Speaking of Kings (21:1-23:8) 109The unit as a whole is delimited at the top end by a setumah in MA, ML, and
MP prior to v l I, where also a shift from prose to poetry occurs. The three ora-
cles are all poetry, two lines each. Delimitation at the bottom end is by a setu-
mah in ML (only) following v 14, after which comes the chapter division and a
return to prose. The main medieval codices contain no sections after vv I 2 or
I3, but one MS in the Cambridge Genizah Collection (A I4.4) does have a
section after v 12.
All three oracles have verbal similarities to other oracles, or portions of
other oracles, in the book. Cornill (following Stade I892: 278-79) and Volz
took vv II-12 to be a doublet of 22:I(2)-3; however, the beginning unit in
chap. 22 is vv I-5, which contains two oracles, one of greater length (vv 3-5),
preceded by narrative that puts the oracle in context (vv I-2). This narrative, pro-
viding a context for oracles that are similar, could point to 21: I I-I 2 and 22: I-
5 being doublets, just like 7:I-I5 and 26:I-I9; 7:30-8:3 and I9:I-20:6; and
21:8-IO and 38:I-6 (see Rhetoric and Composition for 2l:l-IO). Ideas about
doublets in the case of 2l:II-I2 and 22:I-5, or secondary expansion in the
case of 22:I-5, are found also in Duhm, Rudolph, and Thiel (I973: 238). But
since the oracle in 22:3-4 is so much longer than the oracle here and has only
the first line in common with the present oracle, the two may not be doublets
at all but separate oracles delivered to different audiences on separate occa-
sions (Weiser). In view of the dramatic quality of the oracles here (see below),
this latter possibility seems more likely. The final line of v I 2 is also precisely
the same as the line in 4:4b. What we probably have are separate oracles with
a single line in common. What does seem to be clear is that vv I I b-I 2 are not
a "Deuteronomic addition" (Mowinckel I 9 I 4: 20; Jones; pace Giesebrecht,
xxi). The language is Jeremianic, and the verses should therefore to be taken as
a self-standing Jeremiah oracle.
The two oracles in vv 13-I 4 have similarities to the Babylon oracle in
50:3 I-32, where the latter could be a reworking of the former. But again, the
Babylon oracle could simply be employing at beginning and end some of the
same language occurring in the oracles here. The view that vv 13-I 4 are a
"post-Deuteronomic" addition (Thiel I 973: 238 n. 2 I) should be rejected.
The language here is also clearly Jeremianic, and these oracles, like the first,
give every indication of being self-standing and authentic words of the
prophet.
Oracles I and III contain the following link terms:
I ... like fire ... their doings
III ... your doings ... fireka>es ... ma<a[elehem
ma<a[elekem ... >esv 12b
v 14aThe term "fire" is called a recurring motif by Bright and a catchword by
Thompson and Holladay.
The three oracles have a dramatic component typical of other Jeremianic
oracles. In all three, the prophet addresses the royal house or Jerusalem in
the first line; then, in the second line, he turns to address an audience not