Speaking of Prophets (23:9-40) 213The present unit is separated from what precedes by content and a summary
oracle in v 32 (see Rhetoric and Composition for 23:25-32). The lower limit is
clear, indicated in MA and MP by a petubah and in ML by a setumah after v 40,
which is also the chapter division. The MP also has a petubah after v 38, which
may be to divide the two judgment statements introduced by "therefore."
There is a broad consensus that v 33 stems from Jeremiah but not vv 34-40,
which are said to be a late (some would say a very late) addition (Volz; Ru-
dolph; Weiser; Hyatt; Bright; Holladay; McKane). Duhm and Thiel (1973:
25 3) take all of vv 3 3-40 as the product of a late author. Lindblom ( 1965: 290)
calls vv 34-40 one of the longest glosses in the OT, "a specimen of Talmudiclearning, which has nothing at all to do with the prophecies of Jeremiah" -a
real stretch, to say the least, of the term "gloss"! In any case, his point and the
line generally taken is that v 3 3' with its wordplay on mass a> and the retort by
Jeremiah, has a ring of authenticity, whereas vv 34-40, which ban the expres-
sion "the burden of Yahweh," breathe a different spirit, one more akin to the
debates of scribes and Rabbis in later Judaism. Holladay adds that the style,
phraseology, and pronoun shifts in (the MT of) vv 34-40 betray scribal "care-
lessness." The verses are also said to lack subtlety and be without a trace of
irony.
The "different spirit" argument for vv 34-40 will not stand up under scru-
tiny. Even McKane sees in these verses an attempt to recapture the conflict be-
tween "peace" and "doom" prophecy in the time of Jeremiah. The comments
of Overholt (1970: 70-71) are along similar lines. Jones says that vv 34-40 are
definitely more than scribal comment, coming either from Jeremiah or a
prophet in the tradition of Jeremiah. Verse 36, in his view, lies at the very cen-
ter of authentic prophetic tradition, and vv 39-40 are typical prophetic judg-
ment. Holladay's appraisal of vv 34-40 as a "careless and overblown" text,
except for a few infelicities of Hebrew grammar and style, is largely contrived.
The MT makes better sense than Holladay is willing to admit. Once the
repeated terms, "the burden of Yahweh," "What has Yahweh answered?" and
"What has Yahweh spoken?" are set aside, everything remaining is familiar
Jeremiah prose. The expression in v 35, "each person to his fellow and each
person to his brother," is compared by Holladay to another usage in 31 :34, but
he says the phrase there has a place; here it is prolix. Why it is prolix here and
not there is left unexplained.
What Holladay also fails to note is that "each person to his fellow," taken sin-
gly, is a very common phrase in Jeremiah, occurring slightly altered also in the
poetry (see Note for 23:27). Other Jeremianic words and phrases, to which Hol-
laday normally pays close attention, go unnoted. The verb pqd ("reckon, call to
account") in v 34 occurs 60 times in Jeremiah (see Note for 5:9), and "you shall
not again remember" in v 36 is a signature expression in the prose (see [o> + zkr
+<ad in 3:16; 11:19; and 31:34; also to>+ other verbs+ <ad in 3:16, 17; 31:29,
34, 39). The shame vocabulary in v 40 is all Jeremianic: 1) the phrase "an
eternal disgrace that will not be forgotten" is a prosaic version of "eternal dis-
grace will not be forgotten" in the poetry of 20: 11; and "will not be forgotten,"