216 TRANSLATION, NOTES, AND COMMENTS8:9). In the Arad ostraca (#3 line 4) it is the load put upon a donkey (Aharoni
1981: 17-18). Jeremiah uses the term literally in his Sabbath day oracles
(17:21-22, 24-27). For a metaphorical use of "burden" meaning "load," which
is what appears here in Jeremiah's answer, see Job 7:20, where Job says to God:
"[Why] have I become a burden to you?" Compare also Num 11:11, 17; and
Deut 1:12. Many scholars (following J. D. Michaelis and Giesebrecht, D.
FriedrichGraf) explain massa' as deriving from the expression "to lift up the
voice," nasa' qOl (Gen 21:16; 27:38; Isa 52:8; cf. H.-P. Muller, "massa'" in
TDOT 9: 20-21). In its technical sense, meaning "oracle," massa' is employed
widely in the prophetic books, often as a superscription (Isa 13:1; 14:28; 15:1;
Nah 1:1; Hab 1: l; Ezek 12: 10; Zech 9: l; 12: l; Mal 1:1; and often). In Jeremiah,
the term meaning "oracle" occurs only here, where the connotation is nega-
tive. This negativeness carries over into Lam 2: 14, which states that prophets
saw enticing but empty "burdens" (maS'ot) for the people.
Much discussion has centered on whether massa' may in fact mean "oracle
of disaster." The idea is present in Jerome, Calvin, and others (Blayney; Giese-
brecht; Gehman 1940-41; de Boer 1948: 214; H.-P. Muller, "massa'" in
TOOT 9: 23) that the "burden" spoken by the prophets is heavy because it
contains divine judgment. Midrash Genesis Rabbah ( 44:6) says that the Rab-
bis chose "burden" as the severest of ten designations for prophecy, citing as
a prooftext "like a heavy burden" (kemassa' kabed) in Ps 38:5[Eng 38:4]; cf.
de Boer 1948: 206. But McKane (1980a: 37-38) says the idea of massa' being
a doom prophecy was refuted by J. D. Michaelis, who claimed it was also used
for oracles having nothing to do with doom. But the passages cited, Prov 31: l;
Lam 2: 14; and Zech 12: 1, do not support his claim. The consensus seems to
be that, while the idea of "disaster" is not inherent in massa', the term does
nevertheless connote disaster in prophetic contexts. This has a direct bearing
on the present verse, for if "burden" means "oracle of disaster," then the
people's question is likely asked in derision. They are saying, "Well now, Jere-
miah, what disastrous burden do you have to unload today?" Rashi takes the
question as one expressing derision; so also Kiml;i. Compare the mocking
words put to Jeremiah in 17: 15. So we are not talking here about a serious re-
quest for a divine oracle, such as Zedekiah made during the final siege of
Jerusalem (21:2; 37:3, 17), which is what Volz (also Rudolph and Weiser)
imagines as background for a detached v 33, but rather a statement by people,
prophets, and priests deriding Jeremiah's prophecies of doom or mocking
their nonfulfillment.
the prophet or a priest. Some commentators (Cornill; Volz; Rudolph;
Weiser; Holladay; and Mc Kane) delete one or both terms, arguing that they are
added from v 34. But there is no basis for the deletion, which appears simply to
be a streamlining of the verse thought to be the genuine kernel of vv 33-40.
There is, in fact, a chiasmus in the terms of vv 34-35: "people I prophet or
priest// prophet or priest I people." McKane's argument (1980a: 52-53, also in
his commentary) that "the people" (ha'am) has an all-inclusive meaning of the
Judahite community in v 33, thereby rendering "prophet or priest" superflu-