Grace Theological
Journal 1.2 (Fall 1980) 163-83.
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
AN INTERPRETIVE SURVEY:
AUDIENCE REACTION
QUOTATIONS IN JEREMIAH
RONALD E. MANAHAN
A striking feature of the Jeremiah material is the
inclusion of
numerous quotations attributed to the prophet’s audience. A survey
of these materials shows that these quotations, whether
verbatim or
"constructed"
to reflect truthfully the collective expressions and senti-
ments of the audience, occur in four contexts: (1) accusation,
(2)
announcement, (3) personal confrontation, and (4) invitation. Study
of these contexts demonstrates the degree and longevity of
opposition
to the prophet’s ministry. The audience is depicted as overtly
empha-
sizing Zions inviolability and as unduly
attached to externals (ark,
temple, Law, king, etc.). Quotations of audience reaction in
Jeremiah
articulate the theological divergency of his
audience. In every age the
audience speaks its mind, declaring its theological tenets. Jeremiah
knew what his audience said and spoke directly to the issues.
Simi-
larly the contemporary church must know and speak God’s Word.
The question is: What is
the audience declaring today?
* * *
IN
an earlier article this writer studied Jeremiah's employment of
seemingly direct quotations of pseudoprophets.l
In the process of
that study, it also became apparent that the text of
the book
contained an even higher number of quotations, originating
with the
prophet's audience. These quotations serve as a
major element in the
audience reaction to Jeremiah's ministry. Overholt has recently esti-
mated the number of such quotations to be
"approximately 100 . . .
1
R. E. Manahan, "A Theology of Pseudoprophets; A
Study in Jeremiah," GTJ 1
(1980)
77-96.
164
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
distributed fairly evenly throughout the book.”2
So common a liter-
ary feature is deserving of
serious study.3
What legitimate expectations might there be for
such a study?
One
matter is certain: placing side by side the contrasting words of
Jeremiah
and his audience helps to clarify what theological
issues
were at stake in his era of history.4
Such knowledge helps to sensitize
and elucidate nuances of meaning in the Jeremiah
material that
otherwise might have been unnoticed. This
background information
itself proves helpful for further study of the book.
Further, such study helps to identify what
theological deviations
led to the apostasy of
spoke its mind, and what it said articulated its
beliefs. Collation of
these findings ought to furnish materials for
understanding the
tial tenets of popular
theology. If this alone were the yield of this
analysis, it would prove a worthwhile endeavor.
Moreover, one may
2 T. W. Overholt,
"Jeremiah 2 and the Problem of 'Audience Reaction,'" CBQ 41
(1979) 262. While from this writer's study Overholt's number appears to be a fair
approximation, he nowhere cites the
100 or so references, nor does he indicate his
definition of a quotation. Such a definition is
necessary for the isolation and identifica-
tion of quoted material.
3 Even recent studies in other areas of
research are indicating what valuable
contributions can be made by analyzing
audience reaction. In particular note J.-P.
Van
Noppen ("A Method for the Evaluation of
Recipient Response," BT 30
[1979]
301ff.)
and a new work to be published by T. E. Gregory (Vox Populi [
beginning of the present century that, largely as
a result of the influence of Marxist
thought, historians began to pay serious
attention to the role of the crowd in antiquity.
4 This point is maintained (though from a
radically different perspective) in another
context by R. Davidson ("Orthodoxy and the
Prophetic Word," VT 14 [1964]
408). He
understands that an adequate exploration of the
relationship between Yahweh’s word
and the religious orthodoxy (for this writer,
apostasy) of the day demands fulfillment
of two conditions: "1) There must be a
prophet locked in conflict with the religious
establishment and providing us with
sufficient information to sketch clearly the major
issues at stake. 2) We must have access to the
orthodox standpoint independent of that
provided by the prophetic criticism."
5 That apostasy is the issue is indicated
by Jeremiah's use of hbAUwm;, meaning
"faithlessness, defection, apostasy"; cf. W. L. Holladay
(ed.), A Concise Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 218. Of the
dozen occurrences of this term in the OT Jeremiah
uses the term in
22;
5:6; 8:5; 14:7. Of these usages, a recurring phrase is lxerAW;yi
hbAwum; (NASB,
"faithless
ministry Jeremiah understood the nature of the
audience's theological and experiential
deviation. This, of course, is understood on the
assumption that the section Jeremiah
1-20
generally represents the period of Josiah's reign; cf. L. J. Wood, The Prophets of
(Introduction
to the Old Testament, 225-29). For an alternate viewpoint note R. K.
Harrison
(Jeremiah and Lamentations [TyndaIe Old Testament Commentaries; Downers
Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1972] 33).
AUDIENCE REACTION QUOTES IN JEREMIAH 165
assume achievement of the above expectations to aid in
understand-
ing something of the very
nature and method of theological deviation
in any age. And just here the applicational
nature of this study rests.
What
Jeremiah sensed and reacted to serves as forewarning that
contemporary audience reaction may
articulate its own popular theol-
ogy, a theology out of
sorts with historic orthodoxy.
But these expectations require at least a sense
of the nature of
the political environs of Jeremiah's age. His age
was a political
hurricane, enfolding in its swirl nations of less
might and scattering
political debris in unexpected ways.
the storm, political uncertainties all around.
Jeremiah's book records
the protracted agony of
agitation and uncertainty left its mark on the
response of Jeremiah's
hearers.6
The scope of this study prohibits any treatment
of textual
problems in the book of Jeremiah, unless they
raise an interpretive
question in relevant materials. There exist a number of more exten-
sive treatments of textual
matters relating to the book.7 Yet, the
assumption is that the text must be taken
seriously.8 When citing the
English
translation of the text, the NASB will be used unless other-
wise noted.
METHODOLOGY FOR THIS
STUDY
Definitions
An immediate concern of methodology is first to
define impor-
tant terms. In this study
that must include a definition of "quotation "
and "audience reaction."
6 For a helpful summation of the political
crisis note W. C. Klein ("Commentary
on Jeremiah," ATR 45 [1963] 122). For an excellent treatment of the correlation
between theological conceptions and the state of
Prophets
in the Old Testament" [Ph.D. dissertation,
especially pages 303ff.).
7 Note especially J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB; Garden City: Doubleday,
1965); and J.
G.
Janzen, Studies
in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6;
1973).
There are recent articles such as that of
Hebrew
Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27 (34)," ZAW 91 [1979] 73-93).
8 Of course, the underlying assumption of
this paper is that the corpus of material
that has come down to the contemporary world is the
context for this investigation.
The
effort of this study is not to discuss the matter of the multitude of
explanations for
how this book came to be. Harrison (Jeremiah and Lamentations, 27) comments:
"It is
now increasingly realized that the extant writings
of the prophets actually comprise
anthologies of their utterances, and the book of
Jeremiah is no exception to this
general principle." Such being the case the
text of Jeremiah has been searched time and
again for clues as to possible sources for the
material. Beginning with Duhm and
166
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Quotation. Robert Gordis some
time ago noted the difficulty in
identifying quotations in the biblical record. Quite
simply, "These
quotations are naturally not indicated by a system
of punctuation,
which did not exist in ancient times, and often they
may lack an
introductory verb of speaking or
thinking."9 The reader of the
biblical record must supply quotation marks where
the sense demands
them. This, of course, demands careful attention to
the sense of the
passage and its intended structure within its
context.10 Attendant to
this rather complex task is the sobering matter of
knowing if a given
quotation is a verbatim citation of a speaker's
actual words or the
hearer's verbalization of the speaker's thought.
Here again the sur-
rounding of a text serves as the best guide for
determining the nature
of the quoted
material.
Given these problems in identifying quotations,
the reader must
develop a definition of a quotation that will
serve well in isolating
quoted materials. Gordis
suggests that a "quotation" refers to "words
which do not reflect the present sentiments of the
author of the
literary composition in which they are found, but
have been intro-
duced by the author to convey
the standpoint of another person or
situation."11 He understands this
definition to include both actual
words and thoughts of the speaker. Generally, his
definition is
workable.
But in the case of Jeremiah's book there is
considerable textual
help in aiding this broad definition. The book
possesses numerous
verbatim citations of speakers or verbalizations
consistent with their
thought. Such an abundance of material helps the
interpreter more
easily check his identification of a given quotation
against numerous
other instances in the same body of literature.
Another feature of the book is its insistence on
clarifying the
views of the audience. The book repeatedly
articulates from Yahweh's
perspective the pulse of audience thought and life.
This helps one
know what to expect
the audience to say. This sensitizing to the
theological tension between Jeremiah and his
audience enables the
Mowinckel, attempts have followed (cf. ibid., 27-34 for an adequate survey of more
recent discussion on the authorship of the book). Note
the casual way in which W. J.
Horwitz ("Audience Reaction to
Jeremiah," CBQ 32 [1970] 555)
begins his article: "It
is generally recognized that three major sources,
designated A, B, and C, have
preserved material from the prophet Jeremiah or
concerning him."
9 R Gordis,
Poets, Prophets, and Sages: Essays in
Biblical Interpretation (Bloom-
ington:
(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1965) 169ff.
10 Ibid., 109:
"That the passage is indeed a quotation must be understood by the
reader, who is called upon in Semitic literature to
supply not only punctuation but
vocalization as well.
11 Ibid.
MANAHAN:
AUDIENCE REACTION QUOTES IN JEREMIAH 167
contemporary reader to know where in
the reading of the book a
quotation is more likely to occur (as an example,
reiterate, a quotation must be identified by a
careful reading of the
text, watching for textual indicators of quoted
material. The reader of
the book is aided by overt statements interpreting
the nature of
Jeremiah's hearers. This helps the reader
know what content to
expect in a quotation.
However, it is not always possible to determine
if the quotation
of the audience is intended to be a verbatim
citation or a paraphrase
of the speaker's thought. In fact, as Overholt points out, H. W. Wolff
in his Das Zitat im Prophetenspruch
observed "that quotations in the
prophetic literature are usually attributed to
groups of opponents,
and are sometimes strange enough (e.g., the
quotation of future
words) to suggest that they are homiletical
devices.”12 The attributing
of a quotation to a group must be a rhetorical
device in which the
prophet constructs a "composite
quotation" that truthfully represents
the expressions of the audience.
A definition of "quotation" must
include breadth enough for
inclusion of both the author's direct citation of
a speaker and
construction of a "composite
quotation" to reflect truthfully the
collective expressions and sentiments of the
audience. Above all, the
definition must be accompanied by a rejection of
any type of histori-
cism that claims to identify
infallibly all quotations, or finds quota-
tions where context argues
against, or in this case, finds quotations
that argue against the interpretation of the
audience given elsewhere
in the book.13
Audience reaction. A definition of audience reaction is also
necessary. Our present study understands that audience includes
Jeremiah's
contemporary countrymen and reaction
further restricts
the contemporary countrymen to those whose views
counter Yah-
weh's as expressed through
the prophet. This audience includes those
who hold generally to the same theological
perspective that might be
termed a popular theology.
12 Overholt,
"Jeremiah 2 and the Problem of 'Audience Reaction,'" 263.
13 By historicism is meant the process by
which the text of Scripture is made to
submit to the unyielding demands of a modern
scientific historiography which fails or
refuses to articulate its underlying
presuppositions. Two examples of such tendencies
toward wresting the Biblical text are ibid., 108ff.
(who hopes to find those verses,
formerly thought incongruous, that may now be
found congruous when understood as
quotations) and Horwitz,
"Audience Reaction to Jeremiah," 555-64. As evidence of his
methodology Gordis cites
direct quotations of speech by the subject, development of
dialogue, direct quotations of the thoughts of
the subject, prayers, quotations embody-
ing the previous standpoint
of thought of the speaker (which he may now have
surrendered), citation of a hypothetical speech or
thought, proverbial quotations, use
of proverbial quotations as a text, contrasting
proverbs, etc.
168 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
By this definition are excluded those instances
where Jeremiah
cites words that come from days other than his own.14
Also excluded
are quotations of foreign peoples.15
Generally, these are of value in
merely confirming the nuances of audience ideas
expressed elsewhere.
Further,
this definition excludes quotations of those contemporary
countrymen who may have taken Jeremiah's view or at
least have
been sympathetic to it.16 In addition to
these exclusions is the quota-
tion given in 10:19-20,
where the speaker is the land personified.17
Moreover,
those quotations where the prophet verbalizes on behalf of
the nation are not included, since the views of the
nation and the
prophet are not concentric (cf.
14 This means exclusion of those quotations
recorded in 31:7, 18-19, 23, 29, 34.
There
is little doubt that the context of chap. 31 is future blessing for Yahweh's
renewed people; cf.
contrast to the nation's comments in the days of
Jeremiah (note for example
17;
22:21). And just so is the sentiment of 31:18-19. Also contrastive to what
people of
the exilic period must have uttered is the
statement of
"felt that God was judging them unjustly for circumstances
which were no fault of
theirs." Added to this cluster of verses in chap.
31 are several other references that refer
to the future. The passage in
"The
ark of the covenant of the Lord," because in that day their concern will
be over
Yahweh's
divine presence rather than the symbol of it (note ibid.,
66). However, this
passage may have had a polemic use for
Jeremiah's audience. Two passages, 16:14-15
and 23:7-8, substantially repeating each other,
point out that, though God will cast his
people into a foreign land (
the land they will have been furnished a more
glorious substratum for the oath by
Yahweh's
name; cf. C. W. E. Naegelsbach, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (Lange's
Commentaries;
more difficult, made so by its omission between vv 6
and 8 and its inclusion at the end
of the chapter in the LXX. On the whole, given the
context of both passages, the
altered substratum of the oath refers to the
coming restoration of Yahweh's people.
15 Quotations of this sort are those in
6:4;
16, 17; 48:2, 3, 14, 17, 19; 49:4, 29; 50:7, 46.
16 An illustration of this type of
quotation is that of 45:3 which recounts an
utterance of Baruch whom T. W. Davies
("Baruch," International Standard
Bible
Encyclopedia [
and faithful attendant of the prophet Jeremiah.
Also add to this passage the citations
of the conversation of Elishama,
Delaish, Elnathan, Gemariah, Zedekiah, and all the
other officials (note 36:12) with Baruch. The
quotations occur in 36:14, 15, 16, 17, 19.
The
context indicates these officials (at least the first three named above) were
more
kindly disposed to Baruch (and thus Jeremiah); cf.
36:25. Jer 36:24 does indicate that
"the king and all his servants (vydAbAfE-lkAv;) who heard these words
were not afraid, nor
did they rend their garments." At first
reading, this comment might include the
individuals named above. But they are referred to as
"officials"(MyriWA). The term
"servants" would include still others who attended the
king. Therefore, the comment of
v 24 must be understood to exclude these
officials. For a similar conclusion compare
Naegelsbach (The
Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 315): "By the servants of the king
who 'heard all these words,' are here evidently to
be understood those whose who
heard them here for the first time, not those who had
already heard them in the
MANAHAN:
AUDIENCE REACTION QUOTES IN JEREMIAH 169
Methodological approach
The chief concern here is with the method of
collation to be used
as one sifts through the quotations that can now
be isolated by
observing the above definitions. Of course, not
every interpreter has
suggested the same methodology.
Several alternatives. One could take Horwitz's
suggestion that
the method of collation for organizing these
quotations is three-
fold.18 There are replies in
which the audience repeats Jeremiah's
statements. Again, there are replies induced by
Jeremiah's words.
And
again, there are quotations made by Jeremiah (or God) of
retorts the audience had made. These three have
much to commend
themselves. Certainly it is possible to collate the
quotations about
such centers. However, the weakness remains that
this method tends
to focus on the context of the quotation
especially, not specifically on
what the quotation tells about the audience; to know
of the audience
is important. The method does not appear broad
enough to analyze
adequately the quotations of audience reactions.
An alternative is Crenshaw's suggested
methodology of collation.
For
him, the organizational schema must denote what one might call
the theological tenets of the audience. Thus, he
concludes that there
are six such tenets:
. . . (1) confidence in
God's faithfulness, (2) satisfaction with tradi-
tional religion, (3) defiance
in the face of prophets who hold a different
secretary's office." Probably another quotation
could be added to this category, 38:9, a
citation of Ebed-melech,
an Ethiopian eunuch. Though little is known of this individ-
ual, the citation does
picture him as sympathetic to Jeremiah's needs; compare "Ebed-
Melech," International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1939),
2.
890. Additionally there are the quotations of Gedaliah
(40:9-10, 16), whom the
biblical record treats in kindly fashion, and
probably the ten of eighty men (41:8; cf.
41:5).
And, though the nature of their religious
correspondence to the viewpoint of
Jeremiah
cannot be known exactly (cf. 26:21), the citations in
26:16, 18-19 indicate that
a number of people came to the defense of
Jeremiah's prophecy concerning the
judgment to fall on
17 Of this passage Naegelsbach
(The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah,
123) says:
"That
both these verses are the words of the country personified, is seen from 'my
children,' etc., in ver.
20, for neither the prophet says this, nor the people, who are
identical with the children and not forsaken, but
forsaking.--And I say. In these words
also we have a proof that the land is the speaker.
For the words express no
consciousness of guilt, but a
comfort, which the innocent land alone could find, in the
fact that a calamity is laid upon it, which must be
borne." An interesting comparison
with this passage is Jer
4:28.
18 Horwitz,
"Audience Reaction To Jeremiah," 559. One of
his hopes by this
method is to help establish, as Overholt
("Jeremiah 2 and the Problem of 'Audience
Reaction,'"
262) says, "the historicity of the prophet's message of the inevitable
destruction of the nation."
170
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
view, (4) despair when hope
seems dead, (5) doubt as to the justice of
God, and (6) historical pragmatism.19
Whereas
Horwitz's method tends to isolate the settings of the
quota-
tions, Crenshaw's isolates
the theological implications of the quota-
tions themselves. But the
latter lost something valuable, measuring a
given quotation by its setting. It might yield
insight for why the
quotation was included at any given point in the
text.
There are yet other alternative methods of
collation. Overholt
summarizes the three centers about which Wolff
believed quotations
could be collected:
. . . those expressing
faithfully the opinions of the persons quoted,
those transforming these
opinions by means of exaggeration and irony,
and words spoken in the
future.20
Then
Overholt suggests his own method: examine "the
form and
rhetoric of the passages in which the quotations
occur in an effort to
describe where and how they are used in the
prophet's speech."21 For
him, this methodology will aid in the discussion of
the functions of
these quotations in the message of Jeremiah.
19 J. L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict (BZAW 124; Berlin: W. de Gruyter,
1971)
24ff.
A. S. Van der Woude
("Micah In Dispute With the
Pseudo-Prophets," VT 19
[1969]
246) maintains that the theological tenets of "Zion-theology" which
character-
ized the audience can be
known through a study of disputations between canonical
prophets and pseudoprophets.
20 Note Overholt,
"Jeremiah 2 and the Problem of 'Audience Reaction,'" 263.
About
these citations of the audience C. Westermann (Basic Forms of Prophetic
Speech [
(Das Zitat im Prophetenspruch) "of the citation in the prophetic speech, i.e., of the
words of other men which are cited by the prophets,
confirms. . . that the prophetic
speech forms a unity consisting of an announcement and
its reason: 'Yahweh's word
and deed are not arbitrary. At the outset a reason
for the coming judgment is indicated
by the prefatory disclosure of guilt which also
takes place in the citation. ...The
citation is necessary because an altercation is
demanded by the dispute between God
and man. The speech that only gives an imperative
about the future and does not
contain an altercation with the hearer is thus
actually unprophetic. . . . The citation is
subject to the freedom of the prophetic
proclamation. It is the instrument of his public
speech. . . . Because of this it is impossible to make
a strict distinction between
authentic and inauthentic (i.e., composed by the
prophet) citations. The citation does
not belong to the realm of the "private
experiences." Either the prophet has heard it in
the street like other people, or . . . he has
formulated the citation on the basis of his
knowledge of the heart of the people. . . . The
lawsuit procedure is the stylistic
background of the prophetic citation. . . . With
the citation, it is as though the prophet
allows the accused to accuse themselves. . . . The
regular place in the prophetic speech
where the citation frequently recurs is in the reason
for the judgment. It is the clearest
form of the reason.'"
21 Overholt,
"Jeremiah 2 and the Problem of 'Audience Reaction,'" 264.
MANAHAN:
AUDIENCE REACTION QUOTES IN JEREMIAH 171
A proposal. The above summation of possible methodologies
for
interpreting audience response
quotations indicates the need for a
method that is able to deal with the "where"
and the "what" of these
citations. The method must describe where the
citation is found, that
is, concern itself with the context of the
quotation. Jeremiah used
citations, but in what contextual settings?
Additionally, the method
must focus attention on the "what," the
actual content of the quota-
tion. The question is: What
does that content tell us of the religious
ideas of Jeremiah's audience? This content sensitizes
one to the
central point(s) of tension between Jeremiah and
his audience.
In the following discussion, attention will be
given to the context
in which these citations occur. The contexts vary
and the location of
the quotation within a given type of context
varies. But always at the
front is the sharp contrast between the prophet and
his audience (the
"how" of Jeremiah's method).
CONTEXTUAL SETTING OF
QUOTATIONS
As the process of collecting quotations about
various contextual
centers begins, the interpreter must not
overlook the danger of
forcing disparate passages into the same
category of context.22 How-
ever, where there is similarity of context,
collating the various cita-
tions may be very helpful in
understanding the uses to which these are
put in the Jeremiah material. Centers of context
about which these
citations circulate seem to be four in number,
three of which have
large and nearly equal numbers of citations attached.
These four are:
Accusation, Announcement, Personal
Confrontation, and Invitation.
A
fairly even distribution of these quotations exists throughout the
book, ranging from chaps. 2
through 51.
Accusation
The study begins here simply because quotations
in an accusa-
tion setting are principally
found in the first half of the book.23 By
accusation is meant those passages which record the
prophet's press-
ing home Yahweh's
case" against the audience. The burden of the case,
though having multiple features, has but one purpose:
to substantiate
the charge of not complying with Yahweh's
expectations.24 The use of
22 Note a similar warning concerning the
same forcing of the whole of prophetic
speech patterns into a few categories in Westermann (Basic
Forms of Prophetic
Speech, 56-57).
23 The locations of quotations in the
context of accusation are: 2:6, 8, 20, 23, 25, 27
(all 3), 31, 35 (first one in the verse); 5:2, 12-13, 19, 24;