SUMMARIES One book, many visions. An overview of current issues

SUMMARIES
One book, many visions. An overview of current issues in Jeremiah research
J. Dubbink
This paper offers a survey of recent trends in Jeremiah research, beginning with a sketch of the various
hypotheses about the making of the book of Jeremiah. Subsequently, a comparison is made of leading
commentaries of the last decade. The biblical-theological harvest of their largely technical discussions,
however, is often rather small. Apparently, the view of B.S. Childs promises more. In his writings, the
message of the book of Jeremiah is not cut into pieces by literary analyses but receives a place in Old
Testament theology. After this survey, some theological topics are discussed in detail, especially the
way the book of Jeremiah speaks about the person of the prophet. In recent years, there is more
attention for the indispensable place the person Jeremiah has in the book. Jeremiah is, in several ways,
a paradigm. This revaluation of the person of the prophet, as found in recent papers and monographs,
promises a more profound theological understanding of the book of Jeremiah.
***
Two redactions of the book Jeremiah from the Persian age. The Septuagint and the Masoretic text
Frank H. Polak
In many respects, the LXX of Jeremiah represents an ancient state of the text which precedes the
recension found in the MT. However, the order of the Oracles against the Nations in the MT seems to
follow the historical order of events in Jeremiah’s times. The fact that the first of these prophecies
addresses Egypt (Jer. 46:2 MT) fits the outcome of the battle at Carchemish (605 B.C.E.) in which
Necho was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, at that time the Babylonian crown prince. On the other hand,
the order according to the LXX in which these prophecies open with the oracle against Elam (Jer.
25:14 LXX = 49:34 MT) probably reflects the Messianic expectations of the downfall of the Persian
empire with its royal city of Susa. In contrast, the MT (in particular in the so-called Deuteronomistic
expansions) seems to encourage acceptance of the Persian domination, paradoxically symbolized by
‘Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant’ (Jer. 27:6 MT), in accordance with the same view
and emphasis as found in the Books of Ezra (5:13; 6:22) and Nehemiah.
***
Nebuchadnezzar, my servant, in the book of Jeremiah
K.A.D. Smelik
In Jer. 25:9; 27:6 and 43:10, the LORD calls Nebuchadnezzar ‘my servant’. This is astonishing
because Nebuchadnezzar is the king who destroyed the temple of Jerusalem and exiled many Judahites
to Babylonia. A comprehensive survey of the portrayal of Nebuchadnezzar and the use of ‫ עבד‬in the
Hebrew Bible underlines how extraordinary this designation for Nebuchadnezzar is. Three possible
explanations have been given by other scholars but they are not in all respects convincing. A new
approach is therefore necessary. The author suggests that this designation for Nebuchadnezzar is
meant to be provocative: the readers are reminded that the mighty king Nebuchadnezzar is no more
than a slave of Israel’s God. But it is also a sign that they live in extraordinary times when David, the
true prophets of Israel and even the people of Israel themselves share the same title with their main
enemy: Nebuchadnezzar.
***
The judgment-promise dialectic in Jeremiah 26 – 36
Martin Kessler
This article discusses the segment of Jeremiah chaps. 26 – 36, examining the two tendencies of
judgment and promise. Both the notions of the Jeremiah narratives constituting the prophet’s
‘Leidensgeschichte’ or his ‘ biography’ are rejected. Instead, the dominant, continuing theme is the
word of God: what that word is, how it is received, and how it ultimately becomes history. The
analysis of these chapters suggests that both themes of judgment and promise find their place, and that
we may therefore speak of a judgment-promise dialectic in this segment, reflecting a time when these
two themes hung in the balance.
***
The words of YHWH, Jeremiah’s mouth and Baruch’s hand. Jeremiah 36:17-18
G.J. Venema
According to many exegetes and commentators, Baruch’s answer to the princes in Jer. 36:18 is
redundant and irrelevant, because it does not provide any new information. Allegedly, Baruch only
confirms that he wrote the words at Jeremiah’s dedication, with ink. How else would he write them
down? However, the use of the word ‫‘( פה‬mouth’) in Jer. 36:17-18 shows that the princes are not
interested in the origin of Baruch’s scroll. What they want to know, is whether the written words are
authoritative (cf. Jer. 1:9)? Therefore, Baruch’s answer does not provide information on the history of
the book of Jeremiah but rather emphasizes the importance of Jeremiah’s words being written in the
book with his name.
***
Large stones and a letter. A comparison between two texts with a symbolic act in the Book of
Jeremiah (43:8-13 and 51:59-64)
J.G. Amesz
Outside the collection ‘oracles against the nations’ (46:1 – 51:58), the Book of Jeremiah contains two
symbolic acts (43:8-13 and 51:59-64) with a message of doom against the two most important nations
in the book: Egypt and Babel. By comparing both acts with the oracles against the nations, it appears
that there are some similarities and that they also have the same theme: ‘the announcement of
destruction of a nation by YHWH or his prophet’. The difference between them lies in the audience
for which the message is meant. The oracles are directed to the peoples of foreign nations. The acts are
performed in the sight of exiles from Judah. For the exiles in Egypt, the message is a condemnation for
not listening to the warning words of Jeremiah: ‘do not go to the land of Egypt’ (42:19). For the exiles
in Babel the message is the promise of a return to Jerusalem.
***
Traces of the Book of Jeremiah in Genesis 18:14 and 37:35?
K.A. Deurloo
The expression ‘ extraordinary’ (‫ )פלא‬in Gen. 18:14 for unexpected future from YHWH, could be
inspired by Jer. 32:27, because of obvious thematic correspondences with the prophet in the context of
that chapter in Genesis. The same is the case in Gen. 37:35 compared with Jer. 31:15, where the father
and mother of Joseph/Ephraim refuse to be comforted.
***
Qui est le Fils de l’Homme? Jéremie comme une réponse
B.P.M. Hemelsoet
Le question qui est le Fils de l’Homme domine encore pour une très grande part la discussion
exégétique concernant les textes où figure le titre ‘le Fils de l’Homme’. Quand-même les évangélistes
ont choisi des différentes manières de se servir de ce titre. Il ne suffit pas de vouloir distinguer dans la
littérature biblique entre une signification qui ne veut que dire, tout simplement ‘homme’, et une
signification théologique qui trouve son origine dans la littérature apocalyptique. Une fois que l’on
peut lire la Bible comme un tout, même les textes soi-disant apocalyptiques, mettent en lumière tous
les textes dans lesquels on peut lire ‘le Fils de l’Homme’. Ainsi est posée la question pourquoi
Matthieu a rédigé ainsi la question de Mat. 16:13 qui diffère de celle de Marc et de Luc. Et également:
pourquoi Matthieu a-t-il écrit le nom de Jéremie comme une réponse des hommes? Aussi Jéremie peut
être décrit comme sont décrits Jean Baptiste et Elie (Mat. 16:12). C’est ainsi que le lecteur peut
soupçonner le signification biblique du ‘Fils de l’Homme’. Aussi dans Mat. 19:12 on peut découvrir
les traits de Jéremie.
***
Quotations from the Book of Jeremiah in the New Testament
J.W. Mazurel
This paper examines the way in which the Book of Jeremiah has been quoted in the New Testament,
particularly in Matt 2:18, Mark 11:17 and parallels, 1 Cor 1:31, 2:9 and 2 Cor 6:17. It appears that in
all the above-mentioned places (apart from 2 Cor 6:17 where the Book of Jeremiah is not quoted) the
context of the quotations cannot be neglected by the reader.