Dialogue Between Prophet and Audience as a Rhetorical Device in the Book of Jeremiah

http://jot.sagepub.com

Old Testament Journal for the Study of the

DOI: 10.1177/030908928501003304 1985; 10; 63 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

John T. Willis Device in the Book of Jeremiah

Dialogue Between Prophet and Audience as a Rhetorical

http://jot.sagepub.com The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Additional services and information for

http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

distribution.© 1985 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Ilie Chiscari on November 29, 2007 http://jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


63-

DIALOGUE BETWEEN PROPHET AND AUDIENCE AS ARHETORICAL DEVICE IN THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH

John T. Willis

Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas 79699, USA

In Jack Lundbom’s study of Hebrew rhetoric in the book of Jeremiah,he declared that the two controlling structures both for the wholebook and for the poems of Jeremiah were inclusio and chiasmus. Heclaimed that Jeremiah probably learned these structural patterns inthe Jerusalem temple from the rhetorical tradition of Deuteronomy,and that his audiences were already quite familiar with them fromfrequent exposure to the same source. The existence of thesestructures suggests a literary coherence in the book of Jeremiah, atleast in portions of this prophetic work.The purpose of the present study is to emphasize the presence of a

third factor which has a bearing on the structure of the book ofJeremiah, a rhetorical device appearing with some degree of regularityin the book, namely, dialogue, in particular, dialogue between theprophet and his audience; and to stress that it should be taken intoconsideration in studying the structure of this book. Dialogue is awell established literary form throughout the Old Testament, both inprose narrative contexts (e.g. Abraham’s dialogue with Yahweh overthe impending fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen. 18.22-33; or thedialogue between the ten spies, Joshua and Caleb, and the Israelitesafter the twelve spies had trekked through the land of Canaan fortydays, Num. 13.25-14.10) and in prose or poetic prophetic pericopes(e.g. the conversation between Isaiah and the leaders of Judah, Isa.28.7-13; or the discussion over Micah’s lawsuit, Mic. 6.1-8;2 orvirtually the entire book of Malachi).3 3

In Robert Gordis’s efforts to interpret and elucidate the difficultproblems in the book of Ecclesiastes, he has proposed that a

fundamental key to understanding many of its enigmas is the




64

realization that the author frequently communicates his message byquoting a position which he considers to be erroneous, then respond-ing to it by stating what he regards as the correct view.4 Michael Foxhas questioned the correctness of certain specifics of Gordis’s sugges-tions, but agrees that this ’quotation-countermand’ pattern is indeeda viable explanation for the problems of this book.5 Further, BurkeLong has called attention to two types of question-answer schematain the prophetic literature, especially in the book of Jeremiah.6 6An examination of the book of Jeremiah reveals several contexts

which present various viewpoints in dialogue form. There are

dialogues between Yahweh and the prophet, as in the call narrative(1.4-19) and certain complaints of Jeremiah (12.1-6; 15.15-21);between Jeremiah and Judean leaders and groups, as the priests andprophets after the temple sermon (ch. 26), Hananiah the prophet (ch.28), Shemaiah (29.24-32), Jeremiah’s cousin Hanamel (32.6-8), theRechabites (ch. 35), Irijah (37.1-15), Zedekiah (37.16-21; 38.14-28),Johanan and his followers (42.1-43.7), and the Jews who fled toEgypt after Gedaliah had been murdered (ch. 44); and betweenindividuals and groups other than Yahweh or Jeremiah, as Micaiahthe son of Gemariah and the princes under Jehoiakim and Baruch(36.11-19), Zedekiah and some of his princes (38.1-6), and Gedaliahand Johanan and his followers (40.13-16). Sometimes Yahweh ispictured as anticipating a dialogue between Jeremiah and the people(5.18-19; 13.12-14; 16.10-13), or between the nations (22.8-9), inwhich he sets forth differing views by using quotations. And frequentlythe book of Jeremiah presents the beliefs or actions of the Jewishleaders or people or foreign nations as words which they themselvesare speaking (17.15; 18.12,18; 23.17; 27.9; 29.15; 31.29; 32.3-5; 33.24;45.3; 48.14; 50.7).

Instances of dialogue between the prophet and his audienceswould be quite appropriate in a book in which so many other types ofdialogue are in evidence. The present paper calls attention to sixexamples of this phenomenon, all in the first twenty chapters of thebook of Jeremiah. In some cases, the alternating speakers areidentified by an introductory formula, while in others they aredetermined by linguistic variations and context. The present writer’sunderstanding of the speaker(s) in each verse, group of verses, orportions of a verse is indicated along with the biblical text (usuallyfollowing the RSV) by parentheses at the beginning of each section orby italics when the speaker(s) is identified in the text itself.




65

1. Jeremiah 3.21-4.4

(The prophet)7 3.21 A voice on the bare heights is heard,the weeping and pleading of Israel’s sons,

because they have perverted their way,they have forgotten the Lord their God.

(Yahweh) 3.22 Return, 0 faithless sons,I will heal your faithlessness.

(The people) Behold, we come to thee;for thou art the Lord our God.

3.23 Truly the hills are a delusion,the orgies on the mountains.

Truly in the Lord our Godis the salvation of Israel.

3.24 But from our youth the shameful thing hasdevoured

all for which our fathers labored-their flocks and their herds,their sons and their daughters.

3.25 Let us lie down in our shame,and let our dishonor cover us;

for we have sinned against the Lord ourGod,

we and our fathers,from our youth even to this day

we have not obeyed the voice of the Lord ourGod.8 8

(The prophet on 4.1 If you return, 0 Israel, says the Lord,behalf of Yahweh) to me you should return.

If you remove your abominations from mypresence,

and do not waver,4.2 and if you swear, ’As the Lord lives’,

in truth, in justice, and in uprightness,then nations will be blessed by him9and in him shall they glory.

4.3 For thus says the Lord to the men of Judahand to the inhabitants of Jerusalem:

Break up your fallow ground,and sow not among thorns.

4.4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord,remove the foreskin of you hearts,O men of Judah and inhabitants of

Jerusalem;




66

lest my wrath go forth like fire,and burn with none to quench it,because of the evil of your doings.

There is no agreement among scholars as to the extent of the

pericope involving Jer. 3.21-4.4. Some reduce it to 3.21-25,1° whileothers expand it to as much as 3.1-5+3.19-4.4.11 In the opinion ofthe present writer, J.P. Hyatt is probably correct in seeing 3.21 as thebeginning, and in extending the pericope through 4.4.12 Admittedly,there are points of contact with what precedes (as ’sons’ in 3.19 and21, 22; 31~ in 3.1 [twice] and 22; 4.1 [twice]; etc.) and with whatfollows (’Judah and Jerusalem’ in 4.3 and 5), but these appear to beredactional joins rather than integral parts of a common originalpericope.Of major concern for the present study in the nature of 3.22b-25

and its relationship to 4.1-4. Scholars have proposed three positions.First, in 3.22b-25 Jeremiah is envisioning events in the future whichhe thinks or hopes will occur, and describing them as if they werepresent. Hyatt thinks that these are words which the Israelites shouldsay as they acknowledge their sin and return to Yahweh. 13 Volzbelieves that Jeremiah is motivated by the tendencies of his fellow-Jews to repentance, and relates to them a vision which he had inwhich they forsook their idolatry and returned to Yahweh, in order toencourage them to do SO.14 Harrison believes that in 3.21-25 theprophet is voicing what Judah will learn in the Babylonian captivity,namely, that man cannot serve Yahweh and Baal. Then in 4.1-2Yahweh expresses his concern that Israel’s repentance be genuineand lasting. These verses show that the situation envisioned in 3.21-25 was a prospect rather than a reality.l5 According to this view, theprotasis of the lines beginning in 4.1 indicates that Jeremiah is

thinking of the future. Second, in 3.22b-25 either the people them-selves actually repent sincerely, or Jeremiah intercedes in their behalfby putting sincere words of repentance in their mouth. Then, in 4.1-2(or 4) Yahweh assures them that he will restore them as they returnto him with their whole heart.l6 But, third, it seems most likely that3.22b-25 contains an insincere mouthing of repentance designed toavert the calamities which prophets like Jeremiah had been announc-ing and which recent international (and possibly natural) occurrencesseemed to forewarn. These words sound staid and memorized, andprobably reflect a repentance liturgy which was often stated or sungin the Jerusalem cult.17 Further, they betray a concept of public




67

worship which assumes it is designed, at least in part, to attempt tosoothe or appease God’s anger by praising him and promising toserve him with overly extravagant expressions. Then 4.1-4 is a

rejection of this insincerity, and at the same time a call for genuinerepentance, stated explicitly in the terms ’in truth’ (v. 2), ’break upyour fallow ground’ (v. 3), and ’circumcise your hearts’ (v. 4).

2. Jeremiah 5.12-17

(The prophet 5.12 They (the people) have spoken falsely of theaddressing the Lord and have said,people concerning ’He will do nothing;18themselves, but no evil will come upon us,under the guise of nor shall we see sword or famine.another group) 5.13 3 The (true) prophets will become wind;

the word is not in them.Thus shall it be done to them’.

5.14 Therefore thus says the Lord, the God ofHosts:

Because theyl9 (the people) have spokenthis word,

behold, I am making my words in your

(Jeremiah’s) mouth a fire, and this

people wood,and the fire shall devour them.

5.15 Behold, I am bringing upon you a nation(The prophet in from afar,behalf of Yahweh) 0 house of Israel, says the Lord.

It is an enduring nation,it is an ancient nation,

a nation whose language you do not know,nor can you understand what they say.

5.16 Their quiver is like an open tomb,they are all mighty men.

5.17 They shall eat up your harvest and your’

food;they shall eat up your sons and your

daughters;they shall eat up your flocks and your herds;

they shall eat up your vines and your figtrees;

your fortified cities in which you trust

they shall destroy with the sword.’




68

The extent of the pericopes in Jeremiah 5 is very difficult to

determine. With regard to vv. 12-17, Rudolph is the exception inmaking a division between vv. 13 and 14.2° ’This word’ in v. 14apparently refers back to w. 12-13. The two most common views areto separate vv. 15-17 from what precedes,21 or to regard w. 10-19 asa separate pericope.22 For the reasons given below, it seems best tofollow Weiser and Couturier in considering vv. 12-17 as a separatepericope.23There is a problem of identifying the speakers and of following the

line of thought in this passage. Assuming that at least vv. 12-14belong to the same pericope, five interpretations have been proposed.(1) Verse 12 contains the words of false prophets, who declare thatYahweh will not bring calamity on his people, then vv. 13-14 recordJeremiah’s response condemning this view and announcing impendingpunishment (cf 14.13-16; 23.16-17).24 In this case, however,Jeremiah’s response has no introduction like the words of the falseprophets in v. 12, or like the words of Yahweh in v. 14. (2) Thespeaker in vv. 12-14 is Yahweh, who first quotes in his own words theview of the people that he is not active in his world (vv. 12b-13), thengives his reply in v. 14.25 But it is not natural for Yahweh to refer tohimself in the third person in v. 12. (3) The people are the speakers inw. 12b-13, and Yahweh gives his response in v. 14.26 However, thisdoes not explain the introductory formula in v. 12a. (4) 5.12 + 14originally formed the pericope, which consisted of two parts: a reasonand an announcement of punishment. ’This word’ ofv. 14 refers backto the announcement in v. 12, not to v. 13. Verse 13 belongs afterv. 14 as the continuation of the announcement of doom on the false

prophets. A redactor wrongly placed this verse between vv. 12 and14. ’The prophets’ in v. 13 must be the false prophets, since this is themeaning of the phrase elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah. 21 (5) Thesuggestion of the present study is based on adherence to the MT, andviews vv. 12-17 as a coherent pericope. Accordingly, the prophet isthe speaker for Yahweh in the formulas found in w. 12a, 14a, and atthe end of 15a. He uses the third person plural in v. 12a to draw hispresent hearers into his snare by calling their attention to the allegedposition of some group whom he had recently heard or with whom hehad had a conversation, as though his present audience would agreewith him against their position. In v. 14, he related Yahweh’scommission to him (note the second person singular, ’your mouth’)concerning ’this people’ (’they’ of vv. 12a and 14b). Only in v. 15 does




69

he spring the trap. Yahweh suddenly addresses his audience directly,at first individually (note the plural ’you’ in ’I am bringing uponyou’&horbar;M’’’’’r), and then in the rest of the pericope, collectively in thesecond person singular, beginning with v. 15c. One is reminded of theskillful way in which the prophet Nathan drew King David into histrap by telling the story of the little ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12.1-7), or howIsaiah maneuvered his hearers into a self-condemning stance with hisparable of the vineyard (Isa. 5.1-7).Now if this analysis of Jer. 5.12-17 is essentially correct, again the

book of Jeremiah contains a (contrived) dialogue between Jeremiahand one of his audiences, in which the prophet refutes what heconsiders to be an erroneous and harmful belief of his fellow-Jews.

3. Jeremiah 8.1.3-17

(The prophet in 8.13 When I would gather them, says the Lord,behalf of Yahweh) there are no grapes on the vine,

nor figs on the fig tree;even the leaves are withered,

and what I gave them has passed awayfrom them.

(The people) 8.14 Why do we sit still?Gather together, let us go into the fortified

cities and perish there;for the Lord our God has doomed us to

perish,and has given us poisoned water to drink,

because we have sinned against the Lord.8.15 5 We looked for peace, but no good came,

for a time of healing, but behold, terror.(The prophet) 8.16 The snorting of their horses is heard from

Dan;at the sound of the neighing of their

stallions the whole land quakes.They come and devour the land and all that

fills it,the city and those who dwell in it.

8.17 For behold, I am sending among you serpents,adders which cannot be charmed,and they shall bite you, says the Lord.




70

It is almost universally agreed among scholars that one pericope endsat Jer. 8.17, and another begins at 8.18. However, there is little

agreement as to whether the first begins with v. 4,11 10,~ 13,3° or14.31 In my opinion, the most likely beginning is v. 13. Then thepericope would begin and end with mn’ CM (w. 13,17). Furthermorethe root ~O~ connects vv. 13 and 14.

If this is the correct analysis, Jer. 8.13-17 contains some sort ofdialogue. Some scholars believe v. 14 contains the people’s cry ofdistress which Jeremiah hears in his imagination. 31 Others thinkvv. 14-16 represent a soliloquy placed in the mouth of the people bythe prophet to indicate their terror at the approaching invader.33 Itseems more likely, however, that the picture is that of a dialoguebetween the prophet (speaking in Yahweh’s name) and the people.While several scholars suggest that the people are the speakers inv. 16,34 it appears to be more in keeping with the flow of the contextto take Yahweh as the speaker here. 35

Accordingly, the pericope may be analyzed in this way. Yahwehbegins by expressing his desire to have an intimate relationship withhis people and bring them near him as a gleaner would gather grapesor figs, but he found this impossible because they had produced nofruit even though he had blessed them richly (v. 13). The implicationclearly is that they are doomed to destruction. The people respond byencouraging each other to flee for safety to the fortified cities, sinceYahweh had doomed them (vv. 14-15). Yahweh replies that theenemy is indeed approaching from the north (note ’Dan’ in v. 16),because he is sending him to punish his people for their sins;therefore, it is hopeless for the people to try to escape (vv. 16-17).

4. Jeremiah 8.18-23

(The prophet) 8.18 My grief is beyond healing,my heart is sick within me.

8.19 Hark, the cry of the daughter of my peoplefrom the length and breadth of the land:

’Is the Lord not in Zion?Is her King not in her?’

(Yahweh) Why have they provoked me to anger withtheir graven images,

and with their foreign idols?(The people) 8.20 The harvest is past,

the summer is ended,and we are not saved.




71

(The prophet) 8.21 1 For the wound of the daughter of my peopleis my heart wounded,

I mourn, and dismay has taken hold on me.8.22 Is there no balm in Gilead?

Is there no physician there?Why then has the health of the daughter of

my people not been restored?8.23 0 that my head were waters,

and my eyes a fountain of tears,that I might weep day and night for the slain

of the daughter of my people.

Scholars are virtually unanimously agreed that the pericope whichbegins at 8.18 continues through 8.23. This passage contains severalabrupt changes of speakers, a ’kind of quick conversational inter-change’ 36 similar to that found in 6.4-5 and 6.16-17. Some believethat this is not a genuine dialogue, but arises from Jeremiah’simagination. 37 However, the sudden change of speakers and theliveliness of word exchange suggest at least a literary presentation ofthe kind of oral interaction which actually occurred during Jeremiah’scareer. Holladay’s analysis seems to be correct: Jeremiah begins byexpressing his grief over the sin and punishment of Judah, and byquoting the cry of the people that Yahweh is in Zion (vv. 18-19b).Yahweh declares that the Judeans have aroused his anger by turningaway from him to idols (v. 19c). The people concur sadly, probablyquoting a well-known proverbial statement, that even though Yahwehhad given them ample opportunity, they had not returned to him(v. 20). Jeremiah immediately takes up the people’s remorse, yearnsfor some means by which they could be healed, and declares that hewill weep over them incessantly, in spite of their apparently irreversiblecondition (vv. 21-23).3gA pericope such as this reveals the manner in which dialogue can

be used effectively in prophetic literature to indicate the beliefs andemotions of various personalities and groups involved in a conflict orcrisis situation.

5. Jeremiah 14.1-1039

(A rehearsal of 14.1 1 The word of the Lord which came to JeremiahYahweh’s word to during the drought:the prophet) 14.2 Judah mourns

and her gates languish;




72

her people lament on the ground,and the cry of Jerusalem goes up.

14.3-6 .........

(The people) 14.7 Though our iniquities testify against us,act, 0 Lord, for thy name’s sake;

for our backslidings are many,we have sinned against thee.

14.8 0 thou hope of Israel,its savior in time of trouble,

why shouldst thou be like a stranger in theland,

like a wayfarer who turns aside to tarryfor a night?

14.9 Why shouldst thou be like a man confused,like a mighty man who cannot save?

Yet, thou, 0 Lord, art in the midst of us,and we are called by thy name;leave us not.

(The prophet) 14.10 Thus says the Lord concerning this people:They have loved to wander thus,

they have not restrained their feet;therefore the Lord does not accept them,now he will remember their iniquityand punish their sins.

6. Jeremiah 14.17 1 S. 4

(Yahweh’s instruc- 14.17 You (Jeremiah) shall say to them (the people)tion to the prophet) this word:

Let my eyes run down with tears night andday,

and let them not cease,for the virgin daughter of my people is

smitten with a great wound,with a very grievous blow.

14.18 If I go out into the field,behold, those slain by the sword!

And if I enter the city,behold, the diseases of famine!

For both prophet and priest ply their tradethrough the land,

and have no knowledge.




73

(The people) 14.19 Hast thou utterly rejected Judah ?Dves thy soul loathe Zion?

Why hast thou smitten usso that there is no healing for us?

We looked for peace, but no good came;for a time of healing, but behold, terror.

14.20 We acknowledge our wickedness, 0 Lord,and the iniquity of our fathers,

for we have sinned against thee.14.21 Do not spurn us, for thy name’s sake;

do not dishonor thy glorious throne;remember and do not break thy covenant

with us.14.22 Are there any among the false gods of the

nations that can bring rain?Or can the heavens give showers?

Art thou not he, 0 Lord our God?We set our hope on thee,for thou doest all these things.

(The prophet’s 15.1 Then the Lord said to me, Though Mosesrehearsal of and Samuel stood before me, yet my heartYahweh’s instruc- would not turn toward this people. Sendtion to him) them out of my sight, and let them go!

15.2 And when they ask you, ’Where shall we go?’You shall say to them, Thus says the Lord:Those who are for pestilence, to pestilence,

and those who are for the sword, to thesword;

those who are for famine, to famine.and those who are for captivity, to captivity.

15.3 I will appoint over them four kinds ofdestroyers, says the Lord: the sword to slay,the dogs to tear, and the birds of the air andthe beasts of the earth to devour and destroy.

15.4 And I will make them a horror to all the

kingdoms of the earth because of whatManasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Judahdid in Jerusalem. 40

Jer. 14.1-10 and 14.17-15.4 are strikingly similar in form and

content, and should be examined together. Several scholars havecorrectly argued for the coherence of Jer. 14.1-15.441 (or 15.942).But this is a redactional unity, and thus does not necessarily indicatethat this whole section comes from the same occasion or even the




74

same time period. As a matter of fact, the crisis of 14.17-15.4

apparently was decidedly more intense than that of 14.1-10. Whereasthe problem in 14.1-6 is a drought, that in 14.18-19 and 15.2-3 is

military invasion with its attendant devastations. It appears that theredactor of this section of the book or the whole book has arrangedthis material in a chiastic fashion:

A 14.1-10B 14.11-16A’ 14.17-15.4

The first and last sections follow the same sequence: (1) Yahwehinstructs Jeremiah to describe for his hearers the calamity to comeupon them (14.1-6 and 17-18); (2) his hearers respond, confessingtheir sins and asking God for deliverance (14.7-9 and 19-22); (3) theLord rejects their pleas because he sees they are insincere (14.10 and15.1-4).The most controversial aspect of this sequence has to do with the

precise nature of the second part. (a) Some scholars take it as

Jeremiah’s intercession for the people, citing 14.11 and 15.1.43However, Yahweh’s prohibition against the prophet interceding forthe people and the reference to Moses and Samuel as intercessors forIsrael do not necessarily refer to the controversial verses underconsideration. They could be simply forthright instructions designedto emphasize that God’s people had gone so long and so deep in sinthat it was vain to pray for their deliverance in view of the presentcondition of their hearts. (b) Others regard these passages as theprophet’s concept of the ideal confession which the people shouldmake if they are to be accepted by God.44 But the language appearsto be stronger than what would be expected if one were suggesting toothers what they should do. (c) Consequently, it seems best to

understand 14.7-9 and 19-22 as a literary representation of theresponse of Jeremiah’s hearers to what he had just said in Yahweh’sname.45 And yet, their words sound too precise and unfeeling tohave originated in their heart. Instead, they have the appearance ofconfessional or lament liturgies which the people were taught in theJerusalem temple on fast days.

In such a Sitz im Leben, it was expected that a priest or cultprophet would respond in Yahweh’s name to the people’s cries. Thisis precisely what occurs in 14.10 and 15.1-4, except that here Yahwehrejects their pleas because the lives of the people up to this time show




75

that they are persistently and consistently untrustworthy, insincere,and unstable; 46 whereas normally he would be expected to respondfavorably.

7. Concluding Observations

The analysis of these six pericopes in Jer. 1-20 leads to certainconclusions which are important in understanding the structure andtheology of Jeremiah the prophet and of the book of Jeremiah.

First, the dialogue form reflected in these texts suggests thatsometimes Jeremiah actually engaged in dialogue with his audiences,that sometimes he used a dialogue style by putting words into themouths of his opponents for the purpose of refuting their position,and that the redactor (or redactors) of this material portrayed thatdialogue or created a dialogue as a form of his own as a means ofdefining clearly the distinction between what he wanted his readersto believe the view of Jeremiah to be in contrast to that which heopposed. The final redactor(s) of the book of Jeremiah used thedialogue method to communicate his message to his readers, whetherthis was handed down to him from actual confrontations during theministry of Jeremiah, or was one of the literary styles he adopted tocommunicate his message. At the same time, the frequency of the useof dialogue in the book, and the impression of a lively, sharp,compactly juxtaposed oral exchange between conflicting partieswhich at least some of the texts make, strongly suggest that someliterary representations of these dialogues reflect actual events in thelife of the prophet.47

Second, the positions of Jeremiah’s audiences reflected in thosepassages which present them in the form of quotation provideimportant insights into the thinking of the Jewish leaders and massesin Jeremiah’s day and the day of the redactor(s) of the book ofJeremiah. There would be no reason for the prophet or the redactor(s)of the book which bears his name to misrepresent the views of hishearers deliberately; and it is hardly likely that the prophet or aredactor would have thought he could gain the respect and confidenceof hearers or readers by such practices.An understanding of the beliefs of the audience of Jeremiah is an

important aid to comprehending the message of the prophet and ofthe school which preserved his work, as it stood over against that ofthe speakers being opposed.




76

Third, the words of the two or more speakers in a dialoguesituation should not be isolated into separate pericopes, even if theycontain a complete thought unit in themselves (as, e.g., the words ofthe people in 3.22b-25; 14.7-9, 19-22). Rather, the pericope includeseverything within the dialogue. This usually consists of three parts:(a) a proclamation by Yahweh or the prophet, which moves thehearers to some type of reaction; (b) the response of the hearers; and(c) the counter-response of Yahweh or the prophet to the hearers’position. But it may contain as few as two parts (corresponding toitems [b] and [c] here), or more than three parts (when theinterchange continues through several responses and counter-

responses).Fourth, the theology of Jeremiah, or of any prophet, or of the Old

Testament usually should not include the views reflected in responsesections of a dialogue pericope, although sometimes these views maybe the norm except for the particular (kind of) circumstance reflectedin the immediate context and/or except for the way in which thehearers are interpreting or applying them, and sometimes theyconfirm or emphasize the view of the prophetic spokesman (as, e.g.,when the princes and the people contended that Jeremiah’s messagewas not a justifiable cause to put him to death, Jer. 26.16-19). To bespecific, the confession and plea for help in 14.7-9 does not representthe thought of Jeremiah. It contains several thoughts which soundtantalizingly ’religious’ and very conducive to a highly spiritualclimate, and which might even be acceptable to Jeremiah underdifferent circumstances. But v. 10 shows that it is rejected anddenounced in this context, either because it suggests a naive mind-setthat man’s return to God is quick and simple, or because the peoplewho are speaking are insincere and have little intention of changingtheir hearts and lives, as their long-established life styles have madeclear, or because their purpose is not to express genuine sorrow toGod for the way they have treated him by their ingratitude anddisobedience, but to terminate the drought which is making theirlives unbearable and possibly threatening their ability to survive.The fact that these words are probably an oft-used confession- orlament-liturgy common in the Jerusalem cult on a fast day or day ofrepentance lends itself to the possibility that the speakers are merelymouthing words which they know religious leaders and their followersconsider to be acceptable to Yahweh in the ritual. Hence, while theseverses may be said to represent the widely held theology of Judeans




77

in the days of Jeremiah, they do not represent the prophet’s theology,and thus cannot be used as a source for determining the theologycommended by the Old Testament in the context of the book ofJeremiah.

Fifth, speaking form-critically, the extent of a pericope frequentlycannot be determined by the logical flow of thought, the speakers, theconsistency of the use of the second or third person in referring to acertain individual or group, the coherence of the subject matter, orthe adherence of the passage to elements which may be shown to

belong to a certain genre from examples of that genre elsewhere inthe Old Testament or in extrabiblical ancient Near Eastern literature.There are two reasons for this. First, an audience (individual orgroup) may interrupt the prophet before he finishes what he hadintended to say, thus eliminating the elements in the genre whichotherwise he might have used. Second, the response of that audiencemay cause the prophet to reply by going in a direction of thoughtwhich he had not originally planned and which is totally out ofkeeping with the message and method which at first he had intended.Accordingly, the desire for smoothness which the literarily-trainedmind almost demands must not be allowed to dictate to one’s

understanding of the biblical text in such a way as to reduce the sizeof a pericope so as to destroy the living interchange betweenpersonalities which it contains, or to emend or rearrange the text soas to achieve that smoothness. On the contrary, the critic must striveto listen to the speaker or writer of the biblical text, so that he mayfollow his turns and irregularities, but also his absolute reverses,manifested in the voices which run counter to the messenger whose

theological position is being set forth as that of the canonical book.

NOTES

1. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (SBLDS, 18; Missoula:Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 16-19, 23-24, 51, 113-14, 116.

2. See J.T. Willis, ’Review of Micha 6,6-8. Studien zu Sprache, Form undAuslegung, by Theodor Lescow’, VT 18 (1968), pp. 273-78.

3. See Egon Pfeiffer, ’Die Disputationsworte in Buche Maleachi’, EvTh19 (1959), pp. 546-68.

4. ’Quotations in Wisdom Literature’, JQR n.s. 30 (1939), pp. 123-47;’Quotations as a Literary Usage in Biblical, Rabbinic and Oriental Literature’,HUCA 22 (1949), pp. 157-219; and Koheleth-The Man and His World: AStudy of Ecclesiastes (3rd edn; New York: Schocken Books, 1968), ’XII. The




78

Style—His Use of Quotations’, pp. 95-108. Gordis has also dealt with thisphenomenon in the book of Job, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other ancientOriental literature. See his The Book of God and Man-A Study of Job(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), ’XIII. The Use of Quotationsin Job’, pp. 174-87; The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation andSpecial Studies (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America,1978), ’17. On 21.17-33. The Use of Quotations in Argument’, pp. 529-30;’21. On 27.7-10, Job’s Former Faith’, p. 535; ’29. Elihu’s Apology (Chapter32)’, pp. 553-54; and ’Virtual Quotations in Job, Sumer and Qumran’, VT 31

(1981), pp. 410-27.5. ’The Identification of Quotations in Biblical Literature’, ZAW 92

(1980), pp. 416-31.6. ’Two Question and Answer Schemata in the Prophets’, JBL 90 (1971),

pp. 129-39. See further William J. Horwitz, ’Audience Reaction in Jeremiah’,CBQ 32 (1970), pp. 555-64 (who deals with passages in the latter half of thebook, as 26.8-9; 32.3-5; 36.29; 38.4; 42.2-6, 20; 44.15-19; and only textswhich specifically identify the respondents); Walter Brueggemann, ’Jeremiah’sUse of Rhetorical Questions’, JBL 92 (1973), pp. 358-74 (whose primaryconcern is possible Wisdom influence on rhetorical questions in the book ofJeremiah); and Thomas W. Overholt, ’Jeremiah 2 and the Problem of"Audience Reaction"’, CBQ 41 (1979), pp. 262-73.

7. Since ’the Lord their God’ is named in the third person, it is likely thatthe prophet is the speaker. However, it also possible that Yahweh himself isthe speaker, and that he refers to himself in the third person to emphasizethe gravity of the situation.

8. There is much discussion over the originality of portions of vv. 24-25,and over whether these lines are ’poetry’ or ’prose’. The RSV prints them asprose, but the NEB, JB, and NIV print them as poetry. The sharp distinctionbetween biblical ’poetry’ and ’prose’ is being discussed at length at thepresent time. See James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelismand Its History (New Haven: Yale University, 1981), pp.56-95. Therendering here follows the NIV essentially.

9. The question of whether the hitpa’el of has a passive or a reflexivenuance is widely debated. For the reflexive understanding, see E.A. Speiser,Genesis (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), p.86. For the passiveinterpretation, see Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (OTL; Philadelphia: West-minster, 1966), p. 156. The passive rendering adopted here follows the NIV.The RSV has ’then nations shall bless themselves in him’.10. So A.W. Streane, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, together with the

Lamentations (The Cambridge Bible for Schools; Cambridge: UniversityPress, 1882), pp. 32-33; and Friedrich Nötscher, Das Buch Jeremias übersetztund erklärt (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes, 7/2; Bonn: PeterHanstein, 1934), pp. 55-56.11. So Carl H. Cornill, Das Buch Jeremia (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1905),




79

p. 42; Paul Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia übersetzt und erklärt (KAT, 10; 2ndedn; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1928), p. 35; and Guy P. Couturier, ’Jeremiah’,The Jerome Biblical Commentary, I (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968),p. 307. This is not the place to engage in a lengthy discussion of the variousviews which have been proposed and the arguments on which they arebased. Here five other additional analyses are recorded for purposes ofillustration. The pericope covers: (1) 3.1-5 + 19-25: Wilhelm Rudolph,Jeremiah (HAT, 12; 3rd edn; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1968),pp. 29-32; (2) 3.1-5 + 12b-14a + 19-25: William L. Holladay, The Architectureof Jeremiah 1-20 (Lewisburg: Bucknell University, 1976), pp. 51-52; (3)3.19-4.2: F. Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT3/2; 2nd edn; Göttingen; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907), pp. 14-17; (4)3.21-4.2; Artur Weiser, Das Buch Jeremia übersetzt und erklärt (ATD,20/21; 5th edn; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), p. 32; (5) 3.19-4.4 : Arthur S. Peake, Jeremiah I (The Century Bible; Edinburgh: T.C. &E.C. Jack, 1910), p. 112; H. Cunliffe-Jones, The Book of Jeremiah: Introductionand Commentary (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM, 1960),pp. 62-64; John Paterson, ’Jeremiah’, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible(London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962), p. 543.12. ’The Book of Jeremiah (Introduction and Exegesis)’, IB, V (Nashville:Abingdon, 1956), pp. 829-30.13. Ibid., p. 830.14. Der Prophet Jeremia, pp. 38-39.15. Roland K. Harrison, Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction andCommentary (The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Downers Grove,Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1975), pp. 67-68.16. Paterson, ’Jeremiah’, p. 543; Weiser, Das Buch Jeremia, pp. 32-33.17. See Paterson, ’Jeremiah’, p. 543; John Bright, Jeremiah (AB, 21;Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), p. 25; Weiser, Das Buch Jeremia, p. 33.18. The meaning of (a hapax legomenon in the OT) is disputed.Edmund F. Sutcliffe (’A Note on Jer 5,12’, Bib 41 [1960], pp. 287-90)thinks is to be interpreted as a neuter (in light of 1QH 4.18 in theQumran texts and the LXX), referring in general terms to the enunciation ofGod’s threat of punishment. The positive form of this statement, then,occurs in 2 Kgs 15.12. Thus one should translate:

Not so! Evil will not come upon us,neither shall we see sword or famine.

However, it seems best to take as a masculine, and to read ’he (Yahweh)does not do it’ (so Cornill, Das Buch Jeremia, 60), or ’he (Yahweh) will donothing’ (so the NIV).19. The MT reads ’you’. However, if v. 14 is the prophet’s report of

Yahweh’s instructions to him concerning the feelings of the people expressedin vv. 12-13, as ’therefore’ at the beginning of v. 14 and the flow of thought




80

suggest, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine whom Yahwehmight be addressing directly here. ’You’ could hardly refer to the people, asthe prophet is speaking about them in vv. 12-13, and in v. 14. It can scarcelymean Jeremiah and his companions, because Yahweh is condemning thosebeing described in v. 15b. Therefore, it is best to emend the MT to ’they’(with most scholars).20. Jeremia, p. 39.21. So Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia, p. 30; Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia,

pp. 59, 63-65; Nötscher, Das Buch Jeremias, p. 68; Hyatt, ’The Book ofJeremiah’, pp. 848-50; Cunliffe-Jones, The Book of Jeremiah, pp. 70-71; andBright, Jeremiah, pp. 36-37, 42.22. So Peake, Jeremiah, I, p. 126; Paterson, ’Jeremiah’, p.544; and

Harrison, Jeremiah and Lamentations, pp. 76-77. Very similarly Streane(The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, pp. 47-48) thinks vv. 10-18 form aseparate pericope because of the inclusio in vv. 10 and 18; and Holladay (TheArchitecture of Jeremiah 1-20, pp. 63-64, 66) regards vv. 10-17 as a unit.23. Weiser, Das Buch Jeremia, pp. 47-48; Couturier, ’Jeremiah’, p. 308.24. So Bright, Jeremiah, p. 40; Weiser, Das Buch Jeremia, pp. 42, 47.25. So Hyatt, ’The Book of Jeremiah’, pp. 848-49.26. So Cornill, Das Buch Jeremia, pp. 60-61; Peake, Jeremiah, I, p. 130;Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia, p. 65; Harrison, Jeremiah and Lamentations,pp. 76-77.27. Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia, pp. 33-34; Georg Schmuttermayr,’Beobachtungen zu Jer 5,13’, BZ N.F. 9 (1965), pp. 215-32.28. Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia, p. 53; Harrison, Jeremiah and

Lamentations, pp. 88-90.29. Paterson, ’Jeremiah’, p. 545.30. Streane, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, pp. 74-76; Peake, Jeremiah,

I, p. 158; Nötscher, Das Buch Jeremias, pp. 92-95; Bright, Jeremiah, p. 66;G.P. Couturier, ’Jeremiah’, p. 311; Rudolph, Jeremia, pp. 63-65.31. Cornill, Das Buch Jeremia, pp. 118-23; Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia,

pp. 109-12; Hyatt, ’The Book of Jeremiah’, pp. 882-85; Cunliffe-Jones, TheBook of Jeremiah, pp. 92-94; Weiser, Das Buch Jeremia, pp. 70, 73-76.32. Paterson, ’Jeremiah’, p. 545.33. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 65.34. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 65; Weiser, Das Buch Jeremia, pp. 74-75.35. Following Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia, p.56; Holladay, The

Architecture of Jeremiah 1-20, p. 110.36. Holladay, The Architecture of Jeremiah 1-20, p. 111.37. Paterson, ’Jeremiah’, pp. 545-46.38. The Architecture of Jeremiah 1-20, pp. 110-11.39. It is not necessary for the purposes of this paper to print all of vv. 2-6.40. It is generally agreed that all of 15.1-4 except the second half of v. 2 is




81

in ’prose’. However, notice that there is balance of thought in much of the’prose’ material in these verses, as the two statements at the end of v. 1, orthe four kinds of destroyers in the last half of v. 3. On the problem of’poetry’and ’prose’, see n. 8 above.41. Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia, p. 169; Hyatt, ’The Book of Jeremiah’,

pp. 929-37; Bright, Jeremiah, p. 103; Rudolph, Jeremia, pp. 97-99; MartinKessler, ’From Drought to Exile: A Morphological Study of Jer. 14.1-15.4’,SBLSP 2 (1972), pp. 519-23; G.R. Castellino, ’Observations on the LiteraryStructure of Some Passages in Jeremiah’, VT 30 (1980), pp. 406-407.42. Cornill, Das Buch Jeremia, p. 181; Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia,

pp. 84-88; Peake, Jeremiah, I, pp. 199-200; Albert Condamin, Le Livre de

Jérémie (EBib; 3rd edn; Paris: Gabalda, 1936), pp. 123-30; Cunliffe-Jones,The Book of Jeremiah, pp. 114-21; Paterson, ’Jeremiah’, p. 548; Weiser, DasBuch Jeremia, pp. 119-27; Couturier, ’Jeremiah’, pp. 314-15; Holladay, TheArchitecture of Jeremiah 1-20, pp. 145-46.43. So Peake, Jeremiah, I, 202 (yet on p. 205 he states that vv. 19-22resume the prayer of the people in vv. 7-9); Weiser, Das Buch Jeremia,pp. 126-28; Kessler, ’From Drought to Exile’, pp. 504-505, 513; Harrison,Jeremiah and Lamentations, pp. 101-102.44. Hyatt, ’The Book of Jeremiah’, pp. 931-32 (possibly on vv. 7-9);

Bright, Jeremiah, p. 102 (possibly); Rudolph, Jeremia, p. 99 (possibly onvv. 7-9).45. Cornill, Das Buch Jeremia, p. 183; Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia, pp. 163,167-68; Nötscher, Das Buch Jeremias, pp. 125, 127; Hyatt, ’The Book ofJeremiah’, pp. 931-92, 935 (possibly on vv. 7-9; certainly on 14.19-22);Paterson, ’Jeremiah’, p. 548; Bright, Jeremiah, p. 102 (possibly); Rudolph,Jeremia, pp. 99, 102 (possibly on vv. 7-9; certainly on vv. 19-22); Lundbom,Jeremiah, p. 44.46. See Cornill, Das Buch Jeremia, p. 183; Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia,

pp. 164-65; Nötscher, Das Buch Jeremias, p. 125.47. Overholt (’Jeremiah 2 and the Problem of "Audience Reaction"’,

p. 253) is certainly correct when he suggests that ’on the basis of his

experience Jeremiah may have selected from, altered, even created "audiencereactions" to serve as foils for his indictment of the people’. The problem isthat it is extremely difficult to determine with certainty in each text which ofthese alternatives is correct. For example. Overholt (pp. 267-68) assumesthat if a statement of the audience contains stereotyped material (as ’Whereis Yahweh?’ in 2.6, 8), the audience could not have spoken these words inreality, so they must have been put in the mouths of the audience by theprophet (or the redactor). However, even this is not absolutely certain,because when the beliefs or practices of a person or group are beingchallenged or reproved, it is natural for them to try to defend themselves byturning to traditional, widely-accepted statements which sum up theirviewpoint in succinct proverbial or conventional language. See the helpful




82

remarks of W. Brueggemann (’Jeremiah’s Use of Rhetorical Questions’,pp. 361-64), especially concerning 8.18-23 and 14.19-22.




Documents

Dialogue Between Prophet and Audience as a Rhetorical Device in the Book of Jeremiah