Lisbeth S. Fried
lizfried at umich.edu
Mon Jan 28 20:00:01 EST 2002
I think you are right that much of this
chapter came from the prophet himself,
and in the last days. But why is it
necessary that all of it be?
Regarding verses 21ff,it seems to me
the author knows of the temple's destruction,
the destruction of the city, and perhaps
of the exile.
The problem for the biblical writers is to
explain how the destruction and the exile
happened. The answer was clear to them: the
people must have sinned against their god.
That was the answer that every people in the ANE
gave when their cities and temples were destroyed.
So,what was the worst thing the author could think
of that would most anger YHWH, and cause the horrific
destruction? Child sacrifice! Ergo, the people must
have done it, or all this couldn't have happened.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Smith [mailto:kens at 180solutions.com]
> Sent: Mon, January 28, 2002 6:50 PM
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: Sacrifice.
> That may very well be true -- but I guess that doesn't answer my
> question, or make much difference to my point. The rest of
> chapter 7 seems to reflect conditions in pre-exilic Jerusalem.
> (Unless you want to make the argument that there's conscious
> anachronism taking place, in which case folks who can tell the
> difference between that and the real thing must be far more
> sophisticated and intelligent than I am. I tend to be the sort
> who assumes that if he can't see the invisible cat on the chair,
> there probably isn't one.) What would be the point of a lengthy
> argument against a naïve "Zion theology" which assumed that the
> temple couldn't be molested if, in fact, the temple had already
> been destroyed? Whether chapter 7 comes from the historical
> Jeremiah or not, if you're looking for a "sitz im leben" in which
> it makes sense, Jerusalem prior to 586 seems by far the simplest
> But even if it *was* written after 586, and was written as a sort
> of prophecy in reverse, conscious anachronisms and all, it still
> had to have been written close to the time of the destruction of
> the temple, when it was still a live issue. This chapter doesn't
> sound at all like the other acknowledged exilic or post-exilic
> writings, which are far more concerned with the future of God's
> people, and occasionally the Second Temple, but in a very
> different way. Whether by Jeremiah or not, and whether prior to
> 586 or not, I don't see any reasonable way to deny that it was
> written very close to or around that time -- and hence the author
> -- and more importantly, his audience -- would have been in a
> position to know what was or wasn't happening in Ben Hinnom,
> don't you think?
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lisbeth S. Fried [mailto:lizfried at umich.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:37 PM
> > To: Ken Smith; Biblical Hebrew
> > Subject: RE: Sacrifice.
> > Dear Ken,
> > Not all of Jeremiah was written by the Prophet himself.
> > I recommend any recent commentary on the book.
> > Liz
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ken Smith [mailto:kens at 180solutions.com]
> > > Sent: Mon, January 28, 2002 6:27 PM
> > > To: Biblical Hebrew
> > > Subject: RE: Sacrifice.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not to dispute the results of the archaeological investigations you
> > > refer to, but how would you reconcile the account in Jeremiah 7:31
> > > with what has been uncovered archaeologically? After all,
> > Jeremiah 7
> > > is presumably a highly contemporary account. (Unlike, say, the
> > > accounts of the conquest, which in their present form are
> > pretty well
> > > acknowledged to be much later than the conquest itself.) Would
> > > Jeremiah have bothered to attack a practice that, well, wasn't
> > > practiced? I'm no fundie, and don't have any trouble acknowledging
> > > that the Bible and history as known from other sources don't always
> > > match -- but I would expect that an account from a
> > contemporary, local
> > > eyewitness such as Jeremiah would have to be given
> > considerable weight
> > > even by those who have nothing riding on Biblical
> > inerrancy. Jeremiah
> > > was already unpopular enough around Jerusalem -- he wouldn't have
> > > bothered to make something like this up, would he?
> > >
> > > In other words, is it legitimate, in this instance, to question the
> > > archaeological results? Are there any blank spots in those
> > > investigations that could leave room for Jeremiah's
> > accusations to be
> > > taken seriously? Is perhaps a judgment of non liquet the
> > best we can
> > > do at the moment?
> > >
> > > Ken Smith
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [lizfried at umich.edu]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
More information about the b-hebrew