Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe

Transcription

1

2 Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) 87

3

4 Nathan Mastnjak Deuteronomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority in Jeremiah Mohr Siebeck

5 Nathan Mastnjak, born 1983; 2015 PhD, with honors, University of Chicago; currently Postdoctoral Fellow in Indiana University s Borns Jewish Studies Program. e-isbn PDF ISBN ISSN (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen, printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

6 To Jen, Adele, and Elsa, with gratitude

7

8 Acknowledgements The work that came to fruition here has benefited from the support and input of numerous teachers, friends, and colleagues. This book, which is a revision of my dissertation, had its origins in my time as a graduate student at the University of Chicago. I am thankful to all of my teachers, but I owe a particular debt to my committee members, Ronnie Goldstein, David Schloen, Jeffrey Stackert, and especially my advisor Dennis Pardee. Dennis Pardee s superlative commitment to his students is justly legendary, and I aspire to emulate his example of an advisor, teacher, and scholar. Jeffrey Stackert has also been an immense support throughout my studies at the University of Chicago and is responsible for cultivating my interest in the Pentateuch and inner-biblical interpretation. David Schloen has helped me read texts in relation to material culture, and Ronnie Goldstein has given valuable guidance in my navigating the minefield of Jeremiah Studies. This project would never have seen completion without financial and institutional support. Many thanks are especially due to the University of Chicago s Center for Jewish Studies, whose generous dissertation year fellowship made it possible for me to bring this project to its initial completion, and to Indiana University s Borns Jewish Studies Program, whose Postdoctoral Fellowship and supplementary funding enabled me to finalize the project and prepare it for publication. As the principle work for this book was completed at the University of Chicago, it is only right to acknowledge how much my time there was immeasurably enriched by fellow-students and friends. Thanks go to Jessie DeGrado, Charles Huff, Hannah Marcuson, Jordan Skornik, Jody Otte, Nick Polk, and Jacqueline Vayntrub. I feel truly lucky to have been surrounded by such intelligent and friendly people during graduate school. I would like to extend special thanks to Charles Huff. He has been a friend literally since the day I moved to Chicago and he helped me move into my apartment. Since then we have spent countless hours in classes and hashing out and writing our dissertations. Many of the ideas put in writing here came to life first in conversation with him. Thanks also to my parents, Raymond and Deborah Mastnjak. Without their encouragement and support throughout my life, I would never have been emboldened to pursue graduate study.

9 VIII Acknowledgements Finally, a huge amount of gratitude is due to those who had to actually live with me during this process. Thank you, Jen, Adele, and Elsa. This book is dedicated to you.

10 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... VII Chapter One: Introduction... 1 I. History of Scholarship... 2 II. Allusion III. The Composition of Jeremiah Deuteronomistic Redaction Pre-Deuteronomistic Poetry and Narrative Deuteronomistic Language vs. Allusion to Deuteronomy IV. The Composition of the D Source V. Authority and Scripture VI. Allusion and Authority in Jeremiah Chapter Two: Allusion And Prophetic Authority I. Prophecy in D II. Jeremiah as a Prophet like Moses III. Jeremiah and Post-Mosaic Revelation Jer 7:23 and Deut 5: Jer 11:1 5, Deut 27:15 26, and Exod 23: Jer 1:7 9 and Deut 18:18, Jer 21:8 10 and Deut 30:15, Jer 26:2 and Deut 13: Jer 28:8 9 and Deut 18: Jer 36:28 and Deut 10:1 2 or Exod 34: IV. False Prophecy Jer 5:14 and Deut 18: Jer 29:15 and Deut 18: Jer 29:23 and Deut 18: Jer 28:16/29:32 and Deut 13: V. Conclusion Chapter Three: Allusions To Deuteronomy I. Allusions to Deut 28: Jer 15:3 4 and Deut 28: Jer 34:17, 20 and Deut 28: Jer 7:33 and Deut 28: Jer 16:4 and Deut 28:

11 X Table of Contents 5. Jer 29:18 and Deut 28: Jer 19:7, 9 and Deut 28:26, Jer 24:9 and Deut 28:25, Conclusion II. Jer 9:15, 16:13 and Deut 28:64 (36) III. Jer 32:41 and Deut 28: IV. Jer 42:16 and Deut 28: V. Allusions to Deut 28 in non-dtrj Passages Jer 5:15 17 and Deut 28: Jer 28:14 and Deut 28: Jer 29:5 7 and Deut 28: VI. Conclusion Chapter Four: Allusions To Law I. Law as Authority Jer 8:2 and Deut 17: Jer 17:19 27 and Deut 5: Jer 32:35 and Deut 18: Jer 34:14 and Deut 15:1, The Authority of Law II. Further Allusions to Law by DtrJ Jer 13:11 and Deut 26: Jer 32:21 22 and Deut 26:3, 8 9, Jer 31:29 30 and Deut 24: Jer 32:18 19 and Deut 5: III. Law as Metaphor Metaphorical allusions to non-d law Jer 3:1 4, 8 and Deut 24: Jer 5:21 24 and Deut 21: Jer 11:19 and Deut 20: Jer 34:17 and Deut 15:1, Conclusion IV. Spurious Claims of Allusions to D s Law V. Jeremiah and D s Law Chapter Five: Allusions To Narrative I. Obedience Jer 4:4 and Deut 10: Jer 5:24 and Deut 11: Jer 29:13 14aα and Deut 4: Jer 32:39 40 and Deut 5: Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Obedience II. Other Allusions to Narrative Jer 21:5 and a Deuteronomic Cliché Jer 22:8 9 and Deut 29: Jer 33:5 and Deut 31: III. Conclusion

12 Table of Contents XI Excursus: Allusions to Jeremiah in Deuteronomy I. Parallels to Deut Deut 29:3 and Jer 5:21, 24: Deut 29:17 18 and Jer 23:15, 17 (4:10) Deut 29:27 and Jer 21:5, 32: II. Parallels to Deut III. Conclusion Chapter Six: Conclusion Bibliography Index of Ancient Sources Index of Modern Authors Index of Subjects

13

14 Chapter One Introduction Modern readers of Jeremiah face a number of significant challenges. Not least are the difficulties prompted by its composite authorship, complex organization, and textual history. The book itself apparently addresses some of these phenomena in Jer 36 s narrative of the writing and rewriting of a Jeremianic scroll. After the destruction of the first scroll, the story indicates that Baruch took another scroll and wrote on it from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book that Jehoiakim had burned. And many words like these were added to it (36:32 LXX). 1 Perhaps more clearly than any other passage in the Hebrew Bible, this passage addresses and justifies the redactional growth of a prophetic text. 2 The nature of the relationship between Jeremiah and the book of Deuteronomy represents another puzzle. As scholars have long noted, certain passages from Jeremiah share with Deuteronomy a striking similarity in style and a significant number of thematic and linguistic parallels. These parallels represent an opportunity to observe early modes of textual interpretation and reception, and this possibility gives rise to a number of questions. First, what is the nature of the relationship between these books? If literary dependence can be traced, in which direction does it move? Second, given the multiple authorship of Jeremiah, does the relationship to Deuteronomy belong to a single layer of composition, or is it a phenomenon shared across compositional strata? If the phenomenon is shared, how does the relationship to Deuteronomy differ from one layer of tradition to the next? To begin to answer such questions requires an adequately theorized approach to the analysis of literary dependence, an understanding of the compositional history of each book, and a detailed analysis of every instance of literary dependence on Deuteronomy. The present study will set out to answer these questions. 1 The MT, apparently uncomfortable with this passage s implications about authorship, inserted Jeremianic agency into the sequence: Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch, son of Neriah, the scribe, and he wrote upon it. Cf. Janzen, Studies (1973) 72; Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) Cf. Stipp, Beiträge zu Prophetie und Poesie (2002) 166; Otto, Pentateuch as Torah (2007) 176; Allen, Jeremiah (2008) 400; Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur (2011) 226. Lundbom, in contrast, sees this verse as a reference to the prose narratives that he attributes to Baruch (Jeremiah [2004] 611).

15 2 Chapter One: Introduction I. History of Scholarship Though addressing these questions in a variety of ways, the modern study of the book of Jeremiah has been led away from addressing them in a fully satisfying manner. The question of the relationship to Deuteronomy has been dominated by questions of compositional history. While such investigations remain important and useful, they aim primarily at unraveling the compositional histories of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy and give inadequate attention to the analysis of the interpretive processes at work in the connections between the books. The result is an insufficiently nuanced view of the ways various parts of Jeremiah interact with Deuteronomy. Much of the agenda for the modern study of Jeremiah was set by Bernard Duhm in his now classic commentary. 3 According to Duhm, the composition of the book can be divided into poetic oracles, which alone represent the words of Jeremiah, biographical narratives attributed to Baruch, and later redactional additions, which themselves account for the greatest amount of material in the book. 4 Within this analysis, Duhm drew attention to the relationship between the redactional additions and other biblical texts, namely, Deuteronomy, Second and Third Isaiah, and Ezekiel. 5 Addressing the relationship to Deuteronomy, Duhm understood the redactional additions to present Jeremiah as little more than a teacher of torah. 6 The poetic oracles, though knowing an early form of Deuteronomy, expressed ambivalence about it. 7 According to Duhm, therefore, Deuteronomy was influential only on the redactional expansions; the poetic oracles were neither influenced by it nor particularly interested in it. Although Duhm did not emphasize the connection to Deuteronomy to the same extent as his successors, he nevertheless identified its influence on the redactional expansions to the book and, as such, set in motion an important trend. Building on Duhm s insights, Sigmund Mowinckel proposed a source-theory for the composition of Jeremiah. In place of Duhm s theory, which involved two sources and extensive supplemental additions, Mowinckel proposed four originally independent documents with fewer supplemental additions. 8 Of these sources, which he labelled A, B, C, and D, source C corresponded to much of what Duhm had previously identified as redactional expansions. To a greater ex- 3 Duhm, Jeremia (1901). 4 Ibid., xii xvi. 5 Ibid., xx. 6 Ibid., xviii. Though he does not clarify what he means by Torah in his introduction, subsequent comments in his commentary indicate that this term refers to the law of Deuteronomy. Cf. ibid., 95, Cf. especially Duhm s treatment of Jer 8:8 (Jeremia [1901] 88 89). 8 Mowinckel, Komposition (1914). At a later time, Mowinckel replaced his idea of sources with that of tradition complexes (The Spirit and the Word [2002] 56 57, 127 n. 5).

16 I. History of Scholarship 3 tent than Duhm, Mowinckel emphasized the close connection between source C and Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH). C is marked with distinctive language similar to that of Deuteronomy and the redactional portions of DtrH. It also shares key themes with Deuteronomy and DtrH, including the idea that both contemporaries and ancestors have sinned against Yahweh, that the chief sin is idolatry, and that the central requirement of the covenant is to not serve foreign gods. 9 Like Duhm, Mowinckel contrasted the perspectives on Deuteronomy between the A and C sources with reference to Jer 8:8. While C considered divine law to be codified in the written law of Deuteronomy, A opposed the idea of a written law. 10 As a result of Mowinckel s theory, parallels to Deuteronomy became important for identifying a particular compositional stratum in Jeremiah. Philip Hyatt, Winfried Thiel, and Alexander Rofé modified Mowinckel s C-source into a comprehensive supplemental redaction of the book. 11 The work of these scholars continues to be helpful for questions of compositional history, but their work does not address the relationship between the Deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah (DtrJ 12 ) and the book of Deuteronomy beyond the conclusions already supplied by Duhm and Mowinckel. For these scholars, DtrJ considered Deuteronomy to reflect and codify the will of Yahweh. 13 Hyatt explicitly contrasted DtrJ s perspective on Deuteronomy with that of the supposed authentic Jeremiah discoverable in the poetic oracles. According to Hyatt, [Authentic Jeremiah] was acquainted with the original edition of Deuteronomy but never expressed approval either of the principles or of the methods of the Deuteronomic reforms. Indeed, his outlook was on many important questions diametrically opposed to that of the writers of Deuteronomy. The Book of Jeremiah as we now have it, however, has received expansion and redaction at the hands of Deuteronomic editors, whose purpose in part was to claim for Deuteronomy the sanction of the great prophet. 14 Hyatt found evidence for the anti-deuteronomic nature of the authentic Jeremiah first in a contrast between the whole religious outlook of authentic Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, and specifically the rejection of cult in chs. 7 and 26 as well as in 11:15 and 6:20, and second in passages that he believed register opposition to Deuteronomy itself: 2:8, 8:8 9, Though Hyatt recognized that Jeremiah 9 Ibid., (1914) Ibid., Hyatt, JNES 1 (1942) ; idem, VSH 1 (1956) 71 95; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1 25 (1973); idem, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia (1981); Rofé, Tarbiz 44 (1974) 1 29 [Hebrew]. 12 This designation will be used henceforth for Deuteronomistic Jeremiah. 13 Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia (1981) JNES 1 (1942) 158. Cf. also idem, VSH 1 (1956) JBL 60 (1941) ; idem, JNES 1 (1942) 158.

17 4 Chapter One: Introduction alluded to Deuteronomy in 3:1 and 28:9, 16 he did not explore these allusions or indicate their implications for the presumed anti-deuteronomic stance of Jeremiah. Helga Weippert addressed and discounted the connections in linguistic style between the prose sermons of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy from two directions: 1) the supposed connections show too many differences in nuance to be real, and 2) the similarities that exist simply represent the prose style of the day. 17 She combined these points with the observation that certain unique lexical locutions appear in both the poetry and the prose, and she concluded that Jeremiah was the author of both the poetic oracles and prose sermons. While Weippert s discovery of differences in nuance are often cogent, they are unable to sustain her conclusions. 18 As McKane points out, proving distinct linguistic nuances in Jeremianic prose suggests only that the authors responsible were influenced by the Jeremianic corpus and had their own unique style. 19 More importantly for the present investigation, her study does not directly address the question of the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. She mentions only one actual allusion (Jer 34:14 / Deut 15:12), which she concludes stems from the prophet himself. 20 Thus, though acknowledging a relationship between the books, she does not explore its import. William Holladay followed Weippert in viewing much of the prose as authentic, but, unlike Weippert, devoted considerable attention to the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. For Holladay, the connections between the books moved in both directions: Jeremiah himself was influenced by Deuteronomy, and late portions of Deuteronomy in turn drew on Jeremiah. 21 On the one hand, this led Holladay to discuss a number of allusions in the poetic oracles that other interpreters had ignored, and his list of sources for the book of Jeremiah remains the most complete catalogue of the parallels between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. His view of the prose and poetry as authentic witnesses to the historical Jeremiah, however, led him to read the poetic texts together with later additions as reflecting a single perspective on Deuteronomy. Thus, drawing on passages that other scholars would term Deuteronomistic, he characterized the proclamation of Jeremiah as a whole as centered around the covenant. 22 Holladay s analysis was also wed to his assumption of the historicity of the septennial reading of Deuteronomy mandated in Deut 31:9 13. He hypothesized that Jeremiah s prose sermons represented responses to these public readings. 16 JNES 1 (1942) 164. Both of these allusions will be discussed in the course of this study, though, contra Hyatt, I will follow Thiel and others in assigning Jer 28:9 to DtrJ. 17 Prosareden (1973), cf. especially See the criticism by McKane, Jeremiah I XXV (1986) xliii xlvii. 19 Ibid., xlvi. 20 Weippert, Prosareden (1973) Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 53 63; idem, CBQ 66 (2004) Jeremiah 2 (1989) 78.

18 I. History of Scholarship 5 For Holladay, the Deuteronomistic style of the sermons were thus explainable as deliberate mimicry of Deuteronomy prompted by its septennial public reading. 23 In terms of the perspective on Deuteronomy, Holladay saw Jeremiah as favorably influenced by Deuteronomy but opposed to the pretension of the scribes who recited the Deuteronomic law (8:4 10a, 13). 24 Thus, for Holladay, Jeremiah was a supporter of Deuteronomy and enlisted the book in support of his own proclamation. The prophet opposed rather the hypocritical use of Deuteronomy and an overconfidence in divine protection. 25 Holladay dealt with differences in ideology in the book of Jeremiah by appealing to the biography of the prophet, for whom particular events prompted changes of perspective. 26 While Holladay s catalogue of the sources for Jeremiah remains useful and his exegesis of individual passages highly insightful his views on composition render it unable to address the possibility of there being differing perspectives on Deuteronomy in the various strands of Jeremiah. Since the arguments for a DtrJ redaction remain compelling (see below), Holladay s leveling of multiple strands of redaction into a single authentic Jeremiah is unable to bring to light potential differences in perspective or method among the various layers of tradition. His attempt to account for differences in genre and ideology by way of the reconstructed biography of the prophet and the septennial reading of Deuteronomy are too speculative to be convincing. Moreover, since he is interested primarily in what the prophet himself had to say, Holladay leaves out of his catalogue of Jeremiah s sources anything that he considers inauthentic. Holladay has thus filled one gap in scholarship the relative inattention to the poetic allusions to Deuteronomy only to leave open another how these correlate to various compositional strata in the book. Finally, Holladay does little more than list the proposed uses of Deuteronomy. He does not fully explore the interpretive processes or supply argumentation for each proposal. Most problematically, his methodology does not adequately take into account the possibility of coincidental similarities between texts. The result is a large number of spurious proposals intermixed with those of greater plausibility. 27 In the final analysis, Holladay considers Jeremiah to be a follower of Deuteronomy who condemns his audience for failing to obey Deuteronomy s covenant. 28 As this view is in basic agreement with what Duhm, Mowinckel, Thiel, and Hyatt concluded for the redactional additions to Jeremiah, one is left with 23 Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 29 35; CBQ 66 (2004) Ibid., See Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) on 7:1 15; ibid., on 7:21 28; ibid., on 8:8; ibid., on 11: Ibid. Cf. also idem, CBQ 66 (2004) This problem in Holladay s methodology has been observed also by Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 35, as well as Rom-Shiloni, ZAR 15 (2009) 258 n. 19, who faults Holladay for including doubtful examples and for not explaining the interpretative processes. 28 Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (1989) 78.

19 6 Chapter One: Introduction the impression that Holladay has read a DtrJ perspective back in to the allusions that appear in the pre-dtrj material. Jack Lundbom followed Weippert and, to some extent, Holladay, in discounting the supposed connections to Deuteronomy in Jeremiah. In Lundbom s estimation, the similarities between Deuteronomy, DtrH, and Jeremiah arise from their shar[ing] a common rhetorical tradition that stems from the same Jerusalem rhetorical school. 29 He points out also that Baruch is as credentialed as anyone for being a Deuteronomic scribe. 30 Lundbom acknowledges some influence of Deuteronomy on Jeremiah, primarily the style of Deut 32 and the notion of the conditional covenant, 31 but is otherwise relatively uninterested in the relationship between the books. Lacking in the studies surveyed so far is adequate attention to the interpretative dynamics at work in the connections between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. Michael Fishbane s magisterial Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel laid important groundwork for a more sophisticated perspective on the potentialities of literary dependance. 32 Both in methodology and in specific insights, Fishbane s work remains exceptionally insightful. Yet his work did not attempt to explore the nature of the relationships between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy in specific detail. His goal was rather a survey of the varieties of inner-biblical interpretation and an analysis of its transformational nature. In a review of this work, James Kugel leveled particular criticism at Fishbane s categorization of inner-biblical interpretation according to rabbinic categories, suggesting rather a historical approach that proceeds by document, thus allowing the distinctive nature of interpretation present in the different books to come to light a task taken up by the present study. 33 In more recent scholarship, the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy has been taken up anew, often with the aid of sophisticated readings of interpretive processes at work in the literary connections between the two books, but without any attempts to treat the phenomenon in a comprehensive way. Christl Maier examined in detail four passages that portray Jeremiah as a teacher of Deuteronomic torah (Jer 7:5 7; 17:19 27; 22:1 5; 34:13 17). 34 These passages present the laws of Deuteronomy as the supreme authority and Jeremiah as its preacher. Obeying Deuteronomy s laws in the past could have averted the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. Obeying them in the post-exilic present will prevent a second loss of the land. Much of Maier s study is committed to detailed redactional analysis in an effort to identify these passages as post-exilic 29 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1 20 (1999) 64 65, Ibid., Ibid., , Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (1985). 33 Kugel, Prooftexts 7 (1987) Lehrer der Tora (2002); idem, Interpretation 62 (2008)

20 I. History of Scholarship 7 insertions. Her analysis of the relationship to Deuteronomy represents a renewed justification for Duhm s characterization of Jeremiah in the redactional additions as a Thoralehrer. 35 This conclusion is correct as far as it goes, and will be demonstrated from a different perspective in this study. The limited selection of passages, however, prevents this study from addressing the broader phenomenon of the relationship of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah and obscures the complexity of the perspective on Deuteronomy embedded in these passages. In his extensive work on Jeremiah, Mark Leuchter has also recognized the relationship to Deuteronomy as of central methodological importance. 36 In his monograph, Josiah s Reform and Jeremiah s Scroll, Leuchter raised the following pertinent questions: Was the literature associated with Jeremiah appropriated by the Deuteronomists, or did it grow out of a common background? Was Jeremiah an advocate of Deuteronomy or an opponent? In either case, is the answer to be found (or at least addressed) in the poetry of the book as distinct from the prose or in tandem with in? In essence, what texts within the book may be relevant to an understanding of what the prophet thought and how his book developed in relation to the book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History? 37 Though I am not convinced of the profitability of framing these questions in relation to the historical prophet, 38 his framing of the issue of the relationship to Deuteronomy with the question of prose and poetry is methodologically significant. Like Holladay, Leuchter recognized that the poetry of the book also alludes to Deuteronomy, and he rightly insisted that this phenomenon be part of the analysis. 39 Leuchter concluded that Jeremiah was the author of both prose and poetry and that he was himself a Deuteronomistic scribe. 40 According to Leuchter, therefore, the historical prophet Jeremiah considered Deuteronomy an authority, 41 sought to apply its teaching, and set out to carry forward the Deuteronomic reform after Josiah s death. 42 While Leuchter raised important questions about the relationship between the books of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, he left others unanswered. Though he noted the allusions to Deuteronomy in the poetic texts, his conclusion that these allusions present evidence for common authorship of the poetic oracles and prose sermons both authored by Jeremiah himself, according to Leuchter 35 Duhm, Jeremia (1901) xviii. 36 Josiah s Reform (2006) Ibid. 38 Indeed, Leuchter s work has been heavily criticized for the speculative nature of his reconstructions. Cf. the reviews of Nicholson, JTS 59 (2008) , Clements, VT 58 (2008) , and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, VT 59 (2009) 508, as well as the criticism in Silver, The Lying Pen (2009) 55, 71, Polemics of Exile (2008) Ibid., 169; Polemics of Exile (2008) Josiah s Reform (2006) Ibid., 16.

21 8 Chapter One: Introduction does not address the possibility that the poetic oracles and prose sermons might engage Deuteronomy in different ways. Edward Silver took a very different approach to the relationship between Deuteronomy and the poetic oracles of Jeremiah. 43 Taking up Hyatt s earlier suggestion that Jeremiah was an opponent of the Deuteronomic reform, Silver offered a historical and literary analysis of the poetic texts in chs On a historical level, Silver presented powerful arguments against the early dating of these texts to the time of Josiah. On a literary level, Silver argued that these texts demonstrate a resistance to elements of the Deuteronomic reform. Silver did not claim, however, that Jeremiah rejected or opposed Deuteronomy itself, but rather that he presented a challenge to the Deuteronomic school. This perspective culminates in his view that Jer 8:8 10 involves a critique of the Deuteronomists for advancing a royal ideology that abrogates Deut 17: Thus, for Silver, Jeremiah sides with Deuteronomy against the Deuteronomists. His argument thus comes close to the conclusion of Holladay with respect to Jer 8:8; the prophet supports Deuteronomy but objects to a specific use of it. Georg Fischer has addressed the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy in a series of studies as well as a recent commentary. 44 This work succeeds in demonstrating the extensive scope of Jeremiah s dependence on Deuteronomy. 45 While Fischer analyzes most cases as drawing on Deuteronomy s authority, he notes several passages in which Jeremiah seems to correct or disagree with its source. 46 Fischer s analyses are frequently insightful, but his commitment to a more or less synchronic approach to the text prevents him from addressing the possibility of differing perspectives in different layers of tradition. Dalit Rom-Shiloni and Eckart Otto have recently devoted a number of article-length studies to addressing the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy through in-depth analyses of the interpretive processes involved in specific parallels. 47 Though addressing similar questions and working contemporaneously, these scholars have come to diametrically opposing views. Rom-Shiloni saw the book of Jeremiah treating Deuteronomy as an authoritative document that the various layers of Jeremiah uses as literary reservoir, an authority, and a 43 The Lying Pen (2009). 44 Fischer, Jeremia 1 25 (2005); idem, Jeremia (2005); idem, Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben (2009) ; idem, Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) ; idem, Sem et Clas 5 (2012) But see n. 93 below. Many of the connections Fischer proposes between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy lack sufficient evidence to be persuasive. 46 Cf. especially Tora für eine neue Generation (2011) 267, where he concludes by highlighting the questions that these apparent conflicts raise. 47 Otto, ZAR 12 (2006): ; idem, OTE 19 (2006) ; idem, Pentateuch as Torah (2007) ; Rom-Shiloni, ZAW 117 (2005) ; idem, Birkat Shalom (2008) ; idem, ZAR 15 (2009) ; idem, HeBAI 1 (2012)

22 I. History of Scholarship 9 means of self-authorization. 48 In Rom-Shiloni s analysis, Jeremiah actualizes pentateuchal legal material in an ad hoc manner whenever doing so supported his message: Such allusions functioned to indicate continuity from Moses to the prophet, and even more so to affirm the connection between giving / accepting the torah in the desert to the prophetic demand for obedience to God and to His covenant in the early sixth century BCE. 49 For Rom-Shiloni, Deuteronomy, along with the other pentateuchal legal texts, was canonical for Jeremiah. She found in the tradition no hints of resistance to the ideology of Deuteronomy. 50 Jeremiah may have denounced opponents who misused torah (Jer 8:8), but he never questioned Deuteronomy itself. 51 Otto s conclusions have been very different. He situated the principle interaction between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy in the context of post-exilic debates between the priestly editors of the Pentateuch and the post-exilic prophetic school of Jeremiah. According to Otto, the primary disagreements between these groups centered on the nature of revelation. For the priestly editors of the Pentateuch, revelation ceased with Moses. The post-exilic Jeremianic school claimed that it continued. Though more than half of the primary parallels examined by Otto between Jeremiah and the Pentateuch are in the book of Deuteronomy, 52 Otto s contention is that these passages were not original to Deuteronomy but were inserted as part of the post-exilic priestly redaction of the Pentateuch. 48 Rom-Shiloni, Birkat Shalom (2008) , 123; idem, ZAR 15 (2009) ZAR 15 (2009) Rom-Shiloni finds this perspective in both what she considers Jeremian and non-jeremian texts. Cf. Rom-Shiloni, Birkat Shalom (2008) , 123, where Rom-Shiloni points out a disagreement between early Jeremian texts and later additions on the nature of exile; though the later texts disagree with early Jeremian texts, they do not disagree with Deuteronomy. Instead, both texts cite different parts of Deuteronomy in support of their own views of exile. 51 Ibid., The parallels to Deuteronomy he lists are as follows: Jer 1:7, 9 / Deut 18:18 (ZAR 12 [2006] ); Jer 30:3 / Deut 30:3 (OTE 19 [2006] 943 4); Jer 8:8 / Deut 4:5 6 (ZAR 12 [2006] ); Jer 11:10 / Deut 31:16, 20 (ZAR 12 [2006] 275, ); Jer 11:3 5 / Deut 27:26 (ZAR 12 [2006] 276); Jer 11:6b / Deut 29:8a (ZAR 12 [2006] 277); Jer 26:2, 4 / Deut 4:2, 8; 11:32; 13:1 (ZAR 12 [2006] 256, 260; Pentateuch as Torah [2007] ); Jer 26:10 16 / Deut 18:9 22 (ZAR 12 [2006] 258); Jer 29:14aβb / Deut 30:1, 3, 5 (ZAR 12 [2006] 290) Jer / Deut (OTE 19 [2006] 944; ZAR 12 [2006] 289); Jer 31:27 34 / Deut 30:1 5, 9 (OTE 19 [2006] ; ZAR 12 [2006] 289); Jer 31:31 34 / Deut 31:9, 12 (ZAR 12 [2006] 284); Jer 34:14a / Deut 15:1, 12 (ZAR 12 [2006] 281); Jer 36:32 / Deut 4:2 (ZAR 12 [2006] 295); The pentateuchal parallels outside of Deuteronomy he discusses are as follows: Jer 1:5 / Exod 4:10 (ZAR 12 [2006] 270); Jer 7:3, 7 / Num 14:30 (ZAR 12 [2006] 262); Jer 11:10 / Lev 26:15 (ZAR 12 [2006] 275, ); Jer 26:4bβ / Exod 16:4 (Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 180); Jer 26:13, 19 / Exod 32:14 (ZAR 12 [2006] 256; Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 178, 181); Jer 31:32 / Lev 26:15 (ZAR 12 [2006] 285); Jer 31:34 / Exod 34:9 (Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 178); Jer 34:16a / Lev 19:11f (ZAR 12 [2006] 282, n. 128); Jer 34:18 22 (LXX) / Exod 32:4, 8, 20, 35 (ZAR 12 [2006] ); Jer 36:3, 27 28, 32 / Exod 34:1 4, 9, (ZAR 12 [2006] ); Jer 31:31 34 / Exod 24:12 (OTE 19 [2006] 940; Das Deuteronomium [2000] 196); Jer 36:3bβ / Exod 34:9bβ (Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 177).

23 10 Chapter One: Introduction While Otto s observations on individual passages are often incisive, his locating of these interactions in a post-exilic debate is open to question. Indeed, unless one is already convinced of the post-exilic dating of the many pentateuchal passages that Otto cites, one is left to wonder why the interactions should be characterized as reflecting a post-exilic debate between rival schools rather than one author or school making use of a literary precursor. 53 A recent monograph by Jeffrey Stackert has directly addressed pentateuchal theories of prophetic revelation and found evidence in pre-exilic sources for the idea of prophecy ceasing, or at least being severely restricted, after the death Moses. 54 Stackert s work shows that what Otto identified as a post-exilic theory and thus as evidence for post-deuteronomistic Deuteronomy is analyzable rather as a perspective embedded already in the pre-exilic texts E and D sources. Much of Otto s analysis rests on his identification of Deut 34:10 12 a text stating that no prophet like Moses has since arisen as a post-exilic addition and his contention that late texts of Jeremiah seek to refute this text s claims. 55 His attribution of this text to a post-exilic priestly redaction has been questioned by recent scholarship in the Neo-Documentarian school of pentateuchal criticism, which argues for its attribution instead to the pre-exilic E-source. 56 Furthermore, and equally damaging to the overall argument, the connections Otto traces between this passage and passages in Jeremiah are not convincing. 57 Otto overcomes the paucity of evidence supporting references to Deut 34:10 12 by repeatedly asserting that this passage stands in the background when the book of Jeremiah cites other texts that, according to Otto s reconstruction, belong to 53 Otto confidently distinguishes between the exilic Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy and the post-exilic post-deuteronomistic Deuteronomy on the basis of particular themes that differentiate the two redactions (cf., for example, Otto, Das Deuteronomium [2000] ; idem, OTE 19 [2006] 941, idem, Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 174). Otto s distinction between a Horeb-redaction and a Moab-redaction, however, is hypercritical and succumbs to the pseudo-historicism criticized by Sommer, The Pentateuch (2011) For a well-considered alternative model, see Baden, Composition (2012), ; Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses (2014) (see also below, pp ). 54 Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses (2014). 55 Cf., for example, the statements in Otto, OTE 19 (2006) 939, idem, ZAR 12 (2006) , 262, 265, ; idem, Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 175, Baden, Composition (2012) , 120, 148, 185; Yoo, JBL 131 (2012) ; Stackert, A Prophet like Moses (2014) Otto claims a direct allusion to Deut 34:10 12 only in Jer 1:10 (citing Fischer, Jeremia 1 25 [2005] 136). He points out that Jer 1:10 attributes to Jeremiah functions such as building up, tearing down, rebuilding, etc., that elsewhere in the book are attributed to Yahweh. Otto then claims that the only other passage in the Hebrew Bible that similarly attributes divine functions to a human is Deut 34:11, and he bases a connection between the two texts on this observation (ZAR 12 [2006] 267). This observation, however, overlooks other pentateuchal passages that attribute divine functions to Moses. Stackert has, for instance, identified this conflation of the activity of Yahweh and Moses as a characteristic of though not limited to the J source (Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch [2012] 51).

24 I. History of Scholarship 11 the same post-exilic literary layer as Deut 34: Such arguments, however, assume what needs to be proven. If the authors of Jeremiah were so concerned to refute the theory of revelation embedded in Deut 34:10 12, why do they never cite it? While the contextualizing of the interactions between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy as part of a post-exilic debate is not convincing, Otto has successfully demonstrated that certain texts in Jeremiah attempt to overturn or subvert passages, primarily from Deuteronomy, that restrict post-mosaic revelation. These observations mark an important advance on previous work since most of the parallels he analyzes appear in passages attributable to DtrJ. Thus, based on detailed examination of the interpretive processes at work in actual usages of Deuteronomy, Otto finds resistance to Deuteronomy in precisely those passages that the other scholars have found a simple relationship of authority. These recent efforts of Rom-Shiloni and Otto demonstrate the continued importance of the question of the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. Both scholars selected particular parallels and drew widely diverging conclusions about the nature of the relationship between the books. Rom-Shiloni concluded that Jeremiah, in both prose and poetry, drew on the authority of Deuteronomy without any hints of resistance, transformation, or subversion. Otto, on the other hand, pointed out a tension between a late redaction in Jeremiah and the post-exilic redactor of the Pentateuch that centers on the idea of post-mosaic revelation. The disagreement on the nature of reuse points to the need to address the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy anew and to move beyond the impasse by addressing the full range of allusions in the book a prospect neither scholar attempts. Given the ubiquity of connections between these books, any kind of selectivity of parallels for analysis runs the risk of distorting the potentially nuanced perspectives embedded in them. What is needed is an analysis of all the parallels to Deuteronomy in Jeremiah. Bringing this survey of scholarship to a close, a number of trends can be noted. First, much of the discussion of the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy has been dominated by the correlation between Deuteronomistic language and themes and redactional portions of the book. For these analyses, the fact of a connection to Deuteronomy has often been afforded greater import than the nature of the connection. For the prose passages marked with Deuteronomistic language, the relationship to Deuteronomy has been assumed to 58 Several examples of this procedure are worth quoting. Arguing that the authors of Jer 36 allude to the Sinai pericope, Otto makes the following claim: Quoting the Sinai pericope implies that they presupposed the epitaph of the Pentateuch [Deut 34:10 12], which is part of the same postexilic Pentateuch redaction as the verses in Exod 32 and 34 that were quoted in the book of Jeremiah (Pentateuch as Torah [2007] 179; also in ZAR 12 [2006] ). Arguing that Jer 26:1 5 alludes to Deut 4, Otto reasons that this means that the scribal authors of Jer 26:1 5 also presupposed Deut 34:10 12 as the hermeneutical key to the Priestly Pentateuch, which was part of the same literary layer as Deut 4:1 44 (Pentateuch as Torah [2007] ).

25 12 Chapter One: Introduction reflect a simple adoption of Deuteronomy s authoritative status. This perspective persists from Duhm to Thiel and is followed also by scholars such as Holladay and Leuchter who argue for the common authorship of Deuteronomistic prose and poetic passages. In this regard, Otto s suggestion of an underlying rejection of Deuteronomy s theory of revelation is particularly significant. Scholars who consider the poetic oracles to represent a different layer of tradition than the DtrJ passages have addressed the perspective on Deuteronomy embedded in these oracles primarily in passages that supposedly refer to the torah Deuteronomy but do not use it most prominently Jer 8:8 (cf. also 2:8). For such scholars, the poetic oracles register either ambivalence with respect to Deuteronomy (Duhm) or outright rejection of it (Hyatt). In these discussions, examples of actual uses of Deuteronomy in poetic texts play a relatively minor role. Such an approach has pitfalls. First, more caution should be exerted in imagining the reference of torah in these passages a reference to Deuteronomy is not certain. 59 Second, others have noted that it is particular users of the written torah that are rejected in Jer 8:8 rather than the torah itself. 60 Important as such considerations are, the actual use of Deuteronomy in the poetic oracles should surely play a role. The present study will intervene in this discussion by addressing directly and comprehensively the nature of the literary relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy through an analysis of actual uses of Deuteronomy. II. Allusion Answering the questions set forward by the study requires a nuanced approach to literary reuse. This study s methodological basis for analyzing this phenomenon finds its basis in work on the nature of allusion as a general literary phenomenon 61 as well as in scholarship that has focused on the phenomenon within biblical literature. In the latter category, the approach of scholars such as Michael Fishbane, Bernard Levinson, and Benjamin Sommer, who have highlighted the presence of allusions within biblical texts and outlined their dynamics, provides a useful point of departure. 62 While the recognition of a hermeneutical element 59 Note the caution McKane rightly urges on this point: We do not necessarily for example, have an indication of the unfavourable attitude of the prophet to the second law the code of Deuteronomy. A more general interpretation of the allusion should also be allowed, namely, that the prophet is concerned with what he regards as false rulings in connection with contemporary issues which he believes to be crucial (Jeremiah I XXV [1986] 186). 60 Cf. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (1986) Ben-Porat, PTL 1 (1976) ; Perri, Poetics 7 (1978) ; Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) ; idem, PL 28 (2004) ; Machacek, PMLA 122 (2007) Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation (1985); Levinson, Hermeneutics (1997); idem, Legal Revision (2008); Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998).

26 II. Allusion 13 in biblical literature is not new, 63 these scholars have demonstrated the often transformative nature of this process within biblical literature, its pervasiveness in certain parts of the canon, and its theoretical grounding. 64 While they are not the first to notice connections between texts, their contribution has been to offer a pronounced insistence on the sustained attention to the modes and methods of inner-biblical interpretation and what the hermeneutics of textual reuse tells us about the texts that engage in it. Claims about connections between biblical texts, however, are pervasive in the scholarly literature and often under-theorized. Vital to the task at hand is the establishing of methodological requirements and controls that will govern the identification and interpretation of literary parallels between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. While there are a number of different types of literary connections between texts, the goal of this study is to discover the perspectives on Deuteronomy in specific uses of it. As such, the form of literary dependence most relevant is allusion. This phenomenon can be defined as a literary device by which an author intentionally but indirectly refers to another literary work. 65 An allusion is intentional in the sense that it is a literary device employed by an author for a particular purpose. 66 It is indirect in the sense that the relevant intended associations between the two texts are not explicitly outlined by the author but rather require a reader to infer the meaning of the reference based on their knowledge of the source text as well as understanding of the alluding text. 67 Allusions can be contrasted with other forms of literary dependence. Sommer s typology of forms of dependence is useful. Influence represents a broader phenomenon in which the style and shape of one work is formed in relation to another but where interaction with specific passages does not occur. 68 The poetry of Milton, for example, may be said to have influenced much subsequent English poetry even in the absence of references to specific passages. Also distinct from allusion is what Sommer calls echo. 69 An echo reproduces language from another text, but does not invoke broader associations from the 63 See especially Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur (2011) 5 34, where he traces the roots of the methodology of inner-biblical interpretation to the very beginnings of modern biblical criticism, highlighting in particular its connection to redactional criticism. Cf. also Levinson s bibliographic essay dealing with significant contributions to inner-biblical exegesis in the history of scholarship in Legal Revision (2008) Fishbane deals with the entire canon; Levinson primarily with legal exegesis in Deuteronomy; Sommer specifically with allusion in Second Isaiah. 65 Cf. especially Perri, Poetics 7 (1978) 292 and Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) This approach should not be confused with the synchronic post-structuralist study of intertextuality. See Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) 6 10; Irwin, PL 28 (2004) Perri, Poetics 7 (1978) 292; Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) Ibid.,

27 14 Chapter One: Introduction source text. 70 In an echo there is no discernible interpretative process, no invocation of a literary context. Sommer distinguishes also exegesis as an overt attempt to explain the meaning of an earlier text. 71 According to Sommer, exegesis differs from allusion in being direct rather than indirect, in having no independent existence in the world of the new text. The line between exegesis and allusion is particularly blurry, as Sommer admits, since both involve reference to specific texts that involve explicit interpretative processes. As such, exegesis can be considered a subset of allusion. In distinction from other forms of literary dependence, this study will focus on allusion since it provides the most direct access to an author s interpretative use of and perspective on another text. For an allusion to function as a literary device, it requires what Ziva Ben-Porat calls a marker, which is some element or pattern belonging to another independent text. 72 The marker must remain recognizable but regularly goes through a transformation from its original form. 73 The transformation of the source is, in fact, potentially significant to the allusion s meaning. 74 The interpretation of the allusion requires the reader to recognize the marker, identify the source text, and then to modify their interpretation of the alluding text in terms of associations drawn from the source text. 75 How these associations work cannot be predetermined. They rely rather on an understanding of the source text as well as the alluding text shared by the author and reader. 76 The relevant associations invoked by the allusion are not limited to the specific features of the source text presented by the marker. Ben-Porat refers to this phenomenon as the metonymic structure of the relationship sign-referent which characterizes all allusions: an object is represented by one of its components. 77 In other words, more of the source text is often relevant than what is explicitly pointed to by the marker. In some cases, the entirety of the source text can be invoked. 78 At the same time, as Carmela Perri comments, even when a text in its entirety is activated by an allusion, only certain aspects or associations of the source text are drawn in by the allusion. 79 In every case, it is up to the reader to discover what associations are potentially relevant. The following example, drawn primarily from Perri s discussion of the allusion to Hamlet in T. S. Eliot s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, provides a 70 Cf. also Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) Sommer, A Prophet Reads (1998) Ben-Porat, PTL 1 (1976) Ibid., A point emphasized by Machacek, PMLA 122 (2007) Ben-Porat, PTL 1 (1976) Perri, Poetics 7 (1978): 292; Irwin, JAAC 59 (2001) Ben-Porat, PTL 1 (1976) Ibid., Perri, Poetics 7 (1978) 295.