The Meanings of the Jerusalem Temple in Baruch. a Response to Judith H

chapter 21 The Meanings of the Jerusalem Temple in Baruch. A Response to Judith H. Newman

Zhenshuai Jiang

In this work Newman elaborates the rhetorical means by which the book of Baruch expands on prophetic texts in Jeremiah, including a comparison between the ways in which Daniel and Baruch relate to Jeremiah. First, the author introduces the development of Jeremiah tradition in the Greco-Roman period, when there was no institution of prophecy. While the book of Baruch is situated in the exilic period, its aim is to make the interpretation of the biblical text fit contemporary circumstances. If there was no institution of oral prophecy at the time of its composition, if Baruch is described as a learned sage and liturgical maestro, and if the pur- pose of Baruch is the scripturalization of oral prophecy, then understanding the rhetorical meanings by which the book of Baruch rewrote the confessional prayers in Jeremiah is necessary. Yet before discussing specific texts, Newman considers the phenomenon of confessional prayer more generally. While Daniel and Baruch are usually discussed together because they share striking similarities, Newman emphasizes the different rhetorical means by which they relate themselves to Jeremiah. She notes that Daniel’s confessional prayer texts use the traditional phraseology of prayer, and emphasize the behaviour and practice of prayer (Dan 9:4–19). After discussion confessional prayer in Daniel, Newman goes on to analyze the confessional prayers in Baruch (Bar 1:15–3:8). The book of Baruch shares many similarities with Jeremiah. One of them is the intertextuality of lan- guage. How does Baruch preserve the meanings in Jeremiah, and how did it create its own meanings on the basis of Jeremiah? Newman gives three examples. The first example is Bar 2:20–23. It demon- strates how Baruch, as a scribe, transformed the prophetic oracles into written words. The writing strategy used by Baruch is introducing as divine speech and in the divine oracle formula. In this way, Bar 2:20–23 aligns itself with Jer 27:12 and Jeremiah’s temple sermon (Jer 7:34). The second example is Bar 2:29–35. These verses are not only framed as prophetic oracles, but also emphasize writing as the important way by which Moses gave Israelites the law. On the one

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��7 | doi ��.��63/9789004320253_022 260 Jiang hand, this passage shows that Baruch describes himself as Mosaic heir, on the other hand, it highlights the authority of writing. The last example is Bar 3:1–8, which offers a comparison between the understanding the “fear and prayer” of Jer 32:40 and Bar 3:1–8. Newman notes that Baruch not only rewrote the prophetic oracles, but also reinterpreted them according to his own understanding of their meaning. Thus Baruch is not only the authoritative scribe, but also the interpreter of the Torah and the prophets. There are some important differences between the way Daniel and Baruch relate to Jeremiah. First, the confessional prayer in Daniel cannot be interpreted directly, it instead needs angelic interpretation. Yet in the book of Baruch, the prophetic oracles are not only interpreted directly, but they can also be extended through the creative meanings that Baruch himself adds to them. Second, Daniel emphasizes the practice of oral prayer. Daniel 9:4–19 describes in detail the self-abasement of the body with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes. The book of Baruch shows more concern about the scripturalization of the prophetic oracles. It focuses on how these oracles can be reflected in written words. Thus it does not emphasize the practice and behavior as much as Daniel. Third, in Daniel the petition focuses on Jerusalem and the sanctuary. Baruch not only focuses on the temple and Jerusalem, but also on the diaspora population, including his contemporaries. Why are there such differences? Newman discusses the several reasons mentioned above. For example, Baruch is described not only as an authoritative scribe, but also the interpreter of the Torah and the prophets, thus he gave the new meanings to prophetic oracles in Jeremiah. Also, Baruch’s instructive scroll is not only for Jerusalem, but also for the diaspora population, thus it focuses on both of them. A further difference not noted by Newman is the temple in Jerusalem. The temple was likely an inspiration for the writing of the book of Baruch. First, it is dated to around 130 bce, when the Second Temple was desecrated by Antiochus IV.1 It was also perhaps inspired by the Maccabean revolt. One result of the revolt is rededication the temple.2 Thus, the temple might have been a motivation for its writing. Second, according to the biblical narrative, the

1 Odil H. Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanoni- scher” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 285–90. 2 Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Between Alexandria and Antioch: Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic Period,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (ed. Michael D. Coogan; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 440–41.