TOI0031
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.1.1 The scope of this chapter
This chapter endeavours to investigate the diction and metaphorical concepts employed in the book of Jeremiah to describe the relationship ofYHWH and the 'other gods' involved in the polemic against idolatry in the book of Jeremiah. Firstly, all terminology referring to the relationship between YHWH and the gods in the book of Jeremiah will be identified. Special attention will be given to the identifying of the metaphorical concepts used regarding the gods in the poetic as well as the prose sections. The results of the investigation of the anti-idolatry texts in prose and poetry will be compared in order to determine whether there exists any difference in language usage or literary continuity.
Following that, selected diction and metaphorical concepts describing the 'other gods' will be analysed and clarified in the light of existing Biblical and extra-Biblical information. Special attention will be given to the usage of terminology and metaphors against the background of the ANE fertility and war cult and the typical ANE theological values and expressions. Ultimately, the study will focus on the drawing of conclusions concerning the theological significance of the statements regarding YHWH and the gods.
4.1.2 Provisional comments on idolatry in the Book of Jeremiah
Frequent references to idolatry in the book of Jeremiah create the idea that the struggle against idolatry is one of its major themes. In fact, as a literary unit, the book of Jeremiah conveys the idea that the idolatry of Judah was one of the main causes, if not the main cause, for the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BC. The usual argumentation claims that the wrath of YHWH turned against Judah and Jerusalem because of "all their wickedness in forsaking me; they have made offerings to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands"(l:16). Jer 1: 16 constitutes the first reference where idolatry is mentioned as the cause of the judgement of YHWH and the subsequent disastrous fall of the kingdom
of Judah. This statement quoting the sin of idolatry and the subsequent punishment is repeated throughout the book of Jeremiah in several versions with more or less the same
• 1
notIOn.
In addition, especially in the prose sections of the book of Jeremiah, the answer to the rhetorical 'Why-question' (Why is the land/city in this state? Why has the LORD done this to the land?), is repeatedly given as 'idolatry'.z Furthermore, several shorter references serving as accusations ofIsrael's involvement in idolatry appear in the poetic3 and prose sections,4 which together with the above-mentioned occurrences, create the impression that idolatry was a popular practice during the pre-exilic period of Judah, despite Josiah's reform efforts.
4.1.3 Theissueof methodology
The historical approach5 dominated the scene of OT theology for the past century, resulting in some valuable insights and viewpoints for OT studies and theology. The historical method was also applied to the book of Jeremiah by many commentators and especially to the anti-idolatry texts with the result that the majority of these texts were consistently treated by commentators as imported by later, mainly Deuteronomistic redactors.6 These commentators7 tend to treat the authenticity of texts opposed to idolatry, especially those in the prose sections of the book of Jeremiah, with suspicion.
Even modem commentators8 who do not follow the historical-critical method, have continued this notion of questioning the originality of these texts by ascribing them to the ideological views of movements within the exilic survivor-groups with their own agendas.9 A growing scepticism10 regarding the trustworthiness of OT literature as a
I See Jer 5:7-9; 7:18-20; 7:30-34; 8:1-3; 11:10-13 and 17; 13:9-11; 16:16-18; 17:1-4; 18:15-17; 19:3-13;
25:3-11; 32:27-35; 35:15-17; 44:2-6 and 21-23.
2See Jer 5:19; 9:12-16; 16:10-13; 22:8-9.
3See Jer 2:5,8,11,13,20,23,25,27,28,33; 3:1,2,13,23; 13:27; 16:19b; 23:11 and 13.
4See Jer 3:6-10,24; 7:6,9; 8:19b; 12:16; 23:27; 44:8,9, 17-19 and 25.
5With Bernard Duhm 1901: pp.xvi-xx, as a major contributor.
6See Weinfeld 1972:27. Thiel1973, is used by Carron (1986) as basic reference in his commentary.
7Duhm ibid., Mowinckel 1914.
8E.g. Carron (1986). Scheffler (1998:530) reckons Carron does ask typical historical questions but prefer to answer it negatively.
9See Turner 1996: 111-128 regarding the role of similar passages in Isaiah.
10See HAJ Kruger 1996:53; Rendtorff 1988:10. See discussion in chapter 3 above.
source for a true and balanced account of historical events and situations in Biblical times dominates the above mentioned approaches.
4.1.4 Resulting explanations for idolatryreferences
Commentators in the past, especially those from the fonn-critical and historical-critical schools, proposed a variety of explanations for the occurrences of idolatry texts, especially for those in the prose sections of the book of Jeremiah. Until recently, references to idolatry were treated as:
(1) Deuteronomistic scribal interpolations;1
(2) The work of the YHWH-alone group, l.e. the promoters of Yahwism and monotheism;2
(3) Deuteronomistic ideological influences;3
(4) Predominantly the work of Jeremiah and Baruch.4
Only a few commentators tend to treat the majority of idolatry sayings as original words of Jeremiah. Furthennore, the majority of commentators under the influence of Duhm (1901) tend to treat the poetic oracles as the original sayings of Jeremiah and most of the prose as imported from elsewhere.
4.1.5 Method followed in this chapter
Unfortunately the significance of the literary unit of the canonised theological text was mostly neglected in the application of the historical critical method. In the present study, the investigation will take into consideration some of the results of the historical-critical method, and therefore does not reject the theories of later interpolations by redactors.5 Rather, it intends to detennine the possible literary, ideological and theological motives and significance of the poetic as well as that presented in the so-called inserted anti- idolatry texts, i.e. within the compiled literary unit as canonised. Although this study will
I Weinfeld 1972:9 and ch III:158-178. He calls the group 1:l~'5J'O I:l~~~n(wise men and scribes). Also Leslie 1954:283,312.
2Smith 1971 and 1984; Lang 1983:13-59 (see Gnuse 1997:76 and 81 respectively).
: Carroll 1986: 126,127. He states that a Yahweh-alone ideology dominates in the book of Jeremiah.
Holladay 1989: 24,25 and 53. Also KeiI1975:29.
5A genuine theological canonical approach does not ignore the historical factors.
treat the book of Jeremiah as a literary unit, the applied distinction and comparison between the diction of prose and poetry will serve the purpose of determining relations in the diction and the theological motives in the language usage in both. In the light of the fact that language usage in poetry and prose may differ due to advanced linguistic/artistic applications, the diction will be compared. Selected metaphorical concepts will also be analysed against the sociological background of the pre-exilic and post-exilic periods as well as the theological language of the ANE.
Firstly, a brief overview of occurrences, expressions, and statements regarding the nature and the role of the 'other gods' in the book of Jeremiah will be given. In the canonical literary unit these expressions about the gods mostly occur as the statements of YHWH, or Judah's denial or admittance of guilt, both uttered by the prophet/author(s). In an application of the historical method, the statements are usually attributed to the author/redactor, Jeremiah and Baruch his scribe, or the Deuteronomistic scribes/redactors, of which the latter are viewed as being motivated by a specific ideology or a political stance.