Loading...

Surrender to the King of Babylon

Jeremiah’s “prophetic choice” in the face of Jerusalem’s end (Jer 21:1-10; 27–28; 38:14-28a)

by Salvatore Maurizio Sessa (Author)
©2024 Thesis 816 Pages

Summary

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the author
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Contents
  • Acknowledgements
  • General Introduction
  • PART I “Up leaps the lion from his thicket” Emergenc(i)es. Literary emergences – Historical emergencies
  • Chapter I The thematic emergence of the surrender to the king of Babylon. Orientative literary-hermeneutical coordinates
  • Chapter II Facing the might of the Babylonian empire. Historical international emergencies as the pragmatic context of the call to surrender
  • PART II “Bow your necks beneath the yoke of the king of Babylon!”Texts Words – Actions – Significations
  • Chapter III Jer 21:1–10. The surrender as acceptance of the end: A symbolic-narrative prolepsis and hermeneutical key to an entire history
  • Chapter IV Jer 27–28. The world beneath the yoke of the king of Babylon: The multi-levelled ante factum of the prophetic call to surrender
  • Chapter V Jer 38:14–28a. Jeremiah and Zedekiah: The final colloquy. A paradigmatic dramatisation of human-divine communication
  • PART III Whoever surrenders […] shall live!Hermeneutics Handing oneself over to the king of Babylon: phenomenology and interpretation
  • Chapter VI The gesture of the surrender: Phenomenology and symbolic apertures
  • Chapter VII The surrender to the king of Babylon as a “symbolic-prophetic choice”
  • Chapter VIII The surrender to the king of Babylon as “Prophetic-Obediential ConSignA(c)tion” (POC)
  • General conclusions (and apertures) “But what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer 5:31)
  • Abbreviations and sigla
  • Bibliography
  • 1. Hebrew text and ancient versions
  • 1.1. Hebrew text
  • 1.2. Ancient versions
  • 2. Other sources
  • 2.1. Texts from the ancient Near East
  • 2.2. Classical historiography
  • 2.3. Other classics
  • 2.4. Dead Sea texts
  • 2.5. Rabbinical and Jewish texts
  • 3. Photographic Repertories
  • 4. Instruments
  • 4.1. Grammar and syntax books
  • 4.2. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, concordances, and other instruments
  • 4.3. Online/information technology resources
  • 5. Commentaries and other studies

Acknowledgements

While containing a few later updates, the present study makes available to a wider audience the original dissertation submitted in Italian to obtain the doctorate in Biblical Studies at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and defended on 21 June 2017. This paragraph, on the other hand, is dedicated to giving thanks. Despite its brevity and later writing, it is, in a sense, of the greatest importance since it allows me to express, at least in a symbolic form, the purpose itself of every human journey according to biblical revelation, that is, praise, gratitude, the Magnificat (cf. Luke 1:46–55; 24:52–53).

In this movement of turning back to retrace the steps taken (cf. 2 Kgs 5:15; Isa 38:19; Luke 17:15) through the countless stages the work has undergone, I can recollect faces, encounters, and precious friendships. These are meaningful moments and individuals whose contributions have made this long academic endeavour a fascinating and fruitful existential adventure. They are like the sacred places of the Patriarchs where altars or other memorials are erected to honour the Lord of Life (cf. Gen 8:18; 12:7–8; 13:18; 28:18; 31:45; 33:20; Josh 4:20; etc.).

My first thanks can go to none other than my thesis supervisor, the man who has been my paternal guide within the fascinating world of biblical prophecy and the Jeremianic microcosm in particular, namely Prof. Fr Pietro Bovati SJ. From the very first steps I took at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, he has been for me a constant source of intellectual and spiritual stimuli, inspiration, and encouragement to fearlessly assume responsibility for talents received. For him, I hold immense gratitude. I also thank the second speaker, Prof. P. José María Abrego de Lacy SJ, and other members of the commission, Profs. Fr Michael Francis Kolarčík SJ, Fr Peter Dubovský SJ, and in particular, the late Prof. P. Stephen Pisano SJ for his interest and appreciation of my contribution. I would also like to thank all the personnel of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and notably, the Secretary General Carlo Valentino, a precious point of reference for his readiness and care of every student.

All research paths are indebted to the countless travel companions who often times one can confront only amongst the stacks of the library, consulting their works. But here, I express my gratitude to all those whom I have been able to meet in person and who have contributed in different ways to this work, often on the basis of sincere friendship. A special thanks thus goes to Prof. Paolo Merlo for reviewing the historical part and for his advice on the sources of the Ancient Near East, Prof. Robyn Anne Carston, professor of Linguistics at University College London, for our exchange and her encouragement in the study of Pragmatics and Relevance Theory, Prof. Mark Avila for his lively lessons in Akkadian and cordial friendship, Prof. Georg Fischer, a great expert on Jeremiah, Prof. Jean Louis Ska, Prof. Federico Giuntoli, Prof. Maura Sala, and prof. Gwen Griffith-Dickson. The advice I received from each of them was quite valuable. I cannot fail to mention my dear companions in study and life Claudio Arletti, Lorenzo Gasparro, Maurizio Volante, Emanuele Meconcelli, and Diego Zanda, whose fraternal friendship has always been a precious gift over these years.

Special recognition is due to the late Card. Achille Silvestrini for having wanted me as his special secretary and spiritual assistant at the Domenico Tardini College of Excellence Community (Villa Nazareth). May the Lord reward him for his great heart. I cherish fond memories of those years and all the people I met, both students and members of the Villa Nazareth Association, and special thanks in this regard also goes to H.E. Msgr. Claudio Celli.

Going back even further, I feel great filial gratitude towards Fr Valfredo M. Zamperini, founder of the Missionaries of Mary, who desired this path of formation for me, the specific direction of which was also encouraged by the prophetic word of the late Msgr. Mansueto Bianchi. His passionate and exciting lessons on the prophets and the Johannine Writings are always alive in my memory. A sincere thanks also to Sr Donatella Camarlinghi for her support.

I give infinite thanks to my parents, my brother Sergio, and my sister Laura – gifts that are wellsprings of still more gifts. For you, blessings from Heaven without end. Finally, a word about the present translation: a monumental undertaking that would have been impossible without the dedication, professionalism, and theological-literary sensitivity of Denver Michelle Beattie. To her, all my gratitude. A heartfelt thanks also to all those who made it possible for this work to see the light, in particular to the Tonani family, Belinda Theis, Kemalova-Pollo Poesio family.

There are so many more names still to be mentioned, but those who have lent even a small contribution towards this achievement know that my thanks go out to them as well. This work is yours, too. Even the obstacles, of all kinds, have contributed to this result. For all things, praise to the Lord, for all has been, is, and will be grace. And this grace is to be shared in the communion of the Spirit.

General Introduction “Where are your own prophets who prophesied to you saying: ‘The king of Babylon will not attack you or this land’?” (Jer 37:19)

Ainsi l’échec et l’espoir ne sont-ils pax deux moments espacés de l’œuvre divine; il sont inhérents l’un à l’autre, comme deux pôles opposés, et un seul et même terme exprime leur simultanéité, de telle sorte que, dans le texte biblique, l’échec et l’espérance se lisent dans le même mot, se captent dans la même charnière de l’aventure biblique.1

1. Searching for Meaning. Starting from the rubble

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.

1.4.1. The political perspective

The elements of a political nature contained in the book of Jeremiah have long been identified.17 The choice to submit or surrender to a foreign power is clearly an act that concerns the government of a state entity18 performed by its supreme leaders and those who can influence the decision-making power. In the kingdom of Judah at the time of Jeremiah and in the contemporary context of the ancient Near East, the governance of public life was the prerogative of the figure of the sovereign, who availed himself of ministers and other professional figures.

Generals, advisors, scribes, priests, prophets, haruspices, astrologists, and other power agents make up, in one way or another and in different measure, the administrative workings of the court in the majority of state aggregations (above all, in those that are most complex and structured, such as the Neo-Assyrian empire and, following, the Neo-Babylonian one). For these entities, information that is human and information deriving from the divine sphere constituted the basis for every decision-making process, whether for the individual or the highest state positions. In this respect, speaking of “politics” as an art of governance by an urban collective runs the risk of being anachronistic if one does not carefully contextualise this field of action within the relevant socio-cultural horizon in which myths, religious beliefs, and governance practices are imbricated dimensions.19 Even with this caution, it is nevertheless possible to identify a decisional space in which pragmatic grounds, inspired by what we can call balanced “realism”, could have prevailed.20 Indeed, a certain strand of interpretation of the Jeremianic option seems to be marked by precisely this category, even if the terms in which it does so are, in my opinion, reductionistic.

According to Francolino José Gonçalves, for example,21 the injunction to accept the yoke of Babylon (cf. 27–28) would not have been attributable by Jeremiah to any specific theological motivation other than that of it being the impenetrable design of YHWH on history. The necessity to submit to the imperial hegemony of the moment would thus have nothing to do at all with either the relational dynamic of the Covenant in general or with the sin-punishment nexus in particular (thematised especially by the Deuteronomistic tradition). Jeremiah would have therefore spoken and acted as a member of the pro-Babylonian party, manifesting, albeit in the name of YHWH, merely a “réalisme politique”, to be counterposed with the “irréalisme absolu” of Isaiah who on the contrary, faced with the Assyrian threat, asked to confide in the help of YHWH.22

Burke O. Long, in a study on the social roots of the prophetic conflict with regard to the stance to be taken towards Babylon,23 had already complained about the excessive significance assigned by commentators to the theological dimension of the question. In his opinion, the issue would be entirely political, and not theological at all. He sustained this based solely on the fact that both representatives of the contending groups, the pro-Egyptian and pro-Babylonian, would have been invoking YHWH as an instrumentality.24 This frankly simplistic position, in my view, results in an erroneous overturning of cause and effect. In the book of Jeremiah, it is not the differing political positions (the motivations of which, by admission of the author himself, would remain obscure)25 that call upon different prophetic words for support. It is prevalently, instead, the diverse perceptions of the theological meaning of the history taking place, that is, the different interpretations of YHWH’s actions and revelation of himself within the frame of the Covenant, that determine the counterposed political options. My underlying thesis is this. I hasten to note that on the basis of these perspectives of political reductionism represented by B.O. Long and F.J. Gonçalves, the prophetic message attested in the Jeremianic work would be reduced, problematically, to an anecdotal fact and completely arbitrary position that would have revealed itself to be that most forward-looking for the well-being of the state only.

Nevertheless, and without even presenting in-depth argumentation, other authors express themselves along these same lines. Amongst these is William L. Holladay. In his monumental commentary on the book of Jeremiah, while justly underscoring that the survival of the people in 21:8–10 is a fact detached from any ethical imperative, he refers to the Jeremianic perspective as “simple prudence”.26 The prophet is thus counted, even if extemporaneously, as one of the numerous technical advisors to the king, as if he were the director of a subordinate sector capable of identifying the most opportune strategic choices.

Specific attention should be given to Hedwige Rouillard-Bonraisin who, albeit while expressing positions that are actually quite similar, dedicates a specific article expressing nuances of her own on the regal politics of the kingdom of Judah in relation to the positions taken by Isaiah and Jeremiah.27 In her opinion, the prophet from Anathoth, while remaining convinced of the power of YHWH, would have comprehended the uselessness of military resistance to the Babylonian empire to the bitter end (conceived as a mere substitute for the Assyrian threat) with his political acumen.28 In other words, she still presents the question as one of realism and prudence,29 even if cloaked in a theological-prophetical structure. This time, however, Jeremiah would find himself in line with the likewise realist Isaiah, gifted instead with “acuité politique exceptionelle”30 because believed capable of correctly evaluating the situation of the balance of power in play on the geopolitical scene. The Jeremianic position would, however, go further. Not only would he have wisely (and not so much “prophetically”) foreseen the ineluctability of the end of Jerusalem in case of resistance, but he would have also consequently put forth an invitation to enter into a collective collaboration with Babylon. And he would have done this thanks to a “réflexion politique clairvoyante” that was combined with faith in YHWH, in-depth study of the situation, and an accurate understanding of the Babylonian inclination towards defeated populations. Upon removal of the theological-prophetic paludament,31 Jeremiah (as well as Isaiah) would reveal himself to be basically a polished analyst of international relations.32 To me, this perspective seems inappropriate and far from the communicative intentionality of the prophetic tradition. As already observed, this tradition cannot content itself with reporting horizontal readings of the course of history in terms of chronicle. It wants rather to address the question of YHWH’s self-revelation in the interweaving of human events and under the pretence that this can be comprehended only within the covenant relationship in which Israel is protagonist.

The socio-political approach proposed by Edward Silver is also, in my view, a problematic one. In a contribution dedicated to the image of the yoke in the context of political communication in the ancient Near East and its symbolic function in the request of submission to Babylon in chs. 27–29,33 he rightly maintains that the symbolic gesture of Jeremiah cannot be seen as merely a rhetorical device nor be interpreted simply as a generic reference to a necessary acceptance of the Babylonian power.

His search for a more adequate interpretation, however, leads him to believe that the question has to do with the intentional and “liberating” recovery of a system of socio-economic values, evoked specifically by the rural work instrument of the “yoke” and rooted in the context of decentralised social organisation, the only dimension that would have been capable of surviving beyond the disintegration of the political institutions and the geographical dispersion of the people.34 His reading certainly has the merit of advocating the need for a study that takes into consideration the communicative complexity and grammar of the world of signs and symbols. Nevertheless, according to this Jeremianic theory of power, the prophet would still be a “subaltern political actor” set on subverting the logic of the imperial power through the valorisation of individual freedom.35

In E. Silver’s view, the empire (here, the reference is to Assyrian attestations and not Babylonian ones), wanting to control the body of its subjects, makes propagandistic, self-celebratory use of the metaphor of subjugation under the yoke. Assuming a position against the empire, Jeremiah would invite Israel to take action valorising its ability to manage its own physical dimension. By evoking another microcosm of values instead, while expressing external obedience, they would actually be subtracting themselves from the meaning that the empire wants to impress upon it. The problem is that it truly seems hardly relevant to consider a resignification that is readable solely in a socio-economic key. I therefore believe that a rereading of the symbolic gesture of the yoke would be best founded on a more accurate contextualisation of the “sign vectors” and symbolic vectors evoked by it, keeping in mind that their reorientation comes about within the world of signification instituted by the entirety of the Jeremianic corpus and not just by one of its many aspects.

1.4.2. The political-redactional perspective

In the wake of the approach just highlighted, a series of scholars pick up on the focalisation of the Jeremianic message in a political key, but take their start from the classical historical-literary methodology that seeks to reconstruct the history of the composition of the text using a diachronic approach. Indisputably, contributing towards this development configures a type of research that is particularly pertinent in the case of the book of Jeremiah, given the factual evidence of its dual textual form (MT and LXX).

With regard to my topic, we can speak of a political-“redactional” perspective (with all the reservations or generalisations that such a reference to the work of one or more “redactors” or actual “authors” may bring with it)36 that hypothesises and believes to have found textual traces of the existence of opposed redactional circles. Each of these circles would be ascribable to the distinct communities that arose from the Babylonian deportations, each with its own political agenda: the Palestinian one, that exiled in Babylon, and that taking refuge in Egypt.37 Then, however, two conflicting groups would fundamentally be identified,38 corresponding to two mutually antagonist redactions: the Jewish one and the pro-gôlâ one (cf. e.g. 24:5–7 with 42:10–12). The book of Jeremiah would thus attest, as Robert P. Carroll asserts,39 not so much to a firm political stance of the historical prophet, but rather to the post-exilic interests and attempts at self-legitimisation of different editorial communities. In this sense, historical research should regard only the ideology or theology (for him, synonymous) of the producers of “Jeremiah”, and his figure be understood as merely a literary construct.

As far as my specific theme is concerned, exegetes like Christopher R. Seitz40 and William McKane41 (in addition to R.P. Carroll himself42) hold the view that within the textual material relating to the epoch of King Zedekiah, a still more ancient literary layer exists (denominated by C.R. Seitz as the “Scribal Chronicle”), in which the prophet would envision the possibility of salvation for the kingdom of Judah, and for Jerusalem in particular, binding it, in fact, to submission to the king of Babylon. This positive openness would then be subject to a radical revisitation, evident in a successive redactional intervention (the “Exilic Redaction”) in which Jeremiah becomes the improbable proclaimer of an ineluctable end.

That this is, from a historical point of view, an unreliable (or ex eventu) version of the prophetic phenomenon would be made evident, according to Matthijs J. de Jong,43 by studying the divinatory phenomenon typical of the ancient Near East, of which biblical and extrabiblical prophetism would be only some of the many and diversified expressions. In this context, the specialistic function of the prophetic oracles would make no sense unless conceived within a fundamental, positive intentionality towards the state and national society, of which the prophets themselves were an integral part.44 Thus, the historical Jeremiah would have been concerned exclusively with saving the kingdom of Judah. He would have advised acceptance of the Babylonian hegemony both for pragmatic reasons and in the name of YHWH. Thus, he would have never either foretold or desired the end of his country, as would have been expected of any officer of divination in the (direct or indirect) service of the royal power and national interests.45 Only after the catastrophe, ascertaining the rationality of the Jeremianic option, would his words and figure have been re-evaluated, and he have been redressed in the clothes of a prophet, enemy of the (corrupt) state and proclaimer of its end caused by the sins of the people and their rulers. And thus, in order to survive in a certain geopolitical situation, the successive re-elaboration would have then linked a specific interpretation of the fall of Jerusalem to the original, simple Jeremianic message regarding the need to submit to Babylon. By this, the fall would have been caused by disobedience towards the prophet himself and divine wrath for the sins of the people, a universally diffused motif in the context of the ancient Near East.46

The aspect of this reconstruction that is in my opinion problematic concerns, in the first place, the intrinsic fragility of the basic methodological principles upon which literary criticism in general is founded, in relation to the scarcity of documentational evidence. On the one hand, wanting at all costs to reconnect textual contradictions or narrative tensions to a coherent overall logic may, at times, reveal itself to be inaccurate. On the other, however, it can be simplistic to prescind from the question of whether the contradictions and tensions present could actually be just that (and not only for the modern reader) and if they might be “resolved” (supposing that the producer[s]‌ of the text did not intend to create an ad hoc effect) by turning to different sources and other ideologically oriented redactional layers. One needs to keep well in mind that a text without “tensions” would be the very negation of both narrativity and poetry.47

In this particular case, in fact, aside from possible critiques48 of the “standard” thesis of K.-F. Pohlmann that there be two counterposed redactions, the underlying assumption of M.J. de Jong would need to be verified from the exegetic point of view in order to establish if, and to what measure, one can actually speak in the book of Jeremiah of a condemnation without appeal (“irrevocable punishment”) of Jerusalem and all the people, and if the figure of Jeremiah (whether literary or not) be truly (solely) that of the proclaimer of an inevitable, complete end. Could his threat not have simply been finalised just for the “well-being of the state”, and thus be a special communicative form, however extreme? As the case of 26:18–19 suggests, it would seem more than legitimate to presume so.

It is not clear why, moreover, if the relationship between (human) crime and (divine) punishment were a ubiquitous hermeneutical schema of antiquity, as M.J. de Jong himself asserts, this could not itself already be innervated in the prophetic preaching of the “historic Jeremiah” regarding the necessity (in this case, also implicitly motivated) of “consignation to the king of Babylon”, rather than only be a successive scribal expansion. Is it then realistic to believe that amongst all the “specialists in divination” of the time, to use the author’s words once again, only for a sole figure like that of Jeremiah must the salvation of the state have needed to pragmatically pass through surrender? Without then considering that this option might already have at its origin some sort of meaning within the relational logic of the Covenant? Was it indeed really only about the fact that abandonment of the Holy City could only take place if allowed and commanded by YHWH? In short, even this interpretation of the Jeremianic message does not seem resolutive. And the minimalist semantic of the prophetic call to surrender that it proposes (even if it were no more than a mere successive re-elaboration) does not seem to account for the complexity and wealth of meaning of the Jeremianic tradition.

1.4.3. The ethical perspective

Setting aside questions of textual composition, another study perspective begins by taking on the book of Jeremiah in its actual form (MT) and reflecting on its prophetic message according to ethical categories. Let us consider, for example, the emblematic position taken and articulated by Daniel L. Smith,49 who focuses on the “letter to the exiles” included in ch. 29. The text in question is a literary perimeter within which, as we will later see,50 the Jeremianic message of surrender that was previously addressed to the inhabitants and ruling class of Jerusalem as well as to the kingdom of Judah in general is merely adapted for other recipients and for another situation. In fact, following the exile of 597, Jeremiah calls out to the deported. He tells them to not give way to facile hopes of a rapid return home, but to accept their present situation instead: the need is “to seek” (√vrd) “the peace” (~Alv': i.e. “the well-being”) of Babylon and “to pray” (√llp hitp.) for it (cf. 29:4–7).

D.L. Smith denominates this existential statute “nonviolent social resistance”.51 He emphasises that this option is all but simplistic. According to him, these indications should be reread in the light of the military context and war exemptions provided for in Deut 20 (and to also be linked with Deut 28 and Isa 65). In this sense, reusing the Deuteronomistic vocabulary, Jeremiah would be declaring a sort of “armistice” on the community of the exiled.52 The question is thus brought back to what stance to adopt before the Babylonian power. Indeed, this is the issue at hand during the clash between Jeremiah and Hananiah in ch. 28, which I will be addressing in detail. This polemic would reflect the psychological tension and ideological clash that exists within every community reduced to the condition of being a minority subject to external power. The conflict is between those who would opt for a form of collaboration and social resistance, and those set on an explicit, violent rebellion. In the frame of this paradigmatic social context, Jeremiah would propose something quite different from pacifism (and/or cowardly behaviour) which, for example, R.P. Carroll53 and John Bright54 (justly) consider to be an inadmissible interpretation. The question would instead be that of the first emergence of a non-violent Jewish ethic, one cautious and attentive to the more appropriate strategic options with regard to socio-religious survival within a system in which they are the minority. This would be evident in the book of Daniel, in the ancient practice of the Pharisees, and in primitive Christianity.55

Other commentators assume this underlying ethical perspective while diversifying tonality, focuses, and hermeneutical implications. Amongst these, I will make particular note of Oliver O’Donovan, if for none other than his (not inappropriate) focus on the theme of historical events as a manifestation of the “judgment of YHWH” (and in particular, on the Davidic monarchical institution).56 Also to be mentioned are Terence E. Fretheim who, in his monographic contribution on Jeremiah, instead raises once again the value-ethical dichotomy between violence and non-violence,57 and the reflections of Joseph Jensen, conducted within the framework of research that focuses specifically on the ethical dimensions contained in the prophetic tradition and their impact on the formation of the conscience of Israel.58

Without entering, at least for now, the various arguments in detail, I will simply anticipate here that according to my line of interpretation, it seems inappropriate to reduce the complexity of the Jeremianic message to a merely ethical level, as if it were almost just a generic necessity of “penitence”. On the other hand it is true that one is often accustomed to seeing precisely in the synthetic category of “repentance”, that is, in “moral conversion”, the lowest undifferentiated common denominator of almost all prophetic literature. In the book of Jeremiah in particular, this has been done significantly, for example, by John H. Walton, in a schematic synthesis about the oracular signs provided in the various prophetic books of the OT.59 But it is precisely the specificity of the Jeremianic call to surrender to Babylon that invites going beyond this general interpretive framework of a moral nature, and in particular, that which reads into his prophetic call the promotion of an ethic of non-violence.

1.4.4. The theo-political perspective

To isolate and define another hermeneutical perspective as theo-political could seem, at a first glance, redundant or even superfluous. Indeed, no commentator sticking to the text would negate that the message of Jeremiah regards both of these dimensions simultaneously. And yet, as I have briefly mentioned, beyond making this reference to the sphere of transcendence that I could call “conventional”, some interpretations truly seem to reduce the theological value of his message (even if only that of a supposed “historical Jeremiah”) to a mere political-pragmatic level on which opposing party politics (whether pro-Babylonian versus pro-Egyptian, or exiled versus non-exiled) call each other into question. And these politics would be the fundamental hermeneutical key for understanding the presumed rival theological perspectives believed to be retraceable in the book of Jeremiah.60 I am convinced, and I am not the only one, that this interpretive choice is a reductionism that does not favour an adequate interpretation of the complexity of the Jeremianic message.61 Many other scholars, in fact, call attention to the peculiar, decisive religious dimension of the context within which the communicative event being studied is structured. And I believe that this is the right direction to take. That is, that it is right to not isolate the two dimensions, the political one and the theological one,62 setting them in opposition, but rather to begin from an assumption of their mutual, indivisible relationship within the prophetic tradition.

As is programmatically expressed from the incipit of the book (cf. 1:4–19), Jeremiah unifies his ministry, and thus also his call for submission to the Babylonian power, with the prophetic authority he has received from YHWH. Hence, “consignation to the king of Babylon” and generally speaking the question of how to relate to adverse, foreign power within the context of faith in YHWH who is the Lord of history is without doubt a theo-political fact, as Walter Brueggemann efficaciously underscored.63 Situated along the axis that ideally unites the two conceptual polarities, at differing distances and with precise, distinct accents, are the various authors who either allude to the religious and prophetic nature of the Jeremianic message in a generic sense or intend to valorise it through specific focal points. In his contribution on the topic, W. Brueggemann, for example, takes on the category of “mercy” as a core one, on the basis of a targeted selection of texts. But beyond his proposal, which draws attention to a specific theme, the questio in my view is that of understanding in what relationship these two dimensions, the political one and the theological one, find themselves.64 And the issue is then to address what modality is most appropriate for their articulation in a study that unites a (founding) moment of an analytic-exegetic type with a (consequent) one of a synthetic theological nature. The intent of my path of inquiry fits precisely in this perspective, and I will seek to propose both an approach and a hermeneutical key attentive to multiple dimensions of meaning.

2. The principal guidelines of my working hypothesis

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. On meaning and its complexity: Definition of the object of study and the principal methodologies of inquiry

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
Fig. 1:The theme and its structural elements

Fig. 1:The theme and its structural elements

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
Fig. 2:The theme and the different contextual areas

Fig. 2:The theme and the different contextual areas

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”
Fig. 3:The theme in relation to some fundamental hermeneutical dimensions

Fig. 3:The theme in relation to some fundamental hermeneutical dimensions

3.3. Implications: Research paths and general notes on method

On the basis of the structuring elements that emerge from the literary presentation of the theme and in reference to the textual or extratextual dimensions with which I believe a fruitful hermeneutical relationship can be established, I will now briefly present the paths of research and methodological approaches that I intend to follow. My challenge lies in developing an ad hoc methodological system that can enable the various disciplines to which I will refer to establish a fruitful dialogue between them in order to gain a better comprehension of the meaning.

3.3.1. Text, history, and the world of the text

The theme of the surrender to Babylon traced in the textual series indicated can be studied according to two fundamental directives (cf. Fig. 3). While from a methodological point of view these may be distinct, I believe that they can be articulated in a way that will prove fruitful for my research.

  1. 1) One way of reading the text, which then coincides with the very birth of exegetics itself as a scientific discipline, consists in drawing an interrogative relationship with the historical dimension. This can be done on at least two principal levels. The first, classical level regards, above all, the question of the history of the text’s composition.79 The second, instead, presents the problem of the relationship between the historical facts contained within the text and the succession of events contemporary to it that can be traced following the methodologies of the historical-archaeological sciences.

I hasten to state that the objective of my research is not that of providing and testing a new hypothesis of Redaktionskritik (and/or of Redaktionsgeschichte). I will certainly take into account, when necessary, the contributions and propositions of scholars in this field. But I will engage with this methodological perspective chiefly on the level of its epistemological foundations (above all, in relation to the overall compositional dynamic of the book of Jeremiah; cf. ch. II, § 1.2) and will only indirectly – almost as a consequence of the exegetical analysis – address some specific problematics and specific textual areas.

The theme of the surrender to Babylon assumes eminently political implications and is located in a context of international conflicts, to which the book of Jeremiah provides an interesting set of coordinates. For precisely this reason, I must dedicate a congruous space to the question of the relationship between the text and the historical references. The issues of whether the option of “surrender” was or was not practicable and advantageous within the geopolitical framework of the Babylonian hegemonic ambitions, by whom and why it was sustained or opposed within the establishment of the kingdom of Judah, and whether or not it made political sense, need to be addressed. In my opinion, all of these questions are by no means trivial for comprehension of the text/theme.

It will be necessary to consult extrabiblical sources from the ancient Near East and specialised studies about these, to form conjectures about dates and wartime scenarios, to attempt to intuit political and military strategies, and to formulate hypotheses on the meaning of the events and decisions of the people at the time. As we will see, the current trend of Jeremianic studies seems to judge such an approach, which was until recently preponderant, as being on the par with a somewhat vintage catwalk. Georg Fischer, for example, considers it to be undermined by its intrinsic impossibility of attaining certain results. And whilst considering the question of historicity entirely legitimate, he excludes it from his commentary.80

Aware of the limits of this approach (which I will, in any case, frame in a coherent interpretive proposition of my own), I remain, however, convinced that an attempt to provide a plausible reconstruction of the historical (socio-politico-religious) context, by having the facts offered by the book of Jeremiah interact with the document-based acquisitions available and the relative interpretive hypotheses, is important for an adequate understanding of my object of inquiry. I will seek to specify the meaning, modalities, and results of this path in the chapter where I specifically deal with the question, which will be, in any case, propaedeutic to my interpretive proposition, articulated to the historical dimension but situated prevalently on a literary and linguistic level.

  1. 2) Another legitimate hermeneutical option, upon which the central part of my dissertation is founded, consists in privileging a literary dimension of the synchronic sort.81 This involves studying the theme in relation to the entire book of Jeremiah assumed as a narrative context (or scenario)82 of a symbolical-theological type constructed a posteriori by its (author or) authors. In this case, I will speak of the “world of the text”, to wit, of a coherent hermeneutical horizon resulting from a unity of meaning that can be analysed remaining on the level of its internal structural relationships, also in relation to the broader context of Old-Testamentary literature83 (and/or inter-testamentary, and/or the entire corpus of biblical writings).

The world of the text is thus definable, in more precise terms, as a “possible world”.84 It is a universe whose laws, logical structures, and internal organisation can certainly coincide with our concept of reality or with historical-archaeological reconstructions of a given time (such as that acting as a background to the Jeremianic message). But they can also differ from this, both in part or completely, without losing coherency of meaning, for this reason.85 It is precisely this coherence, postulated by the material unity of the book itself, that provides the manoeuvring space for this sort of exegetic analysis. Despite the polysemic nature of the literary texts (not to be confused with the concept of ambiguity) and contrary to the deconstructionist theories that dissolve the intentio operis within the infinite range of possible interpretations on the part of the single readers,86 I believe, along with Umberto Eco, that a proposition of meaning87 can be put forth and subjected to verification beginning right from a study of the text’s own internal articulations.

In this case as well, the necessary elaborations and reference to the most significant contributions will be presented in the part of the dissertation where I will make use of the pertinent conceptual instrumentations. Here, it suffices to state that the hermeneutical approaches I will apply to the literary dimension (and proceed to explicate in the paragraphs following) are those that substantiate the epistemological skeleton of the entire work. This methodological sort of foundation is opportune not only because the historical reconstruction will be followed by the central part of the study, which is dedicated to a series of precise textual analyses, but also because that very same focalisation of the extratextual context, obtained from the confrontation and interweaving of the extrabiblical facts with those derived from the book of Jeremiah, will then be taken on as a particular (or possible) con-textual extension of reference (a sort of pragmatic context or “widened text of reference”), endowed with its own interpretative autonomy. And in the light of this, I will then be able to re-comprehend the theme of the surrender to Babylon. What will be important is to maintain as clear and distinct the various levels of reference to the different textual units (theme-text of the book of Jeremiah/other texts; theme-historical reconstruction/broader context), so as to be able to correctly identify the specific relevance of every consideration in merit.

3.3.2. Communicative phenomenon and communication theory

On the basis of the foregoing considerations, and thus placing us distinctly within the realm of the literary approach, I will now return to the first reconnaissance of the theme, which now proves to be situated clearly within precisely that interpretative track, distinct, but not alternative, and indeed, articulable to that of a historical kind.

The nature of the structuring elements identified and, in particular, the fact of having highlighted the (prophetic) communicative dimension in reference to my theme (cf. Fig. 1), already implies being positioned within the literary work and accepting its rules. Indeed, what we are dealing with is, first and foremost, a text. We do not have an observable communicative event before us, but rather a literary representation in which a man communicates a message to some recipients. It hardly matters, though, that this man is defined as a prophet (Jeremiah) who purports to speak in the name of a deity (YHWH) who asks for obedience. At least from a methodological point of view. At least at first instance.

An all-encompassing anthropological phenomenon of the human being is, in fact, in play: that of communication. This is a dimension that has in turn its own rules and dynamisms, in which the particulars of the written text are clearly included. This evidence is often overlooked as being so obvious that it risks, in exegetic use, being treated or implicated in a way that is almost naïf, without the interdisciplinary contribution that sector studies can provide in support of the specific and traditional (or not) exegetical methodologies. It therefore seems appropriate to read the theme in relation to the science called communication theory. In this way, the customary exegetical instruments can better grasp the theme’s semantic (and pragmatic) density.

If the first inquiries into communicative phenomenon date back to ancient Greece (with Plato’s Cratylus and Aristotle’s Perí hermeneías), it is only from the second half of the twentieth century that this interest has gradually assumed a scientific status. It is a very broad field of study, afferent to different disciplines,88 each of which has elaborated its own paradigms and different definitions of the concept of “communication”. For this reason, it is actually preferable to speak in the plural of “communication theories”89 that are concerned with what appears like a variegated mosaic.90

3.3.3. The world of the text as a world of signs (and symbols)

According to the metamodel elaborated by Robert T. Craig,91 seven principal theoretical traditions can be identified in the vast field of communication studies, whose reciprocal relation is both of complementarity and of dialectical tension: the rhetorical, semiotic, phenomenological, cybernetic, socio-psychological, socio-cultural, and critical traditions.

Having highlighted in my theme, amongst other things, the interpenetration between the narrative dimension and a dynamism of interaction founded upon the exchange of signs (typical of both verbal and non-verbal language), I will direct our attention initially, though not exclusively, to the semiotic tradition. My interest is not so much in its “generative” or “structural” development,92 however (if not for some occasional foray), but rather in its “interpretive” development, aimed at the texts’ comprehension.93 My choice is more operational than theoretical, aware that, even within this address, diversified and not homogeneous schools and tendencies have developed. In other words, I basically share the methodology adopted by the semiotician Ugo Volli in his presentation of a series of conceptual instruments useful for textual analysis:

The non-trivial challenge underlying this choice is that these different concepts not be related to the conceptual systems of their authors, but that their analytical validity hold, even in the absence of the large theoretical assumptions that have influenced their formation, because from our point of view they are effective models for finding and describing different levels of articulation actually present in the texts.94

In accordance with this hermeneutical perspective, I will resume from an awareness of what every text is: interweaving, textum (from the Latin texere “intertwine”), that is “that which communicates something with a system of signs” and which, through juxtaposition or coordination between several units, determines complex intertextual webs.95 I will not, however, stop at only “the totality of the linguistic characters organised within the writing”.96 I instead aim for the world of complex signic and symbolic references that, beginning with this system, move forward composing and structuring bit by bit before the reader’s eyes. These references engage and provoke an intelligent reading, to wit, one that can read intus, within, as well as beyond the mere literality of the text. A text assumed as a symbolic fact is perceived as being inhabited by an analogical tension that pushes, thanks to the letter (and within the letter), beyond itself towards an extralinguistic dimension that arises at the boundary “between language and life”.97

The world of signs and symbols has had and continues to have its explorers, its already charted courses, and ever-operative construction sites. A confrontation with these coordinates, and integration of some of their hermeneutical models will inspire my exegetic analysis in various ways. My aim will be to highlight some of the most important semiotic-symbolic interactions contained in the book of Jeremiah, which I adopt as a single world structured and inhabited by a complex set of signs or symbolic systems that relate to one another on multiple levels. In other words, I consider it to be a literary work that is the fruit of an extraordinary creative capacity. In this respect, the fact that the theme of the submission to Babylon is plastically announced with a provocative “symbolic gesture” in Jer 27–28 assumes, from my point of view, a very important relevance, which will open the way for my research towards a focalisation of a complex dynamism of signic references within which my theme will acquire a distinctive valence of meaning.

3.3.4. A passageway beyond semantics: The pragmatic dimension of language as interaction between words and the world

What has just been asserted about the excess of symbolic dynamism with respect to the mere textual fact, which orients the fulfilment of the interpretive act beyond the “letter”, is actually valid in a certain sense even before and in a way that is more radical for the linguistic tool itself and for the way in which, communicating, we produce and comprehend meanings. Indeed, there are cases in which it is clear that mere knowledge of a language’s semantic conventions is not sufficient for correctly understanding the meaning of a sentence. It is necessary, in other words, to pass beyond the traditional semantic paradigm, which identifies the meaning with the truth-conditions of the sentence in question. I will clarify the meaning of this affirmation by introducing another important branch of studies of human communication that can be either situated within or straddle across the socio-cultural tradition (ethnomethodology)98: cognitive pragmatics, and, in particular, the Relevance Theory.99

My brief analysis of the structuring elements of the theme of the surrender to Babylon (cf. Fig. 1) presented the general dimension of “communication” as their basic common foundation. It was then necessary to anticipate certain categorical differentiations, such as that between the semantic level and the pragmatic one. It is now opportune to succinctly clarify the epistemological foundations of these. I will interpret them in the light of the aforementioned contemporary perspective of the philosophy of language.

According to the classic model that has been handed down to us from Aristotle, to communicate means to be able to encode and decode messages. The assumption is that there be a correspondence between mental representations (concepts, thoughts, etc.) and linguistic signs (words, utterances, etc.). This code model has been passed down through the centuries substantially unchanged. In recent times, thanks to the contributions of the British philosopher and linguist Herbert Paul Grice,100 the so-called inferential model has been counterposed (or, for the new and the post-Gricean, associated) to it. According to this perspective, the act of communicating and comprehending is not reducible to a system of codification or decodification of data, but rather always implies a process of manifestation, attribution, and recognition of intentions, starting from a series of clues, of both a linguistic and extralinguistic nature, provided by either the speaker or the context of reference. Human communication, therefore, always entails an inferential process (of an abductive sort),101 with relative evaluation, confirmation, or falsification of interpretive hypotheses. In other words, for the hermeneutical act, it is necessary to attribute a decisive importance to the pragmatic dimension based on the language’s context of use, opening a passageway that goes beyond the traditional semantic paradigm, by which what is instead fundamental is the conventional meaning of a linguistic nature (with only a limited pragmatic share being derived from deictic elements that generate a semantic underdetermination),102

Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics are the three great classical disciplinary subdivisions of interest to linguistics103 (apart from phonology, morphology, and lexicology). Syntax regards the study of the correct modalities through which linguistic expressions can interface amongst themselves, according to a purely grammatical perspective independent from the significance. Semantics, instead, regards the significance of words or phrases in relation to objects in the world. Pragmatics has long been defined negatively as the receptacle of every sort of linguistic anomaly that is unresolvable from a syntactic or semantic point of view,104 or is identified with the phenomena of deixis or indexicality. But seen in a more positive light, pragmatics can be defined as

the study of the relations between signs and speakers, between linguistic expressions and those who make use of them to communicate thoughts, […] the study of the ways in which it is possible to use sentences in concrete situations. In other words, while syntax studies the combinatorial apparatus of the expressions of a language, and semantic the interpretive apparatus, pragmatics deals with how a speaker makes use of the combinatorial and interpretive apparatuses within a specific communicative situation.105

When, for example, Jeremiah asks besieged Jerusalem, in the person of the king Zedekiah, to surrender to the generals of the Babylonian sovereign as the only guarantee of survival (cf. 38:14–28a), it is only by way of the focalisation of the “context/occasion of use”,106 and therefore through the ascertainment of the relevant clues strategically disseminated in significant points of the book, that we can infer a correct interpretation of the prophetic word with the most adequate degree of approximation (given, in any case, the temporal distance and specificity of a written communication). In this way, as we shall see, it will be possible to avoid confining the Jeremianic message within a solely political plan and to not reduce it to a stance that is ultimately utterly arbitrary or anecdotal.

Therefore, in order to understand what that request in that specific context was meant to signify, it is necessary, in my opinion, for us to not limit ourselves to an analysis of a semantic sort, but rather implement one that is also pragmatic. This because, as can be observed, the literary form in which the theme of the surrender to Babylon is developed in the book of Jeremiah is that of the narrative register, and this is always articulated – and significatively so – as a conversational context.107 By this, it is apparent, in my opinion, that this is one of the clearer cases in which, to gain the ultimate truth of the meaning, syntax and semantics are insufficient. In other words, it will be necessary to take other knowledge into account. And this knowledge, perhaps implicit, regards the “world” and not only language. For “world”, or extralinguistic context, it is necessary to understand (and articulate) both its historical representation or reconstruction, and that which is defined on a literary level by the creative force of the author(s) of the book of Jeremiah. In this sense, we need to consider, as a virtually pragmatic and in a broader sense extratextual space, all the data and thematic references (useful for defining a pertinent interpretive context) that are situated beyond the limits of the single pericopes explicitly circumscribing the Jeremianic injunction to “surrender to the king of Babylon”.

Details

Pages
816
Publication Year
2024
ISBN (PDF)
9783631897904
ISBN (ePUB)
9783631897911
ISBN (Hardcover)
9783631889763
DOI
10.3726/b20601
Language
English
Publication date
2024 (June)
Keywords
Decision-making process surrender Non-verbal communication cognitive pragmatics semiotics Relevance Theory Symbolic communication Sign-acts epistemological foundations Biblical prophetism
Published
Lausanne, Berlin, Bruxelles, Chennai, New York, Oxford, 2024. 816 pp., 42 fig. b/w.

Biographical notes

Salvatore Maurizio Sessa (Author)

Previous

Title: Surrender to the King of Babylon