiah and Ezekiel, to see to what degree they represent divergent perceptions of the exile. Though the Book of Jeremiah seems to have the most comprehensive view of perceptions of the exile, in no way does this mean that Isaiah and Ezekiel do not themselves present a range of options. With regard to Isaiah, one thinks particularly of the Rab-Shakeh, to whom is ascribed the perception that Yahweh has given Jerusalem over to the hands of the Assyrians (Isaiah 36), a view similar to the Deuteronomists (cf. Jeremiah 40:2-3). In Ezekiel, one thinks of the “women weeping for Tammuz” (Ezekiel 8), whose practices are denounced as heterodox in perceptions ascribed to the prophet, much in the same way as the Queen of Heaven cult is denounced in the Book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7, 44). One suspects that the variety of perceptions would not be so great in the Books 14 See Thomas W. Overholt, Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), esp. 17-26 in general and 51-59 dealing specifically with Jeremiah.

CONCLUSION

279

of Isaiah and Ezekiel as in the Book of Jeremiah, but doubtless some variety still could be found.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Susan. Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth Century Judah. Harvard Semitic Mongraphs 46. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. ---. “‘And the Women Knead Dough:’ The Worship of the Queen of Heaven in Sixth-Century Judah.” Pages 109-24 in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Edited by Peggy L Day. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Albertz, Rainer. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. Translated by David Green. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Translation of Die Exilzeit: 6. Jahrhundert vor Christus (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2001). Amesz, J. G. “A God of Vengeance? Comparing YHWH’s Dealings with Judah and Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 99-116 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Barstad, Hans M. The Myth of the Empty Land. Symbolae osoenses: Supplement 28. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996. Bauer, Angela. Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading. Studies in Biblical Literature 5. New York: Peter Lang, 1999. Becking, Bob. Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30-31. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

281

282

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

---. “‘I Will Break His Yoke from off Your Neck: Remarks on Jeremiah xxx 4-11.” Pages 62-76 in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. Leiden: Brill, 1989. ---. “Sour Fruit and Blunt Teeth: The Metaphorical Meaning of the  in Jeremiah 31,29.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 17:1 (2003): 721. ---. “The Times They are A Changing: An Interpretation of Jeremiah 30,1217” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 12:1 (1998), pp. 3-25. Bellis, Alice Ogden. “Poetic Structure and Intertextual Logic in Jeremiah 50.” Pages 179-99 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Berlinerblau, Jacques. “Ideology, Pierre Bourdieu’s Doxa, and the Hebrew Bible.” Semeia 87 (1999): 193-214. ---. The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Berquist, Jon L. Israel in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Berridge, John MacLennan. Prophet, People, and the Word of Yahweh. Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1970. Biddle, Mark E. Polyphony and Symphony in Prophetic Literature: Rereading Jeremiah 7-20. Studies in Old Testament Interpretation 2. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1996. Blackwood, Jr., Andrew W. Commentary on Jeremiah Waco, Tex: Word, 1977. Borg, Marcus. Reading the Bible again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally. New York: HarperCollins, 2001. Bright, John. Jeremiah. Anchor Bible 21; New York: Doubleday, 1965.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

283

Brueggemann, Walter. “At the Mercy of Babylon: A Subversive Rereading of the Empire.” Pages 117-34 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. ---. “The ‘Baruch Connection:’ Reflections on Jeremiah 43.1-7,” Pages 36786 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. ---. To Build, To Plant: A Commentary on Jeremiah 26-52. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. ---. “A ‘Characteristic’ Reflection on What Comes Next (Jeremiah 32.1644).” Pages 16-32 in Prophets and Paradigms. Edited by Stephen Breck Reid. FS Gene M. Tucker (JSOTSup 229; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), pp. 16-32. ---. A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ---. Editor’s foreword to A Biblical Theology of Exile, by Daniel L. SmithChristopher. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2002. ---. To Pluck Up, To Tear Down: A Commentary on Jeremiah 1-25. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. ---. “Recent Developments.” Pages 127-141 in Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter Wolff, The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions. 2nd ed. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. ---. “A Second Reading of Jeremiah After the Dismantling.” Ex Auditu 1 (1985): 156-68. ---. The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ---. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.

284

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

--- and Hans Walter Wolff. The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions. 2nd ed. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. Callaway, Mary Chilton. “The Lamenting Prophet and the Modern Self: On the Origins of Contemporary Readings of Jeremiah.” Pages 48-62 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Edited by John Kaltner and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 378. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Carroll, Robert P. “Deportation and Diasporic Discourses in the Prophetic Literature,” Pages 63-85 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. New York: Brill, 1997. ---. From Chaos to Covenant: Uses of Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. London: SCM, 1981. ---. Jeremiah. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. ---. “The Myth of the Empty Land.” Semeia 59 (1992): 79-93. ---. “The Polyphonic Jeremiah: A Reading of the Book of Jeremiah,” Pages 77-85 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. ---. When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditons of the Old Testament. New York: Seabury, 1979. Chaney, Marvin L. “Debt Enslavement in Israelite History and Tradition,” Pages 127-139 in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis. Edited by David Jobling, Peggy L. Day, and Gerald T. Sheppard. Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1991. Chazan, Robert, William W. Hallo and Lawrence H. Schiffmann, eds. Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1999. Clements, Ronald E. “The Ezekiel Tradition: Prophecy in a Time of Crisis,” Pages 119-36 in Israel's Prophetic Tradition. Edited by Richard Coggins, Anthony Phillips and Michael Kibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

285

---. “Jeremiah’s Message of Hope: Public Faith and Private Anguish.” Pages 135-47 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. ---. Jeremiah. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988. ---. Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. ---. One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Coggins, Richard, Anthony Phillips and Michael Kibb, eds. Israel's Prophetic Tradition. Cambridge University Press, 1982. Cormie, Lee. “Revolutions in Reading the Bible.” Pages 173-93 in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis. Edited by David Jobling, Peggy L. Day, and Gerald T. Sheppard. Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1991. Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley and Joel F. Drinkard, Jr. Jeremiah 1-25. Word Biblical Commentary 26. Dallas: Word, 1991. Crenshaw, James L. Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977. Davies, Philip R. In Search of “Ancient Israel.” 2nd ed. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Day, Peggy L., ed. Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Diamond, A. R. Pete, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, eds. Troubling Jeremiah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Dick, Michael B. Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

286

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Doorly, William J. Obsession with Justice: The Story of the Deuteronomists Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1994. Dubbink, Joep. “Getting Closer to Jeremiah: The Word of YHWH and the Literary-Theological Person of a Prophet.” Pages 25-39 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jeremia. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901. Feigin, Samuel I. “The Babylonian Officials in Jeremiah 39:3, 13.” Journal of Biblical Literature 45:1-2 (1926): 149-55. Ferguson, Niall, ed. Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals. New York: Basic Books, 1999. ---. “Virtual History: Towards a ‘Chaotic’ Theory of the Past.” Pages 1-90 in Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals. Edited by Niall Ferguson. New York: Basic Books, 1999. Fewell, Danna Nolan. Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:: Supplement Series 72. Sheffield: Almond, 1988. ---, ed. Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Westminister John Knox Press, 1992. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Friebel, Kelvin G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 283. London: T & T Clark, 1999. Gosse, Bernard. “Le rôle de Jérémie 30,24 dans la rédaction du livre de Jérémie.” Biblische Zeitschrift 39:1 (1995): 92-5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

287

Gottwald, Norman K. All the Kingdoms of the Earth: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near East. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Granowski, Jan Jaynes. “Jehoiachin at the King’s Table: A Reading of the Ending of the Second Book of Kings.” Pages 173-88 in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Danna Nolan Fewell. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 1992. Groß, Walther, ed. Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung.” Bonner Biblische Beiträge 98. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Greenstein, Edward L. “Jeremiah as an Inspiration to the Poet of Job.” Pages 98-110 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Edited by John Kaltner and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 378. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Hayes, John H. “The History of the Study of Israelite and Judaean History.” Pages 1-68 in Israelite and Judaean History. Edited by John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. --- and J. Maxwell Miller, eds. Israelite and Judaean History. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Hill, John R. Friend or Foe?: The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT Leiden: Brill, 1999. ---. “‘Your Exile Will be Long:’ The Book of Jeremiah and the Unended Exile.” Pages 149-61 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Holladay, William. “A Fresh Look at ‘Source B’ and ‘Source C’ in Jeremiah.” Vetus Testamentum 25:2 (May 1975): 394-412. ---. Jeremiah 1-2. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986, 1989..

288

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Huffmon, Herbert B. “Jeremiah of Anathoth: A Prophet for All Israel.” Pages 261-71 in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies. Edited by Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo and Lawrence H. Schiffmann. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Jackson, Jared J. “Jeremiah 46: Two Oracles on Egypt.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 15:2 (December 1993): 136-44. Jobling, David, Peggy L. Day and Gerald T. Sheppard, eds. The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1991. Joo, Samantha. “‘Was It Me They Were Bent on Provoking to Anger?’ Says YHWH. ‘Or Was It Not Themselves, to the Shame of Their Face?’: A Study of  (‘to Provoke to Anger’) in Deuteronomistic Theology and the Book of Jeremiah.” PhD diss., Brandeis University, 2003. Kaltner, John and Louis Stulman, eds. Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 378. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Trans. by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Keown, Gerald L. “Jeremiah 40:1-6.” Review and Expositor 88:1 (Wint 1991): 69-72. ---, Pamela J. Scalise and Thomas G. Smothers. Jeremiah 26-52. Word Biblical Commentary 27, Dallas: Word, 1995. Kessler, Martin, ed. Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Kim, Hyun Chul Paul. Ambiguity, Tension, and Multiplicity in Deutero-Isaiah. New York: Lang, 2003. King, Philip J. Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1993.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliabilitiy of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Klein, Ralph W. Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Lee, Nancy C. “Exposing a Buried Subtext in Jeremiah and Lamentations: Going After Baal and…Abel.” Pages 87-122 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Leuchter, Mark. “Jeremiah’s 70-Year Prophecy and the ‫לב קמי‬/‫ שׁשׁך‬Atbash Codes.” Biblica 85:4 (2004): 503-22. Lipschits, Oded. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah. 3 vols. Anchor Bible 21A-C. New York: Doubleday, 1999-2004. ---. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1975; Repr., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Machinist, Peter. “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:4 (1983): 719-37. Mason, Rex. “The Prophets of the Restoration.” Pages 137-54 in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition. Edited by Richard Coggins, Anthony Phillips and Michael Kibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary 19. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986, 1996. Merrill, Arthur L. and Thomas W. Overholt, eds. Scripture in History and Theology. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 17. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977.

290

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Miller, Patrick D. Jeremiah. New Intepreters Bible 6. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. Modine, Mitchel. “The Great Turn Turns Twenty-One: A Sketch of Jeremiah Studies since Carroll, Holladay, and McKane.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion. Nashville, Tenn., 13 March 2007. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia. Kristiania: J. Dybwad, 1914. Mullen, Jr., E. Theodore. Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries. Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Newsome, Jr., James D. By the Waters of Babylon: An Introduction to the History and Theology of the Exile. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979. Nicholson, Ernest W. Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970. Noth, Martin. The History of Israel. Trans. by Peter R. Ackroyd. New York: Harper, 1960. O’Connor, Kathleen M. “How the Book of Jeremiah Confronts Disaster.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL. Philadelphia, Pa., 20 November 2005. Oded, Bustenay. “Judah and the Exile.” Pages 435-88 in Israelite and Judaean History. Edited by John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Olyan, Saul M. “Some Observations Concerning the Identity of the Queen of Heaven.” Ugarit-Forschungen 19 (1987): 161-74. Overholt, Thomas W. Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. ---. “Jeremiah and the Nature of the Prophetic Process,” Pages 129-50 in Scripture in History and Theology. Edited by Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas

BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

W. Overholt. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 17. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977. ---. “Jeremiah 27-29: The Question of False Prophecy.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 35:3 (September 1967): 241-9. ---. The Threat of Falsehood: A Study in the Theology of the Book of Jeremiah. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1970. Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases. Society of Biblical Literature Manuscript Series 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Patrick, Dale. “The Covenant Code Source.” Vetus Testamentum 27:2 (April 1977): 145-57. Perdue, Leo G. and Brian W. Kovacs, eds. A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1984. Polzin, Robert G. David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History Part Three: 2 Samuel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. ---. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History Part One: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. ---. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History Part Two: 1 Samuel. Bloomington:Indiana University Press, 1993). Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Provan, Iain, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Rad, Gerhard von. The Message of the Prophets. New York: Harper & Row, 1967.

292

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Reid, Stephen Breck, ed. Prophets and Paradigms. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 229. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “The Prophecy for ‘Everlasting Covenant’ (Jeremiah XXXII 36-41): An Exilic Addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction?” Vetus Testamentum 53:2 (2003): 201-223. Roncace, Mark. Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and the Fall of Jerusalem. Library of Biblical Studies 423. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Rowley, H. H. “The Early Prophecies of Jeremiah in Their Setting.” Pages 33-61 in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Edited by Leo G. Perdue and Brian W. Kovacs. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1984. Sallis, John. Being and Logos: Reading the Platonic Dialogues. 3rd ed. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1996. Sanders, James. “The Exile and Canon Formation,” Pages 37-61 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. New York: Brill, 1997. Scott, James M., ed. Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions New York: Brill, 1997. Seidl, Theodor. “Jeremias Tempelrede: Polemik gegen die joschijanische Reform?: die Paralleltraditionen Jer 7 und 26 auf ihre Effizienz fur das Deuteronomismusproblem in Jeremia befragt.” Pages 141-79 in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegun.,” Edited by Walther Groß. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 98. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995). Seitz, Christopher R. Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah New York: DeGruyter, 1989. Shead, Andrew G. The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 347. London: T & T Clark, 2002. Sharp, Carolyn Jackson. Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero-Jeremianic Prose. London: T & T Clark, 2003.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

Shields, Mary E. Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetorics of Intertextuality, Metaphor and Gender in Jeremiah 3.1-4.4. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 387. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Skinner, John E. Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922. Smelik, Klaus A. D. “An Approach to the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 1-11 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. ---. “The Function of Jeremiah 50-51 in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 8798 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. ---. “Letters to the Exiles: Jeremiah 29 in Context.” Sscandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 10:2 (1996): 282-95. Smith, Daniel L. “Jeremiah as Prophet of Nonviolent Resistance.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43 (Fall 1989): 95-107. ---. Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile Bloomington, Ind.: Meyer-Stone, 1989. Smith, G. V. “The Use of Quotations in Jeremiah XV 11-14.” Vetus Testamentum 29:2 (April 1979): 221-3. Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament. 2nd corr. ed. London: SCM, 1987. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. A Biblical Theology of Exile. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2002. Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. Stulman, Louis. Jeremiah. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005.

294

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

---. “Jeremiah as a Polyphonic Response to Suffering.” Pages 302-18 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Edited by John Kaltner and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 378. London: T & T Clark, 2004. ---. “Jeremiah the Prophet: Astride Two Worlds.” Pages 41-56 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. ---. Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. ---. The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah, with English Translation Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985. ---. The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 83. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. PhD diss., Drew University, 1982. ---. “The Prose Sermons as Hermeneutical Guide to Jeremiah 1-25: The Deconstruction of Judah’s Symbolic World.” Pages 34-63 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Thiel, Winfred. Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion des Jer 1-25; Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion des Jer 26-42. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1973. Repr., 1981. Thompson, John A. Jeremiah. New Interational Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Toorn, Karel van der. “From the Mouth of the Prophet: The Literary Fixation of Jeremiah’s Prophecies in the Context of the Ancient Near East.” Pages 191-201 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Edited by John Kaltner and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 378. London: T & T Clark, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

295

Torrey, Charles C. “The Exile and the Restoration.” Pages 285-240 in idem, Ezra Studies. New York: Ktav, 1970. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Vanderhooft, David S. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. Harvard Semitic Monographs 59. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999. Varughese, Alexander. “The Hebrew Text Underlying the Old Greek Translation of Jeremiah 10-20.” PhD diss.,: Drew University, 1984. ---. “The Royal Family in the Jeremiah Tradition.” Pages 319-28 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Edited by John Kaltner and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 378. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Walton, John H. “Vision Narrative Wordplay and Jeremiah XXIV.” Vetus Testamentum 39:4 (October 1989): 508-9. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and Its Background.” Ugarit-Forchungen 4 (1972): 133-54. Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Trans by Hugh Clayton White; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. Whitely, C. F. “The Date of Jeremiah’s Call.” Pages 73-87 in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Edited by Leo G. Perdue and Brian W. Kovacs. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1984. Wilcoxen, Jay. A. “The Poltical Background of Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon.” Pages 151-66 in Scripture in History and Theology. Edited by Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 17. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977. Wills, Lawrence M. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 26. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

296

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Wilson, Robert R. “Poetry and Prose in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 41327 in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies. Edited by Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo and Lawrence H. Schiffmann Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999. ---. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Wiseman, Donald J. Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1956. Wolff, Hans Walter. “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work.” Pages 83-100 in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions by Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter Wolff. 2nd ed. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. Repr. from Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1961): 171-86. Woude, A. S. van der, ed. New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Zimmerli, Walther. “Visionary Experience in Jeremiah.” Pages 95-118 in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition. Edited by Richard Coggins, Anthony Phillips and Michael Kibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Zimondi, Annette Grace. “The Prophet Jeremiah and the Queen of Heaven.” MA thesis: Vanderbilt University, 2004.

SUBJECT AND NAME INDEX

Ackerman, Susan 147, 149, 153, 281 Ackroyd, Peter 7, 58-61, 73, 135, 188-189, 281, 290 Albertz, Rainer 64, 73-78, 244, 281 Amel-Marduk, King 184-186 Amesz, J. G. 220-222, 281 Ammonites 117, 191, 199-200, 218, 232-234 Anathoth 32, 142, 166, 178, 201, 223, 255-257, 260, 269, 288 Assyria 30-33, 35, 126, 194, 222, 289 Babylonia 5, 35, 76, 136, 141, 143-144, 157, 161, 165, 167, 171, 173, 177-178, 180, 182, 185, 188, 191-192, 197, 200, 203, 206, 209, 214, 220, 222226, 235, 238, 243, 269, 270 Babylonian Chronicle 194 Bakthin, Mikhail 4, 7, 276 Barstad, Hans 42-43, 281 Baruch ben Neriah 32, 63-64, 66, 137, 146, 179, 202, 204, 216, 238, 255, 283 Bauer, Angela 148, 153, 281

Becking, Bob 39, 158, 249-250, 259, 263-264, 281 Bellis, Alice Ogden 266, 282 Berlinerblau, Jacques 24, 30, 75, 282 Berquist, Jon, 76 282 Berridge, John MacLennan 168, 282 Biddle, Mark 22-24, 282 Blackwood, Jr., Andrew 109, 282 Borg, Marcus 11, 282 Bright, John 137-138, 282 Brueggemann, Walter 2, 5, 25-28, 32, 46-47, 49, 52-54, 56, 70, 88, 90, 109, 172, 175, 181, 184-185, 204, 211, 213, 234, 237-238, 243, 252, 254, 263264, 283, 296 Callaway, Mary Chilton 82, 173, 284 Carroll, Robert 7, 9-10, 21, 26-28, 38, 46-48, 50-56, 64, 66, 70, 79, 86, 90, 98-100, 110, 133, 136-137, 162, 175, 194, 200, 206, 210-213, 222, 230, 235, 238, 245, 251, 256-257, 265, 266-267, 284, 290 Chaney, Marvin 193-194, 284

297

298

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Chazan, Robert 32, 284, 288, 296 Clements, Ronald, 32, 63-64, 114, 118, 136-138, 198, 201, 216, 217, 220, 231, 257, 284 Coggins, Richard 63, 284-285, 289, 296 Cormie, Lee 117, 285 Covenant 10, 13, 86, 94, 96, 98, 101, 105-106, 108-110, 114, 118-119, 135, 147, 164, 210, 214, 221-222, 249-250, 252254, 256-257, 260, 262, 264265, 267, 284, 291-292 Craigie, Peter 99-101, 103, 111, 122, 124, 211, 216, 285 Crenshaw, James 160, 168, 285 Davidic Dynasty 111, 134, 164, 171, 185, 199, 227, 231, 241, 248 Davies, Philip 76, 285 Day, Peggy 117, 130, 153, 281, 284-285, 288 Deuteronomists 11, 26, 63, 66, 84, 110, 118, 124-125, 183, 213, 244, 270, 276-277, 286 Diamond, A. R. Pete 2, 282-283, 285, 289, 294 Dick, Michael 86, 285 Doorly, William 183, 286 Drinkard, Jr., Joel 99, 100-101, 103, 111, 122, 124, 211, 216, 285 Dubbink, Joep 156-157, 286 Duhm, Bernhard 17, 19, 22, 39, 57, 58, 61, 65, 75, 286 Egypt 6, 20, 35, 42, 69, 83, 91, 97, 105, 116, 126, 128, 130131, 136, 149-150, 152, 154, 164, 171, 173-174, 179-180, 194-198, 200-205, 221-222,

225, 227, 233-238, 242, 258260, 262, 272, 288 Enemy from the North 90, 122, 129 False Prophets 90, 128, 141, 154, 166, 223 Feigin, Samuel 176, 286 Ferguson, Niall 86-87, 286 Fewell, Danna Nolan 69, 185, 286-287 First Deportation 7-8, 67, 141, 166-168, 172, 174, 177-178, 180-181, 190, 204, 270, 271 Fishbane, Michael 2, 67, 91, 260, 264, 286 Friebel, Kelvin 106, 286 Gedaliah ben Ahikam 14, 41-45, 69, 73, 77, 127, 136, 174, 176, 180, 188-192, 195, 199-206, 208, 215, 217, 231-232, 234236, 239, 270 Gosse, Bernhard 249, 286 Gottwald, Norman 138, 182, 193, 203, 212, 222, 227, 229, 257, 287 Granowski, Jan Jaynes 185-186, 287 Greenstein, Edward 99, 287 Groß, Walther 124, 287, 292 Hallo, William 32, 284, 288, 296 Hananiah ben Azzur 14, 154-162, 174, 200, 225, 250, 263, 277 Hayes, John 186, 287, 290 Hezekiah, King 128, 130, 134, 152 Hill, John 8-9, 19, 32, 38-41, 43, 46, 56, 61-62, 163-164, 183, 187, 223-225, 238, 287

INDICES Holladay, William 5, 18, 20, 2528, 45-66, 94, 95, 100, 130, 277, 287, 290 Huffmon, Herbert ix, 32, 222223, 260, 269, 288 Ishmael ben Mattaniah 14, 69, 161, 170, 188, 191-192, 198201, 203, 205, 227, 231-237, 239 Israel 1-2, 28-29, 31-32, 61, 63, 73-74, 76-77, 84-85, 91-92, 94, 97-98, 103, 108-109, 112-115, 120, 122-125, 131-132, 135, 153, 166, 175, 179, 182, 185, 189, 192, 194, 198-199, 204, 215, 222-223, 226, 229, 243246, 248, 252, 254, 256-257, 259-267, 269, 281-282, 284286, 288-291, 296 Jehoahaz, King 43, 126, 136, 150, 187 Jehoiachin, King 15, 43, 74, 141, 155, 157, 171, 178, 180-186, 190, 219, 223, 227, 229, 231, 253, 287 Jehoiakim, King 116, 125-128, 130-131, 136-138, 155, 164, 218, 219 Jeremiah, Book of 1-15, 17-20, 22, 24-25, 29-34, 37-38, 40-41, 46-64, 66-69, 71-75, 77-79, 83, 85, 90-91, 94, 98-99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109-111, 113, 118, 120, 124-126, 129, 131, 135136, 145-146, 148, 151-154, 156-160, 162-164, 168-170, 173-174, 176, 178, 180-182, 184-185, 187, 190-193, 195, 197-198, 200, 202, 204-206, 210-211, 213-214, 216-217,

299

219-223, 227-230, 235, 238, 240-242, 245, 248-249, 251254, 256-261, 263-268, 272277, 281, 283-288, 290-294, 296 Jerusalem 7-8, 15, 21-22, 28-29, 36, 44, 48, 56, 67, 73, 76, 79, 84, 86, 88, 91, 102, 104, 108, 110, 116, 119-121, 125, 128, 131-132, 134-138, 141-143, 147, 149-150, 152-154, 158159, 164-166, 170-171, 175, 177, 180, 183, 186-188, 190, 193, 195-196, 201, 205, 207210, 218-220, 223, 227, 229231, 233, 237, 241, 248, 251253, 255-257, 269-271, 273, 277, 289, 292 Jobling, David 117, 284-285, 288 Johanan ben Kareah 190-192, 198, 199-203, 205, 227, 231236, 238-239 Joo, Samantha 110, 288 Josiah, King 21, 35, 38, 77, 111116, 124-127, 136, 138, 152153, 164, 218 Judah 3, 5-6, 14-15, 20-22, 28, 34-37, 41-42, 44, 57, 63, 69, 84-85, 87, 91, 96, 98-102, 104, 106, 108-116, 118, 120-122, 125-132, 134, 136-138, 141, 143, 147-148, 150, 153-156, 159, 164-165, 171, 174-175, 177, 180-182, 184-186, 188189, 191-198, 200-208, 211, 214, 217-219, 221, 223-226, 229, 231-232, 234-235, 237, 242-246, 248, 250-251, 255256, 260, 262, 265-266, 268,

300

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

270, 272, 276, 281, 289-290, 294 Kaltner, John 1, 284, 287-288, 294-295 Kaufmann, Yehezkel 244, 288 Kelley, Page 99-101, 103, 111, 122, 124, 211, 216, 285 Keown, Gerald 189, 212, 230, 231, 237, 288 Kessler, Martin 2, 32, 157, 281, 283, 284-288, 293-294 Kibb, Michael 63, 284-285, 289, 296 Kim, Hyun Chul Paul 244, 288 King, Philip 152-153, 217, 288 Kitchen, Kenneth 31, 289 Klein, Ralph 60-61, 226, 289 Lee, Nancy 117, 133, 285, 289 Leuchter, Mark 164, 289 Lipschits, Oded 180, 186, 193, 229, 233, 289 Long, V. Philips 29, 194, 223, 287, 291 Longman, III, Tremper 29, 291 Lundbom, Jack 2-3, 10, 54-56, 95-96, 100-102, 105, 122, 124125, 140, 204, 225-226, 235236, 289 Machinist, Peter 30-33, 36, 289 Mannaseh, King 111, 134 Marduk 162, 184-186, 270 Mason, Rex 214-215, 289 Masoretic Text 7-8, 31, 33, 37-41, 51, 54, 65-66, 69, 72, 74, 76, 79, 83, 86, 91, 93-94, 97, 102, 104, 107, 109, 115, 117-119, 121, 123, 134-137, 142, 143, 147, 154-156, 159, 163, 166167, 176, 179, 181, 188, 191, 197, 199, 202, 210, 212, 216,

220, 224-225, 228, 232-233, 237, 243, 248, 251, 256, 259, 268, 273-275, 287 McKane, William 26-27, 46-47, 50-53, 55, 96, 100-101, 103, 111, 114, 210, 289, 290 Merrill, Arthur 125, 160, 289-290, 295 Micah, Prophet 128, 130, 160 Miller, J. Maxwell 186, 287, 290 Miller, Patrick 138, 229, 244 Mizpah 174, 188, 191, 199-200, 204-206, 211, 231-234 Modine, Mitchel 26-27, 290 Mowinckel, Sigmund 13, 17, 19, 22, 39, 56-58, 61, 64, 75, 273274, 290 Mullen, Jr., Theodore 183, 290 Nebuchadrezzar, King,35, 37, 77, 94, 116-117, 122, 129, 141, 143, 155-156, 164-165, 171, 175, 185-186, 193, 195-196, 202, 215, 218-219, 221-223, 227, 238, 255, 267, 269 Nebuzardan 175, 176, 177, 188, 189, 199, 202, 210-215 Newsome, Jr., James 124-125, 290 Nicholson, Ernest 62-67, 122, 174-175, 290 Noth, Martin 135, 290 Oded, Bustenay 180, 186, 193, 233, 289, 290 Olyan, Saul 149, 290 Overholt, Thomas 125-126, 159160, 260-261, 277, 289-291, 295 Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey 85-86, 94-95, 100, 102, 107, 109, 121,

INDICES 128, 135, 162, 176, 216, 256259, 291 Patrick, Dale 260, 291 Perdue, Leo 154, 291-292, 295 Persia 15, 69, 76, 282 Phillips, Anthony 63, 284-285, 289, 296 Polzin, Robert 7, 276, 291 Postcolonialism 72, 91 Priests 141 Pritchard, James 211, 291 Provan, Iain 29, 291 Queen of Heaven 4, 14, 84, 86, 103, 146-154, 158-159, 169, 195-196, 227, 263, 270, 276277, 281, 290, 295-296 Reid, Stephen 252, 283, 292 Rom-Shiloni, Dalit 252-254, 292 Rowley, H. H. 292 Sallis, John 1, 3-4, 8, 10-12, 17, 23, 81, 83, 87, 89-90, 112, 140, 145, 157-158, 160-161, 170, 172, 184, 187, 208, 238-241, 268, 292 Sanders, James 152-153, 292 Scalise, Pamela 212, 230-231, 237, 288 Schiffmann, Lawrence 32, 284, 288, 296 Scott, James 152, 284, 292 Second Deportation 141, 161, 174, 217 Seidl, Theodor 124, 292 Seitz, Christopher 2, 19-22, 46, 174, 292 Septuagint 7, 19, 37, 39-41, 51, 54, 65-66, 79, 83-84, 86, 90-91, 93-95, 97, 100, 102, 104, 107, 109, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 128, 133-136, 141-142, 147,

301

149, 151, 154-156, 159, 161, 163, 166-167, 172, 176, 179, 181, 184, 188, 191, 194-197, 199, 202-203, 210, 212, 216, 218-219, 223-224, 228, 232233, 235-237, 243, 248, 251, 256, 259, 265, 268, 273-275 Shaphan, family of 32, 128, 131, 141, 176, 188, 191, 199, 202, 223, 231-232, 238 Sharp, Carolyn Jackson 2, 197198, 292 Shead, Andrew 179, 251, 292 Sheppard, Gerald 117, 284, 285, 288 Shields, Mary 112, 115, 293 Skinner, John 125, 189-190, 226, 234, 293 Smelik, Klaus 144, 145, 166, 167, 220, 221, 223, 225, 293 Smith, Daniel 38, 67, 143, 159, 165 Smith, G. V. 100 Smith, Morton 6, 63, 84, 293 Smith-Christopher, Daniel 42, 57, 67, 70-73, 157, 173, 213, 283, 293 Smothers, Thomas 212, 230, 231, 237, 288 Steiner, George 6, 240, 258, 293 Stulman, Louis 1-2, 7, 9, 25, 27, 40, 56-57, 65, 79, 87, 98, 100, 101, 109, 156-157, 176-177, 197, 200-201, 203, 206, 217218, 243-244, 282-285, 287289, 293-295 Thiel, Winfred 65, 294 Third Deportation 173 Thompson, John 108, 192, 205206, 212, 244, 294

302

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

Torrey, Charles 4, 42, 295 Tov, Emmanuel 7, 65, 295 Van der Toorn, Karel 144-145, 248-249, 294 Van der Woude, A. S. 250, 282, 296 Vanderhooft, David 33-37, 61, 193, 295 Varughese, Alex 40, 65, 106, 111, 134, 221-222, 295 Von Rad, Gerhard 224, 257, 263 Walton, John 173-174, 295 Weinfeld, Moshe 148-149, 295 Westermann, Claus 126, 295 Whitely, C. F. 153-154, 295

Wilcoxen, Jay 125-126, 295 Wills, Lawrence 69, 295 Wilson, Robert 113, 124, 265, 275, 296 Wiseman, Donald 194-195, 296 Wolff, Hans 5, 84, 186, 283-284, 296 Zedekiah, King 4, 12, 32, 42, 142, 145-146, 155, 157, 164-165, 167, 171, 174, 177, 182, 185186, 190, 196, 218-221, 223, 227-231, 255-256, 292 Zephaniah, Priest 142-143, 148, 166 Zimmerli, Walther 181-182, 296

INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES

Genesis 1 91 2 223 12.1-3 244 12.1-13 121 12.3 245 18.18 121 18.24-32 119 37-50 69 Genesis-2 Kings 74 Exodus 20.5 263 Leviticus, 77 25.25 257 Numbers 25.1-3 109 Deuteronomy, 124 11.28 105 18 118, 158, 160, 228 18.15-22 156, 269 34 118 Deuteronomy-2 Kings 65 1 Samuel 7.5-7 44 1 Kings 19.10 145 2 Kings 183 22 138

22-23 124 24 20 24.17 186 24.3 111, 134 24-25 75 25 183, 184 25.27-30 185 25.30 185 2 Chronicles 36 75 Ezra 178 Ezra-Nehemiah 8, 14, 205, 260 Nehemiah 178 Esther,69 Psalms, 86 90.10 162 137 8 226 Proverbs 101 Isaiah 277, 278 1-39 30, 31, 32, 34 6.9-10 94 36 277 40-55 8, 15, 72, 86, 254 55.11 249 Jeremiah 1.1-10 256 1.11-14 173 1.16 111

303

304

THE DIALOGUES OF JEREMIAH

2 112 2.13 133 2.16-18 31, 192-195 2.26-28 84-85 2.28 109 3 118 3.12-13 114 3.1-5 115 3.6-11, 19-25 112-115 4 103, 123 4.1-8 120-122 4.10 168 4.18-31 88-91 5.1-2 95 5.1-5 119-120 5.19 110, 210 6.9-15 22-30, 91-96 6.22-30 129 7 100, 103, 127, 128, 129, 150, 158, 270, 277 7.1-15 122-126 7.16-20 103, 147-149 7.30-31 105 7.30-34 102-103 7.5ff 128 7.6-7 105 8.1-3 103 9.11-15 210 9.11-18 106-108 10.11-16 85-87 11.9-17 108-111, 124, 147 12 250 12.7-13 243 12.14-17 242-245 13.12-14 135-136 13.14 135, 215, 216 14.1-12 132-133, 147 14.19-22 134 15.1-4 133-134, 148 15.13-14 100

15.16 124 16.1-15 96-99 16.10-13 210 16.11ff 112 16.14-15 15, 68, 258-261 16.19-21 101 17.1-4 99-102 18 100, 120 19.1-13 104-106 19.11-12 102 19.15-16 102 20 140 21 129 21.3ff 190 21.3-6 135 21.7 135 21.8-10 215-218 21.12 121 22.8-9 209-213 22.10 43, 150 22.10-11 187 22.10-12 136-137 23.7-8 15, 68, 258-261 24 166, 270 24.1-10 171-175 24.3-7 180-182 24.4-5 226 25.1-29, 33 115-118 25.1-25, 29 112 25.11 220 25.11-14 162-165 26 109, 160, 218 26.1-24 127-131 27 225 27.1-22 218-223 27-29 156, 220 28 174, 250 28.1-17 154-162 29 76, 141, 146, 160, 174, 230, 257

INDICES 29.1-7, 10-14, 24-32 141-146 29.1-14 223-226 29.5, 28 258 29.8-9, 15-32,165-169 29.10-14 162-165, 166 30.1-24 245-250 30.8 158 30-31 248 31.1-9, 27-36 261-264 31.29 264 31.34-35 102 32 245, 265 32.1-15 255-258 32.16-25 178-180 32.36-44 250-254 34.8-22 177 36 128, 137 36.2 248 36.3 128 36.27-31 137-139 37.11-16 256 37-38 4 38.2 216 38.2-3, 17-23 227-231 39 77, 188 39.8-18 175-177, 205 39.11-14 220 39-43 74 40 73, 203 40.1-6 77, 131, 187-190, 192, 215, 217, 232 40.2-3 177, 211-215, 277 40.4 77, 177, 205 40.7-16 190-192, 223, 231-233 40.7-41.18 201 40.11-12 205 40.14 200, 234 41 69 41.1-18 198-201 41.10 234

305

41.11-18 233-235 42.1-3 235-236 42.4-22 236-239 42.9-17 238 42.17-18 205 43.1-11 201-206 43.5 205 43.8-13 198 44 4, 103, 149, 158, 195, 204, 277 44.1-14, 24-30 31, 195-198, 233 44.1-30 198 44.14 205 44.15-19 25, 149 44.15-23 150-154 46 242 50.4-10 265-267 50-51 220, 242, 267 52.31-34 15, 182-187 Ezekiel 20, 38, 72, 103, 173, 174, 183, 254, 277, 278 1.1 7 8 277 9-11 226 10-11 272 18.2 264 22.17-18 95 33.23-29 173 Daniel, 69 Hosea 13.4 105 9.1ff 226 9.10 109 Amos 7.7-9 173 7.16 226 8.1-2 173