Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy and the tip [Text not reproducible in ascii] atbash codes

Biblica

Volumn 85, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 503-522

  Leuchter, Mark ^a  

^a Hebrew College   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70749135384     PISSN: 00060887     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. See J. BRIGHT, Jeremiah (AB; New York 1965) 209
2. R.K. HARRISON, Jeremiah and Lamentations (Winona Lake 1973) 126
3. See A. AEJMELAEUS, "Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer. XXV 1-14 in the Book of Jeremiah"," VT 52 (2002) 475-476
4. C.F. WHITLEY, "The seventy years desolation - a rejoinder", VT 7 (1957) 416-418
5. ID., "The term seventy years captivity", VT 4 (1954) 60-72
6. nd Temple society, see G. BOCCACCINI, The Roots of Rabbinic Judaism (Grand Rapids 2002) 52-81
7. For the 70-year reference as alater scribal softening of earlier oracles, see E.W. NICHOLSON, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah 1-25 (Cambridge 1975) 211
8. J.M. BRACKE, Jeremiah 1-29 (Philadelphia 2000) 198
9. B.D. SOMMER, "New Light on the Composition of Jeremiah", CBQ 61 (1999)659-663
10. SOMMER, "New Light", 663. Sommer's analysis of allusions to Jeremiah in the Deutero-lsaianic corpus further demonstrates that the literature containing the 70-year prophecy must have obtained literary form before Deutero-lsaiah's activity, disqualifying arguments that it is the result of later scribal accretions on historical and tradition-historical grounds
11. Texts that date from the period subsequent to the battle of Carchemish (605) consistently encourage submission to divine will through the recognition of Babylonian political domination. Jeremiah's Urrolle (cf. Jer 36), which likely contained material currently found in Jer 1-11, appears to have been formed in relation to the outcome of Carchemish and consistently emphasizes the international spectrum of events; See M. LEUCHTER, Jeremiah: The First Jew (Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Toronto 2003) 190-211
12. Such a compositional approach may be detected in the prophet's earliest compositions directed to the north; see M. SWEENEY, King Josiah of Judah. The Lost Messiah of Israel (New York - Oxford 2001) 232-233, who discusses the shift in tone from the early layers of Jer 30-31 to those of Jer 2-4
13. See A. DEMSKY, "A Proto-Canaanite Abecedary Dating from the Period of the Judges and its Implications for the History of the Alphabet", Tel Aviv 4 (1977) 19-20
14. See also J. TIGAY, "An Early Technique of Aggadic Exegesis", History, Historiography and Interpretation (eds. H. TADMOR - M. WEINFELD) (Jerusalem 1983) 176-181
15. See BRIGHT, Jeremiah, 161
16. NICHOLSON, Jeremiah 1-25, 215
17. see also D.R. JONES, Jeremiah (NCBC, Grand Rapids 1992) 535, who notes this possibility, though he is tentative about accepting it as a viable explanation
18. On the priority of the written form of prophecy in Jeremianic discourse, J.R. LUNDBOM, "Baruch, Seraiah and Expanded Colophons in the Book of Jeremiah", JSOT 36 (1986) 107-109
19. ID., Jeremiah 1-20 (AB; New York 1999)92
20. For the Jeremianic invective against hyposlatization, see B. HALPERN, "Brisker Pipes Than Poetry: The Development of Israelite Monotheism", Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (eds. J. NEUSNER et al.) (Philadelphia 1987) 98-102
21. R.C. STEINER, "The Two Sons of Neriah and the Two Editions of Jeremiah in Light of the Two Atbash Code-Words for Babylon", VT 46 (1996) 83-84, who argues that the coding is to be attributed to Seraiah b. Neriah during the latter's redaction of an earlier edition of the Jeremianic corpus
22. LUNDBOM, "Baruch, Seraiah", 103 and HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 118, 140 argue that the collection obtained at an earlier stage in the development of the text. Both propose an early form of the book of Jeremiah including material from Jer 1-25,13+OAN, a corpus which may be identified with the scroll that Seraiah dropped into the Euphrates (so also LUNDBOM, "Baruch, Seraiah", 103). This position does not preclude the possibility that the OAN evolved over time in line with the larger corpus, and indeed scholars are divided on the provenance of the OAN
23. th Birthday (eds. A.B. BECK et al.) (Grand Rapids 1995) 77-78, who suggests that the OAN should be dated considerably later than the majority of the poetry in the Jeremianic corpus
24. There is general agreement that Jer 25 has undergone several stages of redaction; see AEJMELAEUS, "Turning Point", 468
25. E. BEN ZVI, "Introduction: Writings, Speeches, and the Prophetic Books-Setting an Agenda", Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (eds. E. BEN ZVI - M. H. FLOYD) (Symposium 10; Atlanta 2000) 6-16, points out that only a limited social caste would have been familiar with the type of scribal devices evidenced in the Jeremiah texts. The broader implications and completed work may well have made an impact in the public arena, but the methods involved in the atbash inversions under consideration would not have originated in that arena, which was far more predisposed to aural devices as opposed to textual/visual ones
26. See H. TADMOR, "The Appointed Time Has Not Yet Come: The Historical Background of Haggai 1,2", Ki Baruch Hu. Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A Levine (eds. R. CHAZAN et al.) (Winona Lake 1999) 401-408
27. TADMOR discusses the phrase as a public chant by virtue of its rhythmic cadence. F.M. CROSS, "Towards a History of Hebrew Prosody", Fortunate The Eyes That See, 302-306, discusses the oral dimensions of poetic units, something that is clearly at work in the Haggai passage and which characterizes much earlier modes of direct public discourse as well (cf. 1 Sam 18,7), but entirely lacking in the hermetic atbash references
28. On the exilic meditations added to the Deuteronomistic material, see B. PECKHAM, History and Prophecy (New York 1993) 518-612
29. R.E. FRIEDMAN, The Exile and Biblical Narrative (Chico 1981) 26-43
30. F.M. CROSS, Canaanite Myth Hebrew Epic (Cambridge 1973) 276-289
31. See R. BORGER, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 9; Graz 1967) 12-19
32. th centuries, and his position that the prose of Jeremiah was the result of later Deuteronomistic editors, who "employed the numerical typology of the period, which appears to have been particularly employed by Mesopotamian scribes" (pg. 146)
33. SOMMER, "New Light", 661-662
34. and HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 137-139, have demonstrated that Jer 29 cannot be considered part of a later Deuteronomistic redaction but is original to the prophet. Weinfeld's analysis also does not account for the role of the atbash codes, which factor significantly into the hermeneutics of the Jeremianic passages under consideration and which detract from his position that the reference to 70 years was a stereotyped scribal device (see below)
35. The theological and propagandistic aspects of this passage have been discussed by L.K. HANDY, "The Role of Huldah in Josiah's Cult Reform", ZAW 106(1994)40-46
36. HANDY, "The Role of Huldah", 41-42
37. For a detailed analysis of Esarhaddon's diplomatic policies, see B.N. PORTER, Images, Power Politics. Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon's Babylonian Policy (Philadelphia 1993)
38. Though the Akkadian and Hebrew systems of script differ (cuneiform syllabic characters vs. alphabetic phonemes), the scribal methods involved in the manipulation of written symbols for purposes of rhetoric or ideological implication are quite similar in both Israelite and Akkadian contexts. See V.A. HUROWITZ, "Additional Elements of Alphabetical Thinking in Psalm xxxiv", VT 52 (2002) 326-333
39. See also M. FISHBANE, "Varia Deuteronomica", ZAW 84 (1972) 349-352 for parallels between Akkadian and Deuteronomic scribal methods
40. For Jeremiah's activity during Josiah's reign, see SWEENEY, King Josiah, 208-233
41. LEUCHTER, Jeremiah, 84-139. A Josianic stratum may be detected in Jer 30-31 and 2-4
42. On 1 Sam 8,11-18 as a meditation on Assyrian hegemony, see M. LEUCHTER, "A King Like All The Nations: The Composition of 1 Sam 8,11-18", ZAW (forthcoming), wherein close parallels are drawn between the points articulated by Samuel and the neo-Assyrian imperial practices recorded in numerous royal inscriptions
43. For the Rabshakeh as a once-Israelite, see M. COGAN - H. TADMOR, II Kings (AB; New York 1988) 230
44. On the murder of Sennacherib as a theological response to his devastation of Babylon (and its relationship to the Biblical account of his death and the succession of Esarhaddon in 2 Kgs 19,37, which follows the form in which the death and succession of Israelite kings is typically reported) see W.W. HALLO, "The Death of Kings: Traditional Historiography in Contextual Perspective", Ah, Assyria... Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (eds. M. COGAN - 1. EPH'AL) (Jerusalem 1991) 148-165, esp. 162-163
45. COGAN - TADMOR, II Kings, 244
46. The fragmentary text known as "The Sin of Sargon" further implies that Sennacherib's devastation of Babylon led to his violent demise; see H. TADMOR, "The Sin of Sargon", Eretz Israel 5 (1958) 93, 150-163 I am indebted to Grant Frame at the University of Toronto Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia project for bringing this text to my attention)
47. On the formal similarities between VTE and the Deuteronomic texts, see WEINFELD, Deuteronomy, 82-138
48. For a Neo-Assyrian model for the Deuteronomic passage, see J. PEČÍRKQVÁ, "The Administrative Methods of Assyrian Imperialism", Archív Orientální 55 (1987) 162-175. That the magistrate in the city gate (in Deut 16, 18) is to be identified with a local Levite is suggested by the note in Deut 18,6 that the Levite en route to central sanctuary [in Jerusalem] comes from "one of your gates" The common phraseology within the same rhetorical unit (Deut 16,18-18,22) points to a semantic equivalency between the passages under consideration. That the Josianic scribes envisioned the local Levites - now divested of cultic autonomy -as agents of the Jerusalem administration is suggested by the dialectic juridical process of 17,8-13, which not only provides the local Levites with empowerment after divesting them of cultic autonomy, but also occupies a literary position mediating between 16,18 and 18,6. The sequence of these passages suggests that the position of the local Levite is central to understanding the surrounding material
49. For the significance of literary sequencing in the pericope of Deut 16,18-18,22, see B.M. LEVINSON, Deuteronomy and the Heremeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York/Oxford 1997) 109-137
50. For Esarhaddon's diplomatic strategy with respect to Babylonian royalistic theology, see PORTER, Images, Power Politics, 77-117, 119-153
51. See especially T. JACOBSEN, "The Graven Image", Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (eds. S.D. MCBRIDE et al.) (Philadelphia 1987) 15-32
52. For Jer 10,1-16 as original to the prophet, see W.L. HOLLADAY, "Indications of Jeremiah's Psalter", JBL 121 (2002) 247
53. B.D. SOMMER, A Prophet Reads Scripture. Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford 1998) 166, 237 n. 112, 258 n. 94
54. M. MARGALIOT, "Jeremiah x 1-16: A Re-Examination", VT 30 (1980) 295-208
55. M. FISHBANE, "Jer iv 23-26 and Job iii 3-13: A Recovered use of the Creation Pattern", VT 21 (1971) 151-153
56. See A. LEMAIRE, "Jérémie xxv 10b et la Stèle Araméenne de Bukan" VT 47 (1997) 543-545. Lemaire suggests that the form of the verse is dependent upon the political language represented by an inscription from the reign of Esarhaddon. If the verse may be attributed to Jeremiah (see the discussion below concerning Jer 51) then the prophet appears to be conversant with Esarhaddon's political dispatches, supporting the hypothesis I have proposed herein
57. See LEUCHTER, Jeremiah, 140ff., wherein I have argued that significant portions of the juridical or sermonic prose in the book of Jeremiah may be attributed to the prophet directly, though there is no reason to deny the presence of subsequent scribal accretions; such is implied by the function of Baruch's colophon in Jer 45, which empowers the scribe to continue in the footsteps of the prophet
58. Cf. Jer 26,24; 32,645; 35,4; 36; 43,3; 45; 51,59-64. On the association of these scribes with the Deuteronomic circles, see J.A. DEARMAN, "My Servants The Scribes: Composition and Context in Jeremiah 36", JBL 109 (1990) 417-420
59. SOMMER, "New Light", 655
60. See also S.M. Paul, "Deutero-lsaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions", Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser (ed. W.W. HALLO) (New Haven 1968) 180-186
61. PORTER, Images, Power, Politics, 105-116
62. See N. NA'AMAN, "The Distribution of Messages in the Kingdom of Judah in Light of the Lachish Ostraca", VT 53 (2003) 169-180
63. Both Biblical and onomastical evidence suggests that first-hand knowledge of neo-Assyrian inscriptions would have been typical of the learned class in Judah. J. BÖRCHER-KLÄHN, Allvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs (Mainz am Rhein 1982) 202-203, identifies an abundance of inscriptions dating from the neo-Assyrian period that were erected in the wake of military conquests in the west-Semitic regions
64. That Jeremiah's audience would have been familiar with the Esarhaddon inscription is even more likely considering the makeup of the 597 community, which consisted of priests, royal figures and scribes. See N. LOHFINK, "Die Gattung der 'Historischen Kurzgeschichte' in der letzten Jahren von Juda und in der Zeit des Babylonischen Exils", ZAW 90 (1978) 333-342
65. See DEARMAN, "My Servants The Scribes", 403-427, for a thorough examination of the connection between the scribes named in Jer 36 and those involved with the Deuteronomic reform of Josiah
66. See P. MACHINIST, "The Rab Šāqēh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in the Face of the Assyrian 'Other'", Hebrew Studies 41 (2000) 163-166
67. A. BERLIN, "Jeremiah 29,5-7: A Deuteronomic Allusion", HAR 8 (1984) 3-11. BERLIN'S article demonstrates the reliance of the Jeremianic passage upon that of Deuteronomy, pointing to the adaptation of the laws of warfare therein as a counsel against potential rebellion fomenting among the deportees of 597
68. BERLIN, "Jeremiah 29,5-7", 4, suggests that the application of the Deuteronomic law here argues against any potential insurrection among the captives in Babylon, though it also establishes continuity with covenantal existence through what would have for the 597 community been viewed as the national constitution (the Deuteronomic Torah)
69. Several elements suggest that Jeremiah's use of the "house" terminology in this passage constitutes a suggested alternative to faith in the Davidic house. Berlin's view of the Jeremianic passage (see the note above) makes clear that public sentiment was, at least to some level, directed by hope for the return to power of the Davidic royal house. This sentiment persevered for some time during the exile (see J.D. LEVENSON, 'The Last Four Verses in Kings", JBL 103 [1984] 353-361), and was one that Jeremiah's prophetic adversaries clearly advocated. Jeremiah had declared the covenantal illegitimacy of Davidic cultic institutions as early as his Temple Sermon (see above, and the ensuing discussion) as well as the political and religious affiliates of the royal house such as prophets, priests and wise men (cf. especially Jer 8,9-12). In Jer 26 the criticism of these figures reaches a crescendo within the book of Jeremiah by pitting the prophetic tradition in which Jeremiah stood against the accoutrements of the Davidic lineage and Temple, presenting both as genetically related through a linguistic subtlety that establishes their unity (the phrase of Jer 26,10). Though Jer 26 is the work of a later scribal hand, the chapter telescopes elements from Jeremiah's own writing and translates them into narrative form (see LEUCHTER, Jeremiah, 222-234). It is thus not surprising that Jer 26 introduces the body of Jeremianic literature in which the 70-year prophecy first appeared (in terms of composition history), as both literary units are concerned with questions concerning the Davidic "house" in its manifold forms
70. Jer 24 might have been included in this collection, but it more likely served a connective or inter-textual purpose between the 597 collection and the principal Jeremianic materials that were developing between the prophet in Judah and his supporters in Babylon during the period of 597-587. See J.G. MCCONVILLE, Judgment and Promise. An Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah (Winona Lake 1993) 59, 90-91, 142-144, 147-148
71. Jeremiah's hermeneutical method here matches that of the earlier Deuteronomic scribes of Josiah's court, i.e., the prophet deploys terms of an older document but adapts them to suit the needs of his discourse. The Esarhaddon references are not a matter of citation or mimicry but rhetorical assimilation and transformation. See LEVINSON, Deuteronomy, 144-157
72. For the dependence of the Deuteronomistic material on that of Jeremiah, see C. SEITZ, Theology in Conflict (BZAW 176; Berlin 1989) 198-200
73. Dearman notes the role of the Jeremianic corpus as an independent prophetic "witness" to the Deuteronomistic History ("My Servants The Scribes", 420-421)
74. For the use of proleptic repetition as an editorial device in the redaction of earlier literary sources, see B. PECKHAM, "Writing and Editing", Fortunate The Eyes That See, 370
75. One must consider the reason for two atbash codes, separated by a relatively lengthy expanse of text, in Jer 51. Following the model of the Esarhaddon inscription, we should expect to find only one atbash instance in the chapters closing the 597 collection. Though a detailed study of the matter goes beyond the scope of this examination, I would tentatively suggest that the dual atbash terms may relate to purposes of clarification. There existed in Babylon an actual region known as Šešak (see E.W. NICHOLSON, Jeremiah 26-52 [Cambridge 1975] 222-223); Jeremiah's use of the code may have originated as a double entendre (a device used in other Jeremianic passages), with the intention of functioning both as a reference to the region and as an atbash cipher. The appearance of at the outset of Jer 51 may have helped to reinforce the implied meaning of later in the chapter, directing the audience's attention once again to the inversion of the Esarhaddon inscription that motivated the prophet's discourse
76. The post-exilic preoccupation with Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy - which is invoked in every case to demonstrate that its words were fulfilled and that the Persian epoch signaled the need for ideological advances - points to the paramount position of the extant Jeremianic corpus within Israel's exilic theology. PECKHAM, History and Prophecy, 741, 750-755, notes that the very form of Haggai's writing consciously mirrors that of Jeremiah for precisely this purpose
77. See most recently M. FLOYD, "The (Maśśa) as a Type of Prophetic Book", JBL 121(2002) 401-422
78. SOMMER, A Prophet Reads Scripture
79. B. HALFERN, "The New Names in Isaiah 62,4: Jeremiah's Reception if the Restoration and the Politics of Third Isaiah", JBL 117 (1998) 623-643