Surrender to the King of Babylon

1.1. The enigma of the end and the rereading of history

“In the tenth month of the ninth year of Zedekiah, king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and all his army marched against Jerusalem and placed it under siege. In the fourth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the ninth of the month, the city wall was breached […]” (Jer 39:2; cf. 52:6–7; 2 Kgs 25:1–4). It is the beginning of the end. Jerusalem is destroyed, the temple of YHWH burned down, and the Davidic reign of Judah erased from history. The survivors are deported to Babylon (cf. 39:9; 52:15), the certainties they once had like sand and rubble in their hands. All is lost. All appears to be lost. In the end, the catastrophe – threatened by some prophets, negated by others, and exorcised in vain by rituals, theological conventions, and political choices – really did come. Death entered through the windows, it penetrated the palaces, it wreaked havoc on the promises of youth (cf. 9:20) and the time when Israel followed YHWH through the desert, its firstfruits tended with burning jealousy (cf. 2:2–3). And today, as then, the underling question remains the same: Why did it happen? “Why has the Lord pronounced all this great disaster against us?” (16:10). Indeed, it is these queries in the context of the trauma of the exile² that gave life to that intertwining of voices, provocations, and questions and answers that makes up the book of Jeremiah.³

As far as modern historiography is concerned, the facts referred to in the testimony of biblical narrative need be considered within the framework of the ancient Near East’s geopolitical dynamics. Therewithin, the collapse of modest state entities is a predictable outcome of the power struggles that existed between the great, dominant political entities of the time, or could constitute an inevitable systemic collapse,⁴ a consequence typical of other transitional processes as well. Indeed, historical science is wont to programmatically dismiss the dimension of transcendence as impertinent, by virtue of its methodological presuppositions concerning the reconstruction of past events and of the Jewish religion itself.⁵ But the entire biblical text and its world vision is permeated by the correlation between the human horizon and the divine one. The question of historical truth is thus attributed to being a theological truth. And it is therefore no coincidence that for countless generations, at the annual Jewish memorial for the catastrophe celebrated on the ninth day of the month of Ab, not annalistic chronicles but rather the Lamentations are recited.⁶ Rereading the past in this (intercultural) perspective⁷ has a much higher pretence than does that of conducting an assessment of crude facts. In Israel, the destiny of this modest capital of this even more modest remote kingdom is considered a parabolic event of universal value.⁸ In it, the balance of creation is put back into play (cf. 4:23–25) and the very Meaning of history as it regards all nations is revealed (cf. 18:1–15; 25; 46–51).

1.2. After the end: The efficacy and crisis of an interpretive model

The general interpretative schema of biblical historiography can be attributed in particular to influences of the so-called Deuteronomistic tendency,⁹ which strives to reinterpret the entire history of Israel, from after Moses bids farewell (in Deut) and Israel is established in the land of Canaan (with Josh), through to its tragic end (2 Kgs 25).¹⁰ It does this on the basis of some fundamental theological coordinates: the notion of “election” placed within the framework of the reciprocity of the Covenant and, above all, the relation between sin and punishment. This causal relation is a hermeneutic that is simple, effective, and also rather persuasive, probably due to its being part of an original anthropological experience tied to the processes of evolutionary adaptation (with their reflection in educational practices; cf. e.g. Prov 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; etc.; Eph 6:4; Heb 12:6–7; etc.). These processes forgive no errors and “sanction” every deviation from the physio-biological laws, by which life is possible only under certain conditions. The model is a ubiquitous one, especially in the ancient Near East, even if in Israel the context it falls into is a peculiar one, where faith in YHWH, the only and righteous Lord of history, does not consider the real possibility of evil being attributable to other rival forces, whether these be other gods (conceived regardless as inferior, if not actually non-existent) or a blind Fate superior to any human-divine intentionality.

Despite there being several obscure knots that prove hard to untangle within this hermeneutical context, not the least of which would be pious Josiah’s embarrassing exit from the scene, the retributive model and attempt to justify YHWH’s actions seem to pervade prophetic literature in its entirety. This is true to such an extent that this literature has been defined as an impressive proposal of theodicy,¹¹ in which history gets reread as an attempt to ultimately achieve a plausibility of meaning following the experience of meaninglessness inherent in every disaster.¹² With the destruction of Jerusalem, however, one finds oneself before a cognitive dissonance¹³ of apparently unmanageable consequences: an entire religious vision of the world seems to have shattered. For this reason, the traditional hermeneutical schema is called into question in a way that is so radical that the test of its interpretive strength could either definitively legitimise its validity or, instead, affirm its structural insufficiency in elucidating history as an organic process. We are well aware that in the wisdom tradition, what seriously jeopardises this schema is the question of the righteous sufferer (with the case of Job, above all). But already placed within the pages of a great prophetic book like Isaiah are the stages of a mysterious path of humiliation in which the sore lot of a Righteous One (the servant of YHWH) opens up altogether unprecedented perspectives. The fact is that if single individuals can also be representative of a collective destiny (cf. also the figure of the “son of man” [v. 13: vn"a/ rb;] in Dan 7), then it is difficult to see, in the history of a people in alliance with YHWH, a path entirely free of fault or infidelity capable of making the retributive schema obsolete. The question thus remains an open one, and the book of Jeremiah confronts it in a way all its own.

1.3. Before the end: Jeremiah and the call for “consignation to the king of Babylon”

The prophets had announced peace (~Alv'), but peace did not come (cf. 4:10; 6:14; 8:11; 14:13; 23:17; etc.). They had given assurance that the king of Babylon would not be a threat and that the Lord would break his yoke, ripping it from the neck of all the nations. Instead, his armies devastated and annihilated the kingdom of Judah (cf. 27:9; 28:1–4.11; 29:9; 37:19; Ezek 22:28; Lam 2:14; etc.). The eternal covenant between YHWH and his people appears to have been terminated, and with it, the promises of the permanency of the Davidic throne, possession of the land given to the Fathers, and the very dogma of election made visible by the earthly dwelling place of God amidst his people (cf. Isa 40:27; 49:14; Jer 33:24; Ezek 33:10; 37:11; Ps 44:14; 89:39–40; Lam 3:54; etc.).

The failure¹⁴ of Israel’s history seems radical and incomprehensible, above all bearing in mind the contradiction between the theme of its election and that of its punishment. This punishment has been made manifest in a tragedy, a castigation so harsh that it could be read as the negation of the election itself. And yet, during the exile and post-exile, it is the search for meaning in the face of the enigma of the end that identifies, in the figure of Jeremiah, an emblematic anchoring. However one might consider him today (as a historical character, literary project, or fictional figure), a word of truth is regained in him that sets him apart from all the other pre-catastrophe voices. And it sets him apart from the other prophetic figures and traditions (in particular, those of Isaiah and Ezekiel) as well. Whilst a fruitful intertextual dialogue with the most important biblical traditions is evident throughout the Jeremianic corpus,¹⁵ it is to Jeremiah alone that a precise indication of meaning by which the catastrophe might have been avoided through the actualisation of a concrete political option, however unprecedented, can be attributed. The prophet had not only foretold the arrival of the enemy from the North and then demonstrated the historical concretisation of this in the Babylonian invasion, but in the name of YHWH, he had also presented an inexorable alternative: to either continue to resist the king of Babylon by opposing him to the bitter end, or to surrender to this foreign power and remain alive. The scope of my research is to try my hand at addressing the hermeneutical challenge posed by the subversive potential of this prophetic gamble on a political and theological level.

Moreover, the theme of “consignation to the king of Babylon” is by no means a marginal aspect of the theological-literary complexity of the book of Jeremiah. On the contrary, it is a recurring motif that is presented in various circumstances and to various recipients. These are so diverse and representative of the totality of Israel that I am drawn to consider that this message, delivered in a specific theological-political context, is destined to assume a “universal” value. Universal value implies universal responsibility. And in fact, Jeremiah addresses the nations (27:2–11), the king Zedekiah (27:12–13), the priests and all the people (27:16–17), the exiles of the first deportation (29:4–7), the people once again (38:2–3), Zedekiah once more (38:17–23), and finally, even the remaining population left behind in the country after the fall of Jerusalem (42:10–18). Certainly, the main culprit for the tragedy will be the monarchy, but it will most definitely not be alone. Indeed, this option for survival and salvation is addressed to all.

It is thus not by chance that the experience of the exile leads to a retrospective consideration of this prophetic word and its implications. Once again in the Jeremianic corpus, the sin of the people and its governors is called into question. But this is not merely a repeating or re-elaborating of the bare bones of doctrinal content. It wants, first of all, to present and listen once more, as I have said, to a parable of life that runs through the end and beyond. In this “parable”, the prophetic oracles on the one hand, and the history of a (no less prophetic; cf. 1:5) “body” on the other, move together synergistically upon the stage of the text and of history. A doctrine is listened to, a drama lived, or re-lived. For this reason, from the very beginning of Jeremiah and throughout its disorienting literary organisation, the book engages its listeners/readers in the same descending parabola that its protagonists experience. And the outcome of this is well known. What is now most interesting to learn is not only why, but even more so how they got to that point. And what is most pressing to know is if, from this failure, or even from within this failure, a germ of new hope can come forth.

“Where are your own prophets […]?” (37:19) Jeremiah asks his interlocutors, rendering the falsity of their words manifest. The entire book is fruit of a retrospective gaze that originates from the revelatory nature of the impact with reality, which it attests within its own literary perimeter. So the prophet’s invitation to stop along the paths of men to scrutinise the wisdom derived from past experiences (cf. 6:16) does not regard the people of his time alone. Faced with the enigma of the end, one looks back because before that end, the most grave disobedience was not only that of refusing to walk the way of moral good (bAJh; %r<d<) but also that of not wanting to recognise a (human-divine) communicative event taking place and read its grammar of signification (cf. 6:17: “I raised up watchmen for them: ‘Pay attention [√bvq hi.] to the sound of the trumpet! [rp'Av lAql.]’. But they said, ‘We will not pay attention! [√bvq hi.]’”). An exploration of the Meaning therefore demands the dedication of renewed attention to the dimension of signs and symbols, to all those faint traces or clear communicative provocations that require a hermeneutical act. And it requires, still further, obedience. Here as well, what is asked of the prophet from the outset (cf. 1:11, 13: “what do you see, Jeremiah?”) is asked of each and every reader of the book of Jeremiah. And before us, numerous others have grappled with this fascinating and challenging undertaking.

1.4. The submission-surrender to Babylon and its interpretations. Status quaestionis

Everyone and no one. An initial response, with regard to the focalisation of the status quaestionis of my topic, could be reduced to this succinct expression. In fact, every commentator of the Jeremianic text discusses the question and confronts it in one way or another since over the course of the book of Jeremiah the prophetic injunction explicitly calling for submission-surrender¹⁶ to Babylon is inevitably encountered several times. It is however surprising that no one thus far, to my knowledge, has dedicated a monographic study to it. At most, the theme can be found in a few articles, treated according to various perspectives.

My dissertation intends foremost to bridge this hermeneutical gap, attempting to conduct a study that combines exegetical inquiries of an analytic sort on the relevant texts with a synthetic global vision and a personal interpretive proposal. As a point of departure, a clear focalisation of the most prevalent and significantly beaten tracks to date will be useful, since my work will present itself as a critical dialogue with respect to them, albeit using different modalities, given the heterogeneity of these contributions. Indeed, given their variegated and fragmentary nature, it seems opportune that I group these various proposals together according to the distinct hermeneutical perspectives shared by their most representative authors, at least in terms of their background horizons.

2.1. Beyond and within the contradictions: Revelation and the prophetic assumption of the Meaning

Focalisation of the status quaestionis regarding the interpretation of the Jeremianic message has clarified the diversified positions of modern commentators, some of which are in complete opposition. In a certain sense, these can simply be considered the expansion and projection along the axis of time of a hermeneutical question that is already entirely contained within the book of Jeremiah itself. Indeed, I am convinced that one of the aims of the Jeremianic work is precisely that of explicitly putting forth the question itself of the discernment of the true prophetic word. And I believe that it does so by having the reader/listener actively participate in the hermeneutical dynamic through the juxtaposition of seemingly contradictory themes, narrative dramatisation, and the overall architecture of the Jeremianic work. Its twofold general arrangement (according to the MT and LXX) already makes the action of different symbolic-compositional intentionalities apparent.

What figure are we then to see in Jeremiah? A true prophet or a false one? A nationalist concerned with the welfare of the kingdom of Judah, or a fifth columnist being paid off for the interests of a foreign power? An astute court counsellor, or a cynical defeatist who is a danger to the morale of the soldiers sacrificing their lives to defend the City? An authoritative re-reader of the prophetic tradition and defender of divine rights within the framework of the Sinaitic Covenant, or a blasphemous destroyer of the holiest dogmas of Yahwism?

On the (“literal”) semantic level, the message of Jeremiah is clear and simple: submission and/or surrender to the king of Babylon is a necessity. And yet, at the same time (“the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim [~yqiy"Ahy>]⁶⁵”), when the irruption of his overwhelming power is proclaimed (cf. 25:1; 36:1; 45:1; 46:2), Jeremiah announces the end of Babylon (cf. 51:59–64), which in the final oracles of the book is severely condemned (cf. 50–51:1–58). The same could be said about other important prophetic expressions that concern the kingdom of Judah and the other nations in general: there is a word of destruction and a word of reconstruction (cf. 1:10). YHWH hurts, YHWH heals (cf. 30:12–14 with 30:15–17). A promise of life and well-being (~Alv') is addressed to every human being, but then appears to be contradicted by experiences of suffering and death (cf. 1:5 with 20:7–18; and also 4:10; 6:14; 14:19; etc.). The need to “hand oneself over to Babylon”⁶⁶ and the horizon of the end (both threatened and realised) seem to negate not only the fundamental theological category of the election of Zion and the Davidic dynasty, but also the founding event of Israel’s freedom, the Exodus.

My underlying thesis is that it be possible to reconcile these formally contradictory expressions in a coherent hermeneutical framework, the structuring principle of which can be identified precisely via a more adequate rereading of the theme of the surrender to Babylon. Entering along that interpretative route that takes on the dialectic and interweaving of the political and theological dimensions as ineluctable, I believe that the Jeremianic message should be reunderstood according to its explicit “prophetic” dimension. It should be comprehended, in other words, according to the “claimed” revelative valence of the Meaning of the history of Israel and of all nations. Whilst not configured as research to be inserted primarily along the channels of those studies that have been done on the history of the text’s composition, those contributions will still be borne in mind and, if necessary, discussed. My study intends therefore to question the particular communicative nature of the book of Jeremiah as a whole: a work in which both historical vestiges and semiotic-literary intentionality, while not being easily distinguishable from each other,⁶⁷ do coexist. And it is these aspects themselves that testify to the possibility of diversified manifestations of the spirit of prophecy: that of unrepeatable, originary personal experiences, that of the disciples, that of the scribes and all the listeners who then transmit that same prophetic word. This process then engages today’s reader, who is called on to participate, with their own hermeneutical act, in the same dynamism of revelation and prophetic assumption of the Meaning.

2.2. The meaning of history: What YHWH reveals, how to respond to YHWH

From what has been said thus far, the appeal of a thorough study on the theme of “consignation to the king of Babylon” seems evident to me. In addition to its recursion in the Jeremianic work and displacement in strategic points (as we shall see), it is precisely the theme’s uniqueness within the panorama of prophetic literature that ought to attract a greater measure of attention and demand a rigorous, multidisciplinary study.

As D.J. Reimer⁶⁸ has pointed out, unlike other likewise Jeremianic themes that can be found in other books and from which the “author” of Jeremiah seems to draw, however ingeniously and creatively⁶⁹ (consider, e.g. of the attention devoted to Egypt), the theme of the surrender to Babylon has no direct terms of comparison. To explain its nature and origin, we cannot resort to other prophetic traditions, whether the minor ones or the great books of Isaiah or Ezekiel.⁷⁰ There is an entirely Jeremianic specificity that depends on the uniqueness of the historical conjuncture⁷¹ (which, despite or precisely thanks to its uniqueness, will assume a paradigmatic value in several respects). This peculiarity is, in my opinion, an invitation to take the revelatory value of the prophetic word seriously. History is not seen as merely an anonymous, undifferentiated flow of worthless, jumbled acts and human intentionality dominated by chance. History is rather the place visited by the divine word that not only calls things into existence, but also establishes a relationship with a subject who is elevated to responsible partner (i.e. one capable of responding). For this reason, cosmic events, geopolitical dynamics, the vicissitudes of peoples, and the human adventures of individuals become, in the book of Jeremiah, scenarios in which the Meaning can reveal itself and solicit a response.

The gesture of surrender is to be explored as the emergence of a complex dynamic of manifestation and assumption of this meaning of history revealed by YHWH in a way that is precise, here and now. We must therefore ask ourselves anew, and on a level that is deeper still, about both the specific content of prophetic signification that Jeremiah (as a literary architecture and as an intradiegetic prophet) intends to impress upon the choice that all are called to make (surrender), as well as what modalities and relational dynamics are called into question through this gesture. Because in my view, the book of Jeremiah intends to configure a relational paradigm that tells the reader, retrospectively, not only what and how YHWH speaks within history, but also how to respond to YHWH and what needs to be signified with the concreteness of one’s body in that specific temporal horizon.

2.3. The surrender as a “prophetic choice”

From the first chapter of the book, Jeremiah is presented as the paradigmatic figure of the one called to prophecy. Fundamentally, this means nothing other than that he is the figure of the human being, of every person in Israel, called to listen to and obediently receive the divine word. For this reason, what happens to him becomes meaningful for others, for his interlocutors, for all of Jerusalem. For this reason, his vocation coincides with the invitation, which gets reflected upon the reader/listener themself, to receive the discipline of prophetic discipleship. “What do you see, Jeremiah?” (cf. 1:11, 13). It is clear that this apprenticeship has, as its fundamental object, that of learning to see history and reality according to the perspective of YHWH.

The history of Israel (and, in this case, of the kingdom of Judah) is a small matter inserted in the history of the nations and the great history of the empires of that time. And yet, it is referred to in the biblical text as a story that purports to house the Lord himself of every story. And yet, paradoxically, the parable that we witness plummets dramatically to its conclusion. To its failure. It overflows with infidelity, falsehood, and an abuse of power. The gravity of the situation is “revealed” precisely by the fact that the injustice is hidden, lurking and breeding in the shadows of the sacred space of the Covenant rendered visible by worship at the temple, under the gaze of the Davidic dynasty, and within the reassuring nest of the theology of election and impregnability of Zion. At a certain point, prophetic threats no longer seem to suffice. And it is here that, according to my working hypothesis, right in the option of surrender to Babylon in which the threat of the end materialises, the book of Jeremiah ultimately formulates what I can for the moment call a “prophetic choice”. Using the same grammar of the call to prophecy, this means that it signifies the meaning of the history taking place: the acceptance of the righteous punishment of YHWH, the recognition of one’s failure, and new and unconditional faith in the Lord of history. Everything is condensed in this choice. And this choice, I believe, is proposed as an extreme path of salvation that exceeds both the political and sapiential dimensions. It even exceeds the ethical imperative so dear to the Deuteronomistic tradition.

To discern, and then choose. To accept, and decide. In other words, it is necessary to grasp and accept the meaning of history as it occurs in order to respond to YHWH, and thus choose the path of life instead of that of death. My working hypothesis is that the call to surrender to Babylon need be understood within these general hermeneutical coordinates.

3.1. Faced with the text

Communicating means entering into the world of meaning and its complexity. This is always irreducible, since, based on the polysemy of natural language, it is never entirely formalisable.⁷² On the other hand, as was observed at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the great linguist Karl Wilhelm von Humbolt, language provides us with finite methods for infinite uses. And this renders the structural limit of the human condition itself astonishing. One discovers that the human being is equipped with a striking ability to produce and comprehend the universe of signification, in which textuality and interpretation are generated ceaselessly.

Practicing ejxhvghsi~ means meeting a critical need regarding texts and their meaning. Conducting biblical exegesis means attempting to give an explanation, in a methodologically coherent manner, of a meaning inscribed within a given sign system, a human product (also or above all) inserted within a specific historical-literary context. The complexity is ineludible: one can concentrate on one aspect more than another, but that dimension that always remains incumbent on the hermeneutical act cannot be dismissed. At least, this cannot be done without consequences.

Multiple elements are in reciprocal relationships: questions about origin, about the “how”, the “why”, the “from whom”, and the “when”. There are questions about the circumstances of the production and re-elaboration of the texts and their meaning (diachrony). And together, these elements address the decipherment of the linguistic code, the study of the morphology, syntax and semantic, rhetorical strategies, and countless other aspects that are inherent to the “world of the text” (synchrony).⁷³ This complexity calls for contributions from multiple disciplines, which each have different assumptions and precomprehensions. And all these factors actually, inevitably, channel together.

This premise is necessary for a path of research that promises to be as fascinating, for the meaning that it lets us glimpse, as it is challenging, for the multiplicity of exegetic instruments and interdisciplinary insights required case-by-case, depending on the object under scrutiny. To best illustrate this, I will begin with some elementary considerations that can serve as guidelines for the necessary methodological assumptions.

3.2. A first definition of the theme: Structuring elements and significant relationships

The delineation of a theme and circumscription of autonomous, well-defined textual units within a broader communicative process is one of the responsibilities entrusted to the reader. The exegete, then, has the ulterior task of justifying these (or modifying their boundaries) with adequate methodological instruments as an obligatory path for comprehending the text’s meaning.

At this stage, however, it is more opportune to simply “simulate” the experience of a first reading of the book of Jeremiah in its entirety, thus limiting ourselves to a precursory reconnaissance of the Jeremianic theme of “consignment to the king of Babylon”. In doing so, I will draw forth some general indications of method. I therefore renounce providing a rigorous definition of the topic at this point, as this could not but be the result of my entire path of inquiry. I will simply attempt to give a few descriptions of it from the outside having an operative valence. For the same reason, I will postpone the use of a more technical vocabulary until a point further on, when the analytical instruments implemented will have been made explicit.

At this point, we will therefore remain at a level of empirical observation, focusing on the book segments where our theme emerges in its most evident form. I can thus easily isolate the following texts for now: 21:1–10; 27–28; 38:14–28a. In addition to our precomprehensions (which make any investigation of reality possible), in the act of reading, several categorical fields that contribute to the theme’s denotation and connotation can be intuitively recognised (and channelled towards a unity of meaning, at least as a first interpretive hypothesis). I can make these explicit, keeping in mind that the theme of the surrender to Babylon can be traced back to some identifying aspects of both a formal type (characteristic vocabulary and phraseology) and a contenutistic type (i.e. within the narrative structure), and be studied on the basis of some fundamental relationships that are traceable according to different levels of contextual pertinence (intra- and extratextual).

I will now briefly present one (cf. Figs. 1 and 2) of the many different schematic summaries possible so that it can become clear which methodological approaches I believe to be most adequate (cf. Fig. 3) for a working hypothesis for the search for meaning untainted by a preconditioned or excessive separation of disciplinary fields.⁷⁴

On a first exploration, the theme presents itself as:

1. A. A phenomenon of (prophetic) communication. This is its fundamental dimension.⁷⁵
2. B. A communication with a content (the message of surrender) that:
   1. a) expresses a significance that reads the meaning of history, beginning with the overall interpretive context of the book of Jeremiah: YHWH strikes his people through Nebuchadnezzar because of their infidelity
   2. b) imposes a decision (to accept this reading of history) that is to be expressed in a precise behaviour: to surrender (pragmatic level)

This requested behaviour (submit-surrender) has, in turn:

1. a) a meaning, both “literal” and “symbolic-prophetic” (semantic level)
2. b) a salvific effect, on both the human level as well as that of the relationship with YHWH (pragmatic level)

1. C. A communication given within a context, through a sender (Jeremiah), for specific recipients in two interrelated forms⁷⁶:
   1. a) Through the non-verbal channel (the sign of the yoke in Jer 27–28)
   2. b) Through the verbal channel (the oracular content of the Jeremianic message)
2. D. This is a communication that assumes a narrative form (story)
3. E. This is a narrative communication in the form of written text

The theme, considered as a communicative phenomenon, is part of (or insertable within) broader communicative phenomena (cf. Fig. 2) that can likewise be considered contextual levels of reference for different paths of interpretation:

1. a) The materiality of the book (or books)⁷⁷ of Jeremiah (MT/LXX)
2. b) The literary unity that the book forms can be considered, in turn, as part of the broader HB and/or OT “sign system”
3. c) This textual area is, in turn, inserted or insertable (from the point of view of a figural type of biblical theology),⁷⁸ within the broader Bible/Holy Scriptures “system”, hermeneutically understood as a “récit totale”, including the NT “system” and having the “Christ event” as its culmination and decisive key to interpretation
4. d) The entirety (or the single parts) is insertable within a context that is even more general (even if of a different nature), that is, the historical horizon, reconstructible starting from the totality of extrabiblical documentation

The entirety of that which we can already define as a system of signic relationships (the theme in its structuring elements, which are in a reciprocal relationship) can be placed in relation with other “signic systems” (some of which have just been introduced), according to other fundamental guidelines (cf. Fig. 3). I can thus highlight:

1. A. The text’s relationship with the historical dimension, which can be broken down into:
   1. a) The history of the composition of the text (diachronic approach)
   2. b) The question of the historicity of the information provided by the text (both in reference to extrabiblical data, for its verification, and in order to attempt to reconstruct a plausible historical context)
2. B. The relationship, of an exclusively literary nature, of the fragment with the entirety seen as an organically given whole (synchronic approach). That is, the relationship between the text (understood as a textual series containing the theme) and the text of the book of Jeremiah, which can, in turn, be considered in relationship to:
   1. a) the HB/OT (and potentially, intertestamental literature)
   2. b) the totality of the Bible/Sacred Scriptures understood as a “récit totale”