/
THe LITERARY FORM OF THE B!ll AND
JER~MIAH 2,1-1'
by ChrIstIne A. Franke, A.a.
A thesl. submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School , Marquette UniversIty, In PartIal FulfIllment of th RequIrements for the Oegr ee of Master of Art
Milwaukee, Wisconsin ugust, 1967 / TABLE OF CONT£NT3
Introductlon ••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••• l The Covenant rorm and Anc ient Near Eastern Treat ••s •••••••• •• • • 6 The Form of the ...... R~ ••• • •• ••• ••••••• • • •••••••••••• 21 TranslatIon of Jer 211-13 ••• •• ••••••••••••••••••• 33 Textual Cr i t icism. Notes and Translat lon • •••••••• 36 EXpo.ltton ••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••• 44 Conclue.on ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 67 9fbllography •••••••••••••••••••• , •••••••••••••••• 73 I NTROOUCT ION /
1 Since the work of QresJmann In 1914. and the later more detailed discussion of the Gattungen In the Psalms by Gunke l-Begrlch,2 attention has been drawn to the ~, or lawsuit Gattung In the Itter atur e 01 the Ol d Testament. In l awsuit tmagery Yahweh pr esents his case against Israe l , or agai nst foreign gods, and us ing l egal termino logy, Indicts them for thei r fau l ts. , The c l ass fc descr i pti on of this ~attun9 Is found In Gunke l-Begrfch. and has been set down in the fo l lowing " out l ine formr 3 I. A descri pt ion of the scene of Judgement II. The speech of the p la fnt tff A. Hea ven and earth a r e appo i nted judges B. Summons to the defendant or judges C. Add r ess i n the second pe r son to the defendant 1. accusat i on In quest ion form of the defendant 2 . refutation of the defendant's possib l e ar guments 3. specific Indictment Two of the c l ea r est examp l es of this form are found tn Psa lms 50 and 82:
1H• Gr essman, "O l e I fter ar l sche Ana lyse Oeutet o jesajas," ill. '4. (1914) , pp . 254-297. 2 Eln l e ftul')9 !.n die Psa lme n. Gottingen, (1933). 3He r ber t 8. Huffmon. The Covenant Lawsuit In the prophets, " JBL . 78 . (1959), 285 . 2 The speech of Judgment 50:1-2 82:1 l The speech of the p l aint i f f 50:7-23 8212ff Heaven and ear th as Judges 50:1,4 Summons to judges 50.5 Add ress tn second person to defendant 50:7-23 82:2-4,6-7 Accusation of defendant 50:13 82:2 Refutat i on 50.17-21 82:5 Irid i ctment 50,21b- 22a 82:7 The scene of the Judgment fs tn the dlvfne counci l (82:1) . Yahweh has taken hi s p l ace In the midst of the gods , he comes In the mi dst of fi r e, with a mighty tempest about him (50:4) . He ca ll s the heaven and the ear th that he mi ght Judge hi s peop l e (5014) . 1 Then Ya hweh , as p l a i nt t ff. gives h is speech of accusation. Hi s r emarks ar e addr essed i n the second per son to Isr ae '--"Hea r , 0 my peop l e., and I wfll speak ••• " (50:7) . He accuses Is r ae l with a questi on--RHow long wf ll you Judge unjust l y ••• " (82:2); "What r ight have you to r ec i te my statues ••• " (50:16) . He r efutes the defendants' poss i b l e arguments and fnd l cts them of thei r stn--nthey ha ve ne i ther know l edge no r under standi ng, they wa l k about i n dar kness • •• (82:5) ; ·you hate dt scip ll ne ••• you ar e a f ri end with a thl ef ••• you keep company wi th adu lter ers," (50:1 71) . This same theme; Yahweh's ~...... f b, or controver sy. wfth lsrae l , appea r s t n the prophet ic li ter ature and In the
1Note the absence of thi s appea l In Ps 82. , book of Oeuteronomy . The c l earest cases of thfs l aws,.u l t are found t n ot 32s1-42. Is 1:2-3,10-20. Ml c 6:1-8. Jer 2:1_13. 1 Thete are numerous similaritIes among these passages--the use of key wo r ds, s imi l ar verb or noun oonstr uctlons, i dent fta l hlstorl ca ' a l lusions . A few of these wfll be dea lt with In thls paper.
0" late, several elements of the R.t b Gattung have come under c lose scrutiny by scho l a r s~-name l y, the appea ls 2 to heaven and earth. the references to the di vine oouncl ' ,3 the refutat ion 0" the defendant's ar guments by means of a review of the past r e l at ions between ~Iafnt i ff and 4 defendant. When the psa lmist or prophet appea ls to heavenl and earth. what specific ro . e Is aSS i gned to these natura' phenomena? Ar e they witnesses, Judges? Ar e they symbols of some specific country or territor y? Are they ddresses to an earth ly and heavenly ki ngdom? Is the author r ea ll y appealing to the natura' e l ements, and If so . how can these act as witnesses or Judges? The prob l em of the divine counci l Is r e lated to these appea ls . la the council made up of the hosts of heaven and earth?
1 Aag:e Bentlen. Introduction to the Ol d Teslament . Copenhagen (1 948) , 198§200. - - - - 2Hu f1mon, "Covenant L.awsu t t ..... , 285 . 'Julfen Harvey, "Lecrib-pattern? requf sitofre prophatlque sur la ruptur e de I'ail iance," a.b l 'ca. 43. (1962), 1172'-9'6;; Frank M. Cross, Jr., "The aounct I of Yahweh tn Second Isaiah," IN!W . 12 (1 953), 274- 277 . 4HarVey , lli..S!. Geo r ge E. Mendenha l l . Law and Covenant i n Israel and the Anc ient Near East. Pittsbur gh, 1955 • ...... ;...;;.;..;..;;...; ...... ------4
And what dl d the author ,have f n mind whe." he "saw" I
th~ case be Ing declared In/to the assembly? In an attempt to find an answet to some 0f these quest fons seho lars have tried to reconstruct the lli! -1m Leben of the -Rt b. It has been suggested that this Is me re'y a tl terar y device. that It Is the product of the cr eat1ve originality of the author;1 It has been proposed that the background of thIs Gattun9 was l Itur gica l , (but as we ll can be fmag l:ne·d. this created more prob lems than It so lved );2 an attemp t has been made to recon. struct the salient el ements of the process of ci vil l aw In Isr ae l , and to compar e thle reconstructfon with the . R't b passages. 3 Wh il e these theoretical suggestfons ha ve me rit, It f a believed that the most helpful suggestfon toward dtscoverfng the origin of the fin fs to be found f·n first comparing the refutatfon section of' the ill with other Bi blica l mater ta ls . The refutation sectIons of'
1L • Koh l er, "Oeuter oJesaJa stfl kr ftfseh untereucht," SZAW. 37 (1923); 110-1 20 . 2E• wurthweln, "De r ursprung der prophet fschen Ge rf ehts r ede~~ ZThK. 49 (1952), 1-16; A Welser, Q!! ~ ~er zwo l~ef " .n Propheten. ATO . (1 949), 76. 'L. Kohler . Heb r ew Man. Nashville (1 959), Ch . 8; B. Gemse r, "The R'tb-or controversy- pattern i n Heb rew Mentality," Wlsdom In Israel and the An ctent Near East. SVT . (1 955 ), 120-13"'-; -- -- 5 I the B!2 passages begin as fo ilowsl ot 32c7-- Remtmber the days of old, consider the years of many generations ... He found him In a desert land, the Lord al one dtd lead him••• Mlc 6:41'--l="o r I brought you up f r om the land of Egypt and r edeemed you from the house of bondage ••• remember what Ba lak son of Moab devised, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him ••• that you may know the saving acts of the Lor d. Jer 2a6... -'The Lord who brought us up f r om Eg ypt. who led us' n the wi lderness' •• • I brought you fnto a plentiful 'and, to enjoy Its f r ui ts and Its good things • • • An essential part of the pr esentat ton of the case aga i nst Isr ael consists In Yahweh's r eviewing his pa st dea l i ngs wi th Israe l, hIs acts of benevo lence, kIndness, besed towa r d them. Th's same na rration and r ecounti ng of the saving events of Isra£l's past plays an essential part in covenant passages tn the Ol d Testament. Ib 19.4..... You ha ve seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagle's wings , and brought you to myse lf . Ot 4:t- -You r eyes have seen what the Lord did at Baa l PeolO • • Josh 24 s11f--(the repetition of the saving acts of the Lo r d from the day s of Abraham onwards . ) In passages with a covenant mot if, either the mak i ng of the Covenant or fts r enewa l, t he recltatton of the sav ing ht story. the cr edo of Israe' •• S included. Just as t n th. Rt b. A fu " er Investtgatlon of the co venant Gattung ..ou l d therefore be in or der. 6
THE COVENANT" FORM ANO ANCIENT / NEAR EASTERN TREATIES
The recent wo rks of Mendenhal l and McCar.hy comparing anc tent near eastern treaty textswlth covenant and l aw In Israel have pa ved the way for a fu l ler unde rstandIng of these concepts fn the life of Israe l. Mendenha l l '8 prlma rff y concerned wIth the form and content of Hittite treaties of the second and third mtflenium. t McCa rthy's study fnco r po r ates the Ht ttite materials, and also Inc ludes a detaf led study of some early (1 8th century B.C . ) Syrian treaties f r om 2 ' Mar l and Alalakh i l ater Sy ri an treatfes (6th century B. C. Aramean Inscriptions from Sf tre), and Assyr Ian treaties from the 8th century B.C. on . 3 The form of thes e treaties fs di scussed and then compared to the form of some of the covenanta l materi al fo und tn the Ol d Testament. 4 It .Snot t he ,Intent here to prove or
1 Mendenha' I. Law ang Covenant ••• , .' . 20ennfs J . McCa rthy. Treaty and Co venant. Rome, (1 963,. 51. . - 3Mccarthy, -Ib i d•• 68 . 4The dIsagreement between McCarthy and Mendenhall as to wh i ch at b If ca f mater I a 'srefl ect the I nfl uence of Anc ient near eastern t reaty forms and which do ntt need not be dfscussed. What Is used her e fs their common agreement that a certain form Is to be found 7 disprove any di r eet rel at Ionsh ip ot orl91n ot Israel!,te l aw or covenant f rom Hfttfte or Syr1an practices or customs. but on ly to oompar e the form of these treaties with that of" the covenant and of the fi.!!.. The poss'bil tty that lat ae l wou l d be fam ll' ar wIth these forms is enhanced by the fact that the treat fes we re I nternatfons I, and common to mo r e than one group 01 peop l e, and also by t he fact that t he bas l c lega ' Idea for a ll the forma has a oommon Mesopotam Ian ori gi n. ' A compar hon of Old Testament texts f r om the 8th- 7th centuries B.C . with second and third ml t len i um t reaty texts wl., be Justi fied If thl s .a kept t n mind .
The form of the ancient ~I tt l te treaties between a suzeral n and a vassa' fs ana lyzed by Korosec2as fol lows.'
L. Preamb l e-·- "Thua says N, the gr eat kt ng ••• " In this sect i on the author of the treaty is t dent f fled. hi 8 tit I es nd attrlbutes ar e 'Isted, and t he majesty of the kfng Is t n anc i ent near easter n t r eaties,and al eo In some Bi blical t exts. It Is one of t he a lms of th i s paper to discuss the r el ationsh ip of the ~ Gattung to the form of these t teat les. 'Men denha ' I , Law and Co venant. " , 59. Dennis M(lCa r ~hYt "CovenantTn the Ol d Testament, the Present St ate 01 Inqu iry, " cag. 27 (1 965); 227 .
2V, Ko rosec . Hethft lsche Staat$ve r t r ~ge . lei pZ i g, ( 1931) .. 3Mendenha I , • baw and Co venant " . , 32. 8 emphasfzed. l 2. Historical prolog--the previ ous relations of the two parties involved are descri bed 1n detail, with the benevolence of the king given a pl ace of prIme Importance. A str'Iking formal charactertstfc of this section Is the nI~Thou" form of addr ess, wh ich Mendenha lt Interprets as a statement of the pe r sona l re lationship as opposed to an Impersonal statement of law. 3. Stfpulatfons--the ob l l gatfons to be Imposed upon the vassaJ are " sted, inc luding proh i bition of other fo reign r elat ionships, prohfbition of enm ity against the king, etc. 4. Tab Jet or document c ' ause--provisfon for depos i t of the covenant record t n the temp'e and periodic publlc r eadfng. 5. Lt st of gods as wftnesses-- fncluded among the godS are the de ff l ed mounta i ns , r ivers, s eas, heaven and ear th. 6. Curses an d bt ess fngs--the sanctions of the treaty are reJl gl ous , t hat fs , they ar e cur ses and blessIngs of the gods . This is the fo rm of a t r eaty made by a king., or t uz aral n, wi th a vassal ki ng . The primary purpose of thi s t r eaty was to establ i sh a r e lationship of mutual support between the two par ttes. 1 as can be aeen from
1 I b l d • • i50 . 9 / the stIpu latIon c lauses. It was on ly the vassal, however, who was bound to specIfic oblfgatlons. His attitude toward the soverei gn had to be one of trust fn the kindness and fair dea li ngs of the suzeraIn toward him. The par ity treaty differ. f rom the suzerainty, or vassal, treaty fn that both parties are bound by the ob l Igations in the treaty. As r egards the form of this treaty, Mendenhall sees the vassal treaty as the basic fo rm. 1 And McCarthy revises Ko rosec's out l ine, excluding the document c lause slnce It f s not as impo rtant as the -other e lements of the out l fne t n the HittIte treaties which he has examfned. The similarities of form between vassa l and parity t r eaty are then even more easy to see. a tl but the histor' cal pro log Invariably appear In both types of HittIte t reat les . 2 It i s not dIfficult to oonclude that 80me common form under,ies both of these treatIes. n examinatton of the ear liest treaty from Sy r f B9 (18th century a .c.)~ an agreement between a certain
Abba~AN and Ya rfm- Itm, shows a different out l Ine, with
'lb- fd. ; 55 . 2Mccarthy. Treaty, .,., 41 . 'see MCCa rthy, Ibid •. , 51 - 52 on the question of the dating of this text. 10
/ some addlti ona ' elements to those of the Hftttte form, and 80me ommtss Ions . There Is a It st of cf t t eSt an oath and sacri,lce by the suzerain. hUman Instead of divi ne witnesses, and an oath by the vassa l. Om itted ar e the god If sts and the aurse- b I ess I 1"19 formu I a. Between the ear ly 18th century text, some shor t texts from the 15th century dea l Ing wIth Internationa l matters and the 8th-7th century materfal s ther e is a lacuna--no S,rian materta l has been dIscovered. The a-7th centory texts whIch have been preserved exist fn fragments. the relationship and the order of whIch are : dffficul t to ascertain, But In both Sy rI an and Assyrian materials avai labl e, simf l arfties of structure with HIttfte t reaty form can be seen . All have stfpulations, a ll have an oath or oaths with some type of divine sanctton, al l reveal similari ties fn phrasing and detal r s. 1 There are certat n factors un i que to each treaty fo rm. The historical prolog Ss restrIcted to the Hltttte treaty form. 2 The Sy rian and Assyrian treaties greatly emphasize
, McCa rthy. Ibid. , 82. 2rn hi s publications of 196, and .965 McCa rthy asserts "the historlca' sectfon Is confIned to the Hftttte treat i es," fbld • • 96; and that the historical pro log is a pecu l tar characteristfc of the Hi ttite as opposed to Sy rian-Meso potamian treaty for m, McCa rthy, "covenant ... ", 227 . Howeve r . 11 I the curses; the use of ritua l Is seen, too, tn these documents. Nonetheless, the s imilartttes which exIst are too strong to be labe led for tuftous. Some relation sh ip or common origin must be adm i tted among these ancfent near eastern t r eattes.
An examInation of the form of the covenant message' and the covenant renewa ,2showe str iking simllar'tles wfth the ancient near eaater n t reaty pattern. 1. The message begfns with the or acu lar open l ng--
~ amat ~Ya~h~w~e~h (Ex 19:3, Josh 24: 2) . The Ident i ty of thl e style with that of the Ma rl royal texts and Hfttfte . t r eat i es should b noted. '
he does mentIon e lsewhe re (T r eat, _,., 98, n. 9; and 52, that the Abba-AN t r eaty f rom Sy r a does have tht histori ca l prolog _ A r ecent artlc fe by He r ber t "Iuff mon, "Exodus, Sinat and the Cr edo,, " CB~ . 27 (1965), 101-113, seems to potnt to the existence 0 other non-Hitti te t reati es with historica l pro loge, and it would be of Interest to deve lop this po i nt In mo r e detai l with these new developments In mind . 1James Mu i lenbur g, »Tho Form and structure of the Covenanta l Fo rmu lations," Essays In Honor of Mtl1ar Burrows. Le t den, (1959), 11 - 29:- Ex 19.3=6 fa of specIal tmpo rtance her et It fs seen by Muilenbu rg as the probable ori gi n of many of the co venanta l p e r tco ~ es tn the Ol d Test ame nt . 2G. Ernest Wri ght, "The Lawsu it of Godl A Form Critica l study of Deuter onomy 32, " lsrae l 's Prophetfc Herf tag~ . New Yo rk. (1962), 98 . 'James F. Ross, "The Prophet as God's Messenge r," Isr ae l 's p rOPhet f ~ He rftage .. New York, (1962). 98- 107. Mar t in Noth , "His ory 811d the wo r d of God In the Old Testament," BJRb. 32 (1949.1950) , 194-206. 12
/ 2. Recitation of Yahweh's acts of benevolence towards
19rael-- (Ex 19:4, Josh 24a2.28)-~Yahweh or his representative recounts the past h'B tory of Isr ael, and procla'ms the mIghty deeds of the Lord In Israel's behatf. Th is proclamatIon may be qu ite extended and detal led, as In Josh 24, or very br ief, as In Ex 19 . However, the emphas's 's, as In the treaty torm, on the saving acts done by Yahweh for his vassal Israel . 3. Stlpulatfons or Conditions of the co venant-- (Joah 24:14, Ex 19:5- 6) -- Yahweh's will la communicated to the people; his oblIgations ar e I feted for them . A .prlmary examp le of thh fs foond tn the deca lOg . 1 The covenant r enewal form continues with add i tional e lements which we r e to be read or done after the covenant was read befor e the peop le. 4. The taking of vows--a statement concer ning witnesses
(Josh 24~22) , and sol emn dec lar ation of the vassa l to be obedient to Yahweh (Josh 24 :1 6) . 5. The blessIngs of the covenant, or cu r ses 'f It Is di sobeyed, are cr ectted (JOSh 24:20) . In both the form of the Hittite t r eaty and the .form of the covenant message or covenant r enewal, the suzer ain
1a•E• Wright, ~L8wsu f t • •• " , 50 . 13 / Is fdentifled In the form of the messenger. The dea l fngs of the suzerain with the vassal of the past are reviewed, emphaslzfng the Initiative of the suzerai n. and hIs att itude of benevolence toward the vassal . Just as In the Hittite treaty form the "I- Thou" form of address was noted, In the covenant message too thle samet method f s used, mphaslztng the persona l aspect of the covenant. The obligations In both Bib li ca l and extra- b'b l lca l texts are Imposed on the vassa l on ly; the t r eatIes are uni lateral . And In both forme there f e a demand for total devotion f r om the vaSsa l to the suzer a in granting :the alliance.' In a compari son of Josh 24 with the ancient near eastern treaty secti on dea fi ng with the gods as witnesses differ ences can be seen . In JOSh the witnesses are human, not divi ne . They ar e the peop le themse lves, not the heavens and the earth, not de if i ed phenomena . 4 Other covenanta l passages. howe ver , do have this t nvocatlon--
'The Old Testam. nt texts often use the second person plura l r ather than s i ng ul ar. Howe ver . the prfnc tple stf l. app .1 tes. 2Mu t l enburg, "rorm and Str ucture ••• " , 11. 'MCCarthy . Treaty • • • , 2. 4Note, however , Josh 24,21. "Beho l d, this stone sha ll be a wItness aga i nst us, for It has hear d a l l the wo r ds of the Lord wh Ich he spoke to USI ther efore, It shall be a witness a, a lnst us . " 14 I t 4.26, 30119, 31.28 It Is not unknown In the Bi bli cal I l ter,tur e . Another examp l e Il l ustr ati ng the faml lf arl ty of Bfb l l ca l authors with extr a- Bi b li ca l treaty forms can 1 be seen In Dt.28. The a rrangement of the cur ses In th i s chapter has no princ ip l e of or gan t zatton, un l ess i t Is compa r ed wi th curses found In vassa l t r eati es of Esar haddon. Ther e the hi er ar ch i ca l order of the gods determi nes the order of the cur ses wh i ch each god Inflicts upon the faith l ess vassa l. The ve r y same or de r !!n! gods Is found In the cu r ses of Dt 28 . 2
espJte the ev i dence offer ed by McCa r thy and other s to suppor t the thes is that Isr ae l '. covenant and anc ient near easter n t r eat i es ar e r e l at ed as r egar ds the l i ter ar y form, of r ecent date other s ha ve call ed Into quest i on thIs for ma l r e lati onsh i p, e i ther on the bas i s of other Inf ormat ton, or by r eject i ng the data offer ed as Insuffi c i ent. It has been suggested t hat the ori gi n of the Ol d
1M• We i nfe l d, "T r aces of Assy r i an Tr eaty for mu lae fn Deuteronomy," Bl b l l ca, 45. (1965) ,417- 420 . It Is h.h f ur t her theor y that the contr ast between the cur ses of P nd those of the Oeuter onom l at poi nts to the Influence of ss ytl an treaty for mu l a upon the l atter ; he suggests that the deuteronom l c code was dr afted by scri bes fam i l i a r with Assyr i an fo rmu l ae (427) . 2see a lso R. Fr ankena . "The Vassa l- Tr eati es of Esar haddon and the Dat i ng of Oeuteronomy , S Oudtestament i eche B tud~ n . Lelden, (1 965); 122- 154. 15
Testament covenant form'ought to be sought not In l ancient near eastern treaty texts, but In r ecor ds of Israet ns covenants among human par tners, a ll types of wh i ch center around an oath fo rmu l a . 1 Th Is thesis I s
based on a di sti ncti on between covenant for mu la and contract formu l a; tne contenti on i s that the existence of two separate forms, two differ ent types of ag reements, has not been r ecognized i n studies on the covenant fo rm.
The fo rma l di fferences ar e seen to l ie In a differ ence of s t tz 1m Leben . A contr act I s a l ega l ag r eement from an economic spher e; a wftneaS6d t r ansaction which fs , so I emn t zed betor a cour t . 2 On the other hand, a covenant fs so l emn i zed by a " cond It i ona l se l f - Cu r Se , "' not r equi ri ng a wi tness or a cour t s i tuati on . Examp l es are offered f r om the Bib l i cal l iter atur e I ll ustrating fi rst, the s lmt lartty of the covenant form wi th th oath form--that i s , 1. n cond i t Iona l self- curae,and 2. the contents of the ag r eement (f. e. a statement of
what waG swo r n); and then par a lie I s between the wor d covenant, rl'iJ, and oath, n/v . The conc lusion of # : ~ "
'a.M. Tucker , "Covenant Fo rms and Contract forms , " ...... VT . 15 . (1965), 502 • 2.!!U.!!., 503 • 3 ~ •• 500 . 16 / this article I. that the covenant between Yahweh and larael Is based on an analogy of the oath form rather than economic 80reements. Thts article by Tucker however has several flaws whIch oerlously weaken hie argument. Firat of all, he bas •• hfo argument on the fact that contracta and economic "Qal agroenents are not related to an oath attern, that economic affairs are sealed by court Itne8se. and not by an oath. An article by W.F. 1 Ibrlght in the Feb. (1951) Issue of BASOR , however, shows the poss Ibility of an oath In economic affafr. : where i n a pre-Israe' Jyrl.n contract, a covenant Is cut (1"1,,, ). econdly, one of Tucker's main contentions fa that covenant fa Identical with oath. He quotes from Hittite treatfea and Old Testament materIal to support thl be'I.f--"Let the gods be wltnesaes to this treaty and the oath ••• '" "the covenant which he awore to your father s ••• n ( D,t 4.:51, al18) , "the sworn covenant ••• • (Qt 29"3 etc).
1Vhta reference Ie from. Martin 'J. Bues "The Covenant Theme In Hlstorl ca' Perspective," ~. 16. (966), 502. 28u88 , iliA-; suggests that the background of the Old Testamen~' gfou8 covenant may we ll I'e In sueh or dInary civil promissory oaths. cf McCarthy. Treaty.", 20. 'rUCker, ·Covenant For me ••• " . 490; a HittIte treaty. 17
/ The evidence quoted from the Hi ttite t r eat i es would seem to offer conclusions agai nst those which he draws . He has 'ndeed associated oath wIth covenant (as have his pr edecessors In thi s ar ea) . To I dentify one with the other. however, is quite a dIffer ent matter. The bri ef ph r ase ~rom the Hittite t r eaty cou l d Just as easi l y be read as a distinction between oath and covenant (espeC i a ll y since the par a ' Ie. Is not exact--note the use .f definite arti c l e tn one case, and demonstr at ive In the other). It wou l d seem possib l e. not to say probab l e. that an oath formu l a was inco r po r ated Into or
:added ta a treaty or covenant fa rm. AS has been show n e lsewhere, sacrifices, oaths and other rites accompany and affirm agreements . The dec l aration of the ag r eement and the oath or rfte wh ich seals the covenant ar e associated but separate e l ements. A mo r e l i ke l y conc ' us l on than Tucke r' s wou l d be that co venants ar e often accompanied by (tather than ca lled) oaths. It fs a lso he l d that the co venant-oath form di d not require witnesses2 s i nce It wae a swo r n agr eement . He r e the rather cava l i er Igno ri ng of the major wo rk of McCarthy on thi s topic has serIous ly Impai r ed th
1 Gerstenber ger , "Covenant and Commandment, " ...... J8L . 84. (1 965), 41 • 2Tucker , "Co venant Fo r ms ••• " . 500, 503. 18
ar gument . Many of the m,Jor co venant passages wh ich / McCarthy analyzes ar e comp letely unmentioned. And In those very passages--for examp l e, Ot 4"-31, :30:19,31:19, 26,28 etc.--(even fn the Hittite passage quoted by the author himself) there ar e witnesses Invo l ved, thus weaken i ng the covenant- contract dlstl nctton made on
this ~a8f6 . Nonethe l ess, thi s questIon of the rel ation ship between an oath patter n and the form of Israel's covenant wfth Yahweh appears to be an ar ea wh ich mi ght offer fruitfu l resu lts wi th car efu l Invest i gation . The treaty-covenant r e l at ionsh i p has been rejected as a pl ausib le theor y due to the fact that the fo rms of the ancfent near eastern documents and the bibl i ca l co venants have not been sbown t o be exact ly a l fke . " It fs r emar kab le that no one has ca ll ed Into question thts r e lationship between Bibli ca l covenant and t r eat i es. One seems to be reS i gned to the fact without show i ng the precfse r e lat ton . "' Instead Bu l a sees the covenant Incorporated Into three differ ent forms--rec ftatton,
T preach i ng and documents . That the covenant accounts are Incorpo r ated Into the texts In a var iety of ways by the Bibli ca l author s is qu ick ly r ecognized. It may be
1Pl erre Buts, "Les Fo rmu la l r es d'A ll l ance, " Y!.. 16. (1966),397. 19 / r ec ited by Joshua In a r enewa l ceremony, It may be preached to the peop le by Mos es. etc. But whether It Is preached. r ecited. or pr esent in the form of a document, the general form of the treaty Is present withi n the sermon. recit atton or document. Ther e fs no canon of Ol d Testament Ii ter at",r e wh ich prevents the author from us ing a varf ety of f or ms In the pr esentation of his materi a l .' Fu rther to demand s lavi sh adher ence to any form, wi thout any dt ffe:rences be I ng a II owed t s
to e~h f bft a rather na Ive app r eC i atIon of the wo r k of fo rm criticism. A modicum of cr eativ ity ought to be : gr anted to the Ol d Testament authors--we r e they so abso lute ly ruled by the form that In any given case no de vi ation or a l1eratlon cou l d be a llowed?2 In
1For examp le, the form of the narrative In Jer 36 Inco rpo r ates a vari ety of other fo rms --the form of the o.ac l e fn v. 30, etc. Ma rti n Ke sl er, "Form Crl't fca l Suggestions on J er 36." caQ . 28 . (1966), 389- 401, I" ,ustr atel this pO i nt, at times, though, go i ng to extr emes . It Is dtffleu lt to see thi s chapter as he does as wr itten fn the forms of f egend, histor y and blog r al) hy at the *ame t i me . (390 .. 391) . 2Even gr antfng. as many form crttlcs dO t the Impo r. tanr e of a given form and t te Influence upon an author fn the shap i ng. the pr estenatl on and the ve r y content of Ms message, we shou l d no ," be led Into the dil emma of N. Habe l . "The form and Signif icance of the ca lf na rratives," lAW . 77. (1965), 293 ... 32'_ whe re the form Is seen to dom i nate, and the content l s ruled, not by an event or by the mean i ng of the author, but by the form (see es,peclafly p. :31 1"). The tens ion between the form and the meaning ought to be ma Intai ned . 20 addI t i on. to see a ll th~ s imi lar iti es wh i ch have bea po i nted out by McCa rthy, Mend enha l l and other e as, at best, happy coinci dences offer s a less satisfactory so I uti on to th Ie quest f or lof ort 9 f ns than do the suggest ions of the form cr lt les . Another possibility for the fu l ler under standing of the or. gf n of the covenant form Is suggest ed by 1 BUBS . A Sume ri an ana logy wi th Old Testamitnt covenants Is c ited whe re a divi ne covenant Is made wIth morta ls Involvi ng some eth i ca l 8omm t tm ent. Th fs suggestions cannot be taken up he r e but shou l d be offer ed as yet ano ther post fbtlfty In thIs a lr eady vast f Ie ld.
'M.J. Buss , "Co venant theme ••• , a 502. 21
THE FORM OF THE ...... Rt e / Return Ing to the -Ri"b after a discuss ion of the fo rm of the covenant, r ema r kab le slmf larf ties are shown In form between the two . The r e arethe ca ll to wi tnesses, the oracu lar open ing. the r ecItation of the h i story of the Lord's dea li ngs wi th Israe l , the curses or threats. The dIscovery of the r esemb l ance between the two has 'ed to a mod lfl catfon of the out li ne and suggestions of Gunke l-Begrl ch r egarding the Rfb.
The spec i a l covenanta l mot if under ly fng the ~ ts seen by G.E . Wr Ight and app li ed In hi s an8 1Y8 1$ of ' ot 32 . On the bas i s of hIs findings he 8uggests the fo llowing de linIation of the covenant l awsuIts 1 1. The ca l. to the wItnesses to gIve ear to the pro ceedf ngs . 2. Introduct ion and statement- of the case by the dlvfne judge or hIs ear th ly offlcfa t . 3. Ree f ta l of the suzeral nts benevol ent acts. 4. I nd f etment. 5. Sentence. WrI ght has po Inted out that many of the same e l ements of the covenant .t enewa l form ar e f ound he r e, except
10• Er nest WrI ght, "The Lawsuit of God ••• ", 52. 22 / that the order has been rearr anged. Tha ca ll to wItnesses t n the renewa I form 1'0 I I ows the condl Hons of the covenant. whfle t n the Rtb • • It Introduces the passage. 1 The recita l of the benevolent acts of the suzeraIn Is pr esent In both types, In one as a motive fo r making the covenant, In the other to bui l d a case aga i nst the unfa ithful Israe lttes as opposed to the gr acIous Lord. In add i t Ion to specifying the ~ Gattung beyond the de liniat ion of Gunke l-Begrf ch, wrfgh, has added to the Gattung the actua l sentence of the accused, not me r e ly the i nd fctment . 2 RecognIt Ion of the covenantal over tones In the Rt b has by no means settled the questIon of Its pr ecise ort gl n, or del Ini at ion, or the exact mean Ing of fts va rious e lements . On e of the most perp lex t n9 questtons r emaing is that r egar d1ng the call to the wi tnesses. A compa rison of Hittite and Ar amean t r eaties is Instrumenta' In exp lalnfng the possfbl e orI gIns of thIs address, but ther e f s no ag r eement as to what mean ing the prophets we r e t r yIng to communIcate. Any po lytheistIc
Imp l icatIons ar e rul ed out, ~ erforf, by most scholars .
1Note that t n Jer 2:1 - 13 th'$ pattern 18 not fo l lowed . 2wrlght. "The Lawsu it of God ••• ". 43 . 23
Huffmon' has taken up this prob l em of the addteffS to the natura l e l ements . Th i s fs found In Is 1:2-- "Hear 0 heavens, give ear, 0 earth ••• " , Mlc 612- "Hear. 0 you mounta fns , the controversy of the Lord, and you enduri ng foundat ions of the earth •• • ", ot 3211, Jer 2c12. In addItion, the mot i ve for the Indictment of Israel In these passages Is that they have forgotten or ha ve been unfai thfu l or ung ratefu l to Yahweh's
past kIndnesses to them Hu~fmon contrasts these . passages with Ps 82 and the Second Isaiah lawsuits. The B!i which Yahweh has In these passages takes place In the heaven ly counC Il :;. whe re Yahweh accuses the gu fl ty party. How ever, absent f r om these passages is the appeal to the natur a l e l ements , and the r ev i ew of Israel's past. The r e Is no hfstorl cal pro log as fs found In the f irst group of passages mentioned. Fo r thfs r eason, Hu ffmon concludes that ther e are two dlstfnct types of lawsuit both havi ng a different s ttz 1m Leben and different content. One type is that of the heave nly counci l , the other Is that of the Indictment for br each of covenant, and has Its ult imate or i gi n In the Sfna itle eovenant. 2
lHuffmon, "The Covenant Lawsu i t •••• " 285 . 2-1bid. , 295. 24 / The precise ro l e whtch heaven and ear th play In the covenant lawsuit rema ins a question for Huffmon . He seee the r eason for thet r being ca ll ed as due to the fact that they we r e witnesses to the makIng of a prior covenant, but thei r pr ec i se funcrtfonfn the present aetlon fa not known . WrI ght offers a clari fication a long the li nes of a df· v t ne 6888mb I y whl ch acts as a cout t . Thfs heaven ly assemb ly was supposed ly a counc il of gods act i ng as a cou rt . 1 Al though ther e fs no di r ect evI dence that heaven and ear th ser ved on the heaven ly council, these natur a l e l ements ar e i nterpreted by 'Wri ght, on the bas fs of hfs fntepr etation of the w,' tnesses seef.ione In the HItUte t r eaties, a8 summa r fz l ng categories i nto Wh ich a ll the gods wou ld have fal len . 2
1see Cross, "Th e Coune l I •• • "; and Tho r kfl d ~acobsen, "P rimIt Ive Democ r acy In Anc i ent Meeopotam fa,"JNES . 2. (1943 J. 159-172, on the dfvf,ne counci l. - 2M i tohe l f (lahood . Psa lms I . 1 - ~ . AS . Ga rden Ci ty. New Yo r k, (1966) , 366. ofle r s~ndl r ect proof' to show that heaven and eat th we re membe rs of the di vine assemb l y. A reeent ly discover ed u~a rf t f c tab let contai ns a I tst Of varloes off er ings gi ven to di ffer ent gods . ~ eaven and earth ar e gfv en one sheep. A dfffer ent If st ment. ions the fam i ly of [ I and the assemb ly of' Saa l . r ecip ients of a faroe head of catt l e. Dahood conc ludes f rom thi s evi dence that, for the Canaanites, heaven and earth we r e dei,t i es f ormi ng a par t of the div i ne assemb ly. Loren R. Fischer , 1lAb r aham and hts PrI est- Ki ng," J Bl. 81 . ,1962), 267 a lso Identi fies heaven and earth with the 25
On the basts of thi s evi dence. Wr i ght dIsputes the / poe ition of Huffmon wh i ch divI des the ~ tnto two basic 1 forms, covenanta l and heaven ly counc' l. The addr ess to the heaven and the earth i s indi rect evidence that the addr ess i s taking place in the di vine counc Il , hence on ly one form exfsts. As was ear lier observed tn the form of the Hittite vassa l treaty, a sImi lar Invocatton to the gods and the heavens and the ear th was pr esent. A fu l ler invest i gati on of the i dentity of these wftnesees, and thei r precise f unctton shou l d be Inco rporated t nto the discussion of
~he pr oblematic addr ess to the heavens and the earth as found t n the form of the ~ . Ment ioned as wi tnesses fn the anc i ent near eastern t r eat i es are the hI gh gods of the pantheon, and the natur a l e lements, inc ludi ng heaven and ear th. Non t r eaty mater ia l from uga rf t shows a summons to div i ne wItnesses, Ine l ud l ng heaven and earth a8 we ll as the gods on the bas i s of evi dence f r om Uga r lt . Many co venant texts c lose with the stat 1t",ent "one thousand goda know •• • " . One text c loses wi th the wa r ning nBu r e' y the heaven and the ear th wt ll know ••• " . Heaven and earth ar e wi tnesses In the same way that the gods ar e, and f n f'act are t hese gods . 1wr fght, "The lawsuit of' God ••• " , 46. 26
hi gh gods . 1 In sever a l · l ists t he gods addressed are I not on l y the gods of the suzerai n but Inc lude a lso the gods of the vassa l . In the B'bl i cal texts witnesses ' nclude the natural e l ements of the heavens and the ear th.2 and the peop l e of the covenant themse lves.3 The next question to be asked. eepecla" y tn r eference to the bib lI cal texts, t s , who or what do these t.rm8 stand for and Inc lude? The i dent ity of the wi tnesses fn the ancient near easter n texts Is generall y taken at face va lue-- they are the hfgh gods of the pantheon, 4 a f t the gods who , have char ge over the un i ver se: the natural el ements
' W•L• Mo r an. "Some Rema r ks on the Song of MoseS, " Bfbltea. 43 (1962). 318, quot i ng f r om the recor d of a di spute between ki ngs of Uga rl t and Amurru . This wou t tf be aga ' net Mccart hy. Treat i ' •• ' 13.Lt . who state "this r ather odd i nvocations w thout parall e l except In the t reaty t 'r adt t lon . "; and Ha rvey , "Le rf'b-patter n •• • " 182, n. 1. who f i nds them on ly t n Hittite t r eaties. 20ther examp les of natur a l phenomena 'function i ng as wi tnesses oan be found In Josh 24:27 (see p. 13. II. 4), Gen 31--the heap and p t Itar as wf tnesses of the co venant between Laban and Jacob . ; Mi c 6,l f'f- - the mountains and foundat ions of the ear th. ot 31119-21, 26 mentlons as wItnesses a Bong, and the boo k o'f the l aw a long wi th the heevens and the earth. >The best examp l e Is to be found In Josh 24, whe r e ft poses pr ob lems to the f orm crit i cs" See McCa r thy. Treaty,u , 148- 49. Cf. Is 4318 . ~o r an , "Some Rema rks •• • " . 31 7. Sw ri ght., "The Lawsu it of God • • • ", 45. 27
/ of heaven and earth, mountains and rtvers. springs and
the great sea, etc. ' The "umt noue, character of' these 'ast ahou l d be kept tn mind. They are not necessarily abstract symbols for some other gods, but as can be s een from an AS $yrlan text of the tskuttu rttual, 'hese natural elements themsElves are objects of worship. 2
No god I' sts are present I n the IU b I • ca I text t but there are several appealS to the heaYens and the eart_. the mounta ins, the foundations of the earth.' Any 'Aterpretatfon allow'ng polythehtlc Imp.teaUons hreJeeted.4 The Old Testament authors are a'way. : seen to have reinterpreted theae e'ement.wlth meanings amer'lable to thetr monotheststfc tastes. In fact. when the treaty form was ftrst adopted to explain God's eteetton
01" Israel (I5:x 19. 20 , etCh) thl8 element or th. treaty torm was dropped. and only later reappeared tn poetiC and hortato ~ y contexte,S
' MCCarthy. Treatli! S' 65. 2Mo ran , "Some Remarks ••• , " lt9. ot 4126, 30,19, ,1128, 32"; t. ,,2. M'C 6.1-2, ~ er 11 12; Ps 50:4. 40ut more care ought t o ~e taken to avoid a ~uper f ' icia' i pr e-Judgfnv of $UC~ texts. Is tt va.lld t o demythologhe the plural t:I "iJ·7.s to plura' of maJ esty. or to read t:J"i)"7!i.-fl~· as angela wfth the prevIous vfew f n mf nd that the O' G Testament authors were monothelst'Ql Sw rtght. "The L.awsuft of God ••• ". 45. 28
A number of euggest'ons ex i st as to why Israe l / readapted this appeal to the heavens and earth. It Is perhaps used as a designatIon for ange ls, 80me angelic ml nfsters for YahWeh,' It Is aymbo l lc for different popu lat ion areas2 or us~d s i mp ly as a poetic devIce to re'er to a l l the entities vIsible on earth. ' Those who reject the r e lat ionshIp of the covenant form to the treaty form ar e forced e Ither to the negative conc lus Ion that the call to the witnesses heaven and earth has no rea l function In the text,4 or that It fs Just one means of expressing a self-cur se. S The nature of the pr obl em Is comp l icated and the 80 lut16n depends upon the acceptance or re;: tfon of a numbe r of pr esuppos ftlons- -the connecti on of the heavenly council with these natura l e l ements, the possl bf llty of polythei stic thought wlthfn Isr ae l 's traditions , the freedom or lack of freedom wh i ch BIbli cal authors con sidered themselves as having when dealing wfth fIxed form .s . For this reason gener a lt zed conc lusions should
1-Ib1d . ,49. 2R.e .v. seott, "The literary strdetures of Isaiah's O'flac l es," Studies In Q..!..g Testament prophety. H. H. Rowtey, ed. (1950 J; 175.. 80. 3wr fght, "The Lawsuit of God ••• "w 49 . 4Suls, "Les Fo rmu laf r es ••• "., 404. STucker , "Oo venant Fo rms ••• n, 502 . 29 not be offered without c loeer anaJys 18 of each passaae which mentions the address to heavens and earth. The r ef er ence In Jer emiah wil l be dea lt with In the exposition (see be low). Va r ious suggestions have been made a lso with regard to the funct i'on of these witnesses, whoever they mf ght be . Again, an appeal to the anci ent near eastern texts Is in or der. t t should be noted that i n the extr a- Brbl lcal liter atur e not on ly the heavens and the earth are oa l led as wttnesses, but the gods ment foned In the l i sts are also an essentIal element of the ~a l l to the witnesses.
In an Egypti an text r e~o r d l ng a t reaty between Hattust lfs III and Rameses 111 the gods ar e ' nvok td to gua rantee t he t r eaty whfch fe be i ng made; they ar e a l80 to curse the vt olators of the treaty and b less those who keep ft . The Assyri an t r eatles espec i a ll y emphas i ze the funct ion of the gods-witnesses as those who are to bri ng curses upon the dfaobedt ent vassal . 2 At the end of a treaty of [sarI- haddon, fo r instance, the gods at e ca ll ed upon to bri ng - disease, disaster In batt l e ••• " . ' The god Is genft a l' y asked to br ing about the evil wh tch ta within his own
1 ANET . 199.,.200 . 2Mccarthy. Treaty •• :. 69 . 'Ibt d. , 73. :50 peoulfar realm of power. In the Hlttfte treaties (I contrast to those of the Assy rfans) the gods of the vassa's re called upon fn addItion to those of the suzera'n as an IndIcation that the tnferlor party hae wtliingly accepted the treaty..-.hfs own gods wi' t enforce It. t The hea.ens and the earth tl'! these treatfes can also be eeen to perform a stml lar function although the Indications are not as clear. Moran warns against distinguishing too sharp" between the gode and the natural elements, as though the latter were mere 'notrumonts of the eurces.2 The text f rom ugarlt tseeon to 'nvoke cur s.e on the Amurru king through two groupe of divine wltnesseo--the htgh gods and tho heavens and the earth. How have the Old Testament authors adapted thle aspect of the treaty form! Tho early suggestion by Gunkel that the heavene and the earth funetton ae Judges In the !i!!l fa genera"y dtscarded. There la no need for a suzeraIn to calt t n a third party en he 18 Beau.fng the vaseal of breaking the covenant. The wttn•• ees In the dteJ)ute botween Yahweh and Israel are eeen aa a typ of Jury. which testifies against (usc of hlphfl of i~~ plus tho prepOSition -~ ) lorael.3 The$e wltneoses
1 1bJd • • 39f. 2Moran. ·Som Aemar K •• • " 18. right" "Th. LaW8ult of God • •• ", 47. n. 48. 31 are appeal ed to espec t aJl y because they we r e preaenV at the beg Inn ing of the mak fn g of the covenant. 1
Anot~er variation of the Gattung fs posed by Julien Ha rVey, 2 who sees a dfvtsf'on i nto· two types of
R t b~ the B.!2. of wa r ning (avertfasement), and the B.!!!. of condemnat Ion (condemnat i on) . Both ar e s imil ar tn outline to Wrfght' s covenant ~. a lthough t n place of the indi ctment, Harvey fs mo re spec' f fc--th l s section fs always a refer ence to the vanity of ri tual.' The only dltference between these two types of lawsuits fs the l ast e lement of the fOl"m- -one dec lar es Israel to be at faul t and promises total destruct ion. and the othep thr eatens Israel un less she r epents tn f avor of Yahweh . What convinces Harvey 1n favor of this forma l distinction is the s imilarity of the condemnation - b form wi th extra-Bl b'tcaf materfa ls ., Those Inc lude the
lMcCarthy, "Covenant ••• ". 232. 2Ha rvey, "Le rtb-pattern ••• " , 178. 31b t d. , (his out lf ne of the two types) --r; Introductfon--appea l to heaven and earth. ll ~ Interrogatton and fi r st fmp ll ctt accusati on . II I. Oec I ar att on of f au It--recogn It t on of Va hweh' 8 good deeds and larae l ts Ingr atitude. IV. Reference to the van ity of ritua l V. Dec l aration of fau lt and thr eat of tota l destrucUon 2!. war ning to change Isr ae l 's conduct. 32 declarattons of war as seen fn the Ep ic of Tuku ltf / Nl nu rta. (discovered In excavat ions at NIneveh) . and the ~ b of Yarlm-Lfm of Aleppo wi th Yashub- Yahad of Dfr (from the Ma rt archfves) . These dec l arations beg i n with the address fn the mess enger form, and the plac i ng of an aCcusation. then the Interrogation with the his tori cal ad dress contrasti ng the benevol ence of the ki ng to the Ingr atItude 0' the other par ty, and conc lude with the condemnation. In these documents as In the law8u lt of Yahweh are found the same general structur e, the same prob l em of the broken aI ,' fance; 'the same r efusa l 01 , r itua l compensation. Whil e 80me ori t l ol sm has been made 0' some of the specifi cs 01 the compa rleon, especial ly as rega r ds some of Ha rvey's t rans l atlons l the possi bi l i ty of the r e lationshIp of the Bf bllca l B.!!? and the deo lar ation of wa r (because of the breakIng of a t reaty) seemo lt ke ly. 2 Fu rther wo rk on the origi n of the Rt b wou ld be enhanced by c loser exam i natIon of these r texts dea li ng with internat iona l l aw .
1Mo ran, "Some Remarks ••• " , 318, n. 4, who Is wa ry of Harvey's trans lati on of "heaven and earth" and hi e r ead i ng o~ -t aba as -At b. 2The recent dfsGertat lon of J . Har vey , Le pt atdorer prophetfgue oontr e Isr ae l spr e Ie r uptur e ,del'A. 1 fance. - ome . (1964). was not ab l e to hiVe been used at the ti me of the wr ltino of th i s paper. 33
TRANSLATION OF J ER 2.1 . 13 ,/
1 And the wo t d of Yahweh came to me, saying, 2 Go and proc lalm tn the ear s of Jerusalem.* saying, Thus says Yahwehz I r emembe red the affection of you r youth. the love of you r bri da l days; How you fo II owed me 1 n the wi I dorness. i n a land unsown . 3 Sacred was Israel to Yahweh, the ffrst f r ui ts of h is harvest. AI ' eatfn g It we r e gu fl ty; puni shment came to them . an or ac l e of Yahweh
4 Hear the wo r d of Yahweh, 0 house of Jacob,
And a ll the f ~ml lt es of the house of Israel,
5 Thus says Yahweh:~ hat sho rtcoming di d you r father s f i nd fn me that they abandoned me? Instead, they fo llowed nothingness and they became nothfngness . 6 And they did not say; "Whe re fs Yahweh . who brought us f rom the l and of Eg ypt, who fed us In the wilder ness, In a l and of desert and pit, In a land of drought and deep dar knes8,* 34
f n a I and where no ma n has t r ave II edt I and no one has dwe lt . 1 And I brought you to th, pl entifu l l and to eat of Its f fnest frufts . But you cmme and defi l ed my land, and my Inheri tance you put to abom i nation. 8 The priests did not say, "Wh ere Is Yahweh?" , The manipu lators of the tor ah dl d not know me, and the shepher ds t r ansgressed aga i nst me;
The prophets p r ophes~ I ed by Baa I.
and the fol l ow~d thi ngs of no profIt .
9 Ther efor e, once mo r e I wi ll contend wIth you, an or ac l e of Yahweh, and wfth the sons of your 80ns I wfl l contend. 10 For cross ove r to the h i es of Ktttlm, and see, And send to Ke da r and consi de r ver y di l i gent ly, And see If such a thi ng has ever been. 11 Does a nat ion change godS1* (yet they ar e not godsl) But my peop le changed my* gl or y for a thi ng of no profft. 12 Bo appa fJ ed. 0 heavens , at th l s l Stand aghast, be utterl y deso latel* an or acle ofYahweh . 35
/ 13 tor two crimes my people have commfttedl They have abandoned me . the fountafn of Itvtn ater, to hew for them •• 'ves cisterns, brokun cfsterns whIch hold no water. '6 TEXTUAL CRITICISMS NOTES AND TRANSLATION /
The 0 In the preceding translation Indicate. textua' varlanta.
1.. 2 And th LXX omlta and reads
a fmp I y ~ .... t:1.1T~" t "and he a8 f d. " Most scho I are read with the tieb rew. Peake findS LXX too brief to be the orl gln8' heading, but he haa difficulty wtth the Heb. sInce "whot f ollows fa aoare.'y addressed to the people." Tnt a aGems to be begGing the questIon. In the followIng passages Yahweh speaks In the ffret Derson to another .arty, and the second fem'ntne singu lar suffix fs usec>- 1~ . 1f71! etc. It h not unusua l to ffnd Israel addr essed collectively fn the alngular. for Instance at £J~ (oee Jet 2t11b where larae' .S spoke 01 In the .fngular). Throughout the book of JeremIah LXX present ehorter verSions, and Ie In fact 1/8 ehorter than MT . Some hold the LXX t ranslators responsIb le for the abb reviations, othera ma'ntaln the extstence of
two leparate recen8lons, ~ At Qumran. fragments of two recenstons, short ano lung, art present (F . M. cros •• Anc ient Li brary g! Qum ran. London. (1 958), 1'9.) 0r08 J Interprets this In defenoe of the Mas t oretlc tradItion, I t Is "Not mere4y the creatIon Of the recenstona' 37
/ activi ties of the r abbis- ••• " (p . 142), another poss i bl e Just i ficat ion fo r r eadi ng wi th the 10nger Heb ver s ion . No copy of the per fcope here di scussed, howeve r , has been pub I Ish,d.
2 Proc l aim. The Heb r ew root ~'P can be used to r efer to the p l eading of a case In cou r t (BOB) .
I r emembe r ed. 1?'~f:ll~t The use of the ~at tv e commod l Is found a lso In Neh 5 : 19, 12:22, '3.'4,22,31. Tr ans l ated l i ter a ll y It wou l d r ead " I r emembe r ed fo r you r sake, " or " In you r beha l f ••• " See Da vi dson, Heb r ew Syntax.
How yoU fo llowed ••• • unsown . LXX omits " In the deser t, In a l and unsown . " Whe r e the Heb r eads ",., iJLT1I3 .. ,t7H n\>.,. -11 t: ~ 7~f- or ; ." - -,- :F'?~
LXX has Instead "I .. (, 7/... ~ 'T." ~~OI\ lu>,ov~1"""( ~(: 7't1 OCt" v;! "r ot? " I / I At¥"l. It lit' os.
3 Sacr ed. ~7P Is l i tera ll y "apar tness, sacr edness, " a noun usua ll y used of Go d's ho l i ness, the ho l i ness of p laces or thi ngs consecr ated at ho ly p l aces, or of per sons . Bri ght t r ans l ates " lsr ae ' was Yahweh's own
po r t i on , " In rI tual sense 8S a par a ll e l to the fo l low Ing co lon . cer tai n offer l n we r e call ed Who ll ness." One of these was the f i rst f r ui ts (Lev 3219) . 38
Ha r vest. MT r eads ;;;l~"J~ , wi th the sufffx1'l added to ./ the noun n ~ '1.:lf;' • ome manuscr ipts read in~ 'JJ~ • wi th the waw .
All eat i ng it we r e gu ilty, pun i shment came to them . LXX t r ans l ates i n the futur e . The Heb r ew ver bs -,)I (f~ ., T I ',' and ~.:J.(.1 ar e In t he i mpe r fect and on this basis that T t r ans l ation i s correct . Howe ver , the ent ire passage can a l eo be r ead as Yahweh ' s r eco ll ect i on of the past (" 1 r emember' wh en ••• ). Hence t he r eadi ng In the past tense i s Just i f i ed, and makes a better un i ty of t he who l e passagu.
4-5 BHK suggests the Introductor y ph r ase, "Hear •••• Thus says Yahweh," I s an add i t i on. The suggesti on I s made by the edi tor of Jer em i ah , Rudo l f . who seee the un i ty of th i s passage beg i nn Ing wi th verse 2. Hi s pr oposed de l et ion of thtm ve r ses, wh i ch somewhat Inter rupt th is unit wh i ch he suggests, can be better under stood In th i s If ght.
Shortcom i ng . ~J~ w t t h pa r aphr ast ic r enderi ng of J8; liter a l ly " InJusti ce . - In r e l ated Ol d Testament contexts It funct Ions as the oppos i te of r Ighteousness . Se Ot 32 14 .
Noth i ngness. Heb . '~rry . A noun mean i ng "vapor, 39
br eath, van i ty" (see Qoh 3) . LXX t r ans l ates )tejT.~.JV "foo I fohneS8 . " Aft gu r e of what is wo r th l ess, unsubstant ia l , espect a lly of I do ls . Br i ght trans lates "Lord Oe lus lon" In an attempt to catch the word p lay- - ':l7'1i1 f or :r~:ln - -on the name Baa l . The f o ll ' wlng ver b Is f r om the same root, a techni que used f r equent ly
by Jeremi ah (see W. Ho ll aday , "S ty l e, Jron y_and - A~th ent f c tt y
In Jeremiah," ~ . 81 . (1 962) , 44- 5 4~ see ISp . 46.) Th fs figur e I s used often by Jer emi ah In r eferenoe to Ido l e- -8:19. 10:8.15, 16 " 9, 51 :18. See a lso Ot 32 121 .
6 Pit . ilO'li1 A tota l of f ive ocourrences In the Btb l i ca l : text (Jer 2:2, 18 :20, 22; and later In Prov 22:14, 23 : 27 ) . Mo r e oommont y used i s n f]!t.
) / ep da r kness. LXX r eads lv 'Ii J~Pflt K'" ex "'-OI.f 'ff' l' . numbe r of 80ho l ar s adopt this ver s ton, pr eferri ng the par a l le li sm 01 the Gr eek text "Dr y and Ba r r en l and" to the Hebrew J7.!~ ~ ~.! J?:~ nA I and of dr ought and deep da r kness . " i1:~ occur s e I8ttwhe r e I n par a II e I ism wi th i'1~7.~ and '~T~ ( see Jer 50:12, 51,4'3), but nowhe r e e lse wi th e i ther J'7~~'~ o r jJ7'J1?~ ( o(~-rTlIIS ) . The Heb fl-!.~?~ Is used as a f i gu r e of di str ess. or ext r eme danger , or l ater In Job 10.21, 38 :17 i n r eference to the wo rl d of the dead . Read i ng th Is wi th the pr ev ious co lon
'< ...... ~ J-.... 40
forms good par a ll e ls bet.ween jl!~ and jJ~J~" and 1' .~~7 ~I and no·, ft , po inti ng per haps to meanings beyond the pu r e ly natur a l fI gu r es of pIt and da r kness. See
a lso . W.Thomas , ~ . 7. (1 962), 199- 200, whe r e It 171.!17'j is Ind i cated that In the Ol d Testament . ~ T ; - Is the strongest word fo r da rknees . (ThIs referance fs f rom a t bl lca. 43 . (1962), #2341).
8 Man i pu lator s If the tor ah . ;'7-'" nn- '''W ~ 'n from the T - " : verb ~ ~ f7 "to l ay ho I d of, wf e I d, gr asp . " If tera l t rans lation wou l d r ead "those who hand le the l aw· but the sense l a awkwa r d In Eng l Ish.
Th i ngs of no profi t . From j~; , "p roftt, ava i l , benefit. " He r e Is another pun on the name aaa l (ari ght) . See
s ~ m fl a r use i n Jer 16019 .
10 If such a thIng has ever beeQ. 8HK suggests the ori gina l readi ng waG n~;~~~ J the nipha l of n'n , on the bas t s . , of LXX ~e KOVf" , per fect of '4t~\lo)-i-Q~ "Come to pass. " A str lktngly'sfmll ar passage t n ot 4132 a l80 uses the same constr uction , and MT r eads t her e t n the nlpha l. Howeve r , !~ I S used as a hypotheti ca l par t i c le (aoa) " If, whether" and the MT po fnt l ng here Is In need of no emendat fon .
" I 11 Does a natIon change gods? LXX and Sy r l ac read EL .~~.!oVT~l 41 , - I .... t't9-.,,') ~ .. o~s JUT':;"' . This is not an unhappy render i ng . The MT however poses no dIffi cu lty, and rather than adopt the LXX version, we read wi th the Heb . (See a lso a sfml l ar construction In Jar 16.20.
My glory. The Heb and the Greek r ead "their (h Is) glor y," (l ,.~" r,v cS'0'~"''' JilT.,; ). but BHK indicates that
thi s fs Iii sorlbal correction wh Ich read or iginal l y "7.3=' .
See a~so C. 8. Ginsbur g. Introduction to the Massoret fco Cri t i ca l Ed ition of the Heb r ew Bfble . New York (1966). 356. He pO i nts out that "the anc i ent r eco r ds emphat i ca ll y dec lare this to be the or ' glna l r ead Ing . " But because th Is statement was too bo l d and de rogator y the fI r st pe r son suffix was changed by a pIous scri be to third per son. thus softenj"9 the f nff ammatory mean t ng . The last co lon bf the pr eceding and fo ll ow i ng strophes, 8 and I,. each set up a contr ast between Yahweh speak Ing of himse lf, and the fa lse f do ls . Ths suggested change is ther efor e adopted.
12 Stand aghast, be utter l y deso l ate. Nume rous textual var i ants ha ve fai led to fu r ni sh a sui tab l e text her e . ,-,. J j,. ,.,...... 1', I > \. _ " LXX r eads f-tfP~;~'" . ~" > _T1'h~O~ ~lfo6p", . "shudder exceedi ng ly. " J 1~;,"'· ' ''1it1: ",·' ... r"r~'.t ~:. ,'.. "i The Sy rtac readS;{I'T7t1 , "t r emb l e, be ter ri fied. " Br i ght mends .1;17t:;J to n~';, (fr om i7.J.1 "to mu lti p ly, ") and t rans lates "shudder and shudder agai n, " not In the most tl IJt;i'I poet fc ve tn. Other s have suggested em end i ng to . ~ 42
/ "the mountains In It" to form somewhat 0'( a parallel wIth t:J:.;l~ . BHt< proposee r7~ jJ*~ij '11,w . an excellent 8uggestlon In v'ew of the other B!! formo, but beIng mer.'y a suggestion, no textual evidence fo offered.
The Hebrew text Is rejected because 0'( the fact that It ts unaultab'e to speak of the heavens drying up or becoming waote (Bright, Driver). Why?--because f Jeremiah'S cosmology? Elsewher e Jeremiah tndtcates when Yahweh speaks thete 10 a "tumult of water In the heavens" (10J1,) . There Yahweh' eaklng has an effect on the natura l elemente. In this passago the : heavens themselvee are add r essed, personifi ed. The poeUe nature of the passage would surely seem to a"ow for figuratIve U80 of words . Furthermor., there are s everat occurrences e tsewhere of a parallelism between Oll'W and :l1" -Amos 7:9. Ez 12120. And lastly, th theme of de.olatlon and waate I I not at all unique to thIs one Dassage In Jeremiah. It la one of his favortte Imngt •• The acceptance of the Heb text as It standa doee not appear Impossible. It may be that what we have here 18 an examp le of hendladye. The r e 10 no formal conjunction of the two {mpe r atlves ·J:J.7~ .,'~~ , but It h possible to r ead with the sene. "be ho rrIfIed to the point of utter dosolatlon," or 80methtng to that effect. At 43 any r ate, though the sense may not be t rans lated / adequately t nto Eng lish. the r easons fo r emending and the suggested changes appear If not unnecessary at l east unsatIsfactor y. 44
/ EXPOSITION
Gene r al ly. befor e beg i nning the wo r k of exegesh, the extent of the per leope Is determined . In thi s case, howe ver, ther e Is no uni ver sa l ag r eement on the limi ts of the passage. Some see the per l eope ex tending Into chapter thr ee and continuing as far as v 25, so that the who le of 2:1- 3:25 .S a susta i ned pi ece. Ot he rs see the un i t extendi ng to 315 readi ng as far as the narrative 1 begi nn i ng wi th 3:6. with Ouhm ~a ny r ead the entI r e chapter as un ifIed In theme 2 but see dlvf s lons wi thi n the chapter. ' The fact that vv 4-13 use the second mascu li ne p lur a l fo rm of addr ess, an d vv 2- 3. and 14-19 use the second femin i ne s i ngu lar fs a ma i n consideration here. Bri ght sees this as a cer t ai n r eason for ass i gn i ng 4-13 as a un it Inser ted between 3· and 14. Rudolf, on the other hand, see the poem beg i nn ing with v 2. 4 The mi nd of this wr i ter Ie li mp i ng with two
1A. Aesch lma nn , 1:.!. Prophete Jereml e. Pa r h. ( 1959). 47 . 2A• 8 . Peake. Jeremiah. Ed i nbu r gh. (1 910 ). 89. ' Ibid. ; J . P. Hyatt, Jer em i ah . The Interpreter 's B l b l e.~w Yo r k. (1 956),8 11 ; John BrI ght. Jer em i ah . ~B . Ga r den City, N.V., (1965 ). 16-17; G. E. Wri gh t , "The Lawsu i t of Go d •••• • • 44; H. Pr escott Wi l l iams, "The Fatal and Foo l fsh Exchange," Aus t In Sem i na r y Bu ll et In. (1 965) ,7. 4w t lhe lm Rudo lf . Jer emi ah . HAT . Tu bi ngen, (1958),11 . 45
/ op i nions between seeing 1-13 as a poetic unIt, especi al ly because of the co venant theme wh i ch pr eva ils, and the 4-13 dfvfe fon . Poeti c and gr ammat ica l cons l derat fons pri marI ly, and textua l cons l der atlons1 secondarily, ,"ow the l atter poss l blll tYJ we wi ll be ab le to dea l with this In the expos i t i on . The who le of chapter two Is general ly dated before the period 01 the Joslan reform, In the ear l iest pert od of Jeremiah's mfnfstr y. 2 The cond i t ions and char ge. of apostacy ar e seen to r eflect a s i tuat ion which the reform a imed at cotr ectlng. Hyatt3 though sees historica l :a l lus fons t n vv 16,18,36-37 wh ich do not fit that period., and therefor e assi gns the enttre chapter to the r etgn of Jehotakfm, between 609- 605, c laim i ng that du rt ng his re . gn most of the pract f ces abo I h hed by JOS i ah' 8 r eform probab ly r eturned. Since the di scuss ion of Jer em i ah's attitude towa r d the Jos t an reform Is pr ob l emat ic, we are not ab le her e to a8slgn a date to the passage, beyond the susp i Cions on the bas is of the poetry and the gener a l
1Wfi l l ams , " • • • Exchange ••• " , 7, reads 211 - 3 as an exp ans ion. He Interpr ets the fact that the Heb and LXX agree In 4.. 13 an d not In 1-3 a8 evidence that the two ar e separ ate units and do not r efl ect the or t glna l li terary un i t . 2ar l ght. Jer emIah, 16-1 7; Harvey, "Le rf b ••• " , 185, sees thI s Rib reflecti ng an earl y perIod of Jeremiah's mi nistr y, when Judah was In danger of break Ing al li ances. 'Hyatt. Jeremi ah. 811 . 46 attitude of the prophet that thi s Is the wo rk of hIs / ear ly ministry.
The char acteristIcs of the ~ Gattung ar e we ll recogn ized In this passage. The Impo r tant events r ecfted In Israel's cr edo ar e found her e, with a Hoseanlc f lavor fn g. The wi lde rness wander fngs are remembe red. the days l n the desert, and the com i ng 1nto the l and of canaan ar e r ecalled. The benevo l ent acts of Yahweh ar e recited In po i gnant language and contr aetedto the harsh r eactton of the faith less Isr a.llte8. The peop l e are Ind i cted f or defi l ing the land; the leader s ar e accused for not ca l li ng upon Vahwe; and the speci a l Ind i ctment fs for the fo llow i ng of other gods, for runn i ng af ter Baa l . The " f ntroduct Ion" d' the .B!!:!" or for ma I announcement of Yahweh's contention wIth Isr ae l comes toward the end of the perfcope In the third stanza, as does a lso the ca l l to the heavens as wi tnesses . The fo rmal pronouncement of a sentence Is not pr esent. but It might be sai d that the s entence Is cont a i ned wi th i n the cri me itself--the peop l e sentence themee Rves to thi ng s of no profft, to br oken c i ster ns wh i ch ho l d no wat er~
Ve r ses 1-3. Th i s section of the ~ la general ly excluded f r om the passage and is attached to ve rses 14 and fo l lowfng . The theme of vv 1- 3 Is a r ecount i ng of the earl y days 47
I of Yahweh" dea l rngs with Isr ae l , and reca ll s especf~ ll y the covenant motif. If the B!2 Gattung as earl ier discussed originated from a covenanta l or treaty form, then the re lationship of 1-3 and 4-13 Is not as arbitrary as has been asserted by those asslgnfng It to another pe r1cope.
1-2 And the word of Yahweh came to me saying. Go and proc l aim In the ears of Jerusa lem. saying, Thus says Yahweh Beginning thi s perlcopt Is an announcement In the char acterlsttc form of the messenger narrative. Not only does the message Inc lude the form .!i2. .!!!!!!. Yahweh (wi th the corresponding conclus ion In v 3 nt'um Yahweh) . ' ' but a l so the command to the prophet-messenger. "Go and you sha l l say •• • • • Thle has been pointed out a8 another character istic of the messenger narratfve,2 and there are nume rous Bi blIca l par a rl ele. He r e the fact that ther at e a lso extra-Biblical par a ll e ls fs of Interest. Th messenger form occurs tn Mar i and Ras Shamra texts.' and be longa to a ff xed form of the ancl tnt near eastern wo rl d. Among other texts,th l s form occurs r epeatedly In the suzer ai nty t r eati es, or In ep i logs of great lega l documents . 4 Whe r e tn other texts, both Bib l ica l and
'Koh l er , "OeuteroJesaJa ••• " , 102-109. 2Ro8S , " ••• Yahweh's Messenger ••• " . 99 . 3Noth • "H i story and the Word of God ••• " , 194-206 . 4Mu lJ enbu r g. "Form and Str ucture ••• ", 16; ~, 178f. 48
r non- Bib l ical, this fo rm fe used to anno~nce the maktn~ of a treaty, he re the prophet has employed the same form to announce juet the opposIte .--the covenant Into wh ich Israel has entered with Vdhweh, and which she fo llowed for a bri ef moment has been broken. The r e l atIonshIp between Yahweh and Israe l wi ll be announced after thIs CharacteristIc messenger fo rm•• but JeremIah emp loys the form In an . ronte way . It shou ld be noted that the other most obvious examp les of the -R1b tn the Ol d Testament--Dt 32, Mfa 6, Is 1:2, Ps 50--do not begIn wIth (or contain) thi s ,or acu lar open i ng . They beg In r ather with one of the di sti ncti ve l iter ar y char acterI stIcs of the Rt b, that of the ca ll to the wltnesses-. "G l ve ear , 0 heavens, ••• let the ear th hear • • • " edt 32:1), etc. The usual appeal to the natut al phenomena Is not Introduced here by Jer em i ah . Hi s beg i nn Ing addr ess Is made to a ll the people of Jerusalem, and on ly towards the end of the poem are the heavens i nvoked a8 witnesses . The usua l order of the Gattung has been changed. Howe ver, a similar varlatfon to the Gat tung Is seen In Ml c 6:1 - -the address 18 first ma de t o the peop l e to "hear wha t t he Lord says," and "p l ead you r case" and on ly then does the Invoking of the witnesses take p lace. 49
The poss. b I e I ega I connotat I on8 of the wo r d 'h'P are a lso to be noted1 although Gemser 2 who has made a
detaIl ed wo rd study of the ~ pattern, has Indicated no speci a l l ega l usage of that wo rd t n the G~ttun9 .
I r emembe r ed the affect ion of your youth, the love of you r br ida l day The re Is 80me controver y connected wi th thIs passage, as to whether the besed ment foned f s Yahweh's besed towards Israel , or Is r ae l ' s attitude towa r d Yahweh . The gr ammat ica l construction Seems to po i nt to the latter, s t nee the use of T' Imp If es t hat Yahweh fe r emembe rl no • someth ing t n beha lf of Is rae l . he I s r emembe r i ng her att i tude of blsed f or her sake, he r benefi t . Th e two wo rds used he r e-- and nJ.i?"'; --are i"h": ": T -: - both frequent ly used In a t r eaty context. ot often descri bes the r e l ationsh i p of Yah weh and , Israe i tn terms of n~n"L And a s lmf lar use of the wo r d--to descr ibe -r -:- a t r eaty or co venant re lat lonsh lp--f s seen t n non- Bibl i cal literatur e f r om Ma r . arch ives and f rom t he Ama r na pe rlod. 3 The r e the t erm " Ioven exp resses the loya lty of vassal to severel gn, of Independent ki ngs, of ki ng to subject. It 1s c learl y part of the termIno logy of International
1See Isa iah 59=4. 2Gemser , "The Rl b- or controversy- pattern .... " , 3w• L. Mo r an , "The An ci ent near eastern Back ground of the Love of God In Deuter onomy , " cag. 25 . (1963 ), ·79. 50 rei at tons. Ueed In thh pa88_g., ,.,~j')"; further points' to the covenanta l mottf. and the posslbllfty of dtrect or 'ndlrect fnflu,nce of t reaty language and form. a covenantal flavorIng. In thfs context of covenant, however, It refers to the attftude of the lurer. I n, and not that of the va ••al. It h posslb'e that th'. ta the only place where I.r.el'. attitude toward Vahweh 18 spoken of fn theee terms.' that fa, using the word b.sed. The 'i.sed of the auzeraln wa, 80methfng which was freely given. not at af' an obligation, a. the tr.aty form shows. 2 By using the word fn thfe way, Jeremtah may b.emphaslzlng the freedom of Is,.a.1 In her response to the covenant. which make. her followIng actions of turnIng away efter other gods that mUCh more ho rrifying. This aame way of .'Iudlng to the covenant theme 18 seen In Kosea 2117, 1111, where he reca I ,I. the days of I .r•• ' t 8 youth--jl ~, ~, . Note the .ame rare usage In JeremIah.
~ow '9u f.o~low.~ me In the wil derne •• , fn a land unsown. Co ntinuing fn the theme of Isr.el's past, the prophet 'ntroduce, some of the key concepts of the p.er feope. The wflderne&.& wandering h br ought up aa In
1 From a convtraatton wfth Oavl d Noe' Freedman. 2see Mendenhall and Mccarthy. 51 I Hosea . Whi le the Pentateucha l narratives, and l ater. Ezek'e l , uee the wi l derness wander ings as a t im. of Israel's rebel l ion aga inst Yahweh. Jeremiah, Hosea and Deuteronomy recatl thoee days In fond terms . One 01 the Important aspects of Israel's r elat ionship to Yahweh In the desert was her faithfu lness, her fo Il ow lng after him, even through barren desert l and . Th i s Is a key theme of these ver ses-- ~-,nH T'n . The object of Isr ae l's affection Is no longer Yahweh, but Baa l . noth i ngness, van ity. Verses 5 and 8 repeat the wo r ds of v 2 and the object fs r adldaf ly different ther e. No te , a lso the theme of the l and wh ich continues to be a key concept i n the perfcope . The wtlerness theme In the Ol d Testament whether It refers to the time of !sr ae l t s f at thfu lne,8s as In Jer em i ah. or he r rebe l l iousness, as In the Pentateuch, ca ll s to mi nd a tfme of t est i ng, a tfme of ha rdship. It wi l l be seen that Ya hweh fs one wh o Is descrIbed as ab l e to lead Israel through and out of th i s wi lde rness. and yet he was r ej ected fo r someth ing wo rth less.
3 Sacred was Israe l to Yahweh, the f irst fruita of his ha rvest. Al l eatfng It we re held guf lty; PunI shment came to them .. Is r ae l fs descri bed as whol fnessn to Yahweh, a wo r d wh l ch carrI es not mo r a l s fgn f,tcance in thIs cae" but 52 has a ritual mean fn g perhaps c lari fIed by the fot l ow t~ g colon, "the f irst fruits of hi s ha rvest. " Ierae' was protected because she was set apar t of consecrated by Yahweh, as we re the first fruits of the harvest. The prophet's acquaintance with the l evltl ca l t rad i t ion mIght 1 be asser ted he re. A c loee, study of Jeremiah's language a long these It nes In the rest of his prophecy mi ght shed some li ght on the question of hi s fami ly background and re l ationsh i p to the pri ests of Anatoth. The poetic construction of l Ines 2-3 Is par a ll e l ism throughout. In addltton rhyme Is employed In T~~? and , 1~ C'·,.d' ? Note a l so the use of doub l e duty words fn the f irst thr ee I. nes- -ver bs ~n"') r and and the : T - 7JJ~? t noun Israel. Th i s short poeti c un i t descri bing the days In the deser t and the protecti on of Israel a8 Yahweh's chosen one, Is set off from the fo ll owing verses by the conc lud ing -ne'um Yahweh . But whether It fs a separate poeti c un It, composed at another t i me, and Is par t of another pert cope, Is a different question . A dec is ion can better be ma de upon exami nati on and compa ri son of what Is to fo ll ow .
4-5 Hear the wo r d of Yahweh, 0 house of Jacob, and a l' the f am i li es of the house of Is r ael, Thus says Yahweh The second major division of the poem beg ins wi th
1W I II fam L. Ho ll aday , "Jeremtah and Moses," J BL . 85. (1966) , 17- 27 . - 53
( the famf! i a V" d~ute7'o nQm f (' ·~ ommand t o hear the "lord of " .. V~h ",:ch 0 \¥ i I t ~ runs' r e-ads tho]> 1~ gtmar.. YaJp,.:e.h, IlS be t n in t he past tensA , with the idoe that the prophet has atready heard tho me~Dage which he is d ec tar in ~ i n the divi ne
ouncli . Je~eQlah doeo cons i der hi msel f a t~ u e prophet and on0 ~ho hac at00d In th~ council of Y ah~e h (~ 3: 16-22) . i t iu 90ss10ic thu-t ('Ihat h. bai4fnd th h fo~mulu h the idea of the heaveni y counci8 , Qnd this may bo on of t he ways t o ex ~fD~n t~a ox 2stencQ ~f the heaven
n t' (and the ~arth) as u ftn~$BCS the ~l?.
Wh at shortcom ~ nga did your fath~rs f§nd I ~ me tiltl ' ~ 'they abaodon{:l:t Cill.'f?
H e~o a rhetorical qucstl un i s posed to th~ hLu~e
Ja~ob~ i t ~~ f~rs e I e-men i 0 ', tho fHb whioh of and the - ~
Je r ~ mlah emp, o y~ ~ (See also Hie 6:], is 1:11 . fa ,O,16 Q fa 32 :6 for' the SarJ3 t echn i que ,,'f &.¢ct4 u'lHoll UwofJuh
Uf, ~ tlo'l . ) Yah~J('iI as the piatntHf oe'gins his accusaHon of 8cnHd :Jfth thL~ que ~ ti Qn whh:h cali have but on e o ns~er~.t hd fault is not in Ya hweh but in t he father o.
• t In -the _'.;t (Ii ¢ 3G , Ya~w ~ h uleo aHsert9 hie hmQc~nee. The (J~Hll e "HH"'<$-"" '.L~ -b used. Another compali sQrt with Dt 32 can be eecn n 'Cho use of t1i7"f1il~ ~/ " --: t1 fatIH~ rs '; f ort' an(J ~G tor e. t 32 117 and Jer 2 :5 both
~~~~......
t ,, J'~ I·
1 l use t he word , n the sense of ancestors . The nI-Thoun2constr uctfon begIns here, and will conti nue and become mo r e pronounced as the poem moves long . That same construction 18 found , It wil l be r ecall ed, In the covenant and t r eaty formu l ations, and wae seen to be a s fgn lflcant e lement of those compos itions. Here Yahweh accuses hi s peop le of hav Ing abandoned him. Th e f i rst person suffix appears r egu l arl y In the poem, espec t alt y whe re the peop le ar e accused of havIng deserted Yah weh- - t,~,;~1~, "f1t~!, ~)'I~~r --to emphashe the per sona l nature of the abuse. The ...... Rib wh~ h Yahweh has , ~ t th Is r ael beg i ns and ends wi th the accusation of abandonment-- ;?t~ 'IP~; 3 forms an .nc lus fo wi th v 13 ·1 ~ r ~ --another of Jer em i ah's favo rite themes . : 'T
Instead they fo ll owed nothingness and they became noth i ngness. One of the ma In sti pu latIons of the ancient near eaatern treatIes as seen In the Hittite covenants was the command to fol low no other forei gn nations . Th vassa l was to be totall y ded i cated to the suzerai n with who; he made the t r eaty. If that covenant was broken the vassal was subject to the cur ses wh i ch had
' lbl 'ada y, "Jerem i ah and Moses . p 20 . 28ee page 13, note 1. 3see Ps 38 122 where the wo r d fs synonymous wfth desert ion. abandonment. 55 accompanied the making of the t reaty. ,/ In the mos aic covenant of the deca log, the first commandment stresses this total obedience and ded i cation to the suzerain, Yahweh. In the period before the Jos t an r eform and the ffndlng of the book of the l aw, this command had suffered many abuses. Ever s i noe the t ime of So lomon. srncretl sttc pr actices had been a llowed fn the land . The prophets, f r om El Ijah on, railed ag'lnst t he 8aa l worshippers and wa r ned the peop l e ag ainst go i ng after other gods . Jeremi ah fs no dt fferent fn th is regard. we see her e fn thfs If ne a subt l e play on wo rds on the ,name Baal. The s imilari t i es t n sound between Baa l and ~?-i7 Ie used to good advantage by Jeremi ah . The fathers we nt
~ft e r "the van i ty" or "empt Iness. " The sense Is not caught we ll tn the Eng lI sh . The use of the definite ar t lc l. befor e the noun gives ft the sense of a name . The r epet It I on of the verb form f r om the same root Is qutte effectfve. It Is short , abrupt, and to the point. The fi rst f ruIts of the harvest. those ho ly, and ded i cated to Yahweh, have become wo rth lessnee .. nothtTgl!88, because they abandoned him. The co ntr ast Is between Yahweh who
aots J and the utter Iy f neffectua I "hebe Ie. "
6 And they di d not say, nWhere fs Yahweh1 n Jer em Iah's poss i bl e i nterest in lev t ttca l priest ly 56
/ l anguage a lready has been Ind i cated aboye (see pages 51 - 52) .
Here also fs seen ev Idence o~ possible cu lt l c fnfluoncw . The question is a l iturgical formu l a, which Jeremiah repeats In v 8, specifically as question to be asked by the prIests. It Is to be noted, against those who
ee strongly antl-culttc ~ate rf a l fn JeremIah, that the fathers, and then the priests, ar e castigated for ...... not cal l1 ng upon Yahweh. It has been suggested that th is or ac l e was perhaps de lIver ed to a great assemb l y of IsraelI tes (v 4) fn the temp le on a feast day or pil grimage, on the baste of vv 4,6, and 19. 1 Th i s fs
, fndeed Q possib i l Ity. El aewhe r e Jeremiah has used thi s technique to de liver his meaeages . In the temp le speech
of ch 7 he stands fn the gate o~ the temp i nd accuses the peop l e of hypocrl t l oa ' pr actices (7,4,8,10,18 etc. ) . In the well constructed narrat tve of the bur ning of the scroll (ch 36) Jer emiah's message Is de l fy er ed by Ba ruch
on a ~ast day " fn the hearing o~ a ll the peop le in the temp ' e . "
Kyen ~urther deve lop i ng the . dea of l iturg Ica l Interest In this passage, We lser and wu rthwefn have attempted to show cu ltlc Infl uence upon this and other Rt b paesageo. 2 Wri ght has advanced the mest r easonab le
tAeachlmann. Jerem f. ~ 51 . 2See page 4, note 2. 57 / conalderatlon a'ong theae lInea. LiturgIcal Influence might be a.tn tndtrectly, oon •• derfng the fact that the oovenant renewal was probably Ctlebrated.' But It would hardly be likely for a people to conduct a ceremony \ celebrating the fact that the covenant had been broken.
WhO brought us from the land of ~gypt who t.d u. In the wtlderness, t n a land of deaert and pit. tn a h:nd of drought and deep darknesa, In a land where no man haa trave.led, and no one has dwelt. Here begfns the formal reclta' of the hlatorfcal prolog In the !tt!?.> The exodus and the Journey through :the wi I dernee. are the chI ef event. for the tathere. Her. the emphas's la upon the goodne •• of Vahweh towarde larael, where before ler.e,t D goodne.s seems to have been the matn cons,deratlon. The worda and Images are harah onea--wtlderness. de.ert and pIt, drought and deep 2 darkness, culm' nat I no I n the negat he .2~ ;-liYJ ' ~ e-H-Y• wo rds such as n nul! and FJ 1!J7!1 are uaed here with quael- T ·."T : - mythological mean ing,. and a powerful contrast I. tutnlshed wIth the foflowlng "nes, d•• crtblng the b'esetno whICh came after thle trial, thIs Journey through the wi lderness. Binding together the hIstorical prolog Is the land theme, the wotd f. found 'n ever1 Itne. The paral'ellam her. I. achieved not on'1 by th petition of thla word.
1wrfght. -The Lawsutt of God ••• •• 5'. 58 but a'so by Ident.ca. grammat lca. conetruct'one-. / the htpht I pantfclp'ea T1 j t ~ and 7" i 711 J the repetltlon of the partlc'e ; ~ J the recurrence of fI,'j . The 'and also re'ates and contrasts this passage to the following (and preced'ng) section •
...... I~,.. Verae. 5- 6 and 7-8 are 8ubd'vls'ons within the laraer unit. The ffrot t wo veraea de.f with Isra."s fathe,s and their .'n. 7-8 are addtesled to Jeremlah t ontemporarfes; and tn a conttructlon para.ter with 5-6 they are accue.d of the same . In. Vahweh.s the topic of the first line 1n each verse (5a .7e), the peop" and thefr atn Is the toptc of the second verse (5e. 7b). the fallur. to ask "wher' Is Vahweh?" Ie found I n the thl rd and middle verse 01 each eectton.
7 And 1 brought you to the plentiful rand. to eat of tts ftnest fruits. ThIs ftne appear. In the center of the ent.r. poem. and Ie the summation of Vahweh·. p Ie. tn his behalf. From her. on the p'cture of lor.e. which the prophet presents become. Increaalngly more degrad'ng, hts tone become. more and more Incredulous .t the Incomprehensibility of Iar.e' •• acts. Th. reclta. 01 Vahweh's benevolences has ended and the IndIctment of 8tn beg ins. 59
You came and defil ed my l and, / nd my heri tage you put to abom i nation. After the har dsh i ps of the jour ney through the deser t l and, Isr ae l was gi ven a bounti fu l l and as her her i tage. The gi ving of the ' and as a herf tage Is a ver y anc i ent theme, and common In hi stori ca l and l ega ' materi al. Jeremi ah Is the f frst of the prophets to r ev i ve th i s I dea. 1 The r esponse of Isr ae l to th is gi ft-- defi l ing the land- - Is one of the r easons fo r Yahweh's l awsu i t aga i nst Isr ae l .
7- 8 The pri ests di d not say, "Where Is Yahweh?" . the man i pu l ator s of the l aw di d not know me . The prophets prophecf ed by Baa l , and they fo llowed thi ngs of no profi t . Israe l Is Ind i cted for br each of covenant. The f irst r equ i rement of the covenant was to fo ll ow Yahweh . And th i s has not been done . pec l f i c , roups ar e accused here; the hand l er s of the tor ah fo r not know i ng Yahweh ( ~~; anothe r wo r d used In descri bi ng the covenant r e l at Ionshi p); the shepherd s (fi gu r at i ve fo r r ul ers) for t r ansgr essi ng aga i nst Yahweh . (The wo r d ~f1~ i s seen by Orl ve r 2 as I nd i cat i ng not t r ansgr essi on aga i nst a l aw , but a defection agai nst a per son. Th is wou l d cont i nue even mo r e strong l y the "J- Thou" theme char acter istic of
the covenant ~ . )
1y/ • Ho ll aday, "Prototype and Cop i es. A new App roach fo the Poetry- Prose Prob l em i n the Book of Jer em i ah , " JBL. 79. (1 960 ), 359. - 2S•R• Driver. In! Sook 2! the Prophet Jer em i ah . London , (1908. 336. 60
Th roughout the second ma i n di vi sion the negati ve; tone pr evai ls, as opposed to the p leasant r em i niscences of the f irst di vision. Eve r ything which Isr ae l has done since the fi r st days of the wi l de r ness Is to her discr ed i t. In these four ver see, the wo r d ~·~occurs six t imes, and is used In the conc l ud t ng secti on three mo r e t imes .
A notab l e departure f r om the other Ol d Testament
R~b passageo Is to be seen her e. In his schema of the Rtb - -~ "" Ha r vey Inc luded as one of the ments a r efer ence to the van i ty of r itua l . This Is eopec l a " y c l ear In Is 1:11 and Mic 6:6. Yahweh wants no mo r e "vai n offer ings," these are an "abom i nation" to him. The appo i nted feasts ar e a bu r den to Yahweh . The peop l e are exho rted r ather
t seek justi ce, co r rect oppression; defend the fatherl ess, p l ead for the wi dow . uch antf-cu l t l c accusat i ons ar e not found In Jer emiah 2. On the contrar y, the pri ests and those Ski ll ed i n the torah ar e accused for not fo ll ow i ng their appointed
tasks It f s not the van i ty of ri tua l which l ies at the heart of this accusation, but the abuses which have ari sen in r e l ation to proper fo ll ow i ng of the cu l t, and the obser vance of other cu lts bes i des Yahw f s ,""" 61
9 Therefore. once more I will contend wfth you,1 an Oracle of Yahweh. and with the sons of you r sons 1 wfll contend. The third main divis ion beg fns with l?? a disti nctive charcterfstfc of the doom or ac le. and Yahweh's contention and sentence of Isr ae l Is forma ll y announced. The poem has fo ll owed a hf.8torl ca l deve lopment from the earl iest days of Israel 's f irst encounter with Yahweh. and her e the Judgment wi ll be pronounced not on ly upon the present day Israe l ites but on their chi l dr en as we ll . As the Isr ae lites we r e about to come Into the land Moses announced to them the statutes and or di nances of the covenant (Ot 4) . The Iar ae lltes we r e commanded to make these thi ngs known to thefr ch i l dr en, and theI r chi l dr en's ch l l dr en . (4.9). The ma i n command which the peop l e we r e f o fo ll ow was to fo ll ow on l y Yahweh. and not to make any gr aven Image . If thi s commandment was obeyed. the peop le and their ch i l dr en wou l d be b leased- -"that It may go we ll wi th you and with your ch il dr en after you ••• "(4:40) . If It was not kept. the Lord wou ld ca ll upon heaven and ear th to wi tness aga i nst the peop le , and they wou l d be "utterl y destroyed- (4,26) . Now that the covenant has been broken by Isr ae l . they and their ch il dr en wt ll receive the cur ses wh i ch we r e pr om ised. 62
For cross over to the Isles of Kltt l m, and se~. and send to Keda r and cons i de r ver y di li gent l y, and see If such a thi ng has ever been.
The emphat fc ~ beg ins this coup let of Impe r ati ves . The use of !! In the l awsu it Introduces the r eason for the JudicIa l summons, 1 and her e It a lso adds to the tone of ur~ency which pervades th i s l aet sect i on . The f irst two cola are composed of lengthy commands which emphasize the scope of the search; the r epetItion of the 00 sounds a lso l engthens the co l a . The third I fne i 8 short, c l i pped, abrupt In contr ast.
Does a nati on change gods? (yet theae ar e not gods') But my peop l e changed my glor y for a th i ng of no profi t . He r e the Ind i ctment Is summa ri zed. The covenantal t heme I s strong. Sever a l Inter e8t l ng par a ll e ls cah be seen wl th ot 4:32. Moses r eminds the peop l e of Yahweh's al 'gn8 and wonde rs, wh i ch deeds the gods of other peop les cou l d not even attempt. Ot 4:32 beg i ns wi th .....kl followed by an Imperative In quest ion form--"Ask f r om one end of heaven to the other, whether such a great th i ng as thi s has ever happened ••• " . That "gr eat thing" was the fact that Yahweh spoke to his peop l e, made them a nation, saved them f r om Egypt. The sermon ends wIth a command
1J • Mu il enbur g, "The Llngu l stt c _nd Rhetorica l Uses of the Pa rt ic l e "'':' t ft HUCA . 32 ! ( 1961) , 158 • • 63
to the Israelites and their children to keep the I statutes of the covenant. The sltuatfon has been reversed fn Jer 2110-11. Now It ts not the deeds 01 Yahweh which are a aource of wonder. but the atupldlty 01 Iarael at breaking the covenant by abandonIng thefr god . a. even the pagan nat fons never do. The eong of Moaea re1ers to the "no- gods- of the natfons In simi lar t anguage (Ot 32:17,21. Cf Jar 16120) . The last co'on of 11 echoes that 01 8---a thing of no profIt." Thle last co lon In 11 ts emphasIzed by betng set of1 from the preceding three, which exhibit pa r allels In Gound and words .
12.'3 Be app.l led~ 0 heavens, at this, Stand aghast, be utterly deso'atel an Oracle of Yahweh . Now JeremIah brings In the address to the heavena, bre.klng the gener.' order of the Rt b pattern. The covenant lawsuIt generally begfna with thfs address (lee above,pp. 21, , ,.) The elements are called upon to hear the caee which Yahweh has agafnst Ierael. He r e the hletorlca' prolog and the Indictment have preceded the appeal. The heavens Icarcely aeem to be wftneeees to formal proce.cUnge . The appea l Is mo r e on an emotional leve', aak lng for. de.andlng, expressi ng a reaponse to the monstrou8 behavIor of Israel . 64
./ The appeal on ly to the heave n8 (omitting the par alle l apeal to the ear th) has caused a great dea l of difficu lty. As has been seen, ther e are numerous suggestions to emend the text to a lleviate this difficu lty (p . 41-43) . The add r ess to the heavens and the earth
(and to other natur a l e lements as we ll ) 18 Indeed found In many of the t r eaty texts of the anc Ient near eastern wo r ld. The Biblical texts (and some non-Bib l ical as we l l) have shortened the address to Incl ude Just the he_vens and the ear th, as In Ps SO, Is 1, ot 32, 4s26. A most notable exc ept ion In r egar d especial l y to the .-Rt b form Is to be seen In Ml c 6:1 . The addr ess to the heavens and the earth Is not even ment lonedl This
~ Invokes as wi tnesses the mountains and the hi l ls, and the enduring foundations of the earth. The ster eo type of "heavens and earth" Is not at a ll necessary to the fo rm of this Rt b. The same f r eedom tn the use of the form must be afforded Jeremiah i n his compos i tIon. A further question has been asked as to why the texts have shor tened the address, and ha ve not listed any other elements besides heavens and earth. Moran suggests the poss i bi l i ty of mer i smus--that the summons Is really a shortened form of the cal l to a l l natura l phenomena . 1 This points to a r ather Simp l e so lut Ion
'Moran,"80me remarks •• • -, 318 . 65 to the textual prob lems which ar e seen In Jer 2:12. / If the text has been transmttted.co rrect ly, and the ori ginal address was to the heavens a lone, It Is possib le that the heavens are meant here as a synechodoche. There Is the same use of the wo rd t:J" 11 In ot 4:32. Yahweh • T 4/- asks the Israelites to look from "one end of the heavens to the other." Th i s is obv ious ly to Inc lude ever~th.n g that ths peop le can see, not just the skies a_ove . The -Rrb has reached cosmo logical properttons. The crime of Ierael Ie of 80 astoundi ng a nature as to repel the entt r e cosmo. . The heavens are mentioned her e not
80 muoh to pOint out thei r funct i ons as witnesses but to heighten and emphasize the seriousness of the offense wh i ch Israel has committed by running after other gods .
Fo r two cr Imes my peop l e have commtttedi they have abandoned me, the founta In oflf vlng water , to hew fo r themselves cisterns, broken ci ster ns wh ich ho ld no water. The 'aet li nes r epeat the theme begun In v 5-- the abandonment of Yahweh fo r the sake of a nonent i ty. The Itf. and dynam i sm of Yahweh In the figure of the I lYi ng fountaIn Is contrasted wIth the Ineffectual t1sterns, wh i ch cannot even ho l d stagnant water. The wo rd for c fster n-- ,~ ~ --18 used by Jer emiah e lsewher e to mean "dungeon" (Jer 37:16, 38 :6) , and ty EzekIe l to 66 mean "pit" and often para l l e l ed with ')HV. This I
~ proc l aims no future punishment, no thr eat to come, as fn the ...... Rib of Is 1.20. The peop le themee l ves have executed the sentence; they have made themselves nothfngness . 67
/ CONCLUSION ,(
After a c lose study of th is .!lllh and an exam Ination of other texts, Bib lfca l and ron- al blt ca l , many It nes of comparison ar e seen to emer ge . Both the heavy dependence ot J er em i ah on other l i ter at ure and hi s rea l uni queness as a prophet-poet can be vI ewed In better per spective. The many s Imil ar ities between thfs f!!!2. and that of Ot 32 cannot be den i ed. Many phrases and wo r da, ff not
Identi ca l . are 90 a li ke as to l ead one to suspect a re latIonshi p betwe. n the two wh i ch extends beyond the common use of the ~ Gattung. The use of r ar e wo r ds. most ly poett c, l a to be me nt ioned; thef r Ident ification of t he Ido ls as str ange gods . or no- gods f 8 st ri ki ng; many other par a l le ls have been po i nted ' ut above . What oan be conc luded f r om t his compa r fson? Per haps Jer em Iah had the text of Ot 32 befor e him, or was at l east fam Ili ar wIth It . As has been shown e lsewher e, he (and In fact, the entfre book of Jer emfah as we ha ve It today ) fs ver y much Influenced by the book of Oeuteronomy. (the ' anguage of thi s perl cope and fts af f l nl t t es with ot 4 has been I l lustrated abo ve ) and by the n deute rono~ t 8t ( S ) . · Or , It may be that the common ph rasi ng , language. tdeas, need not be explaIned by Jer em i ah's ha vf ng r ead 68 the Song of Moses; these common e l ements may be due I rather to the acceptance of severa l "rules" of poetry, stock ph rases, common ly used wo r ds . ror examp le, the Song of Moses agatn and again r efers to Yahweh as "the Rock" . This eame name ts used In the Psalms, in the poetry of Second lsafah. It (s poss ible that the use of common stock phrases wh ich appear r epeatedly fn m~ch of the poetry of th~ Ol d Testament .a due to the fact that these poetic canons we retaught and passed on; the poets and prophets we re educatad In th i s way of thinking, In a manner not un li ke that ofmany poeti c schoo ls. many literary movements . J . Mu i lenbu r g, In hi s l ectu re 8~ has suggested the existence of a scrt ba l schoo l or schoo ls (which wou l d account for the Ifkenesses exi sti ng In a l l the so-ca ll ed "deuter onom fc" materi a ls) . Such a thesIs cannot be demonst rated here. Nonetheless. It
Is suggested as a poss i ble. Indeed ~ o r e probab l. explanatfon for the s imi lar ft l es exht fng between J er emiah ana much of Deuteronomy . The poetic wo r ds wh ich occur rarefy In the Ol d Testament may have been much mo r e commonly used In the who l e body of l i terature wh i ch was produced In Ier ae l. Hence . direct r e lat fonsh lps of dependence need not necessarIl y be aS8er ted, but on l y acqua l ntanoe with the 8ame poetl c-ecrtha ' traditions .
While Jer emiah was undoubted ly awa r e o~ the Rt b 69 I Gattung, that there was an exact form which he was obliged to fa ' low to the letter does not appear likely. The genera' elements of the ...... Rt b are preeent--there ia a historical review of Yahweh's past dealings with Israel, the case is announced and procl aimed to the Plople, they ar e i ndicted, accused of their crimes, ther e Ie a ca " to the heavens, Israe ' 'S condemned. But the freedom with which Jer emiah has r earranged and dea lt with these e lements makes this perf cope read a8 a ve r y Informa l
" l awsuit" , a8 compared to the other examp l es of the Rf e . In Mia 6. Is 1, the wi tnesses are ca ll ed .,mmedlate ly. :Oirect quest ions are put to the defendant(s), and fn Mlc 6:6 the questIon is even answered. Fo r this reason and others (especi al ly as regar ds the origi n of the form- f rom tnternatlonal treaty I ~n~ uage rather than specfflcal ly from the language of law cour ts). the Heb r ew A~ b has been retained to Ident ify t his form, r ather than- t rans lating to " l awsu it.. . The l atter ttt le wou ld specify the Gattung to a po int wh ich Is unwa r ranted by resear ch done thus far on the prob lem.
In Jer emiah's ' nforma l ~ the fnvok l ng of the witnesses occurs in the second last verse. And ther e the heaven.· ro I e as forma t witness Is weak . They seem to be ca I I ed upon as the fl na I way to emphas he the enormity of the cr ime wh Ich Israel has comm i tted. The 10 poem la • grldual development 01 the contraat betweett' the goodnes8 01 Yahweh and the t ncreas i ng whtkednea. 01 lst'aef ...1tret the 1athire are accused. the the prl.ete. the ru'e""t and the prophets, and 11nal h' the pereonal aoculatton 01' prosent day Israel for abandonIng Yahweh, a crIme 80 gro •• that It 18 described f n eosin' c .ttmemUons. Such technIque fa not unueual fn JeremIah. Just a glance at the 1irst f~ ehapters of' Jeremiah ehows tho same deeperaU on. the aame a tn8e of b I ackneas or ev t I. "hi eh to In the land (4.2,... 28, 6tl -8, the entgmatlc foe from the north 1 130- )4, etc.). The nature 01 lara•• 's aantonce In Jar 211-1' Ihows the dfff.rent tone which Jeremiah hae taken In hie B.J.l. In the others...... Ot '2, 1$ 1.2--Yahweh f8 portrayed as a deatruetfve power, who wfl l speep across the land fn a great dIsplay of his mIght. But In Jer 2 Yahwe doe. nothing to reprImand his people, but rather he ~ at chea them, al lows them, to destroy themathes. The relatJonsl;Jlp
Is not so much of an omnipotent ruler, and hae Ii mor peraenal a I tea JiJri cU c tone. A flna. remar k should be made on the unity of the pertcop. which hae been used In this paper. There are
Ind.ad many go~d arguments for the division between ,., and 4-13. There Is the oracle form concluding In v 3 which aets off t.he fo •• owlno veraes. and the announcement at the 71 beginning of ve r se 4. The grammatIca l dfffer ence Is/ a lso a considerat i on . The address of 1-3 Is In the second fem fnlne s i ngu l ar , that of 4-13 second mascu line plural . The text of LXX shows many dIscr epanc i es compar ed to the
MT but 4-1315 r e l ~t 1ve l y f r ee of such di ffer ences . On the other hand. the moe t conv inc i ng ev i dence fo r the un ity of the passage fe In the common themes ex i sti ng between 1-3 and 4-13. As has been shown above the co venant theme r une through the entIre po em. Not on ly does Jeremiah repeat the themes of '71?/I 1 'i', .,~ rJJ • 'f 7tj , in 4-t;,. these are a I eo key 1deae In 1- 3. It Is a lso s i gn i fIcant that In v 3 i7~'" came to Isr ae l' s T T enem i es when she was de voted to YahWeh, and In v 13 • n·'.) + now come t o Israe l . The happy r em i nisC i ng of 1-3 contr asts and emphas Izes the deg r adation of the Is r aelites after thefr taki ng over of the l and . The techn ique of contrast and comparI son fs employed throughout thiS poem--the de votIon of Isr ae l in t he past to he r present abandoning of Yahweh, Yahweh'. gr aciousness to Israe l 's Infide.tty, the deser t l and to the pl ent if ul l and, the faith lessness of Isr ae l compared to the steadfastness of even Idol worsh ippe rs. the livi ng fo unt ai n to stagnant cister n. The contr ast of 1-3 wou l d be In keeping with the tone of the rest of the poem . 72
The distinction between t he tenses. wh i ch ca, po Int to the possibl l fty of a di ffer ent per1cope. fs not unusual In Jeremiah . He of ten switches speaker and mood ab r upt ly to change tone fn a poem (see Ho fl aday ' s varIous wo rks on Jer em i ah) . Ie i t a l80 poss i ble that the or ac le fo rmu la be 'nser ted wi thin one poem to act as a distinguishing element between various moods of a liter ar y un it? (cf Zeeha rl a 1f f, whe re the formu la appears r epeatedly between short ph rases) . hat can be conc luded about thi s pe rf cope at least fs ' hat whether or not J er emiah hfmse " compo sed t hese 1, verses as a un It at t he sam, t ime. or mea nt t hem to be JO i ned, they we r e not Just haphazar dly (a l a Br i ght) thrown together when the book was be i ng comp i led . The themat fc and po et i c unity fa too str ong to support suoh a dlstfnctl on . Regar dloss of tIme of oompos ft ion. the poem can be seen a8 a un i t-- God ' s persona I grf evance aga' nat Isr ae I fo r her I ncred l b Ie tl)N4e l f ty . 73
BIBLIOGRAPHY / / , Aeschfmann, • ~ Prophete Jer emie . Pa r is, 1959.
Albr ight, ~.F. , "Some Rema r ks on the Song of Moses In euteronomy , " Yr. 9 (1959), 339-346.
6 " .. . "' ... ,...... to the Ol d Testament. " _LA • --- - -
BrI ght, John. ~e r em l ah . .8. Ga r den CIty, N.Y., 1965 . Broughton. P.E •• "The Ca ll of Jer em i ah . The Re lation of t 18:8- 22 to the Ca ll and Li fe of Jer em i ah," Austra li an Blb l t c.1 Rev i ew . 6 (1958), 39-46. Bu fs. Pi erre. "Les Fo rmu l alres d' All lance, " VT. 16 (1966) , 396-411 . -- Bues , Ma r t In. "The Co venant Theme In Histori ca l Pe r specti ve," n . 16 (1966), 502- 504. Oaze tl .s,H. , "Passages In the Si ngu lar wi th In Di scourses . In the Plur a l of Ot ~ - 4 , " CBQ . 29 (1967) , 207- 219 . Cross, F' r ank Moo r e, J r.,I!!!. Anc i ent LI br ary 2.! QUl1l1 an . London, 1958 . ___. , "The Council of Yahweh i n Second Isaiah," -I N£S . 12 (1953) , 274- 277 . Cun l i ffe-Jones, H. Ill! ~ if ...,J.-,er...... m... l .....a..... h . New Yo r k, 1961. Oahood, Mi tche ll . Psa lms I. 1- 2Q . • Ga rden Cfty, N. Y., 1966.
avldson, ~ . , "Orthodo~y and the Pr opheti c Word--a Study i n the Re lati onshi p between J er em i ah and Deuteronomy," Yr- 14 (1964) f 407- 416.
Dri ver , S.R. !h! ~ 2! ~ prophet Jer emiah . London , 1908. Iss f e l dt . otto. Introduct ion 1£ the Ol d Testam.nt. Oxfo r d, 19650 Fensham, F. , "Ma led i ction and Bened i ction In the Anc fent Nea r East Vassa l Tr eat i es and t he Ol d Testam~nt , " .AW . 74 (1962) , 1- 91 ___ 0, "C lauses of Protect ion I·n Hitti te Tr eaties and In Ol d Testament," ~ . 13 (1 963) , 133- 143. 74
Fi sher , Lo r en, "Ab r aham and hi s Pri est- Ki ng, " JBL . 1 (1 962), ~6~270 . --- I Frankena, R., "The Vassa l Treat i es of Esa r haddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy," Oudtestamentlsche Dtud fen. Le9den, (1965), 1~2 _ 1#L
* Ga rl tnd, D.O., exegesIs of Jer ~11 0- 13, " Southwest Jour na l £! Theolo • (1960), 27-32. , , Ge l t n. A. Je r ,~m1 e . ar is. 1959. Gemser, B., "The itb- or Controversy-pattern In Heb r ew Menta l lty. "-vr8do~ tn Isr ae l and In the Anctenty --Near East . -UVT . (T955r;-r20-137; Gerstenber ge r. C. , "Covenant and Commandment," &. 84 (1965), 38-51 .
______. , "Jeremiah' s Compla i nts," ~ . 8? (1965), 395-408 . Gevi r tz, S., "West Sem itIc Cu r ses and the Pr oblem of the Origi ns of Hebrew Law," .'il.. 11 (1 0 ,)1) , 137-158.
:Gu nkel, Her~ann, and Joachim deg rlch • .... . ,.,~ . """"t, ill ~ ~sa l men . Gottlngen, 1933.
Ha r vey, J., "Le ~~ l b~ patte r n, requ feltof r e prophetique sur l a r uptur e de I 'a l l i ance," Blb 'i c~ . h3(1q62), 172-196 •
...... 1 ... • t::. "1" .... _";lue contr e Israe I ap res ture de I 'all ance. Rome, 1964.
* Hil ler s, D.R. Treaty ~u r 8es ~ 12! 212 Testament t~ ro ·J!et8 . Bib ' fca et e"rlenta l fa. Rome, 1964. Ho ll aday, William L. , "Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observat fons,· ~ o 35 (1966), 17-27.
__--:- 0 ' "Jer emiah's Lawsu i t with God," !.!J..ierp r etat ton . 17 (1963), 280-287 •
• f "Prototype and Cop i es . A New Approach to the ---'-oetry-prose Prob l em In the Book of Jeremhh," J8L . 79 (1960), 351-367. ___'"':' __ "Sty l e, I rony lind /\uthentfci+y, i n Jeremiah,' ~ . 81 (1962), 44-54. 7
Huffman, He r ber t B. p "The Co venant Lawsu i t fn the Prophets, " JBL . 78 ({959), 285-295. Hyatt, J.p. Jer emiah. 18. New Yo r k, 1956. Jacobsen, Tho r ktl d. , nP rf mttfve Democracy in Ancient Mesopotami a," JNgS . 2 (1943), 159- 172 .
Koh ler, Ludwig . Hebrew ~ Nashv ill e. 1956. Laetsch, T. Jer emfah . St. Lou t 1952.
Les l ie, E' mer • Jer emiah • New Yo r k, 1954. McCa r thy, Oenn i s J ., "Co venant In the Ol d Testament; the Present state . of Inqu i r y, " cag . 27 (1965), 217-240 . _", "Notes on the Lo ve of God In ot, and the --~F'athe r- Son Re I alt l onsh t p between Yahweh and Isr ae l , " cag . 27 (1965) , 144-147. Tr eaty !a2 Cov anant . Rome , 1963.
Mendenha l l , Geo r ge E. Law ~ Co venant In Isr ae l and the Anc fent Nea r' aast . Pi ttsbur gh, 1955 . (A lso pub l ished fn-sTb.TCiT Ar chaeo l09fst. (May, 1954) 26-45. and (September, 1954), 50-75) .
" gr om, Jacob, "The te of Jer 2, " ~ . 14 (1955 ) , 65- 70 .
Mo ran, W. L., "The Anc ient ~ea r Easter n Backg round of the Lo ve of God In Deuteronomy, "Cag . 25 (1963) , 77-07.
____~~ , "Some Rema r ks on the Song of Moses," Olb l t ca. 43 (1962) , 317- 327 . Mu i l enbu r g, J ames , nTh. Fo rm and str uctur e of th Covenanta l For mu l ati ons, " Essaf! In Honor of Mi l l ar Bu r r ows . Lefd,n, ( 1959 ,11-29 . -- Noth. Ma r tin, "H i stor y and the Wo r d of God In the Ol d Testament , " ~JRL e (1950) , 194-206. Peake, A.J. Jeremi ah . New Yo r k. 1910 . eymond, P. , "La r @vo lte de I 'homme d'apres Jer 2," Ve rb um Caro, 12 ;1958 ) , 138- 149 . 76
~Obfnsonll H. Whe e'er. "The Council of Yahweh," / JTS. (1944), 151-157. Roes, James r .,"The Prophet as Yahweh's Messenger," sr.,I'a ~roph'tle HerftIP'. N.w York, 19620 M i_=
owley, H.H.t"The Prophet Jeremiah and the Book of Oeuteronomy , " Jtudles !o. Old Teslament prophec 1Q5O, 157-174. nkehan, PatrIck W. , "The structure of the Song of Moees In Deuteronomy," cag. 13 (1951), 153-163. Par's, 1952. ... Thomp
• * __ ., "Sfgn lflcance 01 the Anc i ent Near Eastern Treaty Patt.rn." Tynda l, House Bul lett n. (1 963), 1-6.
TuCker . G. M., "Covenant Forms and Contract 'ormat M ~ . 15 (1 965). 486-503. WeInfeld, M. , "Traces of A8syr l an Treaty Fo rmulae In euteronomy, " albl tea. 46 (1965) . 417-427. ttllarne, H. prescott. "The Fata' and F'oofleh Llvfng water for ' No thf n Bu lletin. AustIn, 1955. right, G. ( r nest, "The Lawsu i t of God. A Form critical Study of Deuteronomy," Israe l's prophetic Heri tage. New York , 1962 •
• ndlcatea wo rks not ava i I a~ Ie.