Skip to content

Actualization of Pentateuchal Legal Traditions in Jeremiah: More on the Riddle of Authorship

Pages 254 - 281


Tel Aviv

1 English biblical quotations in this paper are taken from the NJPS Tanakh translation. A shorter version of this paper was presented in the Biblical Law section of the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2006.

2 The authoritative, canonical or only quasi-canonical status, of legal and literary traditions within the Bible was thoroughly discussed by M. A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985, 1988, 9–18, and passim, as well as in a number of his other studies.

3 For general discussions of the Pentateuch in prophetic literature, see: A. C. Welch, Deuteronomy: The Framework of the Code, London 1932, 1–4; D. N. Freedman, „Law and Prophets“, VTSupp 9 (1963), 250–265; R. Davidson, „Orthodoxy and the Prophetic Word: A Study in the Relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy“, VT 14 (1964), 407–416; W. Zimmerli, The Law and the Prophets: A Study of the Meaning of the Old Testament (trans: R. E. Clements), Oxford 1965; and recently in the collection: G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake, IN 2007, from which I would mention the papers of E. Otto and J. Schaper. For specific discussions of Jeremiah, see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia), Philadelphia 1989, 35–40, 53–63; and extensively in M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation.

4 Another unspecified group is referred by Jeremiah only as „the Leaders“ (hagedolim, 5:5), and is said to be knowledgeable in God's ways and in his law. As for the „Wise men“, see R. N. Whybray's critical discussion of the scholarly understandings of the Wise as a professional group, and his counter suggestion that the „wise men“ in Jer 8:8–9 and elsewhere were an unspecified audience of persons of superior intelligence (The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament [BZAW 135], Berlin 1974, 15–54, especially 21–31).

5 Translated thus by W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (Hermeneia), Philadelphia 1986), 274.

6 J. P. Hyatt („Torah in the Book of Jeremiah,“ JBL 60 [1941], 381–396) and J. Bright (Jeremiah [AB 21], Garden City, NY 1986, 63–64). Hyatt and Bright followed W. Rudolph (Jeremia [HAT], Tübingen 1958, 57–58) and were influenced by the oppositional parallelism of human wisdom to the divine law or word. Thus they drew the unfounded distinction between the prophetic speaker who delivers the divine words and the Wise who rely on written law. See Holladay's precise and convincing criticism reframing the contradiction as between torat / devar 'adonai and sheqer sofrim. The following discussion illustrates Jeremiah's treatment of the Torah as a written and authoritative source.

7 D. Rom-Shiloni, „Facing Destruction and Exile: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Jeremiah and Ezekiel“, ZAW 117, 2 (2005), 189–205.

8 E. Otto, „Scribal Scholarship in the Formation of Torah and Prophets: A Postexilic Scribal Debate between Priestly Scholarship and Literary Prophecy – The Example of the Book of Jeremiah and Its Relation to the Pentateuch“, in G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake, IN 2007, 171–184; and already in Otto, „Der Pentateuch im Jeremiabuch“, ZAR 12 (2006), 245–306, see especially pp. 297–298.

9 Otto, „Scribal Scholarship“, 178–180. R. Achenbach argues for a Priestly dominance not only on the Pentateuch but over the transmission of prophetic literature as well, and he agrees with Otto on its post-exilic fourth century BCE time-frame, see Achenbach, „The Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Torah in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E.“, in O. Lipschitz, G. N. Knoppers and R. Albertz (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., Winona Lake, IN 2007, 253–285.

10 E. Otto, „The Pentateuch in Synchronical and Diachronical Perspectives: Protorabinnic Scribal Erudition Mediating between Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code“, in E. Otto und R. Achenbach (Hgg.), Das Deuteronominum zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronimistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Göttingen 2004, 14–35, quotation from p. 21, and already pp. 14–16, 22.

11 M. Greenberg, „Three Conceptions of the Torah in Hebrew Scriptures“, in E. Blum, C. Macholz, und E. W. Stegemann (Hgg.), Die Hebräische Bible und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990, 365–378.

12 Ibid, 368.

13 Ibid, 368. Greenberg's paradigm is thus very different from that of Achenbach's, who argues that the term torah referring to the entire teaching of Moses was introduced only during the fourth century BCE, see Achenbach, „The Pentateuch“, 253–261.

14 Otto, „Synchronical and Diachronical Perspectives“, 16; and see Greenberg, ibid, 366.

15 Greenberg, ibid, 369.

16 This is of course not to exclude a gradual literary evolution (for both the Pentateuch and the prophetic literature) which assumedly culminated during the Neo-Babylonian and the early Persian periods. Contra Otto's reconstruction of Deuteronomy as publicly addressing its audience only during the exile, p. 20; and his clear cut conclusion concerning the book of Jeremiah: „das gesamte Jeremiabuch ein nachexilisches Pseudepigraphon sei“ in Otto, „Der Pentateuch in Jeremiabuch“, 298.

17 See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 1–19.

18 Otto, „Synchronical and Diachronical Perspectives“, 22.

19 This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but only to demonstrate the phenomenon. Many of the examples appear already in Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 35–40. Yet Holladay's list deserves reexamination, as at least some of his examples are doubtful, and for other it is impossible to track down a real interpretive process.

20 See Exod 5:1, as also 7:16, 26; 8:16; 9:1, 13 (all J passages); and see Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 38.

21 N. Habel, „The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives“, ZAW 77 (1965), 297–323; W. L. Holladay, „The Background of Jeremiah's Self-Understanding“, JBL 83 (1964), 313–324; idem, „Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations“, JBL 85 (1966), 17–27; C. R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah”, ZAW 101 (1989), 3–27.

22 See Davidson, „Orthodoxy“, 410–416.

23 E. J. Smith, “The Decalogue in the Preaching of Jeremias”, CBQ 4 (1942), 197–209.

24 Qodesh Israel lYHWH in Jer 2:3 collates two different types of Pentateuchal sources: specific legal terminology of the Holiness code (Lev 22:14–16; and possibly also Num 18:12), together with the Deuteronomic conception of the people as holy (as in Deut 7:6). The connection rests on the root qadash. J. Milgrom (Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance [SJLA 18]: Leiden 1976, 70–74) defined this interpretive procedure „an aggadic midrash“.

25 Sodom traditions occur elsewhere in the prophetic books; see Amos 4:11; Isa 1:9, 10; 3:9; Zeph 2:9.

26 Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 38) mentions this example as an „ironical echo“ of the Song at the Sea, and adds Jer 46:18 [Po] as alluding to Exod 15:4,10. However, this last instance presents doubtful allusion. This interpretive framework is clearly not restricted to the prophet, and may be found in later levels of the book. See, for instance, the analogy drawn in Jer 50:33–34 [Po], between the Exiles under Babylonian rule and that of the people in Egypt under Pharoh, alluding to Exod 4:23 [JE]; 7:14, 27; 9:2 [J] (and see Holladay, there). The geographical, chronological, and more so the social arena of this passage are not Jeremian, yet the question how to distinguish the prophet's words from those of his exilic followers awaits further discussion. See D. Rom-Shiloni, „The Prophecy for ‚Everlasting Covenant‘ (Jeremiah 32:36–41): An Exilic Addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction?“, VT 53,2 (2003), 201–223.

27 See Rom-Shiloni, „Facing Destruction“, 192–194.

28 R. C. Dentan („The Literary Affinities of Exodus XXXIV 6f“, VT 13 [1963], 34–51) argued for the precedence of Exod 34:6–7 and its wisdom roots over an alleged Deuteronomic origin for this phrasing.

29 Some of the allusions may not reflect acquaintance with the actual Pentateuchal literary contexts in which they appear. See for instance Jer 32:27 [Pr]: „Is anything too wondrous for Me?“ which presumably relies on Gen 18:14. But if Jer 32:27 only responds to Jer 32:17 [Pr], it may just reflect knowledge of the linguistic convention independent of the literary context of the Genesis story of Abraham in Sodom. Holladay reasonably seems to follow this assumption (Jeremiah 2, 37).

30 M. A. Fishbane, „Jeremiah iv 23–26 and Job iii 3–13: A Recovered Use of the Creation Pattern“, VT 21 (1971), 151–167.

31 Another example of such reversal is the judgment prophecy against Pashhur (20:1–6 [Pr]) which uses Priestly traditions from Genesis (Gen 17:5–9; 35:10–12) and presents Pashhur as a symbol of the prospective judgment upon Judah in opposition to the patriarchal promises of land and progeny. See W. L. Hollady, „The Covenant with the Patriarchs Overturned: Jeremiah's Intention in ‚Terror on Every Side‘ (Jer 20:1–6)“, JBL 91 (1972), 301–320.

32 Resemblances between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy 28, and the relationship of these passages to extra-biblical curse literature have been discussed by M. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Winona Lake, IN 1972, 19922, 138–146, 360) who argued for a common authorship within the Deuteronomistic school.

33 D. Rom-Shiloni, „Deuteronomic Concepts of Exile Interpreted in Jeremiah and Ezekiel“, in H. Cohen, V. A. Hurwitz, B. J. Schwarts, J. H. Tigay, and Y. Muffs, (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Post-biblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Winona Lake, IN 2008, 101–123.

34 For hen functioning in a similar way to ki in legal contexts, see Jer 2:10 and compare Lev 10:18; 25:20 etc. B. O. Long („The Stylistic Components of Jeremiah 3,1–5“, ZAW 88 [1976], 386–390) suggests that hen presents legal or cultic circumstances which are adduced as the subject of the following rhetorical question (as also in Haggai 2:10–14).

35 For a comparative study of this law in biblical, post-biblical and extra-biblical sources, consult R. Yaron, „The Restoration of Marriage“, JSS 17 (1966), 1–11; for the relationship between the Deuteronomic law and the marriage stories of David and Michal and the prophet Hosea, see J. D. Martin, „The Forensic Background of Jeremiah III 1“, VT 19 (1969), 82–92.

36 'Avi 'Aluf ne'urai 'atah brings together adoption and marriage formulae; note 'aluf ne'urai in Prov 2:16–17, and see other examples in S. M. Paul, „Adoption Formulae: A Study of Cuneiform and Biblical Legal Clauses“, MAARAV 2,2 (1979–80), 173–185. The resemblance between the quotation in Jer 3:4–5 and Ps 103:9 substantiates the authenticity of the quoted words at least in its content, and possibly even in its actual wording. Compare this phrasing to the consolation words of Jer 3:12.

37 This, then, reinforces Long's definition of this passage as a „disputation“ („Stylistic Components“, 386–390).

38 The woman's / the people's initiative to return to God as the former husband occurs in Hosea 2:9, where up to v. 15 it is likewise declined with fierce judgment prophecy (in difference from Hosea 2:16–25). Therefore, contra Hyatt („Torah in Jeremiah“, 119–20) there is no reason to accept the Septuagint version of Jer 3:1 as original or better. This analysis adds another example to the list of harmonizations, passages in which the Septuagint tends to adapt the text of Jeremiah to Deuteronomy. In addition, there is no need to assume a third legal source earlier than both Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, pace T. Raymond Hobbs, „Jeremiah 3:1–5 and Deuteronomy 24:1–4“, ZAW 86 (1974), 23–29; and see Long's criticism („Stylistic Components“).

39 The understanding of Jer 3:1 as a Qal Vachomer and thus as adducing a break in the God-people relationship was suggested by W. McKane (Jeremiah I-XXV [ICC], Edinburgh 1986, 63–64) and J. R. Lundbom (Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric [Winona Lake, IN 1997], 54; idem, Jeremiah 1–20 [AB], New York 1999, 301–302). Compare to Yaron („Restoration“, 3) and to Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation, 307–312), who argued that Jeremiah reverses the law in order to create a theological tension between the law and the principle of repentance. Although I disagree with Fishbane on this overall interpretation of Jeremiah's usage of the Deuteronomic law, I do accept his observation (idem, 311) that Jeremiah does not change or modify the law.

40 Jeremiah thus differs from Hosea (2:4–15; 3:1–5); and see Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 113. This extreme view of the God-people relationship does not recur in other prophecies in the book of Jeremiah (though it does occur in communal laments cited in Jer 14:7–9, 19–22; and prophecies of consolation even refute this otherwise characteristic nonprophetic perception, Jer 31:35–37; 33:23–26). Still, this position suggested by the prophet may be understood as an authentic ad hoc reaction to the people's words. Thus there is no need to try to harmonize these diverse prophetic perceptions; compare, for instance, Martin, „Forensic Background“, 91–92.

41 Since both verbs and the noun do occur in Jeremiah, their absence from Jer 3:1–5 is clearly intentional, see tam' (Jer 7:30; 32:34; and in quotation in 2:23), heheti' (32:35) and to'evah (6:15; 8:12; 32:35).

42 Holladay (Jeremiah 1, 113) pointed out Jeremiah's intentional usage of hanaf as a more extreme verb which associates the transgression of adultery with blood-guilt (Num 35:33; Ps 106:38) and with violent blood. Yet Holladay did not note the central position of hanaf in its double meaning in Jeremiah's prophecy.

43 For a different suggestion, see Michael Fishbane, „Torah and Tradition“, in D. A. Knight (ed.), Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, Philadelphia 1977, 285–286.

44 Holladay translates hanaf as „commit sacrilege“ (Jeremiah 1, 624, and the discussion on pp. 627–628). The translation „godless“ (so Bright, NJPS, and others) gives only vague contextual meaning and loses its moral, and even sexual, aspect.

45 K. K. Seybold (TDOT, V.36–44) distinguished two contexts in the occurrences of hanaf: with erets as subject or object the verb denotes „to pollute“ and figuratively „to desecrate“ (as in Ps 106:38); with human subjects the verb designates an antisocial behavior which uses hypocrisy and deception (as in Prov 11:9). Indeed, Jeremiah seems to play on both senses not only in Jer 3:1–5; see hanuppah in Jer 23:13–15, which is the inclusive term for the prophets' sins amongst them na'af and halakh basheqer; and he may even play on the alliteration of hanaf / na'af (see Jer 3:9; 23:10, 14).

46 Double meanings and word plays as central interpretive technique occur for instance with the use of qadash, 'akhal 'asham (Jer 2:3); hishava' lasheqer (7:9); berit and qara' deror (34:8–22).

47 B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (KHAT 11), Tübingen 1901; S. Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia, Kristiania 1914, 31–45, 55–57.

48 E. W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah, Oxford 1970, 116–135; R. P. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant: Uses of Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah, New York 1981, 66–83, 84–106.

49 Thus for instance Mowinckel, Jeremiah, 31; and reinforcing this view, Carroll (ibid, 86) challenged the very existence of any actual Jeremian words within the „Jeremian tradition“.

50 J. Bright, „The Date of the Prose Sermons of Jeremiah“, JBL 70 (1951), 15–35; H. Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW 132), Berlin 1973, 228–234; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 239–240, 351–352 etc; Jeremiah 2, 35–40, 53–63.

51 Y. Hoffman, Jeremiah 1–25 (Mikra LeIsrael), Tel Aviv-Jerusalem 2001, 65.

52 Hoffman, Jeremiah 1–25, 62. To clarify my position on the enigma called the literary evolution of the book of Jeremiah: I do recognize an exilic editorial process done by Deuteronomists in Babylon, to which nevertheless additional exilic intrusions were subsequently added. These exilic additions present clear connections to Ezekiel and to Deutero-Isaiah; see my paper: „Everlasting Covenant“, 201–223. In this, I join more recent studies of Jeremiah which call for non-monolithic treatment of the prose chapters and challenge the scholarly notions which seem to be oversimplifying the compositional character of this prophetic book; see R. Albertz, „In Search of the Deuteronomists: A First Solution to a Historical Riddle“. in T. Römer (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, Leuven 2000, 1–17; and C. J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero-Jeremianic Prose (Old Testament Studies), London / New York 2003, 13–23. Nevertheless, I believe that the articulation of a Jeremian (and a Judaic non-Deuteronomistic Jeremian-)Tradition should still be a major goal of inquiry in the study of Jeremiah.

53 Y. Kaufman (Toledot Ha'emunah Hayisre'elit [Tel Aviv 1955]) designated the resemblances between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy „a monumental phenomenon“, and considered Jeremiah and Ezekiel to be the most influential prophets in using the Pentateuch, thematically and stylistically, in their prophecies. But Kaufman maintained the traditional restriction of Jeremiah to the use of Deuteronomy and of Ezekiel to that of Priestly sources. The present discussion illustrates several examples of Jeremiah's knowledge and usage of Priestly sources (or at least terminology).

54 In discussing these passages Holladay presented two features he considered characteristic of these „covenant speeches“ (see for instance Jeremiah 1, 239, 509): Jeremiah as the covenant mediator; and the prevalence of commands, conditions and warnings which are typical of the covenant. Holladay followed J. Muilenberg („The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations“, VT 9 [1959], 347–65) in suggesting that these speeches represent a literary genre, yet he did not pursue this generic study. Compare to W. Thiel (Die Deuteronomitische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 [WMANT 41], Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 290–295) who considered three of the above mentioned speeches (7:1–15; 22:1–5; 17:19–27) to be „Alternative-Predigt“ and presented nine defining characteristics for them. However, in this study I place these three speeches in a wider context of passages which share literary structure and thematic functions.

55 Muilenberg suggested that this covenant mediator position was central to the covenants in Schechem (Joshua 24) and at Gilgal (1 Samuel 12). Therefore the allusions to Moses and Samuel in Jer 15:1 indeed reflect this conception of the prophetic role. Yet scholars debate the question of whether this passage reflects Jeremiah's personal perspective (so Holladay, „Jeremiah's Self-Understanding“, idem, „Jeremiah and Moses“, and Seitz, „The Prophet Moses“), or only editorial perspectives (so Carroll, Jeremiah, 367).

56 Negative condition clauses in Jer 17:27 and 22:5 serve as the threat of destruction.

57 Whether related to the prophet or to the editorial level, most scholars assign vv. 1–14 one prophetic passage, see Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 664; and compare to Carroll, Jeremiah, 490.

58 The perpetuate sin occurs in Jeremiah referring to three different points of departure in the past history of the people of Israel: (1) the Exodus, so in the „covenant speeches“ as well as in Jer 34:8–22; (2) the Settlement in the land (Jer 2:4–9; 32:16–24); (3) the establishment of Jerusalem and kingship in it (32:26–35). In addition, Jeremiah blames the present generation as „worse than his parents“ (7:21–28; 16:10–13).

59 Hashkem veha'ed is one of the repeated formulae which occur in eleven prose passages in the book, and otherwise only in 2 Chron 36:15 (compare to the Deuteronomistic formula in 2 Kgs 17:13), see Bright, „Prose Sermons“, 30, no. 1.

60 Jer 7:3 presents significant differences in punctuation between the MT text and the Septuagint version. See commentaries.

61 The promise to the fathers, including the theme of the promised land, occurs further in Jer 25:5; 35:15 (as also 24:10); and see Bright, „Prose Sermons“, 40, no. 39.

62 For different suggestions to explain the composition and the unity or evolution of Jer 25:1–14, consult McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 628–632.

63 Jer 7:15 seems to be a secondary addition to the speech in 7:1–14, see A. Rofé, „Studies in the Composition of the Book of Jeremiah“, Tarbiz 44 (1974–5), 13–15.

64 Pace Thiel, Deuteronomitische Redaktion, 293–294; Nicholson, Preaching, 69–71; and Carroll, Chaos, 84–95.

65 Even Holladay concurs with this late dating (Jeremiah 1, 509–510); and see Carroll, Jeremiah, 366–69; McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 414–419; Hoffman, Jeremiah 1–25, 402–406. For an early Jeremian dating, see Bright, Jeremiah, 119–120; and Lundbom's discussion of the scholarly diverse positions (Jeremiah 1–20, 802–804, 808–810).

66 This literary dependency was noted earlier by A. Rofé („Composition“, 14, n. 41) and by M. Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation, 131–134); yet both scholars considered Jer 17:19–27 to be non-Jeremian, and saw its ideological context as that of exilic and post-exilic Judaism.

67 Jer 17:19–27 lacks any Priestly phraseology (including that of the Holiness Code). Compare to the clear connections between Ezek 20:11 and Exod 31:12–17; and see R. Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup 358), Sheffield 2002, 33–34, 49.

68 So Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 132.

69 Ibid, 133–134. Though I accept Fishbane's emphasis on Jer 17:19–27's exceptional „exegetical innovations“, I argue that the „covenant speeches“ in general suggest the similar motive of gaining this Sinaitic status, and see below.

70 Hillel 'et hashabbat occurs in the Sabbath law of Exod 31:14; and repeatedly in Ezekiel (20: 16, 21, 24; 22:8; 23:38; 44:7); see also Isa 56:2, 6. Jeremiah uses hillel in the context of profaning the divine name (Jer 34:16) and land (16:18).

71 So for instance Hoffman, Jeremiah 1–25, 402–406; as already Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 510.

72 M. Greenberg argued further that this transformation in using the individual-moral sphere to critically judge the nation, characterizes the prophets in general („The Sabbath-pericope in Jeremiah“, in 'Iyyunim be-Sepher Yirmiyahu, Jerusalem 1971, 23–52, and specifically p. 35).

73 Ibid, 35–36.

74 See for instance Jeremiah's repetition of „in the day [NJPS: when] I freed them from the land of Egypt“ in Jer 11:4 (see also 7:22; 34:13), which differs from the Deuteronomic emphasis on the covenant in Sinai-Horeb (as in Deut 5:1–5).

75 The phrases in Jer 7:5–6 cannot be taken as Deuteromic-Deuteronomistic, but appear to be special Jeremian phraseology: (1) for 'im heitiv teitivu 'et darkhekhem v'et ma'alaleikhem, see Weippert, Prosareden, 137–148. (2) 'asah mishpat is not a Deuteronomic phrase altogether. It demands justice from whoever has the authority to defend the weak in the society, thus God (Gen 18:25; Deut 10:18; and in Ps 146:7), the king (1 Kgs 3:28), the princes of Israel (Ezek 45:9), or other elite members of society (Micah 6:8; Ps 119:121; Prov 21:3, 7; 15; Ezek 18:8), and see in this last connection Jer 7:5, as also in poetic verse, Jer 5:1. Moreover, bein 'ish uvein re'ehu, which appears otherwise only in poetic passages (Jer 3:20; 5:8), is annexed to 'asah mishpat only here, and may echo Exod 18:16. (3) The triplet ger yatom ve'almanah recalls the Deuteronomic triplet (as in Deut 14:29, and common in Deuteronomy 12–26; and see Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 59); yet lo' ta'ashoqu occurs in Deuteronomy in a different context (Deut 24:14; and see the Priestly phrase, Lev 5:21). Thus Jeremiah collates two independent Deuteronomic phrases. (4) vedam naqi lo' tishpekhu bamaqom hazeh indeed recalls Deuteronic-Deuteronomistic phrasing (see Deut 19:10; 21:7; 2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4), but it occurs in poetic verses in Jeremiah as well (Jer 2:34; 22:17; and in prose, 19:4). (5) ve'aharei 'elohim 'aherim lo' telkhu lera' lakhem present another amalgamated phrase. halakh 'akharei 'elohim 'akherim is common in Deuteronomy (as in Deut 6:14; 11: 28; 13:3), and occurs in Jeremiah only in prose passages; but lera' lakhem (see also Jer 25:7) reverses the Deuteronomic phrase lema'an yitav lakh (as in Deut 4:40; 5:16, 29; 6:3, 18; 12:25, 28; 22:7; and in other prose passages in Jer 7:23; 38:20; 40:9; 42:6). These short comments augment other instances of unique Jeremian idiom, noted in Bright, „Prose Sermons“, 30–35; and Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 35–40, 53–63.

76 Aside from the „covenant speeches“, this ideological intention occurs in the repeated usage of the second commandment (as in Jer 16:11), which symbolizes the general rejection of God, including violating his covenant (16:11; as also 13:10; 22:9). See Smith, „The Decalogue“, 200–203; and see Zimmerli, The Law and the Prophets, 46, 60.

77 Smith („The Decalogue“, 206) uses this functional argument to explain the allusions to only seven of the TC.

78 This phenomenon is clearly not restricted to the „covenant speeches“, to mention one example: laws of manumission were paraphrased in a prophecy which focuses on Zedekiah's decree of servants' release and re-submission (Jer 34:8–22).

79 Contra A. Kuenen, who was inclined to accept the secondary nature of this passage „because such a high estimation of one single ritual prescription can hardly be reconciled with the rest of his utterances regarding the will of Jahveh“. (in The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel: An Historical and Critical Enquiry [trans. A. Milroy], London 1877, 340).

80 For further discussions of inner-biblical interpretation in Jeremiah see my papers: D. Rom-Shiloni, „Facing Destruction“, 189–205; idem, „The Torah in Jeremiah: The Interpretive Techniques and the Ideological Perspectives“, Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 17 (2007), 43–87; idem, „Deuteronomic Concepts of Exile“, 101–123.

81 In this I profoundly differ from Otto (and Achenbach) who finds a lively fourth century debate in the book of Jeremiah, following his general prospect of Jeremiah as a pseudoepigrapha, see Otto, „Der Pentateuch im Jeremiabuch“, 298.

82 Contra Achenbach, „The Pentateuch“, 265–267, 280.

83 Additional examples for Jeremiah's interpretive utilization of Deuteronomic terms and texts, see M. Leuchter, „The Temple Sermon and the Term מקום in the Jeremianic Corpus“, JSOT 30,1 (2005), 93–109; idem, „The Manumission Laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: the Jeremiah Connection“, JBL 127,4 (2008), 635–653.

84 B. M. Levinson discussed mainly biblical legal literature and pointed out the „rhetoric of concealment“, which he convincingly considers a central technique of adaptations of laws to later circumstances, by gaining authority yet concealing revisions and innovations („The Human Voice in Divine Revelation: The Problem of Authority in Biblical Law“, in M. A. Williams, C. Cox and M. S. Jaffee [eds.], Innovation in Religious Traditions: Essays in the interpretation of Religious Change [Religion and Society 31], Berlin / New York 1992], 35–71). The fascinating traits of the „rhetoric of concealment“ need, however, to be studied carefully in the prophetic literature, since it seems to be applied in various distinctive ways by Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

85 To mention a few examples: the connection between Jer 2:3 and Lev 22:14–16 (in distinction from the legal contexts of Leviticus 5 and Numbers 18); as also the phrases „proclaim a release“ and „no one should keep his fellow Judean enslaved“ (Jer 34:8–9).

86 Rom-Shiloni, „Facing Destruction“, 189–205.

87 These observations accord D. N. Freedman's suggestions („Law and Prophets“, 250–265) regarding the evolution of the Pentateuch up to Kings in the first half of the sixth century (580–550 BCE), as also most of the prophetic literature assigned to that period down to the end of the sixth century. In agreement with this time frame, the present textual discussion suggests to date the exegetical process already to the early sixth century. Compare to the common recognition that late biblical literature, mostly of the Persian Period, is exegetical, as in S. Japhet, „Law and ‚The Law' in Ezra-Nehemiah“, Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions, Jerusalem 1988, 99–115.

88 To mention central studies: M. Noth, „The Jerusalem Catastrophe of 587 B.C. and Its Significance for Israel“, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (trans. D. R. ApThomas), London 1966, 260–280; C. R. Seitz, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah (BZAW 176), Berlin / New York 1989; and Carolyn Sharp, who argues for diverse Jeremian traditions and long redactional process in the two centers independently (Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero-Jeremianic Prose, London 2003).

89 See Rom-Shiloni, „The Prophecy for ‚Everlasting Covenant‘“, 201–223; idem, „Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology“, HUCA 76 (2005), 1–45.


Export Citation