In search of Carroll's Jeremiah (Or: Good old Jerry, did he really live? Question irrelevant!)

Transcription

1 60 In search f Carrll's Jeremiah (Or: Gd ld Jerry, did he really live? Questin irrelevant!) J H le Rux (UP) ABSTRACT At the 1993 meeting f the Suth Africal sciety fr Old Testament Studies the cnstructin f cntexts fr Old Testament texts was discussed. The cngress was privileged t have Rbert Carrll as ne f its guests. It was therefre decided that ne paper shuld be devted t Carrll's interpretatin f Jerenuah and the manner in which he treated the s-called histrical Jeremiah. This article is a brief discriptin f Carrll's views in this regard. It is stated that Carrll's cmmentary shuld nt be used t search fr the histrical Jeremiah. Apparently such a persn did nt exist, r put differently: in the bk f Jeremiah clear traces f such a histrical persn and his 'ipsissima verba ' are lacking. Carrll's cmmentary has ther aims in mind amngst thers t describe the idelgies at wrk in the frmatin f the bk f Jeremiah. S Our 1993 cngress dealt with cntext cnstructin (with special reference t the prphet Jeremiah). It investigated the pssibility f whether a cntext fr the prphet culd be cnstructed. Jeremiah 1:1-3 purprts t be the wrds f Jeremiah ben Hilkiah frm Anathth. All the wrds in the bk f Jeremiah must therefre be attributed t him. At certain pints in the bk Jeremiah is described as a great prphet. But can we read the bk as a histrically accurate prtrayal f the man Jeremiah? Can we accept the bk as an authentic rendering f Jeremiah's sayings, deeds, adventures and travels? Perhaps the majrity f Old Testament schlars wuld answer in the affirmative. Rbert Carrll, hwever, had a different view. This paper is devted t a brief discussin f his thughts n Jeremiah as explained by him in his cmmentary (Carrll 1986). At the utset tw imprtant remarks must be made. First, this paper is far frm cnflete. In rder

2 OLD TESTAMENT ESSAYS 7 (1994), 7-20 ] 1 t discuss certain tpics in greater detail, aspects f Carrll's Jeremiah study had t be left ut. Subjects like the histry f research, the relatinship between the Greek Jeremiah and the Hebrew Jeremiah, the relatinship between prse and petry, the Bamch figure, the cmpsitin f the bk, et cetera, were nt discussed. Secnd, this paper has a Suth African 'flavur': Carrll has been adapted fr ur cnditins and thse things that may be f sme imprtance t us highlighted. Befre we cmmence, a brief evaluatin f Carrll's cmmentary (Carrll 1986) will be given. 5 -S CO (1) h is smething cmpletely different than the usual cmmentary. Carrll had ther interests in mind and had a 'Carrllian' way f reading the text (cf Carrll 1986:38-50). Sme features f his apprach are discussed belw. (2) Carrll was nt interested in the histrical Jeremiah. N bigraphical infrmatin abut the prphet is prvided and his cntext is never discussed. On the first page f his cmmentary Carrll states that 'neither a birth nr a death ntice is prvided fr him, s the bk cannt be cnsidered t be a bigraphy' (C ar r ll 1986:33). (3) Clsely related t the abve is the fact that Carrll's expsitin is never related t a histrical persn. He des nt perate with the histrical Jeremiah and that figure never frms the centre f his investigatin. Put differently, Carrll is nt interested in the 'ipsissima verba Jeremiae' (Carrll 1986:39). The text f Jeremiah must therefre nt be read as a histrically accurate prtrayal f the man Jeremiah, and the bk des nt cntain 'a recrd f his sayings, deeds, adventures, and travels' (Carrll 1986:34). Hw des Carrll then apprach the bk Jeremiah? (4) Carrll fcuses n the 'redactinal rganizatin f the many units and blcks f material cnstituting the bk'. Accrding t him, the 'greater degree f develpment and a lnger perid f gestatin in the cnstructin f the bk' must be taken seriusly. In ther wrds, the 'essentially creative rle f the editrs' must be highlighted (Carrll 1986:57). (5) The cmmentary excellently illustrates the way in which idelgies wrk. All the characters (individuals as well as grups) are 'driven' by idelgies. Althugh Carrll des nt describe 'idelgy critique', his apprach is extremely illuminating. He pens new pssibilities fr the understanding f the text as well as the histry f the rigin f the bk f Jeremiah. (6) CarrU requires much frm the reader. He clearly states his apprach: 'It is nt an exhaustive exegesis f the text' (Carrll 1986:83). N lengthy discussins n histrical r textual matters can be fund. He merely hints at r alludes t events, peple, actins, et cetera. The reader, hwever, is expected t cmplete his wn stry. (7) Clsely related t the previus pint is the vagueness which can be fund in the cmmentary. Many terms r expressins were used withut fur- u

3 62 & ther explanatin. T mentin but a few examples: Carrll ften refers t the 'Jeremiah traditin' but withut explaining the term; the imprtant prcess f editing is nt elabrated n; the deuternmistic editing is nt fully explained either, the different grups are nt described prperly, et cetera. Carrll prbably did this intentinally: it was his way f frcing the reader t cntinue the 'Carrllian stry'. (8) There is a certain lightness in Carrll's wrk. T sme this lightness might be unbearable but it makes the cmmentary a wnderful reading experience. On the ne hand, n-ne is taken very seriusly: the histrical Jeremiah is nt be reckned with, the Gd f Israel is als subjected t severe criticism, n exegete has the final wrd even the Carrll wh wrte a cmmentary n the bk f Jeremiah is nt taken seriusly by the Carrll frm Glasgw. In shrt, Carrll wants t cntribute t the demystificatin f the Old Testament (and the bk f Jeremiah). His cmmentary endeavurs t keep faith with the twentieth century by putting a certain kind f questin t the text. Such questining is a bld attempt t mve away 'frm the tendency t enshrud the Bible, r parts f it, in mystificatin whereby the reader is bund t believe whatever it is purprted t say' (Carrll 1986:83). On the ther hand, Carrll wants t play. Expsitin is a game and the players have a variety f pssibilities. Nthing in the text must be restricted t ne meaning r ne explanatin nly. Each student f the bk f Jeremiah must becme part f the great interpretatin game. And since many gateways give access t the bk, each ne is invited t apply his individual strategy f reading. (9) Carrll's cmmentary is nt a guide t sermn-making in the traditinal sense f the wrd (cf Carrll 1991:7-33). N guidelines n the subject are prvided. The clsest we get t sme 'sermn stuff is n the last page. There, Carrll cmments n Evil-merdach's release f Jehiachin frm prisn. It is, hwever, imprtant t nte that the accunt f the release des nt derive frm Jeremiah but is an appendix taken frm the Deuternmistic Histry. Accrding t Carrll this final statement clses the bk f Jeremiah n 'a brief nte f quietness and, dare ne say, grace (human, f curse)... the bk ends with a tuching depictin f human kindness enacted between human beings. It may even be a beginning...' (Carrll 1986:874). That is all. Nthing mre is said. A THE VALUE OF CARROLL'S COMMENTARY FOR CON- TEXT CONSTRUCTION S In what sense can Carrll's cmmentary help us t study the bk f Jeremiah histrically? We mentin a few aspects f his cntributin (cf Carrll 1981:5-30; 1986:33-86). First, text study is indispensable. Histrical inquiry can never be separated frm a clse reading f the text. Histrical investigatin implies clse scrutiny. In this regard it is imprtant t nte Carrll's use f irny (cf Carrll 1986:223,224,258,

4 OLD TESTAMENT ESSAYS 7 (1994), 7-20 ] 1 260,261,280,663,673,677). This literary device enabled him t detect cntrasts which illuminated the histrical cntext f the cmpilers. Secnd, the (histrical) imaginatin is f utmst imprtance. Carrll's cmmentary therefre invites us t use ur imaginatin and t make creative recnstructins. Third, daring hyptheses are part and parcel f histrical inquiries. Never shuld we avid risky hyptheses. His cmmentary stimulates the reader t becme a 'thelgical dare-devil'. There are n limits fr thse wh want t take schlarly risks. Fur, waste n time n the search fr the histrical Jeremiah. He is buried under many layers f interpretatin and cannt be rescued anymre! Five, try t understand the lng prcess f editing as well as the idelgies that guided the editrs. Six, we have nthing mre than eches f the ancient wrld. These traces are nevertheless imprtant and must be carefully traced by the histrian. B DO NOT LOOK FOR JEREMIAH IN fflstorical AC- COUNTS Right at the utset it must be stated that the bk f Jeremiah is nt a histrical dcument and shuld nt be treated as such. Many a unit 'shuld be treated as a fabricated stry rather than a histrical accunt' a, (Carrll 1986:656). Sme stries 'make fr pr histry but they can cntribute t the stryteller's art' (Carrll 1986:702). Mst f the stries in the Jeremiah bk shuld nt be read 'as realistic descriptins f histry r as serius accunts f what happened' (Carrll 1986:708). Instead f reading the narratives as histrical dcuments we must realise that many stries were tld t fill sme imprtant 'histrical' g A s (Carrll 1986:711). Sme stries are histrically imprbable 'thugh (they are) in keeping with the style f strytelling' (Carrll 1986:713). Many acts f the prphet Jeremiah were nt real but magical (cf Carrll 1986:295,484,486,500,501,533,726,752,757,855). The histricity f events is impssible t determine and ne must refrain frm such an undertaking (Carrll 1986:727,736). We must rather becme acquainted with the idelgies underlying the s-called histrical narratives; histrical 'facts' are A parently fabricated and d nt exist independently (cf Carrll 1986:739). What cncerned the editrs were nt histrical but thelgical factrs and this therefre 'helps t explain why it is s difficult t disentangle histry frm thelgy in the bk f Jeremiah' S

5 64 (Carrll 1986:484). C THE HISTORICAL JEREMIAH IS ABSENT FROM THE TEXT O M צי! -a s a, The bk f Jeremiah is thus nt a histry bk. Cnsequently: there is n way f finding the histrical Jeremiah in the bk bearing his name. Put differently, the histrical Jeremiah is absent frm the text. The few details f his life which appear in the text are 'tantalizingly incmplete' and pen t a 'variety f interpretatins' (Carrll 1986:33). At times he was assciated with the temple in Jerusalem, 'but mre generally his mvements are bscure and it is difficult t lcate him in Jerusalem sciety with any degree f cnfidence' (Carrll 1986:33). This statement was made at the beginning f the bk and it must be kept in mind while reading Carrll's cmmentary. Belw, this statement is illustrated by means f a few examples. Perhaps we can summarise the fllwing paragraphs in these wrds But Jeremiah was nt where we expected him t bel Jeremiah's absence frm very imprtant scenes is an intriguing phenmenn in the bk. Ntrius is his absence frm the events immediately fllwing the fall (Carrll 1986: ). Jeremiah 40:7-41:18 describes Gedaliah's gvernrship and Carrll depicts it as 'a unique sectin' in Its uniqueness lies in the fact that Jeremiah cmpletely disappears frm the stry until 42:1-2. Jeremiah thus plays n part in the crises that the cmmunity faces during and after the assassinatin f Gedaliah. Althugh Jeremiah was entrusted t Gedaliah (39:14) and even stayed with him in Mizpah (40:6) he disappears frm the scene until the crises are ver. Jeremiah's absence is inexplicable and when he appears again his rle is very restricted: he merely fllws the grup t Egypt. This disq)pearance in a time f crisis is ntewrthy because the image f Jeremiah 'amng the peple' is stressed in His absence frm the scene when he was needed mst is all the mre remarkable because the traditin depicts Jeremiah as 'the prphet fr all seasns'. Hw shuld this be explained? If these chapters were t be treated as a histrical wrk the prblems wuld be insuperable. But if they are read as stries Jeremiah's absence becmes less prblematic. In the narrative wrld f Gedaliah Jeremiah is dispensable. These narratives make pr histry but they 'cntribute t the stryteller's art'. In

6 OLD TESTAMENT ESSAYS 7 (1994), 7-20 ] 1 g telling 'the stry f Gedaliah's cmmunity are the editrs blithely unaware that they have left ut Jeremiah?' Perhaps. (Carrll 1986:701, 702). There is n pint in searching fr bigraphical infrmatin (cf Carrll 1981:31-58). It just des nt exist. It is, fr instance, ridiculus t ask questins with regard t Jeremiah's marital state because Jeremiah 16:1-9 must nt be understd literally. In ther wrds, it is nt a recrd f histrical r literal events. We must rather cnsider the cnstructive part played by the editrs f the Jeremiah traditin: frm many and different materials they wanted t recnstruct the life and times f man called Jeremiah. N definite answers regarding Jeremiah's state f marriage can therefre be reached. One cannt even say whether he was a celibate r nt. Carrll wuld answer bigraphical questins thus: 'the text des nt permit us t answer such a questin because it is nt the unmediated recrd f smebdy's life' (Carrll 1986:341). What Carrll said abut the editing f Jeremiah 16:1-9 must be taken int accunt by thse searching fr autbigraphical infrmatin in this text. Accrding t Carrll the editing f Jeremiah 16:1-9 has imprtant implicatins fr the histrical Jeremiah. In its final frm this text des indeed mve in the directin f autbigraphical statements abut the life f its prtagnist. There is, hwever, ne imprtant shrtcming: the rest f the material was nt transfrmed 'int a cnsistent accunt f this mtif. It is therefre better t read the final text (as it nw stands) as statements addressed t a cmmunity rather than autbigraphical statements abut Jeremiah's marital state (Carrll 1986:341). Sme laments in the bk f Jeremiah (e g 11:18-12:6; 15:10-21; 17:12-18; 18:19-23; 20:7-18) are interpreted as persnal statements f the prphet Jeremiah. These laments/pems are then described as an accunt f Jeremiah's persnal struggles, as his 'cnfessins', as a depictin f his mystical experiences, et cetera. Jeremiah is thus painted as an Augustine r a Russeau 'ffering his innermst thughts and feelings as thelgical cmmentary n his life and times'. Frm the pems he emerges as a man struggling with dubt, questining the existence f Gd, fearing dryness f sul, et cetera. Such a reading f the text has cntributed t a mythical understanding f the prphet Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:277).

7 66 cs Cu, (1) Jeremiah 17:5-8 must nt be treated frm the viewpint f 'the bigraphical interpretatin'. What we have in these verses is the amalgam f many discrete editrial strands and traditins (Carrll 1986:353). (2) The presence f gnmic r wisdm sayings (Jeremiah 17:11) in n way cntributes t a picture f the s-called histrical Jeremiah as an intelligent, creative and well-educated prphet (Carrll 1986:357). (3) Sme treat Jeremiah 18:19-23 as anther f Jeremiah's 'cnfessins'. We must, hwever, take int accunt that the applicatin f the laments t Jeremiah 'is but a secndary use f them' (Carrll 1986: ). (4) Any apprach reading 20:7-13 as utterances by Jeremiah 'is therefre unwarranted and mistaken' (Carrll 1986:401). Sme peple make Jeremiah the speaker in 23:16-22, but this must be rejected (Carrll 1986:463). It is assumed that Jeremiah is the ne addressed in Jeremiah 23: Accrding t Carrll the undefined addressee shuld be allwed t remain annymus 'because what fllws is set ut as a series f variatins n a standard respnse t a questin' (Carrll ). (5) Jeremiah 26 is a stry cnstructed t make certain pints and is 'nt an accunt f histrical incident in the life f Jeremiah' (Carrll 1986:514). Hw shuld we treat the verses describing a slitary (prphetic?) figure. D they refer t a prphet called 'Jeremiah'? Mst certainly nt! The basic prblem is that cmmunal statements are read as individual nes (Carrll 1986:300). (1) In Jeremiah 4:19-22 the speaker cries ut in pain. Quite ften this speaker is identified with the riginal/histrical Jeremiah and the pem is als described as ne f the prphet's cnfessins. Accrding t Carrll this cannt be the case. Such a view is dependent n peple's views abut the prphet and sciety, Jeremiah and his cmmunity. Furthermre, the redactinal framewrk f Jeremiah 1:1 'can hardly be extended t the pint where it must necessarily prvide reliable infrmatin abut the riginal meaning f the individual pems in the cllectin' (Carrll 1986:167). (2) Jeremiah 15:10-14 is ften used t depict Jeremiah as a slitary יי

8 OLD TESTAMENT ESSAYS 7 (1994), 7-20 ] 1 hermit cursed by the cmmunity. First f all, this reference must nt be read literally r bigraphically; it des nt prvide any histrical infrmatin abut Jeremiah, the prphet. Secndly, if it des refer t Jeremiah he des nt deserve any cmpassin: accrding t traditin Jeremiah cursed the peple and he delivered lng cruel threats against them 'why shuld the peple nt curse him in return!' (Carrll 1986:326). (3) Jeremiah 15:19-21 is ften treated as representing utterances f the prphet. This interpretatin has led t a specific understanding f Jeremiah: his utterances were treated as the cradle f individual religin and the paradigm f the suffering servant which was imitated by many in the histry f the church. Accrding t Carrll these verses (as well as the ther s-called cnfessins) shuld rather be treated as fabricatins f the editrs. This can, fr instance, be seen in the highly cnventinal nature f these verses: cnventinal frms were used t express the individual's (r the grup's) innermst feelings and are nt related t the real wrld f a prphet called Jeremiah. In these 'cnventinal frms, reality, except in a mst general way, is claked and the exegesis f the pems inevitably becmes a statement f pssible rather than f definitive meanings' (Carrll 1986:337). Jeremiah 15:15-18 must nt be treated 'as the persnal utterances f Jeremiah' and therefre des 'nt entail a bigraphical' understanding (Carrll 1986:332, 333). Quite ften the first r secnd persn singular appears in the text. Thse wh accept the text at face value as utterances f the prphet Jeremiah have n difficulty in ascribing them t the prphet. Accrding t Carrll this is wrng. T illustrate, a few examples are nce again quted. (1) We first f all refer t Jeremiah 6: These verses bring 'the enemy frm the nrth cycle' t a clse. In verse 27 reference is made t 'yu' and this crrespnds t a similar usage in verses 5, 14 and 19. In Jeremiah 2:1; 3:6, and 11, '1' is used and in 2:1; 3:6,11 'me'. This figure is never identified in this blck and nly appears in the redactinal framewrk (1:1; 7:1; 11:1; 14:1; 18:1). A shadwy figure is the speaker in these verses. Althugh 'Jeremiah' is the mst likely candidate it is a mt pint whether the 'yu' f these fragments refers t

9 68 <N K him (Carrll 1986:205). (2) Althugh the fine pem in Jeremiah 4:23-26 is als set in the first persn singular it is nt frm the hand f a prphet named 'Jeremiah'. It shuld rather be treated as a later apcalyptic insertin. The dreadful experience f Jerusalem's destructin gave rise t A XKalyptic reflectin and these verses eches this thinking (Carrll 1986:168). (3) Jeremiah 5:1-6 is a justificatin fr the fall f Jerusalem. In ther wrds, Yahweh's destructive acts need sme vindicatin and these verses serve exactly that purpse. The deity summned smene t search the streets f Jerusalem fr ne righteus persn. Althugh the pem purprts t be a dialgue between Yahweh and Jeremiah, this is impssible: the address in verse 1 is in the plural frm (Carrll 1986:175). (4) Once again the first persn singular is used in Jeremiah 8:18-9:1. Althugh sme have identified the speaker with the prphet Jeremiah this view must be rejected. It 'is an illegitimate mve' t treat these verses as an expressin f Jeremiah's persnal feelings. N evidence can be fund in them f his neness f feeling with the cmmunity. He was just t critical t shw any signs f slidarity (Carrll 1986: ). There are just t many tensins in the text t ascribe the bk t Jeremiah. This is an imprtant pint and perh A s a majr reasn nt t attempt t write a bigraphy f the histrical Jeremiah. Jeremiah is nt a split persnality and can therefre nt say ne thing nw and the reverse awhile later. (1) Sme hear the vice f Jeremiah in Jeremiah 10:1-16, but this is impssible. This unit's 'eths' is s different frm the rest f the bk 'that it is impssible t see hw Jeremiah culd have uttered it' (Carrll 1986:254). In the previus chapters sciety is cndemned in n uncertain terms. Sciety is guilty f idlatry, scial injustices, apstasy and many ther atrcities. Suddenly the peple are addressed in eirenic terms. A sympathetic tne can be heard which differs greatly frm the previus sectins. And t link Jeremiah t these verses is 'a substantial leap f the imaginatin' (Carrll 1986: ). (2) The histrical Jeremiah's vice can als nt be heard in Jeremiah 31. These pems prclaim a wnderful future, breathe an air f delight.

10 OLD TESTAMENT ESSAYS 7 (1994), 7-20 ] 1 צי! and rejice in a life lived in a rural setting. These wrds cannt cme frm smene depicted by traditin as sur and alienated frm all cmmunal activities, and 'incapable f speaking kindly withut adding even mre wrds f judgment'. They were created by different circles and incrprated int the Jeremiah traditin by redactrs at a later stage (Carrll 1986:588). (3) Tensin als ccurs in the racles against the natins. Perhaps the central prblem f these racles is their relatinship t Jeremiah. It seems impssible that the preacher wh prclaimed Jerusalem's destructin can be als be a speaker f the racles. It is difficult t recncile the call t submissin t Babyln in chapters with the views n Babyln's imminent fall. T argue that a paradigm shift tk place after 587 and that the prphet nw had a different utlk n matters des nt cnvince. We must rather state that the descriptins f Babyln (Nebuchadnezzar) as Yahweh's servant (27:6) and as the dragn (51:34) indicate 'the incmpatibility f the imagery as well as authrship'. All attempts t link Jeremiah t the Oracles Against the Natins depend 'upn the prir thery that the bk represents the utterances f the histrical Jeremiah rather than the cnstructin f the editrial framewrk'. Jeremian authrship is nly claimed in the redactinal framewrk (46:1,13; 47:1; 49:34; 50:1). Nthing in the pems 'necessitates identifying the speaker as Jeremiah'. Any debate abut the authrship f the racles is therefre ttally beside the pint (Carrll 1986:754). Perhiqjs Carrll's cmmentary n 50:1 can als be applied t the authrship prblem f the racles. If such a pem were t be attributed t the 'histrical Jeremiah", it wuld raise the insuperable prblem f recnciling the speaker f this anti-babylnian utburst with the image f Jeremiah as a friend f Babyln... The mental reservatins required t hld bth views tgether (never mind the prblems f cnfusing the peple!) are hardly eased by prpsing a sequential aspect t the beliefs... and t attempt t recncile all these aspects f the traditin is t prduce a chimerical Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:816). D JEREMIAH IS TOTALLY 'OUTDATED' S S 00 The bk f Jeremiah is nt a histry bk! Carrll has ften stressed u

11 70 u e S this pint. The few details f Jeremiah's life that can be fund in the text are 'tantalizingly incmplete' and pen t a 'variety f interpretatins' (Carrll 1986:33). Thugh he is at times assciated with the temple in Jerusalem, at thers his mvements are bscure and it is difficult t determine his place in Jerusalem sciety (Carrll 1986:33). Dating becmes extremely difficult because f the generality f descriptins (Carrll 1986:453). Furthermre, the bk f Jeremiah shws n interest in precise dating. This is clearly illustrated by the reference t the 'seventy years' in 25:8-14. It is f n avail t determine its his trical accuracy r the duratin f the perid, r even the perid being referred t. Exact dating is nly 'an argument if such a cncern with precisin can be shwn t be a feature f the bk (f Jeremiah)' (Carrll 1986:494 cf514). In the bk f Jeremiah there are just t many 'flating units' demnstrating 'the flexibility f the redactinal cnstructin f the bk', which are impssible t attribute t the time f Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:586). If the dating f the different sectins is taken int accunt, Jeremiah des nt fit int any era! י The prlgue, 1:1-19 is a 'pst-deuternmistic editrial intrductin' (Carrll 1986:90); 2:5-4:2 pints 'in the directin f editrial emphases' (Carrll 1986: 117; cf 115, 118, 123,124, 128,131,135, ,150) and was cmpsed t explain the disasters f Jerusalem's fall (Carrll 1986:118); 4:3-4 this 'piece cmes frm the Deuternmistic editing' and is a later interpretatin f events (Carrll 1986: ; 4:13-14 is 'an appeal t the pst-catastrphe cmmunity t change its ways' and it reflects histry as it develped after 587 (Carrll 1986:164); 4:19-22 is ften interpreted as ne f Jeremiah's s-called cnfessins; this view is 'a much disputed ne' and it 'can hardly... prvide reliable infrmatin' (Carrll 1986:167); althugh sme attributed 4:23-26 t Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:168); 'it is better 4:27-28 viewed is as 'better a later taken apcalyptic as a later insertin glss' int (Carrll the cycle' 1986: 170); 5:1-6 is 'an idelgical dispute abut religius practices' and it 'reflects the pst-catastrphe struggles fr dminance in rganizing the cmmunity's re- ligius life' (Carrll 1986:177); 5:7-25 als reflect in many ways the influence f later editrs (Carrll 1986:179,180,183,185,187); 5:26-29 must be cnnected with the pst-exilic divisin f sciety int the pius and the wicked (Carrll 1986:189); 5:30-31 can prbably be placed in the time f Third Isaiah (Carrll 1986:190); 6:1-5 cnsists f steretypical language and is difficult t date (Carrll 1986:192); 6:16-21: this unit was cmpiled by the deuternmistic editr (Carrll 1986:200); 7:1-15 is steeped in deuternmistic language and is very late (Carrll 1986:210); 8:18-9:1 is clearly nt frm Jeremiah's hand and des nt express his persnal feelings (Carrll 1986:235,236); 9:2-6 was shaped by redactrs int a divine utterance as part f the prcess t make

12 OLD TESTAMENT ESSAYS 7 (1994), 7-20 ] 1 S S CO u 5 v 6 03 Jeremiah the speaker f the pems (Carrll 1986:239); 9:7-11 belngs t the pst-catastrphe redactin (Carrll 1986:242); 9:12-16 reflects a particular idelgy f the exile (Carrll 1986:243); 9:17-22 is the wrk f editrs (Carrll 1986:243); 9:23-24 riginated in pius circles and is therefre nt frm the hand f Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:248); 11:18-12:6. 15:10-21, 17:12-18, 18:19-23, 20:7-18 are usually called the 'cnfessins f Jeremiah' but they are cmmunal laments and nly later attached t Jeremiah (Carrll 1986: ); 11:21-23 and 32:7-9 d nt refer t histrical events and are nt frm Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:281); 12:1-6 shws signs f pst-exilic redactin (Carrll 1986:284); 7 reveals a number f deuternmistic elements which pint away frm Jeremiah t editrial circles (Carrll 1986:291); 13:1-11 demnstrates the cncerns f the Deuternmists (Carrll 1986:294); 13:12-14 must be treated as the prduct f a later perid (Carrll 1986:299); 13:15-17 was initially a cmmunity respnse (Carrll 1986:300); 13:20-27 is prbably very late; 14:1-15:4 is the wrk f editrs after the fall (Carrll 1986:318,320,321); 15:5-21 cannt be attributed t Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:332,333,342); 16:1-18 cntains n histrical infrmatin abut the prphet Jeremiah and is the prduct f the Jeremian editrs (Carrll 1986:342,344,346); 17:1-4 reveals deuternmistic redactin (Carrll 1986:349); 17:5-8 must nt be treated bigraphically (Carrll 1986:353); 17:9-10 is mst certainly nt frm Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:354); 17:11 is an independent prverb (Carrll 1896:357); 17:12-13 stems frm the hand f the editrs (Carrll 1986:359); 17:14-18 des nt cntain the utterances f the prphet Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:364,365); 17:19-27 reflects a stable cmmercial sciety and nt ne threatened by imminent destructin; the wrld f these verses resembles that f Nehemiah 13:15-18; 18:1-12 shws many signs f deuternmistic terminlgy; 18:13-77 is an element f the pst-catastrphe thelgising f Israel as a natin (Carrll 1986: 376); 18:18 must be read as a fragment f the struggle between different parties and ppsing idelgies f a later perid (Carrll 1986:379); 18:19-23 breathes the atmsphere f the laments which can be fund in the bk f Psalms; it highlights the tensins between the inncent sufferer and the wicked ppressrs; the cnnectin f these verses t Jeremiah is secndary and must nt be treated as his wrds (Carrll 1986: ); 19:1-13 is nt frm Jeremiah but represents a stage in the grwth f the Jeremiah figure it is the utcme f editrial wrk (Carrll 1986: ); 19:14-20:6 is very late and represents anther stage in the develpment f the Jeremiah figure (Carrll 1986: ); 20:7-13 is the wrds f smene representing the pst-exilic cmmunity (Carrll 1986:397); 20:14-18 are clearly nt frm the hand f Jeremiah (Carrll 1986: ); 21:1-24:10 emphasises a different attitude f Yahweh t the natin and represents the views f the pr-babylnian cmmunity (Carrll 1986:404); the presence f deuternmistic language as well as signs f editrial activity make it impssible t link this unit t Jeremiah directly (Carrll 1986: ,413,415,417,421,428,430,448,459); cnsists f tw sectins: verses 1-7, a deuternmistically influenced summary f Jeremiah's wrk frm 627 t 605, and verses 8-11, a pst-deuternmistic cnstructin (Carrll 1986:490); 26:1-24 des nt describe a real event in the life

13 72 <N f Jeremiah; 'as fictinal stry the narrative cannt be expected t answer questins asked abut histrical matters' (Carrll 1986:514); chapters 27:1-29:32 represent the wrld f the Chrnicles, Ezra and Daniel and riginated in the fifth century (Carrll 1986: ); the material in this cycle must be viewed as literary creatins rather than histrical events (Carrll 1986:566); 30:1-31:40 riginated in the circles that develped the Hsea-Secnd Isaiah utlk n the future f the Persians; this sectin was incrprated int the Jeremiah traditin at a late stage (Carrll 1986:570); 32:1-15 is a heavily edited chapter and must nt be treated as a histrical event (Carrll 1986:620,621); 32:16-25 reflects the great litanies f the Persian era and even later (Carrll 1986:625); 32:26-35 riginated in the circles that edited the Jeremiah traditin by attacking pagan practices (Carrll 1986:628); 32:36-41 did nt cme frm Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:629,630); 32:42-44 is prbably very late (Carrll 1986: 631,632); 33:1-13 is a supplement t 32 and is a pst-deuternmistic pstscript t the cycle f salvific expectatins in (Carrll 1986:634); 33:14-26 represents 'a minrity reprt in the Jeremiah traditin' and reflects the thinking f the Persian perid (Carrll 1986:639); 34:1-7 is frm the hand f an editr (Carrll 1986:642); 34:8-22 this is a midrash type f explanatin which was added t the Jeremiah traditin at a later stage; it illuminates smething f the exegetical activities f the cmmunities f the Persian time (Carrll 1986:647); 35:1-19 'shuld be treated as a fabricated stry rather than a histrical accunt' (Carrll 1986:656); accrding t sme, 36:1-32 affrds clues as t the rigin f the bk f Jeremiah; these references 'may nt reflect histrical events, but they d nt attribute Jeremiah's scribal activities t Baruch' (Carrll 1986:665); 37:1-45:5 is definitely nt frm Jeremiah; in these chapters Jeremiah 'fades frm view at certain pints f the narrative'; these chapters reflect, rather, the 'idelgical cnflict between the different Jewish cmmunities in Palestine, Babyln and Egypt frm the sixth century nwards' (Carrll 1986:670); 46:1-51:64 cannt be ascribed t Jeremiah (Carrll 1986: ); 52:1-34 is an appendix taken frm the Deuternmistic Histry (CarrU 1986:857ff). E JEREMIAH IS WELL AND ALIVE IN THE STORIES ABOUT HIM e s The editrs f the bk f Jeremiah emplyed the genre f the stry (and nt histry!). They wanted t make sense f Jerusalem's fall as well as the subsequent pain. In an attempt t understand, stries were tld. N histry was written but they indulged in strytelling. And stries 'can cnvey such teaching as effectively as any ther means'. It wuld 'be flish t insist that nly histry prvides the genre' t read and understand the bk f Jeremiah. Histrical accunts are nt the nly way t deal vwth the past (and, by the way, the bk f Jeremiah

14 OLD TESTAMENT ESSAYS 7 (1994) m ^ י is n histry bk!). Never must the influence f the stryteller be underestimated. The 'frce f narrative and stry fr making imprtant claims is nt derived frm apprximatin t histrical reality... but frm the imaginative pwer f the stryteller t make cnnectins between many discrete matters' (Carrll 1986:60). In the bk f Jeremiah many and different fragments are linked by means f stries; thelgical teachings are cnveyed in the many narratives; the art f the stryteller has enriched the many levels f the bk f Jeremiah. The figure f Jeremiah thus came t us in the frm f a stry. This implies that, if ne wants t understand, ne must listen carefully t the many stries. The events started smewhere in the sixth century BC. Peple were beginning t tell stries abut the bearers f the varius prphetic traditins. All kinds f narratives were gathered and built arund a figure called 'Jeremiah'. These 'Jeremiah stries' were all fabricated and shuld nt be treated as histrical reminiscences f the prphet. These 'Jeremiah stries' are nt cnsistent, but 'happily cntradict each ther'. These 'Jeremiah stries' were tld and retld frm ne generatin t the next. The Jeremiah traditin thus belngs 't the art f strytelling at hme in circles', which prduced the bk f Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:59). In shrt, Jeremiah is alive and well because he was (and is still) kept alive by the stries abut him. F THE FIGURE OF JEREMIAH DEVELOPED OVER MANY YEARS e s We must allw fr a develpment f Uie Jeremiah figure. Carrll saw an analgy in the grwth f the Baruch figure. Althugh a Baruch strand (32:12-13,16; 36; 43:3,6-7; 45) can be discerned in the Jeremiah traditin it is a brief ne and the Baruch figure remains bscure. These traces, hwever, prvided a basis fr the grwth f Baruch: they were the beginning f the develpment f an independent figure within the bk (Carrll f Jeremiah 1986:666). which Baruch develped ben Neriah further is intrduced the pst-exilic fr the first traditin time in Jeremiah 32:12. In this unit he witnessed Jeremiah's buying f family territry. in a jar He fr merely preservatin became 'the (Carrll custdian 1986:623). f the deeds' In chapter that were 36 placed Jeremiah delegates his authrity t Baruch. Baruch nw becmes his muthpiece. When Jeremiah is absent Baruch speaks fr him. Carrll

15 74 צי! -a s a, says: 'By absenting Jeremiah frm the temple, a rle is created fr Baruch' (Carrll 1986:665). His sudden appearance in 43:3,6-7 is inexplicable. He is prbably intrduced int the stry t explain Jeremiah's hstile attitude twards the plan t g t Egypt (Carrll 1986: 722). Accrding t chapter 45, Baruch received a prmise frm Jeremiah abut his persnal future (Carrll 1986:745ff). It is imprtant t nte that these 'inchate glimpses f a figure in the stry f Jeremiah' were develped further in the later literature. In due curse he develped int a character wh received his wn revelatins and gave instructins t Jeremiah (Carrll 1986:61). In the light f the abve, 'it is wrth speculating whether the figure f Jeremiah might nt have develped als frm equally mdest beginnings' (Carrll 1986:61). It seems prbable when the tw editins, the Septuagint and the Masretic text, are cmpared. In the first (the Septuagint) Jeremiah is presented as nly a prphet in chapters Jeremiah's rle as prphet has, hwever, greatly increased in the secnd editin (Masretic text). Additins cntributed t his image as prphet. Sme petic sequences and narratives were als transfrmed int utterances f the Divine Wrd, reflecting the grwth f the 'prphetic traditin' in the bk f Jeremiah. T summarize, 'In the secnd editin his rle as prphet is greatly increased and this may reflect the develpment f the traditin in circles which came t view Jeremiah as a prphet' (Carrll 1986:61 fr a similar develpment cf 59,533,536). Sme aspects f the 'grwing Jeremiah traditin' are highlighted belw. In the light f ur theme it must, hwever, be emphasized that these are merely images f the narrated Jeremiah and nt f the histrical Jeremiah. In ther wrds, what we have in the bk f Jeremiah is a fic- tinal (1) being Other created peple by mentin traditin Jeremiah and nt by fr histry the first (Carrll time in 1986:588). Jeremiah 18:18. Accrding t this verse, sme imprtant strata in sciety set themselves against Jeremiah. This theme is fully develped in the narratives (e g Jr 26-29; 36-38) but it nly appears in the redactinal framewrk at a few pints in chapters 1-25 (1:19; 11:21-23; 18:18; 20:1-3). It frms part f the develpment f the Jeremiah traditin; the editrs wanted t elabrate n the Jeremiah figure by depicting him as a paradigmatic figure prclaiming the Divine Wrd in the face f persecutin and ppsitin. In shrt, it reveals the interest f ne 'wh wishes t

16 OLD TESTAMENT ESSAYS 7 (1994), 7-20 ] 1 S S 00 develp a view f Jeremiah cntra mundum' (Carrll 1986:379). (2) In Jeremiah 19:1-13, Jeremiah emerges mre fully drawn than in the previus chapters. Althugh nt named in 19:1 his presence is assumed. He is depicted as an imprtant figure wh summns elders and priests t the valley f the sn f Hinnm. They nt nly accmpany him but als witness the events taking place. Accrding t this layer he is nt the victim f many plts (cf 18:18) but ne wh cmmands bedience and has a fllwing. Althugh persecuted by sme authrities (cf Pashhur the chief fficer f the temple Jr 20:1), Jeremiah is here described as a man f authrity gathering imprtant peple arund him. Accrding t this layer Jeremiah is thus an eminent persn with sme status in sciety and must therefre be distinguished fi-m the 'slitary figure hiding r lurking abut the city as presented by ther strands in the traditin' (Carrll 1986:387). This idea f grwth is s imprtant that it can never be verestimated. The Jeremiah figure grew as a result f strytelling: The different representatins f Jeremiah are discrete layers f traditin reflecting distinctive stages f the cnstructin f the figure f Jeremiah and the cnflict between these images f him is the result f cmbining independent material tgether int ne bk (Carrll 1986:387). (3) Jeremiah 19:14-20:6 is anther example f Jeremiah's develpment. Reference t Jeremiah the prphet is nw made fr the first time in the traditin. It is als the first time that his wrk is described as 'prphesying'. Accrding t this unit, Jeremiah the prphet is wrking in the temple; the deity sends him t peple and places t annunce the frthcming destructin; he is respected by priests and ther leaders (cf 19:1; 26:16,24; 35:2); as prphet he is invlved in cnflicts with thers. It is ntewrthy that this strand 'f the traditin present(s) Jeremiah as a figure in the Elijah muld f prphets': he cmes and ges, acts nly when cmmissined by the deity and returns t his hme base after the cmpletin f his task (Carrll 1986:392). The clash with Pashhur (and later with Hananiah) highlights Jeremiah's prphetic calling. In these verses he is nt a pathetic figure, abandned by men and frsaken by Gd his wrds being rejected and he himself being beaten up. This is nt the pint f the stry in u 5 6

17 76 19:14-20:6. Jeremiah is the prphet, and the ne wh rejects his wrds must die as did Pashhur and Hananiah. Because Jeremiah 'is the prphet, his ppnents suffer death (Pashhur and friends, Hananiah, Shemaiah and his descendants) presumably in accrdance with the Deuternmistic decrees. Thus the stries are illustratins f the framewrk ntin f Jeremiah the prphet... and are shq>ed by it' (Carrll 1986:395; cf491). S The aim f the editrs t depict Jeremiah as a prphet can never be veremphasized. This cnstructin was undertaken against a specific backgrund: the clashes in exilic and pst-exilic sciety (Carrll 1986:110). These cnflicts were a reality and the Jeremiah figure was used t address many issues in sciety. There was prbably a strng anti-prphetic tendency. This is why the 'uterine setting' in the prlgue is mentined (Jr 1:5). This is nt smething unique t the Jeremiah traditin, because a Egyptian parallel exists. It is, hwever, an attempt t stress the authenticity f Jeremiah's call: he was a genuine prphet, appinted by Yahweh t prclaim his Wrd. Shuld a sceptic ask, 'When did he becme a prphet?', the answer was clear: 'Befre he was brn!" (Carrll 1986:98). Cnsequently, the impressin was created that everything that fllwed this verse culd be ascribed t Jeremiah the prphet. Thus this hyperble had t be used t strengthen the psitin f Jeremiah (as prphet) against thse ppsed t prphetism. Different pictures f Jeremiah the prphet are given in the traditin (cf Carrll 1984: ). Jeremiah 26 may als be regarded as a further develpment f Jeremiah's image as prphet: he is very brave and prepared t face his enemies (Carrll 1986:517). In the cycle he is described as 'the prphet' wh is against 'all the prphets and fr Babyln' (Carrll 1986: 523). Jeremiah is presented as a figure f authrity: he writes letters t the deprtees in Babyln, describing t them a strategy fr survival (29), advising freign natins n freign plicy (27), cnfrnting Hananiah, the anti-babylnian prphet (28) (Carrll 1986:555ff). This cycle prduced a smewhat late and legendary image f Jeremiah. He is a dminant figure in Jerusalem as well as amng the deprtees; he is a prphetic clssus and any ppsitin t his wrds culd lead t punishment (Carrll 1986: ). (4) The editrs als wanted t depict Jeremiah as a priest. A link was therefre frged between Jeremiah n the ne hand and the temple and the priesthd n the ther (Carrll 1986: ). Jeremiah's cimectin with Anathth and its priesthd (Jr 1:1) is a gd example f editrial 'creativity'. This reference must nt be treated as bigraphical infrmatin. Quite the cntrary. In a typical manner, Carrll detected sme 'whiff f irny' in this reference. Slmn's banishment f Abiathar, the priest, t Anathth was the fiilfilment f Gd's wrd against the huse f Eli in Shilh (I Ki 2:26-27). And, accrding t

18 OLD TESTAMENT ESSAYS 7 (1994), 7-20 ] 1 Jeremiah 7:14, the destructin f Jerusalem is described by analgy t the fall f Shilh. Thus, frm the place t which Abiathar was banned befre the erectin f the temple, nw cmes a man 'wh will speak the wrd against Slmn's edifice and preside ver the destructin f Jerusalem' (Carrll 1986:91). (5) In Jeremiah 32:16-25 there is a further develpment f the Jeremiah figure: he is described as smene praying. And, as the leader f the prayer, Jeremiah is presented 'as a majr liturgical figure and the additin indicates a significant develpment in the treatment f the prphetic stries in the traditin' (Carrll 1986:625). G reologies ARE THE BUILDING MATERIAL FOR CONSTRUCTING CONTEXTS s Since n bigraphy f Jeremiah is pssible we shuld rather fcus n the idelgies underlying the Jeremiah traditin (cf Carrll 1986:138, 139,158,173,177,211). Carrll's cntributin with regard t idelgies are f extreme imprtance. He has helped us t mve away frm the ne-sided quest fr the 'histrical' Jeremiah, twards understanding smething f the idelgies that shaped the bk f Jeremiah. A search fr the true r real Jeremiah is a waste f time the search fr idelgies is far mre exciting. Idelgies are the stuff that can enable us t hear the eches f the exilic and the pst-exilic times, they are the building material that we can use t recnstruct smething f the histry f the sixth century. Frm the pint f view f the histrian, Carrll's idelgy critique is indispensable.,, Idelgy' can be very cnfusing because it has s many meanings. It was intrduced by Karl Marx t indicate the false cnsciusness f scial and ecnmic realities and the cllective illusin f scial classes. Althugh 'idelgy' has a negative cnntatin in the Marxian cntext, there is als a psitive sense. Accrding t Carrll, 'idelgy' implies 'a system f ideas which is capable f mtivating behaviur'; it can be used 't criticize false ideas and practices within the cmmunity'. It can als serve as a methd t analyse the scial structures f a sciety; since idelgy fluctuates between psitive and negative features all systems f ideas need t be severely criticized and checked fr idelgical distrtin (Carrll 1981:17). Carrll is aware f the prblems attached t this wrd but nevertheless states:

19 78... few ther terms cnvey the pssibility f the distrtin inherent in all systems f thught used t impse plitical cntrl n cmmunities as well as it des (Carrll 1981:17). H reological CONFLICTS SHAPED THE JEREMIAH TRADITION -a s a, ^ י The bk f Jeremiah reflects the existence f cnflicting grups. These grups were invlved in pwer games; each wanted t get pwer at the expense f the ther. Religin was served as a means t prtect vested interests; thelgical prpaganda supprted claims and idelgical manipulatin frmed an integral part f the struggle. The idelgy f the s-called Yahweh-alne grup can be detected in Jeremiah 2: Accrding t this idelgically shaped unit, smething unthinkable has happened: the peple have changed their gds. This is smething unheard f. The 'prphet' is challenged t travel t the west and the east and cnvince himself that n natin has ever changed its gd befre. Israel, hwever, is different. Withut much ad it has abandned Yahweh and fllwed ther gds. This statement is clearly an exaggeratin: it is impssible t say that n natin ever substituted its (gd) gd with anther (bad ne). The statement in Jeremiah 2:11 is therefre a hyperble but is serves an imprtant purpse: it substantiates the idelgy f the Yahweh-alne grup. This grup was nt willing t tlerate any frm f religius syncretism. Its views were cnfirmed by the fall f Jerusalem and this event enabled it t reshape the cmmunity by means f its idelgy (Carrll 1986: ). (1) Traces f ther idelgical cnflicts are als briefly mentined. Jeremiah 8:8-9 prbably reflects the interests f tw rival grups. Perhaps there were cnflicting pinins abut the merits f a written divine Trah' and the spken wrd f Yahweh. Put differently: an idelgical clash existed be- tween thse wh prpagated the imprtance f the written wrd and thse fr whm the spken wrd was the mst imprtant (Carrll 1986: 229). (2) Eches f clashes between a pius grup and a wicked grup can be heard (Carrll 1986:334). Jeremiah 23:9-12 prbably reflects that strand in the traditin which fcuses n the idelgical righteus-wicked cnflict (Carrll elabrate 1986:453,461). n them. Althugh Carrll ften refers t these clashes he des nt (3) Indicatins f an idelgical cnflict between pr-egyptian and pr- Babylnian idelgues can be fund in Jeremiah 27-29,34,37-40,44. The attack

20 OLD TESTAMENT ESSAYS 7 (1994), 7-20 ] 1 n Cniah in 22:28-30 perhaps represents ne strand in this struggle. In 'writing ff Cniah the pr-babylnian party is underwriting its wn psitin in terms f racular statements' (Carrll 1986:441). (4) In Jeremiah 23:16-22 the views f a grup ppsed t 'visins based n the divine wrd' can be fund (Carrll 1986:460). (5) Jeremiah 23:23-24 suggests an idelgical cntext where all prphets were treated with great suspicin. This attitude relates these verses t the wrld f Zechariah 13:2-6, with its antagnistic attitude t prphets. Accrding t Carrll, it is 'prfund irny, hwever, that a such cntrversy shuld have fund its way int the traditin f Jeremiah the prphet (Carrll 1986:468). Jeremiah 23:33-40 may als reflect a perid very similar t that f Zechariah 13:2-6 when the behaviur f the prphets had becme t utrageus t be tlerated any lnger (Carrll 1986:480). (6) The fact that sme were taken int exile while thers stayed at hme had far-reaching thelgical cnsequences and it had t be explained thelgically (r, must we rather say, idelgically). These tw grups had t be evaluated in terms f Yahweh's actins 'fr gd' and 'fr evil'. Jeremiah 24 is nthing mre than blatant prpaganda n behalf f ne grup. It is therefre a 'partisan statement' (Carrll 1986:482) r a 'partisan accunt' (Carrll 1986: 487) supprting the idelgical claims f the deprtees and the returned grups wishing t gain pwer in Jerusalem during its recnstructin (Carrll 1986: 483). Indeed, Jeremiah 24 'is mst certainly a plemic n behalf f ne grup as much as it is an attack n anther' (Carrll 1986:484; cf 532). I THE reological OUTLOOK OF THE DEUTERO- NOMISTS ^ י e s S Perhaps mst schlars wuld prefer t speak f the 'thelgy f the Deuternmists'. Such a view naively verlks the true intentins f the Deuternmists: t gain pwer and t rganise and cntrl the cmmunity. This Deuternniistic idelgy cannt be denied! The manner in which the cmmunities, the kings and each perid were evaluated in the Deuternmistic Histry highlights the Deuternmists' idelgy. It is imprtant t nte that the deuternmistic redactin f Jeremiah suffers frm the same defects: steretyped nrms and statements were used. N new analyses were ffered, n new perspectives presented. Just the same deuternmistic idelgy was applied t the Jeremiah traditin. Carrll made a very imprtant remark with regard t Deuternmistic idelgy: I stress these aspects f the Deuternmistic idelgy in rder t draw attentin t features f the redactin f the Jeremiah traditin and t warn against a facile acceptance f such elements. The Deuternmists prduced an editin f Jeremiah t serve their wn purpses in the ex

21 80 ilic and pst-exilic plitical struggles fr pwer in the cmmunity. Nt t recgnize such factrs is t fail t understand imprtant elements at wrk in the perid and perating t prduce an editin f Jeremiah which wuld supprt the party line f the Deuternmists (Carrll 1981:18). A striking feature f Carrll's cmmentary is the many references t the deuternmistic features in the bk Jeremiah (cf Carrll 1986:41-42). These features can serve as indicatrs f the deuternmistic idelgy. In ther wrds, t identify the deuternmistic idelgy an inquiry int these indicatrs is indispensable (cf Carrll 1986:215,218,229, 267,268,271,291,292,294,298,299,315,321,323,338,342,387,388, 421,431,433,486,515,532 and many thers). A few idelgical indicatrs are mentined belw. Typical f the Deuternmist is the nstalgia fr the past. This can be seen in the summns t return t the ld ways in Jeremiah 6:16 (Car -a s a, K S S S 00 rll 1986:200). Carrll's keen eye fr irny detects in this deuternmistic feature sme tensin with 2:5-20 and 7:25-26 (Carrll 1986:200). Anther typical feature f the Deuternmist is the view that n-ne listened t the prphets. Jeremiah 6:19 refers t the wrds f the prphets which were nt taken seriusly (Carrll 1986:200). The 'cliched image f the deity rising early and sending his servants the prphets' is als very typical f the Deuternmists (Carrll 1986:491; cf 493). A favurite mtif f deuternmistic writing is the emphasis n the rejectin f the divine law (Carrll 1986:201). The turningrepentance ntin has certain links with deuternmistic thinking. Accrding t this view, things can change when peple acknwledge their guilt (Carrll 1986:147). The Deuternmists have an 'idelgical prgramme' fr the future (Carrll 1986: ). The deuternmistic idelgy prvides an explanatin fr the fall f Jerusalem (Carrll 1986:343). In effect, the 'disaster f 587 helped significantly t underwrite the Deuternmistic idelgy' (Carrll 1986:422). This idelgy makes histry-writing very difficult: '(T)he dminant idelgy f the Deuternmists is an unreliable guide fr the purpses f histry writing' (Carrll 1986:433). One f the reasns fr the fall was idlatry idlatry (Carrll ffers 1986:343). n hpe Accrding whatsever, t the 'nt deuternmistic even after the pint catastrphe f view, f 587. Idlatry cuts ff all future hpe f divine favur' (Carrll 1986:344). Accrding t Carrll, the Deuternmists had an 'bsessin u