Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum)

Enduring Exile

Supplements to

Vetus Testamentum Edited by the Board of the Quarterly h.m. barstad – r.p. gordon – a. hurvitz – j. joosten g.n. knoppers – a. van der kooij – a. lemaire – c.a. newsom h. spieckermann – j. trebolle barrera – h.g.m. williamson

VOLUME 141

Enduring Exile The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible

By

Martien A. Halvorson-Taylor

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Halvorson-Taylor, Martien A. Enduring exile : the metaphorization of exile in the Hebrew Bible / by Martien A. Halvorson-Taylor. p. cm. — (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, ISSN 0083-5889 ; v. 141) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-16097-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Exile (Punishment)—Biblical teaching. 2. Metaphor in the Bible. 3. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Bible. O.T. Jeremiah—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 5. Bible. O.T. Isaiah— Criticism, interpretation, etc. 6. Bible. O.T. Zechariah I–VIII—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series. BS1199.B3H35 2011 224’.06—dc22 2010043089

ISSN 0083-5889 ISBN 978 90 04 16097 2 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints BRILL, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

CONTENTS Abbreviations ..................................................................................... Acknowledgments ..............................................................................

ix xiii

Chapter One Introduction ............................................................ I. The Motif of an Enduring Exile in Later Second Temple Literature .................................................................. A. Exile Prolonged ................................................................ B. Exile as Metaphor ............................................................ II. Recovering Ideas of Exile in Biblical Literature ............... A. An Interactive Model of Metaphor .............................. B. Early Associations for Exile in Preexilic Biblical Literature ........................................................................... 1. Deuteronomy 28 ........................................................ 2. Leviticus 26 ................................................................. III. Prospectus ...............................................................................

1

Chapter Two Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation .......................... I. Introduction ........................................................................... II. The Two Editions of the Book of Consolation ................ III. Images of Exile in the Book of Consolation ..................... A. Jacob’s Distress (Poem 1, Jer 30:5–11) ........................ 1. The Day of Yhwh (MT Jer 30:5–7/LXX Jer 37:5–7) ................................................................... 2. Salvation Is Assured (MT Jer 30:8–11/LXX Jer 38:8–9) ................................................................... B. Wounded Zion (Poem 2, Jer 30:12–17) ...................... C. Favor in the Wilderness (Poem 4, Jer 31:2–6) ........... D. Rachel Weeps, Ephraim Repents (Poem 6, Jer 31:15–22) .................................................................... 1. Stage One ..................................................................... 2. Stage Two .................................................................... E. Introduction (Jer 30:1–4) ............................................... 1. Audience ...................................................................... 2. Conception of Exile ...................................................

9 9 11 15 17 21 25 31 38 43 43 45 50 50 53 55 62 69 74 78 80 86 88 90

vi

contents IV. Exile in the Two Editions of the Book of Consolation .... A. Broadened Audience ....................................................... B. Geography ......................................................................... C. Elusive Restoration .......................................................... V. Conclusion ..............................................................................

96 97 99 100 103

Chapter Three Isaiah ...................................................................... I. Introduction ........................................................................... II. Exile and Redemption .......................................................... A. Isaiah 48:20–21 ................................................................ B. Isaiah 40:1–2 ..................................................................... III. Exile and Death ..................................................................... A. Isaiah 42:18–25 ................................................................ B. Isaiah 51:12–16 ................................................................ IV. Exile and the Mission of the Servant ................................. A. The Mission of the Servant (Isa 42:5–9; 49:7–13) ..... B. Isaiah 61:1–3 ..................................................................... C. Isaiah 58:6–7 ..................................................................... V. Conclusion ..............................................................................

107 107 109 110 119 127 128 133 136 138 142 145 148

Chapter Four Zechariah 1–8 ........................................................ I. Introduction ........................................................................... II. Jeremiah’s Seventy Years ...................................................... A. MT Jeremiah 29:10–11/LXX Jeremiah 36:10–11 ....... B. LXX Jeremiah 25:8–9, 11–12 ......................................... C. MT Jeremiah 25:8–9, 11–12 .......................................... III. Enduring Exile in the Night Visions ................................. A. The First Vision (Zech 1:7–17) ..................................... 1. The First Vision and First Oracle (1:8–15) ............ 2. The Second and Third Oracles to the First Vision (1:16, 17) ...................................................................... 3. The Superscription to the Night Visions (1:7) ...... B. The Second Vision (Zech 2:1–4 [Eng. 1:18–21]) ....... C. Exhortation (Zech 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13]) ................. IV. Yhwh’s Renewed Presence .................................................. A. The Prologue to the Night Visions (Zech 1:1–6) ....... B. Zechariah 7–8 ................................................................... V. Conclusion ..............................................................................

151 151 154 158 159 161 165 165 168 171 174 180 185 190 191 195 197

contents

vii

Conclusion ..........................................................................................

199

Bibliography ........................................................................................

205

Index .................................................................................................... Index of Authors ........................................................................... Index of Citations ..........................................................................

215 215 218

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD AfOB AJSL AnBib ANQ ATD BDB

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Archiv für Orientforschung: Beiheft The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Analecta biblica Andover Newton Quarterly Das Alte Testament Deutsch Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990. BibJS Biblical and Judaic Studies BibOr Biblica et orientalia BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament CBC The Cambridge Bible Commentary CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly DSD Dead Sea Discoveries EBib Etudes bibliques FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2d. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910. GTA Göttinger theologischer Arbeiten HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999. HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament

x HS HSAT HSM HTR HUCA ICC JANESCU JAOS JBL JJS JNES Joüon

JPS JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup JTS KHC LAI LEC LXX MT NCB NIV NJPS NRSV OTL OtSt PEQ PRSt PTMS RB

abbreviations Hebrew Studies Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/1–2. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991. Jewish Publication Society Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series The Jewish Theological Seminary Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Library of Ancient Israel Library of Early Christianity Septuagint Masoretic Text New Century Bible New International Version Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text New Revised Standard Version The Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Palestine Exploration Quarterly Perspectives in Religious Studies Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series Revue biblique

abbreviations RevQ SAA SBL SJOT SJT SO SSN STAR TDOT

TLOT

VT VTE VTSup WMANT ZAW

xi

Revue de Qumran State Archives of Assyria Society of Biblical Literature Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology Symbolae osloenses Studia semitica neerlandica Studies in Theology and Religion Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974–. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997. Vetus Testamentum Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon Vetus Testamentum Supplements Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book began as a dissertation in Harvard University’s Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. It was written under the direction of Jon D. Levenson, whom I am fortunate to call my teacher and whose scholarship and intellectual generosity continue to be immeasurably inspiring and formative. I have benefited immensely from the careful erudition and keen insights of Gary A. Anderson and Peter B. Machinist, members of the dissertation committee. To all three, I remain grateful. The transformation of a dissertation into a book requires thanking more people than can be named here, so I will err on the side of economy and list only a very few who were instrumental. I am grateful to Cynthia R. Chapman, Blaire French, Charles T. Mathewes, Hindy Najman, and especially Eugene P. McGarry: invaluable colleagues who offered me encouragement and commented on earlier drafts. I wish to thank André Lemaire for his early comments and my patient editor at Brill, Hans Barstad. Countless conversations with my colleagues in the Department of Religious Studies and in the Jewish Studies Program at the University of Virginia have informed my presentation here; I am particularly grateful for the suggestions made by Larry Bouchard and Asher Biemann. Thanks are also due to Emily O. Gravett, M. David Litwa, and, over the ocean, Debbie de Wit, all of whom ably assisted in the final stages. I benefited further from funding from the University of Virginia’s Sesquicentennial Associateship, the Professors as Writers Program, Faculty Fellowships for Summer Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences, and the University’s Jewish Studies Program through the Posen Foundation. My fellowship at the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, through its material and intellectual support, allowed me to finish the book. Finally, I am indebted to my family: especially Frederieke Sanders Taylor and Willard B. Taylor, my parents and first teachers; my grandfather Pieter Sanders; my sister D. Severn Taylor(!); my children Juliet, Fré, and Heming; and most of all my husband Neal, to whom this book is dedicated as a small token of my love and gratitude.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION The Second Temple period, within its rich literary activity, witnessed the development of a motif that held that the Babylonian exile endured beyond the returns and restoration of the late sixth century b.c.e. This motif was not simply a comment on the deficiencies and disappointments of the restoration, or an acknowledgment of the various Jewish communities that persisted in the Diaspora. It marked a change in the understanding of exile itself. Exile had come to mean more than forced migration and geographic displacement and functioned as an expression for marginalization of other sorts. Exile now signified not only forced migration and living in a foreign land under foreign domination, but also a variety of alienations: political disenfranchisement within Yehud, deep dissatisfaction with the status quo, and a feeling of separation from God. In this new interpretation of exile, which was not limited to its geographic dimension, exile persisted despite repatriation; it was a condition that could not be resolved simply by returning to the land, as the jubilant promises of Second Isaiah suggested. The motif of a protracted and ongoing exile appears in its fuller form in a variety of texts beginning in the second century b.c.e. and would in turn provide the basis for significant trajectories in the thought world of ancient Judaism and early Christianity; indeed, the ongoing legacy of this motif is still manifest in Judaism and Christianity today.1

1 See, for example, Ranen Omer-Sherman, Israel in Exile: Jewish Writing and the Desert (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2006); Carolyn J. Sharp, “The Trope of ‘Exile’ and the Displacement of Old Testament Theology,” PRSt 31 (2004): 153–69; Howard Wettstein, Diasporas and Exiles: Varieties of Jewish Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002); Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002); Isaiah M. Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity (JSPSup 21; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God (3 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992); Arnold M. Eisen, Galut: Modern Jewish Reflection on Homelessness and Homecoming (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986); Simon Rawidowicz, Israel: The Ever-Dying People, and Other Essays (Benjamin C. I. Ravid, ed.; Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Presses, 1986); Walter Brueggemann, Hopeful Imagination:

2

chapter one

The growth of the literary motif of an enduring exile is noteworthy because it contradicts assertions within the Hebrew Bible itself that the Babylonian exile was finite. Jeremiah stated that Babylonian domination would run its course after “seventy years,” and that Yhwh would then bring the people back to Judah (29:10; cf. 25:11–12). The question of how to interpret Jeremiah’s seventy-year period, however, is complicated; its starting point is unclear, and the period could simply be, like the “forty years” that Ezekiel allots for the devastation of Judah (4:6), a stereotypical expression signifying a long time.2 Whenever the period began, however, Chronicles and Ezra claim that it ended in 538 b.c.e., when the Persian king Cyrus issued an edict permitting a group of exiles to return to Judah (2 Chr 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–3a). These texts regard the exile as a discrete event whose effective end could be synchronized with the decree of Cyrus. The book of Ezra opens by citing Cyrus’s edict, issued in his first regnal year, as the decisive sign that the exilic period has ended, and that a new period of rebuilding and national reconstitution lies ahead for the returning Judeans.3 The author confirms that the edict marks the end of the exilic period by explaining that it was issued “so that the word of Yhwh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished” (1:1–3a; cf. 2 Chr 36:22–23). In an apparent interpretation of Jeremiah’s notion of a discrete exile, the author here suggests that the period of Babylonian hegemony that Jeremiah predicted has ended.4 The enumeration of the returnees in Ezra 2 further suggests that the author regards the return of the deportees who resettle Yehud as nothing less than the return of Israel, another sign that the period of exile has come to its close.5 Prophetic Voices in Exile (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); and Ralph W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). 2 The problem of interpreting Jeremiah’s “seventy years” is discussed in detail in chapter 4. 3 On the presuppositions behind Ezra’s view of a mass return (and a commensurate mass deportation), see Bob Becking, “ ‘We All Returned as One!’: Critical Notes on the Myth of the Mass Return,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 3–18. 4 Ezra 1 may be referring to the sentiment behind Jer 25:12 or 29:10. Or, as Becking proposes, Ezra 1 may also refer to the “word of Yhwh by the mouth of Jeremiah” in Jer 30–31, which speaks of the end of the exilic period even if it does not refer to a seventy-year period (ibid., 13). 5 Sara Japhet makes the argument that Israel is regarded as those who returned from Babylon, on the basis of (1) terminology that stresses that the community consists of former exiles, for example ‫( העלים משבי הגולה‬Ezra 2:1, Neh 7:6), ‫כל הבאים‬

introduction

3

Chronicles summarizes the exilic period thus: ‫ד־מֹלְך ַמ ְלכוּת‬ ְ ‫וּל ָבנָ יו ַל ֲﬠ ָב ִדים ַﬠ‬ ְ ‫ל־בּ ֶבל וַ יִּ ְהיוּ־לוֹ‬ ָ ‫ן־ה ֶח ֶרב ֶא‬ ַ ‫ וַ יֶּ גֶ ל ַה ְשּׁ ֵא ִרית ִמ‬20 ‫יה ָכּל־‬ ָ ‫תוֹת‬ ֶ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ‬ ַ ‫ד־ר ְצ ָתה ָה ָא ֶרץ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַמלֹּאות ְדּ ַבר־יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ִפי יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ַﬠ‬21 ‫ָפּ ָרס׃‬ :‫יְ ֵמי ָה ַשּׁ ָמּה ָשׁ ָב ָתה ְל ַמלֹּאות ִשׁ ְב ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה‬ 20

Those who had escaped from the sword he exiled to Babylon, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of Yhwh by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had made up for its Sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. (2 Chr 36:20–21)

While Chronicles’ account of the destruction of Jerusalem reflects the basic Deuteronomistic narrative in 2 Kgs 25, it differs from that text in its conception of the extent of the exilic period. Both accounts suggest that the beginning of the period was marked in 587 b.c.e. by the Babylonian king’s sacking and burning the “house of Yhwh” and Jerusalem and taking into exile those who survived (2 Kgs 25:8–21; 2 Chr 36:17–20). Writing before 562 b.c.e., before Jehoiachin of Judah was released, the author of 2 Kgs 25 had presented the exile of the south, as Rainer Albertz has written, as “the end of history,” ending the account with v. 21’s laconic “Judah went into exile out of its land.”6 While a subsequent notice about the amelioration of Jehoiachin’s status in Babylon (vv. 27–30) added a note of hope, that later addition gave no indication of when or even if the exile would end.7 Writing at a later date,

‫( מהשבי ירושלם‬Ezra 3:8), and ‫בני הגולה‬/‫בני גלותא‬/‫( הגולה‬Ezra 4:1; 6:16, 19, 20; 9:4; 10:6, 7, 16) (p. 97) and (2) the narrative of Ezra–Nehemiah which, beginning with the edict of Cyrus, is a history of the returned exiles (p. 109) (“People and Land in the Restoration Period,” in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006], 96–116; reprinted from Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 [ed. G. Strecker; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983], 103–24). 6 2 Kings indicates the beginning of exile both in Israel (17:23) and in Judah (25:21). In the mind of the historian, the exile of Israel in 722 b.c.e. signaled the end of that nation. Albertz argues that for the historian the exile of the south by the Babylonians was even more “the end of history,” since it was marked by the deposing of the king, the breaching and conquest of the city, and the destruction of the temple (Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. [trans. D. Green; Atlanta: SBL, 2003], 9–11.) 7 The fall of the south is described in 2 Kgs 25:1–30. Within this passage, vv. 13–21 are largely the work of an exilic writer (Dtr2) in Babylon shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. An exilic colophon, vv. 22–30, was added later in the mid-sixth century b.c.e. (Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005], 304). In the original ending (vv. 13–21), the historian offered no speculation on how long the period would last. Aside from the

4

chapter one

however, the author of Chronicles looked back on the second half of the sixth century to identify the end of the exilic period. Indeed, Chronicles fixes the end of the period according to three overlapping indicators: the establishment of the Persian kingdom, the completion of the seventy-year period prophesied by Jeremiah, and the fulfillment of the missed Sabbaths of the land. Thus Chronicles correlates the Jeremian tradition with the Priestly explanation of the duration of the exile in Lev 26:34–35, 43. In the author’s mind, these three events coincided in 538 b.c.e., when the Persian king Cyrus issued his edict permitting the exiles to return and rebuild the temple (2 Chr 36:22–23, paralleling Ezra 1:1–3a). With the issuing of Cyrus’s edict, according to Chronicles, Jeremiah’s seventy-year period is coming to a close, the land’s Sabbath rest has been accounted for, and Israel is at a turning point in its history, poised for restoration and redemption. This tradition of a finite exile, which Chronicles and Ezra equate with Jeremiah’s notion of a limited or seventy-year period of punishment, provided the basis for the ancient historiographical construction of “exile” and “return.”8 This view of the exile’s duration was propounded in particular by those Babylonian exiles that anticipated and accomplished their return to Israel. Critical biblical scholarship, too, has largely accepted this notion that the Babylonian Exile was a finite period; the terms “preexilic,” “exilic,” and “postexilic” denote major periods in the normative schematization of Judean history. Replicating the chronological framework already embedded in some postexilic historiography, many modern histories of ancient Israel devote a chapter to the years between the destruction of the temple and Cyrus’s authorization of its replacement.9

emphasis 2 Kgs 25 places on repentance in its retelling of the past, vv. 13–21 provide no intimation of a future reconstitution. The exilic colophon (vv. 22–30), by contrast, imagines the continuation of Israel even under Babylonian rule and includes a hopeful portent, the release of King Jehoiachin (in 562 b.c.e., 2 Kgs 25:27–30). Even in this later addition, however, the finality of exile is underscored by the notice in v. 26 that “all the people” headed toward Egypt, ending Israelite history in the location where it began. 8 Michael Knibb points out that Ezek 4:4–8 also puts forth the notion of a limited exile and that its reckoning would also have its literary afterlife in, for example, the Damascus Document (I, 1–5; see “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” HeyJ 17 [1976]: 253–72 at 262). 9 For a critique of the designations “exile” and “exilic period” within biblical scholarship, see Jill Middlemas, The Templeless Age: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the “Exile” (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), esp. 3–5.

introduction

5

More recently, however, the usefulness of that framework, and of the larger biblical narrative of “exile and restoration,” has been called into question.10 It is axiomatic that there is a difference between an historical event—what really happened—and how it is interpreted, remembered, presented, and represented. Although Israel and perhaps Judah were subject to earlier deportations, the Babylonian exile assumed precedence in the biblical imagination and thus its depiction requires particular attention.11 Scholars have debated whether the Babylonian exile was a seismic interruption in national life,12 whether there was an essential continuity between life before and life after,13 and even whether the notion that there was an exile was, from the

10 Robert P. Carroll calls the tradition of a temporary, finite exile “myth” and argues that it is found in Ezra–Nehemiah, Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah (especially 24; 29:10–14), and Ezekiel. As evidence of the different interpretations of the Babylonian exile, Carroll cites Jer 42 and 29:4–7 and the flourishing Jewish communities in Persia, Greece, Rome, and especially Egypt (“Israel, History of (Post-Monarchic Period),” ABD 3:575). See also idem, “The Myth of the Empty Land,” Semeia 59 (1992): 79–93. 11 The northern kingdom had been subject to deportation by the Assyrians in 732 and 722 b.c.e. Judah may have had its first experience of exile after Sennacherib’s 701 campaign; Assyrian sources note a deportation under Sennacherib, and the event may be reflected in Mic 1:16; 2:4–5; 4:6; and perhaps 4:10. See Stephen Stohlmann, “The Judean Exile after 701 B.C.E.,” in Scripture in Context II (ed. William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 147–75. 12 See, for example, Yehezkel Kaufmann, From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy (vol. 4 of History of the Religion of Israel; trans. C. W. Efroymson; New York: Ktav, 1977), 197–201. Kaufmann argues that the land of Judah was almost totally desolate during the exilic period, as implied by Ezra–Nehemiah. 13 For the view that a substantial part of the Judean population remained in Judah, see Enno Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit (FRLANT 69; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956); and Carroll, “The Myth of the Empty Land.” Building on Carroll and including both textual and archaeological evidence, Hans M. Barstad has challenged the notion of a complete depopulation of Judea (The Myth of the Empty Land [SO 28; Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996]); see also Lisbeth Fried, “The Land Lay Desolate: Conquest and Restoration in the Ancient Near East,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 21–54. Becking has argued that despite the limited deportation and the limited return (which was significantly smaller than Ezra 1–2 suggests), the period nonetheless “provoked a change in selfunderstanding” and “provoked a crisis in the Israelite, Yahwistic religion” (“Continuity and Discontinuity after the Exile: Introductory Remarks,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 3–4). Bustenay Oded argues that there was a continuity between the preexilic and exilic periods, “but with a marked decline in quality and very limited in quantity”; see “Where is the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’ to be Found? History versus Myth,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 55–74 at 71.

6

chapter one

start, a theological and literary invention.14 In addition, the biblical picture of a “return” from exile has been questioned. It is now generally agreed that the return was not nearly as comprehensive as Ezra 2 suggests, but it is still not clear how many exiles returned as a result of Cyrus’s edict, or when they actually returned.15 In short, the line between the exilic and postexilic periods is not as sharply defined as 2 Chr 36 and Ezra 1–2 assume. Indeed, other passages even within Ezra–Nehemiah suggest that this neat periodization was questioned in the postexilic period itself. There is a sense that the condition of exile, conceived of not simply as geographical displacement, but also as enslavement to foreign rulers, has not been resolved by the return of Judeans from Babylon to Yehud. Thus, even as Ezra 1:1 asserts that Jeremiah’s discrete exile has been completed, the claim is later qualified. Ezra himself states: ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ֹלהינוּ ְל ַה ְשׁ ִאיר ָלנוּ ְפּ ֵל‬ ֵ ‫ט־רגַ ע ָהיְ ָתה ְת ִחנָּ ה ֵמ ֵאת יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ִכּ ְמ ַﬠ‬8 ‫וּל ִת ֵתּנוּ ִמ ְחיָ ה ְמ ַﬠט‬ ְ ‫ֹלהינוּ‬ ֵ ‫ת־לנוּ יָ ֵתד ִבּ ְמקוֹם ָק ְדשׁוֹ ְל ָה ִאיר ֵﬠינֵ ינוּ ֱא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָל ֶת‬ ‫ט־ﬠ ֵלינוּ ֶח ֶסד‬ ָ ַ‫ֹלהינוּ וַ יּ‬ ֵ ‫וּב ַﬠ ְב ֻד ֵתנוּ לֹא ֲﬠזָ ָבנוּ ֱא‬ ְ ‫י־ﬠ ָב ִדים ֲאנַ ְחנוּ‬ ֲ ‫ ִכּ‬9 :‫ְבּ ַﬠ ְב ֻד ֵתנוּ‬ ‫וּל ַה ֲﬠ ִמיד ֶאת־‬ ְ ‫ֹלהינוּ‬ ֵ ‫ת־בּית ֱא‬ ֵ ‫רוֹמם ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ת־לנוּ ִמ ְחיָ ה ְל‬ ָ ‫ִל ְפנֵ י ַמ ְל ֵכי ָפ ַרס ָל ֶת‬ ‫ירוּשׁ ָלםִ׃‬ ָ ‫וּב‬ ִ ‫יהוּדה‬ ָ ‫ת־לנוּ גָ ֵדר ִבּ‬ ָ ‫ָח ְרב ָֹתיו וְ ָל ֶת‬ 8

But now, for a brief moment, favor has been shown by Yhwh our God, who has spared us a remnant and given us a stake in his holy place; our God has brightened our eyes and given us a little sustenance in our slavery. 9For slaves we are, but our God has not abandoned us in our slavery, but has extended upon us steadfast love before the kings of Persia, to give us sustenance to raise up the house of our God, to repair its ruins, and to give us a wall in Yehud and Jerusalem. (Ezra 9:8–9)16 14 Charles C. Torrey made the first sustained criticism of the notion of exile and return (Ezra Studies [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910], 285–89; The Chronicler’s History of Israel [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1954], xxvii–xxviii). See more recently and from a different vantage point, Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition (LAI 4; ed. Douglas Knight; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1998), esp. 86–88; Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (New York: Basic Books, 1999), esp. 190–96; and P. R. Davies, In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ (2d ed.; London: Continuum, 2006). 15 Baruch Halpern has proposed, for example, that the returnees did not arrive until 521 b.c.e.; see “A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1–6,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. William Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David Noel Freedman; BibJS 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 81–142. Rainer Albertz makes a similar argument based on the royal oracles in Second Isaiah; see “Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40.1–52.12) in 521 BCE,” JSOT 27 (2003): 371–83. 16 For a similar sentiment, but without the pro-Persian coloring, cf. Neh 9:36–37; indeed, Neh 9:36–37 is attributed to Ezra in the Greek Bible (LXX Neh 9:6). The sense

introduction

7

In other words, Yhwh has permitted a remnant to return to Judea and rebuild the Jerusalem temple, but that remnant is not politically independent: the residents of Yehud are still “slaves” to the kings of Persia, just as, according to Chronicles, they had been “slaves” to the kings of Babylon (see 2 Chr 36:20). Ezra’s words are notable, first, for how their view of the restoration contrasts with that of Second Isaiah: whereas the earlier text optimistically announced a release from foreign servitude (Isa 40:1–2), Ezra expresses both the idea that exile is, in essence, slavery (as it is described, too, in Second Isaiah) and the idea that exile has continued. Thus Israel can still be in exile even though the people have returned to the land that Yhwh promised to their ancestors. In the exodus typology that informs Second Isaiah’s account of the return, Yhwh rescued Israel from slavery in Egypt and established them in Canaan, where they would serve him alone. But in Ezra’s view, even after the return to Judah, Israel has not been released from servitude to foreign powers. Such early questioning of the duration and meaning of exile is the subject of this book, which seeks to identify the antecedents of the second-century b.c.e. motif of the “enduring exile” in postexilic biblical literature. The influence of the experience of the Babylonian exile on the history, religion, and literature of ancient Israel has remained a central concern in modern biblical scholarship since the appearance of Wellhausen’s Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel.17 In the larger debate about the nature and effect of the exilic experience, the biblical conception of exile has received some attention, but until quite recently that attention has been limited. Peter R. Ackroyd, particularly in his Exile and Restoration, examined the historical experience of exile and the influence of the understanding of exile in early Judaism.18 Ackroyd argued that since the fact of the Babylonian exile “inevitably exerted a great influence upon the development of theological thinking,” one must focus not simply on reconstructing the history of that

of ongoing captivity in these two passages is noted by James C. VanderKam, “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJSup 56; ed. James M. Scott; New York: Brill, 1997), 89–109. 17 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York: Meridian Books, 1957); repr. of Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Enzies; Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885); trans. of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (2d ed.; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883). 18 Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (London: SCM, 1968).

8

chapter one

period, but on “attempting to understand an attitude, or more properly a variety of attitudes, taken up towards that historic fact.”19 But progress has been slow; in 1997, James M. Scott noted the dearth of scholarship on early conceptions of the exile and their influence on the development of forms of Judaism and Christianity.20 In recent years, however, the topic has attracted more sustained interest, including a new SBL program unit focused on exile.21 In the remainder of this introduction, I will present evidence for the rise of the “enduring exile” motif in Second Temple literature. The motif actually takes two forms. These two forms of the motif deserve separate treatment, but they may also be collectively described as tropes that extend the basic meaning of exile—geographical displacement—so that it includes other forms of distress. The first form is a rejection of the periodization of Israelite history advanced in 2 Chr 36 and Ezra 1–2. Some authors argued that the exilic period extended until a certain historical moment, such as the rise of the Maccabees; others maintained that the exile continued to the present day and would only end with an eschatological intervention. In the second form of the motif, the chronology of exile is not the primary concern; instead, exile becomes a metaphor for political disenfranchisement, social inequality, and alienation from God. To suffer any of those conditions is, in effect, to be in exile. This second form of the “enduring exile” motif marks a profound transformation in the interpretation of exilic experience and is the primary focus of my study. I will suggest that this extension of exile’s meaning, which allowed it to function as a metaphor, is not an exilic or postexilic innovation but is in fact rooted

19

Ibid., 237–38. James M. Scott, “Introduction,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (ed. James M. Scott; JSJSup 56; New York: Brill, 1997), 2–3. There are exceptions, some of which Scott also notes. For example, see Odil H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967); D. E. Gowan, “The Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic,” in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (ed. A. L. Merrill and T. W. Overholt; PTMS 17; Pittsburgh, Penn.: Pickwick Press, 1977), 205–23. 21 See also Lester Grabbe, ed., Leading Captivity Captive: ‘The Exile’ as History and Ideology (JSOTSup 278; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Jörn Kiefer, Exil und Diaspora: Begrifflichkeit und Deutungen im antiken Judentum und in der Hebräischen Bibel (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 19; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005); and Jill Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 20

introduction

9

in preexilic thinking about the threat of exile. The body of this study attempts to chart the emergence and early expression of this form of the “enduring exile” motif in postexilic literature from the late sixth through third century b.c.e. by examining the flexible meanings and range of associations that exile accrued in late prophetic literature. I. The Motif of an Enduring Exile in Later Second Temple Literature A. Exile Prolonged Despite the declaration of 2 Chr 36 and Ezra 1–2 that the Babylonian exile had effectively ended with the edict of Cyrus in 538 b.c.e., a vital stream of tradition maintained that the exile persisted beyond that moment, and even beyond the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple in 515 b.c.e. Michael A. Knibb was the first to observe that “the majority” of passages dealing with exile in the literature of the intertestamental period did not view exile as a past event.22 Knibb began his review of Second Temple references to exile with Dan 9, which reinterprets Jeremiah’s “seventy years” (v. 2) as a period of “seventy weeks” of years (v. 24). This reinterpretation draws on the idea, expressed in Lev 26:34 and applied in 2 Chr 36:21, that the exilic period would end only once “the land has paid off its Sabbaths.” The product of these influences yields a chronology in which the period that began with the Babylonian exile would endure for a total of 490 years.23 In this scheme, the duration of Jerusalem’s devastation is given as “seven weeks” (Dan 9:25), or forty-nine years—a period that roughly corresponds to the span between the destruction of Jerusalem and the edict of Cyrus. The reference is significant because it effectively denies that Cyrus’s proclamation ended the exile. For the author of Dan 9, the period of the Babylonian exile was just the first phase of a much longer exilic period that would come to an end during the crisis under Antiochus IV Epiphanes.24

22

Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” 253. Daniel 9’s interpretation of Jer 29 does not actually cite the text; as Knibb points out, aside from the use of ‫ להשיב‬in 9:25, which also appears in Jer 29:10, there are no other borrowings from Jeremiah’s language (ibid., 254). 24 Ibid., 254–55. 23

10

chapter one

A similar fusing of the exilic and postexilic periods occurs in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90), in which seventy shepherds are assigned to oversee Israel between the exile and the Maccabean revolt. The number seventy suggests that Dan 9’s reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s seventy years has defined the terms in which the vision is constructed. Again, the exilic period proper is associated with a distinct phase of the shepherds’ oversight (“twelve hours,” 89:72), but there is no radical distinction made between the exilic and postexilic phases of the shepherds’ rule.25 Both Dan 9 and the Animal Apocalypse draw on the seventy-year tradition of Jeremiah as they anticipate an end to the prolonged exilic period in the events of the Maccabean age. Ezekiel’s declaration of a finite exile specified 40 years of punishment for Judah (4:6), as noted above, and a total of 390 years of punishment for the northern kingdom of Israel (4:5). This latter figure was taken up in the Damascus Document (I, 5–11) to define the period between the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar and the emergence of a repentant remnant, a “root of planting,” twenty years before the appearance of the Teacher of Righteousness. It is noteworthy that the 390 years are treated as a single period, without subdivisions. This is in marked contrast to the schemes of Dan 9 and the Animal Apocalypse, which acknowledge the events of 538 b.c.e. as a moment of interest within the prolonged exilic period. Here the Damascus Document makes no allusion to the return under Cyrus, in effect denying that any sort of restoration occurred prior to the emergence of the “root of planting.”26 In each of these three texts—Dan 9, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Damascus Document—the author, drawing on Jeremian or Ezekielian tradition, imagines a prolonged exilic period whose resolution is shortly anticipated, as in Dan 9, or has already taken place. In other Second Temple texts that reflect the “enduring exile” motif, however, there is no appeal to the biblical traditions of a finite exile, because there is no definite end in sight; the authors can only look forward to

25 Ibid., 256–57. The Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks also has no regard for the restoration after the seventh week (1 En. 93:9). 26 Ibid., 262–63; see also Michael Knibb, “Exile in the Damascus Document,” JSOT 25 (1983): 99–117; Shemaryahu Talmon, “Between the Bible and the Mishna,” in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989), 11–52, esp. 38–51; and Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (ed. James M. Scott; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 111–25.

introduction

11

future divine intervention. In Knibb’s words, such texts present “the idea of the exile as a state that will only be brought to an end with the end of this world order.”27 This is the case, Knibb argues, in Jub. 1:15–18, where God’s promise of a restoration is not to be identified as a reference to the sixth century b.c.e., but as an anticipation of an eschatological event.28 Similarly, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs look forward to a return that had not yet been accomplished in the author’s day, but is reserved for the end of time.29 All of these texts, whether they seek to recalibrate the chronology of the exile or simply defer the end of exile to the eschaton, share an understanding of exile that evokes a state beyond mere physical displacement.30 Their conception of an extended exile was immune to the resettlement of the sixth century b.c.e. Just as Ezra in Ezra 9:8–9 equated Israel’s experience during the exile with its experience after the restoration, so did these texts deny that the restoration had altered Israel’s position in the world. Even a momentous interior development like the rebuilding of the temple could pass as insignificant to the author of the Damascus Document. The motif of the “enduring exile” reflects a conviction that something irreparable had occurred in Israel’s history, and that the political and cultic structures of Yehud during and after the Persian period remained unsatisfactory. It is a short step from that conviction to the second form of the motif of the enduring exile, namely, the use of exile as a metaphor for contemporary discontent and estrangement from God. B. Exile as Metaphor Fourth Ezra, the Jewish apocalypse that forms the central portion of 2 Esdras, demonstrates how the Babylonian exile could function as a metaphor for disillusionment with the present day and a sense of alienation from God. The text uses the sixth-century b.c.e. exile to Babylon as a trope to discuss the status of those living in Judea in the late first century c.e. The author’s conviction that the exilic period endures may

27

Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” 267. Ibid. 29 Ibid., 264–66. 30 The authors who maintained that the exile endured could also do so because some Jewish communities remained in the Diaspora and because the nation had not reclaimed its former autonomy. 28

12

chapter one

have determined the setting of his pseudepigraphical project.31 While 4 Ezra provides three surveys of Israelite history (3:4–27, 10:41–48, 14:29–33), each survey ends with the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile; the text makes no reference to any restoration or indeed any event between the exile in 587 b.c.e. and the Roman period.32 But for the author of 4 Ezra the issue is not simply whether the exilic period endures. The author of 4 Ezra speaks to his contemporaries from within the exile itself, as if before the edict of Cyrus, implying that they too are in the same situation. 4 Ezra uses the exile as a metaphor, and it is this view of exile that animates the pseudepigraphical project. The author of 4 Ezra claims to be the biblical figure Ezra and represents himself as living in Babylon (3:1; see also 3:27–29).33 Further, the narrator locates himself chronologically as speaking “thirty years after the destruction of our city,” presumably in 557 b.c.e. He evokes the exilic situation by a number of other allusions, too. For example, Ezra’s identification of himself as “Salathiel” recalls the name of Zerubbabel’s father, ‫שׁאלתיאל‬.34 Most significantly, the very nature of what troubles the author constitutes an exilic problem: as a whole, the text ostensibly reflects on the theodical concerns raised by the destruction of Jerusalem and the first temple and by the prosperity of their destroyers.35 As the first-person narrator says, in language reminiscent

31

Knibb, “The Exile in Intertestamental Literature,” 272. Ibid., 269. Knibb further points out that 4 Ezra’s vision of the eagle (11:1–12:39) borrows from but truncates Daniel’s vision of the four beasts (Dan 7). In 4 Ezra, only the fourth beast, Rome, is mentioned. This not only indicates the book’s concern with reading the events of the Roman period in light of the paradigm of the Babylonian exile, but further that the restoration of Israel has been largely resistant to the rise and fall of the other empires, symbolized by the first three beasts. 33 The translation of 4 Ezra here follows Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). 34 Knibb, “The Exile in Intertestamental Literature,” 269. Shealtiel is named as Zerubbabel’s father in Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23. (In MT 1 Chr 3:17–19, Pediah is instead listed as Zerubbabel’s father and Sealtiel is listed as his uncle; cf. LXX 1 Chr 3:17.) The identification of Salathiel, a descendant of Jehoiachin and thus of David, with Ezra, a scribe of Aaronic priestly descent (so Ezra 7:1–5), is problematic, to be sure, but likely reflects another effort to place Ezra in the exilic period itself. 35 For a similar literary strategy, see 2 Baruch, whose author reflects on the destruction of Jerusalem and adopts the persona of a scribe from that period, even though it is written after the destruction of the second temple in 70 c.e. While 2 Baruch does not focus on the destruction of the temple, 32:2–4, which refers to both temples, is a notable exception. 32

introduction

13

of the description of another great exilic figure, Daniel36: “I was troubled as I lay on my bed . . . because I saw the desolation of Zion and the wealth of those who lived in Babylon” (3:1–2).37 The full significance of this setting in sixth-century Babylon can only be appreciated when one considers the provenance of the text. Internal evidence suggests that the author composed it circa 90 c.e., soon after the destruction of the second temple.38 The vision in 4 Ezra 11–12 appears to refer to the three Flavian emperors, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. The text was originally composed in Hebrew.39 Michael Stone argues, based on 4 Ezra’s Hebrew Vorlage and its connection with the Second Apocalypse of Baruch, that the book was written in the land of Israel.40 Thus, although 4 Ezra professes an exilic setting, it was composed centuries later by an author who was probably living within the land of Israel and who was certainly reflecting more immediately upon the destruction of the second temple in 70 c.e. A number of other interpretive traditions related to the Babylonian exile facilitate 4 Ezra’s identification of the exilic period with the present moment, beyond the kind of chronological speculation that prolonged the exilic period (evident in Dan 9). In the late first and early second centuries c.e., Babylon often functioned as a figure for Rome.41

36 See Dan 2:29; 7:1, 15. The double identification of Salathiel as Ezra is also evocative of the double identification of other exilic figures: Daniel (Belteshazzar) in Dan 1:7 (see the names of Daniel’s companions also) and of Esther (Hadassah) in Esth 2:7. 37 For a similar formulation of the theodical problem, see Ezra’s second complaint (especially 4 Ezra 5:28–30), which elicits the second vision. 38 This is a point of scholarly consensus. See, for example, Stone, Fourth Ezra, 9–10; Bruce M. Metzger, ed. and trans., “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James M. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1983), 2:520. 39 The book was subsequently translated into Greek, although both Greek and Hebrew are now lost; Fourth Ezra has, however, been preserved in a variety of other textual traditions that appear to be based on the Greek, including the Latin and Syriac, on the one hand, and the Georgian, Ethiopic, and Coptic. On the Hebrew origins of the text, first set forth by Julius Wellhausen (“Zur apokalyptischer Literature,” in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vol. 6 [Berlin: Reimer, 1899], 215–49), see Jacob M. Myers, I and II Esdras, 115–19. On the relationship between the versions based on the Greek, see Robert P. Blake, “The Georgian Version of the Fourth Esdras from the Jerusalem Manuscript,” HTR 19 (1926): 308–14; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 1–8. Based on external evidence, it appears that 4 Ezra had been translated into Greek by 190 c.e. 40 Ibid., 19. 41 Among the pseudepigrapha, see 2 Bar. 11:1; 67:7; Sib. Or. 5.143, 155–61, 434, 440; in the New Testament, see Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21. On the concept, see Claus H. Hunzinger, “Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1 Petrusbriefes,” in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70 Geburtstag (ed. Henning G. Reventlow; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 67–77.

14

chapter one

The “rise of scripture” may also have encouraged the author of 4 Ezra to use the figure of Ezra and the motif of the ongoing exilic age as a way of understanding and lending authority to his assessment of the present42; as scripture came to be written down and the canon began to take shape during the Second Temple period, Ezra was a compelling figure to authenticate the vision of the author. The biblical Ezra, who institutes the reading of the law upon the return to the land, lent his authority to the revelation of scripture and the seventy secret books bestowed upon the pseudepigraphical Ezra (4 Ezra 14). The author’s esteem for scripture would have made the Babylonian exile an appealing paradigm through which to understand the present.43 It is this use of exile as a paradigm for comprehending and expressing contemporary distress that transforms exile into a metaphor. Exile’s application to the present moment is spelled out in the third vision of 4 Ezra and Ezra’s dialogue with the angel. The third vision opens with a narration of the past, here a recounting of the six days of creation (6:1–54). Through Ezra, the author establishes the role of Israel as God’s chosen people among all the descendants of Adam (6:55–56), then contrasts Israel’s plight with the position of the nations that “domineer over us and devour us” (6:57). Ezra then poses the question, “If the world has indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance? How long will this be so?” (6:59). In response, the angel delivers two parables in 7:3–9, which he then explains in 7:10–16. While scholars continue to debate the meaning of these parables, their significance for understanding the meaning of exile in the book is clear. In the first parable (7:3–5), the “entrance” to a “sea set in a wide expanse” is “set in a narrow place.” The angel concludes the parable, “If anyone, then, wishes to reach the sea, to look at it or to rule over it, how can he come to the broad part unless he passes through the narrow part?” (7:5). In the second parable (7:6–9), the

42 On the long process by which the biblical materials became scripture, see James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation: Two Studies of Exegetical Origins (LEC 3; Wayne Meeks, ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), esp. 13–27. 43 This is also true of Psalm 137, which was written after the losses of the sixth century b.c.e., but was used in later interpretive traditions to describe the events of 70 c.e.; the reference to Edom in v. 7 is applied to Rome, and thus the psalm as a whole anticipates the destruction of the second temple and asserts that Israel remains in exile. See James Kugel, “Psalm 137,” in In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (2d. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994), 173–213.

introduction

15

“entrance”44 to a city “built and set on a plain,” “full of good things,” is similarly “narrow” and, further, “set in a precipitous place so that there is fire on the right hand and deep water on the left.” The angel concludes this parable by asking, “If now that city is given to a man for an inheritance, how will the heir receive his inheritance unless he passes through the narrow (place)?” (7:9). In expounding upon these parables, the angel explains that “the entrances of this world were made narrow and sorrowful and toilsome; they are few and evil, full of dangers and involved in great hardships” (7:12).45 And later he adds, “Therefore unless the living pass through the difficult and bad experiences, they can never receive those things that have been reserved for them” (7:14). These descriptions contain an important clue to the appropriateness of the Babylonian exile as a setting for the seer’s questions: the parables interpret the Babylonian exile as a metaphorical description of the difficulties in this age and this world. The exilic experience has become a metaphor for several types of suffering—political alienation, disenfranchisement, and a sense of remove from God—experienced by the survivors of the war with Rome. In short, by adopting the voice of Ezra in Babylon during exile, the author of 4 Ezra finds a vehicle to articulate his theodical questions. Indeed, the Babylonian exile, as much as Ezra himself, has become a key element of the pseudepigraphic conceit. The exilic situation enables the author to communicate to his audience, in shorthand, the dire contemporary state of affairs that provides the context for his visions. Exile serves as a metaphor for suffering, distress, and alienation, and a setting in which the author can interrogate God. II. Recovering Ideas of Exile in Biblical Literature The central concern of this book is identifying the roots of the metaphorization of exile within postexilic writings in the biblical cannon dating from the late sixth to the third century b.c.e. Daniel 9, part of 44 Stone notes that while the term for “entrance” in the first parable (see 4 Ezra 7:4) is “unambiguous,” the term for “entrance” here in the second parable may instead mean “way.” The Hebrew original, he argues, had ‫ מבוי‬or ‫מבוא‬, which would have had the meaning “way” or “entrance” (4 Ezra, 198). 45 In the second vision, too, the angel asserted that “this world is full of sadness and infirmities” (4 Ezra 4:27).

16

chapter one

the Hebrew canon, was composed on the eve of the Maccabean revolt and is thus excluded from this category. By contrast, Ezra’s lament (Ezra 9) does fall within this postexilic period, and it is a relatively early and clear expression of the belief that the events of 538 b.c.e. and thereafter did not constitute an essential change in Israel’s status as the slaves of foreign powers. The other postexilic texts discussed in the body of this book are drawn from prophetic literature, including Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation (Jer 30–31), Isa 40–66, and Zech 1–8. The idea of exile suffuses the Latter Prophets: on the one hand, exile is a looming threat, first for Israel and then for Judah; on the other hand, numerous passages promise that the exiles of both Israel and Judah will be gathered and returned to the land. How did exile come to refer to something other than geographical displacement? The process whereby exile became a metaphor began, I will argue, in the preexilic era, in which exile was widely construed as the ultimate punishment for a people that rebelled against imperial or divine authority. This understanding of exile can be recovered through an examination of the depiction of exile in the treaty curses of Deut 28 and Lev 26. Although these texts did not receive their current form until the exilic or postexilic period, a comparison of the biblical curses with ancient Near Eastern treaties dating from the ninth to the seventh centuries b.c.e. will demonstrate that the canonical form of the biblical curses is a reliable witness to preexilic patterns of thinking about exile. The context of exile in the treaty curses suggests that even before the development of the “enduring exile” motif proper, exile was never simply conceived of as geographical displacement. It was already fraught with associations and connotations, to the point where exile could function as a synecdoche for the roster of divine punishments enumerated in the treaties. Before turning to the treaty curses, it will be helpful to establish a model for understanding the process of metaphorization as it applies to biblical reflections on exile in general and the Babylonian exile in particular. The study of metaphor in biblical literature has been a topic of great interest in the past several decades.46 Modern biblical schol-

46 See, for example, Pierre Van Hecke, ed., Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL 187; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005); Cynthia R. Chapman, The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter (HSM 62; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004), esp. 10–13; David H. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics, and Divine Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 2001); Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Isaiah’s

introduction

17

ars, like their counterparts in other disciplines, have turned primarily to literary and philosophical theories of metaphor to investigate the use of metaphor in the biblical text. Their work has been particularly focused on the discernment and investigation of metaphors for God. This study will proceed according to some basic definitions and observations about metaphor that are generally agreed upon by biblical scholars.47 Rather than interrogating the finer points of the theoretical discussion, my goal is to employ this common understanding of metaphor in order to investigate how it plays into the development of exile as a paradigm.48 I will, therefore, rely on some fundamental and widely accepted understandings of what constitutes metaphor and how metaphors work. A. An Interactive Model of Metaphor First, I will use the working definition put forth by Janet Soskice that metaphor is “that figure of speech whereby we speak about one thing in terms which are seen to be suggestive of another.”49 I will also engage the terminology developed by I. A. Richards for discussing how metaphors work. Although defining how metaphor operates is notoriously slippery, Richards’s elucidation has become a touchstone for a wide variety of works on biblical metaphor and provides a common vocabulary. Identifying the components of a metaphor as its tenor and vehicle,

Vision and the Family of God (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994); Claudia V. Camp and Carole R. Fontaine, eds., Women, War, and Metaphor: Language and Society in the Study of the Hebrew Bible = Semeia 61 (1993); Marc Zvi Brettler, God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTSup 76; Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1989); Carol A. Newsom, “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre,” Interpretation 38 (1984): 151–64; Patrick D. Miller, “Meter, Parallelism, and Tropes: The Search for Poetic Style,” JSOT 28 (1984): 99–106; Frank Burch Brown, Transfiguration: Poetic Metaphor and the Languages of Religious Belief (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983); Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982), 31–52, 139–168. 47 For an overview of metaphor theory and biblical scholarship, see Brettler, God is King, 17–28. 48 On the issue of how to integrate biblical studies and metaphor theory, see, on the one hand, David Aaron, who cautions that biblical scholars have employed semantic theories without fully addressing their validity (Biblical Ambiguities, 9), and, on the other, Else K. Holt, who argues that while “hermeneutics are important, . . . to me the important issue in biblical studies remains biblical studies” (“The Fountain of Living Water and the Deceitful Brook,” in Van Hecke, ed., Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, 99). 49 Janet Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 15.

18

chapter one

Richards defined the tenor of a metaphor as “the underlying idea or principal subject which the vehicle or figure means,” and the vehicle as the phrase that seems analogous to the tenor and describes it.50 In the statement “Exile is death,” for example, “exile” functions as the tenor and “death” as the image that is used to convey the tenor.51 The strength of Richards’s explanation of how poetic metaphor works is its implicit valuing of both tenor and vehicle and what each brings to the metaphor. Poetic metaphor, he argued, is a “transaction” between tenor and vehicle. “In the simplest formulation,” he wrote, “when we use a metaphor we have two thoughts of different things active together and supported by a single word, or phrase, whose meaning is the resultant of their interaction.”52 The fundamental importance of this interaction, Richards argued, is evident in how metaphors generate our view of the world: Our world is a projected world, shot through with characters lent to it from our own life. . . . The processes of metaphor in language . . . are super-imposed upon a perceived world which is itself a product of earlier or unwitting metaphor, and we shall not deal with them justly if we forget that this is so.53

Richards was seeking to overcome an earlier regnant assumption that metaphor was merely rhetorical flourish. Metaphors are not extraneous, he asserted: not only is metaphor pervasive, it is constitutive. His scholarship sought to overcome the clumsy notion that a metaphor is equivalent to a literal expression or that meaning is “transferred” from one term to another.54 Most biblical scholars begin with Richards’s view that metaphors are not ornamental; rather, tenor and vehicle actually generate meaning through their interaction.55 The interaction between tenor and vehicle that generates meaning may be more complex and

50

I. A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (New York: Oxford University Press, 1936), 96–100. 51 Ibid., 90–94. A related issue is the difference between metaphor and simile. Strictly speaking, a metaphor is an implied comparison or simile without the words “as” or “like.” 52 Ibid., 93. 53 Ibid., 108–9. Similarly, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson have made the case that metaphors “have the power to define reality” (Metaphors We Live By [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980], 157). 54 Richards was challenging an assumption implicit in the term “metaphor,” which derives from the Greek for “to transfer.” 55 Richards, Philosophy of Rhetoric, 90–91, 100.

introduction

19

ambiguous than Richards’s formulation allows. With any metaphor, there is ambiguity in how we are to relate the vehicle to the tenor; this ambiguity may even extend to discerning what the vehicle and what the tenor are within the metaphor. Taking the example introduced above, it may not be clear whether “Exile is death” presents a metaphor for death or for exile, particularly if the phrase is encountered without a context. Indeed, the hierarchy implicit in the terms that Richards uses—the notion that the vehicle is subordinate to the tenor it serves to express—may contribute to an unnecessarily unidirectional or even static notion of metaphor. Max Black, in his effort to systematize and advance Richards’s notion of an “interaction view of metaphor,”56 preferred the terminology of primary subject (roughly akin to the tenor) and secondary subject (roughly akin to the vehicle). Here the emphasis is on the shared status of both components of the metaphor as “subjects.” These terms, he felt, better indicated the interaction between the components of a metaphor. Further, these terms accentuate that it is not simply words that comprise a metaphor, but, in the case of the secondary subject, a “system of associated commonplaces.” This system shapes an audience’s perception of the primary subject, so that in the statement “Exile is death,” some of the associations for death are projected upon, or tinge, the concept of exile. Black’s work is not without its own shortcomings, and he shifted positions somewhat in later articles; his emphasis on and development of the concept of the interaction of the primary and secondary subjects, however, highlights this aspect of metaphor that will be key in this study. Soskice has pointed out that the problem with Black’s approach may lie in his assertion that each metaphor comprises two subjects; she doubts that we can even talk of discrete subjects. Black’s view limits the scope of a metaphor because it presumes an explicit primary subject. Soskice observed that in the metaphorical statement, “The pages were covered with writhing script,” it is not clear what the two distinct subjects are. Script is likely the primary subject (or tenor, according to Richards), but where is the secondary subject (or vehicle)? It is not

56 See Max Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1962) and also his subsequent modification and clarification, “More About Metaphor,” Dialectica 31 (1977): 431–57; repr. in Metaphor and Thought (ed. Andrew Ortony; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 19–43, esp. 27–31.

20

chapter one

“writhing,” Soskice contends, but rather an unknown that is “neither a present term nor a distinct subject.”57 She concludes: The minimal unit in which a metaphor is established is semantic rather than syntactic; a metaphor is established as soon as it is clear that one thing is being spoken of in terms that are suggestive of another and can be extended until this is no longer the case.58

Richards had observed that meaning is generated not by an author’s words, but by “the interplay of the interpretative possibilities of the whole utterance.”59 Soskice offers a credible critique of Black’s work, but still Black’s efforts emphasize the systems of associations that cluster around both tenor and vehicle. A clearer formulation of the relationship between the two has been offered by Soskice: “It is only by seeing that a metaphor has one true subject which tenor and vehicle conjointly depict and illumine that a full, interactive, or interanimative, theory is possible.”60 Paul Ricœur also advanced the interaction view of metaphor, with the important modification that the “discourse” is the real carrier of metaphor.61 For this reason, he argues, metaphor is often untranslatable: But if metaphor is a statement, it is possible that this statement would be untranslatable, not only as regards its connotation, but as regards its very meaning, thus as regards its denotation. It teaches something, and so it contributes to the opening up and the discovery of a field or reality other than that which ordinary language lays bare.62

In a metaphor, when the two subjects interact, their associated systems interact; the primary subject is immersed in the system of associations that surrounds the secondary subject, but the secondary subject also undergoes change. Understanding how a metaphor works depends, therefore, on elucidating and examining the associated commonplaces of the primary and secondary subjects and taking into account how 57

Metaphor and Religious Language, 20. Ibid., 23. 59 Philosophy of Rhetoric, 55. 60 Metaphor and Religious Language, 47. 61 The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language (trans. Robert Czerny, Kathleen McLaughlin, and John Costello; University of Toronto Romance Series 37; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977; repr. 1979); see also, idem, “The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and Feeling,” in Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor (ed. Mark Johnson; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), 228–47. 62 Rule of Metaphor, 148. 58

introduction

21

each influences the other. Indeed, as noted in the example proposed above—“Exile is death”—death might be considered the tenor and exile the vehicle.63 Metaphors create meaning by joining the vehicle’s and the tenor’s systems of associations; both tenor and vehicle are transformed in the process. This reciprocal process means that the vehicles used to communicate the nature of exile could easily become tenors whose own nature could be evoked or explored by comparing them to exile. I will be examining biblical texts in which exile, as the tenor of various metaphors, was enfolded by other systems of associations. As the Babylonian exile assumed new dimensions in Israel’s collective memory, exile itself became the hub from which radiated numerous systems of associations, and thus a vehicle for expressing the nature of other discontents. The way in which exile was rendered metaphorically came to transform the understanding of that reality and helped to redefine it as an expression of other discontents, sufferings, and alienations. B. Early Associations for Exile in Preexilic Biblical Literature The interactive theory of metaphor described above presumes that each term of a metaphor is the hub of a system of associations. What this means is that “exile” is never simply exile, never just a state of geographical displacement; denotation is always supplemented by connotations and associations that extend the meaning of the term. In order to trace the process whereby exile itself became a metaphor for other forms of distress, it is necessary to have some grasp of the system of associations that were clustered around the idea of exile prior to Judah’s experiences in the early sixth century b.c.e., before the development of the motif of an enduring exile. Since the canon of the Hebrew Bible is largely a postexilic creation, most biblical references to exile are taken as speaking from the other side of the experience, in the exilic period itself and in the period of the restoration. The canonical text, however, provides a witness to early conceptions of exile in those portions that form the older core of the covenantal curses in Deut 28 and Lev 26. Although those passages were edited and glossed during and after the Babylonian exile, the preexilic circulation of their essential content can

63

Black, Models and Metaphors, 43.

22

chapter one

be established on the basis of ancient Near Eastern treaties from the seventh century b.c.e. and earlier. Comparing ancient Near Eastern treaty curses that deal with exile and the analogous biblical curses in Deut 28 and Lev 26 suggests that ancient Israel inherited a concept of exile that already had extended meaning before Judah’s firsthand experience of deportation. In both the ancient Near Eastern and biblical treaties, exile was already construed as an expression of divine wrath and as a manifestation of the death penalty for the violator of the covenant; exile provided one among a range of possible iterations of divine wrath against the cursed. This early extension of meaning for exile would be vital to its development as a metaphor. First, exile’s extended meanings indicate that from an early date, exile was fraught with negative associations. Second, they indicate a system of associations for exile that includes not only divine wrath, but also other forms of tribulation associated with divine wrath, a system that could be picked up and developed by later authors. The cloud of concepts associated with exile would lay the groundwork for further extensions of its meaning and for its later metaphorization. Curses were an essential element in the ancient Near Eastern treaty formulary and are attested as far back as Sumerian (and Akkadian) treaties of the third millennium, Hittite treaties of the second millennium, and the Neo-Assyrian treaties whose influence is reflected in Deut 28 and Lev 26.64 The curses fortified the treaty by obligating the gods to seek vengeance upon the vassal who rebelled—and by reminding the vassal of his certain destruction.65 The curses in the treaties varied in form, content, and length, but in general they threat-

64 Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” JAOS 93 (1973): 190–99; Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib 21; 2d. ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978), 122, 140. 65 On the form, content, and function of curses in the Hebrew Bible and their comparison to other ancient Near Eastern curses, see Stanley Gevirtz, “Curse Motifs in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1959); Herbert C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible (JBL Monograph Series 13; Philadelphia: SBL, 1963). For a more recent study of the curses as a “cultural tool” and for a further review of scholarship, see Paul A. Keim, “When Sanctions Fail: The Social Function of Curse in Ancient Israel” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1992), esp. 4, 21–27; Noel Weeks, Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships (JSOTSup 407; London: T&T Clark, 2004).

introduction

23

ened “death and destruction in every possible form.”66 They covered a breadth of negative human experience, dictating consequences for the vassal, his descendants, his property (chattel and land), and his city. By providing a partial catalog of the effects of challenging the deities who guaranteed the treaty, they conveyed certain retribution and total eradication. Exile figured in ancient Near Eastern treaty curses as one of the many ways in which the gods would eradicate the rebellious vassal. Because the vassal had incurred fatal and inescapable divine anger, the vassal would suffer a form of annihilation through dislocation, dispersion, dissipation, and, even more disruptively, the denial of divine presence. The Hebrew Bible owes its notion of exile both in shape and in function to this ancient Near Eastern understanding of exile as a form of obliteration by divine wrath. That the curse of exile, like the curses of sterility, futility, and famine, constituted a facet of divine anger would shape its later interpretation; this figurative value, which persisted alongside the concrete experience of exile, granted it an extended meaning and formed a basis for its movement toward metaphor in later texts. Exile, beyond the concrete particulars, was an expression—one of many possible expressions—of divine anger, and would later emerge as a metaphor for alienation from divine affection. In Neo-Assyrian dating from the ninth through the seventh century b.c.e., exile appears fairly consistently in the enumeration of possible disasters facing the one who breaks the treaty. This is unsurprising because exile as a strategy for dealing with conquered populations goes back to the second, if not the third, millennium b.c.e. By the later second millennium b.c.e., it already formed an important tool of Middle Assyrian imperial expansionism.67 Within these treaties, exile constituted a powerful—but not unique— expression of extermination ensured by breaking the treaty. Exile meant a form of extermination, because the dispersion of the people signaled the decomposition of the vassal king’s body politic. In the treaty of Šamši-Adad V, king of Assyria, with Marduk-zakir-šumi I, king of Babylon, concluded around 827–824 b.c.e., the opening curse 66

Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (trans. David E. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 15. 67 Bustenay Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979).

24

chapter one

against the transgressor invokes divine dispersal: “May Marduk, the great lord whose commands take precedence, [by his unalterable word] order his decay and the dispersion of his people.”68 Later, in a treaty forged by Esarhaddon with Baal, king of Tyre, in 672 b.c.e., exile was described as a form of destruction because dislocation deprived the transgressor of his land: “May Melqarth and Eshmun deliver your land to destruction and your people to deportation; may they [uproot] you from your land.”69 The treaty of Aššur-nerari V, king of Assyria, and Matiʾ-ilu, king of Arpad, drawn up in 754 b.c.e., threatened Matiʾilu with exile by means of a ceremonial curse presumably involving a spring lamb: If Matiʾ-ilu [sins] against th[is] sworn treaty, then, just as this spring lamb has been brought from its fold and will not return to its fold and [not behold] its fold again, (in like manner) may, alas, Matiʾ-ilu, together with his sons, daughters, [magnates] and the people of his land [be ousted] from his country, and not [behold] his country again.70

Exile appeared dire for Matiʾ-ilu, because it would deprive him of the protection of “the fold.” Exile seemed additionally calamitous because it signaled a separation from the gods. Esarhaddon’s succession treaty (§39, lines 419–21) includes the imprecation, “May Sin, the brightness of heaven and earth, clothe you with leprosy and forbid your entering into the presence of the gods or king. Roam the desert like the wild ass and the gazelle!”71 Exile means disaster, because the vassal’s gods remained tied to the vassal’s land; thus a curse to roam the desert implied not simply exile from the homeland but from the gods as well.72 F. Charles Fensham 68 Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, eds., Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA 2; Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1988), xxvi, 4. 69 Esarhaddon’s treaty with Baal, King of Tyre (iv:14–17); ibid., 27. In Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (§25, lines 291ff), exile is referred to in the body of the text, in the section where the treaty lays out the allegiance due to Assurbanipal’s future heirs: “Give them orders as follows: ‘Guard this treaty. Do not sin against your treaty and annihilate yourselves, do not turn your land over to destruction and your people to deportation’ ” (ibid., 40). 70 Ibid., xxvii, 8. 71 Ibid., 45. See also L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1912), 41, lines 16–18; the text dates from the time of Marduk-nadin-aḫḫe, early eleventh century b.c.e., according to Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 15–16. 72 Although it is of a somewhat different genre, the epilogue of the Laws of Hammurabi may be mentioned here. The epilogue contains a curse on any subsequent

introduction

25

observes, “This curse is actually connected to the idea of death, because desert-land is regarded as a place of death in the Semitic world.”73 1. Deuteronomy 28 In the Hebrew Bible, Deut 28 adapts the ancient Near Eastern treaty tradition to construct a binding agreement between Yhwh and Israel. Earlier scholarship that assumed that Deut 28 was an uneven work of scribal accretions, a collection of additions and expansions, was challenged through a comparison with the Assyrian treaty curses of the eighth and seventh centuries b.c.e.74 The comparison established that Deut 28 was modeled on a tradition current in preexilic times. The affinities between the comminations of Deut 28 and the eighth- and seventh-century b.c.e. Assyrian treaty curses indicated that those sections of Deut 28 that refer to defeat and exile need not be interpreted as exilic additions that reflect the historical experience of Judah in the sixth century b.c.e.75 Scholars had taken many of the references to exile “king who appears in the land” who does not heed—but abolishes, distorts, or alters— the words of the stela (rev. 26). The curse calls on Enlil, “the determiner of destinies,” to guarantee “the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his people” (rev. 26); it calls on Inanna, “the lady of battle and conflict,” to “deliver him into the hands of his enemies” so that “they carry him away in bonds to a land hostile to him” (rev. 28). 73 F. Charles Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah,” ZAW 75 (1963), 163. Fensham credits Johannes Pedersen with the observation that “the realm of death is . . . closely related with the desert-land” (Israel: Its Life and Culture, I–II [London: Oxford University Press, 1926], 462–63). 74 The nature of the borrowing has been a topic of debate. By comparing Deut 28:26–35 to VTE 419–30, for example, Moshe Weinfeld sought to establish that the order of the curses in Deuteronomy reflects the order of the curses in VTE, which roughly followed the Assyrian hierarchy of the gods (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992], 117–22). While Weinfeld asserts this as concrete evidence of borrowing, a more general, thematic similarity seems more likely since, in fact, the order of the curses in VTE and Deut appears roughly similar rather than exactly so. For example, the Ninurta curse (VTE 425–27) comes after the curses of Sin and Shamash in VTE, but its corresponding curse in Deut 28:26 precedes the equivalents of the Sin and Shamash curses. Hillers and McCarthy see the commonalities between the two as reflecting their shared milieu, which is a more accurate assessment of the evidence (Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 77–80; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 122–23). See further R. Frankena, “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” OtSt 14 (1965): 122–54; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 172. 75 See Carl Steuernagel on Deut 28:36 (Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua, und Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch [HKAT 1.3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900], 99–105) as quoted in Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 31. But McCarthy points out that those references are integral to the chapter’s solid rhetorical organization. Also, treaty curses often reflect common practice—and the

26

chapter one

(vv. 36–37, 48–57, 64–68) as vaticinia ex eventu. But the model of the Assyrian treaty curses and the widespread practice of exiling rebel populations make it plausible that a Deuteronomic author would include exile among the curses; certainly after the deportations in the northern kingdom in the eighth century b.c.e., Judeans would have realized that they faced the same threat. Further, the generic description of exile in these portions, while in keeping with the formulas characteristic of the literary curses, does not reflect details of the Babylonian exile. Indeed, Deut 28 only refers to an exile in Egypt (v. 68). Thus the Deuteronomic curses that invoke exile are at home in the preexilic period. Deuteronomy 28 preserves features of the Israelite conception of exile that antedate the fall of Jerusalem and the Judean exile. In those verses that plausibly transmit preexilic conceptions of exile (Deut 28:32–34, 36–37, 41, 63–66), exile represents futility and a loss of future life. It is further conceived of as a separation from not only the land, but the benefits of the land and the worship of Yhwh. Finally, this separation proves fatal because it signifies living in the scope of Yhwh’s wrath. The association of exile with futility is accomplished over the course of Deut 28:27–35, a passage that interweaves threats of bodily affliction with scenes of subjugation and deportation. Verses 27–29 and 35 provide the opening and closing verses of the passage, which includes the first reference to exile in the list of curses (vv. 32–34). Verses 27 and 35 describe the ills that Yhwh will inflict (‫ )נכה‬upon Israel, which include boils (‫)שחין‬, and, in the case of v. 27, other ailments as well. Verses 28–29 describe in detail how Yhwh will strike Israel with madness (‫ )שגעון‬and blindness (‫)עורון‬. These ailments in vv. 27–29 and 35 frame vv. 30–34, a literary unit that promises that Israel will become powerless and vulnerable to exile if they violate the covenant. The framing of this unit brings exile is brought into relationship with bodily suffering. The passage on exile begins in vv. 30–31 with what Delbert Hillers has identified as examples of a genre of “futility curses,” which take the form “you (or your . . .) shall do X, but Y shall happen”76:

threat of exile and war was not hypothetical before 587 b.c.e. (Treaty and Covenant, 180). 76 Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 29.

introduction

27

‫א־ת ֵשׁב בּוֹ ֶכּ ֶרם ִתּ ַטּע וְ לֹא‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ ִא ָשּׁה ְת ָא ֵרשׂ וְ ִאישׁ ַא ֵחר יִ ְשׁגָּ ֶלנָּ ה ַבּיִ ת ִתּ ְבנֶ ה וְ ל‬30 ‫ֹאכל ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ֲחמ ְֹרָך גָּ זוּל ִמ ְלּ ָפנֶ יָך וְ לֹא‬ ַ ‫בוּח ְל ֵﬠינֶ יָך וְ לֹא ת‬ ַ ‫שׁוֹרָך ָט‬ ְ 31 :‫ְת ַח ְלּ ֶלנּוּ‬ ‫וּבנ ֶֹתיָך נְ ֻתנִ ים ְל ַﬠם‬ ְ ‫ ָבּנֶ יָך‬32 :‫יﬠ‬ ַ ‫מוֹשׁ‬ ִ ‫יָ שׁוּב ָלְך צֹאנְ ָך נְ ֻתנוֹת ְלאֹיְ ֶביָך וְ ֵאין ְלָך‬ ‫ ְפּ ִרי ַא ְד ָמ ְתָך וְ ָכל־‬33 :‫ל־היּוֹם וְ ֵאין ְל ֵאל יָ ֶדָך‬ ַ ‫יהם ָכּ‬ ֶ ‫ַא ֵחר וְ ֵﬠינֶ יָך ר ֹאוֹת וְ ָכלוֹת ֲא ֵל‬ ‫ית‬ ָ ִ‫ וְ ָהי‬34 :‫ל־היָּ ִמים‬ ַ ‫ית ַרק ָﬠשׁוּק וְ ָרצוּץ ָכּ‬ ָ ִ‫אכל ַﬠם ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא־יָ ָד ְﬠ ָתּ וְ ָהי‬ ַ ֹ ‫יﬠָך י‬ ֲ ִ‫יְ ג‬ :‫ְמ ֻשׁגָּ ע ִמ ַמּ ְר ֵאה ֵﬠינֶ יָך ֲא ֶשׁר ִתּ ְר ֶאה‬ 30

You shall become engaged to a woman, but another man shall violate77 her. You shall build a house, but not live in it. You shall plant a vineyard, but not enjoy its fruit. 31 Your ox shall be butchered before your eyes, but you shall not eat of it. Your donkey shall be stolen in front of you, and shall not be restored to you. Your sheep shall be given to your enemies, without anyone to help you. 32 Your sons and daughters shall be given to another people, while you look on; you will strain your eyes looking for them all day but be powerless to do anything. 33 A people whom you do not know shall eat up the fruit of your ground and of all your labors and you will be altogether abused and crushed, 34 and you shall be driven mad by the sight that your eyes shall see. (Deut 28:30–34)

According to the futility curses in vv. 30–31, engagements will be broken, houses will not be inhabited by their builders, and livestock will be seized by the enemy. The following verses (32–34) depart from the form of the futility curse as defined by Hillers, but their theme is identical: the accursed will not reap what they have sown, and they will surrender to another the children they have raised. The curse of losing one’s children as captives to another people (v. 32) is the clearest indication that this passage associates exile with a general sense of futility. This curse is rephrased more directly in v. 41: “Sons and daughters you will bear, but they will not be yours, because they will go into captivity” (‫בנים ובנות תוליד ולא יהיו לך כי‬ ‫)ילכו בשבי‬.78 The futility curses in vv. 30–31, then, set the tone for this passage as a whole. They provide the conceptual model for the curses that follow them, even if those verses break with the strict form of the futility curse. Collectively, these curses of foreign oppression are emblematic of the futility that will plague Israel in all its efforts.

The Qere is ‫שכבנה‬. As in Deut 28:32, exile appears in the futility curse of v. 41; here, too, as in vv. 30–33, the loss of children to captivity is analogous to the loss of crops, which is the concern in vv. 38–40 and 42. The consumption of children and crops by the enemy is also mentioned in Jer 5:17. Jeffrey H. Tigay has pointed out the relationship between crops and children in the blessings in Deut 7:13 and 28:4 (cf. Psalm 128:3); see Deuteronomy (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1996), 267. 77 78

28

chapter one

Exile is an articulation of futility, one among many effects of Yhwh’s cursing. Verses 36–37 contain an overt curse of exile that develops the hints in vv. 32–33 on two scores: ‫ת־מ ְל ְכָּך ֲא ֶשׁר ָתּ ִקים ָﬠ ֶליָך ֶאל־גּוֹי ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא־יָ ַד ְﬠ ָתּ ַא ָתּה‬ ַ ‫יוֹלְך יְ הוָ ה א ְֹתָך וְ ֶא‬ ֵ 36 37 ‫ית ְל ַשׁ ָמּה ְל ָמ ָשׁל וְ ִל ְשׁנִ ינָ ה‬ ָ ִ‫ וְ ָהי‬:‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ֵﬠץ וָ ָא ֶבן‬ ִ ‫וַ ֲאב ֶֹתיָך וְ ָﬠ ַב ְד ָתּ ָשּׁם ֱא‬ :‫ְבּכֹל ָה ַﬠ ִמּים ֲא ֶשׁר־יְ נַ ֶהגְ ָך יְ הוָ ה ָשׁ ָמּה‬ 36

Yhwh will bring you and your king, whom you set over you, to a nation that neither you nor your ancestors have known, where you shall serve other gods, wood and stone. 37 You shall become a horror, a proverb, and a taunt among all the peoples where Yhwh will drive you. (Deut 28:36–37)

Here it is not simply Israel’s children that will be given to a foreigner, but they and their king shall be transported; and where earlier the enemy was identified as “another people” (‫עמ אחר‬, v. 32) and a people that they do not know (‫עם אשר לא ידעת‬, v. 33), now the nation to which they will be transported is one that neither they nor their ancestors have known (‫)גוי אשר לא ידעת‬. Further, while vv. 32–33 presented exile as another manifestation of the futility pattern, in vv. 36–37 exile is conceived of as a separation from Yhwh, a cultic severance, since in exile the people will “serve other gods, wood and stone” (‫)ועבדת שם אלהים אחרים עץ ואבן‬.79 Like the ancient Near Eastern curses that threaten the rebellious vassal with being driven from the presence of the gods, Deuteronomy warns that exile will alienate Israel from Yhwh, whom they failed to serve properly.80 The theological significance of Israel’s exile recalls the broader ancient Near Eastern notion of exile as a separation from a deity who is bound to a locale, as described above. The curse is also significant for the literary emphasis it puts on the people rather than the monarchy. In v. 36, the emphasis is on the exile

79 Frankena argues this was originally included in a treaty between Manasseh and Esarhaddon, with Yhwh, the local deity, responsible for guaranteeing Israel’s adherence (“The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” 122–54). In Deut 28:35, 64, the placement of the phrase “wood and stone” suggests it is a later insertion intended to identify the “other gods” as idols (cf. Deut 4:28, which clearly indicates the “other gods” are idols). Thus the original import of the curse was that the exiles would be forced to worship other deities, rather than serving “idols.” 80 For the degradation of Israel to the status of a horror, proverb, taunt, or byword because of apostasy, see also 1 Kgs 9:6–7 (cf. 2 Chr 7:19–22) and Jer 24:8–10.

introduction

29

of the people and secondarily their king (‫יולך יהוה אתך ואת מלכך‬ . . . ‫אשר תקים עליך אל גוי‬, “Yhwh will bring you and your king, whom you set over you, to a nation . . .”). By contrast, in the treaties of Aššurnerari V and Šamši-Adad V, the people are dispersed in order to punish the errant king. This reversal, on the one hand, is in keeping with Deuteronomy’s ambivalence toward the monarchy as an institution (see 17:14–20). On the other hand, it marks the degree to which the curses—and, indeed, the covenant—have been “democratized” so that they devolve upon all the people, not just the king. The extended meditation on deportation near the end of the sequence of curses defines exile as a manifestation of a total reorientation of Yhwh toward Israel. ‫וּל ַה ְרבּוֹת ֶא ְת ֶכם ֵכּן יָ ִשׂישׂ‬ ְ ‫יטיב ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ִ ‫יכם ְל ֵה‬ ֶ ‫ר־שׂשׂ יְ הוָ ה ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁ‬63 ‫וּל ַה ְשׁ ִמיד ֶא ְת ֶכם וְ נִ ַסּ ְח ֶתּם ֵמ ַﬠל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר־‬ ְ ‫יכם ְל ַה ֲא ִביד ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ֶ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ‫ד־ק ֵצה‬ ְ ‫ל־ה ַﬠ ִמּים ִמ ְק ֵצה ָה ָא ֶרץ וְ ַﬠ‬ ָ ‫יצָך יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ָכ‬ ְ ‫ וֶ ֱה ִפ‬64 :‫א־שׁ ָמּה ְל ִר ְשׁ ָתּהּ‬ ָ ‫ַא ָתּה ָב‬ :‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא־יָ ַד ְﬠ ָתּ ַא ָתּה וַ ֲאב ֶֹתיָך ֵﬠץ וָ ָא ֶבן‬ ִ ‫ָה ָא ֶרץ וְ ָﬠ ַב ְד ָתּ ָשּׁם ֱא‬ ‫ף־רגְ ֶלָך וְ נָ ַתן יְ הוָ ה ְלָך ָשׁם ֵלב‬ ַ ‫נוֹח ְל ַכ‬ ַ ‫וּבגּוֹיִ ם ָה ֵהם לֹא ַת ְרגִּ ַיע וְ לֹא־יִ ְהיֶ ה ָמ‬ ַ 65 ‫וּפ ַח ְד ָתּ ַליְ ָלה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָהיוּ ַחיֶּ יָך ְתּ ֻל ִאים ְלָך ִמנֶּ גֶ ד‬66 :‫ַרגָּ ז וְ ִכ ְליוֹן ֵﬠינַ יִ ם וְ ַד ֲאבוֹן נָ ֶפשׁ‬ :‫יוֹמם וְ לֹא ַת ֲא ִמין ְבּ ַחיֶּ יָך‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬ 63

And just as Yhwh delighted in making you prosperous and numerous, so Yhwh will delight in ruining you and destroying you. You shall be torn off 81 the land that you are entering to possess. 64 Yhwh will scatter you among all the peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, where you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known. 65 Among those nations you shall have no

81 See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 397 n. 100, on the Akkadian cognate nasāḫu, which has the sense of deportation, and Moshe Held, “On the Terms for Deportation in the Old Babylonian Royal Inscriptions with Special Reference to Yaḫdunlim,” JANESCU 11 (1979): 53–67. The term is regularly used in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions. The Hebrew verb ‫ נסח‬is used three other times in MT: Ps 52:7 [Eng. 52:5]; Prov 2:22; 15:25; its Aramaic cognate appears in Ezra 6:11. While the verb’s meaning is broad enough that it is translated by four different verbs in LXX, in each of its biblical contexts the verb has dire connotations. In Psalm 52:7, the evildoer who is snatched (‫ )נסח‬from the tent is said to have been removed from the land of the living (‫ ;)ארץ חיים‬MT’s ‫נסח‬ is rendered by μεταναστεύω, “to remove, to depart,” in LXX Psalm 51:7. In Prov 2, those who follow the loose woman whose path leads to death (v. 18) are snatched (‫ )נסח‬from the land (v. 22); LXX renders the verb with the passive of ἐξωθέω, hence “to be driven out.” Even in the verse-long maxim of Prov 15:25, the description of the house of the proud being torn down (‫ )נסח‬follows a reference to Sheol, an editorial decision that may be influenced by the association of ‫ נסח‬with death; LXX has κατασπάω, “to draw or pull down.” These dire connotations are evident, too, in the first part of Deut 28:63, which announced Yhwh’s intent to destroy (‫ אבד‬and ‫)שמד‬ Israel; ‫ נסח‬specifies exile as the method of destruction.

30

chapter one ease, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There Yhwh will give you a trembling heart, failing eyes, and a faint spirit. 66 Your life shall hang in doubt before you. You shall be in dread night and day and you shall not be assured of your life. (Deut 28:63–66)

More so than the previous allusions, vv. 63–66 are concerned with establishing the divine agency behind exile; in v. 63, Yhwh’s delight in bringing ruin and destruction upon Israel will be as thorough as the delight Yhwh once took in multiplying Israel and making her prosperous. Further, in v. 63, exile is rendered by the verb ‫נסח‬, “to tear [from the land],”82 and is described as a reversal of the blessing of obedience—a deprivation of all of the blessings that the Deuteronomist believes to come with inheriting and possessing the land. The exile of Israel is dangerous not only because it separates the people from the land, but also because it scatters them “among all the peoples, from one end of the earth to the other” (‫והפיצך יהוה בכל העמים מקצה הארץ ועד קצה‬ ‫הארץ‬, v. 64).83 The implication of this dispersal is clear for the Deuteronomist: Israel will lose its distinctiveness as Yhwh’s “cherished possession” and, like other nations, be compelled to worship other gods “of wood and stone” (which reprises the threat of vv. 36–37). Simply put, exile is a life-threatening alienation from the deity, as expressed in v. 66: ‫והיו חייך תלאים לך מנגד ופחדת לילה ויומם ולא תאמין בחייך‬, “Your life shall hang in doubt before you. You shall be in dread night and day and you shall not be assured of your life.” Indeed, Yhwh’s rejection of Israel and abandonment of the exiled people among foreigners is summed up as a reversal of the exodus: Yhwh will return his people to slavery in Egypt (v. 68).84 In conclusion, exile in Deuteronomy is described as a form of futility: a failure to reap what one has sown and a loss of futurity. Exile separates the people from the worship of Yhwh, it deprives Israel of the beneficence of the land, and fundamentally, exile is a manifestation of Yhwh’s fatal wrath. As such, in the oldest layers of Deut 28, exile is understood as a permanent disaster that might befall Israel, as

See n. 81 on ‫נסח‬. Here it is hard to imagine that the author is not recalling the dispersal of the tribes of the north. 84 There may be a hint of this already in Deut 28:60, which uses a similar idiom in describing how YHWH will bring the diseases of Egypt back upon the people (‫והשיב‬ ‫)בך את כל מדוה מצרים‬. 82 83

introduction

31

befits the context of a treaty curse. Only later do postexilic additions to Deuteronomy, such as 30:1–10, represent exile as potentially coming to an end. 2. Leviticus 26 The Holiness Code, which some view as a text that combines a Priestly outlook with a knowledge of Deuteronomic forms and themes, also includes a list of blessings and curses in Lev 26. Biblical scholars have held that the core of the chapter, vv. 3–33a, comes from the exilic or late preexilic period, although the chapter as a whole did not reach its final form until the postexilic period.85 Those who date the core close to the time of the Babylonian exile do so, in part, on the presumption that the threat of exile included among the comminations (v. 33a) was about to or had already become a reality. The persistence and potency of exile as an ancient Near Eastern curse, however, indicates that references to exile in a biblical text need not be a product of the exilic or postexilic period. Not only would Judah have been familiar with such an idea long before her own firsthand experience, she would also have witnessed the exile of the northern kingdom and, closer to home, the invasion and deportations of Sennacherib in 701 b.c.e. Setting aside the presumption that references to exile manifest redactional activity during the Judean exile, Jacob Milgrom has dated vv. 3–33a, 36–42, 45 to Hezekiah’s reign through a terminological analysis, arguing that it has in mind the conquest and exile of the north; for Milgrom, then, the reference to exile in v. 33a, which many scholars had taken as the final line of the older core, continued through vv. 36–42, 45.86 He points to the absence of ‫ שוב‬in Lev 26 as

85 In dating the oldest portions of Leviticus, H. L. Ginsberg (The Israelian Heritage of Judaism [Texts and Studies of JTS 24; New York: JTS, 1982], 79–83) and Baruch A. Levine (“The Epilogue to the Holiness Code: A Priestly Statement on the Destiny of Israel,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel [ed. J. Neusner, B. Levine, and E. Frerichs; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 22–31; idem, Leviticus [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1989], 182–92, 275–80) date Lev 26 to the time of the Babylonian exile; this argument is based on certain thematic similarities they find between vv. 2–46 and Ezekiel, similarities that Jacob Milgrom disputes (see below). While Levine argues that the earliest portions of vv. 3–46 could have been written before the exile, he finds in the latest strata a perspective that speaks from the end of exile, in the early restoration period of the late sixth century b.c.e. See also Anson F. Rainey, “The Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Ritual Texts,” Biblica 51 (1970): 485–98. 86 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3b; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2363–65. That v. 33a was originally followed by vv. 36–39, and thus continued the description

32

chapter one

indicative of a preexilic provenance and argues that the references to cult places (v. 30) and sanctuaries (v. 31) better reflect the situation under Hezekiah. He further argues that the references to the ravaging of the land by wild animals (v. 22) and the enemies who settle on the devastated land (v. 32) suggest the exile of the north.87 From such evidence, he concludes that the theology of vv. 40–42, 45 may first have been formulated for the exiled north, even if it later served to bolster the Judean exiles. Because Lev 26 does not call for repentance using ‫שוב‬, Milgrom concludes that it is older than Deut 28; the chapter resembles the eighth-century b.c.e. Sefire treaty and has a consolatory epilogue—which Deuteronomy did not, at least not until the addition of Deut 30:1–10.88 Moshe Weinfeld, in a discussion of Deut 28, also noted similarities between Lev 26 and the Sefire treaty, which include “repetitive phrases . . . the typological number seven . . . beasts preying upon people . . . pestilence, search [sic] for food, eating and not being sated . . . and the devastation of the land.”89 This parallel neither resolves the dating of Lev 26 nor precludes a sixth-century b.c.e. date, but it does makes an eighth-century b.c.e. date plausible. Although the sequence of blessings and curses is preserved in a postexilic formulation, Milgrom’s argument raises the possibility—even if it cannot be conclusively established—that the curse of exile contained within vv. 3–33a was a preexilic formulation. In Lev 26, the punishments are divided into five sections (vv. 14–17, 18–20, 21–22, 23–26, 27–39) that each begin with a protasis that entertains the possibility of Israel’s disobedience (e.g., v. 14, “And if you do not obey me . . .”). I will discuss the implications of this structure in a moment; first I wish to focus on the substance of the punishments themselves. Like their ancient Near Eastern counterparts, the threats in each section overlap with—if they do not duplicate—one another. Take, for example, v. 25, in the fourth section, which portends pestilence and

of the curse of exile, may also be argued by analogy with the sequence of ideas in Deut 28:64–66. 87 Here Milgrom credits the scholarship of B. D. Eerdmans, Das Buch Leviticus (Alttestamentliche Studien 4; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1912) and Paul Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus (HSAT; Bonn: Hanstein, 1935). 88 Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2347. Milgrom also here disputes Levine’s argument that the author of the primary epilogue drew on Ezekiel, a key point for Levine’s dating, and argues, instead, that Ezekiel drew on Lev 26, at least vv. 3–39 (minus 33b–35). 89 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 125–26.

introduction

33

defeat by the enemy: ‫ושלחתי דבר בתוככם ונתתם ביד אויב‬, “and I will send pestilence in your midst, and you shall be delivered into the hand of an enemy.” Earlier, however, in the first section, v. 16 had already threatened ‫והפקדתי עליכם בהלה את השחפת ואת הקדחת‬ ‫מכלות עינים ומדיבת נפש‬, “I will visit upon you, with horror, consumption and fever that waste the eyes and cause life to pine away”; in v. 17, defeat by the enemy is assured (‫ונגפתם לפני איביכם ורדו‬ ‫בכם שנאיכם‬, “You will be struck down before your enemies and your foes shall rule over you”). Thus, in their substance, the comminations are not differentiated by or arranged according to increasing severity. Rather, the curses in each section articulate a remarkable variety of disasters, and each commination rings as terrifying as those found in the sections around it. To take the first section, vv. 14–17, as an example: Yhwh will terrorize Israel, and she will suffer blinding and fatal illness, famine, defeat by her enemies, political domination, and the panic that accompanies this loss of security (vv. 16–17). The comminations thus appear to emphasize the breadth of ways in which Yhwh may wreak vengeance, rather than proposing a chronological sequence. They convey that disaster in almost every imaginable form will plague rebellious Israel, and they emphasize that the inescapable cost of disobedience is destruction—be it of one’s body, one’s family, or the people as a whole. This destruction, presented in many forms, results from a profound shift in Yhwh’s disposition toward the people; it is this dispositional shift that provides the common thread for the comminations and, indeed, the blessings. Both the blessing and the commination sequences specify what countenance Yhwh will adopt toward Israel: reward and punishment spring from Yhwh’s stance toward her. The blessings assure that Yhwh will “turn favorably toward” Israel (‫ופניתי‬ ‫אליכם‬, v. 9), while the curses warn: “I will set my face against you” (‫ונתתי פני בכם‬, v. 17). ‫ פנה‬serves as a catchword to emphasize the contrast. The repetition and inversion of this idiom remind the hearer that the execrations signal a terrifying change in Yhwh’s stance toward Israel—even in the case of those curses that do not begin with the divine “I” (for example, vv. 16b, 20).90 90 In v. 11, another example of Yhwh’s mutability, Yhwh’s benevolence when Israel obeys is expressed in the negative: ‫ולא תגעל נפשי אתכם‬. Yhwh’s good will is here expressed by a negation of that curious, if elusive idiom, ‫געל נפש‬. (The translation of the idiom is particularly difficult since it makes four of its five MT appearances in Lev 26: vv. 11, 15, 30, 43.) Hans Fuhs argues that ‫ געל‬should be translated “to loathe,

34

chapter one

Leviticus 26 thus substantiates Yhwh’s wrath in a variety of forms. These include a number of allusions to foreign oppression in vv. 3–33a (for example, vv. 17, 25, and 32), to other circumstances associated with siege conditions (for example, the famine that leads to cannibalism in v. 29), and, near the end of the list of manifestations of Yhwh’s “oppositional rage” (‫ )בחמת קרי‬toward Israel, to exile: v. 33a states, ‫ואתכם אזרה בגוים והריקתי אחריכם חרב‬, “And you I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword after you.” The image of Yhwh scattering Israel is a common idiom for exile.91 The unsheathing of the sword serves, first, to invert the blessing of v. 7; in that verse, Israel’s enemies fell before her sword because of Yhwh, but here, Israel has become the one menaced by Yhwh’s sword.92 Second, while the brandishing of the sword may keep the exiled from returning, not unlike the flaming sword of Gen 3:24, it also makes a chilling statement on the nature of exile: exile means to be driven out of the land but to remain under the threat of Yhwh’s sword. Exile figures as one form of divine wrath, of living under Yhwh’s sentence. Leviticus 26:36–39 continues the description of exile in v. 33a as a form of divine wrath after the intervening gloss in vv. 33b–35 on the land and its Sabbaths.93

abhor,” a technical term indicating that the covenant has been utterly destroyed (“‫גָּ ַﬠל‬,” TDOT 3:45–48; so also Levine, “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code,” 14; contra Milgrom’s “the gullet expels,” Leviticus 23–27, 2301–2). ‫מאס‬, “to spurn, reject,” in vv. 15 and 43 provides the first term in a parallelism and suggests that ‫געל נפש‬ functions to intensify that term. The use of the negative in the blessings suggests that although Yhwh’s abhorrence lies dormant, the danger of arousing the deity in this way still casts a long shadow. And, indeed, the phrase is reversed in the comminations, where the assertion is: ‫“( וגעלה נפשי אתכם‬I will abhor you,” v. 30). 91 This sense of the verb ‫ זרה‬is found with ‫ בגוים‬or ‫ בארצות‬in Ps 44:12 and 106:27; it appears without either prepositional phrase in Zech 2:2, 4 [Eng. 1:19, 21] and Jer 31:10 (see also Jer 49:32, 36). The verb is most frequently used in Ezekiel (for example, 5:10; 6:8; 12:15; 20:23; 22:15; 29:12; 30:23, 26; 36:19); note especially 5:2, 12 and 12:14, which also refer to “unsheathing a sword” after those exiled. 92 In Lev 26:7, ‫ורדפתם את איביכם ונפלו לפניכם לחרב‬, “you shall pursue your enemies and they shall fall before you by the sword.” 93 Again, Milgrom regards vv. 36–39 as preexilic, while Ginsberg (The Israelian Heritage of Judaism) and Levine (“The Epilogue to the Holiness Code”) regard only vv. 37b–38 as preexilic and a continuation of the primary epilogue begun in v. 33a; they take v. 39 as a post-587 b.c.e. redaction. The coherence of vv. 33b–35, as an intervening gloss, has been demonstrated by Milgrom, partially on the basis of the repetition of ‫ שבת‬seven times in those verses; the verses pick up and continue the language of Lev 25, which details the sabbatical year (Leviticus 23–27, 2322–23).

introduction

35

‫יהם וְ ָר ַדף א ָֹתם קוֹל‬ ֶ ‫אתי מ ֶֹרְך ִבּ ְל ָב ָבם ְבּ ַא ְרצֹת אֹיְ ֵב‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַהנִּ ְשׁ ָא ִרים ָבּ ֶכם וְ ֵה ֵב‬36 ‫י־ח ֶרב‬ ֶ ֵ‫ישׁ־בּ ָא ִחיו ְכּ ִמ ְפּנ‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָכ ְשׁלוּ ִא‬37 :‫ת־ח ֶרב וְ נָ ְפלוּ וְ ֵאין ר ֵֹדף‬ ֶ ‫ָﬠ ֶלה נִ ָדּף וְ נָ סוּ ְמנֻ ַס‬ ‫ וַ ֲא ַב ְד ֶתּם ַבּגּוֹיִ ם וְ ָא ְכ ָלה‬38 :‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫קוּמה ִל ְפנֵ י אֹיְ ֵב‬ ָ ‫א־ת ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם ְתּ‬ ִ ֹ ‫וְ ר ֵֹדף ָאיִ ן וְ ל‬ ‫יכם וְ ַאף‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַהנִּ ְשׁ ָא ִרים ָבּ ֶכם יִ ַמּקּוּ ַבּ ֲﬠו ֺנָ ם ְבּ ַא ְרצֹת אֹיְ ֵב‬39 :‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֶא ְת ֶכם ֶא ֶרץ אֹיְ ֵב‬ ‫ַבּ ֲﬠוֺנֹת ֲאב ָֹתם ִא ָתּם יִ ָמּקּוּ׃‬ 36

And those of you who remain, I will send faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; the sound of a driven leaf shall pursue them, and they shall flee like one who flees from the sword, and they shall fall though there is no pursuer. 37 They shall stumble over one another, as if before a sword, though there is no pursuer; and you shall have no power to stand before your enemies. 38 You shall wander off among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall devour you. 39 And those of you who remain shall pine away because of their iniquities in the land of your enemies; also because of the iniquities of their ancestors they shall pine away. (Lev 26:36–39)

Verse 36 describe the fate of those who do survive the pursuit into exile: “They shall flee like one who flees from the sword, and they shall fall though there is no pursuer.”94 This does not mean that Yhwh is a geographically bound deity, for Yhwh’s far reach is demonstrated by his promise to “send faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies” (‫והבאתי מרך בלבבם בארצת איביהם‬, v. 36). The devastating truth is that while Yhwh has unsheathed the sword, he has not pursued Israel into exile. The terrifying aspect of monotheism in Lev 26 is that Yhwh can pursue his people anywhere, but has chosen to abandon them. They are left to suffer because they are without the divine presence: “You shall have no power to stand against your enemies” (‫ולא תהיה לכם תקומה לפני איביכם‬, v. 37b). Furthermore, the people will “wander off” (‫ )אבד‬among the nations and the land of their enemies will “devour” them (‫ואבדתם בגוים ואכלה‬ ‫אתכם ארץ איביכם‬, v. 38).95 While the verb ‫ אבד‬is commonly translated as “to perish” in keeping with its Northwest Semitic cognates, it

94 The language here recalls v. 17, ‫ונסתם ואין רדף אתכם‬, “you shall flee though no one pursues you.” Both vv. 17 and 36, in turn, recall and reverse the blessing in Lev 26:7, ‫ורדפתם את איביכם ונפלו לפניכם לחרב‬, “you shall pursue your enemies and they shall fall before you by the sword.” 95 In an evocative parallel, Num 13:32, the spies report of Canaan that it is “a land that eats its inhabitants” (‫ ;)ארץ אכלת יושביה‬in the Priestly version of the episode, the report leads to the rebellion of the people, who are subsequently punished with forty years of “exile.”

36

chapter one

has a secondary meaning, “to wander off, run away.”96 Benedikt Otzen and Ernst Jenni suggest that this secondary meaning was in fact the basis for and eventually became the verb’s primary meaning, “to perish”: an animal that had run off would perish.97 ‫ אבד‬in v. 38 has this nuance; exile is a form of death because Israel is driven from the land by Yhwh (v. 33a, which Milgrom argues was originally followed by vv. 36–39). Like an animal lost in the wilderness, Israel cannot survive; the people are forsaken and abandoned, left to die. To return to the question of the structure of the passage: How do the opening phrases of the five commination sections organize the sequence of curses? As noted above, the curses themselves do not seem to be ordered according to their increasing severity. But they are embedded in a series of sequential threats, in ascending order, that constitute an outgrowth of Yhwh’s escalating anger. The result is that even if the curses are more or less equal, exile is, to paraphrase George Orwell, “more equal than the others.” Unlike ancient Near Eastern treaties in general, the sequence of comminations of Lev 26 is structured as a series of responses to persistent disobedience,98 and exile, which is the fifth and final commination, functions as the ultimate punishment. Its place at the end of an extensive list of execrations suggests that, while exile is yet another form of annihilation, it has also become its final form. Exile is the ultimate expression of Yhwh’s disfavor. Levine points out the “symmetry of contrasts” between the blessings and comminations in Lev 26, which highlights the significance of the curse of exile; not only is exile the fifth and final expression of divine wrath, it stands in contrast to the fifth blessing: Yhwh’s presence in Israel (vv. 11–12).99 Exile, which becomes the focus of the extended fifth commination, reverses the beneficent connotations of Yhwh’s presence. Yhwh’s presence is now menacing at best, and at worst it is fatally remote: Yhwh scatters Israel for destruction and withdraws

96 A vivid example of the connection between the verb and landlessness may be found in Deut 26:5, ‫ארמי אבד אבי‬, “a wandering Aramean was my ancestor.” A number of translators, however, prefer to render this verse as “a perishing Aramean was my ancestor.” 97 Benedikt Otzen, “‫ ָא ַבד‬,” TDOT 1:19, 21; Ernst Jenni, “‫אבד‬,” TLOT 1:13–14. 98 In this regard, the curses resemble Amos 6:4–11 and the plagues directed against Egypt in Exodus. 99 Levine, Leviticus, 276.

introduction

37

from her. Either way, exile portends and is associated with the absolute anger of Yhwh and certain death. To conclude, the pervasive practice of exile as a tool of empires, the exile of the north, and the treaty curses contained in Deut 28 and Lev 26 suggest that exile was a potent curse in Judah before the catastrophe of 587 b.c.e. While Deut 28 and Lev 26 are postexilic formulations, these texts echo the ancient Near Eastern conception of exile, which the biblical authors appropriated and modified. In the oldest layers of both of these chapters, as in the treaty curses, exile is a fatal and permanent condition. There is no restoration in view, or even possible; this, too, communicates the dire situation of being the object of Yhwh’s wrath. The comparison of ancient Near Eastern and biblical texts on exile further shows that both shared the notion that exile was one facet, and a very powerful one, of divine annihilating wrath. Exile may have been expressed as a denial of futurity, a deprivation of the benefits of the land, or a disintegration of the body politic, but at its heart exile was lethal because it was the result of the inescapable anger of Yhwh, fatal in any form it took. The concept of exile, by its commingling with other curses, gained associations with death, sterility, hunger, and disease. Exile was not yet a metaphor for these things, but they were part of its conceptual orbit. Even when exile took on the concreteness of a coming event in the final redaction of Deut 28 and Lev 26, it maintained its implicitly figurative significance as a form of annihilating anger and as a form of death penalty for the vassal. These together contributed to its potent hold over the imagination of ancient Israel. The persistence of this association between death, disease, and exile is attested in the opening vision of 4 Ezra (3:1–5:20). In his narration of Israel’s early history, which lays the historical foundation for his question about the fate of Israel, Ezra notes a series of human transgressions, each on the model of Adam (3:7, 10, 21, 26), that were punished by God. God responds to Adam’s transgression in the garden by appointing “death for him and for his descendants” (v. 7). In response to the “ungodly” deeds and “scorn” of the subsequent generations, Ezra continues, God “didst bring the flood upon the earth and the inhabitants of the world and destroy them. And the same fate befell them: as death came upon Adam, so the flood upon them” (vv. 8–10). And again, confronting the evil of the post-Sinaitic generations, God punishes human transgression by making permanent “the disease” (3:22); this disease is “the evil heart” that led the first

38

chapter one

Adam to transgress (vv. 20–21). Thus far, divine punishment of human transgression has come in the form of death or a “permanent disease.”100 The fourth manifestation of divine punishment, directed against the city of Jerusalem, was its delivery “into the hands of [God’s] enemies” (v. 27). In this climax, the capture, destruction, and resulting deportation of the city into exile are presented as punishment for Israel’s transgressions. Particularly notable is the literary parallelism between death, the permanent disease of the evil heart, and the delivery of the city into the hands of the enemies; exile is understood by the author as another form of a fatal condition. III. Prospectus Already in the late exilic and early postexilic periods, the treaty curses suggest, exile had a meaning that was not neutral, and, furthermore, was associated with death, sterility, and futility. These associations are significant as an early indicator of the meanings that exile would take on. As noted above, in 4 Ezra’s opening vision (ch. 3), exile is understood by the author of that later text to be one form of a fatal condition like death or the permanent disease of the evil heart. That exile came to represent a form of death in the biblical imagination is indicated, in the curses, by its association with divine wrath and a separation from the deity. The curses also indicate that exile could function in this way because it already had flexible meaning. In the curses, exile did not yet function as a metaphor, but it was already being brought into contact with other systems of association that would broaden its own register. This brief survey of how exile figures in the curses of Deut 28 and Lev 26 also indicates the difficulties inherent in tracing the route exile traveled on its way to becoming a metaphor. The pursuit of these early stages of the process is a tantalizing yet challenging project since it requires, in some cases, reaching back into the redactional layers of the text in order to reconstruct exile’s changing associations. This pursuit,

100 Incidentally, not every instance of human transgression was punished by death according to 4 Ezra’s scheme. God responds to the wickedness of the postdiluvian generations by choosing “for [himself ] one of them, whose name was Abraham” (4 Ezra 3:13).

introduction

39

in other words, will require not only a synchronic attempt to discern how exile functioned as a figure, but also a diachronic study of the redactional processes by which exile was shaped and reshaped, in so far as this is possible. The goal will be to uncover both the early iterations and the later reinterpretation of exile, as a way of discerning the tributaries to the process. With this in mind, I begin this search in the prophetic literature, where exile—whether future, present, or past—is a pervasive concern. This study will center on three of the prophetic books, each of which reflects on the exilic period; their vantage point on the period is not only significant but unique for elucidating the roots of the metaphorization of exile. The first text, the poetic cycle of Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation, Jer 30–31, purports to anticipate both the exile and the restoration by which exile will be resolved. The second and third texts, Isa 40–55 and Zech 1–8, come at the end of the exile; both primarily anticipate the restoration, but in so doing implicitly reflect back on the exilic period. All three have in common a complex redactional history both in and of themselves. For example, several of the poems within the Book of Consolation are built upon ancient pieces of tradition that were subsequently redacted to apply to the Babylonian conquest and exile, and Zech 1:7–6:15 includes later oracles and exhortations that interpret the meaning of the original night visions. The texts have also been supplemented and shaped by later additions at their margins— for example, the addition of Isa 56–66 to chapters 40–55 and the addition of Zech 9–14 to chapters 1–8; these additions reflect differing interpretations of the concept of exile and alter the meaning of the texts to which they are attached. In both their content and formation, then, these books provide insight into the shifting currency of exilic language. More specifically, in chapter 2, I shall consider the redaction of Jer 30–31, which offers a remarkable view into the changing representation of exile over time. The earliest layers of this unit may be preexilic, although the chapters as a whole were reshaped by the addition of exilic and postexilic strands. The relationship between the strands is complex. The earliest layers do not always refer to exile, but may allude to other tribulations. In the final form of the book, however, they have been redacted through the addition of later strands of poetry to refer to the events of the sixth century. The result is a book in which exile is rendered by a gallery of borrowed images, sometimes derived

40

chapter one

from more ancient tradition. By using these older images—or vehicles, to use the language of metaphor theory—to describe the Babylonian exile, the concept of exile itself takes on other systems of association. Some of the tribulations that the redacted texts associate with exile are bodily ailments. In describing exile by way of physical suffering, infertility, and the like, exile itself takes on those associations; it comes to convey not simply geopolitical dislocation, but a more complex crisis that requires a multileveled restoration. Exile is also compared to Israel’s early experience of wandering in the wilderness; this paradigmatic understanding of Israel’s present situation by way of Israel’s sacred history makes the Babylonian experience itself a paradigm, the kind of experience that the author of 4 Ezra could enlist as a vehicle for his theodical questions. Both of these groups of images would have implications for understanding not only exile but the end of exile. As exile came to be associated with and likened to multiple forms of suffering, it became a state whose reversal required more than repatriation: exile took on the character of an existential condition. In chapter 3, I shall examine another prophetic text, Isa 40–55, which renders exile metaphorically. Like Jer 30–31, Second Isaiah offers a rich array of metaphors for exile, each of which contributes new associations. In the case of Second Isaiah, however, many of the diverse metaphors for exile are generated by the coherent notion of Yhwh as “redeemer,” ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. In proclaiming that Yhwh is the redeemer of Israel, the poet describes Israel as being in those kinds of dire situations that elicit the activity of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. Exile, for example, is a state of servitude or debt slavery, patterned according to the capacities of the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬to redeem the enslaved. Of course exile is not exclusively rendered as the state of needing a ‫ ;ג ֵֹאל‬the poetry is not confined by the technical aspects of the term, but also associates other dire situations—being in a life-threatening situation, for example—with exile. But the point is that, while the Book of Consolation draws in multiple metaphors for exile, many of the metaphors for redemption in Isaiah grow out of the notion of Yhwh as ‫ ;ג ֵֹאל‬both texts wind multiple systems of association around the concept of exile, but in their own fashion. In both of these chapters, I argue that the continuing description of exile through other images further extends the meaning of exile. By bringing exile into contact with the systems of association that accompany these metaphors, exile is tinged by and eventually absorbed into those systems. In the case of Isaiah, we have early evidence of this further extension: in Third Isaiah, language previously used in Second

introduction

41

Isaiah to describe exile now becomes a metaphor for economic servitude. In a remarkable inversion, the tenor has become the vehicle. In chapter 4, I consider Zech 1–8, in particular the prologue to the book (Zech 1:1–6) and the night visions (1:7–6:15). Tracing the redaction of the book reveals the process by which exile became a metaphor for spiritual estrangement in the book’s prologue (Zech 1:1–6), a late addition that established a thematic context for the visions that follow. In the introduction, the language of exile and return is now applied to Israel’s spiritual estrangement from Yhwh. But this development is not fueled by the kind of metaphorical description we find in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Rather, the metaphorical understanding of exile as spiritual estrangement is built on the notion that exile is an iteration of divine wrath, as expressed in the destruction of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and the slow economic recovery of the province; this conception of exile lies at the core of the lament over Yhwh’s seventy years of anger against the city in Zechariah’s first vision. Further, Zechariah’s speculation about the end of the seventy years suggests that in his view, the period associated with exile is not yet over. Zechariah questions the expectations of a finite seventy-year exile cultivated by Jer 25 and 29, and he maintains that Israel still remains in exile in Yehud. Taken as a whole, these texts provide insight into the early, formative period in which the Babylonian exile was transformed from a historical experience into a multivalent symbol of physical, mental, and spiritual distress.

CHAPTER TWO

JEREMIAH’S BOOK OF CONSOLATION I. Introduction The poetic cycle of Jer 30–31 is commonly called the Book of Consolation for its vigorous promises of restoration.1 These promises are rendered all the more compelling by being juxtaposed against persistent warnings of imminent destruction and the inevitability of exile. The language used to describe exile is vivid and varied; exile and destruction are described through a variety of literary means, including the terrifying rhetoric of judgment, the metaphor of a spurned lover, and allusions to the bereavement of Rachel and Israel’s wilderness experience. Through these images, exile is depicted as an experience that includes, but is not limited to, geographic, political, scriptural, and emotional dimensions. Like much of the book of Jeremiah, the Book of Consolation has provided fertile ground for scholars interested in the development and redaction of biblical literature. Within the chronology of the canonical book of Jeremiah, the Book of Consolation proclaims, on the very eve of the razing of Jerusalem, Yhwh’s promise to restore Israel. While the canonical framework of the Book of Consolation thus establishes a preexilic time frame and audience for the cycle, its text reflects several layers of redaction that may predate or postdate the destruction of

1 The Book of Consolation ( Jer 30–33), also referred to as the “Book of Comfort,” “Book of Restoration,” or Trostbüchlein (Little Book of Consolation), is composed of a poetic cycle (chs. 30–31), which developed first, and a series of later prose additions (chs. 32–33). All four chapters have in common the hope for the future restoration of Israel. This chapter focuses on the poetic cycle in Jer 30–31. For recent scholarship on these chapters, see Bob Becking, Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30–31 (OtSt 51; Leiden: Brill, 2004); Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36 (AB 21b; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 368–495; William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986–1996), 2:749–835; Barbara A. Bozak, Life ‘Anew’: A Literary-Theological Study of Jer. 30–31 (AnBib 122; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991); William L. Holladay, Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986–1989), esp. 2:148–201; and Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1986), 568–618.

44

chapter two

Jerusalem. This stratification, combined with the notable shift in tone from the preceding chapters, has led some scholars to treat Jer 30–31 in its entirety as a set of postexilic expansions not attributable to the historical Jeremiah.2 Other scholars, adopting a biographical solution to the literary problem, argue that portions of those chapters come from an early phase in the prophet’s life and were later supplemented and reedited for a different audience by Jeremiah himself.3 Because it is a composite work that includes earlier and later layers of redaction, Jer 30–31 provides a window on the depiction of exile over time. Its contents postdate and may even predate the career of the historical Jeremiah. Early material in the Book of Consolation—which includes Jer 30:5–7, 12–15; 31:2–6; and 31:15–20—may have arisen before the events that led to the Babylonian exile; indeed, the early material may not have been related to exile at all. The Book also contains postexilic strands from the late sixth century b.c.e., substantially later than the date asserted by the canonical book of Jeremiah. These additions revalorize older oracles and frame them as predictions of exile in order to present a new interpretation of exile and restoration to the Judeans. Thus the variety of images used to depict exile reflects, in part, the Book of Consolation’s long compositional history, during which older strands of the tradition were reactualized for new audiences. The Book’s complex growth reveals the changing modes of depicting exile. As a whole, the composition reflects a complex understanding of exile that both engages earlier attempts to grasp its meaning and formulates new understandings of the concept. The redeployment of older strands of tradition and the composite rendering of exile that results provide the roots for an extension of the meaning of exile beyond the mundane particulars of physical dislocation.

2

See, for example, ibid., 568–70. See Paul Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia (2d ed.; Leipzig: Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Scholl, 1928), 277–302; Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia (3d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1968), 172–88; John Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), 269–87; Norbert Lohfink, “Der junge Jeremia als Propagandist und Poet: Zum Grundstock von Jer 30–31,” in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (ed. P.-M. Bogaert; Leuven: Peeters, 1981), 351–68; idem, “Die Gotteswortverschachtelung in Jer. 30–31,” in Künder des Wortes: Beiträge zur Theologie der Propheten (ed. L. Ruppert et al.; Würzburg: Echter, 1982), 105–19; and Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:1–10, 2:148–201. 3

jeremiah’s book of consolation

45

II. The Two Editions of the Book of Consolation The Book of Consolation, most scholars agree, is a composite work. Behind the book’s six poems lie a number of earlier pieces of poetry— which are reflected in Jer 30:5–7 (Poem 1), 12–15 (Poem 2), 18–21 (Poem 3), 31:2–6 (Poem 4), and 31:15–17, 18–20 (Poem 6).4 During the exilic and postexilic period, these earlier portions were redacted, glossed, and shaped into a cycle on the restoration of the nation; in addition, the poetic cycle was capped with an introduction, 30:1–4, which itself shows signs of growth (first v. 4, then vv. 2–3, and, finally, v. 1). In its final form, the Book of Consolation can be outlined thus5: 30:1–4 30:5–11 30:12–17 30:18–31:1 31:2–6 31:7–14 31:15–22 31:23–34 31:35–40

Prose Introduction Poem 1 Poem 2 Poem 3 Poem 4 Poem 5 Poem 6 Prose Conclusion, Part 1 Prose Conclusion, Part 2

I will focus on the material in the Book of Consolation that describes exile, which is contained in Poems 1, 2, 4, and 6. In addition, the introduction to the Book of Consolation, although it primarily speaks of the restoration, indirectly addresses the question of the length and nature of the exile. Despite a general agreement that the Book of Consolation contains layers of tradition, the way in which the cycle grew into its full canonical form is a subject of debate. Thus any effort to chart the development of language about exile will require judgments about the history of the Book: which, if any, layers are preexilic; which are exilic; and which are postexilic. Only then is it possible to trace, if tentatively, how earlier fragments were reused to construct a literary representation of the Babylonian Exile. There are two main currents of opinion in the debate on the development of the Book of Consolation as a whole: (1) it is a preexilic 4 Some of these earlier pieces of poetry (for example, 31:2–6 and 31:15–17) may also reflect discernible layers of development, as will be discussed below. 5 See Bozak, Life ‘Anew,’ 18–25.

46

chapter two

composition subsequently reworked; or (2) it is a multilayered postexilic composition. (1) A number of scholars, including most notably William Holladay and Norbert Lohfink, posit an important phase of preexilic development and regard the early strands as part of a unified composition.6 They hypothesize, building on the scholarship of Wilhelm Rudolph, Paul Volz, and John Bright, that the core of the Book of Consolation is evidence of Jeremiah’s earliest prophetic activity and reflects his own words from 615 b.c.e., when he was supposedly a propagandist for King Josiah’s campaign to reunify the north with the south; the earliest strands were thus directed to the northern exiles, whose ancestors had suffered devastation at the hands of the Assyrians in the final quarter of the eighth century b.c.e. According to Holladay and Lohfink, the provenance of these strands is established by the use of northern names such as ‫“( שמרון‬Samaria,” Jer 31:5) and ‫“( אפרים‬Ephraim,” 31:6, 9, 18, 20); they argue that, taken together, the strands could be read as a composition unified by symmetry and a single literary design, which they call a “northern recension.”7 Many years later, their argument continues, between the summers of 588 and 587 b.c.e., Jeremiah renewed his message of hope by framing his boyhood oracles of deliverance for the north for a new audience, namely, Judah on the eve of the fall of Jerusalem. In the case of Poem 1, for example, they argue that Jer 30:5–7 reflects Jeremiah’s original preaching to the north; this was later supplemented by vv. 8–11, so that the enlarged poem now addresses a southern audience. The northern recension was thus expanded and redirected to a southern audience by Jeremiah himself, during two different phases in his ministry. Holladay and Lohfink’s notion of a comprehensive composition addressed by a “young Jeremiah” to the northern exiles is an intriguing speculation. This assessment, however, overreaches the evidence. 6 Lohfink, “Der junge Jeremia”; Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:22–23, 156–71. For a modified version of this position, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “Jeremiah 30–31 and King Josiah’s Program of National Restoration and Religious Reform,” ZAW 108 (1996), 569–83. Siegmund Böhmer has proposed that only Jer 30:12–15, 23–24 and 31:2–6, 15–20 were authentic, based on a strict comparison to other portions of Jeremiah that he deems authentic; he argues that much of the poetry is Deuteronomistic expansion (Heimkehr und neuer Bund: Studien zu Jeremia 30–31 [GTA 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976]). 7 Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:2. Lohfink suggests that the recension might have been performed by a singer, Jeremiah himself, who wandered from village to village, or as an oratorio by a whole group of singers and musicians (“Der junge Jeremia,” 366).

jeremiah’s book of consolation

47

Sections of Jer 30–31 can be identified on literary grounds as preexisting units that circulated independently, but they need not be the product of the historical Jeremiah. Some of them, as their toponyms suggest, may have had a northern provenance or a northern audience in mind, but they do not amount to a unified composition, as argued by Holladay and Lohfink. Either because of their lexical and theological affinity to the developing figure of Jeremiah, as he is constructed by the redaction of the rest of the book, or because of the Book of Consolation’s restoration theme, they were included in the developing poems of the cycle. There are less positivistic and more nuanced iterations of Holladay’s and Lohfink’s position. Jack Lundbom, for example, has challenged two premises assumed by Holladay and Lohfink, the notion of a unified composition and the chronology of Jeremiah’s life. Nonetheless, he holds to the core idea put forth by Volz and Rudolph—namely, that some of the material in the Book of Consolation was directed to the north during Josiah’s tenure and was later “recycled” for a new audience—and asserts that all of Jer 30–31, prose as well as poetry, is Jeremian in origin.8 (2) Other scholars treat the Book of Consolation as an essentially postexilic composition. In marked contrast to Holladay and Lohfink, Robert Carroll argues that little if any of the content of the Book of Consolation can be attributed to the historical Jeremiah and concludes that it is largely a postexilic compilation. Carroll ascribes the poetry to anonymous circles, active during and after the exile, that held out the hope of restoration.9 Thus, like Holladay and Lohfink, he holds that the cycle contains earlier layers; however, he is unwilling to attribute any of these layers to Jeremiah, nor does he view them as forming a unified composition before their postexilic redaction. Carroll’s dating is based on the problematic assumption that the poetry’s relevance to the postexilic situation and its resonances with the vocabulary of Second Isaiah establish its later provenance. But the poetry’s applicability to the postexilic situation cannot be the main argument for its provenance, for it is entirely possible that it was, in part or in whole, older and was reactualized by later editors to speak to a new generation. Lundbom has offered a more substantial challenge to Carroll’s thesis

8 9

Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 368–76. Carroll, Jeremiah, 569–70.

48

chapter two

by noting that Jer 30–31 appears to be influenced both by Hosea and by other portions of Jeremiah; he further shows that those passages in Jer 30–31 that Carroll has cited as resembling Second Isaiah in fact have “parallels existing within the book of Jeremiah itself.”10 Thus the continuing debate over the provenance of the Book of Consolation revolves around the basic observation that it combines older strands of tradition—even if the setting of those oracles is still disputed—with newer additions. I shall consider the setting of those older strands on a case-by-case basis, but in general I hold that the book contains preexilic or exilic independent traditions that provide the basis for the later redaction. The poems grew piecemeal but eventually resulted in a cycle of six poems that has been appropriated to the Jeremian tradition; the prose introduction to the Book of Consolation, which refers to the words of Jeremiah being written on a (separate) scroll ( Jer 30:2), may obscurely reflect the Book’s literary prehistory. While the final redaction came in the postexilic period, the composition contains exilic and even preexilic traditions. Postexilic editors reactualized these early traditions to address the postexilic situation. The earlier poetry, some of which arose in the preexilic period, may originally have addressed the northern exiles or, indeed, may have had nothing at all to do with exile. Redactors selected texts that were associated by vocabulary and theme with the Jeremian tradition and whose imagery evoked (or could evoke) exile; they then turned those texts into representations of exile by suffixing to them promises of restoration. By their application to the exilic situation, these earlier pieces of poetry contributed to a new conception of the dimensions of that experience. There is one further matter to consider before turning to the poems. Any assessment of the development of the Book—and of the variety and shifts in nuance in its descriptions of exile—must take into account the two versions of the Book of Consolation reflected in MT and LXX. The LXX version of Jeremiah is 14 percent shorter than MT Jeremiah, due in part to a number of doublets in MT that are not present in LXX; and each version has its own ordering of the material, diverging most notably in the placement of the oracles against foreign nations 10

For a detailed rebuttal of the dependence of Jeremiah on Second Isaiah, see Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, especially 371–76; see also Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1998) and, briefly, n. 33 below.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

49

(which are found in Jer 46–51 in MT and in Jer 25:14–31:44 in LXX.) After the book of Jeremiah was redacted, there was a divergence in its transmission, sometime between 450 and 350 b.c.e., which resulted in the different texts of LXX and MT. J. Gerald Janzen posited that LXX reflects an Egyptian tradition and MT, the Judean tradition of the same text.11 Most scholars agree that, in the case of Jeremiah, LXX does not function as a witness to MT, as it does for many other books in the Hebrew Bible, but provides a different edition of the same text that was authoritative for a particular community. Which edition—the shorter or the longer—reflects the earlier stage in the transmission of the tradition? For example, did the shorter Vorlage of LXX result from an editorial decision to eliminate doublets in the tradition that the Vorlage of MT more faithfully preserved? Or did the Vorlage of MT expand the tradition represented in the LXX by reactualizing verses drawn from one literary context in new literary contexts, thus creating doublets? Early solutions proposed that LXX reflected an abridgment of the Vorlage of MT.12 The discovery in Cave 4 at Qumran of four Hebrew fragments from the book of Jeremiah corresponding to the shorter LXX tradition, however, suggested a different relationship between the MT and LXX traditions. The new Hebrew fragments favored the view that the shorter Vorlage of LXX reflects an earlier edition of the book, which differs most notably in its brevity and sequence. Building upon this consensus view, Anneli Aejmelaeus argued that a translation of this Vorlage into Greek was made in the second half of the second century b.c.e.13

11 Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 134. See also Frank Moore Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert,” HTR 57 (1964): 281–99. 12 See, for example, K. H. Graf, Der Prophet Jeremia (Leipzig: Weigel, 1862); and Friedrich Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia (2d ed.; HKAT 3.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907). 13 See Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert”; Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah; Emmanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (HSM 8; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976); and idem, “Three Fragments of Jeremiah from Qumran Cave 4,” RevQ 15 (1992): 531–41. Further, Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: Les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours,” RB 101 (1994): 363–406; Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer XXV 1–14 in the Book of Jeremiah,” VT 52 (2002): 459–82 at 460; and Richard D. Weis, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah,” Sôfer

50

chapter two

Thus, at minimum, the Greek text of Jeremiah is an important witness to the development of the text of the book. The evidence, moreover, suggests that LXX generally reflects an earlier edition of the book; in other words, its Hebrew Vorlage more closely reflects the common Vorlage of both traditions, MT and LXX.14 Comparing the MT and LXX texts of passages in the Book of Consolation reveals two traditions preserved by two different communities, and, in the case of MT, indicates how later redactors of the Vorlage of MT responded to the tradition they inherited. This kind of comparison provides some measure of interpretive control on the development of the Book of Consolation. It may also provide an opportunity to view two different conceptions of Israel’s exile and return descended from a common, if remote, ancestor, each of which may reflect a different stage in the development of the tradition. III. Images of Exile in the Book of Consolation A. Jacob’s Distress (Poem 1, Jer 30:5–11)15 ‫ ַשׁ ֲאלוּ־נָ א ְוּראוּ‬6 :‫ ִכּי־כֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה קוֹל ֲח ָר ָדה ָשׁ ָמ ְﬠנוּ ַפּ ַחד וְ ֵאין ָשׁלוֹם‬5 ‫ל־פּנִ ים‬ ָ ‫יּוֹל ָדה וְ נֶ ֶה ְפכוּ ָכ‬ ֵ ‫ל־ח ָל ָציו ַכּ‬ ֲ ‫יתי ָכל־גֶּ ֶבר יָ ָדיו ַﬠ‬ ִ ‫דּוּע ָר ִא‬ ַ ‫ִאם־י ֵֹלד זָ ָכר ַמ‬ ‫וּמ ֶמּנָּ ה‬ ִ ‫ת־צ ָרה ִהיא ְליַ ֲﬠקֹב‬ ָ ‫ הוֹי ִכּי גָ דוֹל ַהיּוֹם ַההוּא ֵמ ַאיִ ן ָכּמֹהוּ וְ ֵﬠ‬7 :‫ְליֵ ָרקוֹן‬ :‫יִ וָּ ֵשׁ ַﬠ‬ ‫רוֹתיָך‬ ֶ ‫וּמוֹס‬ ְ ‫ארָך‬ ֶ ָ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ַביּוֹם ַההוּא נְ ֻאם יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת ֶא ְשׁבֹּר ֻﬠלּוֹ ֵמ ַﬠל ַצוּ‬8 ‫יהם וְ ֵאת ָדּוִ ד ַמ ְל ָכּם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָﬠ ְבדוּ ֵאת יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬9 :‫ֲאנַ ֵתּק וְ לֹא־יַ ַﬠ ְבדוּ־בוֹ עוֹד זָ ִרים‬ :‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָא ִקים ָל ֶהם‬ ‫ל־תּ ַחת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִכּי ִהנְ נִ י‬ ֵ ‫ל־תּ ָירא ַﬠ ְב ִדּי יַ ֲﬠקֹב נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָֹ ה וְ ַא‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַא ָתּה ַא‬10 ‫יﬠָך ֵמ ָרחוֹק וְ ֶאת־זַ ְר ֲﬠָך ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִשׁ ְביָ ם וְ ָשׁב יַ ֲﬠקֹב וְ ָשׁ ַקט וְ ַשׁ ֲאנַ ן וְ ֵאין‬ ֲ ‫מוֹשׁ‬ ִ ‫ל־הגּוֹיִ ם‬ ַ ‫יﬠָך ִכּי ֶא ֱﬠ ֶשׂה ָכ ָלה ְבּ ָכ‬ ֶ ‫הוֹשׁ‬ ִ ‫י־א ְתָּך ֲאנִ י נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה ְל‬ ִ ‫ ִכּ‬11 :‫ַמ ֲח ִריד‬ ‫א־א ֱﬠ ֶשׂה ָכ ָלה וְ יִ ַסּ ְר ִתּיָך ַל ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּט וְ נַ ֵקּה לֹא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫צוֹתיָך ָשּׁם ַאְך א ְֹתָך ל‬ ִ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ֲה ִפ‬ ‫ֲאנַ ֶקּךָּ ׃‬

Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Y. Goldman et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 269–93. 14 Pace Jack R. Lundbom, “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah,” HS 46 (2005): 301–20. 15 The boundaries of Poem 1, Jer 30:5–11, are established by the structuring formula ‫כי כה אמר יהוה‬, which opens the poem in v. 5 and appears again in v. 12 to mark the opening of the second poem. Also, in vv. 5–11, the masculine person is used consistently to address the audience and refer to the people; in the following poem, vv. 12–17, the person of address is feminine. For a fuller treatment of the delineation of the poems, see Bozak, Life ‘Anew,’ 18–24.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

51

5

For thus says Yhwh: We have heard16 a cry of fear, of terror, and no peace. 6 Ask and see, can a man bear a child? Why then do I see every man with his hands on his loins17 like a woman in labor?18 Why has every face turned pale? 7 Alas!19 that day is so great there is none like it;20 it is a time of distress for Jacob; yet he shall be saved out of it. 8

On that day, says Yhwh of hosts, I will break a yoke from off their neck,21 and I will burst their bonds, and they shall no longer serve

16 LXX Jer 37:5 has a second person plural form, ἀκούσεσθε, “you will hear,” perhaps in an attempt to make the ensuing text more oracular in form, but there is no definitive reason to defer to LXX in this case. MT’s ‫“( שמענו‬we have heard”) is the lectio difficilior since it is not clear to whom the first-person plural form refers. The MT phrase further preserves in MT Jer 30:5–6 an echo of Jer 6:24, which says of the threat posed by the foe from the north, ‫שמענו את שמעו רפו ידינו צרה החזיקתנו חיל‬ ‫כיולדה‬, “We have heard news of them, our hands fail; distress has taken hold of us, pain like a woman in labor.” LXX Jer 6:24 also has ἠκούσαμεν (‫)שמענו‬. 17 LXX Jer 37:6b has καὶ περὶ φόβου, ἐν ᾧ καθέξουσιν ὀσφὺν καὶ σωτηρίαν· διὰ τί ἑόρακα πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ αἱ χεῖρες αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ, “and about the fear, in which they will hold onto loins and safety. Why have I seen every person and his hands are on his loins?” This is a comparatively rare instance in which LXX has a longer version of the text—in this case, a double translation; cf. MT: ‫מדוע ראיתי כל‬ ‫גבר ידיו על חלציו כיולדה‬. Joseph Ziegler brackets διὰ τι . . . ὀσφύος αὐτου as an addition (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum XV: Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae [2d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976], 350), and Janzen argues that the expansion reflects a corruption in the Greek transmission that was subsequently corrected to MT (Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, 29). 18 Janzen proposes that MT’s ‫כיולדה‬, “like a woman in labor,” which is not found in LXX Jer 37:6, may be a later gloss influenced by MT Jer 6:24 and 50:43 (ibid., 49). 19 LXX has ἐγενήθη (reflecting ‫ ) ָהיוּ‬at the close of v. 6, while MT has ‫ הוֹי‬at the opening of v. 7. Rudolph (BHS) prefers LXX, which suggests that the word is a verb, mispointed in MT, and should come at the end of the previous verse; this reconstruction supplies a verb for the final clause of v. 6 in MT— ‫לירקון ָהיוּ‬. If ‫ ָהיוּ‬did become ‫ הוֹי‬by a combination of error and exegesis, its effect is to make the ensuing verse in MT more oracular, in keeping with v. 4 and v. 5a. 20 MT has pointed the word ‫“( ֵמ ַאיִ ן‬whence, from where”), but LXX reflects a different pointing (‫) ֵמ ֵאין‬, which yields the phrase: “There is nothing like it!” (cf. MT Jer 10:6). For content and because it echoes ‫ וְ ֵאין‬in v. 5, LXX is preferable (Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 139; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 385; pace Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:150). 21 LXX Jer 37:8 has τραχήλου αὐτῶν, “their neck,” presumably referring to the people, previously identified as Jacob. In the context of the poem, LXX is preferable to MT, which has ‫צוארך‬, “your (2ms) neck.” The same logic applies to preferring τοὺς δεσμοὺς

52

chapter two foreigners. 9 But they shall serve Yhwh their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them. 10

But as for you, have no fear, my servant Jacob, says Yhwh, and do not be dismayed, O Israel; for I am going to save you from far away, and your offspring from the land of their captivity. Jacob shall return and have quiet and ease, and no one shall make him afraid. 11 For I am with you, says Yhwh, to save you; I will make an end of all the nations among whom I scattered you, but of you I will not make an end. I will chastise you in just measure, and I will by no means leave you unpunished.22 (30:5–11)

Poem 1 opens with a fearful cry and an anguished description of the nation’s distress (MT Jer 30:5–7bα). The poem looks beyond certain doom to the assurance of divine rescue in the final clause of its first section, v. 7bβ, and more extensively in its second section, vv. 8–11, so that what began in panic ends with consolation, albeit tempered by certainty that Israel will be punished. Even as it promises restoration, however, the poem reminds its postexilic audience that despite their return from afar, they still live in exile because key elements of Yhwh’s restoration have yet to be realized: the Davidic monarchy has not yet been restored, and the Israelites still serve foreigners, namely the Persians (vv. 8–9). This recognition of Israel’s continuing servitude after the returns parallels Ezra’s acknowledgment, made in Yehud, that “we are slaves” (Ezra 9:9). The changing depiction of exile, from a decisive end to the prelude to a tantalizing—if remote—possibility, can be traced in each phase of the poem’s development. Despite its formal unity, Poem 1 exhibits a number of indications of its composite nature. The oldest strand, vv. 5–7, may have originated as an independent composition on the Day of Yhwh. Subsequently, the biblical authors and redactors of the Book of Consolation reshaped those verses and added two comments, vv. 8–9 and MT’s vv. 10–11, which establish the events of the sixth century as the (new) tenor for those verses.

αὐτῶν (“their bonds”) in LXX to MT ‫“( מוסרותיך‬your bonds”) in the subsequent strophe. Also, LXX has “yoke,” ζυγόν, while MT has ‫עלו‬, “his yoke,” which is inconsis-

tent with the rest of MT’s rendering of the verse; this form may have resulted from a later attempt to harmonize the verse with the reference to Jacob in MT Jer 30:7. 22 LXX lacks vv. 10–11 here. The verses do appear, however, in LXX Jer 46:27–28.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

53

This kind of exegesis laid the groundwork for the later metaphorization of exile: when the language of the Day of Yhwh was enlisted as a vehicle for exile, exile was absorbed into that system of associations, the upheaval and cataclysm associated with the Day of Yhwh. This kind of extension of meaning by association is an important example of the first step in the process by which exile itself became loosened from historical particulars to function as a literary figure. As such, exile, when it came to signify more than deportation, would not be fully resolved by mundane indicators of return and restoration. 1. The Day of Yhwh (MT Jer 30:5–7/LXX Jer 37:5–7) Jeremiah 30:5–7 describes “that day” (‫)היום ההוא‬, a “time of distress” (‫ )עת צרה‬for the people, when Israel’s men suffer as women in labor and the people’s faces have the pallor of cowardice. The poem’s canonical context—defined by the introduction to the book of Consolation that immediately precedes the poem, as well as the place of the Book of Consolation within the present chronology of the Book of Jeremiah— associates the distress in Poem 1 with the coming defeat of Judah at the hands of the Babylonians and the subsequent exile; the second section of the poem, particularly the references to liberation in vv. 8–9, also suggests these events. There is little within vv. 5–7 themselves, however, that points to that particular historical situation. Rather, the verses depict an unnatural cataclysm and its associated horrors, without reference to exile or military defeat. The day is described, instead, as one on which there is an inversion of the expected order—in this case, men behave as if they were women in labor.23 The phrase ‫“( ביום ההוא‬on that day”) and the imagery of the verses suggest that the inversion of the expected order is due to the Day of Yhwh.24 The verses appear to stem from an originally independent tradition of long standing, the Day of Yhwh, and

23 These horrors will, in turn, be reversed by the restoration promised in the poem’s second section, MT Jer 30:8–11/LXX Jer 37:8–9. Poem 2 also reflects a remarkable restoration. The motif of restoration by reversal was strengthened by the addition of the introduction, Jer 30:1–4 (especially 30:3, one of the later strands of the Book of Consolation), which announces the theme of a reversal of status. 24 Volz noted the reference to the Day of Yhwh (Der Prophet Jeremia, 289); see also Lohfink, “Der junge Jeremia,” 360; Bright, Jeremiah, 278–79; Carroll, Jeremiah, 574–75; and more generally Richard H. Hiers, “Day of the Lord,” ABD 2:82–83.

54

chapter two

may not initially have referred to defeat and exile at all.25 Furthermore, the topos of the Day of Yhwh is not foregrounded in the rest of the Jeremiah tradition. While the topos is a key concept in prophetic literature in general, Jer 46:10 provides the only other clear reference to it in the book of Jeremiah. Literary indicators further mark the adaptation of a preexistent unit as the basis for the poem: there is a tension between the content of the poem in vv. 5b–6 and the oracular frame in vv. 4–5a. Setting aside the formulaic “thus says Yhwh” in v. 5a as a later redactional marker, the heart of the poem, vv. 5b–6, is not an oracle proper, as v. 4 and v. 5a suggest it should be. Indeed, it is only vv. 8–11, the second part of the poem, that provide the oracle promised by the introductory verses and describe future liberation, again returning to the theme of the cycle. The reference to a single day in v. 7 (and cf. v. 8) may be another indication of the original independence of the verses, since the “coming days” (‫ימים באים‬, 30:3) referred to in the introduction are plural. The combined evidence suggests, however, that extant Day of Yhwh imagery has been appropriated for a description of the days to come. Verses 5b–7, then, circulated independently before they were assimilated into the Jeremian tradition and the Book of Consolation; they may or may not have been addressed to the situation of the north, as Holladay and Lohfink assert, but in any case they should be evaluated first in the context of other Day of Yhwh traditions, and only secondarily in the context of the Book of Consolation. Given that the Day of Yhwh is a day of judgment, v. 7bβ ends the first part of the poem with a surprising assurance of salvation: Jacob shall be saved. This assurance may be a redactional creation. As John Bright suggested, the verse may originally have ended with a rhetorical

25 Rudolph, Holladay, and Lohfink designate Jer 30:5–7 the opening strophe of their proposed northern recension. Their argument for including vv. 5–7 derives from the observation, correct in my opinion, that the verses are older than much of the rest of Jer 30–31. That said, it is not clear that the verses were originally addressed to the north or that they were part of a coherent recension; the reference to “Jacob” in v. 7, which for Rudolph et al. is a key means of identifying the original audience as northern, does not refer to the north exclusively (as it certainly does not in the present context). Jacob, as the exiled patriarch of the twelve tribes, would have been a compelling figure for exiles of both north and south. What can be said with some certainty is that the core of vv. 5–7 circulated independently before it was assimilated into the Jeremian tradition and the Book of Consolation; the verses may or may not have been addressed to the situation of the north.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

55

question (“. . . and will he be saved from it?”) that presumed a negative answer.26 Such a rhetorical question would be consistent with the understanding of the Day of Yhwh as a day of judgment against the people (“And will he be saved from it? No!”; cf. the inevitability of the Day of Yhwh according to Amos 5:18–20). Further, this kind of question would be more in keeping with the description of doom that leads up to v. 7bβ. Only in the newer formulation, ‫וממנה יושע‬, “yet he shall be saved out of it,” which replaces the hypothesized interrogative with a positive statement, does the Day of Yhwh come to signify ultimate vindication and restoration for the people.27 Thus an earlier version of the passage may have asked, “Will Jacob be saved from the day of Yhwh?”―but only through its later redaction is the answer positive. The borrowing of the Day of Yhwh topos to describe exile suggests that in the mind of the redactors of the poem, the Day of Yhwh served as a vehicle for conveying exile; the introduction of this particular piece of poetry into the Jeremian tradition appears to have been facilitated, in part, by Jer 6:24, which does not speak of the Day of Yhwh but uses similar language to speak of the advancing foe from the north: “We have heard (‫ )שמענו‬report of it; our hands fail (‫)רפו ידינו‬, distress (‫ )צרה‬seizes us, pain like a woman in labor (‫)כיולדה‬.” 2. Salvation Is Assured (MT Jer 30:8–11/LXX Jer 38:8–9) By the addition of Jer 30:8–9, Yhwh’s promise to break Israel’s yoke “on that day,” the redactors retroactively identified the crisis of vv. 5–7 as defeat and exile.28 In this way, the second part of the poem establishes that defeat and exile are the tenor of the metaphor in the first

26 Bright, Jeremiah, 297; see also Holladay, “Style, Irony and Authenticity in Jeremiah,” JBL 81 (1962): 53–54. 27 Hiers finds this conception well attested in the HB, for example, Jer 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Isa 11:10; Amos 9:11; Hag 2:23; and Zech 3:8–10 (“Day of the Lord,” ABD 2:82–83.) 28 Holladay ( Jeremiah, 2:167) and Lohfink (“Der junge Jeremia,” 357) argue that Jer 30:5–7 was modified (see 30:7b) and supplemented with vv. 8–11, which redirected the poem to provide a message of future hope to the south. Rudolph argues that vv. 8–9 must be a later enlargement that “also has the catastrophe of Judah as a prerequisite” ( Jeremia, 173). I dispute their certainty that vv. 5–7 were directed to the north (see above), but concur that it was a preexisting tradition that was redacted in light of the Judean exile to address a Judean audience. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan continues this process further by describing the “yoke” in Jer 30:8 as “of the nations.”

56

chapter two

part of the poem. The introduction to the poetic cycle, added later, would reinforce this identification of exile as the tenor of vv. 8–9 by referring to the coming restoration of the dispersed (30:3). Jer 30:8–9 specifies the nature of the “time of distress” (‫ עת צרה‬in v. 7) as bondage, enslavement to foreigners, and captivity in a land far away, all of which evoke the particulars of the exilic experience. The references to the people’s service to a foreign king and the hope of a return for the Davidic monarchy suggest that the verses are an exilic or postexilic exegesis of vv. 5–7. The verses must have been added to the Book of Consolation before the divergence of the short and long forms of the book of Jeremiah, around 450–350 b.c.e., since the passage plays a part in both versions.29 The attachment of vv. 8–9 to vv. 5–7 thus had the effect of establishing a particular historical context—the Babylonian exile—for the older oracle on the Day of Yhwh. The attachment of those verses had in addition some far-reaching secondary effects, insofar as they laid the groundwork for a new understanding of exile itself. First, the idea of exile is detached from a particular historical context and applied more broadly to the problem of an estrangement between Israel and Yhwh. Although vv. 8–9 provide historical referents that anchor the language of vv. 5–7 to the Babylonian exile, they are nonetheless minimal and allusive; thus those verses preserve a certain paradigmatic dimension inherent in the description of defeat and exile in vv. 5–7. The Day of Yhwh topos in vv. 5–7, as vv. 8–9 make clear, can be used to describe exile and defeat as a manifestation of divine judgment. Metaphor theory suggests that the interaction between tenor and vehicle—here exile and the Day of Yhwh—is interanimative. In other words, the equation can be reversed: it is possible to conceive of the experience of divine judgment itself as a form of exile, which suggests that the experience of exile need not be confined to a particular historical moment, such as the Babylonian exile. Rather, exile becomes a way to describe Israel’s experience of divine wrath, much as it functioned in the curses of Lev 26 and Deut 28. Exile, as it is described in MT Jer 30:5–7, is the shocking moment when the nation stands judged by Yhwh; thus the condition of exile is not bound to a singular historical event.30 The tenor, 29

On this point, Holladay ( Jeremiah, 2:173) and Carroll ( Jeremiah, 576) agree; because Volz and Rudolph are concerned with isolating the authentic words of the prophet and dismiss vv. 8–9 as late, they do not even discuss these verses. 30 See Carroll, Jeremiah, 575.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

57

exile, has thus been transformed by the vehicle, the Day of Yhwh imagery: any experience interpreted as a repercussion of divine wrath can be interpreted as a form of exile. This is the principle that underlies 4 Ezra’s representation of Jews in the land, centuries after the Babylonian exile, as exiles. Second, a new definition of the “end of exile” is introduced in vv. 8–9, a definition that includes more than just the return of Judeans to their homeland. Jeremiah 30:8–9, even as it promises restoration, defers “that day” of restoration to a point beyond 538 b.c.e., since the explicit terms of Yhwh’s promise have not yet been met: Jacob has not yet been released from foreign domination and a native king has not been reinstated.31 The unrealized expectation of a restored Davidic monarchy would have signaled to the post-538 b.c.e. reader that the full import of the words of consolation had yet to be fulfilled, and that the effects of the Day of Yhwh, destruction and exile, endured. So, on the one hand, the addition of vv. 8–9 to vv. 5–7 ameliorates the terrifying finality of those verses; the evocation of panic now ends with a note of consolation. On the other hand, however, this hope is offered at a price, implying that the distress of the first section of the poem persists; the more vivid the images of restoration, the more elusive their realization. Thus, while there is no indication that the poem conceives of exile as a condition that will endure long into the future—indeed, it anticipates the end of the period quite clearly—the poem lays the groundwork for the motif of an exile that has not yet ended by making promises that a later generation would recognize as unfulfilled. The redacted poem depicts exile as more than an issue of geographical dislocation; it is now bound up with an older tradition of the exercise of divine wrath. Further, the return of the exiles alone does not signal the end of the period. This understanding of exile as an expression of divine wrath that can only be reversed by a more substantial restoration contributes to the notion that the Babylonian exile did not end with Cyrus’s edict

31 On the post-539 b.c.e. situation in Judah and the Diaspora, see Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem; Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003); Albertz, Israel in Exile; Amos Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian: Sources, History, Synthesis, vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); and Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration.

58

chapter two

of return, and would foster the motif of the unended exile in the Second Temple period. Thus far, the examination of two strata of Poem 1, vv. 5–7 and 8–9, has revealed something of the poem’s compositional history prior to the divergence of the MT and LXX traditions—a history that is tied to the larger compositional history of the Book of Consolation—and the effect of its redaction on the understanding of the events of 587 b.c.e. The redacted poem explains that exile was a manifestation of divine judgment, and it implies that the judgment will persist until a full restoration is in effect. As noted above, vv. 5–9 of Poem 1 are common to both the short and long forms of the book of Jeremiah. In the MT, however, Poem 1 includes several more lines (vv. 10–11) that are not found in the LXX text of the poem. This disparity might suggest that the Book of Consolation’s rendering of exile has undergone further development within the tradition of transmission that is represented in the Masoretic Text. But the textual situation is more complicated, because the additional verses in the Hebrew version are one of the aforementioned MT doublets: they appear twice in MT—first as the concluding verses to Poem 1, MT 30:10–11, and again in Jer 46:27–28 in the oracles against the nations. In LXX, the verses appear only in the oracles against the nations (LXX Jer 26:27–28), and not in Poem 1 (LXX Jer 37:5–9). The Qumran evidence for short and long forms of the Hebrew book of Jeremiah indicates that LXX reflects an earlier and shorter edition of the book, while MT reflects a later, expanded edition. Thus it would appear that the verses in question have been duplicated within MT; they were originally located within the oracles against the nations, where they are presently found in both the LXX and MT versions of Jeremiah. After the textual traditions behind MT Jeremiah and LXX Jeremiah diverged, the editors of the MT’s Vorlage interpreted verses from the oracles against the nations as particularly relevant to the first poem of the Book of Consolation and reproduced them there. Indeed, the verses are appropriate to their new context—perhaps even more fitting than in their original setting in the oracles against the nations. MT Jeremiah 30:10–11 corresponds to Poem 1’s opening verses, vv. 5–7: the reference to Jacob (‫ )יעקב‬in v. 10 answers the concern for Jacob in v. 7, and vv. 10–11 appear to fashion an oracle of salvation out of the words of judgment in vv. 5–7. After the cries and panic of vv. 5–7 (‫)קול חרדה שמענו פחד ואין שלום‬, Jacob is now told, ‫ ואל תחת‬. . . ‫אל תירא‬, “Do not fear . . . and do not be dismayed” (v. 10).

jeremiah’s book of consolation

59

While there was “a cry of fear” (‫ )קול חרדה‬in v. 5, now in v. 10, using the same root, the poem assures, “There is no one to make [Jacob] afraid” (‫)אין מחריד‬. Consequently, because the verses are well suited to their setting in Poem 1, many scholars are reluctant to concede the secondary nature of MT Jer 30:10–11.32 The verses contain no internal evidence that demands a date following the period 450–350 b.c.e., when the traditions behind LXX and MT diverged, so the possibility that they were common to both the MT and LXX traditions of Poem 1 and were subsequently omitted from LXX Jeremiah cannot be ruled out.33 In other words, the text-critical evidence for the development of Poem 1 suggests that vv. 10–11 originated in the oracles against the nations and were subsequently attached to vv. 5–9 of Poem 1. But a consideration of the literary relationship between vv. 5–7 and vv. 10–11 suggests that these together comprised the original Poem 1, and that vv. 8–9 were later interposed within the poem. From a literary point of view, then, vv. 10–11 appear to provide a direct exegesis of vv. 5–7 that emphasizes a return to the land, but the connection between exegesis and interpreted text has been disrupted by the intrusion of vv. 8–9. In that case, vv. 10–11 were preserved in the Hebrew tradition of Poem 1 but omitted from the Greek tradition of the poem. 32 Bob Becking, for example, states that no opinion can be given on the superiority of one of the two textual traditions reflected in LXX and MT because the verses fit in both contexts (“Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation: A Textual Comparison, Notes on the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek Version of Jeremiah xxx–xxxi,” VT 44 [1994]: 150; and idem, Between Fear and Freedom, 45). Lundbom argues the same ( Jeremiah 21–36, 376). Janzen argues that the oracle of LXX Jer 26:27–28, which was probably initially “self-contained,” functioned as a gloss on the oracles against Babylon, LXX Jer 26:2–5 (Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, 93–94). On the other hand, Bright ( Jeremiah, 279, 285–86) and Holladay ( Jeremiah, 2:157, 160) think that MT Jer 30:10–11, an authentically Jeremian composition, was omitted by LXX Jer 37. 33 The relationship of the verses to other prophetic material does not clarify their provenance. On the one hand, Carroll argues that the similarity of the language in Jer 30:10–11 to Second Isaiah suggests that the verses are of a later, exilic provenance ( Jeremiah, 578–79). On the other hand, Holladay maintains that the verses are authentically Jeremian (see, for example, ‫ אל־תירא‬in MT Jer 1:8; 42:11) and that the passages in Second Isaiah are rather variations on Jeremiah’s theme ( Jeremiah, 2:173). Similarly, Lundbom, who argues that the parallels between Jer 30–31 and Second Isaiah are “overdrawn,” asserts that the majority of Jeremian passages that have been compared to Second Isaiah “are vitiated or else reduced as evidence by parallels existing within the book of Jeremiah itself ” ( Jeremiah 21–36, 375). Sommer is more measured in arguing that, despite their similarities, it is impossible to assert which way the borrowing went, and indeed, one may not allude directly to the other (A Prophet Reads Scripture, 34).

60

chapter two

Thus it is possible to imagine two paths of development for the MT edition of Poem 1: (1) The older material of vv. 5–7 was complemented by vv. 10–11, and vv. 8–9 were subsequently interjected; or (2) The older material of vv. 5–7 was complemented by vv. 8–9, and vv. 10–11 were subsequently appended. There is no easy way to adjudicate between these alternatives: the text-critical argument for the secondary nature of vv. 10–11 is matched by the literary argument for the secondary nature of vv. 8–9. Indeed, both vv. 8–9 and vv. 10–11 fulfill the same basic function: like vv. 8–9, vv. 10–11 identify the horrors of vv. 5–7 with the experience of exile and promise comfort to the displaced. The comfort promised in vv. 10–11 begins with the assurance that Yhwh is coming “from afar” (‫מרחוק‬, v. 10) to the place where the people have been exiled, to undo the terror described in vv. 5–7. Further, vv. 10–11 bring a message of salvation based on return, ‫שוב‬, that incorporates a play on that term: Jacob will be rescued from “the land of their captivity,” ‫)שבה( מארץ שבים‬, and “Jacob shall return,” ‫)שוב( ושב יעקב‬. Captivity will be followed by repatriation. The reference to Jacob’s return may also recall how Yhwh brought Jacob and his immediate offspring back to Canaan following their difficult years with Laban (Gen 33); so too will Yhwh now bring Jacob’s more distant descendants back from a new exile. A poem that opened with the image of men in labor, suggesting futility and infertility, now closes with the next generation restored to their homeland, the assurance of a future for the nation. Nevertheless, the final form of Poem 1 in MT tempers its assurance of future consolation by insisting on the certainty of immediate punishment. The use of ‫( נקה‬v. 11) is in keeping with the chastisement in MT Jer 25:29 (cf. also the confessional formula in Exod 34:7 and elsewhere) and ‫ יסר‬evokes the covenant curses of Lev 26:18, 23, and 28. Literarily, the last line of the poem qualifies the joyful restoration depicted in vv. 8–11, just as the hopeful colon Jer 30:7bβ, a reshaping of the first part of the poem, vv. 5–7, served to qualify the doom portrayed in the first part of the poem. The resulting poem, framed as a prophecy delivered by Jeremiah before the exile, has a bifurcated view of the future: in the short term, it announces an imminent horror, concretized in terms of the defeat and particularly the exile of 587 b.c.e., but in the long term it offers the consolation of an idealized future. In both the MT and LXX recensions of Poem 1, the newer formulation of Jer 30:7bβ and the addition of MT Jer 30:8–11/LXX Jer 37:8–9

jeremiah’s book of consolation

61

reconfigure the terrifying images of Jer 30:5–7 as the prelude to restoration, rather than as a proclamation of final destruction. This future is made possible, in part, by the composite account of the Day of Yhwh constructed by the poem’s accumulated textual layers. For while Jer 30:5–7a focuses exclusively on the judgment of the Day of Yhwh, MT Jer 30:7b–11/LXX Jer 37:7b–9 moves beyond this horror, to a future that encompasses a series of cultic, political, and geographic reversals on that same day.34 The ancient editors correlate ‫ ביום ההוא‬in v. 8 with ‫ היום ההוא‬in v. 7, indicating that the Day of Yhwh heralds both disaster and deliverance. This longer perspective on the day—a perspective that permits a glance toward the hoped-for rebuilding after the terror—may be compared to the more pronounced tendency of postexilic period apocalyptic literature to envision and describe a new future time beyond the end.35 When Yhwh intervenes, Jacob will no longer be scattered in captivity, but will be returned to the land; Israel will no longer serve strangers, but will serve Yhwh and the Davidic ruler. The finality of the eschatological implications of the first part of the poem, Jer 30:5–7, is muted by the second part, MT Jer 30:8–11/ LXX Jer 37:8–9, which exchanges the proclamation of doom for words of hope. Further, although the practical dimensions of the restoration in MT Jer 30:8–11/LXX Jer 37:8–9 suggest that the audience for Poem 1 was the Judeans of the exilic or postexilic period, the poem in its final form addresses a broader audience. By the end of Poem 1, the audience includes all of the descendants of Jacob who “serve foreigners” (v. 8) or are “scattered . . . among all the nations” (v. 11). The redaction of Poem 1 suggests that, at the time of the cycle’s growth, the writing community was still reaching for ways to express the calamity of exile, and that the language of other tribulations could be readily appropriated to describe the experience. Thus the older pieces of tradition—which over the course of the Book of Consolation include not only verses on the Day of Yhwh, but also images of the anguish of a wounded woman and the emotional distress of a battered and spurned lover (Poem 2), as well as the yearning of a bereft mother and the humiliation of a disgraced youth (Poem 6)—were used

34 Volz, challenging the idea that the common otherworldly understanding of eschatology is appropriate to this case, argues that the “salvation” described in the Book of Consolation “deals with a very special singular event in the coming times” and that the event is of a “political nature” (Der Prophet Jeremia, 208). 35 See David L. Petersen, “Eschatology (Old Testament),” ABD 2:575–79.

62

chapter two

to describe the exilic experience, influencing in turn the conception of that experience. To put it in the language of metaphor: as exile became the tenor of new metaphors, these borrowed fragments became vehicles. Thus the language of vv. 5–7 recalls the Day of Yhwh, but is now applied to describe exile. Each of these borrowed fragments, however, is ringed by a system of associations that are newly linked to the concept of exile, thereby adding new connotations and resonances to the meaning of exile. A second example of how a metaphoric vehicle—in this case, the image of a wounded woman—widens the system of associations for exile is evident in the very next poem of the cycle. B. Wounded Zion (Poem 2, Jer 30:12–17)36 ‫ין־דּן ִדּינֵ ְך ְל ָמזוֹר‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬13 :‫ ִכּי כֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ָאנוּשׁ ְל ִשׁ ְב ֵרְך נַ ְח ָלה ַמ ָכּ ֵתְך‬12 ‫אוֹתְך לֹא יִ ְדר ֹשׁוּ ִכּי ַמ ַכּת אוֹיֵ ב‬ ָ ‫ל־מ ַא ֲה ַביִ ְך ְשׁ ֵכחוְּך‬ ְ ‫ ָכּ‬14 :‫ְר ֻפאוֹת ְתּ ָﬠ ָלה ֵאין ָלְך‬ 15 ‫ל־שׁ ְב ֵרְך‬ ִ ‫ה־תּזְ ַﬠק ַﬠ‬ ִ ‫ ַמ‬:‫אתיִ ְך‬ ָ ֹ ‫מוּסר ַא ְכזָ ִרי ַﬠל ר ֹב ֲﬠוֹנֵ ְך ָﬠ ְצמוּ ַחטּ‬ ַ ‫יתיְך‬ ִ ‫ִה ִכּ‬ ‫ ָל ֵכן ָכּל־‬16 :‫יתי ֵא ֶלּה ָלְך‬ ִ ‫אתיִ ְך ָﬠ ִשׂ‬ ַ ֹ ‫ָאנוּשׁ ַמ ְכא ֵֹבְך ַﬠל ר ֹב ֲﬠוֹנֵ ְך ָﬠ ְצמוּ ַחטּ‬ ‫אסיִ ְך ִל ְמ ִשׁ ָסּה וְ ָכל־בֹּזְ זַ יִ ְך‬ ַ ֹ ‫ל־צ ַריִ ְך ֻכּ ָלּם ַבּ ְשּׁ ִבי יֵ ֵלכוּ וְ ָהיוּ שׁ‬ ָ ‫א ְֹכ ַליִ ְך יֵ ָא ֵכלוּ וְ ָכ‬ ‫כּוֹתיִ ְך ֶא ְר ָפּ ֵאְך נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה ִכּי נִ ָדּ ָחה‬ ַ ‫וּמ ַמּ‬ ִ ‫ ִכּי ַא ֲﬠ ֶלה ֲא ֻר ָכה ָלְך‬17 :‫ֶא ֵתּן ָל ַבז‬ :‫ָק ְראוּ ָלְך ִציּוֹן ִהיא דּ ֵֹרשׁ ֵאין ָלהּ‬ 12

For thus says Yhwh: Your hurt is incurable,37 your wound is severe.

36 The boundaries of the second poem, Jer 30:12–17, are established by the divine speech formula (‫ כי כה אמר יהוה‬in 30:12) that opens this poem and will, in v. 18, open the third poem. The content, further, marks the start of a new poem, which now focuses upon a feminine figure—eventually identified as Zion—who personifies the people; in Poem 1, Jer 30:5–11, the personification is in the masculine singular and refers, in its final form, to Jacob. Holladay uses this shift in the gender of the addressee as evidence for his hypothesis of a northern recension, in which the poems alternated between masculine and feminine address and also between the second and third person ( Jeremiah, 2:157–59). While I do not hold to his hypothesis of a northern recension, in my judgment the shifts leave open the possibility that originally independent oracles were woven together in a symmetrical pattern; in other words the shifts in persona from Poem 1 to Poem 2 may point to the literary prehistory of the cycle, but they have been used to literary effect in the final form of the cycle. 37 Cf. LXX Jer 37:12 Ἀνέστησα σύντριμμα, “I have brought destruction,” which may be based on a misreading of the Hebrew noun ‫ אנוש‬as a first-person singular verb. Becking notes that, in other instances, the Greek Jeremiah does not correctly render ‫אנוש‬, yet he also points out that the misreading is theologically consonant with MT, in that it asserts that Yhwh brings the destruction; in MT, this will be made clear by v. 15, which is missing in LXX (Between Fear and Freedom, 27).

jeremiah’s book of consolation

63

13

There is no one to diagnose your wound,38 no remedy, no healing for you. 14 All your lovers have forgotten you; they do not seek you; for I have dealt you the blow of an enemy, a cruel chastening, because your guilt is great, your sins are vast. 15 Why do you cry out over your hurt? Your pain is incurable. Because your guilt is great, your sins are vast, I have done these things to you.39 16

Therefore all who devour you shall be devoured, and all your foes, every one of them, shall go into captivity; those who plunder you shall be plunder, and all who prey on you I will make prey. 17 For I will bring healing upon you, and your wounds I will heal, says Yhwh, because they have called you an outcast: “It is Zion;40 no one cares for her!” (30:12–17)

Poem 2, like the preceding poem, opens with a discrete tradition that predates its current literary context: Jer 30:12–15 describes the devastation of a female figure who, because of her sin, is physically and emotionally wounded and without the hope of healing (v. 15). She has been forgotten by her lovers (v. 14a) and has suffered the blow of an enemy (v. 14b). In the final form of the poem, the last two verses 38 MT’s ‫ דן דינך‬literally means “to judge or plead your cause.” Rudolph (BHS) regards it as intrusive, Bright ( Jeremiah, 271) says it is a gloss or a variant, and Janzen (Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, 133) notes that it makes the first half of the verse metrically too long. LXX Jer 37:13 attests it, however, and Lundbom suggests preserving the phrase in the context of the medical metaphor, which is continued with ‫ למזור‬in v. 13, thus: “there is none to diagnose your case of sore” ( Jeremiah 21–36, 395–96). 39 The entire verse is omitted in LXX, probably by haplography, since both MT 30:14 and 15 end with ‫ך‬. 40 Cf. LXX θήρευμα ὑμῶν ἐστιν, “She is your prey.” C. H. Cornill suggested emending LXX’s ὑμῶν to ἡμῶν, which would make the original phrasing “She is our prey,” which is more plausibly the taunt of the oppressor (Das Buch Jeremia [Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1905]), Ziegler follows Cornill in printing ἡμῶν (Septuaginta: Jeremias, 353). In this case, as Holladay proposes, the Hebrew behind LXX would have been ‫צדנו‬, which indeed fits better with the images of eating and devouring in that portion of the poem, vv. 16–17; subsequently, a corruption or emendation in the text led to MT’s ‫ ( ציון‬Jeremiah, 2:175–76). If this is indeed so, it would indicate that an explicit identification of the wounded woman of the poem as Zion occurred after the separation of the LXX and MT traditions.

64

chapter two

(vv. 16–17) introduce references to exile and identify the wounded woman of the first part as Zion. The addition of these verses transforms the figure of the anonymous woman into a metaphor for the devastations of the sixth century, thereby also revalorizing an early literary tradition for a newer circumstance. Poem 2 bears internal literary fault lines that suggest that its two parts, vv. 12–15 and 16–17, were only secondarily combined. The use of ‫ לכן‬at the opening of v. 16 suggests a logical connection between what came before and what follows that is not borne out by the content of vv. 16–17. Jeremiah 30:16–17 reverses the unmitigated judgment in vv. 12–15. What was incurable and without remedy in the first part of the poem will now be avenged. This is more than a simple shift in Yhwh’s disposition, for in the first part of the poem, vv. 12–15, Yhwh metes out Zion’s punishment through the blows of an enemy, but in vv. 16–17, Yhwh punishes the instruments of his own justice. The idea that Yhwh punishes those whom he uses to punish Israel appears in Isaiah and Zechariah, but more commonly with the notion that those nations have overstepped their bounds (see for example, Isa 10:15 and Zech 1:15). Finally, the first part of the poem, vv. 12–15, is largely focused on a wounded woman, while the second is largely focused on the enemies that devour, plunder, and take captive. Only v. 17a, which returns to the metaphor of healing, reflects the language of the first part of the poem; while Yhwh had earlier warned Zion that her wounds would not and could not be healed (vv. 13, 15), Yhwh now promises to heal them (v. 17a). Since that strophe itself interrupts the pattern of reversals in v. 16, v. 17a may be a subsequent editorial link that echoes the metaphor of the first part of the poem, thus aligning the two parts of the poem. The formula ‫“( נאם יהוה‬oracle of Yhwh”) at the end of v. 17a is further evidence of redactional activity that joins vv. 16–17 to vv. 12–15, which are also introduced as an oracle of Yhwh (“For thus says Yhwh”). Despite their differing emphases, there is a certain affinity between vv. 12–15 and 16–17, even before the addition of v. 17a, that may have influenced their union: ‫“( דרש אין לה‬no one cares for her”) in v. 17b echoes ‫“( אין דן דינך‬there is no one to diagnose”) in v. 13 and ‫“( אותך לא ידרשו‬they do not seek you”) in v. 14. In the redacted poem, Yhwh’s description of the wounded woman as abandoned is subsequently voiced by her oppressor in the closing line. In addition to these similarities of language, both parts of the poem have as a theme Yhwh’s ultimate control: Yhwh has punished the woman but

jeremiah’s book of consolation

65

will also punish those through whom he punished her. These affinities in language and theme may explain why the two sections of the poem were joined by the redactor, although there is not enough continuity between the sections to suggest that the second section was composed as a supplement to or midrash on the first section. The fragment that became the second section of the poem may well have been a Jeremian composition—the pattern of the language matches that found elsewhere in the book, as discussed below—but it only secondarily came to function in union with vv. 12–15. The significance of this redactional decision for exile is thrown into greater relief when the formation of each part is considered in greater detail. The provenance of the first part of the poem, vv. 12–15, is elusive. Holladay and Lohfink make these lines the second strophe in their reconstruction of the northern recension uttered by young Jeremiah,41 but again, there is little within the verses themselves that requires a northern association.42 Indeed, there is little to confirm that the verses originally described a community scattered by exile. Even if ‫מכת אויב‬ (“the blow of an enemy,” v. 14) may obliquely refer to political defeat, the reference to the enemy in this portion of the poem is probably a subjective genitive, indicating that Yhwh has delivered the kind of blow that an enemy would deliver. On the other hand, Carroll and McKane challenge the notion that the verses can be assigned to the historical Jeremiah.43 The vocabulary here evokes the language used elsewhere in the corpus to describe Jeremiah and his embodiment of the pain of the nation. In particular,

41

Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:156–57; see also Rudolph, Jeremia, 172–73. Cf. Hos 2:4–15 [Eng. 2:2–13], where Yhwh describes the punishment that Israel—embodied as the faithless wife—will endure. Her punishment variously includes exposure, dehydration, and so forth. While it does refer to the abandonment of Israel by her lover, it does so with a different vocabulary, without the wounding found in Jer 30:12–15. 43 Carroll and McKane, who are generally more skeptical about retrieving the words of the historical figure, argue that the words are reminiscent of the prophet’s vocabulary, but are not of the prophet. Carroll posits that the verses are descriptive of the battered city or nation (hence the feminine personification) with no particular reference to the deportation or invasion ( Jeremiah, 581). McKane argues that Jer 30:12–17 as whole, not simply its first part, “recycles” Jeremiah’s vocabulary as found elsewhere in the book; see Jer 3:22; 8:15, 22; 10:19; 14:17, 19; 15:18; 17:14 ( Jeremiah, 2:765). An examination of the terms that he includes in his word study, however, reveals their use by a number of other prophets as well—for example, Ezek 34:4, 16; Amos 6:6; Nah 3:19—which undermines the thesis that the poem was consciously composed in Jeremiah’s voice. 42

66

chapter two

vv. 12–15 have a marked similarity in language to 8:18–22 (note ‫שבר‬, “hurt,” in 8:21; see also 8:15) and 15:18 (note “my incurable wound,” ‫אנושה מכתי‬, and the conceptual similarity of ‫ מאנה הרפא‬to 30:13’s ‫)רפאות תעלה אינ לך‬.44 For McKane, this kind of evidence amounts to a conscious effort to recycle Jeremian vocabulary. But the problem is that vv. 12–15 do not fit as well in their literary context as one would expect had they been composed for this setting. At minimum, the words addressed to the figure of the woman were attributed to Jeremiah because of their natural affinity with his vocabulary and thought. The similarity in vocabulary between vv. 12–15 and the rest of the book of Jeremiah led to the association of the preexisting piece with the prophet. In the passages in Jer 8 and 15 cited above, the body is male and the descriptions refer to the suffering of Jeremiah on behalf of his people, who will be deported and ravaged; thus it seems that, rather than providing a source, these passages may have attracted the similarly themed independent verses to the Jeremian tradition. More certainly, the redactors of the Book of Consolation found in vv. 12–15 imagery that, whether it originally referred to the exile of the north or not, evoked the events of the sixth century. While literary convention may suggest that “the lovers” who spurn the wounded woman refer to the nation’s inconstant political allies (compare Hos 8:9; Ezek 16:33; Lam 1:2, 19), it is only through the addition of vv. 16–17 that the editors establish the tenor for the metaphor. The subjective genitive that describes what kind of blow Yhwh has delivered (‫אויב‬, v. 14) is picked up in v. 16 and replaced by the more specific “plunderers” (‫ שאסיך‬in the Leningrad Codex, but ‫ שסיך‬in the Qere of other MT manuscripts). The addition further expands upon and situates the verses by promising that the protagonist’s oppressors will themselves be led “into captivity” (‫)בשבי‬. Both of these terms—‫ שאסיך‬and ‫—שבי‬ evoke a clearer association with the kind of foreign enemy Israel and Judah came into contact with in the Assyrian encounter and in the Babylonian captivity than was afforded by the first part of the poem; the enemy is the kind who not only plunders, but takes captives and carries them off into exile. Verse 17 further anchors the first part of the poem in the exilic situation by describing the female figure as “an outcast” (‫)נדחה‬, a term used to describe those cast out by exile in, 44 The first part reflects, too, the notion of an inexorable treaty curse for having broken the covenant, a theme found elsewhere in Jeremiah (2:8–9; 3:4–5; 5:12–13, 19, 25; 9:12–15; 11:11; 16:10–11; Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 65).

jeremiah’s book of consolation

67

for example, Deut 30:4, Ps 147:2, and Neh 1:9. Indeed, the Targum translates this term as “the exiled one.” While there may be little within vv. 12–15 that directly suggests the community suffering exile, there is much in its language that makes it receptive to the Zion tradition invoked in v. 17. It is through this poetic convention of “woman Zion,” in which inhabitants of Jerusalem or the city itself are personified as a woman, that the verses were interpreted, by the addition of vv. 16–17, to refer to the exilic experience. Of the many references to woman Zion in the Hebrew Bible, roughly half depict the city and its inhabitants, ravaged by foreign devastation, as a battered female figure. The description of the woman’s incurable wounds in vv. 12–15 fits within this vein of the tradition.45 Also, in the prophetic narratives, Zion is often addressed with second-person feminine singular imperatives, as in vv. 12–17. (Again, within the larger context of the poetic cycle, the use of the feminine address in this poem is notable, since the previous poem had used the masculine.) That vv. 12–15 were formulated with the fully developed Zion convention in mind, however, cannot be assumed.46 Given their original literary independence from their present context, the verses may have been a preexilic composition that only in a later phase of its existence was interpreted as a reference to woman Zion. Indeed, if Holladay’s reconstruction of the original Hebrew text behind LXX 37:17 as ‫צדנו‬ (“our prey”; see n. 40 above) is correct, then the identification of the woman with Zion is even later than the redaction of Poem 2. The editors may have had the Zion convention in mind, but they did not articulate it by expressly referring to Zion by name. In Poem 2, the redactors have fashioned a poem of hope out of preexisting pieces of poetry. In this sense, despite its literary prehistory, the poem functions as a unit. The union of the two parts of the poem 45

Elaine R. Follis, “Zion, Daughter of,” ABD 6:1103. There are other Zion passages that provide evidence for assuming that the tradition is present within Jeremiah’s corpus, for example, Jer 4:5–31 (especially 4:31) and Jer 6:1–30 (especially vv. 2 and 23). Jeremiah 10:19–21 is a particularly relevant example since it adopts the singular voice of a wounded figure (likely a woman) to describe the deserved punishment of the nation, similar to Jer 30:12–17 (see Jer 30:14). In Jer 14:17, Yhwh’s virgin daughter is struck by a blow (‫ )שבר‬and a very grievous (‫ )נחלה‬wound, as is the wounded woman in Poem 2, although in Jer 14 the prophet is describing the effect of the lying prophets, not the Babylonian defeat. 46 Neither scenario—that Jer 30:12–15 was always a depiction of Zion or that Jer 30:16–17 was secondarily associated with the convention—would positively establish the original date of the verses as being pre- or postexilic. Jon D. Levenson has shown that Zion theology was not wholly postexilic (“Zion Traditions,” ABD 6:1101–2).

68

chapter two

by means of the editorial link in v. 17a transforms the hopelessness of the first part of the poem, assuring healing where there was none to be had. The surprising reversal assimilates the poem to the cycle, which is characterized by such remarkable restorations; we have encountered such a reversal already in Poem 1. The transformation is, however, curiously unresolved: in Poem 2, making use of the semantic incongruities between vv. 12–15 and vv. 16–17, the taunt of the oppressors in v. 17b, which echoes Yhwh’s own assessment of the woman in the poem’s beginning, is left hanging, even if restoration is on the way. (So, too, in the first poem, restoration is for a more distant future, since the poem promises chastening and punishment more immediately.) In this regard, the hope is truly an exilic hope. As in Poem 1, the redaction of Poem 2, specifically the addition of the second part to the first, more firmly anchors the first part of the poem in the exilic situation and establishes defeat—and more particularly, exile—as the tenor for the medical metaphor. In turn, vv. 12–15, with its language of human suffering, adds a new dimension to the description of the destruction of 587 b.c.e. By absorbing a poem on physical and emotional pain (vv. 12–15), Poem 2 renders exile as grievous as an irremediable blow to one’s body and as devastating as being spurned by one’s lover. Furthermore, by presenting the exiles as woman Zion, a personal metaphor is given communal meaning. The anguish of the woman becomes a visceral description of the nation’s experience. In the context of the cycle, exile has gained an additional, but related, metaphorical description; the nation already likened to Jacob in distress is now, too, likened to wounded Zion. Here again the redaction of the poem extends the meanings for exile. Because the process of metaphor is a reciprocal process, the meanings of tenor and vehicle are both implicated and altered. In this sense, the extension is analogous to that noted in the first poem. Exile’s meaning is affected by its contact with the system of associations for the vehicle, the spurned woman. But the effect in Poem 2 is somewhat different than in Poem 1. In the first poem, there was the intimation of inversion, whereby exile functioned both as vehicle and tenor; exile is the tenor for the Day of Yhwh imagery, but also becomes a vehicle for divine wrath. In the second poem, in a shift of emphasis, the extension of meaning is significant for how it brings exile into more individualized and intimate realms. The communal experience of exile, now embodied in the figure of a woman and described by idioms of sexuality and violence, is personalized.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

69

C. Favor in the Wilderness (Poem 4, Jer 31:2–6) :‫ כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ָמ ָצא ֵחן ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר ַﬠם ְשׂ ִר ֵידי ָח ֶרב ָהלוְֹך ְל ַה ְרגִּ יעוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬2 :‫ל־כּן ְמ ַשׁ ְכ ִתּיְך ָח ֶסד‬ ֵ ‫עוֹלם ֲא ַה ְב ִתּיְך ַﬠ‬ ָ ‫ ֵמ ָרחוֹק יְ הוָ ה נִ ְר ָאה ִלי וְ ַא ֲה ַבת‬3

‫תוּלת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל עוֹד ַתּ ְﬠ ִדּי ֻת ַפּיִ ְך וְ יָ ָצאת ִבּ ְמחוֹל‬ ַ ‫ עוֹד ֶא ְבנֵ ְך וְ נִ ְבנֵ ית ְבּ‬4 ‫ ִכּי יֶ שׁ־יוֹם‬6 :‫ עוֹד ִתּ ְטּ ִﬠי ְכ ָר ִמים ְבּ ָה ֵרי שׁ ְֹמרוֹן נָ ְטעוּ נ ְֹט ִﬠים וְ ִח ֵלּלוּ‬5 ‫ְמ ַשׂ ֲח ִקים׃‬ ‫ֹלהינוּ׃‬ ֵ ‫ָק ְראוּ נ ְֹצ ִרים ְבּ ַהר ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם קוּמוּ וְ נַ ֲﬠ ֶלה ִציּוֹן ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ 2

Thus says Yhwh:47 The people who survived the sword found favor in the wilderness;48 when Israel sought for rest,49 3 Yhwh appeared to him50 from far away.51 I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you. 4 Again I will build you, and you shall be built, O virgin Israel! Again you shall take your tambourines, and go forth in the dance of the merrymakers. 47

The boundaries of Poem 4, Jer 31:2–6, are established by the divine formula

‫ כי כה אמר יהוה‬in v. 2, which opens the poem and which will, in v. 7, open Poem 5.

48 The syntactical difficulties of the Hebrew text are evident in LXX Jer 38:2, which translates v. 2 thus: Εὗρον θερμóν ἐν ἐρήμῳ μετὰ ὀλωλότων ἐν μαχαίρᾳ· βαδίσατε καὶ μὴ ὀλέσητε τὸν Ισραηλ, “I found [him] warm in the wilderness with those that were slain with the sword. Go and do not destroy Israel!” The translator has rendered the original Hebrew ‫חן‬, “favor,” as θερμὸν (‫חם‬, “hot, warm”). Despite the danger of circular reasoning, ‫ חן‬appears the more likely because of the wilderness/exodus allusions, although the poem’s conception of wilderness, as discussed below, diverges from that found in the Pentateuch. At the very least, LXX’s variant reading here—along with other alternatives throughout vv. 2–3—belies the syntactic and semantic difficulties in the verses. 49 It is difficult to ascertain whether Yhwh or Israel is the subject of ‫הלוך‬ ‫להרגיעו ישראל‬. If Yhwh is the subject, the translation would be, “Yhwh went to give rest to him, Israel,” with Israel functioning as the antecedent of the pronoun in ‫( להרגיעו‬this is similar to McKane’s translation in Jeremiah, 2:780). NRSV and NJPS make Israel the subject and I am inclined to translate the verse similarly. 50 MT has ‫“( יהוה נראה לי‬Yhwh appeared to me”), while LXX Jer 38:3 has κύριος . . . ὤφθη αὐτῷ (“the Lord . . . appeared to him”). The context of the verse and LXX suggest that the MT reflects a scribal insertion. The Hebrew Vorlage ended the phrase as in LXX, ‫יהוה נראה לו‬, and then continued on to ‫ אהבת‬without a preceding ‫ו‬. Subsequently, ‫ י‬was inserted between ‫ ל‬and ‫ו‬, and ‫ ו‬was then prefixed to ‫אהבת‬ as a conjunction. 51 Understanding ‫ מרחוק‬in the spatial sense of “from afar” (as it is in Jer 30:10) is preferable to the temporal “from long ago” or “from the past” because of the content of Jer 31:2, which describes a people outside the land, and because the verse is describing a past moment when Yhwh appeared to the people. That said, the expression may do double duty: it may also be assuring that just as Yhwh came then, Yhwh has come again now; Yhwh comes “as of old” to bestow favor. The spatial sense of the term is more frequently attested, but the temporal usage is found in 2 Kgs 19:25; Isa 22:11; 25:1; and 37:26, for example.

70

chapter two 5

Again you shall plant vineyards on the mountains of Samaria; the planters shall plant, and shall enjoy the fruit. 6 For there shall be a day when sentinels will call in the hill country of Ephraim: “Come, let us go up to Zion, to Yhwh our God.” (31:2–6)

Poem 4 presents yet another metaphor for exile: “The people who survived the sword found favor in the wilderness; when Israel sought for rest, Yhwh appeared to him from far away” (31:2–3a). The depiction is sketchy and not a little difficult to translate, as is evident from the LXX rendering. The verses are nonetheless evocative of a wilderness experience. The poem draws a parallel between “the people who survived the sword” and its audience, collectively (and repeatedly) designated as “you” (2ms) in the ensuing verses, 3b–5. It describes their future hope by way of the wilderness experience. Just as the group “in the wilderness” found favor, so, the poem implies, will the “you” outside the land find favor when Yhwh comes from afar (‫מרחוק‬, v. 3). Verses 2–3a, with their convoluted, even archaic, syntax, appear to be an older poetic fragment that vv. 3b–6 presume and expand upon; the proclamations of restoration in vv. 3b–6 are based on the “backstory” provided in the poem’s opening lines. The wilderness setting of these opening lines, vv. 2–3a, is significant because the poem reaches back to a moment in Israel’s history and uses that moment as a paradigm for understanding the present. The present exile becomes another wilderness experience for Israel, and an implicit consolation is offered by the example of Israel’s past deliverance in the wilderness. Just as Yhwh appeared then, Yhwh, who loves “with an everlasting love” (v. 3b), will appear again. That the poem correlates the exile with a wilderness period is not surprising, given the growing association between wilderness and exile during the Second Temple period.52 The poem’s understanding of the wilderness period, however, is distinctive.

52 Hindy Najman, “Towards a Study of the Uses of the Concept of Wilderness in Ancient Judaism,” DSD 13 (2006): 99–113.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

71

At first glance, the vocabulary in the poem bears a similarity to the Pentateuchal wilderness traditions.53 In the poem, the people are identified as “survivors of the sword” (‫שרידי חרב‬, v. 2), which although not a direct quotation conforms to the narrative of the exodus, in which Pharaoh and the Egyptians are described as wielding a sword against Israel (Exod 5:21; 15:9; 18:4).54 ‫ הלוך להרגיעו ישראל‬may recall Yhwh’s promise to go with Moses (‫ )הלך‬and give him rest (‫ )נוח‬in Exod 33:14; this in turn would suggest making Yhwh the subject of this difficult phrase (see n. 49 above). Translated this way, Yhwh “giving rest to Israel” may recall the entry into the promised land as described in Deut 3:20; 12:10; and 25:19, though this further presumes that ‫ נוח‬and ‫ רגע‬are synonymous. Jeremiah 31:2 describes how the people found favor (‫)מצא חן‬55 with Yhwh; this idiom, with Yhwh as the bestower of favor, is found frequently in Exod 33. The verbal connections between this poem and Exodus are, however, tenuous at best. Further, even if the shared vocabulary between Poem

53 See Bozak, Life ‘Anew,’ 73. See also Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.: Smith & Helwys, 2002), 428, on parallels between the Book of Consolation and Exodus as a whole. 54 The expression may employ the conventional language of defeat and exile—with ‫ חרב‬as a metonym for military power—that is reflected elsewhere in Jeremiah; the prophet invokes the image of the foreign sword to convey the immediacy of defeat in, for example, 4:10; 6:25; 12:12; 14:13–18; 18:21; 21:7; 25:29; 46:10–16; 47:6; 48:2. The language may also evoke the curses of exile that lie behind Deut 28 and Lev 26. While Leviticus does not provide for survivors of such a sword in its comminations, Yhwh wields the enemies’ sword to punish Israel for violating the covenant (‫והבאתי‬ ‫עליכם חרב נקמת נקם ברית‬, 26:25) and more specifically, in 26:33 (‫והריקתי אחריכם‬ ‫)חרב‬, to keep the people in exile if the covenant is breached. A second evocation of the covenant curses may come in the poem’s reference to lack of rest, which indicates the rootlessness of exile; this occurs again in the curse of Deut 28:65:“Among those nations, you shall find no ease (‫)רגע‬, no resting place for the sole of your foot.” 55 The recipients of favor are “the people who survived the sword,” ‫עם שרידי חרב‬, contra Holladay ( Jeremiah, 2:180). Two features of the use of the idiom in v. 2 are further noteworthy. First, the full idiom usually includes the phrase “in the eyes of” (‫ )בעיני‬to indicate the person who grants favor. Second, a substantial majority of the idiom’s instances in MT have a human being as the one who bestows favor (see, for example, Gen 32:6). In v. 2, however, there is no ‫ בעיני‬to indicate the bestower, human or otherwise, and there is no other indication of the identity of the one who is bestowing. The verse is one of only three instances of the construction ‫ מצא חן‬that do not include the construct ‫( בעיני‬see Esth 8:5 and Prov 28:3, though the former includes ‫)לפניו‬. We may be expected, given the poetic genre, to supply what is missing. Instead of the expected subject, the location where the people found favor, ‫במדבר‬, “in the wilderness,” is supplied, which may be an indirect indication of the poem’s positive associations with that locus. The true bestower of favor, Yhwh, should be gleaned from the context of the ensuing verses, particularly the oracle of vv. 3b–6.

72

chapter two

4 and Exodus is evocative, the poem does not clearly reflect the wilderness tradition as articulated in the Pentateuch. Indeed, a comparison between the two textual traditions does more to throw into relief the distinctiveness of Poem 4’s understanding of the wilderness period. Its rehearsal of that experience contrasts with the conception of the wilderness period found in the Pentateuch and Neh 9, which dwell on the conflicts between Yhwh and the people during that period. Here, by contrast, the poem’s description of the wilderness period appears comparatively positive: with the ordeal of the sword behind them, it is in the wilderness that the people find favor with Yhwh, who appears from far away.56 The tone of Poem 4’s depiction of the wilderness period seems more in keeping with the positive view in Jer 2:2, when Yhwh asks the people to recall “the devotion of your youth” (‫חסד‬ ‫ )נﬠוריך‬and “how you followed me in the wilderness” (‫לכתך אחרי‬ ‫)במדבר‬. Indeed, it is not clear that this positive wilderness experience is even the sequel to an exodus from Egypt, as it largely is in the redacted Pentateuch. This is not without precedent; both Hos 9:10 and Deut 32:10–14 describe Yhwh “finding” Israel in the wilderness without alluding to a previous exodus. A particularly instructive comparison may be drawn between Poem 4 and Ps 107, which also compares the Babylonian exile to the wilderness period. The psalm calls upon a congregation of those who have been “redeemed from trouble and gathered in from the lands” to give thanks to Yhwh (vv. 1–3). The language of redemption, gathering in, and gathering from the four corners suggests the Babylonian exile. In the following verses, vv. 4–9, this exile is further described in language that evokes the wilderness: In v. 4, the exiles are described as having “wandered in the wilderness, in the wasteland,” where “they found no settled place.” Near the end of the psalm, the wilderness experience is ended when Yhwh irrigates the dry land and settles the wanderers in it (vv. 35–37); indeed, this description of the end of the wilderness period, when fields are sown and vineyards are planted, is reminiscent of the restoration described in Poem 4, which is also couched in the language of planting and refructifying the land ( Jer 31:5). The psalmist opens in the first verse by urging the congregation to give thanks to Yhwh ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬, “for his faithfulness endures forever”; similarly in Jer 31:3, when appearing from afar, God

56

A similar move by Yhwh to deliver Israel is evident in ‫ מרחוק‬in Jer 30:10.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

73

proclaims, “I have loved you with an everlasting (‫ )עולם‬love; therefore I have continued in my faithfulness (‫ )חסד‬to you.”57 Poem 4 and Ps 107 both seem to draw on a tradition that Israel experienced God’s perpetual faithfulness in the wilderness and that the fruit of that faithfulness is resettlement and restoration; both apply this to the current situation of exile. Poem 4’s appeal to this wilderness tradition is further significant for the way in which it organizes the author’s impression of the exile and its end. This kind of exegesis, in which the exile is understood by reference to a key moment in the distant past, would serve to broaden the understanding of exile by associating it with a paradigmatic event. If vv. 2–3a of Poem 4 are a fragment of older poetry, then the exile of the south is being cast in the mold of an older, possibly northern, tradition about a wilderness experience (in the vein of Hos 9:10 and Deut 32:10–14). Through its allusions to this wilderness experience, the poem interprets the events of the present through the lens of the past, thereby acknowledging that exile was a recurring experience for the people.58 This kind of paradigmatic reading assures the exiles of Yhwh’s imminent grace: just as Yhwh appeared to those who wandered in the wilderness, Yhwh will reappear to those in exile. The poem, then, joyfully anticipates the restoration of Israel in its land, on the model of Israel’s initial occupation of the land.59 In Poem 4, the ancient wilderness experience becomes the paradigm for understanding the present distress and simultaneously holds out the promise of restoration. If Israel’s entry into “the great and terrible wilderness” (Deut 8:15) was reactualized through the experiences of the sixth century b.c.e., so too, then, could the promises of old be reactualized—hence, the threefold use of ‫עוד‬, “again,” in vv. 4–5, which couches each promise in the idiom of restoration. By locating exile within a larger historical pattern of Yhwh’s salvation, the poem

57 The call to consider and praise Yhwh’s faithfulness reverberates through Ps 107 in vv. 8, 15, 21, 31, 43. 58 The majority of scholars recognize an appeal to the exodus of old in the poem’s language. Indeed, in this vein, Rudolph suggests reading MT Jer 31:2’s ‫במדבר‬, “in the wilderness,” as ‫כמדבר‬, “as/when in the wilderness,” which renders the phrase a simile ( Jeremia, 192). That the restoration in Jer 31:4–6 emphasizes ‫“( עוד‬again”) challenges the notion that the exodus is being referred to as a discrete event in the past with no reference to the present (pace Volz [Der Prophet Jeremia, 279–80, 285, 291–92]). 59 Bright argues that Jer 31:2 may anticipate the new exodus of Second Isaiah ( Jeremiah, 280).

74

chapter two

assures Israel that it is now on the brink of realizing those promises, even as it acknowledges her current predicament. The comparison of the Babylonian exile to a formative moment in Israel’s distant past renders exile a paradigmatic experience. This notion of exile as a paradigmatic experience serves as an important tributary to the metaphorization of exile. Once the description of exile takes on the character of a paradigm—in this case, a period of tribulation that ends with deliverance—the particularities of the experience are pushed to the margins. As Poem 4 makes clear, exile becomes that moment—a moment that can be compared to other moments in Israel’s past experience and, implicitly, to future events—before Israel finds favor. D. Rachel Weeps, Ephraim Repents (Poem 6, Jer 31:15–22)60 ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ל־בּנ‬ ָ ‫רוּרים ָר ֵחל ְמ ַב ָכּה ַﬠ‬ ִ ‫ כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה קוֹל ְבּ ָר ָמה נִ ְשׁ ָמע נְ ִהי ְבּ ִכי ַת ְמ‬15 ‫קוֹלְך ִמ ֶבּ ִכי וְ ֵﬠינַ יִ ְך‬ ֵ ‫ כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ִמנְ ִﬠי‬16 :‫יה ִכּי ֵאינֶ נּוּ‬ ָ ֶ‫ל־בּנ‬ ָ ‫ֵמ ֲאנָ ה ְל ִהנָּ ֵחם ַﬠ‬ ‫שׁ־תּ ְקוָ ה‬ ִ ֵ‫ וְ י‬17 :‫ִמ ִדּ ְמ ָﬠה ִכּי יֵ שׁ ָשׂ ָכר ִל ְפ ֻﬠ ָלּ ֵתְך נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה וְ ָשׁבוּ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ אוֹיֵ ב‬ ‫נוֹדד‬ ֵ ‫מוֹע ָשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ִתּי ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ִמ ְת‬ ַ ‫ ָשׁ‬18 :‫בוּלם‬ ָ ְ‫יתְך נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה וְ ָשׁבוּ ָבנִ ים ִלג‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַא ֲח ִר‬ 19 ‫ ִכּי־‬:‫ֹלהי‬ ָ ‫שׁוּבה ִכּי ַא ָתּה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫יבנִ י וְ ָא‬ ֵ ‫יִ ַסּ ְר ַתּנִ י וָ ִאוָּ ֵסר ְכּ ֵﬠגֶ ל לֹא ֻל ָמּד ֲה ִשׁ‬ ‫שׁוּבי נִ ַח ְמ ִתּי וְ ַא ֲח ֵרי ִהוָּ ְד ִﬠי ָס ַפ ְק ִתּי ַﬠל־יָ ֵרְך בּ ְֹשׁ ִתּי וְ גַ ם־נִ ְכ ַל ְמ ִתּי ִכּי‬ ִ ‫ַא ֲח ֵרי‬ ‫י־מ ֵדּי‬ ִ ‫ ֲה ֵבן יַ ִקּיר ִלי ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ִאם יֶ ֶלד ַשׁ ֲﬠ ֻשׁ ִﬠים ִכּ‬20 :‫עוּרי‬ ָ ְ‫אתי ֶח ְר ַפּת נ‬ ִ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬ :‫ל־כּן ָהמוּ ֵמ ַﬠי לוֹ ַר ֵחם ֲא ַר ֲח ֶמנּוּ נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ַד ְבּ ִרי בּוֹ זָ כֹר ֶאזְ ְכּ ֶרנּוּ עוֹד ַﬠ‬ 61 ‫שׁוּבי‬ ִ ְ ‫רוּרים ִשׁ ִתי ִל ֵבְּך ַל ְמ ִס ָלּה ֶדּ ֶרְך ָה ָל ְכ ְתּ‬ ִ ‫יבי ָלְך ִציֻּ נִ ים ִשׂ ִמי ָלְך ַתּ ְמ‬ ִ ‫ ַה ִצּ‬21 22 ‫שּׁוֹב ָבה‬ ֵ ‫ד־מ ַתי ִתּ ְת ַח ָמּ ִקין ַה ַבּת ַה‬ ָ ‫ ַﬠ‬:‫ל־ﬠ ַריִ ְך ֵא ֶלּה‬ ָ ‫תוּלת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֻשׁ ִבי ֶא‬ ַ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫סוֹבב גָּ ֶבר׃‬ ֵ ‫י־ב ָרא יְ הוָ ה ֲח ָד ָשׁה ָבּ ָא ֶרץ נְ ֵק ָבה ְתּ‬ ָ ‫ִכּ‬ 60 The sixth and final poem contains three stanzas, each addressed to a different person: Rachel (vv. 15–17), Ephraim (vv. 18–20), and virgin Israel (vv. 21–22). The poem’s internal coherence is evident through the recurrence of the root ‫( שוב‬and associated wordplay) and of such key words as ‫תמרורים‬, which appears at the opening of the poem in v. 15 (as “bitter”), and again at the poem’s close, in v. 21 (as “guideposts”); Rachel’s bitter lament will be transformed into the promise of return. On the coherence of the poem, regardless of the prehistory of its stanzas, see Bozak, Life ‘Anew,’ 23–24, 92–105, who argues for its literary-theological coherence; Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 188–226, who argues for the poem’s conceptual coherence; and Phyllis Trible, who bases her arguments on literary and theological coherence (“The Gift of a Poem: A Rhetorical Study of Jeremiah 31:15–22,” ANQ 17 [1977]: 271–80). Cf. Carroll, who treats vv. 15–20 as a coherent poem wrought of independent units, to which vv. 21–22 have been later appended ( Jeremiah, 595–605); Lundbom, who treats the units (vv. 15, 16–17, 18–19, 20, 21–22) separately ( Jeremiah 21–36, 433–53); and Holladay, who argues they are three separate strophes (vv. 15–17, 18–20, 21), but all part of a recension addressed to the north ( Jeremiah, 2:156–59, 186–95). 61 The Qere is ‫ ָה ָל ְכ ְתּ‬, a 2fs form, but the Ketib, ‫הלכתי‬, although archaic, is, too. The masoretes either did not recognize the old form and corrected it or were intentionally updating it.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

75

15

Thus says Yhwh: A voice is heard in Ramah,62 lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel, who is weeping for her children,63 refuses to be comforted over her children: “There is no one!”64 16 Thus says Yhwh: Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for there is a reward for your work, says Yhwh: they shall come back from the land of the enemy; 17 there is hope for your future, says Yhwh: your children shall return to their own country.65 18

I indeed heard Ephraim grieving,66 “You chastised me,

62 Or “on the height.” MT points ‫ ברמה‬as indefinite, which suggests the generic “on a height.” The definite article is expected for a clear indication that it is a place name (Neh 11:33 is the sole instance of the toponym Ramah in MT without a definite article). LXX Jer 38:15 and Matt 2:18 have nonetheless interpreted ‫ ברמה‬as a place name, Ramah. And the majority of scholars, including Volz (Der Prophet Jeremia, 281, 293–94), Rudolph ( Jeremia, 178–79), and McKane ( Jeremiah, 2:797–98), argue that the reference here is to the place Ramah. It has been argued that 1 Sam 10:1–6 (especially v. 2) may suggest that Rachel’s tomb is in Ramah of Benjamin, but the evidence is weak. (Genesis 35:19, which places the tomb near Bethlehem, is a later and even more dubious witness to its location.) By contrast, Tg. Ps.-J. prefers “the height” (elevating it to “the height of the world,” ‫ברום עלמא‬, suggesting “heaven”); so do some other Greek versions (for example, Aquila). Holladay also translates “on the height,” comparing ‫ ברמה‬to ‫על שפיים‬, “on the bare heights” in Jer 3:21 (‫קול על‬ ‫ ;שפיים נשמע בכי תחנוני בני ישראל‬Jeremiah, 2:153, 186–88). I will argue below that what may originally have been a reference to Rachel on the height has become, at least in the final form of the cycle, a reference to the place Ramah. 63 LXX Jer 38:15 lacks ‫ ;על בניה‬while the repeated phrase “over her children” in MT 31:15b might be dittography, the literary effect of “stairlike parallelism” (“weeping . . . weeping over her children . . . over her children”) noted by Lundbom strongly suggests that this is an instance of LXX haplography ( Jeremiah 21–36, 435). 64 MT has ‫איננו‬, with a third masculine singular suffix, “he/it is not.” LXX Jer 38:15 has rendered this in the plural with οὔκ εἰσιν “they are not,” using a third masculine plural verb. By translating the words as a motive clause (“for they are not”), and not as Rachel’s words, LXX has harmonized the phrase with the earlier references to “children” (Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 21–22, 194, 196). If ‫ איננו‬is translated as direct speech (Becking suggests this is what MT’s ‫ כי‬indicates), there is no incongruence between it and the preceding phrase; even though Rachel is weeping over her children (plural, ‫)בניה‬, her exclamation in the singular—“There is no one”—fits. 65 See the discussion of LXX Jer 38:17, which differs considerably from MT Jer 31:17, below. 66 ‫ מתנודד‬is the Hithpolel of ‫נוד‬, which in the Qal can mean “to grieve” but also “to wander.” There may be a double meaning here; primarily, the verse means “to move back and forth in grief,” but in context it may also mean “to wander to and fro.”

76

chapter two and I was chastised like an untrained calf. Bring me back so that I may come back, for you are Yhwh my God. 19 For after I had turned away,67 I repented; After I was discovered, I struck my thigh; I was ashamed and also dismayed, For I bore the reproach of my youth.” 20

Is Ephraim my precious son, My delightful child? For as often as I speak68 against him, I do indeed remember him. Therefore my heart69 stirs for him; I will surely have compassion for him, says Yhwh.

21

Set up for yourself road-markers,70 make yourself guideposts;71 Consider the highway, the road by which you went. Return, O virgin Israel, return to these72 your cities. 22 How long will you waver, O changeable daughter? For Yhwh has created a new thing on the earth: A woman encompasses a warrior.73 (31:15–22)

67 LXX’s Jer 38:19’s αἰχμαλωσίας μου (for MT ‫שובי‬, “my turning,”) misreads proto-MT as ‫שביי‬, “my captivity.” 4QJerc corroborates MT (Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 443). 68 LXX Jer 38:20 has interpreted ‫דברי‬, preserved and pointed in MT as a Piel infinitive construct with a first-person common singular suffix (i.e., “I speak”), as a plural noun with a possessive suffix (i.e., “my words”). 69 Literally, “my inward parts”; cf. LXX Jer 38:20. 70 LXX Jer 38:21 does not understand the meaning of the Hebrew ‫צינים‬, “roadmarkers,” and transliterates the noun, yielding Στῆσον σεαυτῇ σιωνιμ, which eventually becomes the phrase Στῆσον σεαυτῇ Σιων: “Prepare yourself, O Zion!” 71 As in the first phrase of the verse, the Greek transliterates the Hebrew Vorlage here so that ‫ תמרורים‬becomes τιμρωριμ, rendering the fuller phrase in LXX Jer 38:21, ποίησον τιμωρίαν, “make punishment.” In the Hebrew, it has been supposed that ‫ תמרורים‬means “guideposts” (BDB), although it is notable that the consonantal text echoes the adjective used to describe Rachel’s weeping, ‫תמרורים‬, “bitterness,” in the first stanza of the poem (v. 15); LXX Jer 38:15 correctly renders that term with ὀδυρμός. 72 4QJerc supports MT’s ‫אלה‬, “these,” in “these, your cities.” LXX Jer 38:21 has “your cities, O mourning one [πενθοῦσα].” While BHS notes that πενθοῦσα suggests a Vorlage of ‫ ֲא ֵב ָלה‬, LXX may in fact reflect ‫א ָֹלה‬, a feminine singular participle from the root ‫*אלה‬, “to wail,” attested once in MT at Joel 1:8 (2fs imperative). 73 The phrase—in particular ‫—תסובב‬is difficult to translate; the difficulties in the Hebrew result in a Greek paraphrase in LXX Jer 38:22: ὅτι ἔκτισε κύριος σωτηρίαν εἰς καταφύτευσιν καινήν ἐν ᾗ σωτηρίᾳ περιελεύσονται ἄνθρωποι, “For the Lord has created salvation for a new planting, in which men shall go about in safety.” So, too, the Targum has opted for a gloss on the final portion of the phrase: “the people of the house of Israel pursue the law,” ‫עמא בית ישראל יתנהון לאוריתא‬. The significance

jeremiah’s book of consolation

77

Poem 6 opens with the poem’s central image for exile: Rachel weeping for her children, v. 15. The verse was supplemented and transformed by a consoling oracle from Yhwh, vv. 16–17, which declares that Rachel should cease weeping. This new literary unit was joined to an older stanza on Ephraim’s repentance in vv. 18–20, which have a similar compositional history: an early composition, cast in the voice of Ephraim (vv. 18–19), is supplemented by consoling words from Yhwh (v. 20). The poem ends with the image of virgin Israel’s return from exile (vv. 21–22). The meanings and implications of Rachel’s lament were shaped by its redactional history. Rachel’s lament has at least two layers of meaning, each tied to a different phase in its development. First, in its earliest discernible prehistory, Rachel’s lament was for her children who, either because she has none or they have died, do not exist. Second, Rachel’s lament was interpreted and redacted to apply to the situation of Judah after the events of the sixth century; this identification was fueled and facilitated by the lament’s evocation of the exile of the northern tribes, which may also indicate an intervening phase in the poem’s development.74 Tracing the development of Rachel’s lament

of the phrase is undeniable, however, since it repeats key terms and themes from the Book of Consolation; if it is a later gloss, it is remarkably sensitive to the context. First, there is the repetition of ‫שוב‬, a major motif for the poetic cycle; even the difficult ‫ תסובב‬can be seen as integral since it plays on ‫ השובבה‬earlier in the verse. Second, the reversal of gender roles recalls the opening poem of the cycle; in Poem 1, 30:6, the man (‫ )גבר‬took on female attributes, appearing “like a woman in labor” (‫ ;)כיולדה‬here the woman (‫ )נקבה‬acts upon (surrounds in a sexual embrace? encompasses? supplants?) the man. While the role reversal in the first poem was seen in a negative light, as an emasculation, now the role reversal is described positively as “a new thing” from Yhwh. Also, the clause begins with the particle ‫כי‬, which in eight other instances in Jer 31 has prefaced “the climax and conclusion of an oracle”; see Holladay, “Jer xxxi 22b Reconsidered: ‘The Woman Encompasses the Man’ ” VT 16 (1966): 236–39. Holladay argues that the clause is best compared to Deut 32:10, where a similar form, ‫יסבבנהו‬, refers to God embracing or encircling Israel (cf. Ps 32:7). In Holladay’s translation, the final image of the woman reverses the classic military taunt that claims that the enemy warrior has become female; Holladay argues this taunt is alluded to already in Jer 30:5–7. In this capstone poem, then, the final image of restoration through reversal has the woman now besting the warrior. 74 See n. 6 above. Holladay and Lohfink have argued that v. 15 was part of an early recension of the Book of Consolation, which was directed to the north; the northern recension was then subsequently supplemented and redeployed to the south. While I do not hold to the notion of a northern recension, the verse itself evokes the exile of the north through the figure of Rachel. In its literary prehistory, the verse may have referred to the exile of the north. While it could be a northern oracle appropriated by Judean writers, it is not implausible that the oracle arose as a comment on the exile of

78

chapter two

illuminates the process by which death becomes a metaphor for the exile of Rachel’s children. 1. Stage One Even before she is named in v. 15, Rachel’s anguished cries are heard: ‫קול ברמה נשמע נהי בכי תמרורים‬, “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping.” Rachel weeps inconsolably for her children because, as she says, ‫איננו‬, “There is no one!” In the final form of the poem, in the context of the Book of Consolation, Rachel mourns because her children are not there, but in exile “in the land of the enemy” (‫ארץ אויב‬, v. 16). Rachel’s lament was originally a discrete unit, a preexistent tradition. Although ‫כה אמר יהוה‬, “thus says Yhwh,” in v. 15 suggests that what follows should be an oracle, Rachel’s words are not oracular; Yhwh’s oracle begins in v. 16. Furthermore, ‫ כה אמר יהוה‬both precedes and follows Rachel’s lament, which may indicate an early fault line in composition. In stage two of the development of Poem 6, discussed in more detail below, an earlier tradition about Rachel weeping because “There is no one!” was supplemented by the oracle, vv. 16–17. Those verses, which describe the return from the land of the enemy, appropriate Rachel’s lament in v. 15 to describe exile, in keeping with the cycle. What, then, may have been the original subject of the lament in v. 15, before it became the prelude to the oracle and was associated with exile? Considering the verse apart from its current literary context suggests several possible meanings. The full import of the verse turns on the enigmatic phrase, “There is no one!” The word ‫ איננו‬indicates absence—“he is not here”—but can also serve as a euphemism for death comparable to the modern idiom, “he is no longer with us.” This double meaning of the phrase may be the pivot on which the meaning of the redacted poem turns. The double meaning of ‫ איננו‬is played on in the Genesis account of Joseph,75 where it is used of Joseph both by those who presume him dead and by those who presume him missing. In Gen 37:29, ‫ אין‬is

the south. However and wherever v. 15 originated, redaction analysis suggests that it was combined with vv. 16–17 to form an oracle directed toward the south. 75 While the fragment most assuredly does not allude to a redacted Pentateuch or the final form of Genesis, the ambiguous ‫ איננו‬a vav appears as a motif in the canonical Joseph story and may, therefore, have been integral to the precanonical composition.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

79

used to convey that Joseph is not where he was thought to be. When Reuben returns to the pit, he discovers that Joseph is not in it (‫הנה אין‬ ‫ )יוסף בבור‬and reports to his brothers, “The boy is not there!” (‫הילד‬ ‫)איננו‬.76 In Jacob’s mind, ‫ איננו‬seems to bear both meanings simultaneously, conveying being-not-here-but-elsewhere and conveying death; indeed, they seem to be one and the same to Jacob. For example, when the brothers return from their first trip to Egypt and tell their father that they had been forced to leave Simeon behind, Jacob explains, in Gen 42:36, how he has lost two sons and risks losing a third: “I am the one you have bereaved (‫ )שכל‬of children: Joseph is no more (‫)איננו‬, and Simeon is no more (‫)איננו‬, and now you would take Benjamin.” Jacob uses ‫ איננו‬literally to refer to Simeon, who is in Egypt, but he also uses it euphemistically of Joseph, whom he believes to be dead. That Jacob uses the same phrase to refer to both sons suggests that he sees a parallel between Joseph’s assumed death and Simeon’s detention in a foreign land: he expects neither son to return. Such a parallel in turn opens up the possibility of using death or nonexistence as a metaphor for exile; at the same time, the Joseph narrative paradigmatically establishes the possibility of a return for those who “are not.” What does ‫ איננו‬convey in the context of the Rachel traditions? Her words in Jeremiah are not a quotation from the pentateuchal stories of Rachel, but those stories describe two situations in which Rachel could conceivably have uttered the cry. First, in keeping with the tradition that lies behind Gen 30, Rachel may be weeping over her infertility and the children that she fears will never be born to her—they “are not,” in the sense that they have never been and will never be. In Gen 30:1, she begs Jacob, “Give me children! If not, I will die (‫הבה לי בנים ואם אין‬ ‫)מתה אנכי‬.” Here, she uses the particle ‫ אין‬to refer to the state of being childless. Admittedly, the parallel between the text of Gen 30 and Jer 31 would be closer if Rachel had lamented, “I have no children!” (‫אין לי‬ ‫)בנים‬. Nevertheless, in Gen 30, Rachel is crying out over the children she has not (yet) borne and that may be the nuance in Jer 31:15. The second possibility is that the verses in Jer 31 refer to a version of the Joseph tradition that diverges from Gen 37–50, a tradition whose

76 Further, when the brothers come before Joseph in Egypt, they describe themselves as “twelve brothers . . . [but] one is no more (‫( ”)האחד איננו‬Gen 42:32). A key point in the narrative comes when Judah pleads with Joseph, telling him that Jacob could not bear to be bereft of Benjamin; four times Judah describes Benjamin’s absence with a form of ‫( אין‬44:26, 30, 31, 44).

80

chapter two

trace may be detected in Jacob’s rebuke of Joseph. In this alternative tradition, Rachel is still alive when Joseph is sold into slavery and she, like Jacob, comes to believe that he is dead. If Rachel were indeed alive when Joseph vanished, one of the anomalous features of Joseph’s dream in the canonical text would be resolved. In Gen 37, Joseph dreams that the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to him. In 37:10, Jacob rebukes him, saying, ‫מה החלום הזה אשר חלמת‬ ‫הבוא נבוא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה‬, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall we indeed come, I and your mother and your brothers, to bow to the ground before you?” Jacob thus interprets the sun and the moon to refer to himself and Rachel. In the canonical text of Genesis, this is a particularly outlandish idea because Rachel has already died in childbirth, en route from Bethel to Hebron (35:19). It is possible, however, that Rachel’s lament in Poem 6, like the account of Joseph’s dream in Gen 37, comes from another tradition that holds that Rachel was in fact still alive when Joseph descended into Egypt. Like Jacob, she has too hastily assumed that her son is dead. She is bewailing Joseph’s death and lamenting that “he is not” (‫ )איננו‬just as Jacob had done. Indeed, to account for the plural ‫ בנים‬in Jer 31:15, it would be better to assume that she is lamenting not only over Joseph, but over Benjamin as well. Thus the phrase ‫ איננו‬in Poem 6 has the capacity to resonate with either of these traditions that portray Rachel as a mother longing for children. In the context of the Hebrew Bible, a lament over infertility and a lament over a child’s death are, in a certain sense, one and the same, similar for their sense of bereavement and their sense that a future generation is lost.77 In both of the reconstructed traditions, Rachel laments the loss of her posterity. And in both scenarios, Rachel’s lament appears to turn on the use of ‫ איננו‬to represent not just absence, but nonexistence. 2. Stage Two The redactors of the literary unit 31:15–17, which opens Poem 6, appropriated Rachel’s lament as the prelude to a brief oracle that compares her bereavement to the desolation of exile; the words of consolation in vv. 16–17 interpret her words as a lament over the exile of her children. In its canonical context, the Book of Consolation asserts 77 On this theme, see Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel (New Haven Conn.: Yale University Press, 2006).

jeremiah’s book of consolation

81

that the poems are Jeremiah’s words of consolation on the eve of the Babylonian exile. Rachel’s lament would also have had the capacity to evoke the Babylonian exile because it recalls the exile of the north by the Assyrians: Rachel personifies the mother of the northern kingdom and her lament resonates with the exile of the house of Joseph, or, more generally, the northern tribes.78 Rachel’s lament over the exile of the north would have been heard, in turn, as a lament over the exile of all Israel when portions of Judah were deported. The association of Rachel’s lament (v. 15) with exile (vv. 16–17) recontextualizes and redefines the meaning of her bereavement and the meaning of ‫איננו‬. The actual oracle in vv. 16–17 promises, “They shall come back from the land of the enemy . . . your children shall return to their own country” (‫ ושבו בנים לגבולם‬. . . ‫ושבו מארץ אויב‬, 16b, 17b). The oracle, then, interprets Rachel’s lament to mean that she has been bereaved of her children through exile, and goes on to promise that her bereavement will be remedied.79 Exile, not childlessness per se, becomes the new root cause of Rachel’s suffering, and she becomes a stand-in for the nation bereaved of her children through exile. This interpretation is possible, of course, because of the multivalence of ‫איננו‬: Joseph indeed was not dead, as his parent or parents thought he was, but had been sold into slavery and carried out of the land, another form of removal. In her new literary setting, 31:15–17, Rachel is lamenting the exile of her descendants. The tribes are not there, they are in a foreign land, they may even be dying away from home—Rachel’s mournful ‫ איננו‬covers all these possibilities. The appropriation of Rachel’s lament, which originally referred to death, 78 See n. 74 above. Some scholars posit that these verses were originally addressed to the north and that they reflect the Assyrian deportations. For example, Holladay and Lohfink argue that vv. 15–17 were a northern oracle of consolation that was appropriated by Judean redactors. Although their more detailed hypothesis of a younger Jeremiah addressing the north and an older Jeremiah readdressing the oracle to the south cannot be sustained, this particular fragment featuring the figure of Rachel, mother of the northern tribes, would indeed have the capacity to evoke that exile. (Similarly, Ephraim’s repentance in the next stanza, vv. 18–20, which shares vocabulary and motifs with Hos 11, refers to the exile of the northern tribes.) In other words, even if vv. 15–17 were not formally redacted for the north, even if they had always been directed toward the south, Rachel’s lament would have called to mind the eighthcentury b.c.e. deportations. Wherever v. 15 originated, redaction analysis suggests that it was combined with vv. 16–17 to form an oracle that applies Rachel’s lament to exile; this redirection of her lament, which may have had little to do with exile, to refer to that situation is most significant. 79 This is the interpretation preferred by Matt 2:18. Also, see Jacob’s response to the death of Joseph, Gen 37:35.

82

chapter two

real or imagined, to refer to exile is key: death has become a metaphor for the state of the exiled. The use of death as a metaphor for exile in Jer 31:15–17 can be productively compared with the conception of exile in the comminations of Lev 26. While ‫מארץ אויב‬, “from the land of the enemy,” in Jer 31:16 is not an unusual construction, it appears only eight other times in the Hebrew Bible—and six of those instances are in Lev 26 (vv. 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 44).80 In Lev 26, exile functions as a form of death, one among many different iterations of how Yhwh will annihilate the rebellious vassal. Israel’s time in exile, in the ‫ארץ אויב‬, is presented as a metaphoric descent into death. In Jer 31:15–17, the phrase may also evoke the place of death; the children who are returning from the land of the enemy are children who have been restored to life. There is, however, a key directional difference in the understanding of exile, Yhwh’s ultimate punishment of Israel, as a stand-in for death in Lev 26 and in Jer 31:15–17. Leviticus 26 presents exile as a form of death, while Jer 31:16–17 makes the reference to the death of the children in Jer 31:15 into a metaphor for exile. That it is metaphorized does not, however, mean that Rachel’s lament is any less poignant. Nor, given the potency of the theology of exile as death, does the hope offered in Jer 31:16 fail to answer the lament of v. 15. Rather, vv. 16–17 offer the guarantee of a future that the nation, speaking through the voice of Rachel, feared it had lost in exile. Yhwh’s promise to return the children from the land of their enemies is nothing short of returning them to life. In this sense, ‫ אחרית‬in Jer 31:17 signifies not only Rachel’s future but also her posterity and her progeny. Rachel’s lament has dire meaning, which makes the attachment of God’s promises of restoration (vv. 16–17) to it all the more remarkable. The verses, in clever wordplay that cannot be adequately reproduced in translation, are a transformative supplement to v. 15. In the lament, Rachel had refused (‫ )מאנה‬to be comforted; now God commands that she cease (‫ )מנעי‬her mourning. Read synchronically, the claim that “they are not” is now met and overcome with the promise that the exiles shall be returned. The negative predicament (‫)אין‬, the

80 In Lev 26, the phrase is prefaced by ‫ מן‬or -‫( ב‬except in 26:38 where it serves as the subject) and suffixed with a possessive pronoun (second-person masculine plural or third-person masculine plural). ‫ ארץ‬is in the singular in vv. 34, 38, 41, and 44; and in the plural in vv. 36 and 39. See also 1 Kgs 8:46, 48; and Ezek 39:27 (where ‫ ארץ‬is in the plural).

jeremiah’s book of consolation

83

finality of nonexistence in Rachel’s lament, yields to the assurance that there is hope: ‫( יש תקוה לאחריתך‬v. 17). As with Poem 1 and 2, the addition of 31:16–17 fashions a message of hope out of a preexisting lament and brings it into line with the restoration motif of the cycle as a whole. Already in the first poem, the initial complaint that “there is no peace” (‫אין שלום‬, 30:5) had been transformed by a future in which “there is no one to make him afraid” (‫אין מחריד‬, 30:10). And in the second poem, which had opened with the bleak diagnosis—also punctuated by ‫—אין‬that “there is no one to diagnose your wound,81 no remedy, no healing for you” (‫אין דן דינך‬ ‫למזור רפאות תעלה אין לך‬, 30:13) and ended with the taunt “no one cares for her” (‫דרש אין לה‬, 30:17), a similar reversal occurred, as the condition of want was overcome by God’s promise to heal. In Poem 6, this secondary layer, vv. 16–17, can overcome the ultimate lack, promising life where there is no life, because it reads the death described in Rachel’s lament as a metaphor for exile. But, in turn, by reading Rachel’s lament in this way, the return from enemy territory (‫מארץ‬ ‫ )אויב‬does not simply signify repatriation; it is akin to a return from death. It is as remarkable as Rachel, plagued by infertility or thinking her child lost, bearing a future. In other words, the metaphorization works both ways: exile is a metaphor for death and death is a metaphor for exile. To take stock, v. 15 acquired several layers of meaning, each tied to a different phase in its development. Reading vv. 15–17 diachronically and considering the development of the oracle helps to illuminate the process by which exile took on new meanings, an early stage in its metaphorization. In its earliest discernible prehistory, Rachel’s lament may have referred literally to the absence of children, either as a result of infertility or as a result of departure or even death. Later, this tradition of Rachel’s lament, associated with the exile of the north, was interpreted and redacted to apply to the situation of Judah after the events of the sixth century. This process can also be described as the birth of a metaphor. In its oldest iteration, before its inclusion in the sixth poem of the Book of Consolation, Rachel’s lament referred to the absence of her children in the starkest terms: they did not exist because they had not yet been born, or because they had departed or died. In its later redaction,

81

On the translation of this phrase, see n. 38 above.

84

chapter two

when the lament was appropriated to refer to the situation of exile, death was treated as a metaphor for the exile of Rachel’s “children.” The identification of Rachel’s “children” as exiles is not the only transformation that vv. 16–17 wrought on the older lament in v. 15. Jeremiah 31:15–17 could plausibly be read as an expression of the despair of a southern audience, when the reference to ‫ רמה‬gained a new significance. ‫רמה‬, which in the stanza’s prehistory likely meant “on the height” (see n. 62 above), is a homophone of the place name, “Ramah,” the holding station for the captives of Judah on their way into exile in Babylon. Jeremiah 40:1 describes how the prophet was himself taken to Ramah and released. Rachel, then, may be reimagined by the redactors as weeping at this transit location—which is located in the territory of Benjamin, the tribe descended from her younger son—because her children have been exiled.82 Particularly if the oracle originally referred to the exile of the north, the reference to Rachel ‫ ברמה‬became the point of departure for the new situation of the poem, the Babylonian exile. In the early tradition, Rachel lamented her lack of children on the height. In the later redaction, Rachel was understood to be weeping at Ramah, because her children had been exiled—and at this stage of development the children include those descended from Benjamin, in whose territory Ramah is located. Thus, while she has maternal ties to the northern tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, Rachel may also be related, by virtue of her association with Ramah and the exilic significance of that place, to the Judean and Benjaminite exiles. Certainly in later midrash Rachel comes to stand for all Israel, a female counterpart to Jacob83; the inclusio formed by Poem 1 (which refers to Jacob, Jer 30:7) and Poem 6 may point in this direction. In the early tradition, Rachel lamented her lack of children

82 Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Jer 31:15 contains two interpretations of Rachel’s weeping. (1) After interpreting ‫ רמה‬as “the height of the world,” the Targum parenthetically explains that the Israelites who were being deported to Babylon wept over the departure of Jeremiah “when Nebuzaradan sent him away from Ramah” (i.e., when Jeremiah chose to join Gedaliah in Mizpah, cf. Jer 40:1–6). (2) The Targum then explains that it is Jerusalem who is “weeping over her children” and replaces the enigmatic ‫ כי איננו‬with “because they have gone into exile.” 83 Gen. Rab. 71:2; 82:10.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

85

on the height,84 but now mother Rachel mourns over the exiles of all Israel at Ramah. In the final editing of the cycle, the stanza that includes Rachel’s lament and the oracle of return, vv. 15–17, has been strung together with a second stanza on Ephraim’s grieving and God’s response to him, vv. 18–20.85 To them were added a final stanza, vv. 21–22, on the return of virgin Israel. There is a certain parallelism between the first two stanzas; in both, God hears the anguish of a notable ancestor and responds. In vv. 16–17, Yhwh responds to Rachel’s mourning over her children in v. 15, and in v. 20, Yhwh responds to Ephraim’s regrets over ‫חרפת נעורי‬, “the shame of [his] youth,” in vv. 18–19. Further, the consolation offered to Rachel is that her children will return from the land of the enemy to their own territory (‫ ושבו בנים‬. . . ‫ושבו מארץ אויב‬ ‫לגבולם‬, Jer 31:16b, 17b). And, in the case of Jer 31:18–20, Ephraim’s plea is to be returned (‫)השובנוי ואשובה‬. The early joining of these two stanzas hinged not only on their common motifs of mourning and the repetition of ‫שוב‬, but on the relationship of Ephraim to Rachel.86 Ephraim becomes the (grand-)child over whom Rachel weeps. Despite these structural similarities between the Rachel stanza (vv. 15–17) and the Ephraim stanza (vv. 18–20) and the genealogical link between the two protagonists, the content of the two stanzas— and particularly Yhwh’s responses in each—is not closely related. The spheres of concern in each unit differ; the first unit is about returning from exile and the second about repentance. Yet the juxtaposition of these two stanzas has an important effect: to use the language of metaphor theory, exile takes on yet another system of associations. Just as the addition of Yhwh’s response to the account of Rachel’s suffering draws the ancient lament into an exilic context, so too does the addition of the verses on Ephraim change the meaning of exile. Exile is now associated with another narrative, Ephraim’s youthful disgrace.

84 Rachel’s lament here was perhaps akin to another lament over the loss of posterity: Jephthah’s daughter bewailing her virginity on the mountains, Judg 11:37–38. 85 A number of scholars regard 31:15–17 and 18–20 as independent units; see n. 60 above. 86 The passage bears remarkable similarities to Jer 3:21–25, which may either signal that Jer 31:15 comes from the prophet’s own hand, or support the argument that this oracle, because of lexical affinities with the prophet, became associated with the prophet’s work.

86

chapter two

Considered in the context of vv. 15–20 as a whole, Rachel’s stanza (vv. 15–17) establishes the return of missing children as an image for restoration after exile. Ephraim’s stanza complements Rachel’s stanza by telling the story of the missing child. Instead of an oracle about Ephraim’s return from the land of the enemy, the poem offers something else: a reconciliation between Ephraim and Yhwh that ends an alienation caused by disobedience, an alienation that is different from geographical exile as it is imagined in vv. 15–17. Thus, whereas the Rachel stanza focused on geographical separation, the Ephraim stanza introduces the theme of spiritual alienation and its resolution: Ephraim has been remembered by Yhwh, and Yhwh will accept his repentance. In a clever play on the multifarious meanings of ‫—שוב‬as both geographic return and repentance—these final verses draw in a realm of new associations for exile: exile becomes the state of being separated from Yhwh, and exile can and will be overcome by repentance and bearing Yhwh’s reproach. In the final stanza of the poem, vv. 21–22, the physical and internal dimensions of ‫ שוב‬are aligned. On the one hand, virgin Israel is commanded to return physically to her cities by following the road-markers and guideposts that mark the highways, and yet the word “guideposts” (‫ )תמרורים‬evokes the bitterness (‫ )תמרורים‬of Rachel’s lament in v. 15. So that, on the other hand, the journey appears to function metaphorically. The virgin Israel does not simply travel the highways and make a physical return (‫ ;)שוב‬she is also asked to “consider” or “set her mind to” (‫)שתי לבך‬ the road that brought her, in the first place, to where she now finds herself. That the virgin Israel’s journey shares in the spiritual dimension of (re)turning (‫ )שוב‬is underlined by the remark that her journey will be guided by reflection (‫)שתי לבך‬. E. Introduction ( Jer 30:1–4) Near the end of the development of the poetic cycle, the redactors of the Book of Consolation affixed a series of headings and prefaces to the ensuing poems. The accumulated notices now serve as an introduction to the Book as a whole. ‫ֹלהי‬ ֵ ‫ֹה־א ַמר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫ כּ‬2 :‫ ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר ָהיָ ה ֶאל־יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ֵמ ֵאת יְ הוָ ה ֵלאמֹר‬1 ‫ ִכּי‬3 :‫ל־ס ֶפר‬ ֵ ‫ר־דּ ַבּ ְר ִתּי ֵא ֶליָך ֶא‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ְדּ ָב ִרים ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ַ ‫ב־לָך ֵאת ָכּ‬ ְ ‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֵלאמֹר ְכּ ָת‬ ‫יהוּדה ָא ַמר‬ ָ ִ‫ת־שׁבוּת ַﬠ ִמּי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ו‬ ְ ‫ִהנֵּ ה יָ ִמים ָבּ ִאים נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה וְ ַשׁ ְב ִתּי ֶא‬ ‫ וְ ֵא ֶלּה ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים‬4 :‫שׁוּה‬ ָ ‫בוֹתם וִ ֵיר‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר־נָ ַת ִתּי ַל ֲא‬ ָ ‫יְ הוָ ה וַ ֲה ִשׁב ִֹתים ֶא‬ ‫הוּדה׃‬ ָ ְ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ֶאל־י‬

jeremiah’s book of consolation 1

87

The word that came to Jeremiah from Yhwh:

2 Thus says Yhwh, the God of Israel: Write for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you in a scroll. 3 For the days are surely coming, says Yhwh, when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says Yhwh, and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their ancestors and they shall take possession of it. 4 And these are the words that Yhwh spoke to Israel and to Judah: (30:1–4)

The sequence of the additions that came to form the introduction can be tentatively reconstructed. First came v. 4, a terse heading or superscription to the poems. Next were added vv. 2–3, which introduce and articulate the themes of the poetic cycle as a whole. The verses further indicate that the Book of Consolation originated in an act of writing (v. 2), which reflects a postexilic emphasis on the written word as a vehicle of prophecy. The book of Jeremiah refers to writing a scroll or a letter (‫ )ספר‬on several other occasions (29:1; 36:2, 4, 27–28, 32; 51:60), and the reference in 30:2 reflects, too, an attempt to locate the written prophecy within the Jeremian tradition; indeed, here, more explicitly, it is Jeremiah, not Baruch (cf. 36:4, 27), who is the actual writer of the Book of Consolation, which may be an indication of the purchase the Book had on the tradition.87 Finally, the addition of v. 1 marks the Book of Consolation as an integral part of the Jeremian corpus, since similar inscriptions introduce other units within the book of Jeremiah.88 It is fairly common in biblical redaction for later writers to preface older passages with newer material that ensures their authoritative status in the manuscript tradition. Here, too, the series 87 Carroll, Jeremiah, 568, 571–72. While Rudolph ( Jeremia, 172–73) argues that the reference to ‫ ספר‬suggests that it was addressed to an absent audience, namely the northern exiles, the poems that he identifies as the older core do not appear to address exiles, but rather those who stayed behind; see, for example, Jer 30:18–22. 88 The formula in Jer 30:1, ‫הדבר אשר היה אל ירמיהו מאת יהוה לאמר‬, “the word that came to Jeremiah from Yhwh,” appears in 7:1; 11:1; and 18:1, and without ‫לאמר‬ in 21:1; 32:1; 34:1, 8; 35:1; 40:1. In each case, the phrase prefaces a segment of the tradition and is used by the exilic editors of the book to signal the authority of the words that follow. Thus, in Jer 30:1, as elsewhere, the phrase indicates that chs. 30–31 likely circulated as an independent collection. As a structuring device, the formula serves both to acknowledge the following chapters as a distinct revelation and to tie them to the tradition as a whole. See Carroll, Jeremiah, 569, 571. Bernhard Duhm isolates the formula as the work of Source C (Das Buch Jeremia [KHC 11; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1901]). Even Rudolph, who argues that the rest of the introduction, 30:2–4, contains Jeremiah’s own words from the late seventh century, concurs that Jer 30:1 is a gloss by Source C, the exilic editors of the book ( Jeremia, 173).

88

chapter two

of prefatory statements asserts the divine origin of the ensuing unit and assimilates it to the Jeremian tradition. They claim that the poems are “from Yhwh” and delivered to Jeremiah, whose name is not mentioned elsewhere in the body of the cycle. This assertion of a connection between the Book and the figure of Jeremiah reflects a postexilic interest in securing the authority conferred by preexilic prophets. The introduction not only ensures a place for the Book within the Jeremian tradition, but also shapes the interpretation of the six poems that follow. As a hermeneutic framework, the introduction casts an audience for the Book of Consolation and communicates the redactors’ conception of exile, which at points differs from that within the poems themselves. The introduction addresses the broad audience of Yhwh’s people, both north and south, suggesting that even though the oracles of the Book are delivered as if on the eve of the destruction of Jerusalem, the description of exile within the cycle of poems applies to all exiles, regardless of the particular historical event that resulted in their exile. Further, the prologue advances a new understanding of when the exile will end, and indeed constructs a new understanding of the nature of exile. Whereas the Jeremian interpretation elsewhere associates the exile with a seventy-year period (see 2 Chr 36), the endpoint is now left open: the prologue defines the end of exile as occurring in “the days to come” (‫ימים באים‬, 30:3) when Yhwh will act, which leaves open the possibility that the exile did not end with the edict of Cyrus. More generally, when the prologue states the guiding theme of the cycle—Yhwh has promised to “render a restoration” or “restore the fortunes” of the exiles (‫שוב שבות‬, 30:3)—the expectations for the change that Yhwh’s action will bring are raised. The phrase ‫ שוב שבות‬is markedly capacious; it includes more than the mundane details of restoration, such as the return of the exiles. This theme, therefore, functions with the notion of “the days to come” to defer the end of the exile. Together, the Book of Consolation’s definition of its audience and its redefinition of exile imagine a restoration of Israel that exceeds in scope and scale that in the early Persian Period. 1. Audience The introduction describes, in v. 3, the people who will enjoy Yhwh’s restoration as “my people, Israel and Judah” (‫)עמי ישראל ויהודה‬. This inclusive designation is found even in the earliest stratum of the introduction, v. 4, which similarly addresses the prophecy “to Israel and to

jeremiah’s book of consolation

89

Judah” (‫)אל ישראל ואל יהודה‬. To be sure, some of those seeking to identify the provenance of the book have tried to excise elements from this inclusive designation in order to determine the prehistory of various portions of the cycle. It has been proposed, for example, that the reference to Judah in v. 4 was not original—that the verse originally addressed only Israel, that is, the northern kingdom. This proposal is closely linked to the hypothesis, associated particularly with Holladay and Lohfink, that the poems that originally followed were a composition addressed to the north that was only later expanded to refer to the south. Only when the composition was expanded, the argument goes, was “Judah” added to v. 4. So, too, the phrase “Israel and Judah” in v. 3 has been labeled an expansionist gloss on “my people” and regarded as another late attempt to stress the broad appeal of the poems for all exiles.89 While it is true that the body of the cycle does not make reference to “Judah,” there are no literary grounds for challenging the phrases “to Israel and to Judah” (v. 4) and “my people, Israel and Judah” (v. 3). Further, because the introduction (which invokes the authority of Jeremiah’s name and emphasizes writing) was largely formulated in the postexilic period, it is not improbable that the audience of the poetic cycle was conceived of as including all the tribes of Israel, both north and south.90 The inclusivity of the terms seeks to address the exiles comprehensively. “Israel and Judah,” an expansive designation, takes account of the many exiles of the nation, including those exiled from the north in the eighth century and from the south in the sixth. Thus, regardless of the poems’ origins, they were understood to be directed to a broader audience by the time that the introduction was affixed.

89 Rudolph, for example, in arguing that the introductory vv. 2–4 were from the early stratum addressed to the north, suggests that ‫ יהודה‬in both 30:3 and 4 is a later gloss ( Jeremia, 173). Holladay argues that v. 3 was part of the southern recension and that ‫ ישראל‬and ‫ יהודה‬are thus original to the introduction, reflecting Jeremiah’s later decision to redirect to the south his original words to the north ( Jeremiah, 2:171). Carroll, a persistent critic of the northern recension theory, argues that the inclusion of ‫ יהודה‬was likely original, but, if anything, the entire phrase ‫“( ישראל ויהודה‬Israel and Judah,” v. 3) may be an explanatory gloss on “my people,” ‫ ( עמי‬Jeremiah, 571). 90 The phrase “Israel and Judah” also appears four times in Jer 31:23–40, which Lundbom argues provides a postexilic conclusion to the poems―one that mirrors the structure of the introduction ( Jeremiah 21–36, 453–56). The repeated use of the phrase there is another indication that the mention of Israel and Judah was original to the introduction of the Book of Consolation and reflects the postexilic editors’ statement of audience.

90

chapter two

An early postexilic audience, including those who had returned from Babylonia, would have heard in them a reference to the exile of their forbearers. Even if the majority of the poems were intended to address the situation of the Judean exiles, the introduction here acknowledges that northerners, too, suffered exile and await restoration. The redactors’ desire to address a broad audience is borne out, in turn, by the redaction of the poems. As discussed above, the exilic language that appears in the body of the poetic cycle is sufficiently general to apply to all exiles—those from Israel as well as those from Judah, and those who had returned as well as those who remained in the Diaspora.91 2. Conception of Exile In addition to identifying the divine author, the prophetic messenger, and the audience of the composition, the prologue characterizes the import of the poems that follow for the editors who shaped the book. This is particularly evident in v. 3, which reveals something of the thought-world of the editors. Their redactional activity discloses both what they both read into and what they read out of the texts they collected. While the language focuses on the restoration from exile, it describes the time frame of the exile as well as the events that will mark its end, thus revealing how the later editors who shaped the final form of the book interpreted the concept. Elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah, the prophet appears to lay out a definite timetable for the end of the exile, which is linked to the figure “seventy years” (especially in 25:11–12). Indeed, this claim about the duration of the exile became a key element in how the Jeremian tradition would be remembered, and even reinterpreted, in, for example, Dan 9. The introduction to the Book of Consolation, however, omits any mention of the seventy years and presents a less defined timetable: in Jer 30:3, the restoration is located “in the days to come” (‫ימים‬ ‫)באים‬. It is not clear how far off the redactors thought those coming days were. Perhaps they imagined that “the days to come” lay in the near future, in harmony with the portions of Jeremiah that anticipate

91 Carroll suggests that this was meant to have “programmatic appeal” and that the inclusion of both north and south was advocating for a “unified and inclusive community in the future” ( Jeremiah, 572). He likens his analysis of the function of the Book of Consolation to H. G. M. Williamson’s interpretation of Chronicles and its program in Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

jeremiah’s book of consolation

91

the close of the seventy-year period.92 Alternatively, they may have used the phrase “the days to come” to refer to a more distant, even eschatological, future. The temporal frame for “the days to come” can be discerned, in part, by considering what the signs of those days will be. Yhwh’s proclamation in 30:3 aligns the restoration of the people in the days to come with their return to and repossession of the land, the more material dimensions associated with a return from exile: “For the days are surely coming (‫)ימים באים‬, says Yhwh, when I will restore the fortunes (‫שוב‬ ‫ )שבות‬of my people, Israel and Judah, says Yhwh, and I will bring them back (‫ )והשבתים‬to the land that I gave to their ancestors and they shall take possession of it (‫)וירשוה‬.” The action of Yhwh’s proclamation is described in two statements separated by “says Yhwh” (‫אמר יהוה‬/‫)נאם יהוה‬, according to the Masoretic punctuation. The first statement of Yhwh’s activity—“I will restore the fortunes (‫שוב‬ ‫ )שבות‬of my people”—describes a general restoration of the fortunes of Israel and Judah. The second statement uses Deuteronomistically inflected language to define that restoration; it names geographic and political dimensions of the first statement: “I will bring them back (‫ )והשׁבתים‬to the land that I gave to their ancestors and they shall take possession of it (‫)וירשוה‬.” The idiom at the heart of the first statement of Yhwh’s activity requires some discussion, for the meaning of ‫ שוב שבות‬has been subject to debate. ‫ שוב שבות‬is generally translated in two ways: (1) “to return captives to freedom,” if ‫ שבות‬is understood as deriving from ‫שבה‬, “to take captive” (e.g., BDB); or (2) “to render a restoration” or “to restore the fortunes of,” if ‫ שבות‬is derived from ‫שוב‬, “to turn, return” (e.g., HALOT ).93 In either case, the transitive use of Qal ‫שוב‬ is unexpected. Furthermore, the form ‫ שבות‬was subject to confusion with ‫שבית‬, “captivity, captives,” in MT; ‫ שבות‬often appears as a Qere form replacing the Ketib ‫ ( שבית‬Jer 29:14; 49:39; Ezek 16:53 [for three out of four occurrences of ‫ שבית‬in the verse]; 39:25; Job 42:10; Lam 2:14), while ‫ שבית‬is the Qere for ‫ שבות‬in Zeph 2:7 and Pss 85:2; 126:4.

92

Fretheim, Jeremiah, 415. See also Ernst L. Dietrich, ‫שׁוב שׁבות‬: Die endzeitliche Wiederherstellung bei den Propheten (BZAW 40; Giessen: Topelmann, 1925), 1; and William L. Holladay, The Root Šûbh in the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1958), 110–14. Dietrich’s thesis was most recently reaffirmed by John M. Bracke, “šûb šebût: A Reappraisal,” ZAW 97 (1985): 233–44. See also Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 355. 93

92

chapter two

On top of the etymological dilemma and the graphic confusion, ‫שוב‬ ‫ שבות‬frequently appears in contexts describing the restoration of Israel, where it could plausibly refer to either the release of captives or the reversal of Israel’s fortunes. Despite these difficulties, the interpretation of ‫ שוב שבות‬as “to restore the fortunes of ” is established by its context in Job 42:10, where no captives are in evidence: “Yhwh restored the fortunes of Job . . . and gave Job twice as much as he had before.” Support for this interpretation also comes from the cognate phrase hšb šybt, which appears in the Aramaic treaty from Sefire: “and now the gods have restored my ‘father’s house’ ” (III, 24).94 In Jer 33:7, Yhwh promises, “I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and I will rebuild them as they were in the beginning.” Here it may be inferred that the restoration of Judah and Israel will involve the return of captives and the ingathering of exiles, but the stress is on returning Judah and Israel to their original state. Similarly, in Jer 30:18, Yhwh states, ‫הנני‬

‫שב שבות אהלי יעקוב ומשכנתיו וארחם ונבנתה עיר על תלה וארמון על‬ ‫משפטו ישב‬, “I am going to restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob, and have compassion on his dwellings; the city shall be rebuilt upon its mound, the fortress set on its rightful site.”95 Again, the stress is on restoring the land of Israel to its previous condition by reconstructing ruined cities and buildings. Thus ‫ שוב שבות‬is an operation distinct from the return of captives; it describes a broader program of restoration. Certainly, that broader restoration may include the return of exiles: in Jer 29:14, Yhwh announces, “I will restore your fortunes and I will gather you from all the nations and all the places where I scattered you . . . and I will bring 94 See Jonas Greenfield, “Stylistic Aspects of the Sefire Treaty Inscriptions,” in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology (ed. Shalom M. Paul, Michael Stone, and Avital Pinnick; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 25, 176. In the sole Aramaic example, the phrase employs a causative form of the verb, whereas the Qal form usually appears in MT (but cf. the Hiphil in, e.g., Jer 32:44; 33:7, 11, 26 [Qere]; 49:6, 39 [Qere]). The Hebrew cognate of Aramaic šybh appears (with a Qal form of ‫ )שׁוב‬in Ps 126:1:“When Yhwh restored the fortunes of Zion [‫בשוב יהוה את‬ ‫]שיבת ציון‬, we were like dreamers.” 95 LXX makes no mention of the tents or dwellings of Jacob: “Behold, I am bringing back the colony of Jacob and I will have mercy on his captives.” The Hebrew noun ‫שבות‬, “restoration” has been rendered by the Greek ἀποικία, “colony, settlement,” which is frequently used to translate ‫ גולה‬and ‫גלות‬. This is the same exegetical tendency found in LXX Jer 37:18 and 38:19; 37:18 understands ‫ שבות‬and 38:19 understands ‫ שוב‬to refer to the Babylonian captivity. See Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 32.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

93

you back to the place from which I exiled you.” But the action of ‫שוב‬ ‫ שבות‬is not restricted to the return of the exiles. Hence, to return to Jer 30:3a, ‫ שוב שבות‬is best translated “to render a restoration” or “to restore the fortunes of ”; v. 3b goes on to specify one facet of this program of restoration: “I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their ancestors.”96 From a literary point of view, this motif of a restoration of Israel’s fortunes was a unifying force that bound together the disparate poems that follow the introduction. Within the poems themselves, ‫( שוב‬without ‫ )שבות‬appears frequently—30:10, 24; 31:8, 16, 17, 18 (twice, one of which uses the Hiphil form), 19, and 21. In Jer 30:10, it is also used in a wordplay on ‫שבי‬, “captivity, captives.” Volz links the “ever-recurring motif šûb” in the Book of Consolation to its use in Jer 3:6–18, which he says accounts for the latter prophecy’s “unity” with the rest of the book.97 In the redactional process, the motif was developed across the cycle. This is evident not only in the addition of the introduction, which established the idiom ‫ שוב שבות‬as a guiding motif, but in the addition of Jer 30:18, which also uses ‫שוב שבות‬,98 as well as in the addition of Jer 31:23, a later postexilic gloss on the Book.99 Indeed, the phrase would be used again in Jer 33:26 to tie Jer 32–33 to the material in Jer 30–31. When will this restoration occur? In both the Hebrew and Greek versions, the temporal uncertainty of ‫כי הנה ימים באים‬, “for the days are surely coming,” leaves open the possibility that the poetry does not function only on a literal and immediate plane of reference. The phrase “the days to come,” or a variation upon it, reappears in an

96

McKane ( Jeremiah, 2:752) likewise observes that the action described by ‫שוב‬

‫ שבות‬must be distinguished from the ingathering of exiles. 97

Der Prophet Jeremia, 287–88. Holladay (following Volz) argues that Jer 30:18–21 and 31:1aβγb, the first section of Poem 3, were addressed to the north and reflect an early stratum of Jeremian prophecy ( Jeremiah, 2:156–57). The verses advocate not only a rebuilding of the north, but also a restoration of some sort of cultic life, which does not ring true with Volz’s and Holladay’s reconstruction; it is unlikely that Jeremiah would have advocated this kind of renewal during the reign of Josiah. The historical provenance of post-587 preaching, advocated by Bright and Carroll, is more likely. 99 Again, Jer 31:23, which follows the sixth poem, is a later postexilic conclusion; see Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 453–56; Holladay argues that Jer 31:23–25 “comes out of the orbit of Trito-Isaiah” ( Jeremiah, 2:165–66). Note that in LXX 38:23 (MT 31:23), ‫ שוב שבות‬is translated ἀποστρέψω τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν αὐτοῦ—here ‫ שבות‬is rendered with a form of αἰχμαλωσία (“captivity”), not ἀποικία (“colony, settlement”) as it was in the LXX introduction to the Book, Jer 37:3. 98

94

chapter two

eschatological sense in the section of the Book of Consolation that follows the six poems, in MT Jer 31:27, 29, 31, 38/LXX Jer 38:27, 29, 31, 38. Significantly, in the body of the cycle, as we have already seen, the description of the restoration did not appear to have an eschatological tone. Even in Poem 1, which looks forward to the full restoration of Judean self-rule and the Davidic monarchy, the sense is that these events would transpire in the current era, not in the world to come. Thus the frame of the cycle, one of the latest additions to the Book of Consolation, suggests a schedule for the restoration of Israel and Judah that may not be the same as that imagined in the body of the cycle, which developed earlier. During the postexilic period, when the introduction was formulated, the mundane elements of the restoration were already in place; in the view of the introduction, the full import of Yhwh’s restoration promised in the poems seems still to be unfulfilled, which suggests an eschatological setting for the fuller restoration.100 In contrast to the promise of a restoration of fortunes in the first statement, the second statement of Yhwh’s activity in 30:3 establishes a concrete, easily validated condition for the end of the exile: Yhwh will bring the people back to the land he gave them (‫והשבתים‬, Hiphil of ‫)שוב‬. In Jeremiah, the Hiphil of ‫ שוב‬frequently has the sense of “to bring back from exile” (see, for example, 12:15; 24:6; 27:22, to cite but a few). The use of the Hiphil of ‫ שוב‬combined with ‫אל הארץ‬, “to the land,” makes explicit the physical aspect of the return—the return to the land. The people will not simply return to the land, but will “possess” (‫ )ירש‬it.101 The promise of the land was a central element in the covenantal relationship between Yhwh and Israel, and the two verbs in 30:3, ‫ שוב‬and ‫ירש‬, emphasize this. The pairing of these verbs reflects the influence of the Deuteronomic twin emphasis on “entering” (‫ )בוא‬and “possessing” (‫ )ירש‬the land (for example, Deut 1:8; 100 This eschatological implication of ‫ ימים באים‬may also be in evidence in the additional postexilic material that follows Poem 6, i.e., Jer 31:23–40; see Lundbom on that passage as a postexilic conclusion to the poems that mirrors the structure of the introduction ( Jeremiah 21–36, 453–56). 101 Lohfink, “‫יָ ַרשׁ‬,” TDOT 6:368–97. Cf. LXX Jer 37:3, which renders MT’s ‫ירש‬, “to take possession of,” with the Greek κυριεύω, “to have power over, to rule over.” Becking points out that this may be a misreading of the Hebrew as the verb ‫רשה‬, “to rule over,” a verb known from Qumranic and Mishnaic Hebrew, and views this as an intentional interpretation (Between Fear and Freedom, 32–33). It may also be an accidental misinterpretation by virtue of the similarities between the conjugation of ‫רשה‬ and ‫ירש‬: the unpointed form ‫ וירשוה‬could be derived from either root.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

95

4:1; 6:18; 7:1; 8:1).102 In the prologue to the Book of Jeremiah, this Deuteronomic entering (‫ )בוא‬has become, by virtue of the exile, a return (‫—)שוב‬the divine command to possess (‫ )ירש‬the land remains unaltered and constant. Thus, while the second statement emphasizes return to the homeland as tangible evidence of Yhwh’s promise, the first suggests that this return is but a facet of the restoration that Yhwh promises and not its totality. That the people could anticipate a more comprehensive restorative action by Yhwh is evident in the first statement’s use of the phrase ‫שוב שבות‬, the meaning of which encompasses more than a return to the land; while ‫ שוב שבות‬is qualified by ‫ שוב‬and ‫ ירש‬in the second statement, the idiom suggests a restoration that reaches beyond the return to and repossession of the land. In the introduction, therefore, the “postexilic” redactors of the cycle established that the exile had not yet ended, using two seemingly contradictory methods: (1) The redactors asserted that the subsequent verses, some of which had nothing to do with exile and restoration, referred to those concerns; this is one canonical function of the introduction, which anchors the poems to the promise of a return and repossession of the land. Language that once may not have referred to exile at all (for example, Jer 30:12–15, the fragment on the wounded woman, and Jer 31:2–3a, the description of finding favor in the wilderness), is redirected, through the frame of 30:1–4, to refer to those people who need to return to the land. The same redactional tendency appears in the poems themselves—when, for example, Jer 30:8–11 reconfigures the terrifying images of vv. 5–7 to refer to a deliverance from destruction and when, to cite another example, Jer 30:12–15 and vv. 16–17 are joined so that the hopelessness of the first part of the poem now ends with the assurance of healing. But when exile is described using the language of other discontents, exile, by association, comes to signify a crisis that cannot be resolved by repatriation alone; it requires a broader, more comprehensive restoration. (2) The redactors kept to a minimum the historical particularities of the poems that do make reference to the exile and they promised, in the introduction, a general restoration; this is another canonical effect

102 Furthermore, the notion that Israel is to take possession of (‫ )ירש‬the land that Yhwh gave (‫ )נתן‬to the ancestors (‫ )אבות‬is clearly expressed in Deut 4:1; 10:11; 12:1.

96

chapter two

of the redaction of the poems and an effect of the reference to ‫שוב‬ ‫ שבות‬in the introduction. The introduction gathered the subsequent poems under the unifying motif of ‫שוב שבות‬, which offers a vision of return that is general enough in its outlines to apply to exiles in a variety of situations. It further promises this restoration to Israelites and Judeans alike—in fact, to all of Yhwh’s people who are in need of it (‫עמי‬, v. 3). The language used to describe exile is general enough to accommodate this broadened audience. Read in the postexilic setting out of which it arose, the introduction suggested that the fulfillment of the longed-for restoration is delayed; the restoration that Yhwh will effect lies in a more distant future, ‫ימים באים‬, beyond the restorations achieved by the Judeans in the postexilic period.103 IV. Exile in the Two Editions of the Book of Consolation Some of the more salient variants between LXX and MT have already been noted in the analysis of individual poems. These variants point toward a larger question, namely, whether the two versions of the Book of Consolation differ in their representation of exile. Did Jews in the land, the presumed custodians of the tradition expressed in MT, think differently about the Babylonian exile and its aftereffects than Jews settled in the Greek Diaspora, where the LXX tradition developed? Furthermore, if the LXX tradition preserves an earlier edition of the book of Jeremiah, then LXX may also preserve earlier iterations of exilic language, while MT contains later interpretations of the concept. Do the two versions, then, indicate how the idea of exile changed over time? This inquiry, however, is not without potential pitfalls: even if LXX reflects an earlier recension of the text, it is, notwithstanding, a translation of that recension. The translation may not be wholly accurate, so that it would be simplistic to attribute editorial intention to every textual variant. Sometimes the LXX diverges from MT because the translator had difficulties in rendering or even comprehending its Vorlage, and such differences between the LXX and the MT should not be mistaken for exegesis on the part of MT. While in the main, LXX

103 The book of Zechariah uses a similar exegetical strategy to delay the fulfillment of the restoration; see the discussion in chapter 4 below.

jeremiah’s book of consolation

97

provides a better reflection of the Vorlage common to both versions, in some cases MT more accurately reflects this Vorlage. On the whole, comparing the textual traditions does not reveal sharp distinctions in the MT and LXX conceptions of exile; on this matter, at least, the two editions reflect the same theological tenor. Both versions, after all, grew out of a shared, if remote, Vorlage and both versions have been largely faithful to that Vorlage. The comparison of MT and LXX, however, does suggest that some nuances of meaning arose through scribal activity—including the translation into Greek, the addition of glosses, and the rearrangement of the text—during the transmission of the book of Jeremiah in its different contexts. But categorical statements remain elusive. The divergence between MT 30:8–11 and LXX 30:8–9 in Poem 1, examined above, is one of the more marked differences between the versions in the Book of Consolation, yet even in that case only tentative conclusions about the different outlooks of the versions could be advanced. At best, then, comparison of the versions can yield only possible points of difference between with their interpretations of exile. With these cautionary notes in mind, comparison of the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Book of Consolation suggests that MT, relative to LXX, has amplified some themes of their common Vorlage: MT contains at least one additional instance of the shared Vorlage’s pronounced commitment to a large audience for the Book, additional articulations of the urgent need for exiles to return to the land, and at least one additional intimation that the exile has not yet ended. These slight differences suggest that the Judean redactors of MT Jeremiah sought to encourage those who remained in the Diaspora to return, even as they held that the end of exile was not always tied to repatriation, while the diasporic redactors of LXX Jeremiah conceived of an end of exile that was not always tied to repatriation, even as the Book of Consolation highlighted the importance of returning and rebuilding. A. Broadened Audience One of the most significant variants between the versions comes in the Book of Consolation’s first poem, discussed at length above. The MT version presents words of consolation that do not appear in LXX’s version of the poem; LXX has 37:8–9, the beginning of the consoling words, which correspond to MT 30:8–9, but LXX does not have verses

98

chapter two

that correspond to MT 30:10–11, the concluding consolation of the poem. These verses do appear in both versions’ oracles against the nations, in MT Jer 46:27–28/LXX Jer 26:27–28. The additional verses in MT’s Poem 1, as discussed above, even more explicitly address the hope of restoration to a broad audience. In the MT variant, the addressee is not only Jacob, as it was in the first part of the poem, but also Israel (v. 10). The audience is further identified as Jacob-Israel’s “offspring” (‫ )זרע‬who “will be returned from the land of their captivity” (v. 10), which more directly addresses the situation of those outside the land. The shift from the third-person singular in MT Jer 30:5–9 to the second-person singular in MT Jer 30:10–11 may have been employed as an additional rhetorical strategy to include the hearer and reader in the oracle’s audience.104 MT’s emphasis on a broad audience may also be in evidence elsewhere in the book: MT Jer 31:1 reads: ‫בעת ההיא נאם יהוה אהיה‬ ‫לאלהים לכל משפחות ישראל והמה יהיו לי לעם‬, “At that time, says Yhwh, I will be God to all the families of Israel and they shall be my people.” LXX Jer 38:1 has, instead: ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ ἐκείνῳ εἶπε κύριος ἔσομαι εἰς θεὸν τῷ γένει Ισραηλ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν, “At that time, says the Lord, I will be God to the family of Israel and they shall be my people.” The first notable difference is the presence of ‫כל‬ “all” in MT; the equivalent πᾶς is not present in LXX. In general, ‫כל‬ appears more frequently in MT than πᾶς appears in LXX,105 and this distribution is usually taken to be the result of MT’s expansion of its Vorlage, rather than as a reflection of the original shape of the Vorlage. In this particular case, the use of ‫ כל‬may also suggest that the MT tradition has a more pointed rhetorical commitment to addressing its words of consolation to far-flung exiles and their descendants. Indeed,

104 Carroll points out that this is a convention in Second Isaiah, too; see Isa 40:27; 41:8, 14; 43:1; 48:1–2, 20 ( Jeremiah, 122–23). 105 Janzen calculates that ‫כל‬/πᾶς is found more than five hundred times in those portions of MT and LXX Jeremiah that accord with one another; comparing these portions side by side, he calculates that ‫כל‬/πᾶς occurs an additional 62 times in MT versus LXX, and an additional 11 times in LXX versus MT. Janzen is inclined to treat the additional uses of ‫ כל‬in MT as additions (rather than as evidence of the Vorlage that LXX did not reproduce), because they match, roughly, the overall ratio of MT expansions over the LXX. In the poetic sections of the Book of Consolation, ‫כל‬ appears 13 times in MT ( Jer 30:2, 6 [2x], 11, 14, 16 [4x], 20; 31:1, 24, 25) compared to 9 incidences of πᾶς in LXX. This is in part because LXX does not witness MT 30:11, but also because the term is omitted in the second instance in LXX Jer 37:6; it is also absent in 37:20 and 38:1 (Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, 65–68).

jeremiah’s book of consolation

99

in Jer 31:1, not only has MT added ‫כל‬, it has also replaced the singular ‫“( משפחה‬family”), which presumably derives from the common Vorlage (see the singular τῷ γένει in LXX), with the plural ‫משפחות‬ (“families”). Scholars have dismissed 31:1 as a late gloss added after the completion of the poetic cycle’s first edition; nevertheless, because the verse is represented in both MT and LXX, it provides an important indication of the audience that the cycle sought to encourage at an early stage in its evolution. Scholars have also explained 31:1 as a gloss that attempts to harmonize the Book of Consolation with other portions of the book of Jeremiah, particularly MT Jer 2:4, which addresses ‫כל משפחות בית ישראל‬, “all the families [plural] of the house of Israel.”106 Again, this harmonization may have had an exegetical purpose. That is, both MT Jer 31:1 and LXX 38:1 were addressed to all of Yhwh’s people in the Diaspora,107 but MT Jer 31:1 included a more fulsome identification of this audience. B. Geography MT Jer 30:10–11 does not have an LXX counterpart in Poem 1, but the verses appear later in MT as a doublet ( Jer 46:27–28) that does have an LXX counterpart in the oracles against the nations (26:27–28). Compared to MT Jer 46:27–28 and LXX Jer 26:27–28, MT Jer 30:10–11 has an additional phrase of significance. In the older manuscript traditions of LXX Jer 26:27, the oracle promises that the offspring of Jacob are going to be saved from “their captivity” (τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας αὐτῶν), suggesting a Vorlage of ‫משבים‬.108 In MT Jer 46:27 and Jer 30:10, however, this phrase is ‫מארץ שבים‬, “from the land of their captivity.” This difference yields, in both MT Jer 30:10 and 46:27, a more pointed emphasis on the geographical component of the captivity. Elsewhere the MT of the Book of Consolation, in comparison with LXX, additionally articulates repatriation of the land as a dimension of 106

Ibid., 66. Bozak, in agreement with the Masoretic paragraphing, takes Jer 31:1 as the close of Poem 3, rather than the opening of Poem 4; the structuring phrase ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ does not appear until the next verse, in Jer 31:2, where it marks the start of a new poem. Also, the new poem begins to use second-person feminine pronouns in Jer 31:3 (Life ‘Anew,’ 22). 108 τῆς and γῆς are easily confused in uncial manuscripts, and the early witnesses to τῆς (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus) may simply preserve an early error. (Later uncials and minuscules read γῆς, like MT.) In either case, Diaspora communities were reading a Greek Jeremiah that lacked a geographical emphasis present in MT. 107

100

chapter two

the return. In this case, MT’s promise of repatriation is absent from the LXX, but, as in the example above, it is not possible to tell whether the promise has been added to MT or deleted from LXX. In MT Jer 31:17, Yhwh comforts Rachel with the words: ‫ויש תקוה לאחריתך נאם יהוה‬ ‫ושבו בנים לגבולם‬, “There is hope for your future, says Yhwh: Children shall return (‫ )שוב‬to their territory.” ‫ שוב‬had also appeared in the previous verse, concerning the land from which Rachel’s children would return; now in this verse it indicates the land to which they will return, the land of their ancestors. LXX Jer 38:17 presents, instead, the terser μόνιμον τοῖς σοῖς τέκνοις, “[There will be] a stable place for your children,” a phrase that seems to correspond to the first three words of 31:17 in MT, “There is hope for your future.” In LXX’s shorter version, there is no mention of the place to which the children will return and no mention, indeed, of the land. While LXX Jer 38:16’s statement that Rachel’s children will depart from the land of the enemy implies that they will return to the land of their birth, MT’s explicit statement of a return is lacking in LXX 38:17. Instead, LXX 38:17 assures that Rachel’s children will be secure—they will have “a stable place.” It does not promise that this stable place will be within the land. Thus, in LXX, Yhwh may be promising security to the exiles in whatever communities they had established. The more laconic statement of LXX in 38:17 might corroborate the assumed diasporic provenance of LXX, but again, it is difficult to ascertain whether this variant is a plus in MT or a minus in LXX. Nevertheless, these examples suggest that MT makes a special effort to summon exiles back to the land. C. Elusive Restoration Both the LXX and MT editions of the Book of Consolation place the end of exile in the future, but there is at least one more point in Poem 5 where MT includes an additional emphasis on the futurity of Yhwh’s deliverance. In LXX Jer 38:7, Yhwh’s deliverance is tangible enough that it is to be praised as an accomplished fact: εἴπατε Ἔσωσε κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, τὸ κατάλοιπον Ισραηλ, “say, ‘The Lord has saved his people, the remnant of Israel.’ ” In MT Jer 31:7, however, the deliverance through divine intervention is still anticipated: ‫ואמרו‬ ‫“( הושע יהוה את עמך את שארית ישראל‬And say, ‘Save, O Yhwh, your people, the remnant of Israel’ ”). The argument of MT Jer 31:7, as a whole, suggests that LXX (like the Targum) preserves the original reading: the first three cola command Israel to rejoice, and the fourth

jeremiah’s book of consolation

101

colon supplies the reason: Yhwh has saved his people. The Vorlage probably read ‫“( ואמרו הושיע יהוה את עמו‬and say, ‘Yhwh has saved his people’ ”), which MT modified at some point after the divergence of the editions by altering the perfect to an imperative and changing the third-person suffix on ‫ עם‬to the second person. The continuation of this verse in 31:8 indicates that the restoration has not yet been accomplished; Yhwh announces, ‫הנני מביא אותם מארץ צפון‬ ‫וקבצתים מירכתי ארץ‬, “I am about to bring them from the land of the north, and I will gather them from the ends of the earth.” The transmitters of MT, it appears, altered v. 7 to maintain the expectant tone of vv. 8–9. This detail is a smaller indication of the potentially eschatological character of the final redaction and transmission of the Book of Consolation. In both the MT and LXX traditions, the exile will end with the repair of the divine-human relationship; this aspect of restoration appeared in each of the four poems discussed above, where it seemed to defer the end of exile until a moment when a more fulsome sense of restoration should be perceived. The MT of Poem 3 ( Jer 30:18–31:1), which has not been discussed in this chapter because it does not deal directly with exile, includes a gloss (v. 22), absent from LXX, which addresses that facet of the restoration. ‫וּמ ְשׁ ְכּנ ָֹתיו ֲא ַר ֵחם וְ נִ ְבנְ ָתה‬ ִ ‫י־שׁב ְשׁבוּת ָא ֳה ֵלי יַ ֲﬠקוֹב‬ ָ ִ‫ כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ִהנְ נ‬18 ‫תּוֹדה וְ קוֹל ְמ ַשׂ ֲח ִקים‬ ָ ‫ וְ יָ ָצא ֵמ ֶהם‬19 :‫ל־מ ְשׁ ָפּטוֹ יֵ ֵשׁב‬ ִ ‫ל־תּ ָלּהּ וְ ַא ְרמוֹן ַﬠ‬ ִ ‫ִﬠיר ַﬠ‬ ‫ וְ ָהיוּ ָבנָ יו ְכּ ֶק ֶדם וַ ֲﬠ ָדתוֹ‬20 :‫וְ ִה ְר ִבּ ִתים וְ לֹא יִ ְמ ָﬠטוּ וְ ִה ְכ ַבּ ְד ִתּים וְ לֹא יִ ְצ ָﬠרוּ‬ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ַא ִדּירוֹ ִמ ֶמּנּוּ וּמ ְֹשׁלוֹ ִמ ִקּ ְרבּוֹ יֵ ֵצא‬21 :‫ל־ֹלח ָציו‬ ֲ ‫וּפ ַק ְד ִתּי ַﬠל ָכּ‬ ָ ‫ְל ָפנַ י ִתּכּוֹן‬ :‫ת־לבּוֹ ָלגֶ ֶשׁת ֵא ַלי נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה‬ ִ ‫וְ ִה ְק ַר ְב ִתּיו וְ נִ גַּ שׁ ֵא ָלי ִכּי ִמי הוּא־זֶ ה ָﬠ ַרב ֶא‬ :‫אֹלהים‬ ִ ‫יתם ִלי ְל ָﬠם וְ ָאנ ִֹכי ֶא ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם ֵל‬ ֶ ִ‫ וִ ְהי‬22 18

Thus says Yhwh, “I am going to restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob,109 and have compassion on his dwellings;110 the city shall be rebuilt upon its mound, the fortress set on its rightful site. 19 Out of them shall come thanksgiving, and the sound of merrymakers.

109 LXX, which does not witness MT’s reference to “tents,” reads, “I am bringing back the colony of my people.” 110 LXX has αἰχμαλωσίαν αὐτοῦ, “his prisoners,” where MT has ‫ומשכנתיו‬, “his dwellings.”

102

chapter two I will make them many, and they shall not be few; I will make them honored, and they shall not be humbled. 20 Their children shall be as before, their congregation shall be established before me; I will punish all who oppress them. 21 Their prince shall be one of their own, their ruler shall come from their midst; I will bring him near, and he shall approach me, for who would otherwise dare to approach me?” says Yhwh. 22 You shall be my people, and I will be your God. (30:18–22)

In MT Jer 30:18–21/LXX 37:18–21, Yhwh elaborates on the announcement that he will “restore the fortunes” of Jacob. In MT 30:20a, the restoration is vividly described as a return to an idealized past when, for example, the children of the people will be as of old (‫והיו בניו‬ ‫)כקדם‬. There is, as Carroll points out, a specifically programmatic element to the theme of restoration here, in the promises that the city will be rebuilt (MT 30:18/LXX 37:18) and that the congregation shall be ruled by a prince of their own (MT 30:21/LXX 37:21).111 The first phrase of the opening line of the divine speech in MT 30:18, ‫הנני שב‬ ‫שבות‬, “I am going to restore the fortunes,” is parallel with the second phrase, ‫ארחם‬, “I will have compassion.” The latter verb (‫ )רחם‬specifies the attitude or disposition with which Yhwh will undertake the work of restoring (‫ )שב שבות‬Israel. The restoration thus signifies a renewal of the divine-human relationship, so that now, acting out of compassion (‫)רחם‬, Yhwh will multiply (‫ )הרבתים‬and honor (‫ )הכבדתים‬his people (v. 19). Repopulation, to borrow from Carroll’s analysis, may be the effect, but the underlying cause is a profound change in Yhwh’s relationship to the people. But the restoration has another dimension of surpassing significance, which is expressed in a gloss that is found only in MT at the end of the poem, in v. 22. The very relationship between Yhwh and Israel will be restored: ‫והייתם לי לעם ואנכי אהיה לכם לאלהים‬, “And you will be my people and I will be your God.”112 This verse is absent from

111

See Carroll, Jeremiah, 584. This sentiment in the same or similar wording appears in Exod 6:7; 19:5–6; Lev 26:12; Deut 7:6 = 14:2; 26:19; 27:9; 29:12; 2 Sam 7:24 // 1 Chr 17:22; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 37:23, 27; Zech 8:8. 112

jeremiah’s book of consolation

103

the corresponding passage in LXX, indicating that it is a later gloss on MT Jer 30:18–21.113 The gloss summarizes the preceding verses and expresses the fundamental effect of the repair of the human-divine relationship. In particular, the verse highlights the relational aspect of exile, as opposed to its geographical aspect. To be sure, the relational aspect is implicit in the text that precedes the gloss, where the end of exile is cast as a fundamental reorientation of Yhwh toward humanity. Nevertheless, the gloss provides an additional intimation that the end of exile cannot be measured by political achievements or a renewal of the land alone. V. Conclusion The Book of Consolation provides an important look at the roots of the development of the idea of exile into a metaphor for larger discontents and a paradigm for the existential condition. Although preexilic references to exile in the Hebrew Bible may have already contained this metaphorical dimension in some measure, as in the treaty curses of Deut 28 and Lev 26, references to exile became increasingly paradigmatic in the exilic and postexilic periods. A careful examination of the redaction of the Book of Consolation, which took place during the postexilic period, yields a rare view of the first steps of a much longer process by which exile would come to function as a metaphor for other discontents. The earliest layers of tradition within the cycle include a number of smaller fragments that originally referred to tribulation of other sorts— the Day of Yhwh in the first poem, the anguished woman in the second, Rachel’s lament in the sixth poem. During the exilic and postexilic periods, the fragments were incorporated into lengthier poems that directly addressed exile. In Poem 1, for example, MT Jer 30:8–11/LXX Jer 37:8–9 assimilates the older core, vv. 5–7, to the theme of the Book 113 It could be argued that the phrase was excised from LXX because it was viewed as a redundant statement of a theme attested elsewhere in the book (e.g., 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 31:33). Most, however, argue that it is a later gloss that anticipates the covenant formula of 31:1. Volz notes that the use of the second person does not fit the context of Poem 3 (Der Prophet Jeremia, 279), which makes it more likely that the verse is a later insertion, rather than an organic part of the poem’s original construction. See also Janzen, who regards the verse as a later addition to MT (Studies, 49) not only because of the shift in address (from third person to second person), but because it may recycle other similarly worded phrases in Jeremiah.

104

chapter two

of Consolation, which, as stated in Jer 30:3, is the future restoration of the nation. This kind of redaction is repeated over the course of the cycle. Any effort to chart the development of exilic language by examining the different layers of the Book of Consolation remains tentative, given the lack of consensus on the provenance of those literary layers. Nevertheless, the debate over the provenance of the Book of Consolation revolves around the basic observation that it mingles older oracles— even if the setting of those oracles is still disputed—with newer additions. As with Poem 1, the earlier poetry, some of which arose in the preexilic period, may originally have had to do with the northern exile or, indeed, may have had nothing at all to do with exile, but by its later appropriation to the exilic situation, it contributed to a new conception of the horrors and dimensions of that experience. Thus, for example, the fragment used to construct the initial description of exile, Jer 30:5–7, is without historical particularities, which made it amenable to the new redaction. In the early aftermath of the events of the late sixth century b.c.e., the redactors of the Book of Consolation turned to other literary conventions to fashion their description of this experience. This move may, in part, have been because the events of 587 b.c.e. initially left the authors no clear way to articulate the event; as the poetry of Jer 30:7 asserts, ‫מאין כמהו‬, “there is nothing like it.” It was a reality that had no name and could only be described by borrowed language, even if, as the phrase suggests, that borrowing defers the description. Over the course of the Book of Consolation, exile and destruction are described through a variety of literary means, including the image of a battered lover, the cry of mother Rachel, Israel’s time in the wilderness, and the terrifying language of judgment. Shorter oracles that originally referred to tribulation of other sorts, but not necessarily to the Babylonian exile, were incorporated into the composition and applied to that defeat. The fact that exile could be and was rendered through borrowed imagery suggests that, in the early postexilic period, the concept already had flexibility of meaning. This mode of rendering exile has several implications. First, it broadens the conception of exile. Because exile accommodated other systems of associations, such as bereavement and the Day of Yhwh, its own system of associations became more expansive; exile’s ability to attract a variety of metaphors laid the groundwork for its own metaphorization. Now depicted through and by borrowed images,

jeremiah’s book of consolation

105

exile would, over the course of the Second Temple period, become a metaphor for other discontents, among them political alienation and estrangement from Yhwh.114 But here, already, through the images that the redactors of the Book of Consolation employ to describe it, exile is depicted as an experience that includes, but is not limited to, geographic, political, and emotional dimensions; this kind of exile cannot be ended by repatriation alone, since exile has been evoked as a multidimensional experience. Here again, Ps 107 provides an analogue for the accumulation of metaphors for exile throughout the Book of Consolation. In the body of the poem, vv. 4–32, the psalmist describes how Yhwh has rescued several groups: captives who have been released, the sick who have been healed, seafarers who have landed safely. In each case, in the midst of their adversity, they cried out to Yhwh and he delivered them. But the particularities of the adversities described in the psalm differ not only from the exilic circumstance, but from one another; sailors, prisoners, and fools are not exiles and are not similar. And yet, because the opening of the psalm (vv. 1–3) sets exile as its concern, these other forms of adversity—hunger, incarceration, or a perfect storm—are compared to exile; the resolution of the adversity is found in the antipode of wilderness, “a settled place” (v. 7). Exile has become the regnant metaphor for describing adverse circumstances. All the other situations assessed in the psalm function, literarily, as tributaries to this overarching metaphor. Second, as in the case of Poem 4, an earlier moment in history, such as the wilderness period, could be seen as a paradigm for understanding the present. In this transference, history becomes figurative: how one tells the story of the past becomes how one tells the story of the present exile. And exile has become a paradigmatic experience, loosened from its historical moorings. By the late Second Temple period, the paradigm of Babylonian exile would come to be used and revised by biblical and postbiblical authors as a way of commenting on present difficulties. It became less of an event and more of a lens through which to view the present and the future. This trend leads directly to 4 Ezra, where the intermediate state of exile, which signifies both past

114 This is the case in 4 Ezra, as noted in chapter 1; First Zechariah, discussed in chapter 4 below, represents an intervening stage in the development.

106

chapter two

destruction and a future hope for restoration, organizes the author’s impressions of the current age. Finally, the act of redaction itself seems to have contributed to the idea that exile was an enduring state. The weaving together of multiple signs of restoration—a Davidic king, freedom from foreign domination, bucolic and idyllic visions of a thriving land, and a fully restored relationship between Yhwh and all Israel—conspires to make the expectations for true restoration so high, and so specific, as to be unattainable. These conditions were certainly not met by the mundane restorations of the sixth century. The cycle itself indicates that the end of exile is an event that still lay in the future of the postexilic editors. This exegesis provided the grounds for what would develop more fully into the motif of the enduring exile later in the Second Temple period. While the original poetry did not conceive of the exile as unending, its postexilic redactors bequeathed a collection that fosters that understanding.

CHAPTER THREE

ISAIAH I. Introduction While Jeremiah’s vibrant images of restoration in the Book of Consolation are somewhat unexpected given the tone of the rest of the book, the reverse can be said of Second Isaiah: Isaiah 40–55 is remembered more for its ebullient images of return than its descriptions of suffering during the Babylonian period.1 Indeed, the poetry contains few literal depictions of that time, which the prophet steadfastly maintains has drawn to a close. Second Isaiah’s efforts to paint a compelling vision of return may account for the paucity of references to the exile. The prophet is intent on proclaiming that redemption has already begun, so that images of restoration eclipse those of the previous period. The few references to exile serve primarily to highlight the call to return, the focus of the poetry. When Second Isaiah does refer to the exile, he does so by way of metaphors. The exiles are rendered as prisoners and debt slaves; the exilic period is a period of servitude and a prison sentence. While Second Isaiah describes exile most frequently as slavery, he uses other images as well—sometimes simultaneously—to communicate

1 For an overview of the arguments for Isa 40–55 as a coherent unit, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 (AB 19a; New York: Doubleday, 2002), 69–74; and for its Babylonian setting, ibid., 102–4. For a critique of the proposed Babylonian setting for Isa 40–55, see Hans Barstad, “On the So-called Babylonian Literary Influence in Second Isaiah,” SJOT 2 (1987): 90–110. Scholars have also maintained a Babylonian context for Isa 40–48 but expressed reservations about the same context for Isa 49–55. See, for example, Menahem Haran, who argues that Isa 40–48 came shortly after the victory of Cyrus over Babylon and that Isa 49–55 was delivered in the land of Israel (“The Literary Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies in Is. xl– xlviii,” in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962 [VTSup 9; Leiden: Brill, 1963], 127–55). See also Christopher R. Seitz, “On the Question of Divisions Internal to the Book of Isaiah,” in SBL Annual Meeting 1993 Seminar Papers (ed. Eugene H. Lovering; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 260–66, for arguments against the tripartite division of Isaiah. I concur with Blenkinsopp that, while a Babylonian setting is “marginally preferable” (104) in light of the author’s knowledge of Babylonian religion and the call to return, neither the arguments for a Babylonian setting nor those for a Judean one are conclusive.

108

chapter three

the experience; for example, the exiles are rendered as the children of a desolate, inconsolable mother. A number of these metaphorical descriptions of exile are drawn from an overarching system of associations that converges upon a common notion: Israel’s need for the intervention of Yhwh’s redemption. Indeed, these metaphors for the past serve ultimately to foreground the redemption of Yhwh in the present; the multiple images of exile collaborate to describe exile, at its heart, as the dire state of needing a redeemer or ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. To be sure, there are a number of other metaphors for exile in Second Isaiah that are not drawn from the system of associations surrounding the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, but even these share with the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬system a basic undercurrent: to be in exile is to be in a desperate if not fatal situation. Like Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation, then, Second Isaiah offers a variety of metaphors for exile. The compilers of the Book of Consolation, however, assembled metaphors drawn from different systems of associations and often incorporated older pieces of poetry. These metaphors were frequently distinct and did not overlap conceptually: Jacob’s distress on the Day of Yhwh (Jer 30:7), Zion’s wound (30:12–13), Israel’s experience in the wilderness (31:2), and Rachel’s lamentation (31:15). By contrast, Second Isaiah develops several metaphors for exile that are largely predicated on a common system of associations, the kinds of redemption that Yhwh offers as a ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. Even when Second Isaiah does employ other images for exile, these images primarily evince Israel’s need for redemption. This metaphorical association between exile and the need for a ‫ג ֵֹאל‬ contributes to the prophet’s depiction of the return as a new exodus, a major current in his poetry. The use of a range of metaphors supports Isaiah’s proclamation that Yhwh is the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, the Redeemer of Israel, who will deliver and return his people as he did of old. Describing exile as a state requiring the activity of the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬is significant for another reason: exile becomes associated with a variety of situations that require divine intervention and redemption. Furthermore, the association is interanimative: the multifaceted metaphors work in two directions, so that exile itself can become a metaphor for life before and without the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. The metaphorization of exile can be demonstrated in the last major section of the book of Isaiah, chapters 56–66, which in general builds upon the foundations of the preceding chapters. As Third Isaiah’s interpretations of Second Isaiah bear out, the metaphors in Isa 40–55 lay the groundwork for a later extension of the meaning of exile in

isaiah

109

the postexilic age. In Third Isaiah, exile will function as a vehicle, itself becoming a metaphor for other social and political situations that require Yhwh’s intervention. Further, exile takes on a paradigmatic, increasingly dehistoricized meaning, becoming more and more a figure for disenfranchisement in general. While Second Isaiah had used exile as a backdrop to foreground the activity of Yhwh, thereby looking back on exile as a thing of the past, Third Isaiah asserts through a revalorization of the language of captivity that this exile continues into the present. I begin by tracing how exile is described in Second Isaiah, noting some of the various metaphors that the poetry develops to express the distress of exile, with particular attention to the metaphor of slavery. Then I will consider the trajectory of those metaphors by examining how exilic language functions in the corpus of Third Isaiah. II. Exile and Redemption Even before historical criticism had proposed a Persian-era setting for Isa 40–55, ancient interpreters read the tender words of 40:1–2, which open the collection, as referring to the end of exile. Targum PseudoJonathan, for example, glossed ‫מלאה צבאה‬, “her time of service is fulfilled,” to mean that Jerusalem “is about to be filled with her exiled (people).”2 This interpretation resonated in a new way when modern biblical scholars proposed, as part of a larger argument for a Second Isaiah, that the end of the Babylonian exile provided the historical context for Isa 40–55. The juxtaposition of Isa 39 and 40 provides a second literary pointer to the exilic referent behind the proclamation in Isa 40: the account of the Babylonian embassy in Isa 39 foreshadows the Babylonian despoliation of Jerusalem.3 The comfort that the anonymous prophet sought to deliver was the news of the impending end of exile and the imperative to return to Jerusalem in the sixth 2 3

‫ארי עתידא דתתמלי מעם גלותהא‬.

Even though the juxtaposition of chs. 39 and 40 is secondary, for our purposes it is sufficient to note that early redactors of the material understood ch. 40 to follow ch. 39. In its canonical form, Isaiah’s words to Hezekiah in 39:5–7 prepare the audience for the Babylonian exile, whose end is then announced by Isa 40–48. See Peter R. Ackroyd, “Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function,” in The Place Is Too Small for Us (ed. Robert P. Gordon; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 478–94; and idem, “An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of II Kings 20 and Isaiah 38–39,” SJT 27 (1974): 329–52.

110

chapter three

century b.c.e.. While more recent scholarship continues to debate the date and setting of the chapters, there remains a general consensus that these opening verses announce the close of the bleak period of the Babylonian exile.4 The proposition that 40:1–2 refers to the end of the Babylonian exile may also be supported along literary lines. The message of return in 48:20–21 forms an inclusio with Isa 40, demarcating the literary unit of Isa 40–48.5 Isaiah 48:20–21 mentions Babylon in its imperative to flee and establishes the return from exile as a context for the literary unit as a whole. I thus begin by looking at how exile was rendered in 48:20–21, because of its (fleeting) literal reference to exile. Those verses also develop a basic metaphor for exile within Second Isaiah, namely, slavery. To use the language of metaphor theory, slavery is the subsidiary subject that illuminates the primary target, the exilic experience. Verses 20–21 thus provide a way into the metaphor. I will then return to the opening of this literary unit, 40:1–2, which introduces a variety of metaphors, a full gallery of images upon which Second Isaiah draws. A. Isaiah 48:20–21 ‫יאוּה ַﬠד־‬ ָ ‫הוֹצ‬ ִ ‫ ְצאוּ ִמ ָבּ ֶבל ִבּ ְרחוּ ִמ ַכּ ְשׂ ִדּים ְבּקוֹל ִרנָּ ה ַהגִּ ידוּ ַה ְשׁ ִמיעוּ זֹאת‬20 ‫יכם‬ ָ ‫הוֹל‬ ִ ‫ וְ לֹא ָצ ְמאוּ ָבּ ֳח ָרבוֹת‬21 :‫ְק ֵצה ָה ָא ֶרץ ִא ְמרוּ גָּ ַאל יְ הוָ ה ַﬠ ְבדּוֹ יַ ֲﬠקֹב‬ :‫ַמיִ ם ִמצּוּר ִהזִּ יל ָלמוֹ וַ יִּ ְב ַקע־צוּר וַ יָּ זֻ בוּ ָמיִ ם‬ 20

Go forth from Babylon, flee from the Chaldeans,

4 The three ‫ כי‬clauses of Isa 40:2 do not refer exclusively to the end of exile; rather, a range of sixth-century b.c.e. experiences—not only exile, but the destruction of Jerusalem and the surrounding area, the loss of king and temple, submission to a foreign power, economic depredation—are also alluded to as different manifestations of the service and punishment that was endured. This is further discussed in section II.B of this chapter, below. 5 On the literary unity of Isa 40–48, which is asserted on the basis of the chapters’ common themes and style, see Carroll Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in DeuteroIsaiah (AnBib 43; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 1–29; and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 59–61, 71–73. Isaiah 40–48 are further set off as a unit by their distinctiveness from chs. 49–55; Isaiah 40–48 are concerned with the fall of Babylon, Cyrus, and the problem of foreign deities, with Jacob/Israel as the male addressee (Haran, “The Literary Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies in Is. xl–xlviii”; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 59–60). By contrast, in chs. 49–55, the addressee is the female Zion or Jerusalem and there is no mention of Cyrus. The coherence of chs. 40–48 is further buttressed by noting how 48:20–22 and 40:1–5 bookend the composition.

isaiah

111

declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it forth to the end of the earth, say, “Yhwh has redeemed his servant Jacob!” 21 They did not thirst when he led them through the wastelands; he made water flow for them from the rock; he split open the rock and the water gushed out. (Isa 48:20–21)6

In Isa 48:20–21, the prophet provides the only direct mention of the Babylonian exile: ‫צאו מבבל ברחו מכשדים‬, “Go forth from Babylon, flee from the Chaldeans!”7 Despite the concrete reference to Babylon, exile and return are not further described in literal terms. The return from exile is instead described metaphorically as a release from slavery, which implicitly casts the exile itself as a form of slavery. The initial imperative to “go forth” (‫)יצא‬, in addition to having a distinct spatial dimension, is reminiscent of the legal stipulations for the release of a Hebrew slave—a “going forth” from servitude—as found in Exod 21:2–11, Deut 15:12–18, and the jubilee law of Lev 25:39–43, 47–55. In addition, the command to “flee” (‫ )ברח‬recalls the narratives of Jacob’s flight from Laban (Gen 31:20–22, 27) and Israel’s departure from Egypt (Exod 14:5), both of which describe a flight from servitude. Isaiah 48:20’s closing proclamation further draws on the language of slave release to describe the current situation: “Yhwh has redeemed (‫ )גאל‬his servant (‫ )עבדו‬Jacob!” The exilic period, like a term of servitude, has ended with Yhwh’s redemption (‫ )גאל‬of Israel, who may

6 Although Isa 48:22 is presently the final verse of the canonical unit Isa 40–48, the verse is a later addition that also appears in 57:21 (Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66 [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969], 205; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 292). 7 There are other texts in Second Isaiah that refer obliquely to the Babylonian exile. First, Isa 52:11–12, like 48:20–21, casts the return as a new exodus; although the Babylonian exile is the referent for the image, the verses do not mention Babylon: ‫סורו‬

‫סורו צאו משם טמא אל תגעו צאו מתוכה הברו נשאי כלי יהוה כי לא בחפזון תצאו‬ ‫ובמנוסה לא תלכון כי הלך לפניכם יהוה ומאספכם אלהי ישראל‬, “Depart, depart, go

forth from there! Do not touch any unclean thing; go forth from the midst of it, purify yourselves, you who carry the vessels of Yhwh. For you shall not go out in haste, and you shall not go in flight; for Yhwh will go before you, and the God of Israel will be your rear guard” (cf. Lam 4:15, which may be a source for Isa 52). A second example is more indirect, but nonetheless suggests the Babylonian exile in reverse: Isa 46:1–2 imagines that Bel and his son Nebo (Nabu) go into captivity. While there has been speculation about the historical situation behind this description, literarily the image of the Babylonian deities themselves going into captivity provides an inversion of the situation that is the backdrop for Isa 40–48—namely, Israelite captivity.

112

chapter three

now go forth (‫)יצא‬. Like the Israelite debt slave who is redeemed (‫)גאל‬ from a non-Israelite master (Lev 25:47–49), Israel, Yhwh’s servant, is now free of its foreign overlord. The metaphor of enslavement for exile here foregrounds the proclamation that Yhwh has redeemed Israel.8 Of course, Israel now has a new master, although when Yhwh refers to Israel as “my servant”, it is not in a depreciatory sense (see, for example, Isa 44:1–2; 45:4). The exilic past is evoked, rather, to highlight Yhwh’s present and beneficent activity as ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. While the term contributes to the depiction of the exile as a period of enslavement, ‫גאל‬, as I will demonstrate below, is not limited to that register alone. In the Hebrew Bible in general and in Second and Third Isaiah in particular, the redemption conveyed by the verb ‫ גאל‬is experienced in a number of different contexts and suggests that Yhwh as ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬redeems not only from slavery, but from other situations of distress as well, in comprehensive fashion. Second Isaiah’s use of ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬will thus describe Israel’s situation according to a number of related metaphors, all of which require the intervention of a ‫ ;ג ֵֹאל‬these related metaphors will collaborate to render exile as the state of needing redemption. The following survey will give some sense of the contexts in which redemption operated, both within the Hebrew Bible more generally and Second Isaiah more specifically. The pentateuchal laws describe a number of situations where redemption was practiced, often but not always, through an act of payment or financial support.9 The ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬was the nearest male kin, who was responsible for the economic survival of his relatives if they became insolvent.10 Those redeemed could include any Israelite who was sold to a resident alien because of debt.11 The blood of one murdered could be redeemed.12 There were other situ-

8

See also 44:21–23. The concept has both legal and religious significance, though Alfred Jepsen has rightly cautioned against isolating these senses from one another since they were intimately related in Israelite thought (“Die Begriffe des ‘Erlösens’ im Alten Testament,” Solange es “Heute” heisst: Festgabe für Rudolf Hermann zum 70. Geburtstag [ed. Paul Althaus; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsamstalt, 1957], 67–77). On the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, see Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah; Johann J. Stamm, Erlösen und Vergeben im Alten Testament: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Bern: Francke, 1940); and Helmer Ringgren, “‫גָּ ַאל‬,” TDOT 2:350–55. 10 See Lev 25:47–49. 11 Leviticus 25:47–55. 12 2 Samuel 14:4–11 and Deut 19:4–13; cf. Num 25:12–27 and Josh 20:2–9. 9

isaiah

113

ations that called for redemption as well.13 While the redemption of people is the focus for Second Isaiah’s metaphors, it is worth noting the diversity of objects of redemption elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible: physical property (like houses), land that has been sold or is otherwise in danger of being alienated from its owner,14 and cultic offerings could also be redeemed.15 The ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬may also have had other responsibilities that are not clearly laid out in the legal materials. In Prov 23:11, for example, the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬ appears to ensure justice for the wronged, in the context of a lawsuit (‫)ריב‬.16 Although the term ‫ גאל‬is not used in the prescription for levirate marriage in Deut 25:5–10, ‫ גאל‬is frequently employed in the book of Ruth to describe a comparable institution, the obligation of a widow’s husband’s next-of-kin to redeem her and her father-inlaw’s land; within the book, the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬appears to have the right both to redeem the kinsman’s land and to marry his widow. Other functions of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, either concrete or associative, may also be evident in other narrative elements of the book. Through Boaz’s redemptive action, which is described using the root ‫( גאל‬Ruth 3:13), the widow is married, the impoverished one gains financial stability, the hungry are fed, the maidservant is released, the foreigner is naturalized, and the childless woman bears a child. Ruth, her dead husband, Naomi, and, according to the genealogy at the end of the book, even the house of David are, so to speak, redeemed. In this remarkable conflation of redemptive acts, Boaz functions as ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬on a variety of fronts. While the reader who scans the book of Ruth in search of a precise legal formulation of the responsibilities of the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬may find only a suggestive cluster of elements, it is possible that the various facets of the role were recognized by author and audience and also that these realms were understood as overlapping and interrelated. Isaiah, too, displays a similarly multifarious understanding of the redemption that Yhwh offers. Within Isa 54:5 alone, for example, Yhwh is identified

13 See, for example, the redemption of the firstborn (Exod 13); the provision of a guilt-offering on behalf of one who has sinned (Num 5:8); and the redemption of the Israelite condemned to die because his ox has gored someone to death (Exod 21:29–30). 14 Leviticus 25:23–34; see Jer 32:6–15, esp. v. 7, where Jeremiah redeems his uncle Hanamel’s field to prevent it from being sold; and Ruth 4:4–9, where Boaz and a more closely related kinsman-redeemer negotiate the redemption of Elimelech’s property. 15 Leviticus 27:13, 15, 19, 27, 31, 33. 16 In Jer 50:34; Ps 119:54; and Lam 3:58, Yhwh takes on this role.

114

chapter three

simultaneously as Israel’s husband, maker, and redeemer. Both of these are examples of texts that evoke more complex “systems of associations” than a static notion of metaphor might allow. Of the two verbs that are usually translated “to redeem,” ‫ גאל‬and ‫פדה‬, Second Isaiah displays a strong preference for ‫גאל‬, most likely because it carries the connotation of kinship, which is not present in the roughly synonymous ‫פדה‬.17 The verb ‫ פדה‬appears twice in First Isaiah (1:27; 29:22). It also appears in Isa 35:9–10, but Isa 35 is often reckoned to be the work of Second Isaiah, or of someone very familiar with his style.18 In fact, Isa 35:9b–10 is nearly identical with 51:10bß–11, which marks the only appearance of ‫ פדה‬in Isa 40–55; it is absent from Isa 56–66. By contrast, ‫ גאל‬appears seventeen times in Isa 40–55, though only five times in Isa 56–66.19 The near-total absence of ‫פדה‬ from both Second and Third Isaiah seems to be deliberate, because ‫ גאל‬and ‫ פדה‬appear elsewhere in biblical poetry as a parallelistic word pair (Jer 31:11; Hos 13:14; Ps 69:19 [Eng. 69:18]). Here, the verbs are associated only in the doublet in Isa 35:9b–10 and 51:10bß–11.20 Second Isaiah may prefer the term ‫ גאל‬because of its kinship associations.21 By couching the divine action in this term, however, Second 17 Whether Second Isaiah inherited and modified a preexilic notion of Yhwh as the redeemer of Israel depends on the dating of Gen 48:16, which Stuhlmueller dates early, and of certain Psalms (69, 77, 78, 106; see Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption, 99–104, 273). 18 There is some debate over whether Isa 35 should be attributed to the author of chs. 40–55, 40–66, or 56–66. For an overview, see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 42–46, who prefers to see Isa 34–35 as “an exegetical development elaborated on the basis of both 40–55 and the material in 1–33.” 19 ‫ גאל‬appears in Isa 41:14; 43:1, 14; 44:6, 22, 23, 24; 47:4; 48:17, 20; 49:7, 26; 51:10; 52:3, 9; 54:5, 8; 59:20; 60:16; 62:12; and 63:9, 16. 20 Strictly speaking, only in 35:9b–10a (“and the redeemed ones will walk, and the ones ransomed by Yhwh will return”) do the verbs appear in syntactically parallel constructions. In 51:10–11, the verbs appear in successive, as opposed to parallel, clauses:

‫ השמה מעמקי ים דרך לעבר גאולים‬. . . ‫הלוא את היא‬ . . . ‫ופדויי יהוה ישובון ובאו ציון ברנה‬

“Was it not you [i.e., the arm of Yhwh] . . . who turned the depths of the sea into a road for the redeemed to cross over? And the ransomed of Yhwh will return and enter Zion with a shout . . . . ” 21 Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah, 105–22. To be sure, ‫גאל‬ is not inevitably paired with ‫( פדה‬e.g., Ps 103:4; 106:10), but the prevalence of ‫ גאל‬without ‫ פדה‬in Second Isaiah is striking. In comparing the original meanings of the two roots, which are already synonymous in Hos 13:14, Stamm argues that both are legal terms but that ‫ פדה‬was a strictly commercial term (see Exod 21:8, 30; Lev 19:20; Job 6:23) and ‫ גאל‬was used in situations where a familial relationship obligated the redeemer (see Erlösen und Vergeben im Alten Testament, 1–46, esp. 27–46).

isaiah

115

Isaiah links the notion of Yhwh as divine kinsman with the action of redemption through exodus. That is, the use of ‫ גאל‬also contributes to the prophet’s depiction of the return from exile as akin to Israel’s other great, paradigmatic return, the exodus from Egypt. This is evident in the passage considered above, 48:20–21: “Go forth (‫ )צאו‬from Babylon, flee (‫ )ברחו‬from the Chaldeans” (48:20), in which ‫ יצא‬and ‫ ברח‬recall Yhwh’s liberation of the Israelites from Egypt (see Exod 11:8; 12:31, 41; 13:3–4, 8; 19:1; and Ps 114:1). Yhwh quenches the Israelites’ thirst (‫ )ולא צמאו‬in the desert (‫בחרבות‬, which also evokes Horeb) by bringing forth water from the split rock (‫מים מצור הזיל למו ויבקע צור ויזבו‬ ‫מים‬, 48:21).22 The verb ‫ גאל‬also appears in passages that evoke the exodus in Isa 43:1–3b and, in Third Isaiah, in 63:9. Second Isaiah’s association of ‫ גאל‬with the exodus is striking because the connection is not frequently made elsewhere. In Deuteronomy, for example, ‫ פדה‬is repeatedly used in reference to the exodus (7:8; 9:26; 13:6; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18). A few psalms use ‫ גאל‬in connection with the exodus (Ps 74:2; 77:16 [Eng. 77:15]; 78:35; 106:10). In the book of Exodus itself, ‫ גאל‬appears just twice. Within the Priestly announcement of Israel’s liberation in Exod 6, Yhwh promises, “I will bring you out (‫ )יצא‬from the heavy labor of Egypt and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will redeem (‫ )גאל‬you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment” (v. 6). The verbs ‫ יצא‬and ‫ גאל‬are both found in Isa 48:20, although not in parallel constructions as in the Priestly text. Second Isaiah resonates more closely with the second occurrence of ‫ גאל‬in Exodus, in the Song of the Sea. Exodus 15:13 describes the redemption of the Israelites thus: ‫נחית בחסדך עם זו גאלת נהלת בעזך‬ ‫אל נוה קדשך‬, “In your steadfast love, you led the people whom (‫)עם זו‬ you redeemed (‫ ;)גאל‬by your strength, you guided them to your holy abode.” In this verse and again in 15:16, the song contains two examples of a distinctive formulation, ‫עם זו‬, “the people whom,” which uses the rarer form of the relative pronoun: ‫עם זו גאלת‬, “the people whom you redeemed” (v. 13) and ‫עם זו קנית‬, “the people whom you

I would add that while roughly synonymous with ‫ גאל‬in later usage, ‫פדה‬, particularly in earlier texts, does not imply the family bond that ‫ גאל‬does, and that it is precisely this bond on which the responsibility to redeem is predicated. This dimension of ‫גאל‬ resonates in Second Isaiah’s poetry and may have led him to prefer the term over ‫פדה‬. 22 Cf. Exod 17:1–7 and Ps 78:15–20.

116

chapter three

acquired” (v. 16). The verb ‫ קנה‬here has the sense of “acquire as a purchase,” which is roughly synonymous to ‫גאל‬. In Isa 43:20b–21, another text that characterizes the return according to the exodus of old, Isaiah approximates the Song of the Sea’s formulation: ‫כי נתתי‬

‫במדבר מים נהרות בישימן להשקות עמי בחירי עם זו יצרתי לי תהלתי‬ ‫יספרו‬, “For I gave water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert to give drink to my chosen people, a people whom (‫ )עם זו‬I fashioned (‫)יצרתי‬ for myself to declare my praise.” Second Isaiah describes Yhwh’s relationship to the people using ‫יצר‬, “to form, fashion,” which earlier had been used in parallel with ‫“( ברא‬to create,” 43:1); but ‫ יצר‬here may also be playing on the second sense of ‫קנה‬, which is “to create,” as in Gen 14:19 and Deut 32:6. Thus Second Isaiah’s ‫ עם זו יצרתי‬may be an allusion to (and riff on) ‫ עם זו קנית‬in the Song of the Sea. It is important to note that the overlapping associations of the language of return in the two systems considered thus far—manumission and the exodus—may also result from the ways in which the exodus tradition is itself framed in language that mirrors the law of the release of a debt slave, particularly as it is formulated in Exod 21:2–11. David Daube has argued that a number of verbal parallels between Israel’s legal tradition and the exodus account, including the use of ‫יצא‬, demonstrate a connection between Israel’s legal custom of slave release and the foundational account of its liberation. In his schema, the exodus account borrowed the language of the law of the Hebrew slave so as to “link” the exodus “to the norms of . . . eternal validity.”23 Indeed, the law of release may have been placed at the head of the Covenant Code to highlight the connection. In Isa 48:20–21, Yhwh acts both as the one who redeems Israel from Egypt and as the legally mandated kinsman-redeemer, and neither role is particularly distinct. Second Isaiah’s use of ‫גאל‬, then, evokes overlapping systems of associations—as redeemer from debt slavery (see also, 43:1–7), as redeemer from Egypt, and perhaps in other ways too—for example, as a husband

23 The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (All Souls Studies 2; London: Faber & Faber, 1963), 13. Daube’s verbal parallels are often tenuous and his schematization of the developing relationship between law and narrative is difficult to defend. In the case of ‫יצא‬, for example, he has isolated a term that appears in the Qal alone 781 times (Horst Preuss, “‫יָ ָצא‬,” TDOT 6:226), but opines that “the term is legal, borrowed by the story-tellers” (The Exodus Pattern in the Bible, 31). Nonetheless, Daube’s study is significant for noting anew how the legal language for owning and releasing a Hebrew slave is an integral part of the exodus pattern, and vice versa.

isaiah

117

who redeems by marriage (54:1–8). Indeed, the notion of Yhwh as a ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬who is capable of redeeming—and obligated to redeem—on a variety of levels is a fertile concept for the prophet. It generates a series of images that conjure the state of needing redemption, which serve as metaphorical descriptions of Israel’s status in exile: Israel is the debtor, the enslaved kinsman, the destitute and childless widow. Yhwh, acting as a ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, has the power to resolve all of these situations. These metaphorical descriptions of exile, each predicated on the activity of a ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, provide an overriding understanding of the exilic past: exile is the condition of needing redemption. The destitute woman, to delve into yet another of Second Isaiah’s metaphors for Israel, is a designation for the condition of the nation on the verge of redemption. In 49:14 Zion exclaims, “Yhwh has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me,” and she is described in vv. 20–21 as a woman who has lost her children. In 50:1–2, Yhwh disputes that he has “divorced” her, saying, “Where is your mother’s bill of divorce with which I put her away?” Isaiah 54:1–8 provides an extended and more evocative example of Israel portrayed as a destitute woman in need of the intervention of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬.24 The nation, addressed as a “barren woman who has not borne a child” and as an abandoned wife, is told to sing out with joy (54:1) because Yhwh will espouse and redeem (‫ )גאל‬her (54:5). It is worth noting that the condition that she is on the verge of exchanging—“the shame of your youth, the reproach of your widowhood” (‫ וחרפת אלמנותיך‬. . . ‫ בשת עלומיך‬in 54:4)—refers to the vulnerabilities of widowhood and of childlessness. In other words, in this particular passage, there is no suggestion that the source of the woman’s shame is waywardness, a motif in other prophetic passages such as Hos 1. In this regard, she is akin, rather, to Ruth, who was widowed before she bore a child, and to Rachel, the beloved but infertile wife of Jacob. The suggestion of Rachel is irrepressible, since the biography of her husband, Jacob, is elsewhere evoked within Second Isaiah’s poetry (41:8; 44:5, 21–22). The destitute wife in Isa 54:1–8 is told that she will forget the “reproach of your widowhood” (‫חרפת‬ ‫אלמנותיך‬, 54:4) in words akin to those uttered by Rachel at the birth

24 While the feminine address is convention for referring to the city, the use of this address in Isa 40:2 may also construct Israel as a destitute woman who is about to exchange her lowly status.

118

chapter three

of her first child: “God has removed my reproach” (‫אסף אלהים את‬ ‫חרפתי‬, Gen 30:23).25 In line with the multifarious capacities of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, then, exile in Second Isaiah came to be described by a series of images that signaled the need of individuals to be redeemed from their current plight. The notion of Yhwh as Israel’s ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬allows the prophet to promise redemption not only through the metaphor of slave release or of national servitude like that in Egypt, but through a number of other tropes, including kinsman-redeemer and participant in a ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬marriage. Indeed, the notion of the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬may even provide a sort of fulcrum for understanding the condition in which Israel finds itself. That is, once exile has been likened to the servitude in Egypt and to debt slavery, both of which require the intervention of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, exile can also be likened to the situation of anyone in need of a redeemer, such as the destitute woman who needs redemption through marriage. The overlapping images—exile as slavery, exile as bereavement—are tributaries to an overriding metaphor of redemption. Exile’s meaning, therefore, by virtue of the language used to describe it, has been extended to include a series of situations; the use of the concept of the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬facilitates the extension by drawing in the multifaceted capacities of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. Further, these images are not predicated on geographical dislocation, but on social dislocation; exile is described through metaphors for destitution, desolation, and desperate want. This feature of Second Isaiah’s poetry will prove fundamental to the reconceptualization of exile in Third Isaiah, in which exile becomes a metaphor for being in dire straits. Now that the network of imagery attached to the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬by Second Isaiah has been established, it is possible to take stock of the variety of images that appear at the very opening of the collection, in Isa 40:1–2. These verses prepare the hearer to appreciate the multiple levels of redemption that Yhwh was enacting as ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, and they lay the ground-

25 The depiction of Woman Zion and her children is not consistent across Second Isaiah. In 50:1 and 51:20, Zion has children, but they are in a dire condition. In 54:1–8, however, Zion is not able to bear children, as v. 1 indicates: ‫לא ילדה‬, “she did not bear.” While the modern connotation of infertility is the inability to have a child (akin to 54:1), it is possible to harmonize these passages by appealing to another view of infertility as the lack of children—either because they have died or have never been born. See the discussion of Poem 6 in Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation in chapter 2 above, as well as Levenson’s discussion of biblical notions of fertility in Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel, esp. 108–22.

isaiah

119

work for an understanding of exile as a state from which one must be redeemed. In other words, Second Isaiah proposes that exile cannot be undone simply by a geographic transfer or by political change. To return from exile does not just mean a return to the homeland; it involves, rather, a re-creation, a new exodus, and a restored bond with Yhwh that is like a renewed marriage. B. Isaiah 40:1–2 ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ַ ֹ ‫ נַ ֲחמוּ נַ ֲחמוּ ַﬠ ִמּי י‬1 ‫יה ִכּי‬ ָ ‫רוּשׁ ַלםִ וְ ִק ְראוּ ֵא ֶל‬ ָ ְ‫ל־לב י‬ ֵ ‫ ַדּ ְבּרוּ ַﬠ‬2 :‫יכם‬ ‫יה׃‬ ָ ‫את‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ל־חטּ‬ ַ ‫ָמ ְל ָאה ְצ ָב ָאהּ ִכּי נִ ְר ָצה ֲﬠו ֺנָ הּ ִכּי ָל ְק ָחה ִמיַּ ד יְ הוָ ה ִכּ ְפ ַליִ ם ְבּ ָכ‬ 1 2

Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and announce to her that her time of service26 is fulfilled, that her punishment for guilt is accepted, that she has received from Yhwh’s hand double for all her sins. (Isa 40:1–2)

Second Isaiah opens with a description of Israel’s condition that is structured in three distinct ‫ כי‬clauses: ‫כי מלאה צבאה כי נרצה עונה כי‬ ‫לקחה מיד יהוה כפלים בכל חטאתיה‬, “that her time of service is fulfilled, that her punishment for guilt is accepted, that she has received from Yhwh’s hand double for all her sins.”27 Each clause, while participating to a lesser or greater degree in an economic metaphor, participates in other systems of association that can be used to describe the exilic situation. The end result is a metaphorically layered description of exile that identifies its basic feature as the need for redemption.

26 ‫ צבא‬is usually a masculine noun but here takes a feminine form of the verb, ‫מלאה‬. In Dan 8:12, ‫ צבא‬also takes a feminine form of the verb (‫)וצבא תנתן‬, which

suggests some variation in the gender of the noun. Parallelism between this and the following strophe further argues for retaining ‫ צבא‬as the subject; ‫ צבאה‬is the subject of ‫מלאה‬, just as ‫ עונה‬provides the subject for ‫נרצה‬. As they now stand, the end of each ‫ כי‬clause rhymes; it is possible that this literary flourish influenced the choice of the feminine singular form of ‫מלאה‬. Cf. Tg. Ps.-Jon., which solves the problem in a different manner, by positing Jerusalem as the subject—‫ארי עתידא דתתמלי מעם‬ ‫גלותהא‬. See n. 2 above. 27 Strictly speaking, the three ‫ כי‬clauses are of unequal length; the first two are similar in length, but the third is almost twice as long. Phonetically, however, 40:2 contains four strophes, each prefaced with ki- or kî. The first two ‫ כי‬clauses are shorter and the second two (an actual ‫ כי‬clause and then a strophe beginning ‫כפלים‬, which starts out sounding like a ‫ כי‬clause) are somewhat longer, but balanced.

120

chapter three

In the first ‫ כי‬clause, the prophet describes the preceding period of Israel’s history as ‫צבא‬, which means “military service,” “compulsory labor,” or “servitude.”28 The term is not directly connected to debt slavery. In Job 7:1, however, ‫ צבא‬is compared to ‫ימי שכיר‬, “the time of a hired laborer,” which evokes the law of the Jubilee Year. In Lev 25:50, ‫כימי שכיר‬, “like the time of a hired laborer,” appears in the legal discussion of how and when impoverished kin are to be redeemed from slavery or set free in the Jubilee Year, although there is no use of the term ‫צבא‬. The law both acknowledges pernicious social and economic inequalities and provides utopian measures for overcoming those circumstances. Only if read in light of the realities discussed in Lev 25 does the term ‫ צבא‬in Isa 40:2 suggest that exile could be understood as a term of service, a form of debt slavery, that has now been completed. The word may simply mean a more generic kind of “servitude” of long duration, as it does in Job 14:14. In the second ‫ כי‬clause, the poet proclaims that, as a result of exile, the punishment for Israel’s guilt (‫ )עון‬has been settled (‫)נרצה‬. The meanings of both ‫ עון‬and ‫ נרצה‬have been vigorously debated and, indeed, the meaning of each depends on the other. ‫ עון‬figures frequently in Isa 40–5529 and the other exilic and postexilic prophets. In Isa 43:24, ‫ עון‬appears in parallelism with ‫חטאת‬, “sin,” and in 50:1 and 53:5 with ‫פשע‬, “transgression.” Thus, here in 40:2, ‫ עון‬may also take the meaning it frequently has in Isaiah and in the wider Hebrew Bible, “iniquity.” Because of its relationship to ‫נרצה‬, however, which in the Niphal means “to be accepted,” ‫ עון‬appears to mean more precisely “the consequence of, punishment for iniquity.” This meaning for ‫עון‬

28 ‫ צבא‬can mean “military service” (see Num 31) or “cultic service” (see Num 4), but it is unlikely that it does here, given the lack of a sustained military or cultic metaphor for exile. LXX Isa 40:2 has ταπείνωσις, “humiliation,” most commonly used for ‫עני‬, “affliction.” This is the only instance where ‫ צבא‬is rendered in this way in LXX; either LXX transposed ‫ עון‬from the following strophe and then understood it as a form of ‫ עני‬or the choice is exegetical: the translators found the standard Greek for ‫ צבא‬wanting; similarly, the Targum opts for ‫גלות‬. 29 Notwithstanding the frequency of its occurrence, ‫ עון‬has a specific purpose here in 40:2. Roy F. Melugin has noted that the use of ‫ עון‬in 40:2 evokes 1:4, ‫הוי גוי חטא‬ ‫עם כבד עון‬, “Ah, sinful nation, people laden with iniquity.” (Note the similar pairing of ‫ עון‬with ‫ חטא‬in 1:4 and ‫ חטאת‬in 40:2.) But while in Isa 1 the term was used as part of an accusation against the people, the point in Isa 40 is that the punishment that was due to the people according to First Isaiah, while initially and temporarily averted, is now completed (The Formation of Isaiah 40–55 [BZAW 141; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976], 177–78). See also Christopher Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109 (1990): 229–47.

isaiah

121

is attested elsewhere: when ‫ רצה‬is used with ‫ עון‬in the covenant curses of Lev 26:41 and 43 to describe how Israel will accept the punishment of its iniquity (‫ירצו את עונם‬, Niphal of ‫)רצה‬,30 it refers to exile as part of that punishment for iniquity.31 Translators who have interpreted ‫ צבא‬as an economic metaphor in the first ‫ כי‬clause read that metaphor as extending into the second, ‫כי נרצה עונה‬. Klaus Baltzer’s translation is an example of this tendency: “Truly, paid off is her indebtedness.”32 In this translation, ‫עון‬ is rendered “debt,” which in turn is a metaphor for sin. Indeed, there is a literary relationship between this clause and the one that precedes it, which suggests a tight parallelism: not only are they structurally similar, but also each of their three words rhymes—‫כי מלאה צבאה כי‬ ‫נרצה עונה‬. If these syntactically parallel clauses are also semantically parallel, then the servitude, ‫צבא‬, seems to have satisfied the guilt debt, much as the labor of a slave satisfies his debt, as in the pentateuchal slavery laws. The logic is somewhat circular. This economic translation of the phrase finds support among those who posit a distinct, homonymous lexeme, ‫ רצה‬II, which is more overtly economic in nuance: “to be paid, settled, forgiven.”33 Job 14:6 exhibits this economic sense of ‫רצה‬, when the hired laborer “completes” (‫ )רצה‬his day. ‫ כי נרצה עונה‬in Isa 40:2, however, does not require this economic connotation, which is better attested in Mishnaic

30

Levine argues that Lev 26 borrows from Isa 40:2 (Leviticus, 279); Milgrom’s larger argument for Second Isaiah’s borrowing from Leviticus is more compelling (Leviticus 23–27, 2333). 31 Scholars have debated whether the idiom in Lev 26:41 and 43 means that “the survivors” (Lev 26:33) will “make amends,” implying some sort of action on their part (so Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus [OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 429–31), or that they will, more passively, “accept their punishment” (so Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2333). Milgrom’s appears to be a theologically driven translation, based on the insistence that Israel “must wait passively [emphasis his] until the punishment is paid in full” (Leviticus 23–27, 2333). The question is relevant, too, even in the Niphal of Isa 40:2. Elsewhere, it is Yhwh who blots out the iniquity of Israel (Isa 43:25; 44:22; 48:9), and theological consistency would suggest that God has accepted Israel’s punishment and thus rendered it null and void in Isa 40:2; see Jan L. Koole, Isaiah 40–48 (vol. 1 of Isaiah III; HCOT; trans. Anthony P. Runia; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 54. 32 Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (ed. Peter Machinist; trans. Margaret Kohl; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 49. 33 ‫ נרצה‬is sometimes taken as deriving from ‫ רצה‬II, when that verb is divided into two lexemes, as in HALOT; ‫ רצה‬II is defined as “to pay, receive back, satisfy, atone” and is usually taken as the root in Isa 40:2 (and Lev 26:34, 41, 43).

122

chapter three

Hebrew.34 Nowhere else in MT does ‫ עון‬mean an economic debt. Further, ‫ רצה‬I, which frequently describes the reception of a sacrifice rather than the payment of a debt, provides a suitable meaning for ‫ נרצה‬in this context. The conjunction of ‫ עון‬and ‫ רצה‬also appears in Lev 26 (especially vv. 41 and 43), suggesting that the idiom can function outside a purely economic sphere to refer to the satisfaction of a punishment—and indeed, in Lev 26, it functions to describe the resolution of the curse of exile. The phrase can thus be translated, “her punishment is accepted,” meaning that the exile was suffered as punishment. Freed from the undue influence of the first ‫ כי‬clause, ‫נרצה‬ ‫ עונה‬does not stand exclusively as an economic metaphor, even if the phrase has economic connotations. In the third ‫ כי‬clause, ‫כי לקחה מיד יהוה כפלים בכל חטאתיה‬, exile is described in legal terminology, which again may be read in an economic sense to refer to debt satisfaction.35 This sense is suggested by ‫כפלים‬, which is often understood as a synonym for ‫ משנה‬as found in Deuteronomy’s law regarding debt slavery (15:18), where it means “an equivalent of ” or “of identical value to.”36 Debt satisfaction may also be suggested by the use here of the idiom ‫לקח מיד‬, which has a plain sense of “to take from the hand” or “to receive,” but also figures in contractual obligations of a more economic sort.37 The expression also has cultic connotations, however, that may not be easily separated from its contractual sense.38

34 See Hans Barstad on the possibility that the putative ‫ רצה‬II is in fact simply a later manifestation of ‫ רצה‬I and that in Isa 40:2 it means that her iniquity has been forgiven or expiated (“‫ ָר ָצה‬,” TDOT 13:624). 35 Although this clause is often taken as subordinate to the second (see most recently NJPS), its feminine verb form suggests that it is parallel. Criticisms that it is overly long in comparison to the previous ‫ כי‬clauses fail to take into account its phonetic structure, which incorporates two ki-/kî sounds. See n. 27 above. 36 See Matitiahu Tsevat, “Alalakhiana,” HUCA 29 (1958): 109–36, esp. 125–26; and more recently, idem, “The Hebrew Slave According to Deuteronomy 15:12–18,” JBL 113 (1994): 587–95; see also Gerhard von Rad, “‫ ִכּ ְפ ַליִ ם‬in Jes 40:2 = Äquivalent?” ZAW 79 (1967): 80–82. 37 In Gen 21:30, Abimelech takes the seven ewe lambs and is obligated to recognize Abraham’s possession of the well at Beersheva; in Gen 32:14 and 33:10, Jacob prepares a consolation gift for Esau, to be accepted from his hand, which may obligate Esau; in Gen 38:20, the pledge of Judah is to be received from the hand of Tamar; and in 1 Sam 12:3–4, the idiom refers to accepting a bribe. 38 The priest accepts offerings for Yhwh from the hands of the people in Exod 29:25 and Num 5:25; in Judg 13:23, Yhwh is the subject of the idiom.

isaiah

123

It has also been proposed that ‫ כפלים‬can here be understood as “double,” because of the use of ‫ כפל‬as “double” in Job 41:5 and because of its related verbal root, meaning “to double” in Exod 26:9; 28:16; and 39:9 (twice).39 Some exegetes object to this translation because they find the notion of Yhwh extracting a double penalty theologically unpalatable.40 The multiplication of punishment, however, can be found in Lev 26:18, 21, 24 and 28, all of which talk of punishing Israel sevenfold for her sins.41 Isaiah 61:7 and 65:6–7 also reflect the notion of a double punishment. And Isa 40:2 may here be alluding to Jer 16:18, which speaks of a double payment for sin.42 The problem is that, while both texts use ‫ עון‬and ‫חטאת‬, Jer 16:18 uses ‫ משנה‬and Isa 40:2 uses ‫ ;כפלים‬if Isa 40:2 does allude to Jer 16:18, then, as Sommer points out, Second Isaiah has read ‫ עון‬in Jeremiah, where it means “iniquity,” as “punishment.” Thus, while Jer 16:18 uses ‫ משנה‬and although the term may be conceptually linked with ‫כפלים‬, the verse cannot conclusively fix its meaning. Two possibilities remain, neither of which can be ruled out: the language of Isa 40:2 may be quantitative (“double”), as in Jer 16:18 or it may allude to the institution of debt slavery (“an equivalent of ”), as in Deut 15:18. To sum up: Isa 40:1–2 describes exile in language drawn from a number of different realms—debt slavery, sin and punishment, and economic exchange. It is notable that the language alludes to multiple systems of association: exile is a term of servitude, a debt that needed to be paid; it is the punishment for a sin that needed to be expiated, an iniquity that requires a penalty. These systems of association may have overlapped and cohered in the mind of the poet, but nonetheless a variety of images are being evoked in this preliminary description of exile. Right from the start of the collection, Second Isaiah draws on numerous conceptual registers to describe exile. It is possible, however, to read the three ‫ כי‬clauses as facets of a single economic metaphor that renders Israel’s sinful past as a state

39 Further, Isaiah’s use of ‫כפלים‬, instead of alluding to Deuteronomy’s slave law, may be understood as an allusion to Jer 16:18, which speaks of a double payment for sin. A related proposal suggests that ‫ כפלים‬signifies that Jerusalem has paid her debt twice over—with interest, as it were, as was required of a thief (cf. ‫ שנים‬in Exod 22:3, 6, 8). 40 See, for example, Koole, Isaiah III, 1:54–55. 41 Daniel 9 may also appeal to this principle of sevenfold punishment in its reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s seventy years as “seventy weeks of years.” 42 Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 57–58.

124

chapter three

of indebtedness that needs to be worked off. Baltzer applies a systematic economic interpretation to these verses, as well as other passages in Second Isaiah, arguing that the slavery to which the poetry refers is, more specifically, debt slavery. He is not the only scholar to make this case, although he has presented a more closely reasoned historical reconstruction in its defense. For Baltzer the use of ‫ פדה‬in Isa 51:11 (“and the ones ransomed by Yhwh shall return”) is important for establishing the “concrete” dimension of the experience, the release of debt slaves. Yet, as noted above, this is the single occurrence of ‫פדה‬ in Second Isaiah, and it is closely linked with ‫גאל‬: those “ransomed by Yhwh” are identical with the “redeemed ones” of the preceding (although not parallel) clause in v. 10. In light of the more frequent use of ‫ גאל‬in Second Isaiah, the significance that Baltzer attributes to the sole occurrence of ‫ פדה‬in Isa 40–55 appears overstated. Baltzer further regards Isa 40:1–2 as addressing those who are economically enslaved or indebted in Jerusalem, rather than the exiles in Babylon.43 Reading Isa 40:1, “Comfort, comfort (‫ )נחם‬my people,” alongside 52:9, “Yhwh has comforted (‫ )נחם‬his people, he has redeemed (‫ )גאל‬Jerusalem,” Baltzer argues that the comfort Second Isaiah announces should be understood specifically as an economic release, because ‫ נחם‬and ‫גאל‬, which he reads in an economic sense, are here parallel. He downplays the multifarious uses of ‫ גאל‬in Second Isaiah and relies on the economic model of “redemption” as the hermeneutical key. In Isa 40:1, where ‫ נחם‬but not ‫ גאל‬occurs, Baltzer argues that the liberation from debt slavery is suggested by the terms ‫ צבא‬and ‫( רצה‬which he translates as “to satisfy a debt,” i.e., as ‫ רצה‬II). To equate the comfort expressed in Isa 40:1 with the return from exile, he claims, is to fail to reckon with the “concrete” dimension of the language in which Isaiah casts the comfort. For Baltzer this situation refers to the kind of economic impoverishment that Yehud experienced in the restoration period, attested in Neh 5:1–13. As will become clear in the discussion of Third Isaiah later in this chapter, the social and geographical context that Baltzer proposes for 40:1–2 is better suited to Isa 56–66, in which the prophet addresses his own people regarding oppression, often of an economic source, within Yehud. He 43

Klaus Baltzer, “Liberation from Debt Slavery after the Exile in Second Isaiah and Nehemiah,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 477–84; and idem, DeuteroIsaiah, 49–53 and 361–62.

isaiah

125

regards Isa 40:1–2 as addressing those who are economically enslaved or indebted in Jerusalem, rather than the exiles in Babylon. Baltzer is right to stress how the language of Isa 40:1–2 recalls the larger legal tradition on the treatment of debt slaves. As noted above, the language that Second Isaiah uses to describe exile does have points of contact with the language of debt slavery. The question is whether that language should be read literally or metaphorically. And this question is intimately bound up with the question of the date of Second Isaiah. Baltzer’s poet wrote in the fifth century b.c.e., close to the time of Nehemiah and long after the initial return of the exiles. The view taken here is that Second Isaiah was written nearer the time of Cyrus’s proclamation, and that geographical exile was the tenor of the prophet’s message. This is not to deny that poverty was an issue in late-sixth-century Israel, but rather to propose that in Second Isaiah this language was used to describe the return from exile, the prophet’s prime concern, metaphorically. Writing at a unique historical moment, the poet is reaching for metaphors much in the way that the first poem of the Book of Consolation was grasping for words to describe the events of the earlier part of the sixth century: “There is nothing like it” (Jer 30:7). A literal, economic reading, grounded in a fifth-century context, fails to appreciate the imaginative effort represented by the poet’s words in Isa 40:1–2. Indeed, the language brought to bear on the phenomenon of exile throughout Second Isaiah is significant precisely because it cannot be collapsed into a single, coherent promise to deliver the poor from debt slavery.44 Rather, the release promises redemption on a variety of fronts, all of which can be delivered by the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. The announcement of redemption is built on terms that describe the exile as slavery, as in Isa 48:20–21, but those terms simultaneously evoke other systems of association and harness them to the idea of exile. The very use of three distinct ‫ כי‬clauses in 40:2, each of which alludes to Israel’s dire condition by using language with a range of meanings, suggests that there were a variety of ways of describing exile—for example, as a punishment for iniquity, or as a debt to be paid. In fact, the opening phrase of the verse—‫דברו על לב ירושלם‬, “speak tenderly to 44

Baltzer also does not adequately account for the dimension of geographical restoration—the references to those abroad streaming back to Jerusalem—that is essential to the language of economic restoration. Again, this is because he places chs. 40–55 later in the Second Temple period.

126

chapter three

Jerusalem”—introduces yet another system of associations. The phrase calls to mind the language of courtship (cf. Hos 2:16 [Eng. 2:14] and Gen 34:3) and further suggests that the restoration can be understood as a renewal of the bond between Yhwh and Woman Jerusalem. At this point, it is possible to draw a comparison between the ways in which Second Isaiah renders exile and the ways in which the Book of Consolation does. Both use multiple metaphors for exile, and both are recycling earlier traditions in their own distinct formulation. That said, the ways in which these metaphors are generated—the relationship between the older tradition and the new impulse—differ. The Book of Consolation incorporates not only older traditions, but also preexistent literary compositions. By contrast, Second Isaiah reaches back toward a larger tradition of Yhwh’s redemption that begins with the exodus; the liberation from Egypt provides the exegetical kernel that yields Isaiah’s more ramified system for expressing the many ways in which Yhwh functions as ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. To conclude, the language of debt slavery in Isa 40:1–2 prepares the hearer for the notion of Yhwh as ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, Redeemer of Israel.45 The counterpart to those verses occurs at the end of the literary unit Isa 40–48. In Isa 48:20–21, the prophet anchors the release announced in Isa 40:1–2 in the return from Babylon (Isa 48:20), and it is the end of exile, not economic justice, that is the referent for the metaphors of liberation in Isa 40:1–2. In Isa 40–48, the slave imagery nascent in Isa 40:2 is developed and attached to the larger pattern of slave release, one of the capacities (and obligations) of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. The identity of Yhwh as Israel’s ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬proves fundamental to understanding the description of exile in Isa 40:1–2, and in much of the rest of the collection as well. The variety of ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬images was an important part of the process of exile’s metaphorization, whereby Second Isaiah conveys not only that the return from exile is a new exodus, but, finally, that exile is the existential state of one who is in need of redemption. Second Isaiah may have imagined Israel as debt slaves because the metaphor adequately describes the condition of exile. Debt slaves are alienated from their land in that they no longer possess it; they have lost their ancestral and divinely apportioned relationship to the land. It is worth noting, however, that in marked contrast to the exile, the debt slave might not be physically removed from the land; the debt

45

See Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah, 99–131.

isaiah

127

slave could end up working his own land, even if it was now held by his creditor. Further, the language of debt slavery is additionally evocative because of the associations that come bundled with the notion of needing a ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. Jerusalem, the destitute woman, finds her consolation too in the promised activity of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. Indeed, this is part of the potency of the promise. The announcement of Yhwh’s role as ‫ג ֵֹאל‬ implies that Israel is in need of redemption, even as the prophet promises redemption is on its way. III. Exile and Death The preceding survey of the range of metaphors that invoke Yhwh as a ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬indicates that, as rendered by Second Isaiah, exile is a dire condition resolved through an act of divine redemption. Exile is compared to the situation of a destitute bereaved woman, recalling the narrative example of the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬in the Book of Ruth, and to that of the debt-slave languishing without hope of release, drawing upon the more conventional definition of the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬that is found in the legal materials. Each of these metaphors conveys a form of abject social suffering that requires the intervention of a ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. Conceptually, by virtue of being associated with these states of needing a ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, exile takes on the patina of these systems of association—bereavement, debt, and servitude. In emphasizing such social suffering, the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬metaphors implicitly understand exile as signifying something beyond physical dislocation. Indeed, the metaphors highlight particularly those aspects of exile that are not geographically bound. Second Isaiah constructs other images of exile, too. These images also contribute to the geographically nonspecific depiction of exile as a dire situation that awaits intervention. Individuals trapped in such situations cry out, again within a variety of different idioms, for some form of deliverance. In two examples considered below, Isa 42:18–25 and 51:12–16, the prophet uses vivid metaphors to represent exile as a situation requiring aid. The metaphors suggest, on a basic level, that exile, as with the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬associations, was conceived as a desperate state of need. They describe exile as the state of being without a deliverer (‫ )מציל‬and as the condition of being hungry and imprisoned. Each of these renderings of exile communicates that it is a life-threatening situation; Yhwh’s act of returning the exiles will be like releasing a prisoner of war or like averting life-threatening hunger.

128

chapter three

This notion of exile as a dire condition, of course, is not unique to Second Isaiah. The brief survey of treaty curses in the introductory chapter showed that exile had early associations not only with the deprival of divine blessing, but also with death, i.e., hunger by starvation, deprival of the beneficence of the deity, the loss of children. Within Second Isaiah, similarly, images of exile convey that being without Yhwh’s redemption is akin to being extinguished. Death becomes the antipode of deliverance; thus, when exile is likened to a life-threatening situation, the associations for exile itself are expanded. Unlike the examples discussed above, the passages considered in this section do not refer to redemption as such; the verb ‫ גאל‬and the substantive ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬are absent. Both passages, however, appear to respond to community complaints about Yhwh’s inactivity. Thus, it may be that, because Second Isaiah is appropriating popular language as he constructs his response, he does not counter the charges against Yhwh by appealing to the language and institution of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. Still, these passages may share a model of redemption akin to those passages that invoke the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, without, however, using that term. And in any case, they contribute to the variety of images by which the prophet describes the exile, and in turn to the metaphorization of exile. These descriptions neither repeat nor replace the images tallied above; rather, they enrich the depiction of exile by pulling in new systems of association. A. Isaiah 42:18–25 In the first example, Isa 42:18–25, the prophet asserts, through a series of rhetorical questions, that Yhwh orchestrated devastation and exile because of the sin of Israel, who failed to keep the law (see particularly v. 24). Several of the assertions and the rhetorical questions that the prophet directs at the people appear not only to respond to, but to reflect, the substance of popular complaint—perhaps even reworking the very language of the grievances.46 These complaints may have 46 Westermann, drawing on the scholarship of James Muilenburg, argues that the passage is a disputation that contends with a cultic lament (Isaiah 40–66, 108–14). Melugin advances Westermann’s form-critical assertions: the imperatives that open the passage (‫ הביטו לראות‬. . . ‫שמעו‬, “Listen! Look up and see!” 42:18) suggest this is a disputation that urges the audience to a new understanding of their situation and comes to a climax with the final rhetorical question, which suggests that Yhwh orchestrated the exile due to Israel’s sin (The Formation of Isaiah 40–55, 41–43, 104). Sommer identifies vocabulary that 42:18–25 shares with 30:9–14 and argues that 42:18–25 alludes to the words of the earlier prophet; this would suggest that the present passage

isaiah

129

suggested, for example, that Yhwh was blind and deaf to the people’s suffering (vv. 18–19) and that Yhwh abandoned Israel or allowed her to be carried off into exile (v. 24). In this reading, Isaiah redirects the accusation that Yhwh is blind and deaf back to his people: ‫החרשים‬ ‫שמעו והעורים הביטו לראות‬, “Listen, you that are deaf! You that are blind, look up and see!” (v. 18). Isaiah counters the accusation that Yhwh was passive or powerless during the Babylonian victory over Israel: ‫מי נתן למשוסה יעקב וישראל לבזזים הלוא יהוה זו חטאנו לו‬, “Who gave Jacob to the spoiler47 and Israel to plunderers? Is it not Yhwh, against whom we sinned?” (v. 24). The passage as a whole seeks to challenge these popular understandings of the exile and of Yhwh’s response to the suffering of Israel.48 It may, therefore, contain two levels of description of the exile: Isaiah’s own depiction of the exile and, behind it, the intimation of a popular Judean conception. ‫וּב ָב ֵתּי ְכ ָל ִאים ָה ְח ָבּאוּ ָהיוּ ָל ַבז‬ ְ ‫חוּרים ֻכּ ָלּם‬ ִ ‫ם־בּזוּז וְ ָשׁסוּי ָה ֵפ ַח ַבּ‬ ָ ‫וְ הוּא ַﬠ‬ ‫וְ ֵאין ַמ ִצּיל ְמ ִשׁ ָסּה וְ ֵאין־א ֵֹמר ָה ַשׁב׃‬ But this is a people plundered and despoiled,49 ensnared50 in holes all of them and hidden in prisons; they have become plunder and there is no one to rescue, spoil51 and there is no one to say, “Restore!” (Isa 42:22)

In Isa 42:22, the prophet describes a people who are plundered and imprisoned, which makes a jarring contrast with the assertion of Yhwh’s righteousness and glorious teaching in the previous verse. The may be responding not to current popular complaint but to the tradition of First Isaiah (A Prophet Reads Scripture, 98–99). This is also possible, although the allusions are not decisive and do not account for the rhetorical questions in 42:18–25. 47 I prefer the Ketib ‫שׁוֹסה‬ ֶ ‫ ִל ְמ‬, “the spoiler” (from ‫שסה‬, as in v. 22), over the Qere ‫ ִל ְמ ִשׁ ָסּה‬, “to plundering” (from ‫)שסס‬, because of its parallelism with “plunderers.” 48 For another example of the prophet echoing a popular complaint about Yhwh’s role in the current situation in order to refute it, see Isa 40:27. 49 The terms for plunder and booty are also found in parallel in Jer 30:16, in the second poem of the Book of Consolation; there, too, the terms describe the situation of the exiles that Yhwh will overcome. 50 Hiphil infinitive absolute of ‫פחח‬, “to ensnare.” The form is unusual because this is the only attestation of ‫פחח‬, presumably a denominative verb from ‫פח‬, “bird trap”; indeed, LXX takes ‫ הפח‬to be the definite form of the noun (ἡ παγίς) rather than a verb. Furthermore, the form follows two participles and is followed by a finite verb; see Joüon §124q n. 4. Emending ‫ הפח‬to ‫ ֻה ַפחוּ‬, the Hophal perfect, resolves this issue (so BHS and Tg. Ps.-Jon.). 51 A -‫ ל‬may be implied before ‫ משסה‬because of its appearance in ‫ לבז‬in the previous line (GKC §119hh).

130

chapter three

language of v. 22—both its inclusivity (‫כלם‬, “all the people”) and its description of hard confinement—has troubled exegetes who have read the passage literally, since the situation described does not correspond to what is known of life in the Babylonian exile. Bernhard Duhm, for example, argued from this verse that Second Isaiah could not have lived in Babylon.52 A second solution takes the description as hyperbole. But this reading would undermine the power of the following promise of liberation, which in 43:1–7 is etched in the language of release and is inclusive, promising redemption to Jacob-Israel (see especially vv. 1, 3).53 In 42:22, Yhwh appears, rather, to echo a popular metaphoric description of exile—perfectly in keeping with the genre of Israel’s laments—and then, using the very terms of the lament, to contradict its claim through the disputation of Isa 42:18–25 and the promise of liberation in Isa 43:1–7. The popular complaint itself uses metaphor: the people are despoiled (‫שסס‬/‫ )שסה‬and plundered (‫ ;)בזז‬the latter verb is used primarily in reference to possessions,54 but may also apply to people, primarily women and children, being carried off as booty.55 At the close of the verse, the people themselves are called not captives, but plunder (‫ )היו לבז‬and spoil (‫)משסה‬. Through this language, which normally refers to material objects, Israel depicts the people’s situation metaphorically. In responding to their complaint, Isaiah initially fuels the anxiety of the people’s claim, building on their metaphor: ‫מי נתן למשוסה יעקב וישׂראל לבזזים הלוא יהוה‬, “Who gave Jacob to the plunderer and Israel to the spoilers? It was Yhwh!” (v. 24). Yes, says the prophet, the people are indeed like booty to be carried off, just as they claim, but it was Yhwh who sent Israel into exile, as if deliver-

52 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (HKAT 3.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), 293. 53 Isaiah 43:1 and 3 combine to describe Yhwh’s intervention in terms of ‫ גאל‬and ‫ ;ישע‬this association of ‫ גאל‬and ‫ ישע‬occurs elsewhere in both Second and Third Isaiah (49:26; 60:16; 63:9) and also in Ps 106:10. 54 When ‫ בזז‬is used, as it usually is, to refer the capture of goods, it is paired with verbs that refer to the capture of people, such as ‫שבה‬. For example, in Gen 34:29, ‫ שבו‬applies to ‫ואת כל טפם ואת נשיהם‬, “all their children and their wives,” and ‫ויבזו‬ applies to material goods in the house. 55 For example, Num 31:9 and Deut 20:14. In Isa 10:2, which castigates those whose practice makes the widows plunder and the orphans booty (‫אלמנות שללם ואת יתומים‬ ‫)יבזולהיות‬, the association of humans rather than material goods with ‫ שלל‬and ‫בזז‬ may provide the shock value of the accusation.

isaiah

131

ing goods into the hands of the enemy. Thus, before the promise of deliverance is fully articulated in 43:1–7, the prophet uses the language of popular discontent to assert the dehumanizing nature of exile. The language of imprisonment at the heart of 42:22 communicates the danger Israel faces in exile, separated from Yhwh’s deliverance. In the Hebrew Bible, life in prison is often associated with death, as in Pss 79:11 (“Let the groans of the prisoner come before you; according to your great power preserve those doomed to die”) and 102:20–21 [Eng. 102:19–20] (“From heaven Yhwh looked at the earth, to hear the groans of the prisoners, to set free those who were doomed to die”). Exile is thus likened to a life-threatening incarceration. The people in Isa 42:22 are described as “ensnared in holes” and “hidden in prisons.” The verb ‫פחח‬, “to ensnare,” appears only in this verse, but its relation to the noun ‫פח‬, “bird trap, snare,”56 suggests that the lives of the people are in danger.57 In Prov 7:23, for example, the fatal nature of the snare is clear: ‫כמהר צפור אל פח ולא ידע כי בנפשו הוא‬, “He is like a bird rushing to the snare (‫)פח‬. He does not know that it will cost him his life.” Furthermore, the people are trapped “in holes” (‫חוּרים‬ ִ ‫) ַבּ‬. Some texts that employ the by-form of this noun, ‫חֹר‬, suggest that it conveys a sense of endangerment. The closest parallel to Isa 42:22, which locates the captives “trapped in holes [‫חוּרים‬ ִ ‫ ] ַבּ‬. . . and hidden [‫חבא‬, Hophal] in prisons,” is found in 1 Sam 14:11: the Philistines who spot Jonathan and his armor-bearer cry, “The Hebrews are coming out of the holes [‫ ] ַהח ִֹרים‬in which they hid themselves [‫חבא‬, Hithpael]!”58 These “holes” are refuges associated with an urgent threat. Similarly, Job 30:1–8, in describing those “lacking in sense and respectability” (‫בני נבל גם בני בלי שם‬, v. 8), conveys their dire situation by noting that they settle “in holes in the ground” (‫ח ֵֹרי עפר‬, v. 6) and, finally, that they have been “scourged from the land” (‫נכאו מן הארץ‬, v. 8). Thus the metaphor of captivity in Isa 42 underlines the dire situation of the imprisoned exiles through the terms ‫ חור‬and ‫פחח‬.

See n. 50 above. See further Diether Kellermann, “‫ ַפח‬,” TDOT 11:513–16. The noun ‫ פח‬figures in individual calamity in Pss 119:110; 140:6 [Eng. 140:5]; 141:9; 142:4; Job 22:10; Prov 22:5; and Qoh 9:12, and also calamities of a national sort, specifically foreign oppression, in Josh 23:13 (cf. the climactic victory cry of Ps 124:7). This use of ‫ פח‬is found in First Isaiah, too, where it conveys national disaster (Isa 8:14) and worldwide crisis (Isa 24:17; cf. Jer 48:3). 58 1 Samuel 13:56 also describes the Israelites hiding in caves. 56 57

132

chapter three

The situation is all the more dire, according to the close of Isa 42:22, because the people perceive that no one will intervene on their behalf: there is no one to deliver them (‫ )ואין מציל‬and no one to proclaim, “Restore!” (‫)אין אמר השב‬.59 The absent deliverer is not termed a ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, but rather a ‫מציל‬. In biblical narrative, to be without a ‫ מציל‬is a sign of danger. In 2 Sam 14:4–7, when the wise woman of Tekoa spins her parable of two sons fighting each other in the field, she explains that because there was no deliverer (‫ואין מציל‬, 2 Sam 14:6), one slew the other. The peaceful and unsuspecting Laishites meet their doom at the hands of the Danites because they do not have a deliverer (‫ואין מציל‬, Judg 18:28); as the text explains, the Laishites did not have allies who could come to their aid. In the present context, the cry that Israel has no deliverer may well echo the popular complaint that they lacked a human deliverer—that is, a foreign military power—to come to their defense, or it may articulate their sense of having been abandoned by Yhwh, or both. The Hiphil form of ‫ נצל‬is also used to describe Yhwh as one who will deliver the people from the hands of their enemies (e.g., Judg 8:34). To be without such divine protection is to be in a uniquely vulnerable state (Pss 50:22; 71:11). The oracle of consolation that follows the disputation (Isa 43:1–7) challenges the notion that Israel lacks a deliverer. The imagery of the people as unredeemed booty in a foreign land and as prisoners languishing in captivity in 42:22 lays the groundwork for a bold assertion of Yhwh’s activity in 43:1–7. The prophet responds to the complaint that Israel is imprisoned and has no deliverer by declaring that Yhwh is about to redeem Israel (‫גאלתיך‬, 43:1). Now using the language of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, he identifies the state of being without a deliverer with the state of needing redemption. This change in the phrasing of the argument may reflect the prophet’s desire to respond to the popular lament on his own terms. In any case, the literary effect of this shift in terminology is to augment the metaphorical associations of exile. Even though the term ‫ גאל‬was not used in the complaint in Isa 42, the assurance that Yhwh has delivered the people is now, in 43:1, connected to the legal

59 Isaiah 43:8–13, which continues on the same themes as the present passage, builds toward Yhwh’s triumphant claim that “none can deliver from my hand” (‫ואין‬ ‫מידי מציל‬, v. 13), an inversion of the people’s claim in 42:22. And later, in Isa 50:2, Yhwh indeed scoffs at the notion that he lacks the divine power to deliver: ‫הקצור‬ ‫קצרה ידי מפדות ואם אין בי כח להציל‬, “Is my hand too short to redeem? Have I no power to deliver?”

isaiah

133

terminology of redemption (“I have redeemed you,” ‫)גאלתיך‬. The payment of ransom and the exchange of prisoners (“I have given Egypt as your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you,” Isa 43:3) is attached, in 43:2, to the notion of a new exodus, which is itself cast in with the law of slave release: “If you pass through waters, I am with you”; the familial relationship expressed in Isa 43:6, where Yhwh identifies Jacob-Israel as his “sons” and “daughters,” further suggests that Yhwh acts as a kinsman-redeemer. The promise of liberation in 43:1–7, then, reshapes the terminology of popular complaint to assert that Yhwh has redeemed his people. Through this act, that which had always belonged to Yhwh by virtue of creation (43:1) now belongs to Yhwh by virtue of redemption. In other words, while Yhwh’s initial dispute did not use ‫ גאל‬language, that dispute is resolved by the activity of Yhwh as the divine ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. Thus Second Isaiah has equated the activity of a ‫ מציל‬with that of a ‫ג ֵֹאל‬.60 In this important linking, Isaiah has connected the notion of exile as the dire state of being without a deliverer to the need for redemption that Yhwh the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬enacts. B. Isaiah 51:12–16 The metaphors of captivity deployed in Isa 42:22–43:7 are compelling within the larger context of Isa 40–55, because they tie into the prophet’s overarching theology of redemption, in which Yhwh redeems in myriad ways; they again suggest that exile is likened to a variety of forms of suffering. But their particular contribution is to add to the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬metaphors the associations of captivity in prison, which has dangerous implications. This threat is articulated in another way in Isa 51:12–16 where the lethal associations of the captivity metaphor, implicit in the language of imprisonment in Isa 42, are supplemented by the associations of the pit. In this passage, the prophet responds to the call, made in vv. 9–11, for “the arm of Yhwh” to awake and deliver Israel (using, in vv. 10–11, the potent pairing of ‫ פדה‬and ‫גאל‬, discussed above).61 Second Isaiah then alludes in vv. 13–14 to the state

60 These two are associated through more direct parallelism in Mic 4:19 and Exod 6:6. 61 See Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 40–55, 330–31), who sees in 51:9–52:6 a series of three apostrophes (each of which opens with an imperative, Isa 51:9–11, 17–20; 52:1–2) followed by a direct response from Yhwh (Isa 51:12–16, 21–23; 52:3–6).

134

chapter three

from which Judah will be delivered and, as in the verses considered above, the direness of their situation is affirmed. ‫ל־היּוֹם ִמ ְפּנֵ י ֲח ַמת ַה ֵמּ ִציק ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר כּוֹנֵ ן ְל ַה ְשׁ ִחית וְ ַאיֵּ ה‬ ַ ‫ וַ ְתּ ַפ ֵחד ָתּ ִמיד ָכּ‬. . . 13 :‫ ִמ ַהר צ ֶֹﬠה ְל ִה ָפּ ֵת ַח וְ לֹא־יָ מוּת ַל ַשּׁ ַחת וְ לֹא יֶ ְח ַסר ַל ְחמוֹ‬14 :‫ֲח ַמת ַה ֵמּ ִציק‬ 13

. . . You fear constantly all day long the fury of the oppressor, who is bent on destruction. But where is the fury of the oppressor? 14 The oppressed shall speedily be released; he shall not die, go down to the pit, he shall not want for bread. (Isa 51:13–14)

In vv. 13–14, Israel’s condition is described as portending certain death. This situation, however, does not refer exclusively to exile. While the opening strophe of the verse describes some form of liberation, the circumstances are not clear. Is this a literal release of a prisoner or, as Baltzer would have it, the release of a “nameless person enslaved for debt”?62 His rendering is possible, given the semantic range of ‫פתח‬. At the same time, however, the verses may be read as a metaphor for a physical return from exile, which is likened to a release from captivity. There are several verbal features that suggest that defeat and exile are a referent, even if they are not the only referent, for the metaphors of oppression in 51:13. First, the verbal stem of the term “the oppressor,” ‫המציק‬, appears in the predictions of Jer 19:9 and Deut 28:53–57, both of which forecast Judah’s military defeat and exile. The human identity of this oppressor is further confirmed by context, since the previous verse, v. 12, poses the rhetorical question, ‫מי את ותיראי מאנוש ימות‬, “Who are you, that you fear mortals who will die?” Second, the oppressor is bent on “destruction” (‫)השחית‬. Finally, v. 14a assures the Israelites that “the oppressed shall be speedily released,” ‫מהר צעה‬ ‫להפתח‬,63 with exile as the form of oppression from which Israel is to be released.64 62

Deutero-Isaiah, 361–62. The phrase is a difficult one to render because of uncertainty over how to translate ‫ צעה‬and the Niphal of ‫פתח‬, For an overview, see Jan L. Koole, Isaiah 49–55 (vol. 2 in Isaiah III; HCOT; trans. Anthony Runia; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 185. 64 The root ‫ צעה‬appears only here as “bent down,” in the sense of cowering. For this translation, see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 330 n. j; and Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL: Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 398. ‫ צעה‬appears in another sense in Isa 63:1, meaning “inclined forward in strength.” The verb ‫פתח‬, which in other binyanim can mean to open the bonds of prisoners and thus set them free, sug63

isaiah

135

The successive strophes of Isa 51:14b describe the situation of oppression using metaphors that liken exile to death. In a play on ‫ השחית‬in v. 13, Israel is assured, in v. 14b, ‫ולא ימות לשחת‬, “They will not die, go down to the pit.” This wordplay is possible, too, because semantically the pit, ‫שחת‬, has connotations of death and destruction. In Ezek 28:8, for example, the verb ‫ מות‬and the noun ‫ שחת‬are coupled in parallel: “to the pit they will throw you, and you will die.” Psalm 16:10 further indicates that ‫ שחת‬on its own is synonymous with Sheol and can function as a figure for death. The deathlike association of the state of needing deliverance is confirmed by a further association with hunger through the phrase, “he shall not want for bread,” ‫לא יחסר לחמו‬. Again, Baltzer reads this as a sign of poverty, but here too the hunger is also a metaphor for a broader want and need that is life-threatening. The metaphors in both Isa 42:18–25 and 51:12–16 extend the meaning of exile by suggesting that exile is the dire condition of living in an urgent and dangerous situation. Both metaphors rely on the basic notion of exile as a seizure or imprisonment by an enemy (cf. the English phrase “Babylonian captivity” and the Greek αἰχμαλωσία, “captivity”). Further, they broaden the meaning of exile as a whole by contributing new particulars to its system of associations. Thus the oppression described in these two passages can be identified with the distress of exile, but at the same time it evokes other states of need that are not contingent upon deportation and dispersal. The broadened language enabled the audience of these passages to identify those who require liberation not only with those outside the land, but also with those who remained behind. Because Second Isaiah rendered exile through a variety of metaphors as the state of needing deliverance, the prophet’s message of redemption could apply to those who identified with any of the forms of suffering described through the metaphors of dire need; in a curious twist, this identification could be literal as well as metaphorical. The prophet’s message would apply not only to those who were in exile in Babylonia, but also to those who remained behind in the Babylonian-controlled territory of Judah as well.

gests here that ‫ צעה‬may describe “one made to cower, one cowed by bondage and oppression.” ‫ פתח‬is used in this sense of releasing from bondage in the Hithpael in Isa 52:2 and in the Qal in Isa 14:7 (cf. the even more overtly metaphoric sense in the Piel in Isa 58:6). In all three cases, however, there is an accompanying noun for “the bond” or “fetter” that is being opened, and nowhere in MT is the Niphal used in this sense.

136

chapter three IV. Exile and the Mission of the Servant

Bernhard Duhm’s terse proposal, in his 1892 commentary, that Isa 56–66 was a coherent literary work by a figure distinct from Second Isaiah dominated much of the subsequent critical scholarship on the relationship between Isa 40–55 and 56–66.65 The regnant hypothesis became that, while Isa 40–55 was written in Babylon, Isa 56–66 was written in Jerusalem by a different author later in the postexilic period, the so-called Third Isaiah.66 The proposal that Third Isaiah was a figure distinct from Second Isaiah always had its critics.67 Some, like Charles C. Torrey, minimized historical and literary differences between Isa 40–55 and 56–66. Others, while regarding Isa 56–66 as a distinct composition, argued that it was the work of Second Isaiah at a later date. For example, Menahem Haran argued that chapters 40–48 were written by the author in Babylon and that chapters 49–66 were written upon his return to the land. He accounted for the shifting concerns between the outset of Second Isaiah and the end of the book by suggesting a new context for the last eighteen chapters, rather than a new author altogether. Recent scholarship on the relationship of chapters 40–55 to 56–66 has focused less on inscribing a boundary between them and more on better understanding their interrelation; the shift in focus has also emphasized hermeneutical and literary approaches over historical ones. Based on his meticulous study of allusion in Second Isaiah, for example, Benjamin D. Sommer proposed that chapters 40–55 and 56–66, along with Isa 35, exhibit a single poetics of allusion. In my view, this assessment may not resolve the question of separate authorship, but it does give new insight into the hermeneutic attitude of 65 Das Buch Jesaia, xiii–xiv, xviii–xix, 390. This thesis was expanded upon by Karl Elliger in Die Einheit des Tritojesaja: Jesaja 56–66 (BWANT 45; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1928); see also idem, Deuterojesaja in seinem Verhältnis zu Tritojesaja (BWANT 63; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933). 66 The dating of Third Isaiah has been beset with problems because of its striking lack of historical detail; Duhm originally suggested that it was written in the Nehemian period, but others, for example Elliger, placed it earlier in the postexilic period. The dating of Third Isaiah has also influenced the assessment of its relationship to Second Isaiah (and vice versa). For example, Elliger early on proposed that Third Isaiah had redacted Second Isaiah and made some additions to those materials (Die Einheit des Tritojesaja). 67 Notable dissenters include Charles C. Torrey (The Second Isaiah [New York: Scribners, 1928], 193–202) and Kaufmann (From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy, 68–87).

isaiah

137

Isa 56–66 toward the rest of the book. Because of Third Isaiah’s role as an interpreter of Second Isaiah, a careful comparison of the exilic language used in chapters 56–66 with that in 40–55 has the potential to illumine a shift in the way exile is conceived.68 In another respect, the approach adopted by Sommer and others is based on growing skepticism that Second Isaiah, all or in part, was written in Babylon. If Second Isaiah were written in Yehud, then there would be a continuous geographic context for all of Isa 40–66. Once that location is accepted, a linchpin in the hypothesis of separate authorship falls. Consequently, a number of scholars prefer to use Third Isaiah to denote a set commonalities within Isa 56–66, rather than a separate prophetic figure who authored that collection69—even if the possibility of distinct authorship cannot be ruled out. This view does not efface, however, the differences in concern, social setting, and even audience that distinguish Isa 56–66. In considering Third Isaiah’s literary evocation of exile, I presume several points of the new approach to chapters 56–66. I use “Third Isaiah” to designate a collection of texts, and not necessarily the author of the collection. I do maintain, however, that Isa 56–66 is a separate collection, despite its strong literary ties to Isa 40–55. The precise historical context for chapters 56–66 remains an open question. Still, while the geographic location of Isa 40–55 could be either Babylon or Yehud, Isa 56–66 more clearly address the Judeans rather than the exiles in Babylon. Finally, the setting indicates at a number of points a community with economic divisions reminiscent of those described in Ezra–Nehemiah. Thus, while Babylon’s armies no longer threaten Judah, the consequences of the Babylonian occupation are still felt.70 Isaiah 56–66 marks a key moment in the metaphorization of exile. As demonstrated above, Second Isaiah rendered exile with a variety of metaphors, each of which in distinctive fashion communicated that exile was a situation of desperate straits that Yhwh would redress. Third Isaiah appropriates metaphors introduced in Second Isaiah and uses them to convey other sorts of distress, namely socioeconomic ills such as poverty. This is not to say that economic oppression was not previously a concern in the Isaianic tradition, for in drawing upon the plight of the debt slave to suggest the affliction of exile, Second Isaiah

68 69 70

Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, esp. 187–95. Christopher R. Seitz, “Isaiah, Book of (Third Isaiah),” ABD 3:501–7. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66 (AB 19b; New York: Doubleday, 2003), 63–64.

138

chapter three

necessarily evokes that circumstance; the power that the language of debt slavery has as a metaphor rests on how vivid such a circumstance is in the mind of the hearer. But Third Isaiah’s prophetic mission is more clearly to free the restored Israel from forms of economic oppression, and he describes this condition through the language of captivity used by Second Isaiah. Thus Third Isaiah not only signals a transformation of the language of Second Isaiah, but intimates an intermediate stage between, on the one hand, literature that features exile as the subject of metaphors, as did Jer 30–31 and Isa 40–55, and, on the other, later Second Temple texts that use the metaphorical complex associated with exile as a way of talking about other social and political forms of marginalization. Poverty, which earlier had functioned as a vehicle for exile, itself becomes a tenor—and the return from exile becomes a vehicle. In the discussion that follows, I will show that Third Isaiah takes the mission of the servant as conceived in Second Isaiah (especially in 42:5–9 and 49:7–13), where it is directed toward the exiles, and both (1) redirects the servant’s mission to the poor (61:1–3a) and (2) extends the reconceived mission of the servant to the people in general (58:6–7). As a result, the metaphors of liberation from captivity that Second Isaiah used to describe the return of the exiles are applied by Third Isaiah to the task of freeing the socially and economically oppressed. Furthermore, the task of liberation that was achieved by Yhwh acting as ‫ גאל‬in Isa 40–55 is now assigned to the prophet’s audience.71 A. The Mission of the Servant (Isa 42:5–9; 49:7–13) Isaiah 61’s reshaping of the earlier material on exile is particularly evident in its treatment of Isa 42:6–7 and 49:8–9, which establish that part of the mission of the servant is to announce the release of the exiles. In both of these passages, the exile is evoked using a slightly different metaphor of captivity than those encountered thus far in Second Isaiah, namely, the metaphor of imprisonment in a dark place.

71 In the time since I completed my dissertation (2006), one study has appeared (Bradley Gregory, “The Postexilic Exile in Third Isaiah: Isaiah 61:1–3 in Light of Second Temple Hermeneutics,” JBL 126 [2007]: 475–96) that argues on similar lines for Isa 61:1–3 as one of the early attestations of what I have been calling the “enduring exile” motif.

isaiah

139

‫אתיָך ְב ֶצ ֶדק וְ ַא ְחזֵ ק ְבּיָ ֶדָך וְ ֶא ָצּ ְרָך וְ ֶא ֶתּנְ ָך ִל ְב ִרית ָﬠם ְלאוֹר‬ ִ ‫ ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ְק ָר‬6 ‫הוֹציא ִמ ַמּ ְסגֵּ ר ַא ִסּיר ִמ ֵבּית ֶכּ ֶלא י ְֹשׁ ֵבי ח ֶֹשְׁך׃‬ ִ ‫ ִל ְפק ַֹח ֵﬠינַ יִם ִﬠוְ רוֹת ְל‬7 :‫גּוֹיִם‬ I, Yhwh, have called you in righteousness, I have seized you by the hand and shaped you; I have made you a covenant of the people and light to the nations, to open blind eyes, to release the captive from prison, those who dwell in darkness from the dungeon. (Isa 42:6–7)

The first statement of the servant’s mission in Second Isaiah opens with the mandate “to open blind eyes” and closes by associating impaired vision with captivity: “to release the captive from prison, those who dwell in darkness from the dungeon.” While there are a number of biblical passages that use the metaphor of a therapeutic restoration of sight to the blind (cf. Isa 35:5), Isa 42:7b introduces an innovation on this common theme: it attributes the prisoners’ blindness not to a physical defect but to the conditions of their imprisonment. (The description of the servant, in Isa 42:6, as ‫אור גוים‬, a “light to the nations,” also reinforces that the restoration is conceived of a rescinding of darkness.) Further, while ‫פקח‬, “to open,” is commonly used to describe opening the eyes, as it is in Isa 42:7, the verb may also allude to the loosening of the bonds of captivity.72 A comparable mandate is issued in the second Servant Song in Isa 49: ‫שׁוּﬠה ֲﬠזַ ְר ִתּיָך וְ ֶא ָצּ ְרָך וְ ֶא ֶתּנְ ָך‬ ָ ְ‫וּביוֹם י‬ ְ ‫יתיָך‬ ִ ִ‫ כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ֵﬠת ָרצוֹן ֲﬠנ‬8 ‫סוּרים ֵצאוּ‬ ִ ‫ ֵלאמֹר ַל ֲא‬9 :‫ִל ְב ִרית ָﬠם ְל ָה ִקים ֶא ֶרץ ְל ַהנְ ִחיל נְ ָחלוֹת שׁ ֵֹממוֹת‬ :‫יתם‬ ָ ‫ל־שׁ ָפיִ ים ַמ ְר ִﬠ‬ ְ ‫וּב ָכ‬ ְ ‫ל־דּ ָר ִכים יִ ְרעוּ‬ ְ ‫ַל ֲא ֶשׁר ַבּח ֶֹשְׁך ִהגָּ לוּ ַﬠ‬ 8

Thus says Yhwh, “At the time of favor I have answered you, on the day of salvation I have helped you. I have formed you and have appointed you to be the covenant for a people, to reestablish the land, to apportion ravaged heritages, to say to the captives, ‘Go forth!’ to those who are in darkness, ‘Show yourselves!’ ”

72 This may be a metaphor that Second Isaiah inherited. Shalom M. Paul, comparing this verse to Sargon’s inscriptions, finds in Isa 42:7 an echo of an Assyrian metaphor for liberation from prison, “letting them see the light” (“Deutero-Isaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions,” in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser [ed. W. W. Hallo; New Haven Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1968], 182).

140

chapter three 9

They shall pasture along the ways, on all bare heights shall be their pasture. (Isa 49:8–9)

Here, the servant’s mission is again described as leading prisoners out of darkness. References to the gathering of the tribes of Israel a few verses earlier (49:5–6) indicate that exile is the tenor, expressed through the image of captives held in a dark place. The language in which these two passages describe the release also overlaps with the exodus typology that Second Isaiah applied to the return of the exiles. I discussed above the connections between the laws of slave release and the exodus, particularly in the context of Second Isaiah’s understanding of Yhwh as ‫ ;ג ֵֹאל‬the two Servant Songs in chapters 42 and 49, too, describe the return of the exiles in terms familiar from the exodus complex. Isaiah 42:7 uses the Hiphil of ‫יצא‬ to describe the release of the prisoners.73 In its Hiphil form, the verb is familiar from the exodus tradition,74 and it is often found in connection with the phrase “from the house of servitude,” ‫מבית עבדים‬,75 suggesting that ‫ ממסגר אסיר‬in Isa 42:7 should be read as a variation on this expression.76 In Isa 49, motifs that call to mind the consequences of the exodus are attached to the language of release, namely, the passage through the wilderness and the settlement of Canaan. The reference in v. 9b to the prisoners and those who “pasture along the ways”

73

Preuss, “‫יָ ָצא‬,” TDOT 6:237, 249. See also Isa 42:1, 3 and the wordplay with ‫צאצ‬

‫ איה‬in v. 5. 74

Ibid., 237, 238–49. By contrast, the Qal form appears in the laws of slave release themselves. The distinction is most visible, on the one hand, in the comparison of Exod 21, Deut 15, and Lev 25, which use ‫ יצא‬in the Qal to describe the “going forth” of the Hebrew slave; and, on the other, Lev 25:38, 42, 55, which provide the later theological basis for the law, Yhwh delivering (Hiphil of ‫ )יצא‬Israel from Egypt. 75 Exod 13:3 (Qal), 14 (Hiphil); see also the Decalogue (Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6), the Deuteronomistic History (Deut 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:11; Judg 6:8), and also Jer 34:13. 76 Isaiah 42:7 may also be an allusion to Isa 24:22, which may have influenced the choice of the terms ‫( מסגר‬instead of ‫ )בית עבד‬and ‫אסיר‬: ‫ואספו אספה אסיר על בור‬ ‫וסגרו על מסגר ומרב ימים יפקדו‬, “They will be gathered together like prisoners [‫אסיר‬ may be a later gloss] in a pit; they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished.” Despite the debate over whether or not to retain Duhm and Smend’s title “Isaiah’s apocalypse” for Isa 24–27, the description in Isa 24:22 of the imprisonment of the heavenly host is apocalyptic. The downfall of Babylon may have been in the background of the chapters, even if their author is not Second Isaiah (so Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39 [AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 346–48). Isaiah 42:7 fashions a description of release that borrows terms used to describe the punishment of the heavenly host and the kings of the earth in First Isaiah. The punishment of those powers is among those “former things that have come to pass” (Isa 42:9) and, in the magnificent inversion promised by the prophet, captive Israel is now released.

isaiah

141

and “on all bare heights” evokes Yhwh’s guidance of the people from Egypt to Sinai to Canaan. In v. 8, the servant’s mission to “apportion the heritages” echoes the use of the phrase in Numbers and Joshua to describe the allotment of Canaan.77 These two passages invoke multiple forms of oppression—including imprisonment, landlessness, poverty, and servitude—to describe what it means to be in exile and to link this language to the exodus complex. In Isa 49, in particular, the return is couched as a release from imprisonment but also as a repatriation of the land, which links the metaphor of captivity to Isaiah’s larger program of resettlement and the reestablishment of a stable, equitable society. In this regard, the text is similar to Lev 25, in which the laws of jubilee and slave return are punctuated by reminders of Yhwh’s role in bringing Israel out of Egypt (Lev 25:38, 55), implicitly associating Israel’s exercise of economic justice with Yhwh’s activity in the exodus. Exodus and liberation imagery seem to have an innate link to economic justice themes. The language of liberation in Isa 42 and 49, suffused with references to the exodus and after, provides the foundation for Third Isaiah’s economic reading of liberation. Having established these systems of association for exile in the first two Servant Songs in Isa 40–55, I now turn to Third Isaiah. Broadly speaking, the appropriation of exilic language in Isa 56–66 transforms the mission of the prophet in at least two ways. First, it marks a change in audience. Isaiah 40–55 addresses the exiles. While I left open the question of whether those chapters issued from Babylon or Judah, the call to return was addressed primarily to those exiled in Babylon. Isaiah 56–66, by contrast, more clearly has a Judean context: its call is primarily to Jews living in the land, not the exiles in Babylon (cf. 62:10–12). This does not preclude, of course, that the message was to be heard by Jews living outside the land, too. Second, the nature of liberation has been transformed in Isa 61:1–3 and will be further transformed in Isa 58. Earlier, in Second Isaiah, the language of redemption emphasized the release from exile and the return to the land; the second Servant Song harbors intimations of land restoration in its reference to the allotment of territory. But now Third Isaiah talks about redemption as liberation from other forms of oppression as well. Again, this is not to suggest that redemption from

77

See esp. Num 33:54 and Deut 19:14.

142

chapter three

other forms of oppression was not a possibility in the language of Isa 40–55, but rather that those were secondary concerns. In Isa 56–66, by contrast, those secondary concerns have come to the fore and the return from exile has been pushed to the background. Further, this work of liberation, which in Isa 40–55 was the work of Yhwh as ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, is now also described in pragmatic terms that specify what action the audience must undertake. B. Isaiah 61:1–3 Echoing critical consensus, Joseph Blenkinsopp has described 61:1–3 as “the signature of the prophetic author” of Isa 60–62, itself the kernel around which the rest of the collection, chapters 56–66, grew.78 Chapters 60–62, the earliest portion of Third Isaiah, is usually dated to the early postexilic period.79 The dating is based, in part, on the literary observation that tasks that were once assigned to the Persian conquerer Cyrus have, in the servant passages of chapters 42 and 49, been transferred to the speaker of Isa 61. As such, 61:1–3 not only conveys the prophet’s mission, but also evinces Third Isaiah’s basic hermeneutic toward the preceding chapters. Thus, W. A. M. Beuken has pointed out, the literary lines of continuity between the interpretation of the mission of the speaker in 61:1–3a and the servant’s task in Second Isaiah. He argues that 61:1–3a draws on and indeed consolidates the mission of the servant in Isa 42:7 and 49:5–9 with the call in 40:1–2. Evidence of 61:1–3a’s reshaping of the earlier passages comes in the infinitives used to convey the servant’s assignment,80 the designation of those who are to be delivered, and the mode of redemption. The last 78

Isaiah 56–66, 38–39. Westermann first put forth this view in detail, Isaiah 40–66, 296–300, 352–53. See also Klaus Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990). 79 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 59–60. 80 In 61:1–3a, the mission encompasses the following tasks: “to bring good news . . . to bind up . . . to proclaim . . . to proclaim . . .to comfort . . . to provide.” The formulation approximates the mission of the servant in 42:7, “to open . . . to bring . . .,” and in 49:5–9, “to return . . . to establish . . . and to restore . . . to establish . . . to apportion . . . to tell.” Further, three of the infinitives in 61:1–3a, “to proclaim . . . to proclaim . . .to comfort,” echo in reverse the first and third imperatives in 40:1–2, “Comfort, comfort . . . and proclaim”; this kind of inverted structure is often evidence of quotation (W. A. M. Beuken, “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40–55,” in Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l’ouvrage [ed. Jacques Vermeylen; BETL 8; Leuven: University Press, 1989], 416–17).

isaiah

143

two points—the identity of those to be redeemed and the manner of their redemption—are particularly important for this study. ‫רוּח ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה ָﬠ ָלי יַ ַﬠן ָמ ַשׁח יְ הוָ ה א ִֹתי ְל ַב ֵשּׂר ֲﬠנָ וִ ים ְשׁ ָל ַחנִ י ַל ֲחבֹשׁ‬ ַ 1 2 ‫ת־רצוֹן‬ ָ ַ‫ ִל ְקרֹא ְשׁנ‬:‫ח־קוֹח‬ ַ ‫סוּרים ְפּ ַק‬ ִ ‫י־לב ִל ְקרֹא ִל ְשׁבוּיִם ְדּרוֹר וְ ַל ֲא‬ ֵ ‫ְלנִ ְשׁ ְבּ ֵר‬ ‫ ָלשׂוּם ַל ֲא ֵב ֵלי ִציּוֹן ָל ֵתת ָל ֶהם‬3 :‫ל־א ֵב ִלים‬ ֲ ‫אֹלהינוּ ְלנַ ֵחם ָכּ‬ ֵ ‫ַליהוָ ה וְ יוֹם נָ ָקם ֵל‬ :‫רוּח ֵכּ ָהה‬ ַ ‫ְפּ ֵאר ַתּ ַחת ֵא ֶפר ֶשׁ ֶמן ָשׂשׂוֹן ַתּ ַחת ֵא ֶבל ַמ ֲﬠ ֵטה ְת ִה ָלּה ַתּ ַחת‬ 1

The spirit of the Lord Yhwh is upon me, because Yhwh has anointed me; to bring good news to the oppressed he has sent me, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; 2 to proclaim the year of Yhwh’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; 3 to provide for those who mourn in Zion —to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit. (Isa 61:1–3a)

A comparison of the terms applied to those who are to enjoy the release described in Isa 42 and 49, on the one hand, and the later engagement of that language in Isa 61 and its reshaping in Isa 58, on the other, shows the degree to which the economic dimension of Second Isaiah’s language of redemption is sharpened while the exilic associations recede over the course of the development of Isa 56–66. In Isa 61, the core of the collection, the first notable shift comes in the use of the language of redemption. The economic intimations of the language in Isa 42 and 49 were used as a metaphor for describing the return of the exiles, with an intimation of social restoration through the reestablishment of inheritances. Now, the assurance of deliverance is more deliberately focused on those within Zion and the economically destitute; the language of captivity yields to this circumstance. In Isa 61:1b, for example, the prophet uses two pairings to designate the recipients of deliverance that indicate that the prior mission to the exiles is now also addressed to those in distress and, more specifically, in economic distress. In the first pairing, the speaker explains that he has been sent “to bring good news to the oppressed (‫)לבשר ענוים‬, to bind up the brokenhearted.” In Isa 56–66, as Beuken has observed, ‫ענו‬/‫ עני‬is often brought into parallelism with some general form of distress—suggesting, indeed, that the terms do not refer to exile primarily, if at all. ‫ עני‬appears in 58:7 to describe real material need, as

144

chapter three

I will discuss below, but already in the passage under consideration, 61:1–3, the substantive noun ‫ ענו‬is parallel to “brokenhearted,” ‫נשברי‬ ‫לב‬. Used in these contexts, ‫ענו‬/‫ עני‬conveys a state of abnegation, which may have a material dimension, and is additionally evocative of a kind of spiritual want. Within Isa 40–55 the adjective ‫ ענו‬does not appear, but the related adjective ‫ עני‬does; both derive from ‫ ענה‬II, “to be destitute, miserable, oppressed.” While the terms usually have an economic connotation elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, as ‫ ענו‬does here in Isa 61, ‫ עני‬does not appear to have destitution as a primary connotation in its four occurrences in Second Isaiah. There ‫ עני‬usually refers to the exilic situation more generally and conveys a sense of need that can only be overcome by Yhwh.81 In 41:17, where the exiles are likened to those who are in want (‫ )עני‬of water, Second Isaiah effected a wordplay in which this want is provided for—literally, “answered,” ‫—ענה‬by Yhwh. In Isa 49:13, ‫ עני‬was used to refer to the people and, again, their need is answered by Yhwh’s comfort (‫)נחם‬, as in 40:1–2, and compassion (‫)רחם‬. Similarly, in Isa 54:11, the feminine form of the adjective was applied to the ravaged figure of Zion to describe a condition that requires Yhwh’s comfort (‫)נחם‬. In Isa 51:21, the feminine form of ‫ עני‬was, similarly, used to refer to the city, ravaged by, among other things, the deportations.82 In Ps 147:2–3, another phrase meaning “brokenhearted,” ‫שבורי לב‬, is paired with a reference to the ingathering of exiles (‫נדחי ישראל‬ ‫)יכנס‬. In 61:1, however, the pairing of ‫ ענו‬with ‫ נשברי לב‬suggests that the exilic dimension of the language is not primary to the description of the focus of the prophet’s mission. Although the next pair of terms for those who will enjoy the prophet’s mission (“captives,” ‫שבוים‬, 46:2; 49:25; 52:2, and “prisoners,” ‫ )אסורים‬does draw upon the language of captivity found in Isa 40–55, here again the conventional terminology for the exile is redeployed to convey the resolution of economic distress. This is evident in that the prophet’s mission to the captives is “to proclaim liberty”: ‫( לקרא לשבוים דרור‬61:1). ‫ דרור‬refers to the release

81 In the wider corpus of the Hebrew Bible, the adjectives derived from the root ‫ענה‬ II tend to denote those who are oppressed in an economic sense (Gerstenberger, “‫ָﬠנָ ה‬ II,” TDOT 11:235). It does not appear to have that sense in Second Isaiah. 82 In Isa 53:4, the Pual participle is used to describe the affliction of the servant in a larger metaphor of physical infirmity and disease.

isaiah

145

of slaves in Jer 34, and it is a key element of the Jubilee legislation in Lev 25, which is designed to promote economic justice. The release in Isa 61 is patterned on the Jubilee custom, which has distinctly economic overtones. In Isa 61:1–2, then, there is an interplay between more conventional metaphors for the exilic situation and language associated with general, if not economic, tribulation. C. Isaiah 58:6–7 In Isa 58:1–5, Yhwh expresses his displeasure with those who fast and seek his favor while mistreating their neighbor. His complaint culminates in a series of rhetorical questions that articulate Yhwh’s mandate for the economic betterment of all Israel. ‫מוֹטה וְ ַשׁ ַלּח‬ ָ ‫ ֲהלוֹא זֶ ה צוֹם ֶא ְב ָח ֵרהוּ ַפּ ֵתּ ַח ַח ְר ֻצבּוֹת ֶר ַשׁע ַה ֵתּר ֲאגֻ דּוֹת‬6 ‫רוּדים‬ ִ ‫ ֲהלוֹא ָפר ֹס ָל ָר ֵﬠב ַל ְח ֶמָך וַ ֲﬠנִ יִּים ְמ‬7 :ּ‫ל־מוֹטה ְתּנַ ֵתּקו‬ ָ ‫צוּצים ָח ְפ ִשׁים וְ ָכ‬ ִ ‫ְר‬ :‫וּמ ְבּ ָשׂ ְרָך לֹא ִת ְת ַﬠ ָלּם‬ ִ ‫י־ת ְר ֶאה ָﬠר ֹם וְ ִכ ִסּיתוֹ‬ ִ ‫ָתּ ִביא ָביִ ת ִכּ‬ 6

Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to unfasten the thongs of the yoke, to let the crushed go free, and to break every yoke?83 7 Is it not to distribute your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless84 oppressed home; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? (Isa 58:6–7)

Isaiah 58:5–7, which is generally acknowledged as a later addition to the core of Isa 60–62, provides an insight into the early reinterpretation of exilic language and its application to social ills. First, in Isa 61, the mission of the servant subsumed some of the activities of Yhwh as ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, namely, “to proclaim liberty to the captives and release to the prisoners.” Now in Isa 58, aspects of the prophet’s mission in 61:1 are transferred to the people; this transference further involves spelling out

83

This verb is not syntactically parallel with the preceding infinitive absolutes;

‫ תנתקו‬is a finite verb (2mp) in MT, and 2ms (imperative) in LXX, διάσπα. 84 From ‫מרוד‬, meaning “wandering,” in the sense of “homeless.” See Lam 1:7 and 3:19 for this nuance.

146

chapter three

the kinds of social obligations that Judeans have toward one another.85 There may be an air of reciprocity, which links the activity of the audience to Yhwh’s: because of what Yhwh does as ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, Israel is now to do, in acts of social remediation, for her fellow Israelite. These obligations, however, are related to, though not the same as, those attributed to Yhwh as ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬in Isa 40–55 and they carry within them an emphasis on social welfare; the passage thus directs the Judean audience to do the work associated with liberation—clothing the poor, distributing bread. Second, this work of liberation now takes place within the land; the emphasis is on how to house fellow Judeans, rather than simply bringing the exiles home. The reshaping of the language is not only evident in the shifting of roles and in the redefinition of the kinds of activities associated with liberation; the language of captivity and redemption has been reoriented. That is, the language of captivity had been used to describe exile in Isa 40–55. Exile was the tenor for the metaphor. Now, exile itself becomes a metaphor for other social ills— for example, poverty or homelessness. To clarify misapprehensions about the efficacy and nature of fasting, Isa 58:6–7 provides an explanation of the kind of “fast that Yhwh chooses.”86 The first part of the explanation, in v. 6, is couched in the language of release and evokes both a release from imprisonment (for example, “to loosen the bonds,” ‫ )פתח חרצבות‬and a setting free from captivity (‫ חפשים‬. . . ‫ ;ושלח‬see Deut 15:12, 13, 18; Jer 34:9–11, 14, 16). This vocabulary of release is already familiar from its use in Second Isaiah and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to describe the return from exile. ‫ פתח‬was used in reference to the exiles in Isa 51:14 and is also used in reference to the figure of captive Zion in Isa 52:2 (Hithpael). ‫ שלח‬referred to the release of the exiles in Isa 45:13. Israel, according to the curse of Deut 28:33, which was associated with foreign oppression, was to be crushed (‫)רצוץ‬, language that reappears in Isa 58:6. Further, ‫מוטה‬, “yoke,” which appears twice in Isa 58:6, is found in the covenant curses of Leviticus (26:13) as a metaphor for servitude in Egypt and appears in Jer 27–28, in Jeremiah’s encounter with Hananiah, as a figure for enslavement to Babylon (similarly in Ezek 34:27).87

85 This is already made clear in 58:6 by the 2mp form of ‫“( תנתקו‬you will break”) in MT (LXX has the singular imperative form διάσπα). 86 In both 58:6 and 7, ‫ הלוא‬expects an affirmative response. 87 This is true also of its synonym ‫על‬, which occurs in Isa 9:3 [Eng. 9:4]; 10:27; 14:25; 47:6.

isaiah

147

The explanation of Yhwh’s preferred fast continues in v. 7, which explores the more concrete dimensions of social liberation—feeding and clothing the poor. The populations that require liberation are further defined as “the hungry” (‫ )רעב‬who are to be fed and “the naked” (‫ )ערם‬who are to be clothed. The hungry and the “homeless oppressed” (‫ )עניים מרודים‬recall the dire economic situation of Neh 5:5, which recounts intra-Israelite economic strife: ‫ועתה כבשר אחינו בשרנו‬

‫כבניהם בנינו והנה אנחנו כבשים את בנינו ואת בנתינו לעבדים ויש‬ ‫מבנתינו נכבשות ואין לאל ידנו ושדתינו וכרמינו לאחרים‬, “Now our flesh [note the use of ‫בשר‬, as in Isa 58] is the same as that of our kin; our children are the same as their children. And now we are forcing our sons and daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have been assaulted; we are powerless, and our fields and vineyards belong to others.” By virtue of the association between social deprivation and the language of captivity, the language of captivity in Isa 58:6 has become a metaphor for social remediation in v. 7; the concrete actions of v. 7 provide the referent for the metaphoric language of v. 6. While in Isa 45–55, Yhwh’s release was associated with the restoration from exile and the return of the Judeans from Babylon to the land, the release that Israel is to effect takes place within the land itself.88 In contrast to Second Isaiah, where the metaphor of slavery is applied to Judean exiles under a foreign yoke, the oppressions in Isa 58:7 (as in Neh 5:5) are increasingly local and socioeconomic. In Isa 58:6, ‫מוטה‬ functions as a figure for local oppression, like the yoke (‫ )ﬠל‬of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12:4, 9–11, 14), not the yoke of foreign servitude (as it is, for example, in Ezek 30:18). In Isa 40–55, redemption was promised to the exiles in Babylon, but now, in Isa 58, the work of liberation that the audience must undertake is directed to their kin within the land. Despite this emphasis on the land, the task of socioeconomic redemption would resonate with Diaspora communities; even though there is no explicit discussion of ingathering in this immediate context (cf. 62:10–12), the injunction to come to the aid of one’s fellow Israelites did not exclude those living in a foreign context. The prophet’s message would equally apply to social inequalities among Israelites outside the land.

88 Economic justice is, of course, a common prophetic theme dating back to the eighth century at least, so that Third Isaiah is reusing Second Isaiah’s exilic language to articulate a traditional prophetic concern.

148

chapter three

Another case for the relevance of Isa 58’s language to those in the land as well as those in the Diaspora—for how the language of restoring the exiles becomes a metaphor for social justice in the land—may be made on the basis of the phrase ‫עניים מרודים‬, “the wandering oppressed.” ‫ עניים‬refers elsewhere in Isaiah to those who are in a financially dire situation (3:14–15; 10:2; and 26:6), but the term had been used in Second Isaiah to refer to the exiles (41:17; 49:13; 51:21; and 54:11).89 In line with the postexilic situation described in Neh 5, the phrase in Isa 58:7 seems to play on the more local sense of the term, connoted by the reference to home (‫)בית‬: to house those homeless within Judah. Thus ‫ עניים מרודים‬has meaning for audiences both at home in Yehud and abroad in the Diaspora. In this regard, it recalls the calling home of the exile in Isa 40–55. But in Isa 58, the language of exile—now grounded in the socioeconomic situation within Judah later in the restoration period—has been used to fashion a call to house those who are homeless.90 This message was adumbrated in v. 6, but the prescriptions of v. 7 go one step further in reading the references to exile in Second Isaiah metaphorically. That is, the references to exile have been subsumed into the larger system of associations around slavery and economic oppression, and now have implications beyond the return from exile. Judah’s obligation to “loosen the bonds of servitude” extends beyond the duty to bring the exiles home; she must also bring the poor into her house. V. Conclusion In Second Isaiah, exile is described according to a number of metaphors, many of which are distinct refractions of the same strait—the state of being without the saving activity of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬. The underlying interpretation of exile as Israel’s period of awaiting Yhwh’s redemptive intervention draws in associations for exile that include servitude, infertility, and spousal abandonment; these form the system of associations for the redemption that the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬offers. So, for example, in the opening verses of Second Isaiah (40:1–2), the poet casts the return in terms drawn from Exod 21, Deut 15, and Lev 25. These varied images

89 90

‫ מרודים‬appears in Lam 1:7 and 3:19 to describe Jerusalem personified.

This does not mean that the return of the exiles was not also a concern; see, for example, Isa 60:4.

isaiah

149

engage and highlight Yhwh’s role as ‫ג ֵֹאל‬, and collectively they suggest that the exile was akin to a period of slavery; yet these images are bundled with other associations. When Second Isaiah employed these metaphors to make the typological connection between the end of the exile and the exodus, exile was affiliated with new systems of association and took on an extended meaning as a state of dire need. In the collection of Third Isaiah, exilic language maintains its currency, even though its audience is, strictly speaking, no longer in exile. Exile, which in Isa 40–55 provided the tenor for the language of slavery, becomes, in Isa 56–66, the vehicle for describing the situation of those in need of economic and social redemption. The transformation is a significant moment in the metaphorization of exile. Exile, something that in Second Isaiah “happens to” Israel and is redressed by Yhwh, becomes a way of speaking about things that “happen within” Israel—and that Israel is now called upon to redress. There is another, more implicit, way in which Third Isaiah’s appropriation of imagery associated with exile reshapes the vision of Second Isaiah. Even as it engages the language of Isa 40–55, Isa 56–66 suggests that its predecessor’s promises about the end of exile still await realization decades after the return. In the Book of Consolation, utopian images of restoration functioned to defer the end of exile: at the end of Poem 1, the audience is asked to anticipate the day when Israel will serve Yhwh and “David, their king” (Jer 30:9). When Third Isaiah proclaims its message using Second Isaiah’s language of liberation, it constructs its audience as exiles still awaiting redemption. Redeploying language that was primarily directed to the exiles in the period after the edict of Cyrus, after the initial returns, Third Isaiah now seeks to revalorize those promises of redemption in new circumstances. In a manner reminiscent of the reappropriation of earlier oracles to the circumstances of the Book of Consolation, the later composition renews the expectation of the end of exile, but implicitly postpones that end; it revalorizes language that anticipates the end of exile. As long as the relevance of exilic language endures, the exilic period itself endures.

CHAPTER FOUR

ZECHARIAH 1–8 I. Introduction Zechariah 1–8 was formulated early in the restoration period, after the euphoria over the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 b.c.e. and the first repatriation in 538 b.c.e. had worn thin.1 Although the edict of Cyrus had encouraged the return of the exiles and the rebuilding of the temple and the city, the program of restoration had been stalled and many remained in the Diaspora. While Babylonian supremacy was a receding specter, Judean independence and prosperity had not been achieved. Zechariah 1–8 comprises a series of visions, oracles, and exhortations that negotiate between the hopeful expectations and the disappointments of the early restoration period; they communicate the precipitousness of the age, both that the nation is perched on the edge of a new era, but also that the new age has not yet begun. In the prologue to the book, Zech 1:1–6, a late addition that nonetheless sets the theme for the collection, this precipitousness is communicated by language that evokes the call to return from exile. But here exile functions metaphorically to express the spiritual estrangement of Israel

1 Thematically and chronologically, the books of Haggai and Zechariah have much in common. Their literary time frame overlaps; the material in Haggai is attributed to a number of dates in 520 b.c.e., while Zechariah’s introduction (1:1–6) is dated to Oct/ Nov 520, the subsequent night visions to February 15, 519, and the final prose sermon, in chs. 7–8, to December 7, 518. Both prophets are mentioned in Ezra 5:1 and 6:14. Both share a concern for how to reconstitute Jerusalem and the nation. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers have argued that Haggai and Zech 1–8 “belong together as a composite work” (Haggai; Zechariah 1–8 [AB 25b; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987], xliv). Mark J. Boda challenges the notion that the works were a redactional unity by rightly noting the diversity of the chronological and messenger formulae used in the structuring of both books, which weakens the argument that they were the product of a single redaction. He further points out thematic discontinuities, most notably the emphasis in Haggai on the rebuilding of the temple, which is not a primary focus for Zechariah (and is not mentioned in the introduction of Zech 1:1–6) (“Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet?,” in Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era [ed. Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking; STAR 5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003], 51–54). Further, while bearing similarities to Haggai, Zech 1–8 is distinguished by its concern with the exile.

152

chapter four

from Yhwh and of Yhwh from Israel and the possible restoration of that relationship. The language of exile and return describes the divine disposition toward the nation so that, even as Judeans are returning to and repossessing the land from which they and their parents had been removed, exile is being defined more fundamentally as a sense of alienation from Yhwh. Interpreted as the mutual estrangement of the nation from its deity, exile will finally be resolved when the two return to one another, a turning that is not simply geographic. To describe the development of the conception of exile in Zech 1–8, I consider the formation of that unit, which will yield a diachronic understanding of the meaning of exile within the book. As it now stands, Zech 1–8 is part of a redacted composition that begins with the book of Haggai. The books are thematically and chronologically linked, although there are a number of points at which they diverge, including Zechariah’s greater concern to assess the scope and meaning of the exilic period. Zechariah is composed of an introduction (1:1–6), an extended series of night visions (1:7–6:15), and a prose sermon (7:1–8:23). The three-part structure is established by the placement, at the opening of each unit, of a messenger formula and a chronological notice that ties the material to a point early in the restoration period, from 520 through 518 b.c.e.2 Moreover, within each section there is evidence of further redaction, in the form of additions that recontextualize the earlier material on exile. Most scholars recognize First Zechariah’s composite nature, although they leave open the question of whether the redaction was made by a later editor or Zechariah himself.3 Tracing the redaction of Zech 1–8 reveals shifts in how exile is conceived in the earlier materials and in the later. The use of exile as a metaphor for spiritual estrangement is a later development that occurred over

2 The three parts of Zech 1–8 are also distinguished by genre; the first and third parts are primarily exhortative prose, while the second section is primarily visionary material that is accompanied by oracles. 3 On the growth of the book in general and the relationship between the oracles and the visions in the night visions (1:7–6:15) in particular, see Albert Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1969); Samuel Amsler, Aggée; Zacharie 1–8 (2d ed.; CAT 11c; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988), 44–46; and David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 120–25; contra W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967), who holds to one redaction; and Meyers and Meyers, who make the valid literary point that “the mixing of genres is a sign of artistry,” but claim “no cause to recognize an independent context for each” (Haggai; Zechariah 1–8, xlv).

zechariah 1–8

153

the course of the book’s interpretation and revision. That development was made possible by two features of the way that the older materials in Zech 1–8 conceive of the present period. First, in the earlier core of Zech 1–8, the defeats of the sixth century, which include the destruction of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah (in the first vision, 1:8–14) and exile (in the second, Zech 2:1–4 [Eng. 1:18–21]), are iterations of a deeper underlying problem: Yhwh’s anger toward Israel. Indeed, even the particularities of those experiences are rendered in somewhat archetypal fashion to suggest that those tribulations, in any age, stem from Yhwh’s displeasure. The point is also evident in how the seventy-year motif is deployed in Zechariah; while other sources, particularly Jer 25, use the figure to refer to the duration of the exile, in Zechariah the figure functions to describe a period of divine wrath (1:12). Exile is an expression of this wrath, as is the destruction of the city, but the figure refers primarily to exile’s underlying cause, Yhwh’s disposition toward Israel. In this regard, Zechariah’s understanding of exile as an expression of divine wrath is not unlike the premise behind the treaty curses of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. For Zechariah, then, while divine wrath is the underlying cause, the partial cessation of these symptoms does not clearly signal the end of Yhwh’s anger toward Israel. So, while 2 Chr 36 and Ezra 1 perceive the end of the seventy years in the defeat of Babylon and Cyrus’s edict, for Zechariah these signs of restoration are not sufficient, nor are they even mentioned. The return of exiles and the rebuilding of the temple are facets of the end of the period noted in Ezra 1–6 (and 2 Chr 36), but for Zechariah, the problem of Yhwh’s anger, which appears to linger, overrides any of these. The later strands of Zech 1–8 are aware of the tradition of “seventy years” of Yhwh’s wrath, but they emphasize how it is necessary for Israel to repair its relationship with Yhwh rather than trusting in the fulfillment of a fixed period of punishment. For Zechariah, there is no guarantee that Yhwh’s anger will cease once the period has elapsed, and the continuance of Yhwh’s anger means that Israel’s experience of exile, of alienation from the divine presence, will also continue. The second aspect of the early core of Zech 1–8 that contributes to the prologue’s metaphorization of exile is related to this notion of a seventyyear period of divine anger. In the early materials, the present, conventionally described as the “postexilic” or “early restoration” period, is conceived of as continuous with the past, or “Babylonian” or “exilic” period; indeed, although the materials are set two decades after the rise of Cyrus, they sound like messages from the Babylonian period,

154

chapter four

dwelling on Israel’s uncertain future. This sense of an extended exilic period is evident, too, in how even the consoling oracle that follows the first vision, Zech 1:14–15, conveys the sense that change is imminent but not yet realized. Again, this indicates that Zechariah functions according to a chronology different from that of 2 Chr 36 and Ezra 1; it also conveys Zechariah’s sense that the seventy-year period outlasts the age of Babylonian hegemony or exile. The sense of an extended exile is further evident in the visions’ paradigmatic understanding of exile as a persistent threat, not confined to the activity of Babylon. The later redaction of the book will preserve and even extend this sense of liminality by incorporating increasingly forward-looking oracles, which implicitly defer the end of exile. At the same time, the prologue issues its call for a return decades after the reign of Cyrus, the traditional context of Israel’s “return.” To prepare for the discussion of the seventy-year period in First Zechariah, I begin with a brief excursus on the motif as it appears in Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Inscription and the book of Jeremiah, noting in particular the difficulties of correlating Jeremiah’s seventy years with a historical span of time. I consider exile in the night visions and oracles of Zech 1:7–6:15, both in the material that appears to be early and in the supplementary oracles and exhortations as well as the chronological material that introduces the unit. Next, I focus on the introduction in Zech 1:1–6, which marks a later attempt to reframe Zechariah’s visions and oracles. Finally, I turn to Zech 7–8, which was formulated almost two years after the night visions according to the chronological notice in 7:1, to discuss how that material understands the exilic period. II. Jeremiah’s Seventy Years The portrayal of the current age in the early core of Zechariah’s first vision hinges on its reference to the period of seventy years during which Yhwh has been angry with Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. This motif is not unique to Zechariah: within the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, too, refers to a seventy-year period for the abandonment of Tyre (23:15–17) and Jeremiah predicts that Judah and Jerusalem will suffer seventy years of punishment (25:9–11, cf. 29:10–11); outside the Hebrew Bible, Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Inscription assert that Marduk decreed that Babylon should be abandoned for seventy years—although the god changed his mind after eleven years had passed. These references suggest that the notion of

zechariah 1–8

155

a seventy-year period of devastation was a familiar trope in the ancient Near East. There are, however, shades of difference in how the trope is interpreted and deployed. Isaiah equates the seventy-year figure, the duration of Tyre’s abandonment, with a human life span: the city will be punished by being “forgotten for seventy years, the lifetime of one king” (23:15, ‫ונשכחת‬ ‫)צר שבעים שנה כימי מלך אחד‬. The figure is also found in Ps 90:10, which reckons the life span of a human being to be “seventy years, or perhaps eighty, if we are strong” (‫ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה ואם‬ ‫)בגבורת שמונים שנה‬. Thus it may have been an ancient Near Eastern convention to associate a lifetime with a period of divine wrath, or of the abandonment of a city. Ezekiel specifies a period of forty years during which Egypt shall be laid waste (29:8–16), which corresponds to the forty years of punishment decreed for Judah (4:6). These forty-year periods may also be associated with the human life-cycle: the duration of Israel’s time in the wilderness seems to reflect the idea that a human generation—that is, the time it takes for a group to reproduce and replace itself—spans forty years. Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Inscription suggests that the seventy-year figure for divine wrath and destruction was also a motif in Mesopotamia: Enlil of the gods, Marduk was furious. He devised evil plans to devastate the land, to eliminate its people. The Arahtu Canal, [. . .] mighty high water, the likeness of a devastating flood swept over the city of his dwelling, his chapel, and turned (it) to ruins. Gods and goddesses who lived there went up to heaven. The people who lived there went, appointed to the mob, into slavery. He wrote, but compassionate Marduk, his heart quickly relented and he turned (it) upside down. He declared its inhabitation in 11 years.4

Here the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (681–669 b.c.e.) offers a theological interpretation of the destruction of Babylon in 689 b.c.e. by his father, Sennacherib, and his own decision to rebuild the city: Marduk punished the Babylonians by decreeing the desolation of the city for seventy years, but when his anger subsided, the god chose to read the cuneiform signs for the numeral seventy backwards, yielding eleven.5 The reference to a

4 Translation from Mordechai Cogan, “The Chronicler’s Use of Chronology as Illuminated by Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. Jeffrey Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 199 n. 7. 5 Originally noted by D. D. Luckenbill, “The Black Stone of Esarhaddon,” AJSL 41 (1925): 165–73; see Riekele Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien (ed.

156

chapter four

seventy-year period suggests that the figure represented a widespread belief about Babylon’s fate and the expected duration of divine anger, since Esarhaddon needs to explain why the period was shortened and why the city will be rebuilt sooner than expected. It is possible that Zechariah’s seventy-year period owes something to the Mesopotamian tradition, and perhaps even to Esarhaddon’s formulation of it. Zechariah’s association of a seventy-year period with Yhwh’s wrath against Jerusalem and the surrounding cities in the first vision recalls Marduk’s angry decision to punish Babylon for the same length of time. That the “exilic” period—beginning either from the first deportation of Judeans in 597 or from the second in 587 and ending with the returns in 538—lasted for less than seventy years raises the question of whether some Judeans might have interpreted the fall of Babylon and the edict of Cyrus as an early reprieve, similar to Marduk’s merciful recalculation. In Zechariah’s reckoning, however, the period of Yhwh’s wrath was not cut short, a fundamental difference from the Esarhaddon inscription. The angel who serves as Zechariah’s intermediary indicates, if anything, frustration that the period has not yet been ended: “O Yhwh of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which you were angry for seventy years?” (1:12). The angel expects that the cycle should have run its course. Despite some resemblance to the seventy-year trope in the Esarhaddon inscription, the seventy-year period in First Zechariah is more likely inherited from Jeremiah.6 Given Zechariah’s frequent allusions to earlier prophets, made explicit in the prologue (esp. 1:4–6), Jeremiah’s use of the phrase would seem to be the source for Zechariah—even if he does not refer to the prophet by name and even if his use of the motif diverges at points with the main lines of Jeremiah’s. Later biblical literature confirms Jeremiah’s association with the “seventy years” motif. In

Ernst Weidner; AfOB 9; Graz: privately printed, 1956; repr., Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967), 15. For a more recent translation of the passage, see Cogan, “The Chronicler’s Use of Chronology,” 197–209. On the theological interpretation and reinterpretation of Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon, see J. J. M. Roberts, “Myth versus History,” CBQ 38 (1976): 1–13. 6 Charles F. Whitley, “The Term ‘Seventy Years Captivity,’ ” VT 4 (1954): 60–72; idem, “The Seventy Years Desolation—A Rejoinder,” VT 7 (1957): 416–18; F. C. Fensham, “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat,” PEQ 109 (1977): 113–15; and Lester Grabbe, “ ‘The End of the Desolations of Jerusalem’: From Jeremiah’s 70 Years to Daniel’s 70 Weeks of Years,” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 67–68.

zechariah 1–8

157

Dan 9:2, Daniel states that he has read Jeremiah’s announcement that Jerusalem will remain in ruins for seventy years, and Chronicles makes the same association (2 Chr 36:21). It is probable, then, that editors of the book of Zechariah—if not Zechariah himself—associated the seventy-year period with Jeremiah. In other words, Zechariah’s references to the seventy years were preserved because they were read as an engagement with the Jeremian tradition.7 Further, Jeremiah associates the end of the period with the destruction of Babylon, as discussed below, which may be a point of reference for determining the end of the seventy years in Zechariah, as well. Still, Jeremiah is not cited as the source for the figure and there are differences between Zechariah’s use of the figure and its treatment in other sources that explicitly cite Jeremiah. The date of Zechariah’s visions— February 15, 519 b.c.e.—implies that the seventy years of divine anger continued long after Cyrus conquered the Babylonian empire and released its Judean captives. In other words, Zechariah seems to be asserting that the period did not end in 538 but endured for several decades. Chronicles, by contrast, asserts that the seventy years ended during Cyrus’s first regnal year, 539–538 b.c.e. Interestingly, Ezra 1:1 refers to the “completion” of Yhwh’s word through Jeremiah, but does not mention the seventy years; perhaps this omission reflects an awareness that the interval between Jerusalem’s destruction and Cyrus’s edict was closer to fifty years. In order to understand Zechariah’s employment of the “seventy years” motif, it is necessary to examine further how it functions within the book of Jeremiah—even if Zechariah did not engage the tradition as it now stands in Jeremiah. Indeed, a study of the tradition within Jeremiah will highlight the variable nature of the motif, which sometimes forecasts restoration after exile and sometimes refers to the length of Babylonian hegemony. Evaluating the motif in Jeremiah is complicated by the fact that MT presents it in two different 7 It is also possible that the influence of the Esarhaddon inscription on Zechariah may have been mediated by Jeremiah. Weinfeld argues that Jeremiah’s references to seventy years in Jer 25 and 29 are dependent upon the convention found in the inscription; see his comparison of phraseology and motif in Jer 25:11–13 and Jer 29:10 in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, 145. With Luckenbill (n.5 above), Weinfeld asserts further that in Jeremiah, as in Esarhaddon’s inscription, the period is a paradigm for the duration of divine anger. The expression is used in this sense in Isa 23:15–17. The influence of the Assyrian notion of divine wrath may also have shaped Deut 29, and thus suggests that the Mesopotamian version of the trope was familiar to Jeremiah as part of the Deuteronomic tradition (ibid., 147 and 115–16).

158

chapter four

contexts, in 25:8–9, 11–12 and 29:10–11; furthermore, the LXX version of 25:8–9, 11–12 differs from the MT version. Of the two passages in Jeremiah, the reference to the seventy years in MT Jer 29/LXX Jer 36 is usually viewed as the more original.8 Given the significant differences between LXX Jer 25, which witnesses an earlier form of the Hebrew text of the book, and MT Jer 25, I will treat LXX Jer 25 separately from its MT counterpart.9 I will thus consider the texts in the following order: (1) MT Jer 29:10–11/LXX Jer 36:10–11; (2) LXX Jer 25:8–9, 11–12; and (3) MT Jer 25:8–9, 11–12. A. MT Jeremiah 29:10–11/LXX Jeremiah 36:10–11 ὅτι οὕτως εἶπε κύριος Ὅταν μέλλῃ πληροῦσθαι Βαβυλῶνι ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη‚ ἐπισκέψομαι ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐπιστήσω τοὺς λόγους μου ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι τὸν λαὸν ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον· 11 καὶ λογιοῦμαι ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς λογισμὸν εἰρήνης καὶ οὐ κακὰ τοῦ δοῦναι ὑμῖν ταῦτα.

10

10

For thus says the Lord: “When seventy years are about to be fulfilled for Babylon, I will visit you and I will establish my words upon you, to bring back your people to this place. 11 I will devise for you a plan of peace, and not bestow upon you these evils.”

‫ִכּי־כ ֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ִכּי ְל ִפי ְמל ֹאת ְל ָב ֶבל ִשׁ ְב ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה ֶא ְפק ֹד ֶא ְת ֶכם וַ ֲה ִקמ ִֹתי‬ ‫ ִכּי ָאנ ִֹכי יָ ַד ְﬠ ִתּי ֶאת־‬11 ‫ל־ה ָמּקוֹם ַהזֶּ ה׃‬ ַ ‫ת־דּ ָב ִרי ַהטּוֹב ְל ָה ִשׁיב ֶא ְת ֶכם ֶא‬ ְ ‫ֲﬠ ֵל ֶיכם ֶא‬ ‫ַה ַמּ ֲח ָשׁב ֹת ֲא ֶשׁר ָאנ ִֹכי ח ֵֹשׁב ֲﬠ ֵל ֶיכם נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה ַמ ְח ְשׁבוֹת ָשׁלוֹם וְ ל ֹא ְל ָר ָﬠה ָל ֵתת‬ ‫ָל ֶכם ַא ֲח ִרית וְ ִת ְקוָ ה׃‬ 10

10

For thus says Yhwh: “When seventy years are fulfilled for Babylon, I will visit you and will establish my good word10 to you, to bring you11 back to

8 Rudolph holds that Jer 25:12a is derived from Jer 29:10 and that Jer 25:12b comes from Jer 51:26, 62 (Jeremia, 160). Holladay also argues that Jer 25:12 was a later addition to the section Jer 25:9–14 (Jeremiah, 1:669). See also Peter R. Ackroyd, “Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian Period,” JNES 17 (1958): 13–27; Bright, Jeremiah, 162–63; and Carroll, Jeremiah, 496. Others treat vv. 10–11 as secondary insertions; see Duhm, Jeremia, 230–31; and Volz, Jeremia, 268–69. This view is related to the question of whether the reference to seventy years more generally was a later addition to the original book. Even if it was, because it is attested in both MT and LXX, it was inserted before the divergence of those two traditions. Since the focus here is on the interpretation of the seventy years, and specifically Zechariah’s interpretation of it, resolving the question of the origins of the figure in Jeremiah is not paramount. 9 On the comparison of MT and LXX Jeremiah in general, see chapter 2 and the bibliography cited there in nn. 11, 13. 10 Cf. LXX τοὺς λόγους μου, “my words.” 11 Cf. LXX τὸν λαὸν ὑμῶν, “your people.”

zechariah 1–8

159

this place. 11 For indeed I know the plans that12 I have reckoned for you, says Yhwh,13 plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future and hope.”14

MT Jer 29/LXX Jer 36 is presented as a letter dated to 594 b.c.e. and addressed to the deportees of 597. There are several features of this passage to consider. First, the period is primarily associated with Babylonian ascendancy—these are Babylon’s seventy years—and only secondarily with the Judean exile; the exile, while referred to, is essentially the result of Babylonian domination. Second, in the context of the letter, the seventy years signify a period of long duration, certainly longer than Hananiah’s prediction that the temple vessels, king, and exiles would be returned after only two years (MT Jer 28:1–4/LXX Jer 34:1–4).15 The long duration matches the advice with which Jeremiah opens his letter: settle into life in the land of your exile (MT Jer 29:5–7/LXX Jer 36: 5–7). Still, the period has its limits; the exiles will eventually be returned (v. 14). The verses thus counter the expectation, cultivated by Jeremiah’s response to Hananiah (MT 28:14) and by the opening of Jeremiah’s letter (vv. 5–7), that the exile will be permanent and irrevocable. Verses 5–7, then, uses the figure both to convey that Babylonia will dominate for a long but limited period and to encourage the hope of an eventual Judean repatriation. B. LXX Jeremiah 25:8–9, 11–12 διὰ τοῦτο τάδε λέγει κύριος Ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε τοῖς λόγοις μου‚ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω καὶ λήμψομαι πατριὰν ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ ἄξω αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ταύτην καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας αὐτὴν καὶ ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τὰ κύκλῳ αὐτῆς καὶ ἐξερημώσω αὐτοὺς καὶ δώσω αὐτοὺς εἰς ἀφανισμὸν καὶ εἰς συριγμὸν καὶ εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν αἰώνιον. . . 11 καὶ ἔσται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ εἰς ἀφανισμόν καὶ δουλεύσουσιν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη. 12 καὶ ἐν τῷ πληρωθῆνὰ ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη ἐκδικήσω τὸ ἔθνος ἐκεῖνο καὶ θήσομαι αὐτοὺς εἰς ἀφανισμὸν αἰώνιον. 8 9

8 9

Therefore thus says the Lord: Because you have not believed my words, behold, I am sending for and taking a clan from the north and will bring

12 The equivalent of MT’s ‫ אנכי ידעתי את המחשבת אשר‬is missing in LXX, due likely to haplography generated by the repetition of ‫אנכי‬. 13 ‫ נאם יהוה‬is a MT gloss that is not in LXX. 14 Cf. LXX ’s ταῦτα. 15 Indeed, Carroll points out that Jeremiah’s message looks suspiciously like Hananiah’s, except that the dominance of Babylon will endure for seventy years instead of two (Jeremiah, 557–58).

160

chapter four them against this land, and against the inhabitants of it, and against all the nations around it, and I will utterly devastate them, and make them a desolation, and a hissing, and an everlasting reproach. . . . 11 And all the land shall be a desolation; and they shall serve among the nations seventy years. 12 And when seventy years are fulfilled, I will take vengeance on that nation and will make them a perpetual desolation.

In LXX Jer 25, the seventy-year period is also associated with the threat of a foreign nation; but the forecast here is for destruction, rather than return, which was the significant feature of MT Jer 29/LXX 36. Further, while the phrase “they shall serve among the nations” may signify exile, it may instead refer to Judah’s demotion to provincial status. While LXX Jer 25:12 holds that Yhwh’s vengeance will be redirected after seventy years, this redirection is somewhat open for interpretation. The oracle states that after the fulfillment of the seventy years, “I will take vengeance on that nation” (τὸ ἔθνος ἐκεῖνο, v. 12). Thus far, the oppressor entity has been called “a clan from the north” and the entity that is oppressed has been identified by three terms—“this land, . . . the inhabitants of it, . . . all the nations around it”—none of which neatly correlates with “that nation.” “That nation” is usually interpreted to be the “clan from the north” (πατριὰν ἀπὸ βορρᾶ, v. 9), but it must be admitted that the description of the restoration is vague—and that this ambiguity expresses that the primary association for the period is defeat, rather than an eventual restoration.16 In contrast to MT Jer 29/LXX 36, there is no description of restoration; it is only to be presumed as a by-product of waning foreign power. Thus the oracle as preserved in LXX Jer 25 leaves what will happen at the close of the seventy-year period open to interpretation. The phrasing is vague, and the oppressor from the north is not identified.17 Servitude “among the nations” is not further explained as a reference to exile, and what the end of that servitude might mean for the nation is not clearly delineated, in contrast to MT Jer 29/LXX 36.

16 Bright (Jeremiah, 163) argues that the original text of Jer 25:12, preserved in LXX, described only the threat against Judah. When Babylon was subsequently identified as the agent of exile and destruction in MT Jer 25:11, MT 25:12 was adapted to refer to a punishment of Babylon. Accordingly “this book” in MT 25:13 originally referred to the scroll of Jeremiah’s prophecies but later came to refer to the collection of sayings against the nations now found in MT Jer 25:15–38. 17 The unidentified enemy from the north who brings disaster appears to be a part of the earliest Jeremian tradition; see especially Jer 1:15 and 6:22.

zechariah 1–8

161

C. MT Jeremiah 25:8–9, 11–12 ‫ ִהנְ נִ י שׁ ֵֹל ַח‬9 ‫ת־דּ ָב ָרי׃‬ ְ ‫ֹא־שׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם ֶא‬ ְ ‫ ָל ֵכן כּ ֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת יַ ַﬠן ֲא ֶשׁר ל‬8 ‫ְך־בּ ֶבל ַﬠ ְב ִדּי‬ ָ ‫אצּר ֶמ ֶל‬ ַ ‫בוּכ ְד ֶר‬ ַ ְ‫ל־מ ְשׁ ְפּחוֹת ָצפוֹן נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה וְ ֶאל־נ‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ָל ַק ְח ִתּי ֶא‬ ‫ל־הגּוֹיִ ם ָה ֵא ֶלּה ָס ִביב וְ ַה ֲח ַר ְמ ִתּים‬ ַ ‫יה וְ ַﬠל ָכּ‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ַהזּ ֹאת וְ ַﬠל־י ְֹשׁ ֶב‬ ָ ‫וַ ֲה ִבא ִֹתים ַﬠ‬ ‫עוֹלם׃‬ ָ ‫וְ ַשׂ ְמ ִתּים ְל ַשׁ ָמּה וְ ִל ְשׁ ֵר ָקה ְוּל ָח ְרבוֹת‬ ...

‫ת־מ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ַהזּ ֹאת ְל ָח ְר ָבּה ְל ַשׁ ָמּה וְ ָﬠ ְבדוּ ַהגּוֹיִ ם ָה ֵא ֶלּה ֶא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָהיְ ָתה ָכּ‬11 ‫ל־הגּוֹי‬ ַ ‫ְך־בּ ֶבל וְ ַﬠ‬ ָ ‫ל־מ ֶל‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ִכ ְמל ֹאות ִשׁ ְב ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה ֶא ְפק ֹד ַﬠ‬12 ‫ִשׁ ְב ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה׃‬ ‫עוֹלם׃‬ ָ ‫ל־א ֶרץ ַכּ ְשׂ ִדּים וְ ַשׂ ְמ ִתּי א ֹתוֹ ְל ִשׁ ְממוֹת‬ ֶ ‫ת־ﬠוֹנָ ם וְ ַﬠ‬ ֲ ‫ַההוּא נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ 8 Therefore thus says Yhwh of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words, 9 I am sending and will take all the tribes of the north, says Yhwh, and to Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, my servant,18 and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; I will utterly destroy them, and make them an object of horror, a hissing, and an everlasting ruin19. . . .11 This20 whole land shall become a ruin, a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 After seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation for their iniquity, says Yhwh, the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it21 an everlasting waste.

MT Jeremiah 25 removes much of the ambiguity present in the earlier edition of the Hebrew text witnessed in LXX. As can be seen from the italicized phrases, which indicate the more substantial MT variances from LXX, MT Jer 25 differs most notably from LXX in specifying the identity of the oppressor from the north. The single “tribe from the north” (πατριὰν ἀπὸ βορρᾶ, LXX 25:9) that God will send against the land in the earlier edition has been multiplied (‫כל משפחות צפון‬, “all the tribes of the north”), identified with Babylon, and placed under the aegis of Nebuchadnezzar. MT appears to have supplied the identity of the oppressor nation on the basis of MT Jer 43:10/LXX 50:1022, which also

18 The phrase ‫ ואל נבוכדראצר מלך בבל עבדי‬is not reflected in LXX; because ‫ואל‬ ‫ נבוכדראצר‬is not parallel to ‫ את כל משפחות‬and the preposition ‫ אל‬is awkward after ‫ולקחתי‬, the phrase appears to be a later insertion. See Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jer-

emiah, 44; and McKane, Jeremiah, 1:624–27. 19 LXX has ὀνειδισμός (‫חרפה‬, “a reproach”). 20 Missing in LXX; perhaps added under the influence of MT Jer 25:9? 21 Or “him” (‫)אתו‬, since ‫ אתה‬is expected here if “it” is to refer to the feminine ‫ארץ‬ ‫כשדים‬. 22 Janzen, among others, suggests that the phrase is derived from Jer 43:10 (Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, 44).

162

chapter four

contains the phrasing ‫( הנני שלה ולקהתי‬ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω καὶ ἄξω) and identifies Nebuchadnezzar as the one sent. The identification of Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon as the enemy continues in the next verse (v. 11), which has been significantly altered in the later edition. LXX reads, “and they shall serve among the nations seventy years,” which points to a Vorlage that was phrased, ‫ועבדו בגוים‬ ‫האלה שבעים שנה‬. In MT, the phrase is rendered, ‫ועבדו הגוים האלה‬ ‫את מלך בבל שבעים שנה‬, “these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” Not only has the one served been identified as the king of Babylon, as in v. 9, but “the nations” that Israel was fated to serve, according to the Vorlage to LXX, are now fated to serve alongside Israel, in thrall to Babylon.23 The resulting claim agrees with the statement found in both versions (v. 9) that disaster will overtake “all these surrounding nations,” ‫כל הגוים האלה סביב‬.24 While the MT version may be making explicit an interpretation that was current widely or within a limited circle in Zechariah’s time25, the inconcinnities of the earlier passages in Jeremiah should not be effaced, for they, too, may have informed Zechariah’s sense of the times. Even with the clarification provided by the new historical references, the resulting text still leaves room for interpretation. While MT Jer 25: 11–12 anchors the seventy years in the encounter with Babylon, the period does not clearly refer to a Judean exile. This may be explained by the verses’ primary concern with the duration of Babylonian hegemony. The period refers to the time that will elapse before the king of Babylon and his nation are punished, but it gives no hint of a Judean restoration. That the later edition of Jeremiah reflected in MT refers to Babylonian ascendancy is further established by the chronological notice at the start of the chapter. According to both LXX and MT Jer 25:1, the prophecy of vv. 9–12 is set in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim, 605 b.c.e., but MT adds that it was also the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (‫היא השנה‬ ‫)הראשנית לנבוכדראצר מלך בבל‬. This addition locates the prophecy

23 When the redactors of the later version added the phrase “the king of Babylon,” they also altered (by design or error) ‫ בגוים‬to ‫הגוים‬, which provided the plural “they will serve” (‫ )ועבדו‬with a new subject in addition to Israel (Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:663 n. 11c). 24 Rudolph (Jeremia, 160) argues that ‫ כל הגוים האלה סביב‬is itself a later expansion based on Jer 25:15. 25 Note the addition of MT Jer 29:14 (not in LXX), which further spells out the restoration of the exiled.

zechariah 1–8

163

within Babylonian as well as Judean history: in 605 Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at Carchemish, asserting control over his own empire. The revised edition thus extends its concern with the duration of Babylonian hegemony in the opening chronological notice as well as in vv. 11–12. Indeed, the period between Nebuchadnezzar’s ascent to power (605 b.c.e.) and Cyrus’s conquest of Babylonia (539 b.c.e.) lasted for a total of sixty-six years, and it is plausible that the redactors of the later edition interpreted Jeremiah’s seventy years as a round figure referring to this period.26 To sum up: in the earliest version of the motif, the seventy-year figure stands for the period after which foreign hegemony will subside. The later explanation of the motif, witnessed in MT Jer 25, firmly associates the period of seventy years with Babylonian hegemony and with the period for which Israel, along with the surrounding nations, will serve Babylon; this service, however, is not equated with exile and the passage has little to say about restoration. In the corresponding LXX version of 25:8–9, 11–12, Babylon is not mentioned, but the return from a presumed exile is. Within the Greek and Hebrew editions of Jeremiah, then, the period consistently refers to foreign domination but has a varying emphasis on servitude and exile. Further, the boundaries of the seventy-year period remain unclear in both the earlier and later editions of Jeremiah. If, as MT Jer 25:1 suggests, the period began in 605 when Nebuchadnezzar became king, then the approximate end of the period can be found in the Persian conquest of Babylonia in 539 and the edict to return, the endpoint for 2 Chr 36 and Ezra 1. If, however, the beginning of the period of Babylonian domination were to be reckoned differently, not according to the rise of the empire but to its exiling of Judah’s populace, one possible interpretation of Judean “servitude,” then the end of the period would arrive significantly later. If the period were measured from the first deportation in 597 or the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 (and the second deportation), then the seventy years would not elapse until 527 or 517, many years after Cyrus had allegedly liberated Israel from the Babylonian yoke. Indeed,

26 A literal reading of 2 Chr 36:21, which states that the seventy years ended in 539/538 b.c.e., would place their beginning in 609, the first year of the reign of Jehoiakim; this may be related to 2 Chronicles’ unique assertion that Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiakim and “some of the temple vessels” (36:6–7) to Babylon (on this point, see Albertz, Israel in Exile, 14–15). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles may also be treating “seventy years” as a round figure; compare the absence of any reference to “seventy years” in Ezra 1:1.

164

chapter four

the continuity of Israelite experience under Babylonian and Persian rule was acknowledged by Ezra in the following century (Ezra 9:8–9), as noted in the introduction. As the next section will demonstrate, the seventy-year figure in Zechariah’s night visions corresponds with neither position exactly. While Zechariah holds to the emphasis on the domination of Babylon and the destruction of Judah’s cities, which is a basic feature of Jeremiah’s presentation of the seventy years, the starting and ending point of the period is not transparent; indeed, the angel’s uncertainty about the parameters of the seventy years is a starting point for the night visions. The oracles to the first vision suggest that the end of Yhwh’s wrath lies in the near future, long after the victory of Cyrus over Babylon and the edict of return; the subsequent visions bear out that for Zechariah the elements variously associated with the seventy years—the rise of Babylon, the destruction of Jerusalem, the exile—are still in play. Thus at the very least, Zechariah diverges from the view of Jeremiah’s interpreters in 2 Chr 36 and Ezra 1. It further appears that the seventy-year figure used by Zechariah as a shorthand evocation of a period of divine wrath expresses all of these elements (the rise of Babylon, the destruction of Jerusalem, the exile), and so the abatement of Yhwh’s wrath will thus be made manifest on a variety of fronts—the rebuilding of the city and its temple and the restoration of the populace. On a more profound level, however, these signs are not conclusive; the underlying issue addressed by the angel is Yhwh’s lingering anger. In other words, as in the curses of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, exile has come to function as one among many potent expressions of divine anger. For Zechariah, the divine period of wrath is evident not only in depopulation, but in the destruction of the city and the ease of Babylon; however, it is not confined to those markers. In the view of Zechariah’s redactors, who added the book’s later strands and its introduction, as discussed below, exile as an iteration of divine anger would only end with Yhwh turning back to the people and the people turning back to Yhwh. Exile, in addition to its concrete significance, would come to have metaphorical meaning and evoke a deeper and ongoing existential situation.

zechariah 1–8

165

III. Enduring Exile in the Night Visions The eight night visions address a variety of issues confronting the early postexilic community. The first of these visions, Zech 1:7–17, in its own surrealistic fashion, contends with the issue of how the end of the seventy-year era of divine wrath, a period encompassing the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the exile, is to be discerned in concrete, earthly terms. A. The First Vision (Zech 1:7–17) ‫י־ﬠ ָשׂר ח ֶֹדשׁ הוּא־ח ֶֹדשׁ ְשׁ ָבט ִבּ ְשׁנַ ת ְשׁ ַתּיִ ם‬ ָ ‫ ְבּיוֹם ֶﬠ ְשׂ ִרים וְ ַא ְר ָבּ ָﬠה ְל ַﬠ ְשׁ ֵתּ‬7 8 ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ן־ﬠדּוֹא ַהנָּ ִביא ֵלאמ ֹר׃ ָר ִא‬ ִ ‫ן־בּ ֶר ְכיָ הוּ ֶבּ‬ ֶ ‫ְל ָד ְריָ וֶ שׁ ָהיָ ה ְד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־זְ ַכ ְריָ ה ֶבּ‬ ‫ה־אישׁ ר ֵֹכב ַﬠל־סוּס ָאד ֹם וְ הוּא ע ֵֹמד ֵבּין ַה ֲה ַד ִסּים ֲא ֶשׁר ַבּ ְמּ ֻצ ָלה‬ ִ ֵ‫ַה ַלּיְ ָלה וְ ִהנּ‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵא ַלי‬ ֶ ‫ה־א ֶלּה ֲאד ֹנִ י וַ יּ‬ ֵ ‫ וָ א ַֹמר ָמ‬9 ‫סוּסים ֲא ֻד ִמּים ְשׂ ֻר ִקּים ְוּל ָבנִ ים׃‬ ִ ‫וְ ַא ֲח ָריו‬ ‫ין־ה ֲה ַד ִסּים‬ ַ ‫ וַ יַּ ַﬠן ָה ִאישׁ ָהע ֵֹמד ֵבּ‬10 ‫ה־ה ָמּה ֵא ֶלּה׃‬ ֵ ‫ַה ַמּ ְל ָאְך ַהדּ ֵֹבר ִבּי ֲאנִ י ַא ְר ֶא ָךּ ָמ‬ ‫ת־מ ְל ַאְך יְ הוָ ה ָהע ֵֹמד‬ ַ ‫ וַ יַּ ֲﬠנוּ ֶא‬11 ‫ֹאמר ֵא ֶלּה ֲא ֶשׁר ָשׁ ַלח יְ הוָ ה ְל ִה ְת ַה ֵלְּך ָבּ ָא ֶרץ׃‬ ַ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫ וַ יַּ ַﬠן‬12 ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ י ֶֹשׁ ֶבת וְ שׁ ָֹק ֶטת׃‬ ָ ‫ֹאמרוּ ִה ְת ַה ַלּ ְכנוּ ָב ָא ֶרץ וְ ִהנֵּ ה ָכ‬ ְ ‫ֵבּין ַה ֲה ַד ִסּים וַ יּ‬ ‫רוּשׁ ַלםִ וְ ֵאת‬ ָ ְ‫ֹא־ת ַר ֵחם ֶאת־י‬ ְ ‫ד־מ ַתי ַא ָתּה ל‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫ַמ ְל ַאְך־יְ הוָ ה וַ יּ‬ ‫ת־ה ַמּ ְל ָאְך ַהדּ ֵֹבר ִבּי‬ ַ ‫ וַ יַּ ַﬠן יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬13 ‫הוּדה ֲא ֶשׁר זָ ַﬠ ְמ ָתּה זֶ ה ִשׁ ְב ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה׃‬ ָ ְ‫ָﬠ ֵרי י‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵא ַלי ַה ַמּ ְל ָאְך ַהדּ ֵֹבר ִבּי ְק ָרא ֵלאמ ֹר כּ ֹה‬ ֶ ‫ וַ יּ‬14 ‫טוֹבים ְדּ ָב ִרים נִ ֻח ִמים׃‬ ִ ‫ְדּ ָב ִרים‬ ‫ וְ ֶק ֶצף גָּ דוֹל ֲאנִ י ק ֵֹצף‬15 ‫דוֹלה׃‬ ָ ְ‫ירוּשׁ ַלםִ ְוּל ִציּוֹן ִקנְ ָאה ג‬ ָ ‫אתי ִל‬ ִ ֵ‫ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת ִקנּ‬ ‫ֹה־א ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ָל ֵכן כּ‬16 ‫ל־הגּוֹיִ ם ַה ַשּׁ ֲאנַ נִּ ים ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י ָק ַצ ְפ ִתּי ְמּ ָﬠט וְ ֵה ָמּה ָﬠזְ רוּ ְל ָר ָﬠה׃‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬ ‫יתי ָיִבּנֶ ה ָבּהּ נְ ֻאם יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת וְ ָקו יִ נָּ ֶטה ַﬠל־‬ ִ ‫ירוּשׁ ַלםִ ְבּ ַר ֲח ִמים ֵבּ‬ ָ ‫יְ הוָ ה ַשׁ ְב ִתּי ִל‬ ‫פוּצינָ ה ָﬠ ַרי ִמטּוֹב‬ ֶ ‫ עוֹד ְק ָרא ֵלאמ ֹר כּ ֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת עוֹד ְתּ‬17 ‫רוּשׁ ָלםִ׃‬ ָ ְ‫י‬ ‫ירוּשׁ ָלםִ׃‬ ָ ‫וּב ַחר עוֹד ִבּ‬ ָ ‫ת־ציּוֹן‬ ִ ‫וְ נִ ַחם יְ הוָ ה עוֹד ֶא‬ 7

On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month (which is the month of Shebat) in the second year of Darius, the word of Yhwh came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berekiah son of Iddo: 8 In the night, I saw a man mounted on27 a red horse. He was standing among the myrtle trees in the deep and behind him were red, sorrel, and white horses.9 I said, “What are these, my lord?” The angel who talked with me said to me, “I will show you what they are.” 10 The man who was standing among the myrtle trees answered, “These are those whom Yhwh has sent to patrol the earth.” 11 They answered the angel of Yhwh who was standing among the myrtle trees, “We have walked throughout the earth and indeed the whole earth is still quiet.” 12 Then the angel of Yhwh said, “O Yhwh of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem

27 ‫רכב‬, which usually means “to ride,” has the sense of “to be mounted” here, in Num 22:22, and in 2 Sam 18:9 (Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 139).

166

chapter four and the cities of Judah, with which you were angry for seventy years28?” 13 Yhwh replied with good and comforting words to the angel who talked with me. 14 So the angel who talked with me said to me, “Proclaim this message. Thus says Yhwh of hosts: I am very jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion. 15 But I am very angry with the nations that are at ease, because I was only a little angry29 and they helped further it for evil. 16 “Therefore, thus says Yhwh, I have returned to Jerusalem with compassion; my house shall be built in it, says Yhwh of hosts, and a line30 shall be stretched out over Jerusalem. 17 “Again proclaim: Thus says Yhwh of hosts: Again my cities shall overflow with bounty. Yhwh will again comfort Zion, again choose Jerusalem.” (Zech 1:7–17)

Following an announcement that the earth is “still quiet,” the angel of Yhwh laments, “O Yhwh of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which you were angry for seventy years?” (v. 12). Yhwh responds—in “good and comforting words”—that the period of his wrath either has ended or is about to end (vv. 13–15, 16, and 17). Indeed, this first section reflects some diversity of opinion on the issue of how and when the period will end. The core of the vision (vv. 8–13) and its first oracle (vv. 14–15), the oldest stratum in this redacted unit, suggest that the end of this period is imminent, even if it cannot be discerned yet. It is not clear whether the audience has yet to perceive the new period, or the effects of Yhwh’s changed disposition have yet to devolve on the earth. In either case, the later framing of the

28 A similar construction is used to designate a period that has been completed in Gen 31:38 (‫זה עשרים שנה‬, cf. 31:41); Deut 2:7; 8:2, 4 (‫ ;)זה ארבעים שנה‬Josh 14:10 (‫ ;)זה ארבעים וחמש שנה‬and Jer 25:3 (‫)זה שלש ועשרים שנה‬. 29 ‫ מעט‬may be translated as an adverb of degree, meaning that Yhwh was only “a little angry,” or as an indication of the duration of the anger, meaning that Yhwh was “angry for a little while.” The sense of the word in this verse is difficult to determine (as it is in Ezek 11:16). On the one hand, ‫ מעט‬would seem to indicate the degree of Yhwh’s anger, since within v. 15 ‫ מעט‬corresponds to ‫גדול‬, which describes Yhwh’s (“great”) anger against the nation and thus functions to qualify the degree of Yhwh’s anger. On the other hand, taking the larger context into consideration, ‫ מעט‬would seem to indicate duration rather than degree; the question in v. 12 pertains to the length of Yhwh’s anger. It may well be that there is an intentional double meaning here, but I opt for coherence within the verse by translating ‫ מעט‬as an adverb of degree. Cf. ‫ קצף גדול‬in Zech 7:12. 30 The Qere (‫)וקו‬, a masculine form, is preferable to the Ketib since it agrees with the masculine singular verb that follows, ‫ינטה‬. The “line” or “measuring line” (cf. ‫חבל‬ in Zech 2:5 [Eng. 2:1]) can mark out an area for destruction or can be a positive sign of rebuilding, as it is in a number of texts that forecast a restored Jerusalem and Judah (Jer 31:39; Ezek 47:4; see Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 156–57).

zechariah 1–8

167

vision develops the sense that the end of the period of wrath has yet to be made fully manifest; these materials include the dating formula at the opening of the vision (v. 7) and, at the end, the second (v. 16) and third oracles (v. 17), which declare the return of Yhwh and the restoration of Jerusalem. The date at the opening of the vision asserts that the seventy-year period of Yhwh’s wrath, which by Jeremiah’s calculation likely ended with the fall of Babylon (i.e., lasting ca. 605–539 b.c.e.), endures two decades into the Persian period, long after the victory of Cyrus and his edict. The second and third oracles further postpone the end of the period by associating it with events that have not yet come to pass: the rebuilding of the temple, completed in 515 b.c.e., and the return of prosperity. The frame thus affirms that the two decades that have elapsed after the fall of Babylon and the return of the exiles are included in the seventy-year period. The insights that Zechariah’s vision offers on how the exile was viewed in the early restoration period come not only in the substance of the material that will be discussed below, but also in the arrangement of that material. The formation of the first unit of the night visions, Zech 1:7–17, which evolved over time and contains several different genres, also provides a means to plumb more deeply the early interpretations of the exilic period and its extent.31 The formation of the first vision can be reconstructed as follows. The passage begins, in v. 7, with a date formula and messenger formula given in the third person.32 The messenger and dating formulae (the latter with some diversity) are also found at the start of each of the book’s three major sections, in 1:1, 1:7, and 7:7, and these additions structure the three parts of Zech 1–8. The passage continues with the oldest material, a 31 On the formation of Zech 1–8, see Kurt Galling, “Die Exilswende in der Sicht des Propheten Sacharja,” in Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr, 1964), 109, who in turn cites Karl Elliger (Das Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten II [ATD 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975]) and Alfred Jepsen (“Kleine Beiträge zum Zwölfprophetenbuch III: 4. Sacharja,” ZAW 61 [1945–1948]: 95–114). Meyers and Meyers leave open the possibility that Zechariah himself added the chronological frame (Haggai; Zechariah 1–8, 109); Paul L. Redditt argues that the prose sections at the opening and the close of the book (1:1–6 and 7:1–8:23) are the work of the redactor and that 1:7–6:15 contains the earliest materials with some later supplementation (Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi [NCB Commentary; London: Marshall Pickering; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William Eerdmans, 1995], 38–43, 88–89). 32 Boda points out that the date formula asserts when the vision was conveyed to the people and not when the prophet received it; that the visions were not delivered all at one time is evident in 4:1, when the angel “returns and awakens” Zechariah (Haggai, Zechariah [NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004], 39).

168

chapter four

vision in vv. 8–13 that shifts into the first person and is followed by three oracles, vv. 14–15, v. 16, and v. 17, each demarcated by the prophetic formula (‫כה אמר יהוה )צבאות‬. The reappearance of this formula (an indication of resumptive repetition) and the shift in emphasis between the first oracle, on the one hand, and the second and third oracles, on the other, are indications of redactional activity. The first oracle, vv. 14–15, which provides the “gracious and comforting words” alluded to in the final line of the vision, may have arisen alongside the vision.33 Without it the vision would end in suspense, with the communication between Yhwh and the angel remaining private. Thus I consider the first vision and its first oracle to be the earliest stratum. By contrast, the second and third oracles, vv. 16 and 17, are later additions that transform the vision’s implications for Jersualem by anticipating more clearly a restoration in the future.34 1. The First Vision and First Oracle (1:8–15) The older core of the vision and its first oracle suggest that while Yhwh, from his divine abode, has ended the period of wrath, the effects of the shift in his disposition toward Israel are not yet perceptible on earth. There is a difference between the divine and human perception of the times, perhaps even a pause between divine intention and earthly fulfillment. In the vision, Zechariah hears the report of horsemen who have been “sent to patrol the earth” by Yhwh: “We have walked throughout the earth and indeed the whole earth is still quiet” (v. 12). At this report, the interpreting angel cries out, “O Yhwh of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which you were angry for seventy years?”35 The angel voices frustration with the report through the expression ‫עד מתי‬, “how long,” which figures in a variety of psalms of communal lament.36 His reference to the seventy-year figure is intended as a shorthand evocation of a preexisting tradition. 33

Amsler, Aggée, Zacharie 1–8, 60–61. On the later addition of vv. 16–17, the second and third oracles, see Amsler, Aggée; Zacharie 1–8, 60–61. Petitjean had isolated all three oracles as later, but that is precipitous, since the vision requires the explication given in the first oracle (Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 53–88). 35 It may be that the man (the head horseman) and the angel are one and the same; while they are differentiated in v. 10, in v. 11 the angel is in the same location—“standing among the myrtle trees”—where the man had been. 36 As Janet E. Tollington has pointed out, the phrase evokes laments directed toward Yhwh, for example Pss 6:4; 74:10; 80:5; 90:13; and 94:3 (Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 [JSOTSup 150; Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1993], 34

zechariah 1–8

169

As discussed above, this seventy-year figure has certain similarities with the use of the motif in the Babylonian Inscription of Esarhaddon and with Jer 25:11–12 and 29:10. As in the Babylonian Inscription, the figure in Zechariah alludes to a period of divine wrath evidenced in the destruction of the city in the first vision, and, in the second vision, the exile of the populace; the angel further expects an act of “mercy” or “compassion” to end the period. Zechariah’s use of the figure may also be an allusion to, if not an interpretation of, Jeremiah, and indeed most commentaries presume this.37 This much can be said with certainty: in Zechariah, the expectation associated with this figure, evident in the angel’s frustration, is that the divine wrath should have abated now that the time period has passed. This frustration may be heightened because the angel expected Yhwh to cut the period short, just as Marduk shortened the period that the city was to lie desolate from seventy years to eleven years in Esarhaddon’s inscription. It may be because Jeremiah’s prophecy spurred the expectation that at the end of the seventy-year period the restoration would be in full effect, because of Cyrus’s victory over Babylon and the returns of 538 b.c.e. In either case, the angel’s lament suggests that there has been only imperceptible change, if any, despite the fulfillment of the period. Within the visions, then, the seventy-year period presents a problem of interpretation. The first oracle counters by asserting that on a cosmic level the limits of the figure have been upheld. The angel assures that Yhwh’s anger against Jerusalem and Zion has

183–84). Sweeney notes that the phrase also echoes Isaiah’s response to Yhwh’s initial call to “dull the mind of this people, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes” (6:9–10). To this, Isaiah responds, ‫עד מתי‬, “How long?” Yhwh continues, “Until cities lie waste without inhabitants, and houses without people, and the land is utterly devastated; until Yhwh sends everyone far away, and vast is the desolation in the midst of the land” (6:11–12). Given the numerous allusions to Isaiah in Zech 1–8, it is possible that the desperation of the angel is further conveyed by allusion to Isaiah’s initial response to Yhwh; the cities of Jerusalem and Judah have been laid waste, the people have been sent far away, and still the period of wrath has not come to an apparent end (Marvin Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets [Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001], 2:578–79). 37 The discussion of the seventy-year motif earlier in this chapter highlights the degree to which the figure, even as presented in Jeremiah itself, was open to interpretation. In the early postexilic period its meaning was not fixed; the Jeremian corpus uses the figure most frequently to allude to the period of domination by a foreign nation, identified by MT as the Babylonians, and secondarily to refer to exile. Although the figure becomes one of the hallmarks of the canonical book’s words on exile, it has variable meaning across the chapters and across the versions, making the case for allusion in Zechariah less clear cut. Further, unlike Dan 9, which cites Jeremiah as the source of the “seventy years” prediction, there is no such mention in Zechariah.

170

chapter four

abated (vv. 14–15). This first oracle, which arose with or soon after the vision, promises that, indeed, Yhwh’s disposition has now changed. Zechariah’s brief description of the physical setting of the first vision intimates a location between the human and divine realms, an additional signal that the change of which he hears has been effected on the cosmic level, although it is not yet evident on the mundane level. The location of the man mounted on a red horse, who functions as head of the patrol, suggests that he is in a position to witness activity in the divine realm. In v. 8, the man is “standing among the myrtle trees in the deep (‫)במצלה‬.”38 David L. Petersen argues that the references to the ‫ מצולה‬and the myrtles suggest water and thus a location proximate to the divine abode,39 which would provide the context for the conversation that Zechariah overhears. Thus Zechariah’s vision places the exchange between Yhwh and his angel between the mundane and the divine realms.40 This is a location that would allow the horseman to overhear the reports of the patrollers who have come from the earth, and it is also a suitable position for the angel who addresses and receives a response from Yhwh. Precisely because it lies between the human and the divine spheres, it is

38 The translation of ‫ ְמּ ֻצ ָלה‬is disputed. Elsewhere, ‫ ְמּ ֻצ ָלה‬is always written with a ‫ו‬ except in Ps 68:23, ‫ממצלות ים‬, where the meaning of “deep” is clear from context. The combination of the defective spelling in Zech 1:8 as well as the LXX rendering, ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν δύο ὀρέων τῶν κατασκίων, “between the two shady mountains,” has led some to argue that ‫ ְמּ ֻצ ָלה‬here derives from ‫ צלל‬and is cognate to ‫צל‬, “shadow.” See Meyers and Meyers, Haggai; Zechariah 1–8, 110–11; and Boda, Haggai, Zechariah, 195–96; Greek text from Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis XIII: Duodecim Prophetae (2d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). (The LXX of Ps 88:7 renders ‫ ִבּ ְמצ ֹלוֹת‬as ἐν σκιᾷ θανάτου, “in the shadow of death,” but this probably reflects confusion between ‫מצלות‬ and ‫צלמות‬, “shadow of death.”) All other occurrences of ‫מּצוּלה‬, including Zech 10:11, mean “deep,” not “shadow” (cf. Exod 15:5; Neh 9:11; Job 41:23; Ps 69:3, 16 [Eng. 69:2, 15]; 88:7; 107:24; Jonah 2:4; Mic 7:19). 39 Petersen (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 139–40) finds a parallel between the ‫מצולה‬ in the vision and the water that runs by El’s mountain (see Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament [HSM 4: Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972], 48) and the similar notion found in, for example, the stream in Gen 2:8 that waters the garden. It has also been proposed that the location is near the temple, conceived as the juncture between heaven and earth (Sweeney, Berit Olam: The Twelve Prophets, 2:577). 40 Christian Jeremias has gone farther to suggest that the location is the divine abode, in part by drawing in the description of the seventh vision (Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja [FRLANT 117; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977], 114); Rex Mason’s notion of an “entrance” (The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi [CBC; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 36) and Petersen’s “near the divine abode” are more restrained and capture the liminality of the location (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 139–40).

zechariah 1–8

171

an apt setting for the announcement that restoration has been decreed in heaven, even though it has yet to be perceived on earth. Thus there has been a transition that the angel (and the patrollers) did not recognize, and while Yhwh’s anger still burns, its target is no longer Israel. It is, rather, the nations at ease that have extended the power Yhwh invested in them as instruments of Judah’s punishment beyond acceptable limits. The oracle’s comfort is that Yhwh “is jealous” or “zealous” (‫ )קנא‬for Jerusalem and Zion (Zech 1:14). The choice of this term for Yhwh’s anger is telling, for in the vision itself, the angel laments Yhwh’s lack of mercy and Yhwh’s anger (‫ זעם‬and ‫לא רחם‬, v. 12). These are terms for unmitigated anger. By describing Yhwh’s emotion as ‫קנא‬, however, the oracle nuances Yhwh’s emotion, for ‫ קנא‬is only roughly synonymous with ‫ זעם‬and ‫לא רחם‬. In certain contexts, as here in v. 14, ‫ קנא‬also carries with it an additional valence of passionate love.41 The oracle implicitly tempers, even counters, the notion that Yhwh bears an overriding wrath toward Jerusalem and Zion. The qualification of Yhwh’s emotion is further evident in the contrasting description of his feeling toward the nations at ease: Yhwh is now greatly angry (‫קצף גדול‬ ‫ )אני קצף‬at the other nations who used the situation for ill, for perpetuating their power beyond its intended limits (v. 15). Yhwh’s feeling for Jerusalem and Zion is no longer anger but passionate possessiveness, and his great anger is reserved for—if not enlarged by—those nameless nations at ease. The oracle counters the angel’s understanding of the times because, despite what the angel—and the Judeans—perceive in the apparent quiet of the world, the anger Yhwh is now being directed at the nameless nations at ease. And the nature of Yhwh’s emotion toward the people has changed; what is misapprehended as anger is, indeed, passionate love. 2. The Second and Third Oracles to the First Vision (1:16, 17) ‫יתי ָיִבּנֶ ה ָבּהּ נְ ֻאם יְ הוָ ה‬ ִ ‫ירוּשׁ ַלםִ ְבּ ַר ֲח ִמים ֵבּ‬ ָ ‫ֹה־א ַמר יְ הוָ ה ַשׁ ְב ִתּי ִל‬ ָ ‫ ָל ֵכן כּ‬16 17 ‫רוּשׁ ָלםִ׃ עוֹד ְק ָרא ֵלאמ ֹר כּ ֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת עוֹד‬ ָ ְ‫ְצ ָבאוֹת וְ ָקוָ ה יִ נָּ ֶטה ַﬠל־י‬ ‫ירוּשׁ ָלםִ׃‬ ָ ‫וּב ַחר עוֹד ִבּ‬ ָ ‫ת־ציּוֹן‬ ִ ‫פוּצינָ ה ָﬠ ַרי ִמטּוֹב וְ נִ ַחם יְ הוָ ה עוֹד ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ְתּ‬ 16

Therefore, thus says Yhwh, “I have returned to Jerusalem with compassion; my house shall be built in it, says Yhwh of hosts, and a line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem.”

41 For example, in Num 25:13 and 1 Kgs 19:10, 14; cf. Zech 8:2. The preposition -‫ ל‬indicates that Yhwh’s jealousy is on behalf of, rather than against, Jerusalem and Zion.

172

chapter four 17 Again proclaim: Thus says Yhwh of hosts: “Again my cities shall overflow with bounty. Yhwh will again comfort Zion, again choose Jerusalem.” (Zech 1:16, 17)

A change in subject indicates that the second and third oracles in vv. 16 and 17 are later additions that further explain the divine shift from wrath to mercy. The oracles describe how that shift will be measured—by, for example, a renewed divine presence in Jerusalem. In quantifying the end of the period of wrath in this way, however, they anticipate this shift as a moment in the future. As we saw in the first poem in the Book of Consolation (Jer 30:5–11), the specificity of the oracles of restoration and that they looked increasingly forward combined to defer the end of the period. The second oracle, v. 16, builds on the dispositional shift noted in the vision: Yhwh is returning to Jerusalem “with compassion” (‫)ברחמים‬. The language of return in the second oracle—“to return with compassion”— provides an exegesis of the vision through wordplay on the notion that Yhwh is withholding mercy (‫לא תרחם‬, v. 12). The third oracle also has verbal links to the dispositional shift noted in the vision, when Zechariah overhears Yhwh’s good (‫ )טוב‬and comforting (‫ )נחם‬words (v. 13). The third oracle proclaims that Yhwh’s cities shall overflow with bounty (‫ )טוב‬and that Yhwh shall comfort (‫ )נחם‬Zion (v. 17). The phrasing of the oracles thus underlines the coming renewal of Yhwh’s presence in Judah, which was not explicit in either the vision or its first oracle. This is particularly true in the second oracle, in which the verb ‫ שוב‬followed by the preposition -‫ ל‬means “to return to a place.”42 It would be tempting to understand this return in terms of Ezekiel’s visions of the departure (10:4) and return (43:4–5) of Yhwh’s ‫כבוד‬. And, certainly, Yhwh’s return may have a material element to it here, too, although the point seems to be, rather, to contrast Yhwh’s compassion with his earlier wrath. This return with compassion has specific programmatic elements, including the rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of Jerusalem. There are further differences between the vision and the first oracle, on the one hand, and the second and third oracles, on the other, in how they conceive of the present moment. The issue in the first oracle and vision was Yhwh’s disposition toward Jerusalem after the passage of seventy years. In the first vision, there were, indeed, no discernible signs that the period had ended, as the patrollers reported. The answer of the 42

Heinz-Josef Fabry, “‫שׁוּב‬,” TDOT 14:473.

zechariah 1–8

173

first oracle, vv. 14–15, is that Yhwh’s anger has abated even if the change is not yet perceptible. By contrast, the next two oracles look forward to the signs that Yhwh’s anger has abated. The second and third oracles envision and describe what will happen now that the period of wrath is over—rather than commenting on whether the period is over: the temple will be rebuilt and there will be prosperity. By looking forward in this way, however, they suggest that the new period has not yet begun. While the first oracle had Yhwh proclaiming that he was zealous for Jerusalem and for Zion (v. 14), now the restoration of divine affection is an event promised in the (near) future; for example, the third oracle promises that Yhwh “will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem” (v. 17). In this way, the third oracle suggests that the period of wrath continues. The first vision and the first oracle, by contrast, appear to assert that the period is now over, even if the change is yet imperceptible. Only when certain events have come to pass will the change be confirmed. Like the third oracle, the second oracle seems to expect Yhwh’s compassionate return at a moment in the near future. In the second oracle, Yhwh proclaims ‫שבתי‬. This verb may be understood as a simple perfect that describes an event already completed, as in “I have returned (‫ )שבתי‬to Jerusalem with compassion.”43 Or it may be understood as a perfectum propheticum, whereby Yhwh’s declaration that he has returned means that his return is imminent but not yet realized.44 The two verbs that immediately precede ‫( שבתי‬in v. 15, the first oracle) are simple perfects (‫ קצפתי‬and ‫ )עזרו‬and the two that follow (in v. 16, the second oracle) are in the future (‫ יבנה‬and ‫)ינטה‬, which heightens the ambiguity of the tense of the verb.45 Does it describe a past action like the verbs that come before,46 or is it a part of the future like the verbs that

43 So Galling (“Exilswende”) and Meyers and Meyers, who argue that, according to Haggai, Yhwh would be present once the rebuilding of the temple was underway (Haggai; Zechariah 1–8, 122–23). Boda has rightly cautioned against reading Haggai in light of Zechariah in this manner (“Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet?,” 49–69). 44 The use of the perfectum propheticum is indicated when “the prophet so transports himself in imagination into the future that he describes the future event as if it had been already seen or heard by him” (GKC §106n, 312–13). 45 The verbs of the third oracle in v. 17 are also in the future, which again stresses the ambiguity of ‫שבתי‬. 46 So Michael Floyd, “Cosmos and History in Zechariah’s View of the Restoration (Zechariah 1:7–6: 15),” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), 132.

174

chapter four

describe the coming restoration?47 Read canonically, the sense that there is a change that is yet to be perceived, which pervades the first vision, suggests that Yhwh’s return with compassion has not yet occurred and that ‫ שבתי‬is most likely a perfectum propheticum. Further, the description of what will happen in Jerusalem also has yet to occur: “My house shall be built in it, says Yhwh of hosts, and the line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem.” The ambiguity of the verb tenses in the second oracle points to the liminality of the moment it describes even as it looks to the future; it makes little differentiation between the period of the past and the present. It is the future that will be distinctive. In the first vision and the first oracle, there was no strong indication that things had changed from the past, even if there was a sense that Yhwh’s anger toward Israel had abated (v. 15). The second oracle, however, looks forward to future change. Finally, while the first vision and first oracle do not correlate the seventy-year period with the status of the temple, the second oracle makes an explicit connection between the abatement of Yhwh’s anger and the rebuilding of the temple. While the rebuilding of the temple is a key component in Haggai and later strands of the book of Zechariah (including the second and third oracles), the initial vision and oracle present only an indirect association at best between the seventy years and the rebuilding of the temple. The first vision and oracle associate the seventy-year period with the status of the city itself: responding to the report in the vision that “the whole earth” is at peace, the angel laments, in v. 12, for “Jerusalem and the cities of Judah.” In the first oracle, Yhwh responds with possessive love for Jerusalem and Zion. In neither the vision nor the first oracle is it made clear how this love will be expressed. The mention of Zion (instead of, say, the cities of Judah) may suggest that, already in this first oracle, the seventy-year period is being specifically tied to the temple city, the axis mundi; it is not, however, until the second oracle that this association is made explicit. 3. The Superscription to the Night Visions (1:7) The characterization of the present moment in the first vision is not only shaped by the second and third oracles, but by the chronological framing of the night visions. The chronological marker in v. 7 correlates the

47 There is no subsequent verb in the perfectum propheticum to assert the tense, as is sometimes the case (GKC §106n, 312–13).

zechariah 1–8

175

visions with a particular moment in history: “The twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month (which is the month of Shebat) in the second year of Darius,” i.e., February 15, 519 b.c.e.48 The insertion of an exact date now suggests that the seventy-year period mentioned in the vision should be taken literally; without it, the seventy years might appear to be a stereotypical figure for divine wrath. The date implies that the seventyyear period is coming to a close early in Darius’s reign and thus assigns a precise historical setting to the transitional moment that Zechariah envisions. The problem that the juxtaposition of the date notice and the vision’s reference to “seventy years” raises is that there was no significant event in Judah in 519 b.c.e. that could mark the end of a seventy-year period. Three solutions have appeared in the scholarly literature: (1) the seventyyear period mentioned in the vision ended around 539/538 b.c.e., and the date is inaccurate; (2) the seventy-year period ended, or was about to end, in 515 b.c.e., and the date is roughly accurate; and (3) the seventy-year period, roughly speaking, ended in 519 b.c.e., and the date is accurate. (1) Kurt Galling assumed that Cyrus’s reign, and more particularly his edict permitting the return of the Jews in 538 b.c.e., marked the downfall of the Babylonians, the end of the exile, and thus the end of Jeremiah’s seventy years.49 This appears to be the position of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. In Galling’s view, the redactor’s dating of the vision to 519 b.c.e. is problematic because the vision seems to regard the fall of Babylon as a future event: he identified Babylon, named in 2:11 [Eng. 2:7], with “the nations” against whom Yhwh is kindling his wrath in 1:15. He argued that the notice that “all the world was at peace” (v. 11) located the vision in the exilic period, under a stable Babylonian hegemony.50 Thus, Galling suggested that the core of the first vision should be dated sometime before 538 b.c.e. His position was adopted with some modifications by Rex Mason and Paul Redditt.51 48 See Peter R. Ackroyd, “Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian Period,” 13–27; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai; Zechariah 1–8, 108; John Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 2002). 49 Galling took the suggestion of Alfred Jepsen that each night vision be considered apart from the historical context of 1:7 to discern its actual setting (“Die Exilswende,” 109). 50 Ibid., 117; see also Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 37; and Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 477. 51 Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 27–31; and Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 39, 51–52, 54.

176

chapter four

Galling also proposed an exilic setting for the second, third, and eighth visions on the basis of their content. In the second vision, 2:1–4 [Eng. 1:18–21], discussed further below, he perceived an imminent judgment on Babylon, again represented by “the nations,” before the empire’s fall to Cyrus; the third vision (the measuring cord, 2:5–9 [Eng. 2:1–5]) and the final vision (the four chariots, 6:1–8) were similarly set near the end of the Babylonian domination.52 The oracle in 2:10–13 [Eng. 2:6–9], which urges a return from Babylon like that found in Second Isaiah, was also, in his judgment, twenty years older than the remainder of the book. In each case, Galling’s assignment of an exilic date—contrary to the date of the superscription—rested on his sense that the language of the vision or oracle looked forward to an imminent event, whether Babylon’s fall or the return of the exiles. Galling’s redating of this material is plausible. The angel’s lament could have been voiced by the community of the Babylonian exile: in this scenario, the horseman’s obscure report asserts that the Babylonian reign still endures, and the angel laments that it appears in danger of continuing beyond its appointed seventy years and expected end. Even if Zech 1:8–13 makes sense in an exilic context, however, there is little in the passage to tie it conclusively to that period. While Zechariah himself may have lived in Babylonia, to argue that his visions occurred there would require supposing that an earlier phase of his ministry within the exilic community had been deliberately obscured by the editors who dated the visions to 519 b.c.e.53 Given the prestige attached to preexilic and exilic prophets, however, such redating is unlikely; more common is the editorial assignment of postexilic texts to exilic or preexilic authors. Further, the first vision is not incompatible with the early restoration period, in which Zech 1:7 locates it. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, for example, accept the chronology proposed in v. 7 and suggest that in the first vision, the report of worldwide tranquility might just as well be an allusion to the end of the conflict surrounding Darius’s assumption of the Persian throne, rather than a comment on the intransigence of the Babylonians.54

52 Not all the visions were exilic according to Galling, for he situated the sixth vision, the flying scroll (Zech 5:1–4), at the time of or shortly after the returns from Babylon. 53 Ackroyd also posited a first phase of Zechariah’s prophecy in exile (Exile and Restoration, 148–49). 54 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai; Zechariah 1–8, 115.

zechariah 1–8

177

Whether Galling’s argument for a preexilic date for some of the material in Zech 1–6 is valid, the point remains that several of the visions look forward to the resolution of a current crisis. This feature in itself is of particular interest in understanding how Zechariah and his followers understood their times: the visions express a longing for a restoration of order that could be at home in the exilic as well as the postexilic period. Indeed, the plain-sense significance of the chronological notice is that the seventy-year period did not end with the fall of Babylon or with the edict of Cyrus, as it does in Jeremiah, Ezra–Nehemiah, and Chronicles, but continued into the early restoration period; what sounds like “exilic” language is in fact postexilic. In other words, aside from the chronological notice, Zechariah’s language does not clearly demarcate the exilic period from the restoration period. The merit of Galling’s historical reconstruction, then, is that it illustrates how the rhetoric of the first vision defies the standard periodization of “exilic” and “postexilic” that comes to dominate in the history writing of the Hebrew Bible. (2) Other scholars have also observed that the end of Jeremiah’s seventy years would have passed long before the second year of Darius’s reign.55 These scholars hold that Zechariah borrowed and recalibrated Jeremiah’s seventy-year period by redefining its termini. Whereas in Jeremiah the seventy-year span defined the period of Babylonian domination, in Zechariah it refers to the period in which the temple stood in ruins. This period began with the destruction of the first temple in 587 b.c.e. and ended with the rededication of its successor in 515 b.c.e., not long after the second year of Darius. In this view, the vision comes from around the time that the superscription in v. 7 says it does; only the meaning of the seventy years has been amended. When the angel laments the state of Jerusalem in v. 12, he is really commenting on the failure of the Judeans to complete the temple, which is itself interpreted as a sign of divine displeasure: Yhwh has not permitted the temple’s reconstruction. (The book of Haggai, which is also dated in the second year of Darius, may fuel this interpretation; it more clearly insists that Yhwh is unhappy because of the delay in rebuilding the temple; see, for example, 1:4, 9, 2:3.) A temple-centered chronology is bolstered, in

55 Meyers and Meyers propose that the “composite work” of Haggai and Zech 1–8 was compiled for the rededication of the temple in 516 or 515 b.c.e. (ibid., xliv–xlviii). Whitley argues that “seventy years” is an “exact figure” and that the period covered the time from the destruction of the first temple to the building of the second, 586 to 516 b.c.e. in his reckoning (“The Term ‘Seventy Years Captivity,’ ” 60–72).

178

chapter four

turn, by the later oracles in 1:16 and 17, which suggest that the seventy years will end when the temple is completed. Zechariah’s reference to a practice of fasting in the fifth month “these past years” (Zech 7:3) is adduced as further evidence of the centrality of the temple in the first vision, since the first temple and Jerusalem were destroyed in the fifth month (2 Kgs 25:8).56 Finally, the claim is made that there is an emphasis on temple rebuilding in Haggai, to which Zech 1–8 is redactionally related. The notion that Zechariah reinterprets Jeremiah’s seventy years in relation to the temple is an attractive way to make sense of the chronological superscription. Nevertheless, while reading Zech 1–8 in conjunction with Haggai suggests that Zechariah continues Haggai’s interest in the temple, a consideration of First Zechariah on its own terms indicates that it is not primarily concerned with the rebuilding of the temple. I have already noted that the earlier strands of Zechariah are markedly less concerned with the temple than some of the later strands are; they are certainly less concerned with that project than, for example, Ezra 1–6 and Chronicles. Furthermore, Mark Boda has rightly remarked on the scholarly tendency to obscure Zechariah’s own message by emphasizing his literary affiliation with Haggai. The assumption that Haggai and Zech 1–8 were redacted as a unit can be challenged on literary grounds: the dating formulae in the two compositions (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, 20; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1) exhibit more variation than one would expect from a single editor. More to the point, within Zech 1–8, the rebuilding of the temple is but one element in First Zechariah’s broader vision of restoration for Jerusalem and Judah. Indeed, the temple is referred to neither in the prologue to the collection (1:1–6) nor in the concluding unit (7:1–8:23), both of which shape the overall theme of the book as repentance and restoration.57 Finally, in the first vision itself, which introduces the “seventy years,” there is no mention of the temple. (3) The third position is that the date of the superscription is essentially correct, and that seventy years is a round number. This approach is grounded in Rainer Albertz’s consideration of how events in the Persian empire under Darius in the years leading up to 519 b.c.e. would have been

56 Ackroyd, “Two Old Testament Historical Problems,” 23–27; and Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 283. 57 Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet?,” 52–54.

zechariah 1–8

179

received within prophetic circles attached to Second Isaiah.58 Those who shared Second Isaiah’s enthusiasm for Cyrus would have been disappointed by his reign, since he captured but did not destroy Babylon as they anticipated. Furthermore, there was no universal acceptance of Yhwh (cf. Isa 45:5–7), nor was there a large return of exiles to Judah or any full-scale reconstruction during his reign. After the death of Cyrus’s son Cambyses in 522, the general Darius seized the throne. Early in his tenure, Darius put down a number of revolts throughout his empire, including several in Babylonia; he subdued Babylon most definitely in 521. Albertz contends that certain members of the prophetic circles would have viewed Darius’s definitive military victory over Babylon as realizing the punishment and destruction of the city expected in Isa 47 (see also Isa 13–14; 48; Jer 25:12–16).59 Boda has applied Albertz’s approach to Zechariah’s night visions.60 He interprets Jeremiah’s seventy years as a reference to the period of Babylonian activity that was finally extinguished by Darius. Boda argues that 519 b.c.e., as the horseman reports, would indeed have been a period of quiet after recent upheaval. Babylon had finally been subdued, and the rest of God’s promises of restoration could soon be realized. Yet this proposed historical context does not explain the angel’s response to the patroller’s reports. While Boda offers a rather positive interpretation of the news that the whole earth is quiet—namely, that Babylon has finally been subdued—the angel does not seem to share this enthusiasm. In the vision itself, the angel is frustrated by the report because it confounds his hope that the status quo will not endure much longer. It is difficult to mediate among these three explanations of the historical context of the first vision. In part, this is due to the paucity of concrete historical detail in the vision. But the debate over the vision’s context also highlights a basic feature of Zechariah’s language: a lament from the early restoration period could function as a lament from the

58

“Darius in Place of Cyrus,” 371–83. This view would have contrasted with that of, for example, 2 Chr 36:19–23, which interprets the seventy years as spanning from the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Judeans to the establishment of Persia and the edict to return. Interestingly, Dan 9, in which Daniel is given new insight into the meaning of Jeremiah’s seventy years, is set in the first year of a Darius—although “Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans” (v. 1). 60 See also Konrad Schmid and Odil Steck, “Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament,” in James Scott, ed., Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, 41–82. 59

180

chapter four

exilic period, and vice versa. Indeed, this periodization of exile and restoration would have been artificial to Zechariah and his later editors, who like Ezra perceived a continuity of experience for the Judean community in the Babylonian and Persian periods. As it now stands, in Zech 1, both the periods of Babylonian and Persian hegemony are included within the period of wrath. Indeed, the association of the period with divine wrath overrides the rise of Cyrus, the returns, and the hopeful signs and the disappointments of the age. The first vision of 519 b.c.e. would have appealed to those in Babylonia before the advent of Cyrus, as Galling noted, but it could also speak to an audience restored in the homeland precisely because it described an existence that was continuous with exilic experience: Yhwh’s mercy was not yet apparent, and there was no clear sign that the period of his wrath had ended. The city and the temple were yet to be rebuilt. The exiles had not all returned. For Zechariah, the past was and would remain in continuity with the present until Yhwh’s wrath yielded to mercy. B. The Second Vision (Zech 2:1–4 [Eng. 1:18–21]) Read in light of the date formula (1:7), the first vision with its oracles conceives of the present as lying near the close of a period of divine wrath; this period of wrath spans the period of the Babylonian exile and continues beyond the edict of Cyrus, well into the early restoration period. The second vision, read as a product of 519 b.c.e., also locates itself on the edge of transition: in the second vision, Zechariah sees four horns, symbols of the military “nations at ease” (1:15), who scattered Israel, and hears the promise that those horns will be vanquished. As in the first vision, the second vision reads the present era as continuous with the past, even if punishment of the exiling nations is on the way. Further, the language of each vision is ambiguous with regard to its temporal location: each vision can be read as the product of an exilic or a postexilic setting. ‫ל־ה ַמּ ְל ָאְך ַהדּ ֵֹבר‬ ַ ‫ וָ א ַֹמר ֶא‬2 ‫ת־ﬠינַ י וָ ֵא ֶרא וְ ִהנֵּ ה ַא ְר ַבּע ְק ָרנוֹת׃‬ ֵ ‫ וָ ֶא ָשּׂא ֶא‬1 ‫הוּדה ֶאת־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ָ ְ‫ֹאמר ֵא ַלי ֵא ֶלּה ַה ְקּ ָרנוֹת ֲא ֶשׁר זֵ רוּ ֶאת־י‬ ֶ ‫ה־א ֶלּה וַ יּ‬ ֵ ‫ִבּי ָמ‬ ‫ וָ א ַֹמר ָמה ֵא ֶלּה ָב ִאים ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬4 ‫ וַ יַּ ְר ֵאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ַא ְר ָבּ ָﬠה ָח ָר ִשׁים׃‬3 ‫ירוּשׁ ָלם׃‬ ָ ִ‫ו‬ ‫י־אישׁ ל ֹא־נָ ָשׂא ר ֹאשׁוֹ‬ ִ ‫הוּדה ְכּ ִפ‬ ָ ְ‫ֹאמר ֵלאמ ֹר ֵא ֶלּה ַה ְקּ ָרנוֹת ֲא ֶשׁר־זֵ רוּ ֶאת־י‬ ֶ ‫וַ יּ‬

zechariah 1–8

181

‫ל־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫ת־ק ְרנוֹת ַהגּוֹיִ ם ַהנּ ְֹשׂ ִאים ֶק ֶרן ֶא‬ ַ ‫וַ יָּ ב ֹאוּ ֵא ֶלּה ְל ַה ֲח ִריד א ָֹתם ְליַ דּוֹת ֶא‬ ‫רוֹתהּ׃‬ ָ ָ‫הוּדה ְלז‬ ָ ְ‫י‬ 18

And I raised my eyes and looked and there were four horns. 19 I said to the angel who talked with me, “What are these?” And he said to me, “These are the horns that have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.”61 20 And Yhwh showed me four artisans.62 21 And I said, “What are they coming to do?” He answered, “These are the horns that scattered Judah, so that no one could raise his head; and these have come to terrify them, to throw down the horns of the nations that raised a horn against the land of Judah to scatter her.” (Zech 2:1–4 [Eng. 1:18–21])

As he did in the case of the first vision, Galling assigned a preexilic date to the second vision. He argued that the horns in the vision referred to the king of Babylon who had scattered Judah in exile, that the vision itself had its origin in the exilic period, and that it was only secondarily associated with 519 b.c.e., the date given in 1: 7.63 And indeed the vision has much to say to an audience in exile: it closes with the promise that these scattering horns, whose terrifying force still looms, will soon be terrified. Like the first vision, however, the second vision contains no explicit indication that it was produced before 538 b.c.e. Interpretations of the second vision as a product of 519 b.c.e. also have their difficulties.64 If the vision is from the early restoration period, then it would seem to present not only the Babylonians but also the Persians as foes of Judah, which is not characteristic of Zechariah. Here again Boda reads Zechariah in light of Albertz’s proposal that prophetic circles, particularly those in the stream of Second Isaiah, did not recognize Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon as the fulfillment of earlier oracles. Boda maintains that the horns, like “the nations at ease” in the first Omitting “Jerusalem,” LXX has τὸν Ιουδαν καὶ τὸν Ισραηλ. Boda plausibly interprets the ‫ חרשים‬as plowmen, a “plural participial or nominal form of the Hebrew gloss ‘plough.’ ” The appeal of this translation, Boda argues, is that it provides a more coherent image of plowmen driving horned animals and that the noun also works with ‫לחריד‬, “to terrify,” which is used of driving off a group of animals (Deut 28:26; Isa 17:2; Jer 7:33; “Terrifying the Horns: Persia and Babylon in Zechariah 1:7–6: 15,” CBQ 67 [2005]: 25). 63 Galling, “Exilswende,” 111–12; Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 73–74, 39; see also Peter R. Ackroyd, “The Book of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8,” JJS 3 (1952): 151–52. Galling understood the four horns as a metaphor for the king of Babylon, in reference to the king’s designation as “lord of the four corners of the world.” He similarly assigns a singular identity to the plural “nations at ease” in 1:17, which he interprets as referring exclusively to the “peoples” of Babylonia, rather than multiple “nations” (“Die Exilswende,” 112). 64 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai; Zecharaiah 1–8, 136–37. 61 62

182

chapter four

vision, refer to the Babylonians only, who were finally subdued by Darius in 522–521 b.c.e. This historical reading might then explain the persistence of what Galling identified as exilic forms of language in the early restoration period; Zechariah expects that the reverberations of Darius’s recent victory are soon to devolve upon Judah. The visions are, however, dated to 519, which is two years later than these events, creating a problematic lag period; indeed this reading suggests that even with a more final subduing of Babylon, Zechariah’s angel still does not perceive that the period has come to a close. Galling’s interpretation and Boda’s interpretation of the second vision are based on the same phenomenon: rhetoric that is ambiguous with respect to an exilic or postexilic setting. The merits of each reading notwithstanding, however, the language of the second vision has meaning that is not confined to—that overrides, even—the events of the late sixth century b.c.e. It is not simply that the vision has no regard for Cyrus’s victory and edict of return and that it is therefore misplaced (Galling), or that the vision registers only the final overthrow of the Babylonians (Albertz and Boda). Almost every aspect of the vision—most notably the anonymity of the scatterers and those scattered—invites a reading of the present in light of a broader history of Israel before and beyond the events of 539/538 and even 519 b.c.e. The vision itself suggests that exile is a paradigmatic experience and that the nation still looks forward to the moment when that threat—from any nation—will be finally vanquished. At the opening of the second vision, Zechariah sees “four horns” (2:1 [Eng. 1:18]), which the angel interprets as those that “have scattered [‫זרה‬ in Piel] Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem” (2:2 [Eng. 1:19], also 2:4 [Eng.1: 21]). As noted in the introduction, the Piel of ‫ זרה‬is used to describe the scattering of exiles in the curse of exile in Lev 26:33, in texts prophesying exile (for example, Ezek 5:10, 12; 12:14–15; 20:23), and in descriptions of the dispersion of the exiles (for example, Jer 31:10).65 The omission of any indication of the destination of those who were scattered is another indication of the vision’s archetypal or even timeless quality. The horns further contribute to the archetypal quality of the vision and of exile more generally. These nameless agents represented by the horns recall the nameless nations of the first visions. While later interpreters would identify the four horns with certain empires (cf. Dan 7

65

See Galling, “Die Exilswende,” 112.

zechariah 1–8

183

and Tg. Ps.-Jon.), in Zechariah there does not appear to be a clear oneto-one correspondence between the horns and specific nations. Instead it is the number of horns that is significant: the number four conveys totality.66 In Zechariah, four is the number of the winds of heaven (‫ארבע רוחות השמים‬, Zech 2:10 [Eng. 2:6]; 6:5), an expression of the total sphere of Yhwh’s activity. Further, in light of the reference in 2:4 to “the horns of the nations,” ‫קרנות הגוים‬, and in light of their activity in the vision, the horns appear to symbolize national power and, in particular, national military power.67 The practice of exiling portions of the conquered was common policy in the ancient Near East,68 and while certainly Assyria, Babylonia,69 or perhaps even Persia70 could be signified by the horns, they more generally represent the vast military might of oppressor nations, any of whom have had it in their power to scatter the people; neither they nor their theaters of operation are clearly designated. The horns of the visions express in a general sense, past and future, that Israel remains at the mercy of foreign powers. The identity of those that are scattered, at least in the final redacted form of the vision, is also somewhat flexible, making the corresponding historical event more difficult to pin down. Those scattered are variously identified in MT and LXX. Within MT, it is either “Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem” (2:2 [Eng. 1:19]) or “Judah” alone (2:4 [Eng. 1:21]) that is scattered; some LXX manuscripts name “Judah and Israel” while others

66 This is evident also in Mesopotamian royal titles that proclaim a king’s dominance by asserting that he is king of “the four rims of the earth.” 67 For other instances of a horn as a symbol of human power or strength, see Meyers and Meyers, Haggai; Zechariah 1–8, 135–38; and Amsler, Aggée; Zacharie 1–8, 68, who cites 1 Sam 2:1; 1 Kgs 22:11; Mic 4:13; Pss 75:11; 92:11; Dan 7:7. Cf. Baruch Halpern, who argues that the horns signify a four-horned altar (“The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song,” CBQ 40 [1978]: 177–78]); it is unlikely, however, that the horns of an altar would “scatter.” 68 Oded, Mass Deportations. 69 As mentioned above, Galling argued that the four horns were a metaphor for the king of Babylon since he was “lord of the four directions of the earth” (“Die Exilswende,” 112). This language was also used by the Assyrian kings, so the term cannot be judged to refer exclusively to Babylon. I think it is more likely that a critique of Babylonian supremacy is implied in the notion of Yhwh’s command of the four winds of heaven (Zech 2:6 [Eng. 2:2]; 6:5). Boda has argued that the four horns suggest two beasts, with two horns each, and refer primarily to Babylon, but also to Assyria (“Terrifying the Horns,” 24–26). 70 On Persia’s capacity to relocate populations, see Amélie Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy,” JSOT 25 (1983): 83–97. It is unlikely that the image first arose in reference to Persia, because this would be an uncharacteristically critical reference to the empire within Zechariah.

184

chapter four

name “Judah and Jerusalem”71 in 2:2 [Eng. 1:19]. Part of the shifting terminology may be due to the redaction and transmission of the passage. The LXX evidence suggests that “Judah and Israel” was the original wording. Still, the concern to stress the combined power of the horns argues against too quickly excising any of the three names72; the triple reference may have been intended to evoke the experience of all Israel by listing a full range of terms for the people of Yhwh. Whether this is the original wording or a later phrasing that developed in light of the vision’s paradigmatic quality is hard to discern. Even if “Jerusalem”—the least likely of the three to be original—is deleted, the vision is far-reaching: imperial forces have scattered the totality of the nation—Judah and Israel. As further evidence of the archetypal nature of the vision, the scatterers have not been consigned to the past as a historical force, and the artisans or smiths (‫ )חרשים‬who are “coming” (‫ )באים‬to strike them down have yet to complete their task. The promise of the artisans is that they will strike down the horns that have scattered and threaten to scatter once more Judah, Israel, and even Jerusalem; the destruction of the horns is imminent, however, and not yet accomplished.73 Further, the

71 In MT Zech 2:2 [Eng. 1:19], the horns have scattered “Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem,” but in v. 4 [Eng. 1:21], the horns have scattered “Judah” and have scattered “her,” i.e., “the land of Judah,” without reference to Israel and Jerusalem. Zech 2:2 [Eng. 1:19] is the only attestation of the combination “Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem” in the Hebrew Bible, which raises the possibility that an editor’s hand is in evidence. Further, certain LXX manuscripts (for example, Alexandrinus) do not include “Jerusalem” in Zech 2:2 [Eng. 1:19], and because LXX has “Judah and Israel” in 1:21/MT 2:4 (cf. MT, which only names “Judah”), the passage in those manuscripts has an agreement not found in MT: in this case, both LXX Zech 1:19 and 21 consistently refer to the scattering of “Judah and Israel.” Thus it is quite possible that LXX retains the original form—Judah and Israel (but not Jerusalem)—and that later redactors of MT Zechariah, influenced by Zechariah’s overriding concern for Jerusalem (which shows up an additional sixteen times in Zech 1–8), added “Jerusalem” to Zech 2:2. They would have been particularly cognizant of the status of Jerusalem on the heels of the oracles to the first vision, in Zech 1:14, 16, and 17. On the other hand, some modern commentators have suggested dropping “Israel,” because it is the more unusual term in Zechariah. More often the terms “Jerusalem” and “Judah” appear in proximity (see Zech 1:12; 2:16 [Eng. 2:12]; 8:15; although 8:13 refers to Israel and Judah). And again, “Israel” does not appear in MT Zech 2:4, although it does appear in the LXX witnesses to the verse. See, for example, Mason (The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 38) and Amsler (Aggée; Zacharie 1–8, 67 n. 2). 72 Thus Meyers and Meyers, Haggai; Zechariah 1–8, 138; and Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 161. 73 The enduring power of the horns is further emphasized by the third vision (Zech 2:5–9 [Eng. 2:1–5]), which attests to the repopulation of Jerusalem as an important dimension of the restoration that, implicitly, also has yet to be achieved.

zechariah 1–8

185

destruction of the horns, symbolizing more than the downfall of Babylon alone, suggests an international reversal broader than Jeremiah had imagined in his use of the seventy-year trope; there the focus was on the fall of Babylon, but here a greater cosmic ordering is imminent. To conclude, the concern with the total power of the horns and the reference to all Israel’s experience of scattering suggest that, in the mind of the redactor at least, more than one exile is implied. The vision’s expansive notion of exile includes exiles from north and south. The paradigmatic quality of the scattering is further emphasized by the nameless nations, represented by the horns, whose identity is uncertain and whose threat is still extant. Those that scatter have not been consigned to the past, and the smiths, who are coming to strike them down, have yet to complete their task (v. 4). While the destruction of the horns is imminent, it is not yet accomplished and thus a persistent threat. Thus, like the first vision, the second vision signals that the current period still endures; the first vision suggested that the abatement of Yhwh’s wrath was not yet in evidence, while the second vision suggests that the horns are still extant. C. Exhortation (Zech 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13]) Like the changes promised in the preceding visions, the restoration depicted in the third vision (2:5–9 [Eng. 2:1–5]) implicitly has yet to be achieved: one angel tells the prophet to measure Jerusalem, while a second asserts that the city will overflow with people. The image comports with the promises of restoration delivered in the second and third oracles to the first vision (1:16–17). This restoration involves not only a renewed populace, but also the return of Yhwh, who will be “a wall of fire” around the city (2:9 [Eng. 2:5]). The first three of Zechariah’s visions are followed by a composition of oracles and prophetic exhortations, Zech 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13] that is key to understanding what the preceding visions were taken to mean. Following the theme laid down in these three visions, the composition of 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13] continues but nuances the view that the restoration still lies ahead, that the period of wrath is not discernibly over.74 Two features of the language reveal aspects of early postexilic thinking about exile and elaborate upon the visions themselves. First, 74 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai; Zechariah 1–8, 163; on the coherence of this section and its role in 1:7–6:15, see further ibid., 172–78; and Floyd, “Cosmos and History,” 128–31.

186

chapter four

the passage makes the first explicit reference to Babylon, which provides a concrete historical situation for the initial three visions. In this sense, the exhortations spell out the practical implications of the visions; this is not unlike how MT Jer 29 modifies the Vorlage of LXX Jer 36 so that it clearly refers to Babylon. Second, while the passage is notable for this specificity, it is equally notable for speaking of exile in cosmic terms; even as it supplies the preceding visions with a historical referent, its language encompasses not simply the Babylonian exile, but the other dispersions of Israel. In other words, on the one hand, the passage asserts that the Babylonian reach is being vanquished; the passage urges the exiles to return and promises Yhwh’s presence in Jerusalem in light of the positive interpretation of the visions, which suggests that restoration is imminent. On the other hand, simultaneously, the passage still awaits the end of the general threat of exile represented by the four horns. In this regard, the passage maintains the paradigmatic quality that is prominent in the vision of the horns. It further bolsters the sense, present in the later oracles to the first vision (vv. 16–17), of a deferred restoration. ‫ הוֹי הוֹי וְ נֻ סוּ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ָצפוֹן נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה ִכּי ְכּ ַא ְר ַבּע רוּחוֹת ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם ֵפּ ַר ְשׂ ִתּי ֶא ְת ֶכם‬10 ‫ ִכּי כ ֹה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬12 ‫ת־בּ ֶבל׃‬ ָ ‫יוֹשׁ ֶבת ַבּ‬ ֶ ‫ הוֹי ִציּוֹן ִה ָמּ ְל ִטי‬11 ‫נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ‫ל־הגּוֹיִ ם ַהשּׁ ְֹל ִלים ֶא ְת ֶכם ִכּי ַהנּ ֹגֵ ַע ָבּ ֶכם נ ֹגֵ ַע ְבּ ָב ַבת ֵﬠינוֹ׃‬ ַ ‫ַא ַחר ָכּבוֹד ְשׁ ָל ַחנִ י ֶא‬ ‫יהם וִ ַיד ְﬠ ֶתּם ִכּי־יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬ ֶ ‫יהם וְ ָהיוּ ָשׁ ָלל ְל ַﬠ ְב ֵד‬ ֶ ‫ ִכּי ִהנְ נִ י ֵמנִ יף ֶאת־יָ ִדי ֲﬠ ֵל‬13 ‫ וְ נִ ְלווּ‬15 ‫תוֹכְך נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ֵ ‫י־בא וְ ָשׁ ַכנְ ִתּי ְב‬ ָ ִ‫ת־ציּוֹן ִכּי ִהנְ נ‬ ִ ‫ ָרנִּ י וְ ִשׂ ְמ ִחי ַבּ‬14 ‫ְשׁ ָל ָחנִ י׃‬ ‫תוֹכְך וְ יָ ַד ַﬠ ְתּ ִכּי־יְ הוָ ה‬ ֵ ‫גוֹיִ ם ַר ִבּים ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא וְ ָהיוּ ִלי ְל ָﬠם וְ ָשׁ ַכנְ ִתּי ְב‬ ‫וּב ַחר‬ ָ ‫הוּדה ֶח ְלקוֹ ַﬠל ַא ְד ַמת ַהקּ ֶֹדשׁ‬ ָ ְ‫ וְ נָ ַחל יְ הוָ ה ֶאת־י‬16 ‫ְצ ָבאוֹת ְשׁ ָל ַחנִ י ֵא ָליִ ְך׃‬ ‫ל־בּ ָשׂר ִמ ְפּנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ִכּי נֵ עוֹר ִמ ְמּעוֹן ָק ְדשׁוֹ׃‬ ָ ‫ ַהס ָכּ‬17 ‫ירוּשׁ ָלםִ׃‬ ָ ‫עוֹד ִבּ‬ 6

Up, up!75 Flee from the land of the north, says Yhwh; for I have spread you out76 like the four winds of heaven, says Yhwh. 7 Up, O Zion! Escape, you who live with daughter Babylon! 8

For thus said Yhwh of hosts, after [his] glory sent me,77 concerning the nations that plunder you: The one who touches you touches the apple of

75 So NRSV, and correctly in my opinion. Although the particle ‫ הוי‬is often translated “woe!” or “alas!,” that translation would be antithetical to the following exhortation; for a similar use of ‫ הוי‬see Isa 55:1. 76 LXX has “I will gather you” (συνάξω ὑμᾶς). 77 The translation of this difficult phrase turns on whether to read ‫ אחר‬as a preposition or as a conjunction. If ‫ אחר‬is taken as a preposition, then it appears to be part of a parenthetical statement indicating purpose: “For thus said Yhwh of hosts (he sent me after [i.e., in order to reach, to obtain, to bring about] [his] glory, concerning the nations

zechariah 1–8

187

my eye.78 9 I am now raising my hand against them, and they shall become plunder for their own slaves. Then you shall know that Yhwh of hosts has sent me. 10

Sing! Rejoice, O daughter Zion! For I am coming and I shall dwell in your midst, says Yhwh.

11

Many nations shall join themselves to Yhwh on that day and they shall be my people.79 I shall dwell in your midst and you shall know that Yhwh of hosts has sent me to you. 12 Yhwh shall take possession of Judah as his portion in the holy land, and shall again choose Jerusalem. 13

Hush, all flesh, before Yhwh; for he rouses himself from his holy dwelling. (Zech 2:10–17 [Eng.2:6–13])

The date of the passage and its literary history are difficult to discern. It may have arisen alongside the original visions or substantially later.80 The passage is composed of subunits (vv. 10–11 [Eng. vv. 6–7]; 12–13 [Eng. vv. 8–9]; 14–16 [Eng. vv. 10–12]; 17 [Eng. v. 13]),81 which may have arisen together or sequentially. Regardless of their origins, the verses as a whole drive home the meaning of the visions by anchoring them in more concrete terms; whether they arose sooner or later

that plunder you): . . .” If it is taken as a conjunction, then it introduces a subordinate temporal clause: “For thus said Yhwh of hosts, after [his] glory sent me, concerning the nations that plunder you: . . .” (so NRSV). In the latter case, the phrase is less disruptive within the syntax of the sentence. The use of ‫ אחר‬as a conjunction, although rare, is seen in Lev 14:43; Jer 40:1; and 41:16 (Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 117). 78 Reading ‫ עיני‬for MT’s ‫עינו‬. 79 LXX’s “his people” (‫ )לו‬is also possible. 80 As noted above, some of the oracular material, for example the first oracle to the first vision, 1:14–15, was likely formulated at the same time as the vision, while the second and third oracles, vv. 16–17, came later. In other words, the genre of the material alone does not indicate whether the material is early or late. The content of the passage also presents inconclusive evidence. As a whole, 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13] addresses themes of the preceding visions in reverse order, as Meyers and Meyers have noted, which may indicate that they were original to the night visions as a whole or may suggest later redaction. The phrase in v. 13 [Eng. v. 9] ‫וידעתם כי יהוה צבאות שלחני‬, “then you shall know that Yhwh of hosts sent me,” which is repeated with some variation two verses later, serves to underscore the connections of the preceding visions to the present circumstance and its bearing out in history. This may be evidence of a conscious effort to expand upon the visions at a later point; indeed, the phrase also appears in two other non-visionary passages that have been similarly isolated as secondary—Zech 4: 6–10 and 6:9–15. See Meyers and Meyers, Haggai; Zechariah 1–8, 163; on the coherence of this section and its role in 1:7–6:15, see further, 172–78; and Floyd, “Cosmos and History,” 128–31. 81 On the subunits of the passage, see Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 172–86; the divisions are articulated by the messenger formula, as well as by shifts in form.

188

chapter four

after the visions were composed, they provide an insight into the early interpretation of the first three visions, which, of the eight visions, are the ones most concerned with exile and restoration. While the language in the first two visions spoke of exile more generically, the language of the first subunit of the exhortations, vv. 10–11 [Eng. vv. 6–7], contains a newly specific reference to the Babylonian oppressor, who has not been named in the visions or oracles thus far. The passage opens with imperatives that direct the hearers to flee “from the land of the north,” ‫( מארץ צפון‬v. 10 [Eng. v. 6]), a generic reference to the land of captivity82; those who are urged to flee are also described as residing in Babylon, ‫( יושבת בת בבל‬v. 11 [Eng. v. 7]). The use of ‫ישב‬ conveys the settled state of the audience and thus suggests that they are members of the more entrenched Diaspora who have yet to return to Judah despite the edict of Cyrus. Even as Zech 2:10–11 [Eng. 2:6–7] describes exile with newly specific references to the experience in Babylon, however, the verses simultaneously suggest a more cosmic conception of exile. Those urged to flee are described as “spread out like the four winds of heaven” (v. 10 [Eng. v. 6]). The phrase connotes the broader landscape of the exiles, not simply in Babylon, but in Egypt and Assyria as well, a global scattering; indeed, “those who dwell with Daughter Babylon” appears as a synecdoche for exiles more generally. Further, where the vision of the horns focuses on those nations that scattered, here Yhwh is the one who dispersed the people (‫כי כארבע רוחות השמים פרשתי אתכם‬, “for I have spread you abroad like the four winds of heaven,” 2:10 [Eng. v. 6]).83 It

82 In the Hebrew Bible, enemies are frequently said to invade from the north; the enemy may not be northern in origin—indeed, Babylon is to the east of Jerusalem—but will travel that route in order to gain entry into the land. In Zech 2:10 [Eng. 2:6], the designation is a by-product of this language of invasion; it is used to evoke the place from which those exiled by the enemy will return (Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 8). See also 6:6; 6:8 (twice). Brevard Childs, in his study of those texts that refer to an “enemy from the north,” has observed that in preexilic texts this reference has a historically identifiable foe in mind; in the early postexilic period, coupled with the root ‫רעש‬, the “enemy from the north” was described in the language of the chaos myth and in superhuman terms. Childs does not consider these references in Zechariah, because of his emphasis on the exilic period. But the absence of ‫ רעש‬and, indeed, the absence of the language of the chaos myth would counsel against reading the verse in Zechariah as eschatological (“The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition,” 178–97). 83 The theology of this verse (i.e., the problem posed by ‫כי‬, which ascribes to Yhwh the scattering that Yhwh is simultaneously exhorting the scattered to overcome) and the difficulty in translating MT ‫“( פרשתי‬to spread out, spread,” based on the Akkadian cognate) may be behind LXX’s decision to render ‫ פרש‬with συνάγω, “to gather.” Tg. Ps.-

zechariah 1–8

189

provides a wry comment on, and a Yahwistic critique of, the imperialist propaganda that identified the kings who had deported Yhwh’s people as those who “dominate the four rims of the earth.”84 The bombastic claims of the foreign king are countered with the double promise that Yhwh, who once spread them abroad away from Zion, will now dwell in their midst (Zech 2:14–15 [Eng. 2:10–11]). The passage thus contrasts the centrifugal scope of Yhwh’s power, the power to scatter to the four winds, with the centripetal power of Yhwh’s presence at Zion and the imperatives to return. As in the later oracles to the first vision, the second subunit of the passage views Yhwh’s presence as immanent but not yet realized. In 2:14 [Eng. 2:10]), Yhwh’s presence is described using the idiom ‫“ שכנתי בתוכך‬I shall dwell in your midst.” This idiom, which reappears in v. 15 [Eng. v. 11], can describe both divine immanence and, more specifically, Yhwh’s indwelling presence in the temple.85 In the latter sense, the use of ‫ שכן בתוך‬in vv. 14–15 [Eng. vv. 10–11] anticipates the rebuilding of Yhwh’s temple, although the emphasis is more specifically on Yhwh’s presence. The use of the idiom here has an important function beyond calling attention to the status of the temple. The larger oracular unit of Zech 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13] opens with the twofold imperative to the exiles to flee and escape (vv. 10–11 [Eng. vv. 6–7]), which is matched by the twice-repeated promise that Yhwh will be in Zion’s midst (vv. 14–15 [Eng. vv. 10–11]). Thus there is an intimation of mutual return here, even though the verb “to return” is not present. (This theme will be articulated and highlighted in the introduction to the book, Zech 1:1–6, where the verb does appear.) The flight from Babylon is necessitated by Yhwh’s imminent action in vv. 12–13 [Eng. vv. 8–9] so that a passage that opens with the urgent imperatives to flee closes with imperatives to celebrate Yhwh’s presence. The rejoicing is not simply because of what has come before—the flight, the punishment, and the magnificent reversal—but for another reason: Yhwh will be present, a promise that

Jon. glosses MT’s ‫ פרשתי‬with the Aramaic ‫בדר‬, which is the same verb that it uses to translate MT ‫זרה‬, “to scatter.” 84 Oded, Mass Deportations, 74. 85 In his vision of the new temple, Ezekiel also uses the idiom ‫( שכן בתוך‬43:7, 9) to describe the presence of Yhwh; cf. Exod 25:8; 29:45; Lev 16:16; Num 5:3; 35:34; 1 Kgs 6:13.

190

chapter four

is twice expressed with the idiom “to dwell in your midst” (‫)שכן בתוך‬.86 Now there is an exhortation to flee not only “from” (because it will preserve the life of those who may unintentionally be harmed when Yhwh acts against the nations, vv. 10–11 [Eng. vv. 6–7]), but also “to” (because Yhwh will be there, v. 14 [Eng. v. 10]); Yhwh and the people will be in a restored Jerusalem. By way of review, the later material that was added to the unit containing Zechariah’s night visions commented upon, supplemented, and in some cases transformed the conception of the exilic period and its limits as expressed in the earlier, mostly visionary, materials. This later material includes the second and third oracles to the first vision (1:16–17) and may also have included the passage of exhortations found in Zech 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13]). Taken as a whole, the later oracles to the first vision and the exhortations are distinguished by their attempt to establish the programmatic significance of the visions, most notably by associating them with the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple; this program may have been implied in the visions themselves, but it is more clearly articulated in the later strands. The later strands focus more on the return of the exiles, a theme that was present in the earlier materials but comes to the fore in the later redaction; again, this new emphasis implicitly bolsters the notion that the exile endures. These additions, further, emphasize the notion of a renewed relationship with Yhwh. Again, this renewal was implied in the earliest strands of the night vision, but it is further developed in the later strands and will be made explicit in another late addition, the introduction to the book, Zech 1:1–6, discussed below. Yhwh’s renewed presence becomes the idiom for describing the renewed relationship that will follow the period of wrath. First Zechariah’s pairing of the return of the exiles and the immanence of Yhwh describes a movement that is distinctly mutual— the movement of the people toward Jerusalem will be complemented by Yhwh’s renewed presence. IV. Yhwh’s Renewed Presence The notion of a renewed relationship between Yhwh and Israel, advanced in the later strands of the night visions, is central to the prologue to First 86

The imminence of this return is conveyed in Zech 2:14 [Eng. 2:10], ‫הנני בא ושכנתי‬

‫בתובך‬, “I am indeed coming and I shall dwell in your midst.”

zechariah 1–8

191

Zechariah (1:1–6), which effectively makes that motif the book’s theme. This relational aspect of the return—a turning and returning that signifies a shift in the relationship between Israel and Yhwh—is spelled out in more detail. This is not to suggest that, in the later strands of the night visions (the first vision’s second and third oracles, Zech 1:16–17, and the exhortations, 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13]), the return of the exiles was not understood as the result of a relational shift; rather, in the introduction the turning and returning now take place on a relational rather than a geographical plane. In this manner, the prologue conceives of exile and return beyond its geographic dimension. The movement of Yhwh toward the people—and with it the end of the exile—has been internalized; it may refer to the return of exiles to the land, particularly when read in the context of the night visions, but it also indicates that return may occur in a relational sense, outside the land. The redaction of the prologue and the final unit of First Zechariah (7:1–8:23) are commonly taken to be the work of the same editor. The case for identity can be made on the basis of shared vocabulary, consistent theme, and common genre. The prologue and concluding section are also commonly regarded as a later frame that shapes the interpretation of the central section, the night visions. So, too, the prologue’s emphasis on the exile as indicative of the divine-human relationship, which is also evident in the final unit, serves to shape the concept of exile found within the night visions so that it refers to the relationship between Yhwh and Israel. This reshaping means that exile, now conceived of as a mutual estrangement, will not be ended until there is a change in the disposition of both the people and Yhwh. A. The Prologue to the Night Visions (Zech 1:1–6) ‫ן־בּ ֶר ְכיָ ה ֶבּן־‬ ֶ ‫ ַבּח ֶֹדשׁ ַה ְשּׁ ִמינִ י ִבּ ְשׁנַ ת ְשׁ ַתּיִ ם ְל ָד ְריָ וֶ שׁ ָהיָ ה ְד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־זְ ַכ ְריָ ה ֶבּ‬1 ‫ וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָתּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם כֹּה ָא ַמר‬3 ‫יכם ָק ֶצף׃‬ ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ל־א‬ ֲ ‫ ָק ַצף יְ הוָ ה ַﬠ‬2 ‫ִﬠדּוֹ ַהנָּ ִביא ֵלאמֹר׃‬ ‫יכם ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת׃‬ ֶ ‫יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת שׁוּבוּ ֵא ַלי נְ ֻאם יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת וְ ָאשׁוּב ֲא ֵל‬ ‫יאים ָה ִראשׁ ֹנִ ים ֵלאמֹר כֹּה ָא ַמר‬ ִ ‫יהם ַהנְּ ִב‬ ֶ ‫אוּ־א ֵל‬ ֲ ‫יכם ֲא ֶשׁר ָק ְר‬ ֶ ‫ל־תּ ְהיוּ ַכ ֲאב ֵֹת‬ ִ ‫ ַא‬4 87 ‫יכם ָה ָר ִﬠים וְ ל ֹא ָשׁ ְמעוּ וְ ל ֹא־‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ַﬠ ְל ֵל‬ ַ ‫יכם ָה ָר ִﬠים‬ ֶ ‫יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת שׁוּבוּ נָ א ִמ ַדּ ְר ֵכ‬ ‫ ַאְך‬6 ‫עוֹלם יִ ְחיוּ׃‬ ָ ‫ה־הם וְ ַהנְּ ִב ִאים ַה ְל‬ ֵ ֵ‫יכם ַאיּ‬ ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא‬5 ‫ִה ְק ִשׁיבוּ ֵא ַלי נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ‫יכם וַ יָּ שׁוּבוּ‬ ֶ ‫יאים ֲהלוֹא ִה ִשּׂיגוּ ֲאב ֵֹת‬ ִ ‫ת־ﬠ ָב ַדי ַהנְּ ִב‬ ֲ ‫יתי ֶא‬ ִ ִ‫ְדּ ָב ַרי וְ ֻח ַקּי ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוּ‬ ‫וּכ ַמ ֲﬠ ָל ֵלינוּ ֵכּן ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ְ ‫אמרוּ ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר זָ ַמם יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת ָלנוּ ִכּ ְד ָר ֵכינוּ‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫ִא ָתּנוּ׃‬

87

Ketib: ‫ומעלילים‬.

192

chapter four 1

In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of Yhwh came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berekiah son of Iddo, saying: 2 Yhwh was very angry with your ancestors. 3 Therefore say to them, Thus says Yhwh of hosts: Return to me, says Yhwh of hosts, and I shall return to you, says Yhwh of hosts. 4 Do not be like your ancestors, to whom the former prophets proclaimed, “Thus says Yhwh of hosts, Turn from your evil ways and from your evil deeds.” But they did not hear or heed me, says Yhwh. 5 Your ancestors, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever? 6 But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your ancestors? So they repented and said, “Yhwh of hosts has dealt with us according to our ways and deeds, just as he planned to do.”88 (Zech 1:1–6)

In redacting the night visions of Zechariah, the editors added a prologue (1:1–6), a complex of oracles and admonitions that introduces the theological themes of the book and prepares the audience for what is to follow. Even though the prologue is dated slightly earlier than the visions, it is a later addition. This kind of prologue, affixed to preexistent materials at a later date, is not unusual in the formation of prophetic books; a similar passage, Jer 30:1–4, introduces the Book of Consolation. As in that prologue, so too in Zech 1:1–6, the root ‫ שוב‬is used to articulate a theological concern of the book; the root is used four times in the prologue to Zechariah’s night visions alone—in vv. 3 (twice), 4, and 6. There is, however, a key difference between the prologues of these two texts: the concept of restoration was articulated in the earliest strands of the body of the Book of Consolation, since the root ‫ שוב‬is found there (for example, Jer 31:16–17 and 18–19). In that sense, the prologue of the Book of Consolation functions to highlight a preexistent term within the book, by which the redactors sharpen the theme. By contrast, the prologue to the night visions introduces a concept that is absent from the earliest material in First Zechariah. In the earlier

88

The translation of v. 6b poses two related exegetical problems. First, are the ancestors or the current generation the implicit subject of ‫וישובו‬, “and they repented”? Second, does the phrase continue Yhwh’s speech, or is it a narrative comment, describing the effect of Yhwh’s exhortation? Coming on the heels of the reference to the ancestors in v. 6a, the ancestors may be the subject of v. 6b (see BHS). Read in this way, v. 6b is the conclusion to Yhwh’s words to Zechariah. Zechariah’s contemporaries are also possible subjects in v. 6b, in which case the phrase is a narrative comment: Zechariah’s audience repented. This is in fact the more probable solution, since the ancestors to whom the prophets of old spoke were punished with exile, making it unlikely that their repentance is being noted here. Further, in v. 2, Yhwh is clearly addressing the current generation and calling upon them to repent; the returning or repentance of the current generation (vv. 2 and 6) forms an inclusio for the passage.

zechariah 1–8

193

strands of Zech 1–8, ‫ שוב‬does not appear in the sense of “to return.”89 It is used in this sense only in the later strands and even then sparingly. While the later strands of the night visions assert that the end of the exile will be marked by the renewed presence of Yhwh and a homecoming of the exiles, this concept is only expressed by the verb ‫ שוב‬in 1:16, which is the second oracle to the first vision and was discussed above, and in the closely related statement in the final prose sermon (8:3), which was also added at a later date. But in the exhortations (Zech 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13]), also possibly a later strand, the concept of homecoming is expressed through the people fleeing (‫נוס‬, v. 10 [Eng. v. 6]) and escaping (‫מלטי‬, v. 11 [Eng. v. 7]) from enemy territory and by Yhwh coming and dwelling in their midst (‫שכן בתוך‬, v. 14 [Eng. v. 10]). In affixing the introduction, therefore, the Zecharian redactors appear to draw out a concept of mutual “return” that is largely latent even in the later strands. The redactor develops the notion of return by playing on the second sense of the root ‫שוב‬, a spiritual returning. This use of ‫ שוב‬in the introduction to Zechariah is distinctive in comparison to the geographic sense of the verb (as in the description of returning from exile in Deut 30:1–10) or the idiom of restored fortunes (‫ )שוב שבות‬that is a motif of Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation (esp. Jer 30:1–4). In v. 3 of the Zecharian prologue, Yhwh issues an exhortation to the present generation that involves a mutual return: ‫ ואשוב אליכם‬. . . ‫שובו אלי‬, “Return to me . . . and I shall return to you.”90 In Zech 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13], the language “to dwell in your midst” (‫)שכן בתוך‬, which conveys the renewed presence of the deity, included a spatial and a relational dimension. The prologue, by contrast, emphasizes this relational dimension of ‫ שוב‬over the spatial; it does so by placing the present exhortation to return not in the geographical context of a return to the land (cf. Zech 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13]), but in the chistorical context of Yhwh’s relationship with the ancestors. Yhwh reminds the audience of his past exhortation to the ancestors, which they 89 It appears in 4:1; 5:1; and 6:1, each time denoting repetition, i.e., “to do something again.” 90 The meaning of ‫ שוב‬in the Zecharian prologue and the subject of the verb (either the ancestors or the present generation) may be illuminated by a comparison with Jer 34:14b–16: “Your ancestors did not listen to me nor did they incline their ear. Now you yourselves turned (‫ )שוב‬today and did the right thing in my eyes, to proclaim a deror . . ., but now you turned (‫[ )שוב‬i.e., changed your minds] and profaned my name, and each man brought back his servant . . . whom you had released.” This situation (that the ancestors did not listen, but the present generation initially did and returned to Yhwh) nicely parallels the situation in the Zecharian prologue—and, indeed, the clause “and did the right thing in my eyes” fixes the positive meaning for ‫ שוב‬in the verse.

194

chapter four

did not heed: ‫שובו נא מדרכיכם הרעים ומעלליכם הרעים‬, “Turn from your evil ways and from your evil deeds” (1:4). ‫ שוב‬here refers to a turning on a spiritual level akin to that described in 2 Kgs 17:13, which opens the litany of Israel and Judah’s failings that led to the exile of the north: “Yhwh warned Israel and Judah by every prophet91 and every seer, saying, ‘Turn from your evil ways’ ’’ (‫ויעד יהוה בישראל וביהודה ביד כל‬ ‫)נביאו כל חזה לאמר שבו מדרכיכם הרﬠים‬. A comparison of the prologue and the second oracle to the first vision further illustrates the innovation of the prologue. In the oracle, the divine presence is associated with a place, namely Jerusalem: Yhwh declares that he will return to Jerusalem (v. 16). This declaration is followed by a programmatic vision of the repopulation of Judah and Jerusalem (v. 17). The deity and the people are to converge on Zion. In neither Zech 1:3 nor 1:4, however, does ‫ שוב‬refer to a spatial turn or return. In v. 4, the ancestors are to turn from their evil ways and from their evil deeds; and in v. 3, the audience is told to turn to Yhwh and that Yhwh will turn to them. It is possible that a spiritual repentance of the populace will prompt a spatial return of the deity. But the return of neither the people nor the deity is described in geographic terms. In a subtle shift, the prologue calls for Yhwh to turn to the people as the people turn to Yhwh; on both sides, the activity marks a change in disposition, not location. Just as Third Isaiah used Second Isaiah’s language of exile to describe another sort of oppression, namely economic oppression, here the Zecharian prologue uses the language of exile and, more specifically, the notion of returning to describe another sort of alienation, namely spiritual estrangement. Thus the prologue conceives of a return to Yhwh that is possible even for those who remain in the Diaspora. This claim is significant because it implies a spiritualizing of the concept of exile. Here, exile is characterized primarily as estrangement from Yhwh, rather than alienation from the land or the temple; consequently, the state of exile can be overcome by “turning toward” Yhwh, even though repentence is not formally considered in the core of the visions. The prologue indicates that heeding the message of the prophets is the way to make the turn, and thus it is possible for people to return to Yhwh without returning to Yehud. The prologue, then, projects a spiritual dimension upon the return described in the rest of First Zechariah; although this meaning for exile may not

91

Reading ‫ כל נביאו כל חזה‬as ‫כל נביא כל חזה‬.

zechariah 1–8

195

be inherent to the visions and oracles themselves, that material paved the way for the extension of exile’s meaning by conceiving of exile as a paradigmatic or archetypal experience of divine wrath. The prologue’s cry for a mutual return adds a layer of meaning to the concept of exile found within the visions. Understanding the end of the previous period in terms of turning back toward Yhwh reflects a way of coming to terms with living outside the land. Or, to put it in other terms, it reflects an accommodation of exile, a transformation of exile into Diaspora. It also addresses Zechariah’s conception of the preceding period as a period of wrath, mindful of but not confined to the status of Babylon. The call to turn toward Yhwh and the notice in 1:6b that the people have turned toward Yhwh infuse the subsequent night visions with a new kind of urgency and possibility. The prologue makes it clear that the return of Yhwh, an event that is about to happen, was conditional on the return of the people: “Return to me, says Yhwh of hosts, and I shall return to you, says Yhwh of hosts” (v. 3). The final half of the last verse of the prologue, v. 6b, asserts that this has happened: “So they repented (‫ )וישובו‬and said, ‘Yhwh of hosts has dealt with us according to our ways and deeds, just as he planned to do.’ ” The closing phrase thus positions the audience on the brink of enjoying Yhwh’s renewed presence.92 The date formula in the prologue, which posits that Yhwh’s exhortation came to Zechariah before the night visions of 1:7–6:15, further suggests that the repentance described in 1:6b is setting the stage for the night visions, which confirm that the period of wrath is over or almost over. This framing explains and even justifies the impatience of the angel in the first vision when he laments to Yhwh, “How long will you withhold mercy?” (1:12). The current generation has returned to Yhwh but still waits for Yhwh’s return. B. Zechariah 7–8 Zechariah 7–8, the third and final unit within First Zechariah, opens with a formula that sets the date as December 7, 518 b.c.e., in the fourth year of King Darius, almost two years after the night visions. Despite the passage of two years, the final episode is still located within the seventyyear period of Yhwh’s wrath if that period began, as some argue, with

92 The precipitousness of the moment in Zechariah’s redacted prologue calls to mind the redaction of the Pentateuch, which leaves Israel on the brink of entering the promised land and thus of realizing the divine promises of Genesis.

196

chapter four

the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 b.c.e. On the other hand, the episode is placed well after the edict of Cyrus, which 2 Chr 36 and Ezra 1 identified as the end of the Babylonian period. The passage of two years is particularly significant, however, given the sense of imminent change that pervades Zech 1–6. Two years later, the realization of the promises in the night visions has yet to be discerned, as the debate over the usefulness of fasting makes clear. While they include several oracles, the words of Zech 7–8 appear in their final form to be an extended response to a question from the people of Bethel: should they “mourn and abstain in the fifth month, as [they] have done for so many years?” (7:3). Yhwh’s response includes the note that the practices to which they refer have been undertaken, more specifically, for “these seventy years” (v. 5). In their question, the people of Bethel appear to be inquiring about these practices because of a larger debate over whether the period of wrath continues. Thus the prose sermon in Zech 7–8 is located within the same situation that evoked the angel’s lamenting question to Yhwh in the first night vision. And, even though the prime issue at hand—the question about mourning and abstinence that frames the composition in 7:1–3 and 8:18–23—appears to reflect a new concern, it is answered in a manner that reflects a view toward the present period that is consistent with Zech 1–6. The very question of whether mourning and abstinence should continue reflects the view that the end of the period of wrath must be imminent. The date of 518 b.c.e., at which point the temple rebuilding was well under way, would have been evidence for some in the community that Yhwh had indeed returned and that Jerusalem was experiencing the kind of restoration that Zechariah had promised in the night visions.93 Zechariah’s reply challenges not only the assumption that mourning and abstinence reflect true repentance. It also challenges the notion that the end of the period of wrath is yet to be realized. Here, the very reuse and expansion of the terms for restoration in Zech 1–6 indicate that the current period is continuous with the past. Yhwh’s return is not yet manifest. In 8:3, reusing the idiom familiar from 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13], Yhwh proclaims, ‫שבתי אל ציון ושכנתי בתוך ירושלם‬, “I shall return94 to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem.” In 8:7, too, Yhwh identifies the scope of the return

93 Mark Boda, “From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8,” CBQ 65 (2003): 399. 94 Again, perfectum propheticum.

zechariah 1–8

197

of the people from exile through the merismus ‫מארץ מזרח ומארץ מבוא‬ ‫השמש‬, “from the place where the sun rises to the place where the sun sets.” This evokes the simile that was used in 2:10 [Eng. 2:6], where the people were described as scattered “like the four winds of heaven.” What was a simile in Zech 1–6, however, has become here the grand scope of redemption. In Zech 8, then, the restoration language reflects the unrealized promises of the night visions by reusing earlier terminology, but also presents a restoration that transpires on a wider scale. V. Conclusion Zechariah 1–8 precariously balances the message that the end of Yhwh’s wrath is imminent against indications that this end will be deferred. The text communicates the precipitousness of the age by asserting that the seventy-year period of wrath, associated with the Babylonian domination of Judah, endures into what is classically formulated as the restoration period. Even though both the night visions of Zech 1–6 and the material in Zech 7–8 are set decades after the edict of Cyrus, the period associated with exile is not yet over and the threat of exile is not yet vanquished, even as the prophet suggests that the period is almost over. This is due, in part, to the seventy-year motif that Zechariah inherits, which is, in essence, a floating figure that is difficult to anchor in actual events; anxiety over its interpretation is evident in the angel’s plaintive question. While the authors of Chronicles look back from a later vantage point and suggest that Jeremiah’s seventy years ended with the activity of Cyrus, Zechariah and his circle are not as certain and are still attempting to locate their current experience in an overarching chronology; their uncertainty is manifest in the night visions of Zech 1:7–6:15, as well as the addition of Zech 7–8. The Zecharian speculation serves, indeed, to undermine the notion that “seventy years” actually represents a fixed period; the night visions are suffused with the sense that they have not and, indeed, may not end. The later redactional layers of the book indicate that the anxious speculation in the core material about the temporal boundaries of the period of divine wrath is linked to an even more complex problem: exile has become loosened from its geographic moorings. Particularly in the introduction to the book, Zech 1:1–6, which was added later, exile is interpreted as a period of divine turning away that will end when the people turn back toward Yhwh and Yhwh turns back toward them. To

198

chapter four

be sure, this interpretation of the end of exile has concrete correlatives— the repopulation of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple—but exile has acquired a dimension that those mundane markers do not address; exile is, more potently, a mutual estrangement. That is, even as the later strands depict a glorious return of the exiles and the importance of the rebuilt temple, the prologue in particular suggests that Zechariah’s redactors conceive of exile as a relational estrangement whose resolution requires more than a physical return to the land of Israel. This sense of the return recalls Poem 6 of Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation: the Rachel stanza (Jer 31:15–17), which focuses on geographical estrangement, is followed by a stanza on Ephraim (31:18–20), which focuses on the theme of spiritual estrangement and reconciliation. That poem, too, played on the multifarious meanings of ‫—שוב‬as both geographic return and repentance. In the larger context of this study, Zechariah provides something new. The preceding chapters dealt with texts that paved the way for the use of exile as a metaphor in later Second Temple literature. The treaty curses considered in the introduction indicated the degree to which exile, early on, took on extended meanings beyond physical dislocation. Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation is an example of the early stages of the process by which exile was metaphorized, as is Isaiah’s language about exile as slavery and the need for redemption. Zechariah’s sense of the times implicitly presents a different solution to the question of how to interpret the meaning of the age. His understanding of the seventy years has entirely to do with the notion of Yhwh’s anger; the ingathering of the people and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple are secondary matters. Zechariah addresses the community’s concern that the seventy-year period should have ended by appealing to the period’s primary significance as a period of divine wrath: Yhwh will be angry at Israel for seventy years. In turn, this emphasis leads to the conclusion that the period of exile is defined by the status of the relationship between Yhwh and the people, which implies that exile is more than deportation. Zechariah’s later editors, particularly through their redaction of the introduction of the book, will pick up on this understanding and develop exile into a figure for mutual estrangement between Yhwh and the nation. Zechariah 1–8 asserts that exile is spiritual estrangement, a mutual turning away of the people from their God, and of Yhwh from Israel. In making this assertion, First Zechariah reads historical indicators to make an existential statement.

CONCLUSION Metaphorical function would be completely inadequate as a way of expressing the different temporality of symbols, what we might call their insistence, if metaphors did not save themselves from complete evanescence by means of a whole array of intersignifications. One metaphor, in effect, calls for another and each one stays alive by conserving its power to evoke the whole network. —Paul Ricœur, Interpretation Theory

The Babylonian exile assumed precedence in the minds of the biblical redactors and later interpreters. This is particularly evident in how exile in general, and the Babylonian exile in particular, left its mark on the formation of the biblical canon. Interpretations of the exile and speculation about how it might ultimately end—more than the sense that divine promises or the entry into the land had been fulfilled—prompted the construction of the canon and informed its redaction; the influence of exile can be seen not only on the shape of the canon as a whole, but in the form of some books and the major canonical divisions. To be sure, views on these issues were not uniform: the biblical canon contains different ideas about the end and the meaning of exile, but even these contending ideas have left their distinctive imprint. At each juncture, the redactors who shaped the canon highlighted exile not only to reinforce its historical importance, but further to sharpen and reshape the memory of it as a formative and definitive experience. This is one of the ways that exile endures, as a context that makes scripture make sense. So, the construction of a Pentateuch, especially if it is a truncation of a Hexateuch or a “Primary History” (Genesis–2 Kings), reflects a deliberate decision to mark the end of the narrative with Moses and Israel perched on the edge of the Jordan; this decision not only privileges Moses and Mosaic revelation, but also expresses the returned exiles’ sense of the paradigmatic nature of their recent exilic experience. Theologically, the Pentateuch advances the anticipation of the end of exile and the sense of imminent return as a paradigm for reentry into Mosaic revelation and Israel’s relationship to Yhwh.

200

conclusion

With the last chapter of 2 Kings, the Former Prophets, too, explicitly end the retelling of the ancient history with the Babylonian exile; this decision thus extends the historical sweep begun with the portrayal in Genesis of the creation of the world through the rise of the kingdoms and down into the exile of north and south. The ending is seismic, a rupture in history, although the seeds for renewal are evident in the repentance that Deuteronomy advocates. By comparison, in most manuscripts, the Writings (and thus the Hebrew canon itself) end with the retelling of this history by the Chronicler, who is assured of the end of exile1; even those manuscripts, like the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex, that place Ezra– Nehemiah last (instead of Chronicles) close with the assertion that the exile had ended and that Judah was once again the focus of Israelite history. Finally, the book of Ezekiel, which in the majority of the manuscript witnesses rounds out the first three books of the Major Prophets in MT, ends with a utopian vision of restoration in which Yhwh returns with Israel to a restored temple and a restored Zion. It could further be argued that the book of the Twelve, which concludes with Malachi’s warning to watch for Elijah, provides another look toward the end of exile, albeit more eschatologically and broadly conceived. Even within various books, certain texts and redactions posit exile as formative for identity. For example, the episode at Babel that ends the primeval history posits the diasporic scattering of the nations, foreshadowed in the expulsion from Eden, as indicative of the human condition. The narratives of key ancestors, for example Abraham and Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, include significant sojourning or exilic episodes that are relevant to, recollected by, or even recast for an audience that conceives of exile as formative for Jewish identity. The construction, in Num 13–14, of the forty years in the wilderness as a period during which Israel was punished for her sin and lack of faith could be read as a sort of exile: while elsewhere in Exodus–Numbers, transgressors are swiftly punished with death, the sinful generation of the wilderness period is forced to wander, which is analogous to exile. Again, the textual examples that underline the priority of exile include some that have the end of exile in view or even report that it has ended, and others that leave the future more unresolved. This latter stream of thought, the notion that the exile endures, would find fuller expression

1 This placement of Chronicles at the end of the canon is attested in b. Baba Batra 14b–15a.

conclusion

201

in later Second Temple literature, as discussed in the introduction. But it is already possible to identify the nascence of the idea of an enduring exile in literature from the late sixth to the third century b.c.e.—in, for example, the prophetic deferral of restoration. Indeed, earlier references to exile suggest that the concept, even before Judah’s experience of it in the sixth century b.c.e., had figurative significance, which laid the groundwork for this thinking. In the curses of exile, both biblical and ancient Near Eastern, exile is a refraction of divine wrath and a form of death penalty; in the biblical context, exile signals the death and divinely sanctioned destruction of Israel, Yhwh’s errant vassal. In understanding exile as one of many possible forms the wrath of Yhwh might take, the biblical authors assumed that exile had meaning beyond its concrete sense, a meaning that was not neutral. Further, the ancient Near Eastern curses, like the earlier strands of the biblical curses, did not imagine that exile would end. The more definitive beginnings of the notion of an enduring exile— more definitive because they begin to appear in the Second Temple period—build upon this extended if not flexible meaning for exile. These beginnings are evident both in speculation about the exile’s chronology and in attempts to define exile; they are located in Zechariah’s attention to the problem of the seventy years of wrath, Third Isaiah’s extension of the work of redemption described in Second Isaiah, and the Book of Consolation’s attempts to describe exile theologically and historically. All three, indeed, attempt to confront the lacuna between expectation and reality and, in so doing, they find in exile something more potent and existential than the passage of seventy years, a return to the land, and even a rebuilt temple can resolve. The elasticity of exile is evident in speculations about the periodization of history. The most obvious example comes later in the Second Temple period, in Dan 9, which stands fully within the motif of the unending exile; even in Zech 1–8, however, the “seventy years” travels further into the future, regardless of worldly temporal markers that in other texts, like 2 Chr 36, anchored the motif to the Babylonian period. God’s wrath, the prophet Zechariah argues, endures beyond the fall of Babylon. The elasticity of exile is evident, too, in Jer 30–31, set within the very book that, in its MT edition, is most associated with the notion of a finite exile: the latest strands of the poetry push restoration off until the idealized vision of restoration should be achieved. The definition of exile in the prologue of the Book of Consolation suggests that a return

202

conclusion

to and repossession of the land are facets, but not the defining features, of the exile’s end. Exile is a multifaceted condition and, though the book as a whole joyfully anticipates the restoration, the prologue functions to maintain the futurity of its promise in the “coming days” (‫ימים באים‬, Jer 30:3). Only a divine restoration of fortunes in the eschatological era, still unrealized, will denote the fulsome end of exile. Exile’s flexible meaning is also reflected in its increasingly paradigmatic character within the literature of ancient Israel. In the appeal to the wilderness experience in the Book of Consolation, in the historicizing of the treaty curses, and in the understanding of exile as a correlate to the bondage in Egypt, the biblical authors drew on other historical moments to describe and define the current exile; this is evident most vividly in the way Jer 30–31 revalorizes for a southern audience oracles originally directed to the north. A rendering of the Babylonian exile according to other events in the nation’s collective memory would, in turn, contribute to traditions in which the Babylonian exile became a paradigm for understanding history. The paradigm of Babylonian exile would come to be used and revised by biblical and postbiblical authors as a way of commenting on present difficulties. It became less of an event and more of a lens through which to view the present and the future. Exile, with its correlate of destruction and its hope for restoration, would organize, for example, the impressions that the author of 4 Ezra had of the present age; he was in exile, a not unfamiliar experience, but the hope of return was promised by the way that God had intervened, long ago, to bring the biblical Ezra back to the land. But even this restoration is now couched as a departure from the tribulations of this world; further, his role as bearer of expanded divine revelation suggests that, in the mind of the author of 4 Ezra, text will now be the terrain on which Israel encounters Yhwh. A transformation has occurred so that Ezra’s literal return to the land is simply not as important as his role as a conduit of scripture. Exile’s flexible meaning was most evident, however, in the metaphorical way in which it was described and defined. The editors of the Book of Consolation used preexisting conventions to describe exile metaphorically, and Second Isaiah used multiple images to evoke exile as the dire state of needing redemption. The authors appear to have had an understanding of exile that was fluid enough to employ a variety of traditions to represent the experience, even with the difficulties that those preexisting traditions presented. The concept of exile remained malleable and open to influence. By accommodating a variety of different metaphors that described it, exile laid the groundwork for its own metaphoriza-

conclusion

203

tion. When exile was rendered by other systems of association, it took on increasing conceptual depth. Now participating in, as Ricœur would call it, “a whole array of intersignifications,”2 exile was absorbed into a nexus of associations that included death, sterility, bodily and emotional pain, and servitude. Exile would thus come to be understood as a paradigm for human suffering and a separation from God, as in 4 Ezra. By the postexilic period, that text shows, exile appears to have acquired an extended meaning; that is, exile had a meaning beyond its mundane particulars. Exile no longer simply conveyed the finite actions of deportation and a regrouping of the deportees in another place. The redactors who attached the prologue to Zechariah added to the book’s emphasis on returning to and restoring Jerusalem the possibility of ending the divine wrath by “turning” to Yhwh, who would “turn” to Israel. And, already in Third Isaiah’s exegesis of the exilic language in Second Isaiah, exile had become a metaphor for social marginalization and disenfranchisement. The innovations in thinking and interpretation that would lend the Babylonian exile its potency and prolong its reach are thus already evident in the texts considered here. The description and interpretation of the experience in the books of Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Zechariah and the efforts of their later editors to apply their words to later circumstances would shape the recollection of the exile and its meaning. Their interpretation of exile as enduring, both chronologically but also because exile was a situation that could not be overcome by the mundane restorations of the early sixth century, would give rise to a compelling motif within early Judaism. The implications of an enduring exile, including the problem of spiritual estrangement from Yhwh, would prove farreaching, contributing to Jewish sectarianism (for example, the selfimposed “exile” of the group behind the Damascus Document), as well as apocalyptic and messianic thought. In this sense, looking beyond the metaphor to what it expresses is fundamental for understanding exile’s potency for later interpreters. For Zechariah, the metaphor gives expression to a lingering sense that Israel has not been reconciled with Yhwh. While this idea of the rupture in the relationship between Yhwh and Israel is most explicit in the book of Zechariah, the sense of a continuing disruption in that relationship informs Jeremiah and Isaiah as well. The idea that exile signified a

2 Paul Ricœur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976), 64.

204

conclusion

fractured relationship between a people and its god was already operative in the ancient Near Eastern treaty curses that provide the context for the biblical curses. Breach of covenant portended a fracture, and an exile, that was permanent and irrevocable. Thus, while the hope of restoring the relationship between Yhwh and Israel is maintained in, for example, the later strands of Lev 26, the fear that exile was a permanent state and marked a permanent alienation from Yhwh may still have been operative in the minds of the redactors of the prophetic books under consideration. This lingering sense of alienation animated the metaphorization of exile, which was pursued by later biblical and Jewish authors. By the end of the Second Temple period, exile would emerge as a potent evocation of the existential condition, of the marginalization of the nation, and of the inevitable defeats and alienations of its people. To return to the text with which I opened, but which also presents a destination point, 4 Ezra uses the Babylonian exile of scripture as a paradigm through which to understand the present. The metaphorization of exile not only provided a tributary to the motif of the unending exile, it was an integral part of the pseudepigraphical impulse; it would play a part, too, in the canonical shaping of the Hebrew Bible, so that earlier compositions addressed to one exiled population were reactualized for another situation, another populace, another time. Exile had become a metaphor for a range of experiences, including the experience of divine wrath, of alienation from divine affection, and of disenfranchisement in a variety of forms. In this sense exile was not only enduring, but enduringly resilient, in that it could be continuously applied and reapplied as a figure for understanding Israel’s present and for framing her future expectations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aaron, David H. Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics, and Divine Imagery. The Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism 4. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 111–25 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Ackroyd, Peter R. “The Book of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8.” Journal of Jewish Studies 3 (1952): 151–56. ——. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century bc. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. ——. “An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of II Kings 20 and Isaiah 38–39.” Scottish Journal of Theology 27 (1974): 329–52. ——. “Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function.” Pages 478–94 in The Place Is Too Small for Us. Edited by Robert P. Gordon. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995. ——. “Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian Period.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 17 (1958): 13–27. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer XXV 1–14 in the Book of Jeremiah.” Vetus Testamentum 52 (2002): 459–82. Albertz, Rainer. “Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40.1–52.12) in 521 b.c.e.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27 (2003): 371–83. ——. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century b.c.e. Translated by David Green. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Amsler, Samuel, André Lacocque, and René Vuilleumier. Aggée, Zacharie 1–8. 2d ed. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 11c. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988. Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary, in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings. Translated by David E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. ——. Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. Edited by Peter Machinist. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ——. “Liberation from Debt Slavery after the Exile in Second Isaiah and Nehemiah.” Pages 477–84 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride, Jr. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Barstad, Hans. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the “Exilic” Period. Symbolae osloenses 28. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996. ——. “On the So-called Babylonian Literary Influence in Second Isaiah.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2 (1987): 90–110. Becking, Bob. Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30–31. Oudtestamentische Studiën 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ——. “Continuity and Discontinuity after the Exile: Introductory Remarks.” Pages 1–8 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion. Edited by Bob Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel. Oudtestamentische Studiën 42. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. “Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation: A Textual Comparison, Notes on the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek Version of Jeremiah xxx–xxxi.” Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994): 145–69. ——. “ ‘We All Returned as One!’: Critical Notes on the Myth of the Mass Return.” Pages 3–18 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

206

bibliography

Beuken, W. A. M. Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie. Studia semitica neerlandica 10. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967. ——. “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40–55.” Pages 411–22 in Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage. Edited by Jacques Vermeylen. BETL 81. Leuven: University Press, 1989. Black, Max. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1962. ——. “More About Metaphor.” Dialectica 31 (1977): 431–57. Repr. pages 19–43 in Metaphor and Thought. Edited by Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Blake, Robert P. “The Georgian Version of the Fourth Esdras from the Jerusalem Manuscript.” Harvard Theological Review 19 (1926): 299–375. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39. Anchor Bible 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ——. Isaiah 40–55. Anchor Bible 19a. New York: Doubleday, 2002. ——. Isaiah 56–66. Anchor Bible 19b. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Boda, Mark J. “From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65 (2003): 390–407. ——. Haggai, Zechariah. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004. ——. “Terrifying the Horns: Persia and Babylon in Zechariah 1:7–6:15.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67 (2005): 22–41. ——. “Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet?” Pages 49–69 in Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Edited by Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking. Studies in Theology and Religion 5. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: Les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours,” Revue biblique 101 (1994): 363–406. Böhmer, Siegmund. Heimkehr und neuer Bund: Studien zu Jeremia 30–31. Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Borger, Riekele. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien. Edited by Ernst Weidner. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 9. Graz: privately printed, 1956; repr., Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974–. Bozak, Barbara A. Life ‘Anew’: A Literary-Theological Study of Jer. 30–31. Analecta biblica 122. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991. Bracke, John M. “šûb šebût: A Reappraisal.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97 (1985): 233–44. Brettler, Marc Zvi. God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 76. Sheffield, UK: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1989. Brichto, Herbert C. The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible. Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 13. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1963. Bright, John. Jeremiah. Anchor Bible 21. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, James Strong, and Wilhelm Gesenius. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, Coded with the Numbering System from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Brueggemann, Walter. Hopeful Imagination: Prophetic Voices in Exile. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Camp, Claudia V., and Carole R. Fontaine, eds. Women, War, and Metaphor: Language and Society in the Study of the Hebrew Bible = Semeia 61 (1993).

bibliography

207

Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1986. ——. “The Myth of the Empty Land.” Semeia 59 (1992): 79–93. Chapman, Cynthia R. The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter. Harvard Semitic Monographs 62. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Childs, Brevard S. “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 187–98. ——. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ——. Isaiah. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Harvard Semitic Monographs 4. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. Cogan, Mordechai. “The Chronicler’s Use of Chronology as Illuminated by Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 197–209 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Cornill, Carl H. Das Buch Jeremia. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1905. Cross, Frank Moore. “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert.” Harvard Theological Review 57 (1964): 281–99. Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer. Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Daube, David. The Exodus Pattern in the Bible. All Souls Studies 2. London: Faber & Faber, 1963. Davies, Philip R. In Search of ‘Ancient Israel.’ 2d ed. London: Continuum, 2006. Dietrich, Ernst Ludwig. ‫שׁוב שׁבות‬: Die endzeitliche Wiederherstellung bei den Propheten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 40. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1925. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jeremia. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 11. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1901. ——. Das Buch Jesaia. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 3.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892. Eerdmans, B. D. Das Buch Leviticus. Alttestamentliche Studien 4. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1912. Eisen, Arnold M. Galut: Modern Jewish Reflection on Homelessness and Homecoming. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. Elliger, Karl. Das Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten II: Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. 7th ed. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. ——. Deuterojesaja in seinem Verhältnis zu Tritojesaja. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 63. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933. ——. Die Einheit des Tritojesaja: Jesaja 56–66. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 45. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1928. Fensham, F. C. “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and KudurruInscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 75 (1963): 155–75. ——. “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 109 (1977): 113–15. Floyd, Michael H. “Cosmos and History in Zechariah’s View of the Restoration (Zechariah 1:7–6:15).” Pages 125–44 in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Edited by Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997. Frankena, R. “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy.” Pages 122–54 in ‫כה‬: 1940–1965. Oudtestamentische Studiën 14. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965. Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

208

bibliography

Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smith & Helwys, 2002. Fried, Lisbeth. “The Land Lay Desolate: Conquest and Restoration in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 21–54 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Frye, Northrop. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982. Funkenstein, Amos. Perceptions of Jewish History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Gafni, Isaiah M. Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 21. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Galling, Kurt. “Die Exilswende in der Sicht des Propheten Sacharja.” Pages 109–26 in Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter. Tübingen: Mohr, 1964. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Gevirtz, Stanley. “Curse Motifs in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1959. Giesebrecht, Friedrich. Das Buch Jeremia. 2d ed. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 3.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907. Ginsberg, H. L. The Israelian Heritage of Judaism. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary 24. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982. Gowan, Donald E. “The Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic.” Pages 205–23 in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam. Edited by Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 17. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977. Grabbe, Lester L. “ ‘The End of the Desolations of Jerusalem’: From Jeremiah’s 70 Years to Daniel’s 70 Weeks of Years.” Pages 67–72 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Edited by Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. ——. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ——. Leading Captivity Captive: ‘The Exile’ as History and Ideology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 278. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Graf, Karl Heinrich. Der Prophet Jeremia. Leipzig: Weigel, 1862. Greenfield, Jonas C. “Stylistic Aspects of the Sefire Treaty Inscriptions.” Pages 22–39 in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Michael E. Stone, and Avital Pinnick. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Gregory, Bradley. “The Postexilic Exile in Third Isaiah: Isaiah 61:1–3 in Light of Second Temple Hermeneutics.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 475–96. Halpern, Baruch. “A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1–6.” Pages 81–142 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Edited by William Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David Noel Freedman. Biblical and Judaic Studies 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. ——. “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 167–90. Haran, Menahem. “The Literary Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies in Is. xl–xlviii.” Vetus Testamentum Supplements 9. Pages 127–55 in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Heinisch, Paul. Das Buch Leviticus. Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments. Bonn: Hanstein, 1935. Held, Moshe. “On the Terms for Deportation in the Old Babylonian Royal Inscriptions with Special Reference to Yaḫdunlim,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 11 (1979): 53–67. Hillers, Delbert R. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Biblica et orientalia 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964.

bibliography

209

Holladay, William L. Jeremiah. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986–1989. ——. “Jer xxxi 22b Reconsidered: ‘The Woman Encompasses the Man.’ ” Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966): 236–239. ——. The Root Šûbh in the Old Testament, with Particular Reference to Its Usages in Covenantal Contexts. Leiden: Brill, 1958. ——. “Style, Irony and Authenticity in Jeremiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 44–54. Holt, Else K. “The Fountain of Living Water and the Deceitful Brook.” Pages 99–117 in Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Pierre Van Hecke. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 187. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. Hunzinger, Claus H. “Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1 Petrusbriefes.” Pages 67–77 in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70 Geburtstag. Edited by Henning Graf Reventlow. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Janssen, Enno. Juda in der Exilszeit. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 69. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956. Janzen, J. Gerald. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Harvard Semitic Monographs 6. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. Japhet, Sara. “People and Land in the Restoration Period.” Pages 96–116 in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Repr. from pages 103–24 in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981. Edited by Georg Strecker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997. Jepsen, Alfred. “Die Begriffe des ‘Erlösens’ im Alten Testament.” Pages 153–63 in Solange es “Heute” heisst: Festgabe für Rudolf Hermann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Paul Althaus. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsamstalt, 1957. ——. “Kleine Beiträge zum Zwölfprophetenbuch III: 4. Sacharja.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 61 (1945–1948): 95–114. Jeremias, Christian. Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 117. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy. Vol. 4 of History of the Religion of Israel. Translated by C. W. Efroymson. New York: Ktav, 1977. Keim, Paul A. “When Sanctions Fail: The Social Function of Curse in Ancient Israel.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1992. Kessler, John. The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 91. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Kiefer, Jörn. Exil und Diaspora: Begrifflichkeit und Deutungen im antiken Judentum und in der Hebräischen Bibel. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 19. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005. King, L. W. Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1912. Klein, Ralph W. Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation. Overtures to Biblical Theology 6. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Knibb, Michael A. “Exile in the Damascus Document.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983): 99–117. ——. “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period.” Heythrop Journal 17 (1976): 253–72. Koenen, Klaus. Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Koole, Jan L. Isaiah 40–48. Vol. 1 of Isaiah III. Translated by Anthony P. Runia. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997. ——. Isaiah 49–55. Vol. 2 of Isaiah III. Translated by Anthony P. Runia. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

210

bibliography

Kugel, James L. In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. 2d ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994. Kugel, James L., and Rowan A. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation: Two Studies of Exegetical Origins. Library of Early Christianity 3. Edited by Wayne Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Kuhrt, Amélie. “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983): 83–97. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Lemche, Niels Peter. The Israelites in History and Tradition. Library of Ancient Israel. Edited by Douglas Knight. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Levenson, Jon D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2006. Levine, Baruch A. “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code: A Priestly Statement on the Destiny of Israel.” Pages 9–34 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ——. Leviticus. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: JPS, 1989. Lipschits, Oded. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Lipschits, Oded and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Lohfink, Norbert. “Die Gotteswortverschachtelung in Jer. 30–31.” Pages 105–19 in Künder des Wortes: Beiträge zur Theologie der Propheten. Edited by Lothar Ruppert, Peter Weimar, and Erich Zenger. Würzburg: Echter, 1982. ——. “Der junge Jeremia als Propagandist und Poet: Zum Grundstock von Jer 30–31.” Pages 351–68 in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Luckenbill, Daniel D. “The Black Stone of Esarhaddon.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 41 (1925): 165–73. Lundbom, Jack R. “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah.” Hebrew Studies 46 (2005): 301–20. ——. Jeremiah 21–36. Anchor Bible 21b. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Mason, Rex. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977. McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. 2d ed. Analecta biblica 21. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986–1996. Melugin, Roy F. The Formation of Isaiah 40–55. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976. Metzger, Bruce M., ed. and trans. “The Fourth Book of Ezra.” Pages 517–60 in Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James M. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai; Zechariah 1–8. Anchor Bible 25b. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987. Middlemas, Jill. The Templeless Age: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the “Exile.” Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2007. ——. The Troubles of Templeless Judah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23–27. Anchor Bible 3b. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Miller, Patrick D. “Meter, Parallelism, and Tropes: The Search for Poetic Style.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (1984): 99–106. Myers, Jacob M. I and II Esdras. Anchor Bible 42. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974.

bibliography

211

Najman, Hindy. “Towards a Study of the Uses of the Concept of Wilderness in Ancient Judaism.” Dead Sea Discoveries 13 (2006): 99–113. Newsom, Carol A. “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 151–64. Oded, Bustenay. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979. ——. “Where is the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’ to be Found? History versus Myth.” Pages 55–74 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Omer-Sherman, Ranen. Israel in Exile: Jewish Writing and the Desert. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2006. Parpola, Simo, and Kazuko Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archives of Assyria 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988. Paul, Shalom M. “Deutero-Isaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 180–86 in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser. Edited by W. W. Hallo. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1968. Pedersen, Johannes. Israel: Its Life and Culture, I–II. London: Oxford University Press, 1926. Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Petitjean, Albert. Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil. Paris: Gabalda, 1969. Rad, Gerhard von. “‫ ִכּ ְפ ַליִ ם‬in Jes 40:2 = Äquivalent?” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1967): 80–82. Rainey, Anson F. “The Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Ritual Texts.” Biblica 51 (1970): 485–98. Rawidowicz, Simon. Israel: The Ever-Dying People, and Other Essays. Edited by Benjamin C. I. Ravid. Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Presses, 1986. Redditt, Paul L. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. NCB Commentary. London: Marshall Pickering; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William Eerdmans, 1995. Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. The Mary Flexner Lectures on the Humanities, 1936. New York: Oxford University Press, 1936. Ricœur, Paul. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976. ——. “The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and Feeling.” Pages 228–47 in Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor. Edited by Mark Johnson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981. ——. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language. Translated by Robert Czerny, Kathleen McLaughlin, and John Costello. University of Toronto Romance Series 37. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977. Roberts, J. J. M. “Myth versus History.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 1–13. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Jeremia. 3d ed. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 12. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1968. Schmid, Konrad, and Odil Steck. “Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament.” Pages 41–82 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James Scott. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 72. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Scott, James M., ed. Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Seitz, Christopher. “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 229–47. ——. “On the Question of Divisions Internal to the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 260–66 in SBL Annual Meeting 1993 Seminar Papers. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

212

bibliography

Sharp, Carolyn J. “The Trope of ‘Exile’ and the Displacement of Old Testament Theology.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 31 (2004): 153–69. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. A Biblical Theology of Exile. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1998. Soskice, Janet. Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Stamm, Johann Jakob. Erlösen und Vergeben im Alten Testament: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Bern: Francke, 1940. Steck, Odil Hannes. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. Steuernagel, Carl. Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua, und Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900. Stohlmann, Stephen. “The Judean Exile after 701 b.c.e.” Pages 147–75 in Scripture in Context II. Edited by William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Stone, Michael E. Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Stuhlmueller, Carroll. Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah. Analecta biblica 43. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Jeremiah 30–31 and King Josiah’s Program of National Restoration and Religious Reform.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 569–83. ——. The Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Between the Bible and the Mishna.” Pages 11–52 in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. Thompson, Thomas L. The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. New York: Basic Books, 1999. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tollington, Janet E. Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 150. Sheffield, UK: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1993. Torrey, Charles C. The Chronicler’s History of Israel. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1954. ——. Ezra Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1970. ——. The Second Isaiah. New York: Scribners, 1928. Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. Harvard Semitic Monographs 8. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976. ——.“Three Fragments of Jeremiah from Qumran Cave 4.” Revue de Qumran 15 (1992): 531–41. Trible, Phyllis. “The Gift of a Poem: A Rhetorical Study of Jeremiah 31:15–22.” Andover Newton Quarterly 17 (1977): 271–80. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “Alalakhiana.” Hebrew Union College Annual 29 (1958): 109–36. ——. “The Hebrew Slave According to Deuteronomy 15:12–18: His Lot and the Value of His Work, with Special Attention to the Meaning of ‫ ִמ ְשׁנֶ ה‬.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 587–95.

bibliography

213

Van Hecke, Pierre, ed. Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 187. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. VanderKam, James C. “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 89–109 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. New York: Brill, 1997. Volz, Paul. Der Prophet Jeremia. 2d ed. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 10. Leipzig: Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Scholl, 1928. Weeks, Noel. Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 407. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (1973): 190–99. ——. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Weis, Richard D. “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 269–93 in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Yohanan Goldman, Arie Van Der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. New York: Meridian Books, 1957. Reprint of Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allan Enzies. Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885. Translation of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 2d ed. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883. ——. “Zur apokalyptischer Literature.” Pages 215–49 in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vol. 6. Berlin: Reimer, 1899. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. Wettstein, Howard. Diasporas and Exiles: Varieties of Jewish Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Whitley, Charles F. “The Seventy Years Desolation—A Rejoinder.” Vetus Testamentum 7 (1957): 416–18. ——. “The Term ‘Seventy Years Captivity.’ ” Vetus Testamentum 4 (1954): 60–72. Williamson, H. G. M. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Wright, N. T. Christian Origins and the Question of God. 3 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Ziegler, Joseph. Duodecim Prophetae. Vol. 13 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis. 2d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. ——. Isaias. Vol. 14 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis. 3d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. ——. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. Vol. 15 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis. 2d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.

INDEX OF AUTHORS Aaron, David H. 16, 17 Abegg, Martin G., Jr. 10 Ackroyd, Peter R. 7–8, 57, 109, 158, 175, 176, 178, 181 Aejmelaeus, Anneli 49, 50 Albertz, Rainer 3, 6, 57, 163, 178–179, 181–182 Amsler, Samuel 152, 168, 183–184 Baltzer, Klaus 23, 121, 124–125, 134–135 Barstad, Hans 5, 107, 122 Becking, Bob 2, 5, 43, 51, 59, 62, 74–75, 92, 94 Beuken, W. A. M. 142–143, 152 Black, Max 19–21 Blake, Robert P. 13 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 57, 107, 110–111, 114, 133–134, 137, 140, 142 Boda, Mark J. 151, 167, 170, 173, 178–179, 181–183, 196 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice 49 Böhmer, Siegmund 46 Borger, Riekele 155–156 Bozak, Barbara A. 43, 45, 50, 71, 74, 99 Bracke, John M. 91 Brettler, Marc Zvi 17 Brichto, Herbert C. 22 Bright, John 44, 46, 53–55, 59, 63, 73, 93, 158, 160 Brown, Frank Burch 17 Brueggemann, Walter 1

Dietrich, Ernst Ludwig 91 Duhm, Bernhard 87, 130, 136, 140, 158 Eerdmans, B. D. 32 Eisen, Arnold M. 1 Elliger, Karl 136, 167 Fabry, Heinz-Josef 172 Fensham, F. C. 24, 25, 156 Floyd, Michael H. 173, 185, 187 Follis, Elaine R. 67 Fontaine, Carole R. 17 Frankena, R. 25, 28 Fretheim, Terence E. 71, 91 Fried, Lisbeth 5 Frye, Northrop 17 Fuhs, Hans 33 Funkenstein, Amos 57 Gafni, Isaiah M. 1 Galling, Kurt 167, 173, 175–177, 180–183 Gerstenberger, Erhard S. 121, 144 Gevirtz, Stanley 22 Giesebrecht, Friedrich 49 Ginsberg, H. L. 31, 34 Gowan, Donald E. 8 Grabbe, Lester L. 8, 57, 156 Graf, Karl Heinrich 49 Greenfield, Jonas C. 92 Greer, Rowan A. 14 Gregory, Bradley 138

Camp, Claudia V. 17 Carroll, Robert P. 5, 43, 47–48, 53, 56, 59, 65, 74, 87, 89, 90, 94, 98, 102, 158, 159 Chapman, Cynthia R. 16 Childs, Brevard S. 134, 175, 188 Clifford, Richard J. 170 Cogan, Mordechai 155, 156 Cornill, Carl H. 63 Cross, Frank Moore 49

Halpern, Baruch 6, 183 Haran, Menahem 107, 110, 136 Heinisch, Paul 32 Held, Moshe 29 Hiers, Richard H. 53, 55 Hillers, Delbert R. 24–27, 66 Holladay, William L. 43–44, 46–47, 51, 54–56, 59, 62–63, 65, 67, 71, 74–75, 77, 81, 89, 91, 93, 158, 162 Holt, Else K. 17 Hunzinger, Claus H. 13

Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer 16 Daube, David 116 Davies, Philip R. 6

Janssen, Enno 5 Janzen, J. Gerald 49, 51, 59, 63, 98, 103, 161

216

index of authors

Japhet, Sara 2 Jenni, Ernst 36 Jepsen, Alfred 112, 167, 175 Jeremias, Christian 170 Johnson, Mark 18 Joüon, Paul 129 Kaufmann, Yehezkel 5, 136 Keim, Paul A. 22 Kellermann, Diether 131 Kessler, John 175 Kiefer, Jörn 8 King, L. W. 24 Klein, Ralph W. 2 Knibb, Michael A. 4, 9–12 Koenen, Klaus 142 Koole, Jan L. 121, 123, 134 Kugel, James L. 14 Kuhrt, Amélie 183 Lakoff, George 18 Lemche, Niels Peter 6 Levenson, Jon D. 67, 80, 118 Levine, Baruch A. 31–32, 34, 36, 121 Lipschits, Oded 3, 57 Lohfink, Norbert 44, 46, 47, 53–55, 65, 77, 81, 89, 94 Luckenbill, Daniel D. 155, 157 Lundbom, Jack R. 43, 47–48, 50–51, 59, 63, 74–76, 89, 91, 93–94 Mason, Rex 170, 175, 181, 184 McCarthy, Dennis J. 22, 25 McKane, William 43, 65, 66, 69, 75, 93, 161 Melugin, Roy F. 120, 128 Metzger, Bruce M. 13 Meyers, Eric M. 151, 152, 167, 170, 173, 175, 176–177, 181, 183–185, 187 Meyers, Carol L. 151, 152, 167, 170, 173, 175, 176–177, 181, 183–185, 187 Middlemas, Jill 4, 8 Milgrom, Jacob 31–32, 34, 36, 121 Miller, Patrick D. 17 Muilenburg, James 128 Myers, Jacob M. 13

Parpola, Simo 24 Paul, Shalom M. 139 Pedersen, Johannes 25 Petersen, David L. 61, 152, 165, 166, 170, 178, 184, 187 Petitjean, Albert 152, 168, 187, 188 Preuss, Horst Dietrich 116, 140 Rad, Gerhard von 122 Rainey, Anson F. 31 Rawidowicz, Simon 1 Redditt, Paul L. 167, 175 Richards, I. A. 17–20 Ricœur, Paul 20, 199, 203 Ringgren, Helmer 112 Roberts, J. J. M. 156 Rudolph, Wilhelm 44, 46–47, 51, 54–56, 63, 65, 73, 75, 87, 89, 158, 162 Schmid, Konrad 179 Scott, James M. 8 Seitz, Christopher R. 107, 120, 137 Sharp, Carolyn J. 1 Smend, Rudolph 140 Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. 1 Sommer, Benjamin D. 48, 59, 123, 128, 136–137 Soskice, Janet 17, 19, 20 Stamm, Johann Jakob 112, 114 Steck, Odil Hannes 8, 179 Steuernagel, Carl 25 Stohlmann, Stephen 5 Stone, Michael E. 12–13, 15 Stuhlmueller, Carroll 110, 112, 114, 126 Sweeney, Marvin A. 46, 169, 170 Talmon, Shemaryahu 10 Thompson, Thomas L. 6 Tigay, Jeffrey H. 27, 29 Tollington, Janet E. 168 Torrey, Charles C. 6, 136 Tov, Emmanuel 49 Trible, Phyllis 74 Tsevat, Matitiahu 122

Najman, Hindy 70 Newsom, Carol A. 17

Van Hecke, Pierre 16 VanderKam, James C. 7 Volz, Paul 44, 46–47, 53, 56, 61, 73, 75, 93, 103, 158

Oded, Bustenay 5, 23, 183, 189 Omer-Sherman, Ranen 1 Orwell, George 36 Otzen, Benedikt 36

Watanabe, Kazuko 24 Weeks, Noel 22 Weinfeld, Moshe 22, 25, 32, 157 Weis, Richard D. 49

index of authors Wellhausen, Julius Westermann, Claus Wettstein, Howard Whitley, Charles F.

7, 13 111, 128, 142 1 156, 177

217

Williamson, H. G. M. Wright, N. T. 1 Ziegler, Joseph

90

51, 63, 99, 170

INDEX OF CITATIONS Hebrew Bible (MT) Gen 2:8 Gen 3:24 Gen 14:19 Gen 21:30 Gen 30 Gen 30:1 Gen 30:23 Gen 31:8 Gen 31:20–22 Gen 31:27 Gen 31:41 Gen 32:6 Gen 32:14 Gen 33 Gen 33:10 Gen 34:3 Gen 34:29 Gen 35:19 Gen 37 Gen 37–50 Gen 37:10 Gen 37:29 Gen 37:35 Gen 38:20 Gen 42:32 Gen 42:36 Gen 44:26 Gen 44:30 Gen 44:31 Gen 44:44 Gen 48:16

170 34 116 122 79 79 118 166 111 111 166 71 122 60 122 126 130 75, 80 80 79 80 78 81 122 79 79 79 79 79 79 114

Exod 15:5 Exod 15:9 Exod 15:13 Exod 15:16 Exod 17:1–7 Exod 18:4 Exod 19:1 Exod 19:5–6 Exod 20:2 Exod 21 Exod 21:2–11 Exod 21:8 Exod 21:30 Exod 22:3 Exod 22:6 Exod 22:8 Exod 25:8 Exod 26:9 Exod 28:16 Exod 29:25 Exod 29:45 Exod 33 Exod 33:14 Exod 34:7 Exod 39:9

170 71 115 115–116 115 71 115 102 140 140, 148 111, 116 114 114 123 123 123 189 123 123 122 189 71 71 60 123

Lev 14:43 Lev 16:16 Lev 19:20 Lev 25

Exod 5:21 Exod 6 Exod 6:6 Exod 6:7 Exod 11:8 Exod 12:31 Exod 12:41 Exod 13 Exod 13:3 Exod 13:3–4 Exod 13:8 Exod 13:14 Exod 14:5

71 115 115, 133 102 115 115 115 113 140 115 115 140 111

Lev 25:23–34 Lev 25:38 Lev 25:39–43 Lev 25:42 Lev 25:47–49 Lev 25:47–55 Lev 25:50 Lev 25:55 Lev 26

187 189 114 34, 120, 140–141, 145, 148 113 140–141 111 140 112 111–112 120 140, 141 16, 21–22, 31–38, 56, 71, 82, 103, 121–122, 204 31

Lev 26:2–46

index of citations Lev 26:3–33a Lev 26:3–39 Lev 26:3–46 Lev 26:7 Lev 26:9 Lev 26:11 Lev 26:11–12 Lev 26:12 Lev 26:13 Lev 26:14 Lev 26:14–17 Lev 26:15 Lev 26:16 Lev 26:16–17 Lev 26:17 Lev 26:18 Lev 26:18–20 Lev 26:20 Lev 26:21 Lev 26:21–22 Lev 26:22 Lev 26:23 Lev 26:23–26 Lev 26:24 Lev 26:25 Lev 26:27–39 Lev 26:28 Lev 26:29 Lev 26:30 Lev 26:31 Lev 26:32 Lev 26:33 Lev 26:33a Lev 26:33b–35 Lev 26:34 Lev 26:34–35 Lev 26:36 Lev 26:36–39 Lev 26:36–42 Lev 26:37b Lev 26:37b–38 Lev 26:38 Lev 26:39 Lev 26:40–42 Lev 26:41 Lev 26:43 Lev 26:44 Lev 26:45 Lev 27:13 Lev 27:15 Lev 27:19 Lev 27:27

31–32, 34 32 31 34, 35 33 33 36 102 146 32 32–33 33–34 33 33 33–35 60, 123 32 33 123 32 32 60 32 123 32, 34, 71 32 60, 123 34 32–34 32 32, 34 71, 121, 182 31, 34, 36 32, 34 9, 82, 121 4 35, 82 31, 34–36 31 35 34 35–36, 82 34, 82 32 82, 121–122 4, 33–34, 121–122 82 31–32 113 113 113 113

219

Lev 27:31 Lev 27:33

113 113

Num 4 Num 5:3 Num 5:8 Num 5:25 Num 13–14 Num 13:32 Num 22:22 Num 25:12–27 Num 25:13 Num 31 Num 31:9 Num 33:54 Num 35:34

120 189 113 122 200 35 165 112 171 120 130 141 189

Deut 1:8 Deut 2:7 Deut 3:20 Deut 4:1 Deut 4:28 Deut 5:6 Deut 6:12 Deut 6:18 Deut 7:1 Deut 7:6 Deut 7:8 Deut 7:13 Deut 8:1 Deut 8:2 Deut 8:4 Deut 8:14 Deut 8:15 Deut 9:26 Deut 10:11 Deut 12:1 Deut 12:10 Deut 13:6 Deut 13:11 Deut 14:2 Deut 15 Deut 15:12 Deut 15:12–18 Deut 15:13 Deut 15:15 Deut 15:18 Deut 17:14–20 Deut 19:4–13 Deut 19:14 Deut 20:14 Deut 21:8 Deut 24:18

94 166 71 95 28 140 140 95 95 102 115, 140 27 95 166 166 140 73 115 95 95 71 115 140 102 140, 148 146 111 146 115 122–123, 146 29 112 141 130 115 115

220 Deut 25:5–10 Deut 25:19 Deut 26:5 Deut 26:19 Deut 27:9 Deut 28

index of citations

Deut 28:4 Deut 28:26 Deut 28:26–35 Deut 28:27 Deut 28:27–29 Deut 28:27–35 Deut 28:30–31 Deut 28:30–33 Deut 28:30–34 Deut 28:32 Deut 28:32–33 Deut 28:32–34 Deut 28:33 Deut 28:35 Deut 28:36 Deut 28:36–37 Deut 28:38–40 Deut 28:41 Deut 28:42 Deut 28:48–57 Deut 28:53–57 Deut 28:60 Deut 28:63 Deut 28:63–66 Deut 28:64 Deut 28:64–66 Deut 28:64–68 Deut 28:65 Deut 28:66 Deut 28:68 Deut 29 Deut 29:12 Deut 30:1–10 Deut 30:4 Deut 32:6 Deut 32:10 Deut 32:10–14

113 71 36 102 102 16, 21–22, 25–32, 32, 37–38, 56, 71, 103 27 25, 181 25 26 26 26 26–27 27 26–27 27 28 26–27 146 26, 28 28 26, 28, 30 27 26–27 27 26 134 30 29–30 26, 30 28, 30 32 26 71 30 26, 30 157 102 31–32, 193 67 116 77 72–73

Josh 14:10 Josh 20:2–9

166 112

Judg 6:8 Judg 8:34 Judg 11:37–38 Judg 13:23

140 132 85 122

Judg 18:28

132

1 Sam 2:1 1 Sam 10:1–6 1 Sam 10:2 1 Sam 12:3–4 1 Sam 13:56 1 Sam 14:11

183 75 75 122 131 131

2 Sam 7:24 2 Sam 14:4–7 2 Sam 14:4–11 2 Sam 14:6 2 Sam 18:9

102 132 112 132 165

1 Kgs 6:13 1 Kgs 8:46 1 Kgs 8:48 1 Kgs 9:6–7 1 Kgs 12:4 1 Kgs 12:9–11 1 Kgs 12:14 1 Kgs 19:10 1 Kgs 19:14 1 Kgs 22:11

189 82 82 28 147 147 147 171 171 183

2 Kgs 17:13 2 Kgs 17:23 2 Kgs 19:25 2 Kgs 25 2 Kgs 25:8 2 Kgs 25:8–21 2 Kgs 25:13–21 2 Kgs 25:21 2 Kgs 25:22–30 2 Kgs 25:26 2 Kgs 25:27–30

194 3 69 3–4 178 3 3, 4 3 3, 4 4 3, 4

Isa 1:4 Isa 1:27 Isa 3:14–15 Isa 6:9–10 Isa 6:11–12 Isa 9:3 [Eng. 9:4] Isa 10:2 Isa 10:15 Isa 10:27 Isa 11:10 Isa 13–14 Isa 14:7 Isa 14:25 Isa 17:2 Isa 22:11 Isa 23:15

120 114 148 169 169 146 130, 148 64 146 55 179 135 146 181 69 155

index of citations Isa 23:15–17 Isa 24–27 Isa 24:17 Isa 24:22 Isa 25:1 Isa 25:9–11 Isa 26:6 Isa 26:20 Isa 29:10–11 Isa 29:22 Isa 30:9–14 Isa 34–35 Isa 35 Isa 35:5 Isa 35:9–10 Isa 37:26 Isa 39 Isa 39:5–7 Isa 40 Isa 40–48 Isa 40–55

Isa 40–66 Isa 40:1 Isa 40:1–2 Isa 40:1–5 Isa 40:2 Isa 40:27 Isa 41:8 Isa 41:14 Isa 41:17 Isa 42 Isa 42:1 Isa 42:3 Isa 42:5 Isa 42:5–9 Isa 42:6 Isa 42:6–7 Isa 42:7 Isa 42:9 Isa 42:18 Isa 42:18–19 Isa 42:18–25

154–157 140 131 140 69 154 148 166 154 114 128 114 114, 136 139 114 69 109 109 109 107, 109–111, 126, 136 39, 40, 107–109, 114, 120, 124, 133, 136–138, 141–142, 144, 146, 147, 148–149 16, 114, 137 124 7, 109–110, 118–127, 142, 144, 148 110 110, 117, 119–123, 125–126 98, 129 98, 117 98, 114 144, 148 131–133, 140–143 140 140 140 138–142 139 138–139 139–140, 142 140 129 129 127–133, 135

Isa 42:22 Isa 42:22–43:7 Isa 42:24 Isa 43:1 Isa 43:1–3b Isa 43:1–7 Isa 43:2 Isa 43:3 Isa 43:6 Isa 43:8–13 Isa 43:13 Isa 43:14 Isa 43:20b–21 Isa 43:24 Isa 43:25 Isa 44:1–2 Isa 44:5 Isa 44:6 Isa 44:21–22 Isa 44:21–23 Isa 44:22 Isa 44:23 Isa 44:24 Isa 45–55 Isa 45:4 Isa 45:5–7 Isa 45:13 Isa 46:1–2 Isa 46:2 Isa 47 Isa 47:4 Isa 47:6 Isa 48 Isa 48:1–2 Isa 48:9 Isa 48:17 Isa 48:20 Isa 48:20–21 Isa 48:20–22 Isa 48:21 Isa 48:22 Isa 49 Isa 49–55 Isa 49–66 Isa 49:5–6 Isa 49:5–9 Isa 49:7 Isa 49:7–13 Isa 49:8 Isa 49:8–9 Isa 49:9b

221 129–132 133 128–130 98, 114, 116, 130, 132–133 115 116, 130–133 133 130, 133 133 132 132 114 116 120 121 112 117 114 117 112 114, 121 114 114 147 112 179 146 111 144 179 114 146 179 98 121 114 98, 111, 114–115, 126 110–119, 125–126 110 115 111 139, 140–143 107, 110 136 140 142 114 138–142 141 138, 140 140

222 Isa 49:13 Isa 49:14 Isa 49:25 Isa 49:26 Isa 50:1 Isa 50:1–2 Isa 50:2 Isa 51:9–11 Isa 51:9–52: 6 Isa 51:10 Isa 51:10–11 Isa 51:11 Isa 51:12 Isa 51:12–16 Isa 51:13 Isa 51:13–14 Isa 51:14 Isa 51:17–20 Isa 51:20 Isa 51:21 Isa 51:21–23 Isa 52 Isa 52:1–2 Isa 52:2 Isa 52:3 Isa 52:3–6 Isa 52:9 Isa 52:11–12 Isa 52:18 Isa 53:4 Isa 53:5 Isa 54:1 Isa 54:1–8 Isa 54:4 Isa 54:5 Isa 54:8 Isa 54:11 Isa 55:1 Isa 56–66 Isa 57:21 Isa 58 Isa 58:1–5 Isa 58:5–7 Isa 58:6 Isa 58:6–7 Isa 58:7 Isa 59:20 Isa 60–62 Isa 60:4 Isa 60:16 Isa 61

index of citations 144, 148 117 144 114, 130 118, 120 117 132 133 133 114, 124 114, 133 124 134 127, 133–135 134–135 133, 134 134–135, 146 133 118 144, 148 133 111 133 135, 144, 146 114 133 114, 124 111 128 144 120 117–118 117–118 117 113–114, 117 114 144, 148 186 39, 108, 114, 124, 136–137, 141–143, 149 111 141, 143, 145, 147–148 145 146 135, 146–148 138, 145–148 143, 147–148 114 142, 145 148 114, 130 138, 142–145

Isa 61:1 Isa 61:1–2 Isa 61:1–3 Isa 61:7 Isa 62:10–12 Isa 62:12 Isa 63:1 Isa 63:9 Isa 63:16 Isa 65:6–7

144–145 145 138, 141–145 123 141, 147 114 134 114–115, 130 114 123

Jer 1:1–3a Jer 1:8 Jer 1:15 Jer 2:2 Jer 2:4 Jer 2:8–9 Jer 3:4–5 Jer 3:6–18 Jer 3:21 Jer 3:21–25 Jer 3:22 Jer 4:5–31 Jer 4:10 Jer 4:31 Jer 5:12–13 Jer 5:17 Jer 5:19 Jer 5:25 Jer 6:1–30 Jer 6:2 Jer 6:22 Jer 6:23 Jer 6:24 Jer 6:25 Jer 7:1 Jer 7:23 Jer 7:33 Jer 8 Jer 8:15 Jer 8:18–22 Jer 8:21 Jer 8:22 Jer 9:12–15 Jer 10:6 Jer 10:19 Jer 10:19–21 Jer 11:1 Jer 11:4 Jer 11:11 Jer 12:12 Jer 12:15 Jer 14:13–18

2 59 160 72 99 66 66 93 75 85 65 67 71 67 66 27 66 66 67 67 160 67 51, 55 71 87 102–103 181 66 65–66 66 66 65 66 51 65 67 87 102–103 66 71 94 71

index of citations Jer 14:17 Jer 14:19 Jer 15 Jer 15:18 Jer 16:10–11 Jer 16:18 Jer 17:14 Jer 18:1 Jer 18:21 Jer 19:9 Jer 21:1 Jer 21:7 Jer 23:5–6 Jer 24 Jer 24:6 Jer 24:7 Jer 24:8–10 Jer 25 Jer 25:1 Jer 25:3 Jer 25:8–9 Jer 25:9 Jer 25:9–12 Jer 25:9–14 Jer 25:11 Jer 25:11–12 Jer 25:11–13 Jer 25:12 Jer 25:12–16 Jer 25:13 Jer 25:15 Jer 25:15–38 Jer 25:29 Jer 27–28 Jer 27:22 Jer 28:1–4 Jer 28:14 Jer 29 Jer 29:1 Jer 29:4–7 Jer 29:5–7 Jer 29:10 Jer 29:10–11 Jer 29:10–14 Jer 29:14 Jer 30–31 Jer 30–33

65, 67 65 66 65–66 66 123 65 87 71 134 87 71 55 5 94 102, 103 28 41, 153, 157–158, 161, 163 162–163 166 158, 161–163 162 162 158 160, 162 2, 90, 158, 161–163, 169 157 2, 158, 160 179 160 162 160 60, 71 146 94 159 159 9, 41, 157–160, 186 87 5 159 2, 9, 157–158, 169 154, 158–159 5 91–92, 159, 162 2, 16, 39, 40, 43–106, 126, 138, 201–202 43

Jer 30:1 Jer 30:1–4 Jer 30:2 Jer 30:2–3 Jer 30:2–4 Jer 30:3 Jer 30:4 Jer 30:4–5a Jer 30:5 Jer 30:5–6 Jer 30:5–7 Jer 30:5–9 Jer 30:5–11 Jer 30:5a Jer 30:5b–6 Jer 30:5b–7 Jer 30:6 Jer 30:7

Jer 30:7b–11 Jer 30:8 Jer 30:8–9 Jer 30:8–11 Jer 30:9 Jer 30:10 Jer 30:10–11 Jer 30:11 Jer 30:12 Jer 30:12–13 Jer 30:12–15 Jer 30:12–17 Jer 30:13 Jer 30:14 Jer 30:15 Jer 30:16 Jer 30:16–17 Jer 30:17 Jer 30:18 Jer 30:18–21 Jer 30:18–22

223 45, 87 45, 53, 86–96, 192–193 48, 87, 98 45, 87 87, 89 53–54, 56, 88–91, 93, 94, 96, 104, 202 45, 51, 54, 87–89 54 50, 59, 83 51 44–46, 52–62, 77, 95, 103–104 58–59, 98 45, 50–53, 62, 172 54 54 54 51, 77, 98 51, 52, 54–55, 56, 58, 60–61, 84, 104, 108, 125 61 54–55, 61 52– 53, 55–58, 59–60, 97 46, 52–62, 95, 97, 103 149 58–59, 69, 72, 83, 93, 99 52, 58–60, 98–99 60–61, 99 50, 62 108 44–46, 63–68, 95 45, 50, 62–68 63–64, 66, 83 63–67, 98 62–64 64, 66, 98, 129 63–64, 66–68, 95 64, 66–68, 83 92, 93, 102 45, 93, 102–103 87, 102

224 Jer 30:18–31:1 Jer 30:19 Jer 30:20 Jer 30:20a Jer 30:21 Jer 30:22 Jer 30:23–24 Jer 30:24 Jer 31 Jer 31:1 Jer 31:2 Jer 31:2–3a Jer 31:2–6 Jer 31:3 Jer 31:3b–5 Jer 31:3b–6 Jer 31:4–5 Jer 31:4–6 Jer 31:5 Jer 31:6 Jer 31:7 Jer 31:7–14 Jer 31:8 Jer 31:8–9 Jer 31:9 Jer 31:10 Jer 31:11 Jer 31:15 Jer 31:15–17 Jer 31:15–20 Jer 31:15–22 Jer 31:16 Jer 31:16–17 Jer 31:17 Jer 31:17b Jer 31:18 Jer 31:18–19 Jer 31:18–20 Jer 31:19 Jer 31:20 Jer 31:21 Jer 31:21–22 Jer 31:23 Jer 31:23–25 Jer 31:23–34 Jer 31:23–40

index of citations 45, 101 102 98 102 102 101–102 46 93 79 93, 98–99, 102–103 69, 71, 73, 99, 108 73, 95 44–46, 69–74 70, 72, 99 70 70–71 73 73 46, 72 46 69, 100–101 45 93, 101 101 46 34, 182 114 74–75, 77–86, 108 45, 74, 80–86, 198 44, 46, 74, 86 45, 74–86 78, 82, 93 74, 77–78, 80–85, 192 75, 82–83, 93, 100 81, 85 46, 93 74, 77, 85, 192 45, 74, 77, 81, 85, 198 93 46, 74, 77, 85 74, 93 74, 77, 85–86 93 93 45 89, 94

Jer 31:24 Jer 31:25 Jer 31:27 Jer 31:29 Jer 31:31 Jer 31:33 Jer 31:35–40 Jer 31:38 Jer 31:39 Jer 32–33 Jer 32:1 Jer 32:6–15 Jer 32:7 Jer 32:38 Jer 32:44 Jer 33:7 Jer 33:11 Jer 33:15–16 Jer 33:26 Jer 34 Jer 34:1 Jer 34:8 Jer 34:9–11 Jer 34:13 Jer 34:14 Jer 34:14b–16 Jer 34:16 Jer 35:1 Jer 36:2 Jer 36:4 Jer 36:27 Jer 36:27–28 Jer 36:32 Jer 37:3 Jer 37:5–7 Jer 37:8–9 Jer 40:1 Jer 40:1–6 Jer 40:5a Jer 40:8–9 Jer 41:16 Jer 42 Jer 42:11 Jer 43:10 Jer 46–51 Jer 46:10 Jer 46:10–16 Jer 46:27 Jer 46:27–28 Jer 47:6 Jer 48:2 Jer 48:3 Jer 49:6

98 98 94 94 94 102–103 45 94 166 43, 93 87 113 113 102 92 92 92 55 92, 93 145 87 87 146 140 146 193 146 87 87 87 87 87 87 93 104 103 84, 87, 187 84 51 58 187 5 59 161–162 49 54 71 99 58, 98–99 71 71 131 92

index of citations

225

Jer 49:32 Jer 49:36 Jer 49:39 Jer 50:34 Jer 50:43 Jer 51:26 Jer 51:60 Jer 51:62

34 34 91–92 113 51 158 87 158

Hos 13:14

114

Joel 1:8

76

Amos 5:18–20 Amos 6:4–11 Amos 6:6 Amos 9:11

55 36 65 55

Ezek 4:4–8 Ezek 4:5 Ezek 4:6 Ezek 5:2 Ezek 5:10 Ezek 5:12 Ezek 6:8 Ezek 10:4 Ezek 11:16 Ezek 11:20 Ezek 12:14 Ezek 12:14–15 Ezek 12:15 Ezek 14:11 Ezek 16:33 Ezek 16:53 Ezek 20:23 Ezek 22:15 Ezek 28:8 Ezek 29:8–16 Ezek 29:12 Ezek 30:23 Ezek 30:26 Ezek 34:4 Ezek 34:16 Ezek 34:27 Ezek 36:19 Ezek 37:23 Ezek 37:27 Ezek 39:25 Ezek 39:27 Ezek 43:4–5 Ezek 43:7 Ezek 43:9 Ezek 47:4

4 10 2, 10, 155 34 34, 182 34, 182 34 172 166 102 34 182 34 102 66 91 34, 182 34 135 155 34 34 34 65 65 146 34 102 102 91 82 172 189 189 166

Jonah 2:4

170

Mic 1:16 Mic 2:4–5 Mic 4:6 Mic 4:10 Mic 4:13 Mic 4:19 Mic 7:19

5 5 5 5 183 133 170

Nah 3:19

65

Zeph 2:7

91

Hag 1:1 Hag 1:4 Hag 1:9 Hag 1:12 Hag 1:14 Hag 1:15 Hag 2:1 Hag 2:2 Hag 2:3 Hag 2:10 Hag 2:20 Hag 2:23

12, 178 177 177 12 12 178 178 12 177 178 178 12, 55

Zech 1 Zech 1–6 Zech 1–8

Hos 1 Hos 2:4–15 [Eng. 2:2–13] Hos 2:16 [Eng. 2:14] Hos 8:9 Hos 9:10 Hos 11

117

180 177, 196, 197 16, 39, 41, 151–198, 201 167, 178 41, 151–152, 154, 167, 178, 189–195, 197 192 192–195 192, 194 156 192, 195 167, 174–181 39, 41, 152, 154, 167, 185, 187, 195, 197

65 126 66 72–73 81

Zech 1:1 Zech 1:1–6 Zech 1:2 Zech 1:3 Zech 1:4 Zech 1:4–6 Zech 1:6 Zech 1:7 Zech 1:7–6:15

226 Zech 1:7–17 Zech 1:8 Zech 1:8–13 Zech 1:8–14 Zech 1:8–15 Zech 1:10 Zech 1:11 Zech 1:12

Zech 1:13 Zech 1:13–15 Zech 1:14 Zech 1:14–15 Zech 1:15 Zech 1:16 Zech 1:16–17 Zech 1:17 Zech 2:1 [Eng. 1:18] Zech 2:1–4 [Eng. 1:18–21] Zech 2:2 [Eng. 1:19] Zech 2:4 [Eng. 1:21] Zech 2:5 [Eng. 2:1] Zech 2:5–9 [Eng. 2:1–5] Zech 2:6 [Eng 2:2] Zech 2:9 [Eng. 2:5] Zech 2:10 [Eng. 2:6] Zech 2:10–11 [Eng. 2:6–7] Zech 2:10–13 [Eng. 2:6–9] Zech 2:10–17 [Eng. 2:6–13] Zech 2:11 [Eng. 2:7] Zech 2:12–13 [Eng. vv. 8–9] Zech 2:13 [Eng. v. 9] Zech 2:14 [Eng. 2:10] Zech 2:14–15 [Eng. vv. 10–11]

index of citations 165–180 170 166, 168, 176 153 168–171 168 168, 175 153, 156, 166, 168, 171–172, 174, 177, 184, 195 172 166 171, 173, 184 154, 166, 168–170, 172–173, 187 64, 166, 171, 173–175, 180 166–168, 171–174, 178, 184, 193–194 168, 185–187, 190–191 166–168, 171–174, 178, 181, 184, 194 182 153, 176, 180–185 34, 182–184 34, 182–185 166 176, 184–185 183 185 183, 188, 193, 197 187–190 176 185–191, 193, 196 175, 188, 193 187, 189 187 190, 193 189

Zech 2:14–16 [Eng. vv. 10–12] Zech 2:16 [Eng. 2:12] Zech 2:17 [Eng. v. 13] Zech 3:8–10 Zech 4:1 Zech 4:6–10 Zech 5:1 Zech 5:1–4 Zech 6:1 Zech 6:1–8 Zech 6:5 Zech 6:6 Zech 6:8 Zech 6:9–15 Zech 7–8 Zech 7:1 Zech 7:1–3 Zech 7:3 Zech 7:5 Zech 7:7 Zech 8 Zech 8:2 Zech 8:3 Zech 8:7 Zech 8:8 Zech 8:13 Zech 8:15 Zech 8:18–23 Zech 9–14 Zech 10:11 Ps 6:4 Ps 16:10 Ps 32:7 Ps 44:12 Ps 50:22 Ps 52:7 [Eng. 52:5] Ps 68:23 Ps 69 Ps 69:3, 16 [Eng. 69:2, 15] Ps 69:19 [Eng. 69:18] Ps 71:11 Ps 74:2 Ps 74:10 Ps 75:11 Ps 77 Ps 77:16 [Eng. 77:15]

187 184 187 55 167, 193 187 193 176 193 176 183 188 188 187 152, 154, 167, 178, 191, 195–197 154, 178 196 178, 196 196 167 197 171 193, 196 196–197 102 184 184 196 39 170 168 135 77 34 132 29 170 114 170 114 132 115 168 183 114 115

index of citations

227

Ps 78 Ps 78:15–20 Ps 78:35 Ps 79:11 Ps 80:5 Ps 85:2 Ps 88:7 Ps 90:10 Ps 90:13 Ps 92:11 Ps 94:3 Ps 102:20–21 Ps 103:4 Ps 106 Ps 106:10 Ps 106:27 Ps 107 Ps 107:1–3 Ps 107:4 Ps 107:4–9 Ps 107:4–32 Ps 107:7 Ps 107:8 Ps 107:15 Ps 107:21 Ps 107:24 Ps 107:31 Ps 107:35–37 Ps 107:43 Ps 114:1 Ps 119:54 Ps 119:110 Ps 124:7 Ps 126:1 Ps 126:4 Ps 128:3 Ps 137 Ps 137:7 Ps 140:6 [Eng. 140:5] Ps 141:9 Ps 142:4 Ps 147:2 Ps 147:2–3

114 115 115 131 168 91 170 155 168 183 168 131 114 114 114–115, 130 34 72–73, 105 72, 105 72 72 105 105 73 73 73 170 73 72 73 115 113 131 131 92 91 27 14 14 131 131 131 67 144

Job 41:23 Job 42:10

170 91–92

Prov 2:18 Prov 2:22 Prov 7:23 Prov 15:25 Prov 22:5 Prov 23:11 Prov 28:3

29 29 131 29 131 113 71

Ruth 3:13 Ruth 4:4–9

113 113

Qoh 9:12

131

Lam 1:2 Lam 1:7 Lam 1:19 Lam 2:14 Lam 3:58 Lam 3:19 Lam 4:15

66 145, 148 66 91 113 145, 148 111

Esth 2:7 Esth 8:5

13 71

Dan 1:7 Dan 2:29 Dan 7 Dan 7:1 Dan 7:7 Dan 7:15 Dan 8:12 Dan 9

13 13 12, 182 13 183 13 119 9, 10, 13, 15, 90, 123, 169, 179, 201 179 9, 156, 157 9 9

Job 6:23 Job 7:1 Job 14:6 Job 14:14 Job 22:10 Job 30:1–8 Job 30:6 Job 30:8 Job 41:5

114 120 121 120 131 131 131 131 123

Ezra 1–2 Ezra 1–6 Ezra 1:1 Ezra 1:1–3a Ezra 2 Ezra 2:1 Ezra 3:2 Ezra 3:8 Ezra 4:1

Dan 9:1 Dan 9:2 Dan 9:24 Dan 9:25 Ezra 1

2, 153–154, 163–164, 196 5, 6, 8–9 153, 178 6, 156, 157, 163 2, 4 2, 6 2 12 3, 12 3

228

index of citations

Ezra 5:1 Ezra 5:2 Ezra 6:11 Ezra 6:14 Ezra 6:16 Ezra 6:19 Ezra 6:20 Ezra 7:1–5 Ezra 9 Ezra 9:4 Ezra 9:8 Ezra 9:8–9 Ezra 9:9 Ezra 10:6 Ezra 10:7 Ezra 10:16 Ezra 11:16

151 12 29 151 3 3 3 12 16 3 166 6, 11, 164 52 3 3 3 166

Neh 1:9 Neh 5 Neh 5:1–13 Neh 5:5

67 148 124 147

Neh 7:6 Neh 9 Neh 9:11 Neh 9:36–37 Neh 11:33 Neh 12:1

2 72 170 6 75 12

1 Chr 3:17–19 1 Chr 17:22

12 102

2 Chr 7:19–22 2 Chr 36

28 6, 8–9, 88, 153–154, 163–164, 196, 201 163 3 179 7 3, 163 9, 157, 163 2, 4

2 Chr 36:6–7 2 Chr 36:17–20 2 Chr 36:19–23 2 Chr 36:20 2 Chr 36:20–21 2 Chr 36:21 2 Chr 36:22–23

Septuagint (LXX) LXX Isa 40:2

120

LXX Jer 6:24 LXX Jer 25 LXX Jer 25:8–9

51 158, 160–161 158–160, 163 158, 161 162 162 158–159, 163 160 49 59 99 58–59, 98–99 159 158–160, 186 159 158–159 159 43–106 94 51 53–55 58

LXX Jer 25:9 LXX Jer 25:9–12 LXX Jer 25:11 LXX Jer 25:11–12 LXX Jer 25:12 LXX Jer 25:14–31:44 LXX Jer 26:2–5 LXX Jer 26:27 LXX Jer 26:27–28 LXX Jer 34:1–4 LXX Jer 36 LXX Jer 36:5–7 LXX Jer 36:10–11 LXX Jer 36:14 LXX Jer 37–38 LXX Jer 37:3 LXX Jer 37:5 LXX Jer 37:5–7 LXX Jer 37:5–9

LXX Jer 37:6 LXX Jer 37:7b–9 LXX Jer 37:8 LXX Jer 37:8–9 LXX Jer 37:10–11 LXX Jer 37:12 LXX Jer 37:13 LXX Jer 37:17 LXX Jer 37:18 LXX Jer 37:18–21 LXX Jer 37:20 LXX Jer 37:21 LXX Jer 38:1 LXX Jer 38:2 LXX Jer 38:3 LXX Jer 38:7 LXX Jer 38:8–9 LXX Jer 38:15 LXX Jer 38:16 LXX Jer 38:17 LXX Jer 38:19 LXX Jer 38:20 LXX Jer 38:21 LXX Jer 38:22 LXX Jer 38:23 LXX Jer 38:27 LXX Jer 38:29

51, 98 61 51–52 53, 60–61, 97, 103 52 62 63 67 92, 102 102 98 102 98–99 69 69 100 55–62 75 100 75, 100 76, 92 76 76 76 93 94 94

index of citations LXX Jer 38:31 LXX Jer 38:38 LXX Jer 46:27–28 LXX Jer 50:10

94 93 52 161, 162

LXX Zech 1:8 LXX Zech 1:19 LXX Zech 2:2

170 184 184

229

LXX Ps 51:7 LXX Ps 88:7

29 170

LXX Prov 2:22 LXX Prov 15:25 LXX Neh 9:6

29 29 6

LXX 1 Chr 3:17

12

New Testament Matt 2:18

75, 81

Rev 14:8 Rev 16:19

13 13

Rev 17:5 Rev 18:2 Rev 18:10 Rev 18:21

13 13 13 13

Other Ancient Writings 2 Bar 11:1 2 Bar 32:2–4 2 Bar 67:7 4 Ezra 3 4 Ezra 3:1 4 Ezra 3:1–2 4 Ezra 3:1–5:20 4 Ezra 3:4–27 4 Ezra 3:7 4 Ezra 3:8–10 4 Ezra 3:10 4 Ezra 3:13 4 Ezra 3:20–21 4 Ezra 3:21 4 Ezra 3:22 4 Ezra 3:26 4 Ezra 3:27 4 Ezra 3:27–29 4 Ezra 4:27 4 Ezra 5:28–30 4 Ezra 6:1–54 4 Ezra 6:57 4 Ezra 6:59 4 Ezra 7:3–5 4 Ezra 7:3–9 4 Ezra 7:4 4 Ezra 7:5 4 Ezra 7:6–9 4 Ezra 7:9 4 Ezra 7:10–16 4 Ezra 7:12 4 Ezra 7:14 4 Ezra 10:41–48 4 Ezra 11:1–12:39 4 Ezra 11–12

13 12 13 38 12 13 37 12 37 37 37 38 38 37 37 37 38 12 15 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 14 14 15 14 15 15 12 12 13

4 Ezra 14 4 Ezra 14:29–33

14 12

1 En. 85–90 1 En. 89:72 1 En. 93:9

10 10 10

b. Baba Batra 14b–15a

200

Damascus Document Damascus Document (I, 1–5) Damascus Document (I, 5–11)

11, 203

Esarhaddon Inscription

154–157, 169

Gen. Rab. 71:2 Gen. Rab. 82:10

84 84

Jub. 1:15–18

11

Sefire treaty

32, 92

Sib. Or. 5.143 Sib. Or. 5.155–161 Sib. Or. 5.434 Sib. Or. 5.440

13 13 13 13

Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Isa 40:1–2 Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Isa 40:2 Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Isa 42:22 Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Jer 30:8

109 119 129 55

4 10

230

index of citations

Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Jer 30:17 Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Jer 31:7 Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Jer 31:15 Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Jer 31:22

67 100 75, 84 76

Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Zech 2:1) Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Zech 2:10

182 188–189

VTE

25