Jeremiah 33:15 16 as a reinterpretation of Jeremiah 23:5 6

Jeremiah 33:15-16 as a

reinterpretation of Jeremiah 23:5-6

W J Wessels University of South Africa

A bstract

J e re m ia h 33:15-16 as a r e in te r p re ta tio n o f Je re m ia h 23:5-6

T h ere are striking sim ilarities betw een Jerem iah 23:5-6 an d Je re m ia h 33:15-16. A com parison, how ever, also shows interesting differences and 33:14-26, furtherm ore is lacking in the Septuagint tradition. Jerem iah 33:15-16 seem s to be a reinterpretation o f 23:5-6. This is done by generalising th e content, w idening th e perspective and shifting the em phasis, for instance, from the king to the

city, and adding a legitim ate heir of D avid and a legiti­ m a te p rie s t. A s fa r as so c ia l c o n te x t is c o n c e rn e d , Jerem iah 33:15-16 should perhaps be linked to the con­ flic t b e tw e e n th e d is e n fra n c h is e d L e v ite s a n d th e Z a d o k ite s w ho d isp laced them . T h e re in te r p re ta tio n process is an attem p t both to explain the non-fulfilm ent of 23:5-6 and to resolve the dissonance it creates.

W hile studying the text of Jerem iah 23:5-6, I noted a p arallel passage in Jerem ia h 3 3 :1 5 -1 6 w h ich a p p e a r e d to b e a q u o ta tio n o f th e fo r m e r tw o v e rs e s. O n investigating the sim ilarities I discovered, not only som e interesting differences, but the fact th at the entire pericope of Jerem iah 33:14-26 is missing from the Septuagint (LX X). This raised a num ber o f questions. Why does the passage not occur in the L X X ? W h e n c e th e d if f e r e n c e s ? D o th e y te ll u s a n y th in g a b o u t th e so c ia l dispensations from which the two passages arose? A re these passages in ten d ed to rationalise o r legitim ise som ething, is the one a rein terp retatio n o f the other? D oes th e fact th a t bo th passages occur in the sam e book tell us anything a b o u t how the tradition dealt with the prophetic word?

I shall try to suggest provisional answ ers to these questions by reading the text as a p ro d u ct o f the society in w hich it arose (in o th e r words, from an ideological

critical po in t o f view) and also by noting w hether the text suggests any a ttem p t to resolve cognitive dissonance. C arroll (1979:86-110) w rote a num ber o f articles and o th e r p u b licatio n s b ased on L eo n F e stin g e r’s theory of cognitive dissonance. It m eans, in g en eral term s, th a t disparities arise betw een principles an d actions or betw een expectation an d reality (e g sm oking is harm ful but the sm oker persists). T he theory is based on the conflict betw een cognitive elem ents. A t a first glance it may seem simplistic, but the complexity and stratification o f society should be borne in m ind w hen conflict betw een cognitive elem ents produces dissonance. It may be resolved in various ways: (a) ignoring it, (b) rethinking the cognitive elem ents, (c) fin d in g ju s tific a tio n by b rin g in g o th e rs a ro u n d to o n e ’s p o in t o f view , o r (d) rationalising it. T he social group (say, the church) plays a vital supportive p a rt in

the process (C arroll 1984:381-391).

A critical step in applying this theory to the unfulfilled prophecies o f the Old T estam ent is to discover how the dissonance (expectation:non-realisation) has been h a n d le d , o r th e re a c tio n o f p e o p le to th e conflict b etw een cognitive elem en ts. R e le v a n t o p tio n s relieving dissonance w ould be (a ) adjusting th e offending e le ­

m ents, (b) rein terp retin g th e prophecy o r (c) defending it by rationalisation. The dissonance may also be ignored. A n exam ple o f adjustm ent: the false pro p h ets in Jerem iah initially denied th at there would be an exile, but when it cam e to pass they sh ifted th e ir g ro u n d by saying th a t it w ould b e b rie f (J r 27 - 29). O n e way of ex p lain in g th e n o n -fu lfilm en t o f p ro p h e c ie s w as by b lam in g it on th e p e o p le ’s sinfulness an d refu sal to re p e n t. C arro ll (1984:390) sees this im p en iten ce as a p o te n t m ean s o f ex p lain in g th e d isso n an ce a risin g fro m n u m e ro u s u n fu lfilled prophecies of salvation (e g Am 9:11-15; H s 2:14-23; Is 9:2-7; 11:1-9; 35; J r 23:5-6; 31:27-33; 33:12-26; Ezk 34:23-31; 37:15-28; Mi 5:2-6; H g 2:21-23).

N ot all O ld T estam en t texts can be read in this way. R esearch is in any case lim ite d to th e a v a ila b le texts, w hich n e e d to b e in te rp re te d very accu rately by so p h isticated h erm en eu tic m eans. T h ere are no absolute answ ers, only possible e x p lan a tio n s o f events. H en ce th e reco n stru c tio n o f a text by read in g it from a specific angle is purely provisional, and som etim es it can be read in m ore than one

way. It is in this herm eneutical fram ew ork th at I shall investigate Jerem iah 33:15-16 as a parallel to 23:5-6. I shall first com m ent on th e text o f the book o f Jerem iah, th en discuss the two p erico p es 23:5-6 and 33:15-16 in th e ir contexts, and finally c o m p a re th e tw o. I sh a ll th e n a tte m p t to m a k e c e rta in in fe re n c e s fro m th e fram ew o rk I have u sed an d to suggest answ ers to th e q u estio n s th a t have b e e n posed.

W J Wessek

1. T H E T E X T O F JE R E M IA H

T h e p assages d e a lt w ith in this p a p e r Je re m ia h 23:5-6 and 33:14-18, have b een chosen because 23:5-6 and 33:15-16 are p arallel texts. A t a first glance 33:15-16 looks like a d ire c t q u o ta tio n o f 23:5-6, b u t closer scruting reveals unm istakable differences as well as close similarity. It is also a m oot point which is original and which is secondary. A vital elem ent in the d eb ate is the absence o f 33:14-26 from

the Septuagint. This brings into play the entire complex problem posed by the text of Jerem iah (cf Soderlund 1985:11-13).

R e se a rc h has show n th a t th e re w ere m o re th a n o n e e d itio n o f th e tex t of Jerem ia h (Tov 1978:52-68). T h ere is talk o f an earlier and b e tte r trad itio n o f the Jerem ia n text (a H ebrew Vorlage), on which the LXX is based, and a second more expanded ed itio n o f th e text which developed into the M asorete T ext (cf Jan zen 1973:172-173; C arroll 1986:51). This theory was furthered by Tov (1985:211-237) w ho is o f o p in io n th a t th is s o - c a lle d H e b re w Vorlage w as s u b je c te d to a D e u te ro n o m istic re d a c tio n b e fo re b ein g used fo r th e LX X tra n s la tio n . Som e original Je re m ia n words, a b sen t from the first edition, have b e e n in serted in the second. O ne such original passage added by the second redactor is Jerem iah 33:14- 26, w ith w hich we a re co n cern ed in th is p ap er. A ccording to Tov, th e onus of p ro v in g th a t th is p a ss a g e is n o t J e r e m ia n is on th e p e rs o n w ho d e n ie s its authenticity. A post-exilic date is assigned to the com pleted second edition. If we agree w ith Tov th at Jerem iah 33:14-26 is authentic, a date approxim ating the Exile (586 B C) is feasible. According to Janzen (1973:123) Jerem iah 33:14-26 was added to the p ro to -M a so re tic text a fte r th e divergence o f the second textual trad itio n s (L X X an d M T ). It is d ifficu lt to assign a d a te to th is ev en t, b u t it m ust have happened before the com pletion of the M T text - Tov’s second H ebrew edition. An im p o rtan t conclusion to be draw n from the research o f Tov and o th ers is th a t the late date assigned to Jerem iah 33:14-26 because of its omission from the Septuagint should not be taken for granted. W hat th a t omission does imply, is th a t Jerem ia h 33:15-16 is secondary in relatio n to Jerem ia h 23:5-6. A d a te som ew here betw een th e H eb rew Vorlage and th e com pletion o f the second H ebrew edition (M T) may therefore be assigned to Jerem iah 33:14-26. O th er factors, if any can be found, will have to assist in dating this pericope.

As m entioned before a com parison of the two pericopes u n d er discussion yields m any sim ilarities, but also n o teab le differences of which the re a d e r should aw are him self. In section 2 and 3 o f this p a p e r I intend to consider each pericope in its respective context.

2. JE R E M IA H 23:5-6

Jerem iah 23:5-6 consists of Jerem ian words from the period of Z edekiah.

W hen Jerem iah 23:5-6 is com pared with the preceding and following pericopes, it is seen to form a separate unit in term s of:

introductory form ula (cf J r 9:24; 21:27, 30; 33:14); change of subject;

c h a n g e o f style - J e r e m ia h 23:5-6 is p o e tic a l in n a tu r e (c f R u d o lp h 1968:145-146; W eiser 1969:196);

cohesiveness of content (cf W essels 1985:126-127 for a detailed dicussion of the dem arcation of this pericope).

Jerem ia h 23:5-6 is a prophecy of salvation, fits syntactically well and is transm itted as a unit.

L iterary criticism is needed to establish w hether 23:5-6 is Jerem ian. V erse 5 is in tro d u ced by th e expression m i T ’ -DX3 D’’ K3 D’’ D'' H311, w hich is a com m on

one in the O ld T estam ent:

D’’X3 n a n (c f l S am u el 2:31; 2 Kings 3:20; 20:17; Isaiah 39:6 Jerem iah 51:47);

mn''-DX3 nan p b (cf Jerem ia h 7:32; 1 6 :U ;;9 .(5 ; 13:7; 48:12; 51:52);

m n ''- D X 3 D">X3 D '^n'’ n a n •’D (c f/4 w o i4 .-2 ; «.-77; 19:13; J e re m ia h 31:38);

m n '’ -DX3 D-iXn D-’D'’ Jeremiah 9:24-, 31:21,30-,33;14-, 49a ) .

O bviously th is in tro d u c tio n is a com m on o n e in pre-ex ilic texts (th o se th a t are italicised) and was probably known to Jerem iah. H e uses it in prophecies of both salvation and doom (V an Seims 1972:278).

T he w ord occurs in th e post-exilic text, Isaiah 6:2 (W ildberger 1972:154) and in Z ech ariah 3:8; 6:12, which date back to about 520 B C ( F o h re r 1969:506). T h e se re f e re n c e s a g re e in re f e rrin g to a fu tu re ru le r, b u t th ey d iffe r in th a t Z e c h a ria h ap p lies th e w ord to Z e ru b b a b e l as th e d e scen d an t o f D avid, w hereas Isaiah speaks o f ‘the branch of the L ord’. T he Jerem ian reference has no M essianic

co n n o ta tio n s : it sim ply re fe rs to a fu tu re ru le r. T h e ro o t (H i) is u sed in

H '/U 'e ss e b

Jerem ia h 10:21; 20:11 and 3:15. T he form er two are Jerem ia n (R udolph 1968:75, 129) and so, probably, is Jerem iah 23:5.

W hen it com es to the expression HpIXT DSV^O, it seem s to occur in exilic and p ost-exilic texts (cf W essels 1985:60-63), and th e re fo re th e lite ra ry ev id en c e is inconclusive as to the Jerem ian origin of 23:5.

It is possible in term s o f the way the verb ytf"* (N i) is used in th e Je re m ia n p a ssa g e s 4:14; 8:20 an d 17:14 th a t J e re m ia h m ay h ave u sed it in 23:6 as w ell (R udolph 1968:33, 65, 117). p \D is used in D euteronom y 33:12, Psalm 16:9 and Jerem iah 33:16, and in D euteronom y 33:28 and Proverbs 1:33 it is used w ithout b. F o h rer considers Psalm 16:9 to be post-exilic and Schmidt regards D euteronom y 33 as post-D euteronom istic, which points to the Exile (587 B C). Proverbs 1:33 too, is probably post-exilic (cf F o h rer 1969:309, 348; Schm idt 1982:125). In th e light of all this evidence, the use of this form in Jerem iah is not easy to explain, but in view of the parallel draw n in verse 6a betw een Judah and Israel, it is probably authentic.

J e re m ia h 23:5-6 is a p ro p h ecy o f salv atio n w hich form s a single u n it b o th syntactically an d in term s o f subject m atter. T he literary quality does not rule out th e possibility th a t th ese v erses a re Je re m ia n , and th e fact th a t they a re p o etry m akes Jerem ian authorship m ore likely.

Jerem ia h 23:5-6 are the final verses of conclusion o f the cycle o f kings (Jr 21:1- 23:6). A n in d ep en d en t unit, they are none the less closely related to the preceding pericope (Jr 23:1-4). T hese four verses speak in general term s o f the ‘shepherds’ the L o rd w ill se t o v er his p e o p le ; J e r e m ia h 23:5 m akes th e p ro s p e c t c o n c re te by referring to the new king to be raised up by Y ahweh (D ip H i).

T he fam iliar introductory form ula em phasises the certainty th a t the subsequent pronouncem ent will be fulfilled (V an Seims 1972:278). N o exact tim e is indicated: it is simply a future event. W hen th a t tim e comes, the L ord will raise up a branch for D avid who will reign as king. However, ‘branch’ is qualified by the term p IX . A n u m b er o f exegetes consider th a t this expression may re fe r to the authenticity or legal rightfulness o f this p erso n ’s claim to the th ro n e o f D avid (W eiser 1969:198; V an Seims 1972:278). H ow ever, certain related concepts such as DEJWO, H plX and his nam e, m ake it m ore likely that the term refers to the n ature o f his governm ent: his justice (R udolph 1968:146). V erse 5 goes on to say th at he will rule with wisdom and will excercise justice (DDlI/D) and righteousness (ilp lX ). Jerem ia h im plies th at the ruler will m aintain the social ord er and will be trustw orthy (W essels 1985:54-60). This reference harks back to Jerem iah 22:15, which em phasised the n ature of a true king’s rule. It is tautologically stated th a t he will reign as king (verb , noun "l^D). T he im plication seem s to be that a person who rules as king is not necessarily seen as a king. T he new ruler will reign as a true king and be perceived as such.

V erse 5 forms a unity with verse 6, referring to a future in which the new king will govern. D uring his reign Ju d ah will be saved and Israel will dwell securely. V erse 6a contains two parallel, non-identical elem ents, and the reference to Israel may therefore be taken to m ean the restoration o f the northern realm.

Jerem ia h is th erefo re saying th a t th e new king will rule over bo th Ju d ah and Is ra e l, sin ce Ju d a h w ill be sav ed a n d Is ra e l w ill dw ell securely. B ecause the re fe re n c e is to Ju d a h a n d Israel, f'IX D (verse 5) m ust be tr a n s la te d as ‘in the c o u n try ’ a n d n o t ‘o n th e e a r th ’ (R u d o lp h 1968:145-146). T h is re f e re n c e is rem iniscent o f chapters 30 and 31, which deal w ith the restoration o f the w hole of I s ra e l (T h o m p s o n 1980:490). U n d e r th e new king, a u n ite d I s ra e l w ill live independently and at peace .

T h e new king will be nam ed ‘T h e L ord is o u r rig h teo u sn ess’. A ccording to R udolph, this nam e should be reg ard ed like o th er personal nam es th at contain an elem ent of the nam e of G od (such as Joel o r U zziah) and does not imply the divinity o f th e M essiah (R u d o lp h 1968:147). It ex p resses th e p e o p le s ’ conviction th a t Y ahweh is the actual source of salvation (W eiser 1969:199).

C h a p te r 23:5, w hich refers to a bran ch o f D avid, w ould a p p e a r to contradict Jerem iah 22:30. According to verse 30, no-one of the house of Jehoiachin will sit on the th ro n e o f D avid. Jerem ia h ap p ears to be announcing th e end of the dynasty. R udolph (1968:145) disagrees: the house o f Jehoiachin is b arred from th e throne, b u t th e re are o th ers who can p e rp e tu a te the line o f D avid (J r 41:1). T his in te r­ pretatio n is not at all far-fetched, but probably Jerem iah m eant som ething slightly different. Jerem ia h 23:5-6 concludes a cycle which m akes it clear th at the kings of D a v id ’s lin e h av e fa ile d . T h e fa ilu re a n d ex ile o f J e h o ia c h in w as th e final d isappointm ent which caused Jerem iah to lose all hope o f a successful heir. J e r e ­ m iah 23:1-2 goes fu rth e r by pronouncing ju d g m en t on th e lead ers o f Z e d e k ia h ’s tim e because they had not guided the people aright. T he monarchy had failed and Y ahw eh was forced to intervene. This provides a clue to the expression ‘branch of D avid’. T he new king will be raised up by Yahweh.

C hapter 23:3-4 already m ake it clear that a new era will dawn in which Y ahweh will g ath er the people, appoint new ‘shepherds’ (including the new king) and unite

Ju d ah and Israel. It may well be Je re m ia h ’s ideal o f a united realm th at produced th e id ea of a ‘branch for D avid’. D avid was the king who, once before, had unified th e n o rth e rn and so u th ern realm s; to Jerem ia h he symbolises a united realm . At

som e future tim e Y ahw eh will appoint a king who, like D avid, will reunite the two realm s and govern according to the behests o f Yahweh. In this sence such a king will represent a ‘new’ Davidic generation. Yahweh m akes a fresh beginning with his people and also with the monarchy. T he new king’s rule over th e united Israel will

W J Wessets

be such th a t th e tr u e ru le r w ill be Y ahw eh him self, an d th e king’s nam e will proclaim this fact. U p to then the people had determ ined the selection o f the king, but the true king will be selected by Yahweh. We see such a selection by Yahweh illustrated in D euteronom y 17:15 - the com m and to the people to appoint the king chosen by Yahweh - and the description in 1 Samuel 10 of the anointing of Saul (cf verse 24).

C arro ll (1986:447) considers it possible th a t 23:5-6 is a prophecy referring to Z edekiah. A ccording to him Z edekiah’s nam e is incorporated into a play on words expressing future expectations. T h ere is probably an allusion to Z ed ek iah ’s nam e an d reign, since he was the choice not o f th e p eo p le b u t o f Babylon. H ow ever, Z ed ek iah was not a strong king and was often overruled by his officials (Jr 37:17; 38:16, 24-25). By contrast, the true king of the new era will be appointed by Yahweh and, unlike Z ed ek iah , will rule with w isdom and justice. Y ahw eh will raise up a king who will be the opposite o f the present weak ruler. Jerem iah, it seems, is not using the expression D’’K3 in its eschatological sense but simply to refer to a fu tu re tim e. H ow ever, eschatology may be defined as faith in the future (C arroll 1982:48) o r th e ev o lu tio n o f history o r even ‘...the new an d th e e n tire ly o th e r (o ccu rrin g ) a fte r a b re a k w ith w hat has gone b e fo re ’ (H an so n 1979:11; cf also H anson 1985:468). I shall be using it in this sense. It has to do with real history, real politics and real people are involved.

Jerem iah 23:5-6 reflects Jerem iah ’s vision of true kingship and also the reasons for his opposition to the kings in the cycle (Jr 21:1-23:6). H e sees the tru e king as som eone chosen by Y ahweh , who will rule in such a way that Yahweh him self will be the ruler. H e will be wise, reliable and just, and during his reign Israel will be united, independent and at peace. In this sense he will be a ‘tru e’ king o f the line of D avid. Je re m ia h is saying in 23:5-6 th a t th e fu tu re o f th e m onarchy rests w ith Yahweh.

Jerem iah 23:5-6 suitably concludes the cycle o f kings that began in Jerem iah 21: 11 and shows that, despite overwhelmingly negative pronouncem ents, Jerem iah does see a positive future for the monarchy when Yahweh raises up a new king for a new era.

3. JE R E M IA H 33:14-26

J e r e m ia h 33:14-26 falls in to th re e p a rts: v erses 14-18, 19-22 an d 23-26. T h e pericope probably dates back to the late exilic or early post-exilic period.

A few rem arks about the delineation of the th ree passages. V erse 33:14 must be the beginning of a new passage, because 33:14-26 does not ap p ear in the H ebrew

m anuscript on which the Septuagint is based. V erse 14 m oreo v er begins with an introductory form ula which frequently heralds a new un it in the book o f Jerem ia h (of 31:27, 30). V erse 19, which introduces the second part, also starts with a typical form ula (33:19 - a w ord from G od; cf J r 1:4; 32:26; 33:23; 35:12 and 43:8). It also introduces th e third p art in verse 23. In addition, the content o f each o f these three

sections supports the unity of the whole section introduced by the formulas.

V erses 15 and 16 o f the first part, 33:14-18, ap p ear to correspond very closely to 23:5-6, making it essential to com pare the H ebrew text o f these two pericopes.

A n analysis o f 33:14-18 indicates the following: T he expression ‘I will fulfil the p ro m ise’ also occurs in Jerem ia h 29:10, w here it refers to the re tu rn o f the exiles a fter seventy years in Babylon. T he tim e in question is therefore a period after the return from exile, probably the sam e tim e to which 23:5ff refers. T he expression ‘in those days’ in verse 15 refers to th e ‘days’ o f verse 14 and is a vague, g eneral one d en o tin g som e fu tu re p erio d , in this context p robably post-exilic. A ccording to W eiser (1969:306) th e expression em phasises th e distance in tim e. D’>K3 Dnn occurs frequently in Jerem iah, often to express a tim e of grace (cf 3:16, 18; 31:29; in 50:4, 20 the full expression X'^nn DVDI IlDnn D'’D‘*D appears as a tim e o f judge­ m en t o f Babylon for the salvation o f Ju d ah and Israel - cf also J1 4:1; Z p h 3:20 and D n 11:1, w here we find X T in DVD). It is therefore a term most often used eschato- logically to predict salvation for Israel.

T he w ord occurs in th e post-exilic text Isaiah 4:2 an d in Z ec h a ria h 3:8; 6:12, which date back to about 520 B C (W ildberger 1972:154; F o h rer 1969:506). It is therefo re possible, provided the passage is Jerem ian, th a t this term was first used in Jerem ia h 23:5. T h ere appears to be a link betw een the use o f HBX by Jerem iah and th e continuation o f this trad itio n in H aggai and especially in Z ech ariah . T he e xpression HpIXT DOVJO is a com m on one in th e O ld T estam en t, and in twelve

cases (2 Sm 8:15; 1 Ki 10:9; J r 22:15; 23:5; 33:15; Ps 99:4; 1 C hr 18:14; 2 C hr 9:8; Is 9:6; 16:5; J r 22:3; Ezk 45:9) it refers to how a king rules o r ought to rule.

V erse 33:17 uses the com bination m b m D '' -X*?. m D in the Q al appears in 2 C h ro n icles 7:18, b u t in 1 K ings 2:4; 8:25; 9:5; 2 C hronicles 6:16 and 7:18 it a p p e a r s in th e N i. R u d o lp h (1 9 6 8 :2 1 7 ) s e e s it as a n a p p li c a ti o n o f th e D euteronom istic form ula referring back to 2 Sam uel 7:16. V erse 17 ends w ith the expression -IT'D X DD-bv 31Í'’ T h e norm al Je re m ia n expression is m XDD-Vy tf^iX and occurs in Je re m ia h 22:2, 30; 27:25; 29:16 and 36:30. In m ost cases they probably derive from th e D eu tero n o m ist (S m end 1981:159). In Jerem ia h 33:17 th e expression is som ew hat different in th a t it refers to ‘the throne

o f the house o f Israel’. T h at is exactly th e sam e expression th a t was applied to the original D avidic dynasty (cf 1 Ki 2:4; 8:25; 9:5; 2 C hr 6:16; 7:18). It was probably

W J W a s e b

changed to resto re the b ro ad er perspective o f Israel (hence Judah and Israel) after th e exclusive focus on D avid. T he succession o f the D avidic dynasty ensures the survival of the realm of I s r a e l.

V erse 18 contains th e expression D 'll^rT D'’ 3n3!71 (which also occurs in D t 17:9, 18; 18:1; 24:8; 27:9; Jos 3:3; 8:33; Ezk 43:9 and 44:15) which C arroll regards as D euteronom istic (C arroll 1986:637). T he a.syndetic use of the expression in verse 21 is unique: its norm al form is as in verse 18. T he reference to offerings in verse 18 is strongly rem iniscent o f Je re m ia h 17:26, in the D eu tero n o m istic sh ap ed p ericope about the Sabbath in Jerem ia h 17:19-27. A ccording to W ilson (1980:18, 235), the L evites w ere th e carriers o f E ph raim ite (n o rth ern ) traditions. D euteronom ic law

(D t 18:6-8) did not oblige all Levites to function as priests: it im part th at they were free to sacrifice a t th e central sanctuary if they w ished. D euteronom ic law did de jure, confer a priestly role on the Levites, but this was never realised de fa cto (D e

Vaux 1968:364).

The p ericope states th at at som e fu tu re tim e (no exact tim e is m entioned, but probably after the Exile and possibly before the rebuilding o f the tem ple), Yahweh w ould fulfil his prom ise as recorded in 23:1-6. A t th e tim e o f w riting th ere was no king o f D avid’s line, and sacrificial p ractices w ere abnorm al - hence th e hope of

resto ratio n . At the ap p o in ted tim e a lawful branch o f D avid w ould be raised up, and the im portant thing about him was not th at he would reign (cf 2 3 :5 ), but th at he would bring about justice and righteousness. It would also be a tim e o f peace, and Jerusalem w ould be nam ed ‘T he L ord is our righteousness’ in strong contrast to the city’s m iserab le p a st (J r 5; 13:27). T h e re fe re n c e to the city is in line w ith th e restoration em phatically announced in Jerem iah 33:4-13 (cf 33:4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 13). A n in te re stin g p o in t is th a t th e cycle on the kings in Je re m ia h 21:1-23:8, w hich c ritic is e s th e ro y a l h o u se , c o n ta in s se v e ra l p ro p h e c ie s o f th e d e s tru c tio n of Jeru salem (Jr 21:1-10; 22:1-9). T he cycle m akes it clear th a t th e fate o f the royal house was closely linked to th at of the city and comm unity (Ackroyd 1972:61). TTie sam e tren d crops up in 33:4-13 and 14-16, which m ention the royal house, the city and the realm.

V erse 17 expatiates on verses 15-16, stating that a physical descendant of David w ould sit on the th ro n e o f the house o f Israel. As we have seen, th e perspective broadens from the survival of the house of David to th at o f the realm . T o reinforce the survival, it is added th at th ere will always be Levitical priests to bring offerings in th e L ord. T h e h o u se o f D avid and th e L evitical p rie sts w ill be p e rm a n e n t features o f society at th at tim e. The Levitical priests will not be excluded from the

sacral duties (cf D t 18:6-7). It seem s therefore th a t Jerem ia h 33:14-18 envisages a restoration of the cultic community and not just the king.

Excursion: The Levites

A ccording to D euteronom ic tradition (D t 17:9, 18; 18:1; 24:8; 27:9), Levitical priests served a t the sanctuary in Jerusalem . A t one stage a distinction was m ade betw een the la tte r group and those L evites who served in rural a reas (D e Vaux 1968:360- 366). As a result of Josiah’s reform s and the centralisation of the cult in Jerusalem , the Z adokites cam e to control the tem ple priesthood and the Levites w ere relegated to a subordinate place. T he Zadokites abolished D euteronom ic law; just before the exile of 586 B C they legalised the distinction betw een them selves and the Levites and claim ed the priesthood (H anson 1979:222). D uring the Exile th ere was a clear d istinction b etw een priests an d Levites w hich by th e tim e o f th e C h ro n icler had b eco m e an u n d isp u ted fact (D e Vaux 1968:387, 391). It is in te re stin g th a t the Z a d o k ite s have claim ed th e L evitical p riesth o o d , as is clearly a p p a re n t in th eir redaction o f certain passages in Ezekiel (40:46b; 43:19; 44:15-17; 48:1 and so forth; H anson 1979:267).

T he au th o r o f Jerem iah 33:18 would ap p ear to be harking back to a dispensa­ tio n in w hich ‘p rie st’ and ‘L ev ite’ still d e n o te d a single office, o r a t any ra te an equality o f office as generally reflected in D euteronom y - though the separation is th ere b en eath the surface (D e Vaux 1968:364). A part from D euteronom y, Joshua and Ezekiel, to which we have already referred, Levitical priests are also m entioned in 2 Kings 5:5; 23:18 and 30:27. A t the tim e o f the C hronicler the conflict betw een Levites and Z adokites had subsided som ewhat, and the books o f C hronicles reflect a m o re to le r a n t a ttitu d e . In g e n e ra l th e re fe re n c e s is to p rie s ts a n d L evites ( s o u th e rn P tr a d itio n ) b u t o ccasio n ally , as we have seen , to L e v itic a l p rie sts (northern D euteronom ic tradition; cf H anson 1979:269-273).

It is tem pting to read Jerem ia h 33:14-18 against a C hronicler backdrop. T he w rite r o f C hronicles favoured the p rie s t/k in g dyarchy an d set g reat sto re by the re sto ra tio n o f Je ru sa le m as does Jerem ia h 33:16. Steck (1968:452-453) is o f the o p in io n th a t th e C h ro n is t em p h a sise s th e cu lt o f J e ru s a le m . H e is g en u in ely in te re ste d in th e royal line o f D avid, an d he resp ects the royal office b u t not in m essianic term s. T he Levites, too, he m entions w ith respect and honour. Clearly, all th e e le m e n ts em p h asised in J e re m ia h 33:14-18 w ould fit in to th e co n tex t of Chronicles. Such a reconstruction is not impossible, but th ere are two o th er points of interest. In the first place, Jerem iah 33:14-18 is eschatological and refers to some future tim e, emphasising its futurity (DHH D’’n '’ 3). Seen as p art of the Chronicler, Jerem iah 33:14-18 would have to be regarded as already realised in som e sense: the referen ce to the fu tu re w ould be out o f place. Secondly, th e book o f C hronicles refers to Levitical priesthood only th ree tim es but repeatedly speaks o f priests and L evites: clea rly they a re m o re o fte n seen as se p a ra te . T h e em p h asis is on the

W ] Wesseb

fu n c tio n s o f L ev ites as d o o rg u a rd s, singers, te a c h e rs a n d th e iilce, th o u g h on o ccasion they m ight o ffer a sacrifice (2 C hr 30:17). R e a d ag ain st a C hronistic backdrop, the idea! spoicen of in Jerem iah 33:14-18 becom es th at o f an insignificant faction or tradition that clung to the Levitical priesthood (C arroll 1986:639).

A n o th e r possibility - the one I favour m yself - is to read J e re m ia h 33:14-18 against a background o f conflict betw een Z adokites and the wronged Levites. The first in d icatio n w ould be th e q u alificatio n o f priests as L evites in verse 17. T he conflict h ad a long history, especially a fte r Jo sia h had c e n tra lise d th e cult and e n c o u ra g e d Z a d o k ite c o n tro l o f th e te m p le in Je ru sa le m , b u t th e conflict was fiercest in the exilic and post-exilic period.

As we have seen, the Zadokites ignored D euteronom ic law and form ulated new laws to legalise the distinction betw een priests and Levites (cf Nm 3:6; 8:19; 18:36- 37 - probably based on a Z adokite form ulation im m ediately p rio r to the Exile; (cf H anson 1979:209-222). Jerem iah 33:14-18 should probably be seen as the utterance o f a g ro u p o f L ev itical sy m p ath isers living a t a tim e w hen th e re w as no king. F u rth erm o re they are in no position to exercise the sacrificial functions of priests, since they look forw ard to a fu tu re tim e w hen th ese functions will be resto red . E ith e r th e te m p le d o es not exist, o r they are d e b a rre d from p riestly sacrifice.

P robably one could set a tim e n e a r the end o f th e Exile, w hen th e ‘p ro m ise ’ o f Y ahweh w ould com e tru e (cf Jerem ia h 33:14). T he Z ad o k ites p lan n ed once they retu rn ed to rebuild the tem ple and control the Palestinian cult, and their plans did not include the Levites. This may also have p red ated the redaction o f portio n s of E zek iel (cf Ezk 44:4-31). T h e Z a d o k ite s’ re feren ce to them selves as ‘L evitical p rie s ts , sons o f Z a d o k ’ (E z k 44:15, fo r e x a m p le ) in d ic a te s th a t th ey fou n d it necessary to claim L evitical p riesth o o d in the te e th o f a n o th e r group (th e ‘tru e ’ L evitical priests). T he tracing o f th e Z ad o k ite family tree right back to P hinehas and even A aron also suggests a legitim ation o f their position (H anson 1979:271). It was m o re o v e r c h a ra c te ristic o f th e w ronged L evites an d v isionary g ro u p s th a t hardship and injustice inclined them towards eschatology and, later on, apocalyptics. They lived in the expectation th at Yahweh would personally intervene to bring new things to pass (cf D eutero-Isaiah and Jerem ia h - a new covenant, a new exodus, a new M oses; (cf H an so n 1979:218). T h e m o re earth ly , realistic a p p ro a c h o f the

Z ad o k ites disregard o f eschatology and their under-em phasising o f a D avidic ruler suggest th at this pericope is the utterance o f a Levitical priestly circle rath er than a Z adokite interest group (H anson 1979:270, 284).

A n o th e r facto r th a t p oints to a Levitical origin for Je re m ia h 33:14-18 is the m ention o f a king who would prom ote justice, and o f Levitical priests in the sam e

context. A ccording to D eu tero n o m y 17:14-20 (th e royal law ), the law th a t p re ­

scribed the king’s role was in the keeping of the Levitical priests. (Polk 1979:4 sees the Levites as spokesm an o f the Mosaic covenant tradition.) Jerem iah 33:14-18 also fits into this D eu tero n o m ic concept (W ilson 1980:160). Like Jerem iah 33:22, the exilic texts E zekiel 34:23-24 and 37:24-25 speak o f David as the servant o f the Lord and probably refer to Z erubbabel, who is called bo th nOX and 13V (of Zch 3:8-10; Blenkinsopp 1984:184). A late exilic o r early post-exilic dating is furth er supported by th e link b e tw e e n c re a tio n theo lo g y (J u d e a n tra d itio n ) and salvation history (n o rth e rn trad itio n ) which we find in Jerem ia h 33:23-26. T he link betw een these two motifs, creation and salvation, also occurs in D eutero-Isaiah, w here it is used to console the exiles: Y ahw eh is still in control o f w orld history. W eip p e rt regards J e r e m ia h 33:23-26 as a p o st-ex ilic exegesis o f th e J e r e m ia n c re a tio n co n cep t (W eippert 1981:46).

All th ese co n sid eratio n s suggest a late exilic o r early post-exilic d a te and a Levitical origin for Jerem iah 33:14-18.

4. C O M PA R ISO N O F JE R E M IA H 23:5-6 A N D JE R E M IA H 33:14-16

4.1 Form al aspects

In a form al sense the two pericopes differ a good deal. By reading the two sections

side by side, th e sim ila ritie s and d ifferen ces a re obvious. In te rm s o f co n tex t Je re m ia h 23:5-6 com es a t th e end of a cycle dealing th e kings (J r 21:1-23:8) and places the prophets’ criticism o f the kings in the fram ew ork o f a specific expectation. In a sense th ese verses are th e climax o f th e cycle o f kings. Je re m ia h 33 in tu rn forms part of a series o f salvation prophecies in chapters 30-33. T he section 30-31 is often referred to as a ‘booklet o f C om fort’, and chapters 32 and 33 link up w ith it. Jerem iah 33 is devoted to the rebuilding of Jerusalem (verse 2, 13) followed by the restoration of the D avidic dynasty. Jerem iah 33:14-26 was probably included in the section on salvation (ch 30-33) because the latter contained no detailed rendering of th e re sto ra tio n o f th e D avidic line (cf the m ere references in J r 30:9, 21) and the

cult was left disorganised. T he expanded M asoretic text used Jerem iah 33:14-26 to supply th is d eficiency (th e LX X d oes not h ave it). A n o th e r d iffe re n c e is th a t Jerem iah 23:5-6 is poetical, w hereas 33:14-16 is m ore prosaic. Both passages fit my definition of eschatology.

4.2 Tim e and situation

J e r e m ia h 23:5-6 p ro b a b ly d a te s fro m th e tim e o f Z e d e k ia h - th e en d o f th e m o n arch y . T h e king w as still on his th ro n e , th e te m p le w as still in u se and

H '/ Waseíj

J e r u s a le m an d its in h a b ita n ts w ere as yet u n sc a th e d . T h e B ab y lo n ian s w ere th re a te n in g th e city, which gives us a d a te im m ediately p rio r to 586 B C. I have tried to show th a t Jerem ia h 33:14-16, on th e o th er hand, derives from a late exilic, early post-exilic p erio d - no king, no tem ple, Jeru salem devastated and neglected and the cream o f the nation in exile. It was a tim e of hardship and internal conflict (cf Levites and Z adokites). A point o f similarity betw een the two sections may be th a t b o th express d isa p p o in tm e n t (J e re m ia h ’s d isa p p o in tm e n t in th e kings, the people in their situation). M oreover, Jerem iah 23:5-6 is Jerem ian w hereas 33:15-16 is an interpretation and actualisation o f Jerem iah’s words.

4 3 Theological content

As I have in d icated , b o th passages fit the d efin itio n o f p ro p h e tic eschatology I follow. In Jerem iah 23:5-6 the future era of the new Davidic king is represented as a tim e o f salvation: th ere is a d irect link betw een salvation and the p erson of this

king (cf the expression ‘in his days’). In Jerem iah 33:15-16 the reference is a m ore g eneral one - ‘in those days’. A distance in tim e is im plied. A tim e o f salvation is com ing in w hich th e king will play a d efin itiv e p a rt. J e re m ia h 33:15 d o es not em p h asise th e n a tu re o f his rule as Jerem ia h 23:5 does. T he sam e difference is ap p aren t in the application o f the nam e ‘Yahweh in o u r righteousness’ to the city of Jerusalem rath er than to the branch (king). The new nam e will apply to Jerusalem as th e se a t o f tem p le an d p alace, and as a symbol o f survival for the p eo p le and realm . T he perspective in Jerem iah 33:15-16 expands the expectation th at salvation will be realised. Jerusalem - described by Jerem iah as a doom ed city (e g Jerem iah 5; 13:28) will be changed and becom e known as ‘Y ahweh is o u r righteousness’. It w ill b e ru le d by a kin g o f D a v id ’s lin e w ho w ill s e e to it th a t ju s tic e an d righteousness p re v a il.

T he w ider context of Jerem iah 33:14-18 also differs from th at o f Jerem iah 23:5- 6. T h e L ev itical p rie st is a fu rth e r e le m e n t in th e e x p e c ta tio n o f th e tim e o f sa lv atio n (J r 33:17-18). T he la tte r envisages a fu tu re in w hich th e re will be a

legitim ate D avidic m onarch and a legitim ate (Levitical) priest. N ot the m onarchy only (Jr 23:5-6) but the cult o f Jerusalem will be restored. T he em phasis is on the re s to re d cultic com m unity o f w hich th e king an d p rie sth o o d form p a rt. I have argued th at Jerem iah 23:5-6 suggests a king like David (especially in the light o f J r 22:30), w hereas Jerem iah 33:17-18 seem s to point to an actual king (Z eru b b ab el) of the line o f D avid (cf th e strong em phasis given by linking it with a covenant in J r 33:25-26). In o th er words, Jerem iah 23:5-6 envisages a com pletely new creation in the raising up o f a branch for D avid; in Jerem iah 33:14-18 th e new creatio n lies in the restoration of specific ancient structures (a legitim ate heir o f David, a legitim ate

Levitical priest). Both passages agree that it is Yahweh who will bring it about. A final point, the m a tte r o f Levitical priests. I have subm itted th a t Jerem iah 23:5-6 was w ritten by Jerem iah himself, w hereas Jerem iah 33:14-18 probably derives fro m a L ev itical circle. J e re m ia h - a n ativ e of th e p riestly city o f A n a th o th - probably sym pathised with th e Levitical priesthood a t a certain stage. If W ilson is co rrect in saying th a t the Levites w ere carriers of the n o rth ern trad itio n in which Shiloh played an im p o rta n t p a rt, m any o f th e n o rth e rn influences he d e te c ts in Jerem iah ’s proclam ation may well be o f Levitical origin (cf W ilson 1980:18 with his distinction betw een northern and southern traditions). In Jerem iah 7 (a D euterono- m istic e d ite d p erico p e) J e re m ia h ’s referen ce to Shiloh is n o t sym pathetic to the Levites. Jerem ia h 33:14-18 th erefo re contrasts with Jerem iah 7 in advocating the resto ratio n o f the Levitical priesthood - probably an emphasis th at would be som e­ w hat foreign to Jerem iah himself.

5. SU M M A R Y A N D IN F E R E N C E

In the foregoing pages I have attem pted to explain the absence of Jerem iah 33:14-26 in the LXX in term s of the hypothesis th at the M asoretic text is a second edition of the H ebrew text o f Jerem iah and th at the Septuagint is based on a H ebrew Vorlage. It explained the longer text of the M T in term s o f additions in the post-exilic era. A com parison o f the two pericopes indicated that the expectation in Jerem iah 33:14-18 was a m ore general one with g reater em phasis on Jerusalem and the survival of the

realm (and hence of the people), and with an heir o f David and a Levitical priest as p e rm a n e n t e lem en ts o f an o rd e re d fu tu re society. In b o th th e se eschatological p e ric o p e s, it is Y ahw eh w ho raises up th e fu tu re o rd e r. It also a p p e a re d th a t Jerem ia h 33:14-18 should p erh ap s be linked w ith the conflict betw een th e d isen­ fran ch ised Levites and th e Z ad o k ites who displaced them , and d a te d to the late exilic o r early post-exilic period.

O ur com parison m ade it clear th a t Jerem iah 33:14-16 was based on Jerem iah 23:5-6. T h e la tte r probably arose from Je re m ia h ’s d isappointm ent in the kings of Ju d a h an d m ay w ell h av e b e e n w ritte n to reliev e th e d isso n an ce b e tw e e n his expectation of how a king should act and the dismal reality.

Although the prophecy in Jerem iah 23:5-6 should be seen as an expectation for the future, som e of Je re m ia h ’s follow ers probably looked for its speedy fulfilm ent

during the Exile itself. Some may even have taken the p ronouncem ent to refer to the reinstatem ent of Jehoiachin (cf the change in his circumstances in 2 Ki 25:27-30; J r 52:31-34), th o u g h no co n c re te evidence exists. T he exact circum stances are

u n k n o w n , b u t it is p o ssib le to see in J e r e m ia h 33:14-16 a re in te r p re ta tio n o f

IV / Wesseb

Jerem ia h 23:5-6, which had not yet been fulfilled. T he fall o f Jerusalem brought a radical change o f circum stances after the w riting o f Jerem iah 23:5-6. Little hope rem ained o f a D avidic heir to the throne. Though this form s no p art o f my argu­ m ent, Jerem iah 33:14-16 might even be understood as relieving the dissonance after the d isap p earan ce from the scene o f Z e ru b b a b e l, to w hom the fulfilm ent o f the

D avidic prom ise had been linked. Jerem iah 33:14-18 rein terp rets Jerem iah 23:5-6 by generalising it, widening the perspective and shifting the em phasis (eg from the king to th e city, an d add in g the c o rre c tio n o f a leg itim ate h e ir o f D avid and a le g itim a te L evitical p rie st). It is a d e lib e ra te a tte m p t to c o u n te ra c t the d o u b t expressed in Jerem iah 33:24 inter alia. T he sam e broadening o f m otives from the n a rr o w e r (e g th e king in J r 23:5-6) to a b ig g er v a rie ty (e g king an d cu ltic community in Jr 33:14-18) is detectable in other prophecies as well (cf Is 28:5; 33:17, 21; Ezk 48; C arroll 1979:215). A n a tte m p t is m ade in the process to explain the non-fulfilm ent o f Jerem iah 23:5-6 and to resolve the di.ssonance it creates. Carroll (1982:47-58) uses the term ‘eschatological delay’ and indicates the reaction and the attem pts to explain it. T he point at issue - for the prophets and presum ably for the prophetic tradition - is the people’s attitude to the future. T he purpose o f Jerem iah 33:14-26 is probably to open up possibilities of future fulfilment but presum ably also to console and stren g th en p eo p le who d e p e n d e d on the grace o f Y ahw eh. T he approach might be described as follows: ‘D issonance theory is helpful, not so much as an explanation o f events, but ra th e r as a way to think about p roblem s’ (C arroll 1979:103). My p urpose too, was not so much to give final answ ers b u t to use an approach which, in my opinion, is conducive to research.

It becam e clear in the process th a t the traditions in the book o f Jerem ia h are flexible in th eir approach to the pro p h etic pronouncem ents. W e may speak, in a sense, of both continuity and discontinuity in the actualisation and reinterpretation of the prophecy. O ur discussion of the two parallels also served to indicate the long tradition and growth process underlying the book of Jerem iah.

T hese traditions respected the prophetic word but also took a flexible approach in th e light o f changing circum stances. T he prophetic word had to be relevant to each period in turn.

W orks cited

Ackroyd, P R 1972. Exile and restoration. London: SCM.

Blenkinsopp, J 1984. A history o f prophecy in Israel. London: SPCK. C arroll, R P 1979. When prophecy failed. London: SCM.

— 1981. From chaos to covenant. London: SCM.

— 1982. Eschatological delay in the prophetic tradition? Z 4 94,48-58.

— 1984. Prophecy dissonance, and Jerem iah 26, in L G P erdue and B W Kovacs (eds), A prophet to the nations. Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

— 1986. Jeremiah. London: SCM.

D e Vaux, R 1968. A ncient Israel London: D arton, Longm an & Todd.

Fohrer, G 1969. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 11. Aufl. H eidelberg: Q uelle & Meyer.

H anson, P D 1979. The dawn o f apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Fortress.

— 1985. Apocalyptic literature, in D A K night & G M Tucker, The Hebrew Bible and its m odem interpreters. Philadelphia; Fortress.

J a n z e n , J G 1973. Stu d ies in the text o f Jerem iah. M a ssa c h u se tts: H a rv a rd University Press.

Polk, T 1979. T h e Levites in the D avidic-Solom onic E m p ire. Studia Biblica et Theologica 9,1-10.

Rudolph, W 1968. Jeremia. 3. Aufl. Tubingen: M ohr.

Schmidt, W H 1982. EinfUhrung in das A lte Testament. Berlin: D e G ruyter. Smend, R 1981. Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: K ohlham m er. S o d erlu n d , S 1985. The G reek text o f Jerem iah: A revised hypothesis. Sheffield:

JS O T Press.

Steck, O H 1968. D as Problem theologischer Strom ungen in nach-exilischer Z eit. EvTh 28, 445-458.

T hom pson, J A 1980. The book o f Jeremiah. G rand R apids: Eerdm ans.

Tov, E 1978. T he n ature o f the H ebrew Text underlying th e LXX: A survey o f the problem s. /5 0 7 7 ,5 2 - 6 8 .

— 1985. T h e literary history o f the book o f Je re m ia h in th e light o f its textual history, in J H Tigay (ed), Emperical models fo r Biblical criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress.

V an Seims, A 1972. Jeremia. Nijkerk: Callenbach.

W e ip p e r t, H 1981. S c h d p fe r des H im m e ls a n d der Erde. S tu ttg a r t: V e rla g Katholisches Bibelwerk.

W eiser, A 1969. Das Buch Jeremiah. 6. Aufl. G ottingen: V andenhoek.

W essels, W J 1985. J e re m ia se opvatting o o r die koningskap: ’n O n tled in g van Jerem ia 21:1-23:8. DTh-Thesis, Pretoria: University of South Africa.

W ildberger, H 1972. Jesaja 1-12. Neukirchen: N eukirchener Verlag.

Wilson, R R 1980. Prophecy and society in A ncient Israel Philadelphia: Fortress.