Speaking of Kings (21:1-23:8) 165justice and righteousness in the land. The present indictment, judgment, and
messianic promise are presented along lines similar to those in Ezekiel 34. The
words of promise in 23:6 state that the future Davidic king will be named "Yah-
weh is our righteousness," a wordplay and reversal on the name of the reigning
king, Zedekiah, which means "My righteousness is Yahweh" (see Rhetoric and
Composition for 21:1-10). Yahweh's final word then to his covenant people is
not judgment but future salvation. This grand and climactic end is witnessed
in other prophetic books, particularly Isaiah, and is the way that the divine ac-
tion is seen to culminate in the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32.
There are three distinct units in 23:1-8: 1) vv 1-4, which are three general
oracles of indictment, judgment, and future hope, in prose; 2) vv 5-6, which
are a "Look, days are coming" oracle in poetry; and 3) vv 7-8, which are an-
other "Look, days are coming" oracle in prose. The latter two oracles appear
with minor change elsewhere in the book. The LXX places the oracle of vv 7-
8 inappropriately at the end of the chapter, i.e., after v 40.
The present oracle cluster is delimited at the top end by the return to prose
at v 1, which is also the chapter division. Holladay at one time ( l 966b: 420-24)
made poetry out of vv 1-4 but in his commentary gave that up. He now consid-
ers the verses Kunstprosa. Before v 1, MA has a petul;iah and MP a setumah. The
ML has no section here. Delimitation at the bottom end is aided by a return to
poetry in v 5, which is corroborated by a setumah in MA and ML after v 4. The
MP has no section here. There is also a setumah in MA (only) after v 1, which
divides Oracles I and II and is probably guided by the expanded messenger for-
mula beginning v 2.
All three oracles have "oracle of Yahweh" formulas. The LXX's omission of
the formulas in vv 1 and 2 is not necessarily an indication of MT expansion, as
Holladay alleges. All three are likely original. Aquila and Theo contain the for-
mula in v 2. What may well be expansion is the embellished "Therefore thus
said Yahweh, God of Israel, to the shepherds who shepherd my people" for-
mula beginning v 2. It is certainly not needed, since an "oracle of Yahweh" for-
mula ends the verse. One may compare the "Thus said Yahweh" formula
beginning 22:30, which is also unnecessary. The introductory formula of v 2
apparently announces the judgment in Oracle II, beginning as it does with
"Therefore" (laken). The "Woe ... therefore" collocation is here an editorial
device used to announce judgment after an indictment for wrongdoing (see
Rhetoric and Composition for 22:18-19).
The recognition that 23: 1-4 contain three separate oracles renders unnec-
essary the concern expressed by McKane and others that these verses lack in-
ternal coherence. It has been pointed out, for example, that in v 2 the
shepherds drive the sheep away, whereas in v 3 it is Yahweh who does it. In
separate oracles, such an inconsistency-if it is one-can stand. The view of
some scholars (Cornill; Volz; Rudolph; Mendecki 1983) that v 3 is an exilic or
postexilic gloss owing its inspiration to Ezekiel 34 should be rejected. The
verse is entirely consistent with the thought of Jeremiah and fits in well with
v 4. Lust ( 1981: 126) also points out that "gathering and return," which figures