Jeremiah 21-36 A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by (Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries)

Zedekiah's Covenant (34:1-22) 557

And you, you turned around (wattasubu 'attem) one day and you did vv 15-16

what is right in my eyes ... then you turned around (wattasubu) and

profaned my name and took back (wattasibu) ...

II You ('attem), you have not listened to me (lo'-sema'tem 'elay)... v 17a

Verses 15-16 of Oracle I also ring the changes on the verb sub ("turned around I

took back").

Oracles III and IV both begin with the familiar Jeremianic "look I":

III Look I ...

IV Look I. ..

hinenl

hinenl

The opening narrative and oracles following bristle with wordplays:

Narr

I

III

"they turned around" (yasubU) ... and "took back" (yasibU)

"you turned around" (tasubU) in repentance, "then you turned

around" (tasubu) ... "and took back" (wattasibU) the

slaves you set free

"you have not listened to me to proclaim liberty (liqro' deror)

... Look I am proclaiming liberty to you (hinenl qore

lakem deror) ... "

''.And I will make the men who walked over (ha'oberlm) my

covenant ... that they cut (karetU) before me, the calf

that they cut (karetU) in two and walked (wayya'abru)

between its parts."

I-IV "and you took back" (wattasibU) the slaves you set free ...

"and I will bring them [the Babylonians] back

(wahasibotfm) to this city"

v 17b

v 22

v 11

vv 15-16

v 17

v 18

vv 16, 22

Because this prose combines narrative (vv 8-11) and oracular preaching
(vv 12-22), the latter having the usual accumulatio and stereotyped phrases, es-
timations regarding authorship, date, and genre differ. Some commentators
(Giesebrecht; Peake; Weiser; Bright; Holladay) take these verses as continuing
the biographical (Baruch) prose that resumes at 34:1. According to this view,
the narrative and preaching authentically report an event from the end of
Zedekiah's reign. Duhm believes the verses to have a historical core going
back to Baruch, but v I and the long preaching in vv 12-22 he takes to emanate
from later editors, whom he does not hesitate to disparage, calling the manu-
mission and its interpretation a distortion of history, theological fantasy, and
late midrash. Cornill tempers Duhm's assessment, but only slightly, judging
vv 12-22 to be late sermonizing, yet refusing to reduce the manumission and
reclamation to a political act, as Duhm does.
The argument is turned around in Wijesinghe ( 1997: 307), who thinks vv 8-11
are a secondary introduction to vv 12-22. He finds an elaborate concentric ( ==
chiastic) structure of key words in vv 8-22, leading him to conclude that the