College meepery
Oct. 22nd, 2007 10:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hawkwing_lbSo, you know, we're at the work portion of this year's entertainment.
'The Book of Jeremiah and the rights and wrongs of alliance with Egypt: discuss.'
I need to be able to talk for five minutes on that topic this Wednesday, and you know? I don't know nearly enough. Hopefully I will be able to find The Recommended Book in the library tomorrow, and learn a little more.
But. Talking about a biblical text is so incredibly complex. Particularly the pre-exilic prophetic texts. Because you have, maybe, what the prophet said, and then you have what other people said that the prophet said, and then you have the exilic (Deuteronomistic) and later editors coming in to the text and adding what they think the prophet should have said.
And then we get into original intent, and redactionism, and other things.
You see, in the 7th and 6th Cs BCE in Judah, there arose a reforming movement, known after the book 'discovered' in the Temple as the Deuteronomistic reforms (although there is some argument as to whether the reforms known in the reign of Josiah the king of Judah and the Deuteronomistic tradition as it continued in and after the exilic are exactly contiguous). Jeremiah, so it seems, was a son of one of the priestly families who supported the reforms of Josiah and their continuance under Jehoiakim.
Now, when the power of Assyria (neo-Assyria, to distinguish it from the earlier Assyrian empire) collapsed, Babylon (the neo-Babylonians, as distinct from previous Babylonian powers) and Egypt began to compete for control of Syro-Palestine, a very useful trade nexus and buffer region. The small kingdoms of Syro-Palestine, at this time including Judah, attempted to play the empires off against each other for maximum benefit and independence.
This did not work out so well for Jehoiakim, who - along with several of his nobles - was taken into exile in Babylon after a failed rebellion (the Egyptians didn't come out to play) against the Babylonian king. His brother, Zedekiah, was placed on the throne in his place, and for a while was a loyal, tribute-paying vassal. But when Babylon was distracted in the east, Zedekiah and several of his neighbouring kings decided, with the support of the Egyptians, to strike out on their own, as it were.
This worked for a while. As long as the Egyptians supported them, they could defy the Babylonians.
Alas, the Egyptians had their noses bloodied and decided to hang Zedekiah (among others) out to dry: the Babylonians eventually breached the walls of Jerusalem, ran Zedekiah to ground, killed his sons, blinded him, and hauled him and a significant fraction of Judah's elites (and probably some of the peasantry) off to Babylon, where they could be settled where they'd cause less trouble.
The book of Jeremiah is largely concerned with telling the Judeans about the inevitability of their defeat by the Babylonians, for Jeremiah did not subscribe to the theology of the inviolability of the Temple then popular among most of the cultic priests. He demonstrates a significant level of animus against/disbelief in the power of Egypt, which could possibly be explained by the Egyptians' previous failure to adequately support Jehoiakim.
He's also concerned about the theology of covenant, and the keeping of Deuteronomistic laws: his repeated point is that YHWH's covenant with the Judeans is conditional on their keeping up their end, so to speak, and keeping the Deuteronomistic laws.
Which they haven't been, so too bad, so sad, doom's coming, suckers. (34:22: 'I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without inhabitant.')
Jeremiah, for all that the biblical prophets seem to be characterised as people standing outside the reach of cult and society, seems very much connected to politics. Take a look at 37-39: he gets private audiences with the king, has - one may infer - supporters powerful enough that killing him out of hand is unthinkable, and at the same time attracts significant ire from the powerful. He also, in 39, seems to be quite pally with the Babylonians (although a reading of 40 might seem to contradict the chronology, if not the substance, of 39), who let him go into the custody of their new native governor, Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.
Jeremiah is from a priestly family, presumably educated, presumably with access to the elite strata of Judean society. What, then, are his reasons for prophesying its downfall, and though in hindsight we know he was correct in his assessment of Babylon, did alliance with Egypt really look like such a poor prospect at the time?
I've outlined above Jeremiah's concern with Deuteronomistic laws, which were, in the time of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, not being enforced as fully and as completely as, perhaps, Jeremiah believed they ought to be. Religious conviction, then, played a definite part in his prophesying. But perhaps also one might assess Jeremiah's opposition to resistance against Babylon in terms of his greater appreciation for the international realities - one could perhaps call it a lack of wishful thinking, or the reasonable doubt his own convinctions caused him to have in the theology of inviolability.
We know, for example, that Jeremiah sent and received messages from the Judean community in Egypt after the exile. He also sent, at least, a message to the exilic community in Babylon. If he had contacts outside of Judah after the second exile (of Zedekiah), it is reasonable to suggest he had contacts prior to that, perhaps to the community exiled with Jehoiakim.
One other possibility that bears suggesting is the possibility of Jeremiah having contacts with Babylonian officials (at the very least, he was related to respected priests, though he may not have performed in a cultic function himself, and thus had access to the elite strata of society). He may have been convinced of Babylon's military superiority long before the revolt of Jehoiakim.
The alliance of the Syro-Palestine kings with Egypt, in the time of Jehoiakim, may have seemed like a reasonably way to defend their kingdoms from becoming Babylonian vassals. But they had a brief period as independent actors, then became Egyptian vassals, then - when Egypt's support fell thin - became Babylonian vassals once more.
In the time of Zedekiah, alliance with Egypt may have seemed to Jeremiah like trusting the untrustworthy (too, we cannot know his objections to Egyptian religious/ritual practices, if he had them, and if they seemed as though they might reach Judah.) It seems to me, too, that the Judean elites trusted to hope over experience.
However, it seems to me that the decision of the remnant lead by Johanan the son of Kareah to go into Egypt was in the end, wise. For despite Jeremiah's dire predictions, the Jewish community in Egypt prospered on down to Roman times.
Whew. I started with bitching, and ended with a draft. It's weird how there things work out, no?
'The Book of Jeremiah and the rights and wrongs of alliance with Egypt: discuss.'
I need to be able to talk for five minutes on that topic this Wednesday, and you know? I don't know nearly enough. Hopefully I will be able to find The Recommended Book in the library tomorrow, and learn a little more.
But. Talking about a biblical text is so incredibly complex. Particularly the pre-exilic prophetic texts. Because you have, maybe, what the prophet said, and then you have what other people said that the prophet said, and then you have the exilic (Deuteronomistic) and later editors coming in to the text and adding what they think the prophet should have said.
And then we get into original intent, and redactionism, and other things.
You see, in the 7th and 6th Cs BCE in Judah, there arose a reforming movement, known after the book 'discovered' in the Temple as the Deuteronomistic reforms (although there is some argument as to whether the reforms known in the reign of Josiah the king of Judah and the Deuteronomistic tradition as it continued in and after the exilic are exactly contiguous). Jeremiah, so it seems, was a son of one of the priestly families who supported the reforms of Josiah and their continuance under Jehoiakim.
Now, when the power of Assyria (neo-Assyria, to distinguish it from the earlier Assyrian empire) collapsed, Babylon (the neo-Babylonians, as distinct from previous Babylonian powers) and Egypt began to compete for control of Syro-Palestine, a very useful trade nexus and buffer region. The small kingdoms of Syro-Palestine, at this time including Judah, attempted to play the empires off against each other for maximum benefit and independence.
This did not work out so well for Jehoiakim, who - along with several of his nobles - was taken into exile in Babylon after a failed rebellion (the Egyptians didn't come out to play) against the Babylonian king. His brother, Zedekiah, was placed on the throne in his place, and for a while was a loyal, tribute-paying vassal. But when Babylon was distracted in the east, Zedekiah and several of his neighbouring kings decided, with the support of the Egyptians, to strike out on their own, as it were.
This worked for a while. As long as the Egyptians supported them, they could defy the Babylonians.
Alas, the Egyptians had their noses bloodied and decided to hang Zedekiah (among others) out to dry: the Babylonians eventually breached the walls of Jerusalem, ran Zedekiah to ground, killed his sons, blinded him, and hauled him and a significant fraction of Judah's elites (and probably some of the peasantry) off to Babylon, where they could be settled where they'd cause less trouble.
The book of Jeremiah is largely concerned with telling the Judeans about the inevitability of their defeat by the Babylonians, for Jeremiah did not subscribe to the theology of the inviolability of the Temple then popular among most of the cultic priests. He demonstrates a significant level of animus against/disbelief in the power of Egypt, which could possibly be explained by the Egyptians' previous failure to adequately support Jehoiakim.
He's also concerned about the theology of covenant, and the keeping of Deuteronomistic laws: his repeated point is that YHWH's covenant with the Judeans is conditional on their keeping up their end, so to speak, and keeping the Deuteronomistic laws.
Which they haven't been, so too bad, so sad, doom's coming, suckers. (34:22: 'I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without inhabitant.')
Jeremiah, for all that the biblical prophets seem to be characterised as people standing outside the reach of cult and society, seems very much connected to politics. Take a look at 37-39: he gets private audiences with the king, has - one may infer - supporters powerful enough that killing him out of hand is unthinkable, and at the same time attracts significant ire from the powerful. He also, in 39, seems to be quite pally with the Babylonians (although a reading of 40 might seem to contradict the chronology, if not the substance, of 39), who let him go into the custody of their new native governor, Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.
Jeremiah is from a priestly family, presumably educated, presumably with access to the elite strata of Judean society. What, then, are his reasons for prophesying its downfall, and though in hindsight we know he was correct in his assessment of Babylon, did alliance with Egypt really look like such a poor prospect at the time?
I've outlined above Jeremiah's concern with Deuteronomistic laws, which were, in the time of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, not being enforced as fully and as completely as, perhaps, Jeremiah believed they ought to be. Religious conviction, then, played a definite part in his prophesying. But perhaps also one might assess Jeremiah's opposition to resistance against Babylon in terms of his greater appreciation for the international realities - one could perhaps call it a lack of wishful thinking, or the reasonable doubt his own convinctions caused him to have in the theology of inviolability.
We know, for example, that Jeremiah sent and received messages from the Judean community in Egypt after the exile. He also sent, at least, a message to the exilic community in Babylon. If he had contacts outside of Judah after the second exile (of Zedekiah), it is reasonable to suggest he had contacts prior to that, perhaps to the community exiled with Jehoiakim.
One other possibility that bears suggesting is the possibility of Jeremiah having contacts with Babylonian officials (at the very least, he was related to respected priests, though he may not have performed in a cultic function himself, and thus had access to the elite strata of society). He may have been convinced of Babylon's military superiority long before the revolt of Jehoiakim.
The alliance of the Syro-Palestine kings with Egypt, in the time of Jehoiakim, may have seemed like a reasonably way to defend their kingdoms from becoming Babylonian vassals. But they had a brief period as independent actors, then became Egyptian vassals, then - when Egypt's support fell thin - became Babylonian vassals once more.
In the time of Zedekiah, alliance with Egypt may have seemed to Jeremiah like trusting the untrustworthy (too, we cannot know his objections to Egyptian religious/ritual practices, if he had them, and if they seemed as though they might reach Judah.) It seems to me, too, that the Judean elites trusted to hope over experience.
However, it seems to me that the decision of the remnant lead by Johanan the son of Kareah to go into Egypt was in the end, wise. For despite Jeremiah's dire predictions, the Jewish community in Egypt prospered on down to Roman times.
Whew. I started with bitching, and ended with a draft. It's weird how there things work out, no?
