From complaint to contrition: Peering through the liturgical window of Jer 14,1-15,4

Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Volumn 113, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 186-197

  Boda, Mark J ^a  

^a Canadian Theological Seminary Regina ^*  (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 64349103319     PISSN: 00442526     EISSN: 16130103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/zatw.113.2.186     Document Type: Review

References (82)

1. I am thankful to G. I. Davies (Cambridge) for his comments on an earlier draft of this article.
2. The elements of this Gattung are as follows: Praise; Supplication (depiction of need, muted lament, implicit request); Confession of Sin (admission of culpability, declaration of solidarity with former generations, consistent use of the Hitpa'el of), History (anthological use of historical sources, use of the contrast motif: God's grace/Israel's disobedience), common themes (covenant, land, law), common purpose (to bring an end to the devastating effects of the fall of the state: either to captivity, oppression, or the sorry condition of Palestine). See M. J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9, BZAW 277, 1999, 21-73.
3. For a review of the later history of the Gattung see R. A. Werline, Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution, SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 13, 1998. V. Pröbstl (Nehemia 9, Psalm 106 und Psalm 136 und die Rezeption des Pentateuchs, 1997, 47) links Ps 106, Neh 9 and Isa 63,7-64,11 into a category (» Weiterentwicklung der Volksklage«) between communal laments of the Psalter and the »so-called Repentance prayers« (»sogenannten Bußgebeten«) in Ezr 9, Neh 1 and Dan 9. The inclusion of Isa 63-64 is inappropriate (see note below), but Pröbstl has discerned a distinction I make between Ezr 9, Neh 1, Dan 9 and Ps 106, Neh 9. However the intention and basic form is the same in all.
4. Cf. C. R. Anderson, The Formation of the Levitical Prayer in Nehemiah 9, Dissertation: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987
5. and O. H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum, WMANT 23, 1967, 110-137. Steck placed these prayers into the following category: »Sündenbekenntnissen« and »Bußgebeten des Volkes« in the »Gebetstradition des dtr Geschichtsbildes«.
6. Boda, Praying 43-73. Werline (Penitential Prayer) focusses almost exclusively on the Deuteronomistic influence as does the earlier Anderson (Formation).
7. C. Westermann, Lob und Klage in den Psalmen, 1977, 132.
8. For bibliography and discussion of these private laments see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, Hermeneia, 1986, 357-361;
9. Jeremiah 2, Hermeneia, 1989, 460
10. and R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah, OTG, 1989, 55f.
11. See especially the works of T. Polk, The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self, JSOT.S 32, 1984, 127-162
12. and A. R. Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama, JSOT.S 45, 1987.
13. See J. T. Willis, Dialogue between Prophet and Audience as a Rhetorical Device in the Book of Jeremiah, JSOT 33 (1985), 63-82, for a review of several of these passages. Although he argues for the use of dialogue as a literary device, he does admit a Sitz im Leben in cultic life.
14. Some scholars have included 15,5-9 in this section (e.g. Holladay, Jeremiah 422;
15. R. E. Clements, Jeremiah, Interpretation, 1988, 89;
16. P. C. Craigie; P. H. Kelley; J. F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25, Word Biblical Commentary, 1991, 199;
17. cf. Carroll, Jeremiah, 307).
18. Cf. O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1934, 400;
19. H. G. Reventlow, Liturgie und prophetisches Ich bei Jeremia, 1963, 149-187;
20. W. Rudolph, Jeremia, HAT, 1968, 89-103;
21. K. M. O'Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation and Role in Chapters 1-25, SBL.DS 94, 1988, 135-137.
22. A. Weiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jeremia, ATD, 1960, 121;
23. M. Kessler, From Drought to Exile: Jeremiah 14:1-15:4, ACEBT 2, 1981, 79. Willis (Dialogue) bridges these two theories, seeing 14:1-15:4 as a »redactional unity«, drawn from two different occasions.
24. Craigie/Kelly/Drinkard, Jeremiah, 200. Holladay based this on his inclusion of 15,5-9 with the pericope. In his mind because war is described in 15,5-9 and drought in 14,2-6 and the middle section (14,17f) describes both war and famine the pericope must be united.
25. See G. Fohrer, Über den Kurzvers, ZAW 66 (1954), 218, 226;
26. idem., Abgewiesene Klage und untersagte Fürbitte in Jer 14,2-15,2 in: Künder des Wortes: Beiträge zur Theologie der Propheten, ed. L. Ruppert/P. Weimar/E. Zenger, 1982, 77.
27. W. McKane (Jeremiah: Introductory and Commentary on Jeremiah I-XXV, ICC, 316) saw this as part of the lament: »description of the situation«.
28. For the elements of lament see W. Baumgartner, Die Klagegedichte des Jeremia, BZAW 32, 1917, 77-79;
29. Reventlow, Liturgie, 154-161, 178f.
30. Kessler, Drought, 77.
31. W. A. M. Beuken/H. W. M. van Grol, Jeremiah 14,1-15,9:
32. A Situation of Distress and its Heremeneutics. Unity and Diversity of Form - Dramatic Development, in: Le Livre de Jérémie: Le Prophète et son Milieu. Les oracles et leur transmission, ed. P.-M. Bogaert, 1981, 341f. Beuken and van Grol suggested that Jeremiah and Baruch were involved in this literary creation.
33. McKane, Jeremiah, 324;
34. J. Hyatt (The Book of Jeremiah: Introduction and Exegesis, in: IntB 5, 1956, 937) argued that these events reflect no particular period in Jeremiah's life but the pieces are a combination of materials from various times with secondary matter.
35. Cf. A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament I, 1948, 164;
36. Eissfeldt, Einleitung, 400;
37. Weiser, Jeremia, 122;
38. Rudolph, Jeremia, 97-103;
39. Fohrer, Künder, 77;
40. Holladay, Jeremiah 422, 429;
41. Craigie/Kelley/Drinkard, Jeremiah, 200;
42. R. Jones, Jeremiah, NCB, 1992, 214. Jones asked whether the lament here was »part of the prophetic art of Jeremiah to express the conventional and expected thought of the people in lament for with which they would be familiar, in order to provide the basis and context of a divine answer such as follows in chapter 15.« Reventlow (Liturgie, 152) argued that here is represented not merely »eine Nachahmung liturgische Stilformen« but »eine wirkliche Liturgie«.
43. Fohrer, Künder, 86 n.1).
44. Cf. J. A. Thompson (The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, 1980, 43-50) for this debate.
45. How could a 〉deuteronomistic lamenter〈 have complained about that activity of God which the deuteronomic/deuteronomistic movement sought to justify?« (M. E. Biddle, A Redaction History of Jeremiah 2:1-4:2, AThANT 77, 1990, 63 n. 36).
46. Hyatt, Jeremiah, 936;
47. Clements, Jeremiah, 89;
48. Jones, Jeremiah, 206.211.214.
49. R. P. Carroll (Jeremiah, OTGu, 1989, 81-83) reviews the evidence for Jeremiah's priestly and possibly cult prophet background.
50. Cf. S. H. Blank, Jeremiah: Man and Prophet, 1961, 234-239.
51. Contra Blank, Jeremiah, 92-104. 234-239. Reventlow (Liturgie, 258) recognised this role but saw it as one component of »seine doppelseitige Aufgabe«: »als der Vertreter des Volkes vor Gott zu stehen, in der Fürbitte und stellvertretenden Klage für die Gemeinschaft einzutreten« and »die Botschaft Jahwes für dieses Volk entgegenzunehmen und als der Mund Jahwes an es weiterzureichen«. In Jer 32,16f. The prophet prays in order to discover the meaning of a symbolic action. Elsewhere (Hitpa'el) is used of the people (Jer 29,7.12).
52. The description in 14,17f. is clearly Jeremianic: (Jer 9,17; 13,17; 14,17 cf. Thr 2,11); for Israel (Jer 2,32; 18,13; 31,4.21); (Jer 4,6; 6,1), juxtaposition of prophet and priest (Jeremiah passim, eg. Jer 5,31; 6,13; 8,10; 23,11.33.34; 26,7.8).
53. This probably corresponds to an expected Heilsorakel, cf. J. Begrich, ZAW 52 (1934), 81-92.
54. See the comparison of Jer 14 with Joel 1-2 in Reventlow, Liturgie, 154f.
55. and with Hos 14,2-9 in Baumgartner, Klagegedichte, 77-79, both of which end in a Heilsorakel.
56. The pattern in Joel and Hosea can be discerned in Jer 3 where in an earlier era (Josiah) the liturgy ends in a conditional Heilsorakel. Notice the additional element in these renditions of »call to repentance«. Reventlow, Liturgie, 161, stressed that the presence of judgment in Jer 14,1-15,4 does not disqualify it from the »Bereich der Liturgie« for there are always »die beiden Möglichkeiten einer Heils- wie einer Unheilsverkündung«.
57. Jer 14,1-15,4 turns promise into judgment and eliminates the call to repentance because the time of hope has passed (cf. J. Unterman, From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah's Thought in Transition, JSOT.S 54, 1987, 33f.187 n. 6;
58. contra Biddle, Redaction).
59. J. Bright (Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation and Notes, AncB, 1965, 102);
60. Clements (Jeremiah, 92) 73
61. and Biddle (Redaction, 63) suggested the laments come from actual temple ceremonies.
62. Although Willis (Dialogue, 77) speaks consistently on the literary level in dealing with passages like Jer 14, he does admit that at least Jer 14:1-15:4 is »probably and oft-used confessio- or lament-liturgy common in the Jerusalem cult on a fast day or day of repentance.«
63. O'Connor (Confessions, 137 n.172) writes: »The liturgical materials were probably used in worship before being joined with prose and poetry here. With the exception of v. 22, they make no reference to drought conditions. The prayer may have been used originally in connection with any community disaster«.
64. Contra Thompson (Jeremiah, 385) who identified this as a military defeat but saw the famine as following the defeat.
65. Cf. Jones, Jeremiah, 209.
66. 14,19b is found elsewhere in Jer 8,15 where it is clearly used in the context of an invasion of the land.
67. O'Connor, Confessions, 137.
68. Cf. Fohrer, Künder, 85;
69. Jones, Jeremiah, 1992, 209).
70. Kessler, Drought, 71, 77;
71. cf. Deut 28,36;
72. cf. Bright, Jeremiah, 101;
73. See Unterman, Repentance, 176f., for the transformation in Jeremiah from a prophet who preaches repentance into one who sees little hope of the people's response. The Zedekian period is a watershed era in this respect.
74. Nobles, servants, and farmers with no sign of social disorder caused by the fall of Jerusalem. See Jer 27,20; 39,6 where stress is laid on the death of the nobles and 31,24 where the absence of farmers is implied.
75. So also Weiser, Jeremia, 128 n. 2.
76. and Jones (Jeremiah, 992, 213) argued that Lev 26,40-55 »reads like the basis of this lament. There must be some relationship, though it is difficult to know how to establish it precisely.«
77. Jer 7,29 uses.
78. Cf. Ez 16,45.
79. The implication of this conclusion is that a form of Lev 26 was already known in the late pre-exilic period. This builds upon the argument of M. F. Rooker (Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel, JSOT.S 90, 1990, 61f.) that Lev 26 was in existence prior to Ezekiel and pushes the date back to pre-fall Jerusalem. The many correspondences to the book of Ezekiel show that it was preserved and revered among Ezekielian circles after the fall of Jerusalem. Lev 26 provided the agenda for renewal out of devastation.
80. And possibly the Deuteronomistic editors.
81. This characteristic places it closer to what I have identified as »proto-Penitential Prayer,« seen elsewhere in, for example, Isa 63,7-64,11;
82. cf. Boda, Praying, 26-29.