Like Fire in the Bones: Listening for the Prophetic Word in Jeremiah

Chapter Eight. A Second Reading of Jeremiah after the Dismantling

chapter eight A Second Reading of Jeremiah after the Dismantling The internal dynamic of the book of Jeremiah is a two-stage development of the tradition that is decisive for the shape of the literature and for its theological claim. I That two-stage development can be articulated in three ways: 1. In terms of literature, scholarship has made a distinction between the actual work of the person of Jeremiah and extensive Deuteronomic extrapolations .The precise nature of the relation between the two is difficult and there is no scholarly consensus.1 But it does seem to be the case that there are prose materials that are derivative from the poetry of Jeremiah. That prose is cast in language reminiscent of the tradition of Deuteronomy, but that derivation is probably not simply an alternative literary form. In all likelihood the derived materials aim at another function than the original poetic materials do. 2. In terms of historical sequence, there is no doubt that we can identify materials that are placed before the destruction of 587 and after the destruction of 587, even though in many ways the first deportation of 597 posed as an important point of reference for Jeremiah.2 The distinction between pre-587 and post-587 materials is not simply in the interest of chronology .The historical, sociological context of the community is very different and therefore later materials have a quite different pastoral agenda. This is reflected in E. W. Nicholson’s title, Preaching to the Exiles.3 His argument, now followed by many scholars, is that the circumstances of the addressees 99 100 D Like Fire in the Bones of the later literature is one of exile, very different from Jeremiah’s prior addressees. A different message is therefore required. 3. In terms of a theological concern, one can distinguish between a literature of judgment and a literature of salvation. In his canonical analysis of the book of Jeremiah, Brevard Childs4 argues that this shift from judgment to salvation is the overriding theological agenda of the book in its present canonical form. These distinctions—literary, historical, theological—can be seen to be all of a piece. Thus we may suggest that in broad outline these various factors converge. In the canonical book of Jeremiah there is: a. A literature that is from Jeremiah5 that is preexilic and that is essentially a statement of judgment. It can hardly be disputed that Jeremiah’s primary work is located before the destruction of the city. Moreover his persistent message is to assert God’s judgment on the city and God’s dispatch of “an enemy” from the north to work his destruction. Occasionally this leads to a summons to repentance, but most often it leads simply to a sad assertion of the end. b. A literature commonly judged to be from Deuteronomic redactors, addressed to exiles and therefore after 587, which announces hope and God’s resolve to work a new thing. One can note a change in style and certainly a change in substance, which make the conclusion of an alternative dating inescapable. It is important, however, that these two stages of the literature of Jeremiah not be seen as completely distinct in all these aspects or as juxtaposed only artificially. If we are to take the literature seriously in its fixed canonical form, then we must presume that this literature has integrity and the two parts are in important ways related to each other. While we cannot be clear about the literary and historical connections, we can assume that theologically the assertions of judgment and hope hold together because they are the work of the same God addressed to the same community, albeit in different circumstances. It follows from this that the two literatures (Jeremiah and Deuteronomistic ),6 from the two periods (pre- and post-587), with the two themes (judgment and hope), must not be confused with each other. But they also must not be separated from each other. The one follows the other and is shaped and informed and becomes poignant because of the other. Theological exegesis of the “second stage” must attend to the claim that it is the same God who destroys and works newness, who works newness precisely A Second Reading of Jeremiah after the Dismantling d 101 out of the destruction over which God has previously presided. Thus I regard the inclination to separate clearly the two moves...