Facing destruction and exile: Inner-biblical exegesis in Jeremiah and Ezekiel

Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Volumn 117, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 189-205

  Rom Shiloni, Dalit ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547982280     PISSN: 00442526     EISSN: 16130103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/zatw.2005.117.2.189     Document Type: Review

References (100)

1. A shorter version of this paper was presented in the Colloquium of the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies of the University of Pennsylvania: Jewish Biblical Interpretation in a Comparative Context, April 2002.
2. Inner-biblical exegesis was noted sporadically by scholars as early as L. Zunz, Die gottesdientlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, 1832, 1892 (Hebr. transl. by M. A. Zach, 1947, 7-20).
3. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 1985, 1988, emphasized its frequency throughout the biblical literature;
4. and recently D. L. Petersen, Zehcariah 9-14: Methodological Reflections, in: Bring Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah 9-14, M. Boda/M. H. Floyd (eds.), JSOT.S 370, 2003, 210-224.
5. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation; R. Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 1-8 and 9-14, 1996;
6. L. Eslinger, Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category, VT 42 (1992), 47-58;
7. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14, 6.
8. Z. Ben-Porat, The Poetics of Literary Allusion, PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976), 105-128, esp. 107-116;
9. B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66, 1998, 10-15.
10. E. Miner, Allusion, in: The New Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, A. Preminger/V. Brogan (eds.), 1993, 38-40.
11. Yet scholars debate over the exact relationship between the texts. Cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 10-14;
12. B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 6-18;
13. R. Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue, 23-37, 233-235 and throughout;
14. Cf. R. L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOT.S 180, 1999, 227-239.
15. In this respect the study of allusion and exegesis differs from »intertextuality«, which refers either to the synchronous a historical relationship between texts, or to the ongoing process of interpretation through the ages (K. Nielsen, Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible, in: Congress Volume: Oslo 1998, VT.S 80, 2000, 17-31;
16. M. Fishbane, Types of Biblical Intertextuality, ibid., 39-44).
17. To mark the authoritative or even quasi-canonical status of the evoked text, Fishbane differentiated between the traditum and the traditio (Biblical Interpretation, 6-19, etc.);
18. and cf. J. Kugel's criticism, The Bible's Earliest Interpreters, Prooftexts 7 (1987), 269-283, esp. 273f.
19. On allusion for the sake of polemics without contradicting the authoritative status of the texts, see Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue, 24f.
20. Fishbane showed that »aggadic exegesis do not explicitly clarify, resolve, harmonize, or even reauthorize earlier traditions ... The content of that traditum remains unaffected and unchanged by the traditio which uses it for its own end in the present« (Biblical Interpretation, 415f.). According to Schultz later prophets allude to and interpret previous prophecies for three reasons: continuing validity, authority, and analogy (Search for Quotation, 224-228).
21. For general studies of the re-use of Pentateuchal traditions and legal materials in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, see Y. Kaufmann, Toldot HaEmunah Ha Yisra'elit, 1952, 1976, 3.432-434;
22. W. Zimmerli, The Law and the Prophets: A Study of the Meaning of the Old Testament, R. E. Clements (trans.), 1965.
23. On Jeremiah, cf. E. J. Smith, The Decalogue in the Preaching of Jeremiah, CBQ 4 (1942), 197-209, and commentaries.
24. On Ezekiel, see M. Burrows, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel, 1925, 19-25, 28-36, 47-68;
25. W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, BKAT XIII/1,1969 = Ezekiel 1, Hermeneia, J. D. Martin (trans.), 1979, 46-52;
26. as also Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation; R. Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah, JSOT.S 358 (2002).
27. H. W. Wolff, Das Zitat im Prophetenspruch, BhEvTh 4, 1937; reprinted in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, 1964, 36-129. Though this seems to be a major literary and rhetorical device in Jeremiah, the phenomenon has not gained thorough investigation in the commentaries.
28. For some examples, see J. L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, BZAW 124, 1971, 23-38;
29. W. J. Hurwitz, Audience Reaction to Jeremiah, CBQ 32 (1970), 555-564;
30. T. W. Overholt, Jeremiah 2 and the Problem of 〉Audience Reaction〈 CBQ 41 (1979), 262-273.
31. For quotations in Ezekiel, see M. Greenberg, The Citations in the Book of Ezekiel as a Background for the Prophecies, BetM 17 (1972), 273-278;
32. G. Brin, Studies in the Book of Ezekiel, 1975, 18-52;
33. quotations were considered valuable already in G. A. Cooke's commentary (The Book of Ezekiel, ICC, 1936, 1985, 96).
34. D. Rom-Shiloni, God in Times of Destruction and Exiles: Theology and Ideology in the Prophetical Literature and in the Poetry of the First Half of the Sixth Century BCE, Ph. D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2001, 45-47.
35. The category of »reuse« of different earlier materials was suggested by Kugel (The Bible's Earliest Interpreters, 274-277) as an alternative to Fishbane's categories of »scribal, legal, aggadic and mantological exegesis« (Biblical Interpretation). While Fishbane's point of departure was the alluding text, Kugel emphasized the evoked text as the basis for discussion. Throughout this paper Kugel's method will be followed.
36. Synonymous terms link evoked-text(s) to present reality. Fishbane wrote of Correlation as an »aggadic technique« of interpretation (Biblical Interpretation, 421-423). The rabbinic terminology is (cf. I. Heinemann, Darchei Ha-'Agada, 1954, 63-74;
37. as also in the Pesharim literature, cf. S. D. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy, 1991, 3-6).
38. Another term is actualization, cf. Zakovitch, An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Interpretation, 1992, 128-130.
39. This prophetic debate has been satisfactorily explained as genuine words of the prophet. Cf. J. Bright, The Date of the Prose Sermons of Jermeiah, JBL 70 (1951), 15-35;
40. H. Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches, BZAW 132, 1977, 67-86;
41. W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, Hermeneia, 1986, 570.
42. Contra Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation, 531f. and n. 9)
43. who followed A. Rofe (Studies in the Composition of the Book of Jeremiah, Tarb. 44 [1975], 1-29).
44. alludes to the Exodus and the Settlement in Ex 3,20; 34,10; Jos 3,5; Mic 7,15; Ps 78,4.11.32; 98,1; 105,5; 106,22; 107,24; Neh 9,17; from the Creation to the Settlement, Ps 136. Alluding to the Exodus, is furthermore the object of verbs of praise, such as (i.e. Jud 6,13; Ps 107,8.15.21.31), etc. Without explicit reference to Exodus traditions, appears in Ps 40,6; 72,18; 86,10; Job 5,9; 9,10; 37,(5).14; and alone in Ps 119,18; Job 37,14; 42,3. Only once does it appear in the negative with human as subject (Ps 131,1).
45. Ex 3,19f., a J tradition, is evaluated by most scholars as earlier than the sixth century BCE. Nevertheless, in designating the evoked text I do not exclude the possibility that the allusion is not restricted to that text alone. As has been generally acknowledged, the allusion might refer to multiple texts.
46. in Jer 21,5 is unique in three respects: (1) The order of the attributes contrasts with the otherwise common order (as in Dtn 5,15 above, etc.). (2) The association of the outstretched hand with the anger of God appears only in Isa 5,15; 9,11.16.20; 10,4; Ez 20,22.34. (3) The outstretched hand does not appear in the Exodus traditions, whereas in Isaiah it stands for the war that God wages against the nations (Isa 14,26) or against His people (the v. mentioned in Isa 5; 9; 10). Therefore, the phrase is not deuteronomistic, but an idiosyncratic Jeremian phrase. Cf. Bright, The Prose Sermons, 15-35;
47. Weippert, Die Prosareden, 67-85;
48. and Holladay, Jeremiah 2, Hermeneia, 1989, 53-64.
49. R. Carroll, Jeremiah, OTL, 1986, 409f.
50. and W. Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down: Jeremiah 1-25, ITC, 1988, 183, considered v. 7 to be a secondary addition in light of its stylistic and literary peculiarities in the context. The thematic reason for the augmentation can be realized by comparison with other instances, where human acts of war mark the total both in prophecies (as in Jer 15,5-9) and in historiographical narratives (such as Jud 7,23-25; II Chr 20,25).
51. and Sommer's »reversal allusion«, in: A Prophet Reads Scripture, 36-46.
52. The inquiry of God brings the inquirer to a prophet serving as a mediator between God and man (so also Ez 14,1-11; Jer 21,2 and see 37,3; cf. Wagner, TDOT 3, 302f. The inquiry is always a specific request for a future prediction concerning the fate of the individual (Gen 25,22f.; Ex 18,15f.; I Sam 9,9; Ps 34,5 etc.), or regarding life and death in war (such as I Reg 22,13-18; Jer 10,21; 21,2 etc.). Thus, both motives have been suggested by medieval exegetes and critical commentators concerning Ez 20,32.
53. So Rashi, Kimhi and Luzzato; W. Eichrodt (Ezekiel, OTL, 1970, 277)
54. M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, AncB, 1983, 371, 386;
55. and D. I. Block, Ezekiel 1-24, NICOT, 1997, 648f.
56. Block, Ezekiel 1-24, 649 n. 176.
57. Eliezer of Beaugency, Perush al Yehezkel u-Tere Asar, 1968, 32. Sarcasm as to idol worship is typical of Deuteronomy (Dtn 27,15; 28,36.63; 29,16; 31,29), and frequent in the prophets (Hos 4,12; 8,6; 13,2; 14,4; Isa 2,8; Mic 5,12; and Deutero-Isa 41,7; 44,9-20; 46,6); as well as Ps 115,5-7; 135,16f.
58. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11, AncB, 1991, 209.
59. M. Freedman (Meir Ish-Shalom), Has{dot below}iyyun, hu be 'ur linvu'at Yeh{dot below}ezqel siman 20, 1888, 1;
60. M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 20 and the Spiritual Exile, Oz leDavid, 1964, 433-442;
61. Ezekiel 1-20, 386-388; accepted by Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 365. G. Fohrer interpreted a reaction against the wish to make an idol of God, Ezekiel, HAT 13, 1955, 108.
62. Associating the Elders' request with idolatry rituals relies on the occurrences of in relation to ritual practices. usually describes Yahweh rituals (as in Ex 28,43; 30, 20 etc.), or implies servitude of God (as in I Sam 2,18; 3,1; Ez 40,46; 43,19; 44,15.16), of king (Gen 39,4; Est 1,10), or of a prophet (I Reg 19,21). Exceptionally in Ezekiel, this verb designates ritual practices of other gods as well (Ez 44,11.12). Based on these two functions of in Ezekiel, Ez 20,32 can either be the quoted words of the Elders, or the words of the prophet himself.
63. As also Ps 137. Indeed, Cooke criticized this interpretation as well (Ezekiel, 213). The seventh century sanctuary in Elephantine cannot illuminate this issue raised during the Babylonian exile; cf. B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony, 1968, 105-122;
64. K. van der Toorn, Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine, Numen 39,1 (1992), 80-101.
65. Y. Kaufmann, Toldot HaEmunah Ha Yisra'elit, 3.558f; Zimmerli considered the quotation a reaction to the prophet's historical perspective, not the initial trigger of it (Ezekiel 1, 414, 417f.).
66. So already Qara, Kimhi, and Ibn Caspi, based on bSan 105b. However, they all found a rebellious tone in the quotation, and not despair.
67. A. Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People, AnBib 104, 1984, 66f.
68. The concept of exile and the status of the Exiles are also dealt with in Jer 5,18f.; 9,15; 16,10-12; and Ez 11,14-21; 33,23-29.
69. See Ez 12,15; 22,15; 36,19; and the prophecies against Egypt (29,13; 30,23.26). In Prophecies of Consolation the nouns alternate: in Ez 11,16; 20,34; 28,25; in 34,12f.
70. The threat of exile is repeated in two of the three sections of curses and threats in Dtn 28, 36.64. Cf. J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary, 1996, 489-493.
71. Dtn 4,25-28 suggests a pre-exilic concept of exile, in contrast with v. 29-31, that are of the exilic layer of Deuteronomy (as Dtn 30,1-10), cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11, 209.
72. In his letter to the Exiles (Jer 29,5-7), Jeremiah alludes in reversal to this danger (v. 6). Thus, it seems that the concept of exile in Dtn 4,25-28 is the thematic context of the letter. Compare to A. Berlin, Jeremiah 29,5-7:
73. A Deuteronomic Allusion, HAR 8 (1984), 3f., who suggests Dtn 20,5f. (with an »echo« of Dtn 28,30-32); and Holladay, who refers to Dtn 26,5 for the increase/decrease theme (Jeremiah 2, 141).
74. Wood and stone are the worship targets of the nations outside the land of Canaan in Dtn 29,16; II Reg 19,18; Isa 37,19.
75. So Tigay, Deuteronomy, 53.
76. Other occurrences of this perception are Jos 22; I Sam 26,19; Hos 9,3-5; and the phrases (Hos 9,3); (Jos 22,19); (Ps 79,1 etc.). Cf. S. E. Loewenstamm. ScrHie 31 (1986), 155-192, especially 172-177.
77. Despair on the part of the Exiles of 597 in Babylon is further attested in Ez 33,10; 37,11;
78. cf. Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People, 122f.
79. Chapter 20 is commonly divided into two initially independent units: the historical speech (v. 1-31), expanded by the disputation speech (v. 32-44). So Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 276-284; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 404, 413f.; L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, WBC 29, 1990, 5; and also Graffy, ibid, 65f. In contrast, Greenberg and Hoffman argued for the unity of the chapter (Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 376-381;
80. Y. Hoffman, Ezekiel 20-Its Structure and Meaning, BetM 20 (1975), 480-486.
81. So Block, Ezekiel 1-24, 613.
82. Compare to Hoffman, Ezekiel 20, 473;
83. and Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 387f.
84. Y. Zakovitch, For Three ... and for Four: The Pattern of the Numerical Sequence three-four in the Bible, Ph. D. Diss., 1979.
85. Contra to Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 377f., the fourth climatic era is Ezekiel's generation (v. 30-32). Hoffman's division does not coincide with the following clear literary pattern of the speech (Ezekiel 20, 482).
86. Thus translated by Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 362.
87. So Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 405, 412. Although observing their peculiar characteristics, Greenberg, Ezekiel 20, 437-439; Ezekiel 1-20, 378; Hoffman, Ezekiel 20, 482; and recently Block, Ezekiel 1-24, 641-645, still considered v. 27-29 part of the original words.
88. Greenberg did feel the theme of cult to be alien to the main topic, nevertheless, he presumed that it was the prophet's main interest in this prophecy (Ezekiel 20, 439-441).
89. For this Priestly perspective, cf. M. Greenberg, Parashat Ha-Shabbat be-Sefer Yirmeyahu, in: Iyyunim be-Sefer Yirmeyahu, B. Z. Luria (ed.), 1971, 28-37;
90. idem, Ezekiel 1-20, 366f.
91. Compare to L. C. Allen, The Structuring of Ezekiel's Revisionist History Lesson (Ezekiel 20: 3-31), CBQ 54 (1992), 448-462.
92. Idolatry practiced prior to the Settlement connects Ez 20 to Ps 106 (and Jos 24,14). Cf. G. W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, 1968, 227f., 233f.; Block, Ezekiel 1-24, 615f.
93. Therefore, contra to Hoffman, Ezekiel 20, 483, I do not find an association of God's role in history with the retribution concept to be in the foreground of this prophecy.
94. For allusions in v. 33-38 (as also v. 5f. and others) to the Priestly tradition in Ex 6,2-8, cf. M. A. Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Reading of Selected Biblical Texts, 1979, 31-132; Biblical Interpretation, 366f. Nevertheless, Ezekiel's words differ considerably from that tradition: (1) He does not mention the fathers as the recipients of the promise to the land (Ex 6,2.8; Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 364). (2) Unparalleled in Ex 6, Ezekiel suggests an immediate requirement to obey God's demands (Ez 20,7); (3) Ezekiel describes the salvation using idioms of wrath aimed at the people. Cf. bRHSh 32b, and Greenberg's discussion of in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1-20, 371f.).
95. For different evaluations of the wilderness traditions in Ezekiel's speech, cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel 279f.;
96. and Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, 240f.
97. R. Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul, 98-103.
98. This calls for a reevaluation of Fishbane's emphasis on the prophetical responsibility for »homiletical transformations of authoritative texts« (Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis, JBL 99 [1980], 343-361). Other disputation-speeches in Ezekiel present an actual practice of interpretation within the quotations (Ez 11,14; 18,2; 33,10.23; and Jer 33,23-26).
99. Compare to Y. Frenkel's description of the emergence of Midrash (Midrash and Aggadah, 1996, 26).
100. T. K. Beal, Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, D. N. Fewell (ed.), 1992, 21-24.