Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah (review)

Hebrew Studies 50 (2009) 406 Reviews be consulted with particular reference to small verse-spans, and in a fixed location (i.e., library reference section, office, etc.) where the Hebrew text is also available for inspection. The book, outside of the introduction, is less suitable for extended reading, or for those encountering these chapters with anything less than significant knowledge of the issues already at stake in Deutero-Isaianic studies. Jeremy M. Hutton Princeton Theological Seminary Princeton, NJ 08542 jeremy.hutton@ptsem.edu GOOD FIGS, BAD FIGS: JUDICIAL DIFFERENTIATION IN THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH. By R. J. R. Plant. LKBOTS 481. Pp. xv + 224. New York: T & T Clark, 2008. Cloth, $140. Abraham’s cry to YHWH—“Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?”—serves as entrée into R. J. R. Plant’s investigation of “judicial differentiation” in Jeremiah. With its harrowing account of Jerusalem’s destruction , the prophetic work offers an excellent model by which to explore such a subject. In his preface, the author notes that his study centers around two questions: 1) Is divine judgment unselective or individual? and 2) Is there any ethical rationale for discrimination other than the deity’s sovereignty? Chapter 1 surveys the evidence from elsewhere in the Old Testament, with Plant observing that the variety of judicial interpretations “demonstrates … resistance … to a single model” (p. 27), while the basis for differentiation exhibits “considerable diversity of expression” (p. 28). In chapter 2, the author notes his indebtedness to Karl-Frederich Pohlmann, Christopher Seitz, and Nelson Kilpp for their highlighting contrasting attitudes in Jeremiah towards the exilic and Jerusalem communities, as well as the leaders of Judah. However, Plant argues that this dichotomy is even more nuanced than previously recognized. In reply, he proposes that Jeremiah 1– 20 is dominated by national threat, but from Jeremiah 21 onwards, discriminatory judgment—both positive and negative—is more noticeable. Indeed, the received versions of the text have been balanced around a dialectic of divine selectivity. Accordingly, the stress on all-encompassing judgment in the first twenty chapters of Jeremiah is to be contrasted with the comprehensive salvation of all Israel in Jeremiah 30–31. Jeremiah 21–24 juxtaposes the divine treatment of groups within Judah, while Jeremiah 27–29 compares the possibilities offered to the Jerusalem and Golah communities. Jeremiah 29 is Hebrew Studies 50 (2009) 407 Reviews the work’s hinge-point as “signs of judgment are reversed, negative terms redefined and salvific themes intertwined” (p. 190). Crucial to this shift, is the strong implication that the experience of deportation provides a basis for salvation, with a distinction drawn between the refugees in Babylon and the not-yet exiled still in the capital. Finally, individual salvation oracles characterize Jeremiah 37–45. Plant deals with the aforementioned literary units in separate chapters (3– 7) where he compares the MT and Old Greek exemplars, followed by textual and exegetical notes, focusing exclusively on the subject of judicial selectivity . Characterizing his efforts as “descriptive,” Plant’s task is to point out the various polarities within their respective literary context(s). While acknowledging Jeremiah’s editing, he eschews assigning passages to a particular redactor, cautioning that much of the phraseology attributed to a Deuteronimistic editor may more rightly be called “Jeremianic” (p. 149). For the most part, each textual grouping is treated as having its own literary coherence , with Plant preferring to “speak of different voices … without necessarily implying different authors” (italics author’s) (p. 46). In chapter 8, the author concludes that judicial differentiation is at the heart of the prophetic book. Nevertheless, he warns that “rescue” and “judgment” are relative and multivalent terms: the former might mean “survival” in Babylon, the latter, sometimes death, but perhaps exile (p. 186). Equally variable are the rationales for divine salvation. Certainly “trust” in God is cited (cf. Jer 35:15–18), but the grief of YHWH also plays a role in the turn from retribution to promised redemption (Jer 31:18–20). As a result, the distinction between human freedom and divine sovereignty is not always clear-cut: individuals favored for their behavior might still be chastened (cf. Jeremiah, Baruch), while YHWH’s offer of safety for the...