The Church
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 61, No. 1 – Fall 2018
Editor: W. Madison Grace II
Edited by Karin Finsterbusch and Armin Lange. Contribution to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 82. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. 169 pages, Hardcover, $61.00
The book Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah examines the intersection of reception history and textual history. The assumption of this work is that while both are to be distinguished from each other, they are linked since the textual history of a biblical book is also part of its reception history (v). Focusing on Jeremiah 1 and 10, the authors consider these chapters as ideal “test cases” for the study of reception history and textual history for two reasons. First, both chapters encompass the first major section of the book of Jeremiah. While Jeremiah 1 begins the book by explaining the prophet’s role, Jeremiah 10 closes the first large unit. Second, in both chapters the Masoretic Text (MT) and Septuagint (LXX) differ significantly in rhetoric, structure, and content (v). During the first three quarters of the twentieth century most scholars considered MT and LXX of Jeremiah to be different but still going back to the same textual tradition. However, in recent times the majority view has become that these two point to different editions of the book, meaning that LXX was translated from a Hebrew Vorlage different than MT.
Alex P. Jassen starts off the first part of the book by exploring how the rabbinic literature has developed more fully the few biographical data given in Jeremiah 1. In addition to the connection to his father Hilkiah as priest and prophet, Jassen shows how the rabbis have also seen Jeremiah as a descendent of Rahab. In so doing, they drew “a metonymy for the Israelites in the land of Israel from conquest to destruction” (18). Jassen argues that the overall purpose of this connection reflects the rabbinic attempt to connect themselves to the past and to the experience of territorial loss and national suffering. Next, Georg Fischer studies the reception of Jeremiah 1 in the New Testament as well as Early Christianity. While Fischer identifies almost no connection between Jeremiah 1 and the New Testament, he sees that the Early Church Fathers drew links between Jeremiah’s commission and Jesus. Sharing interests in the spiritual dimension of Jeremiah 1, the Early Church Fathers also pointed to the relevance of Jeremiah 1 for the life and faith of believers (35).
The following two essays deal with text criticism and exegesis of Jeremiah 1. Norbert Jacoby contests the view that the translator of LXX used the proto-MT as his Hebrew Vorlage. Based on a study of MT and LXX of Jeremiah 1:1–2, Jacoby argues that a translation out of MT would have necessarily produced a Greek sentence different in syntax and structure. Finsterbusch’s essay extends this work by comparing Jeremiah 1:4–7 and 18 in MT with LXX. For Finsterbusch, both text editions show a distinct profile. While LXX emphasizes YHWH’s message, the focus in MT is on Jeremiah and his words.
To start the second part of the book, focusing on Jeremiah 10, Moshe Lavee shows that the late haggadic midrashim saw a dichotomy between Israel and the gentiles. According to Lavee, the rabbis attempted to rehabilitate Jeremiah in two ways. First, although the prophet harshly rebuked Israel, he never fell short in terms of his great love for Israel. Second, by reinterpreting passages that might support universalism and missionary approaches, the author argues that the rabbis portrayed Jeremiah as a defender of Israel’s divine election. Lavee closes his paper by pointing to the contrary trend in the writings of the Early Church Fathers: for example, John Chrysostom used Jeremiah 10 to argue for God’s abandonment of Israel. Next, Martin Meiser, who explores Jeremiah 10 within the New Testament and Early Christianity, points out that this chapter was used primarily in an anti-pagan context. He sees a fundamental difference before and after 390 AD, since the stop of the veneration of the Greco-Roman gods was seen as a fulfillment of Jeremiah 10:11.
The following two essays concentrate on text-critical and exegetical issues of Jeremiah 10. Hermann-Josef Stipp shows that LXX of Jeremiah 10 lacks verses 6–8 of MT and places verse 9 of MT in the middle of verse 5. Since the erasing of these verses with their strong adoration of God’s incomparability and universal kingship seems odd in this context, it raises the question of who is responsible for these changes. Based on the assumption that it was either the translator of LXX or the scribe of the proto-MT, Stipp argues that MT of Jeremiah shows a proto-Masoretic idiolect that cannot be observed in the Greek translation, which leads to the conclusion that the first possibility is very unlikely. Accordingly, the proto-Masoretic idiolect definitely points to a Hebrew Vorlage different than MT tradition. In the next essay, Richard D. Weis focuses on Jeremiah 10 as a whole. By presenting two independent studies on the structure of both text versions of this chapter, Weis argues that both MT and LXX have a coherent and meaningful structure but were addressed to two different audiences. Weis thinks that LXX-Jeremiah 10 was aimed to an exilic audience, showing “that Yahweh is reliable and worthy of trust and wor- ship in contrast to the gods of the nations” (134–35). MT-Jeremiah 10, on the other hand, was directed towards an audience in the Persian period, focusing on the praise of Yahweh and using the foreign gods as foil for this purpose.
The third part of the book consists of Christl Maier’s response to how the preceding essays illuminate the intersection of reception history and textual history. Among other things, they show that every act of translation is already an act of interpretation that is informed by the setting and worldview that the translator inhabits.
Overall, this volume treats the intersection of reception history and textual history successfully. The essays are very informative and even a reader who is not highly familiar with the problem of MT and LXX in Jeremiah will benefit in better understanding some of its key issues and important exegetical issues. Weis’s essay in particular (“Exegesis of Jeremiah 10 in LXX and in MT: Results and Implications”) is stimulating by opening up a new path for approaching the textual critical problem as often done in Jeremiah scholarship. He analyzes the MT and the LXX text version of Jeremiah 10 independently and compares their structure and intent. Although in view of the present writer Weis’s conclusion regarding the distinct audiences and time periods of both text versions goes too far, his approach might still be fruitful for establishing stronger internal criteria for cases where MT and LXX differ.
It is striking, on the other hand, that all four essays that deal directly with the textual differences between MT and LXX (Jacoby and Finsterbusch on Jeremiah 1 and Stipp and Weis on Jeremiah 10) argue in favor of the majority view, that the translator of LXX used a Hebrew Vorlage different than the proto-MT. However, other viewpoints are mentioned only a few times but discussed thoroughly nowhere in the book. This gives an unbalanced impression. For example, Jacoby’s own analysis on reflections of the Greek translation in Jeremiah 1 indicates that the translator had the capacity and the freedom to engage in constructing the text as he was translating. Whereas many aspects of the four essays mentioned above are convincing (e.g., Stipp’s point regarding the absence of MT Jeremiah 10:6–8 and displacement of v. 9), a more balanced approach would still be preferable.
All in all, this volume is a valuable study of Jeremiah 1 and 10, demonstrating the importance of each text version as a distinct and coherent unit and how vital it is to consider their own worldview and hermeneutical perspectives.
