Speaking of Kings (21:1-23:8) 161Catchwords connecting to the unit following:22:28-29 land (4x) 23:3 landsNOTES
22:28. Is an unwanted, smashed pot this man Coniah? or a ;ar in which no one
takes delight? So why are he and his offspring thrown and cast away to a landthat they do not know? A threefold rhetorical question in the ha ... 'im ...
maddua' ("If ... if ... so why ... ?) form, which is a signature of the prophet
(see Note on 2:14). Jeremiah addresses the first two questions to people who
will want to give "no" answers; this then sets up a final question posing the in-
congruity, i.e., "Why are the king and his offspring cast away into a foreign
land?" Calvin thinks God is the speaker and says he is assuming here the char-
acter of a wonderer, so that people will cease to wonder. The LXX begins the
verse by naming "Jehoiachin" (not "Coniah"); it has a much shorter reading,
the Hebrew Vorlage of which is beyond reconstruction. A partial 4QJerc read-
ing supports MT. The LXX also does not translate the clauses as questions, per-
haps because it lacks the first term with the he' interrogative (Heb ha'e$eb = "Is
a pot?"). The T does not translate the clauses as questions either.
an unwanted, smashed pot. Hebrew 'e$eb, although an OT hapax legome-
non, is generally taken to mean "pottery vessel" (KB^3 ; Rudolph; Weiser;
Bright; and others), which follows Vg vas fictile. Honeyman ( 1939: 86) decides
in favor of a pot because of the parallelism with kelf (here "jar") and because
Jeremiah uses the broken pot image elsewhere (19:1-13; 48:12). See the
"smashed wine jar" image in 13: 12-14. But just what sort of pot this might be
cannot be determined. Kelso ( 1948: 28 #66) says it is ceramic ware, probably a
pottery vessel. Rashi translates the Heb as 'i'l$i'lb, "idol (image)," which carries
over an interpretation given in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 19:6. Calvin also
has "statue." "Idol" is accepted by McKane, even though it fits poorly in the
context. The NEB's "mere puppet," which survives in Thompson ("figure-
head") and Holladay ("puppet"), is to be rejected. The LXX lacks "smashed"
(napO.$), which some commentators (Volz; Rudolph; Bright) delete. But to-
gether with the LXX omission of "this man" following, we have what is proba-
bly another loss due to haplography (homoeoteleuton: h ... h). Holladay
argues for the retention of "smashed" because it makes a wordplay with bepe$
("delight") later in the line. The term "smashed" is also present in 4QJerc and
should be retained.
this man. Hebrew ha'fs hazzeh. This LXX omission is also deleted by many
commentators (Duhm; Cornill; Volz; Rudolph; Bright), but as we have just
said, it is probably part of a three-word haplography. Holladay argues for its
originality, finding a wordplay in nibzeh ("unwanted") and hazzeh ("this"). It
too should be retained because it makes an important key word repetition in
the poem (see Rhetoric and Composition). The partial 4QJerc reading sup-
ports MT, as does Aq.