Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication (JSOT Supplement Series)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

SUPPLEMENT SERIES

283

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick Editorial Board Robert P. Carroll, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

Jeremiah's and

Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

Kelvin G. Friebel

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 283

Copyright © 1999 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19KingfieldRoad Sheffield SI 1 9AS England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd Guildford and King's Lynn

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-919-7

CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations

7 8

Chapter 1

THEORETICAL BASES FOR UNDERSTANDING JEREMIAH'S AND EZEKIEL'S SIGN-ACTS 1. Prophets and Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication 2. Parameters of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Behaviors Considered 'Sign-Acts' 3. Actual Performance of the Prophetic Actions 4. Nonverbal Communication Model 5. Sign-Acts and Rhetorical Theory

11 11 13 20 34 40

Chapter 2

JEREMIAH' s AND EZEKIEL' s SIGN-ACTS 1. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Pre-586 BCE Sign-Acts 2. Pre-586 BCE Transitional Sign-Acts 3. Post-586 BCE Sign-Acts

79 79 314 351

Chapter 3

SIGN-ACTS AS NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 1. Intentionality of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts 2. Nonverbal Functions of the Sign-Acts 3. Coding of the Prophetic Sign-Acts 4. Sign-Acts as Types of Nonverbal Communication 5. Coordination of the Verbal and Nonverbal Elements 6. Conclusions: Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

370 370 382 385 392 400 405

Chapter 4

THE RHETORIC OF JEREMIAH'S AND EZEKIEL' s SIGN-ACTS 1. Rhetorical Situation 2. Rhetorical Strategies

407 407 411

6

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts 3. Audience Response 4. Conclusion

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

461 466 468 503 528

PREFACE

The study of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-actions has been a part of my life, with varying degrees of prominence, for more than a decade. I completed my PhD dissertation on the subject in 1989 for the Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies at the University of Wisconsin— Madison. This present work is a major revision and updating of that dissertation which was done under the supervision of Dr Michael V. Fox. Although this work has undergone alterations and modifications over the years, I am very indebted to Dr Fox for the help and insights which he gave me when working on the original dissertation. I will always be grateful for the model of thoroughness and excellence in his own personal scholarly works and research which he exemplified and which I have in some way sought to emulate. I would like to dedicate this work to Dr Joseph Davis who passed away in July 1998. While doing my undergraduate work in Biblical Literature at Seattle Pacific College in the early 1970s, Dr Davis was my Old Testament professor and Honors Thesis advisor. He communicated to me a contagious passion for the study of Old Testament Scripture, as well as reflected a genuine spirituality based on that Scripture. I am also grateful to my wife, Margaret, and my two children, Jonathan and Rachel, who have been an encouragement over these years to bring this project to completion.

ABBREVIATIONS

AB AJBA AJP AJSL AnBib ANEP

ANET

AnOr AOAT ARM ArOr AT ANT AusBR BA BARev BASOR BASORSup BBB BDB

BETL BFCT Bib BibOr BN BTB BWANT BZ BZAW CAD

Anchor Bible Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology American Journal of Philology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Analecta biblica James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954) James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950) Analecta orientalia Alter Orient und Altes Testament Archives royales de Mari Archiv orientdlni Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Australian Biblical Review Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Supplements Bonner biblische Beitrage Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie Biblica Biblica et orientalia Biblische Notizen Biblical Theology Bulletin Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZAW Ignace I. Gelb et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1964-)

Abbreviations CBQ ConBOT CTM DID EBib EstBib ETR EvQ ExpTim FOIL GKC GTJ HAT HSM HTR HUCA IBS ICC IDB IDBSup IEJ Int JAAR JANESCU JAOS JBL JBR JCS JHS JNES JNSL JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSS JTS KHAT LD Neot NICOT NKZ NovT NTOA OBO OLZ

9

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament Concordia Theological Monthly Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Etudes bibliques Estudios biblicos Etudes theologiques et religieuses Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (ed. E. Kautzsch, revised and trans. A.E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910) Grace Theological Journal Handbuch zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary George Arthur Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) IDB, Supplementary Volume Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Bible and Religion Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament Lectio divina Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the Old Testament Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus Orbis biblicus et orientalis Orientalistische Literaturzeitung

10

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

OrAnt OTL OTS PEQ PTMS RB REg SBLDS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSS SET SE

Oriens antiquus Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien Palestine Exploration Quarterly Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series Revue biblique Revue d'egyptologie SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Sources for Biblical Study SBL Semeia Studies Studies in Biblical Theology Studio Evangelica I, II, III (= TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88 [1964], etc.) Svensk exegetisk arsbok Scottish Journal of Theology Studia theologica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah The Bible Today Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976) G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-) Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alien Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971-76) G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alien Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970-) Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologische Quartalschrift Theologische Studien und Kritiken R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr and Bruce K. Waltke (eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alien und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie

SEA SJT ST STDJ TBT TDNT

TDOT

THAT

ThWAT

TLZ TOTC TQ TSK TWOT

UF VT VTSup WBC WMANT ZA ZAW ZPE ZWT

Chapter 1 THEORETICAL BASES FOR UNDERSTANDING JEREMIAH'S AND EZEKIEL'S SIGN-ACTS

1. Prophets and Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication In that all communication is a process of coordinating verbal and nonverbal elements, when the biblical prophets proclaimed their messages before audiences, they had available to them the full spectrum of both the verbal and nonverbal communication channels. They undoubtedly used a wide range of body movements including arm and hand gestures, facial expressions and eye movements to emphasize and dramatize points of their messages. Since the messages were delivered audibly, the prophets undoubtedly made full use of the vocalic variables of volume, tone, pitch and rate to convey the specific nuances of the verbalized oracles. Thus the employment of nonverbal elements by the prophets can be assumed even though the written records have preserved very few references to such. Since the prophets were attempting to communicate their messages effectively so that their audiences would pay attention and respond appropriately, a primary motivation behind the prophetic messages was that of persuasion.1 The employment of nonverbal behavior by the prophets undoubtedly arose out of the same rhetorical motivation as did the verbal proclamations. Thus the study of the prophets' proclama-

1. The persuasive or interactive function of the sign-acts accords with Ezekiel's and Jeremiah's self-understanding of their prophetic missions as being interactive. Jeremiah understood his prophetic task as including calls to repentance whose aim was to convince the audiences of a continued devotion to God or of a change in their misdirected devotion and behavior (cf. Jer. 7.25-26; 25.3-7; 35.15). Ezekiel's understanding of his prophetic role as 'watchman' (Ezek. 3.17-21; 33.1-9) involved the task of 'warning'. The implied intent behind the warning was that the auditors would heed it, i.e. be persuaded by the prophet's messages.

12

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

tions, both verbal and nonverbal, from the perspectives of communication theory and rhetoric elucidates more fully both the messages and the transmission processes. The sparsity of references to nonverbal behavior is unfortunate for those desiring to analyze the communication techniques of the prophets, but is understandable due to the inherent theological and ideological nature of the preserved text which was concerned almost solely with the content of the prophetic messages and not with how the messages were given. Only in certain cases were the nonverbal communication elements reported, when the nonverbal elements were laden with message content. Although in biblical studies these kinds of prophetic gestures and actions have often been labeled 'symbolic actions',2 in this study, the term 'sign-act' will be used in reference to the nonverbal prophetic behavior because such a designation is more in keeping with the definition of the terms 'sign' and 'symbol' as used in communication theory (see the discussion in Chapter 1 §4.3). Although the actual events and sequence of the sign-acts can be perceived and reconstructed only through the literary accounts, the rhetoric of the performed sign-acts must be distinguished from the rhetoric of their literary descriptions. The persuasive strategy of the literary compositions arises from the literary qualities and devices which are primarily auditory (in that literature was designed to be read aloud), whereas the

2. In some recent studies, other terms have been used in the attempt to more adequately describe this nonverbal communication. For example, Amsler (1980, 1985) uses the more general term 'prophetic acts' ('actes prophetique'); Overholt (1982; 1986; 1989: 86-96) and Long (1977) employ the sociological term 'acts/ deeds of power'; Lang(1981a, 1981b), although still using the term 'symbolic acts', refers to the actions as 'demonstration actions' (Demonstrationshandlungen) and (1978, 1981b, 1983a, 1986) 'street theatre' (Strassentheater); Stacey (1990) uses 'prophetic drama'. The term 'pantomime' has also been used to describe these prophetic actions (cf. Matthews and Benjamin 1993: 215-16; Alonso Schokel 1988: 113). Although the terms 'pantomime' or 'mime' have a wide variety of meanings and are somewhat elusive to define, in their more technical usages they refer to formalized actions within the genres of theatre or dance (cf. Bourquin 1979; Rolfe 1979a), specially as used in the ancient world (cf. Rolfe 1979b). If 'pantomime' is understood in that technical sense, then the prophetic sign-actions are not 'pantomime' in that they are not part of formalized drama, but are rather part of the dynamics of interpersonal communication which involves nonverbal gestures and body movements.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

13

rhetoric of the sign-acts is deduced from the nonverbal elements which are essentially visual. Likewise a distinction must be made between the respective audiences: the viewers of the actions, and the readers of the literary accounts who are not assumed to have been present at the time of the performance of the sign-act. This study will deal with the rhetoric or suasive aspects of the performed sign-acts, rather than that of the literary descriptions.3 This study seeks to follow Taylor's (1969: 80) advice in his comment on Ezekiel's actions: But if he did in fact use symbolical actions to convey his messages, it is important that we try to understand what he actually did and how he did it. This clearly mattered to him, and it mattered to his observers that they saw it accurately and interpreted correctly what he was wanting to say. If we are to do the same, we must cast ourselves in the role of his fellowexiles, and sit where they sat, and watch his every movement as closely as we may.

The general reliability of the literary renditions for reconstructing the actions is assumed, although, as will be done in Chapter 2, each account must be examined for literary interpolations which may have altered or affected the recounting of the details of the performed actions. 2. Parameters of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Behaviors Considered 'Sign-Acts' This study focuses on those nonverbal actions and behaviors, performed by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, whose primary aim was to communicate contentual messages in a rhetorical manner so as to persuade the people of the veracity of the prophets' viewpoints and to elicit appropriate responses. Each of the biblical books ascribed to these two prophets provides a significant repertoire of actions for analysis so as to allow for internal comparison between the individual prophet's actions, as well as external comparisons between the actions of the two. Since Jeremiah and

3. Previous studies have adequately elucidated the literary form and motifs of the 'sign-act' narrative genre. See especially Fohrer 1952a, 1968; March 1974; Matheney 1965; Schmidt 1982; Woodard 1983. On specific literary features such as the 'question-answer' schema in the sign-act accounts, see Long 1971: 134-35, and for audience citations in the accounts, see Clark 1984.

14

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Ezekiel were contemporaries, the situations which elicited their signacts were similar because they functioned in the same theological and ideological contexts and essentially in the same historical context even though the external locations of the audiences were different—Jeremiah in Jerusalem and Ezekiel in exile.4 It is possible that members of Ezekiel's audience, and even Ezekiel himself, viewed some of the actions performed by Jeremiah prior to the exile of 597 BCE. Also, the two books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel contain the bulk of the extant accounts of nonverbal behavior performed by prophets in communicating message-contents.5 Therefore the analysis of these accounts can be used paradigmatically for understanding and interpreting other prophets' nonverbal communication activities. In this study the term 'sign-act' is applied to all the nonverbal behaviors (i.e. bodily movements, gestures and paralanguage) whose primary purpose was communicative and interactive: Jer. 13.1-11; 16.1-9; 19.113; chs. 27-28; 32.1-44; 35.1-19; 43.8-13; 51.59-64a; Ezek. 3.22-27 / 24.25-27 / 33.21-22; chs. 4-5; 6.11-12; 12.1-16; 12.17-20; 21.11-29;

4. Although the locale of Ezekiel's ministry has been questioned and debated, the arguments are sufficiently convincing for accepting the biblical text's placement of it in Babylon among the Judahite exiles of 597 BCE. 5. Outside of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, there are only seven biblical accounts of communicative nonverbal actions performed by prophets as part of their public ministries. Three 'communicative' nonverbal sign-act accounts are extant within 'historical narratives': 1 Kgs 11.29-31, Ahijah's tearing the cloak into 12 parts and giving 10 to Jeroboam to indicate the division of the kingdom; 1 Kgs 22.11 (= 2 Chron. 18.10), Zedekiah's use of the iron horns to indicate the goring of the Arameans; 2 Kgs 13.14-19, Elisha's use of the bow and arrows to indicate Joash's victory over the Arameans. 1 Kgs 19.19-21, in which Elijah threw his cloak on Elisha, is often classified as a 'symbolic action', but that action was interactive and informative, not communicative (i.e. the action by itself did not bear an interpretable message-content in simile-form). Within books ascribed to prophets, there are only four communicative nonverbal actions: Hos. 1.2-9 (the marriage of Gomer and the bearing of children—the naming of the children was a verbal, not a nonverbal, act); Hos. 3.1-5 (the prophet's taking again the adulterous wife); Isa. 20.1-6 (Isaiah's going naked); and Zech. 6.9-15 (the making of the crown). Although Isa. 8.1-4, and also 7.3, have, at times, been classified under the rubric 'sign-actions', the communicated messages were the children's names which were verbal in nature and did not involve nonverbal actions. In Isa. 8.1, the act of writing had no communicative significance, only the written message which is a type of nonvocal, verbal communication.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

15

24.15-24; 37.15-28. By the inclusion of such acts as the clapping in Ezek. 6.11-12 and the wailing in Ezek. 21.17-22, the category of 'signact' is broader than the traditional connotations of the appellation 'symbolic action' whose criteria for classification were frequently based not on the nonverbal function or purpose but on literary form. Thus if the account of a nonverbal behavior did not correspond to the form-critical structure,6 or if the behavior was viewed as being a stereotypical gesture,7 the behavior was not classified as a 'symbolic action'. But such distinctions do not correspond with definitions and categories as employed within the studies of nonverbal communication where the communicative nature of a nonverbal action is not contingent on the form of its literary recounting, or on whether it is an idiosyncratic or stereotypical behavior, or on it having a specific type of conjunction with the verbal part of the message (see Chapter 1 §5.2.4 and Chapter 3 §5). Since this study confines itself to those nonverbal behaviors which, as part of Ezekiel's and Jeremiah's public ministry, were both actually performed before audiences (see Chapter 1 §3) and had communicative purposes, certain other nonverbal or purported nonverbal behaviors are excluded from consideration and from the appellation 'sign-act':8 (1) activities which were of a biographical nature unrelated to the public proclamation of messages; (2) actions performed in visions (e.g. the eating of the scroll in Ezek. 2.8-3.3); (3) phrases which originated from 6. For example Fohrer (1952a; 1967:249-50; 1968) does not list Ezek. 6.11-12; 21.17-22 and Jer. 35 as 'symbolic actions', but refers to each as 'ein symbolahnliches Tun' (1968: 72). Hals (1989: 354) makes the same form critical distinction. 7. Zimmerli (1979: 29-30, 182) classifies the wailing (Ezek. 21.17-22) and the clapping (Ezek. 6.11-12) as 'expressive gestures', and distinguishes them from 'sign-acts' on the basis that the latter were independently formulated actions which conveyed their messages within themselves while the former were stereotyped actions which underscored, reinforced and clarified the prophet's word or qualified it in a particular way. Garner (1980: 169-89) also attempts to make the same distinction, but realizes that 'The line between purposeful gesture (or series of gestures) and symbolic action is sometimes difficult to draw—both are nonverbal and active in nature' (174). 8. Stacey (1990), in using the concept of 'prophetic drama', defines the category too widely, thus making no distinction between intentionally performed, actual actions and visionary activities (cf. 7-8). Thus a preciseness in delineating the specific primary function of sign-acts as being communicative is obscured (see Chapter 3 §2).

16

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

nonverbal actions but had developed into figures of speech, no longer indicating specific accompanying actions9 (e.g. the command to Ezekiel, 'set your face' ("f]D D^CD); 10 (4) accounts in which there are no explicit references to nonverbal actions accompanying the verbal messages (e.g. the reference to the iron yoke in Jer. 28.13-14,n the

9. For discussions regarding phrases originating out of nonverbal behavior (e.g. gestures, postures, facial expressions) and then developing into figurative or idiomatic expressions to convey attitudes, ideas or feelings without the accompanying nonverbal movement being present, and thus on criteria for differentiating between figures of speech and actual actions in other ancient Near Eastern references to nonverbal communication, see Gruber 1980: 18-20; Kruger 1989: 55; Malul 1988: 23-26; Viberg 1992: 9. 10. 'Set your face toward [•?«]' in Ezek. 6.2; 13.17; 21.7; 25.2; 28.21; 38.2; 'set your face to [^U]' in Ezek. 29.2; 35.2; 'set your face toward ["[~n]' in Ezek. 21.2. Whereas the phrase may have originated from a nonverbal disposing of the face in a particular manner while speaking (e.g. in Num. 24.1-2 Balaam was to have optical view of the people he was to curse), at the time of Ezekiel it was probably only a figurative expression indicating an emotive state (i.e. an adversarial attitude toward the subject of address), unaccompanied by any specific behavior. Supporting a figurative understanding of the phrase are the similar expressions: D^S D^fa + complementary infinitive (Jer. 42.15, 17; 44.12) meaning 'to intend, decide, to determine'; HOI?1? D'3D p] in Ezek. 3.8 which is figurative of the prophet's disposition; the two phrases... n D^S ]HD in Ezek. 14.8 and 15.7a, and... 3 D^S D'to in Ezek. 15.7b; Jer. 21.10; 44.11, both of which figuratively express negative dispositions (cf. Layton 1986: 177-79; van der Woude 1979: 440). Likewise the addressees of the oracles prefaced by this command were either not in optical view of the prophet (cf. 6.2, the mountains of Israel; 21.7, Jerusalem; 25.2, Ammon; 28.21, Sidon; 29.2, Pharaoh; 35.2, Mt Seir; 38.2, Gog), or were so vague as to defy a specific locale (cf. 13.17, false prophetesses). Also in Ezek. 4.3, 7 when an actual nonverbal movement was intended, different terminology was used (^K D^S ]D [hi.]). Brownlee's (1983, 1986) interpretation that this phrase in Ezekiel meant 'set out on a journey', and thus that Ezekiel literally journeyed to the various places, must be dismissed on the basis that Brownlee has singled out only one of the biblical, semantic meanings of the phrase (cf. Gen. 31.21; Dan. 11.18 [qere]), compared it with Ugaritic in which the phrase only has this meaning, and then applied it to all of the occurrences in Ezekiel. See Layton (1986) and Dhorme (1963: 44-45) who have investigated the phrase's various uses in biblical and Akkadian texts (cf. also McCurley 1968: 179-80; Oppenheim 1941: 256-68) where, depending on the context and accompanying prepositions, it has several literal or figurative meanings. 11. The reference to the iron yoke in Jer. 28.13-14 has been interpreted by some commentators to mean that, upon Jeremiah's reappearance to confront Hananiah, Jeremiah wore an iron yoke as a replacement for the previously broken, wooden

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

17

hypothetical performance of a sword dance in Ezek. 21.13-22,12 and the activities with the cooking pot in Ezek. 24.3-1413); (5) 'rhetorical commands',14 parabolic language, and picturesque verbal images which one. The language, though, suggests that Jeremiah used a verbal image in vv. 1314. The command, 'Go and speak to Hananiah' (v. 13), was the typical pattern in Jeremiah to indicate an auditory message rather than a visual or sensory message (cf. the phrase in 2.2; 3.12; 5.5; 34.2; 39.16). The command does not contain any instruction to make and wear an iron yoke, nor does the text state that he did so. The MT's 'and you have made/will make bars of iron' (28.13) is part of Jeremiah's address to Hananiah, not a divine command to Jeremiah. Likewise the preferred reading of the LXX's first-person verb form ('but I will make...') occurs in the divine address to Hananiah, so that the referent of the action is God and not Jeremiah. 12. Ezek. 21.13-22 has often been interpreted as being accompanied by a 'sword dance' in which the prophet wielded the sword in the air while verbally proclaiming the message. But the text provides no explicit evidence for this supposition. Therefore this study will only deal with the mentioned actions of vv. 17 and 19 (crying out and wailing, striking the thigh, and clapping the hands). 13. Some suppose Ezek. 24.3-14 to have been an enacted parable in which the prophet actually had a cooking pot on the fire before him. But the phrase, 'speak a parable' (^EJQ ^Q), is unlike any other Ezekiel terminology used to describe an actual performance. Rather, in Ezekiel (12.22-23; 16.44; 17.2; 18.2; 21.5), the noun bCQ refers to a verbal oracle (cf. Beyse 1986; Hauck 1967: 749; Polk 1983; Stacey 1990: 119-20; contra Godbey [1923], Herbert [1954: 189, 196], Johnson [1955: 168-69], Matheney [1965: 214-29] who argue that the term itself denotes enacted parables) or to a person who will be talked about (Ezek. 14.7-8—the coordination of flitf and ^2?Q expresses both the nonverbal and verbal aspects: i.e. the person as an niK was to be a nonverbal, visible illustration, and as a ^2JQ someone who would be spoken about). Also the accompanying command, 'and you shall say [mQtfl] to them', coupled with the following introductory formula, 'Thus says Yahweh', indicates a verbally communicated message in which the auditors of the following injunctions (vv. 3b-5, 6b, 10-11) were the people, not the prophet. To avoid this argument, and maintain the position that 24.3-14 was an enacted action, Fohrer (1955: 138-40; 1968: 61-64) rearranges the verses and places v. 3a (the command for verbal pronouncement) after the commands of vv. 3b-5, and v. 6b just before the verbal interpretation in vv. 6a, 7-14. There is no basis for this rearrangement and it results inappropriately in the clarifying interpretation being called a'PEJQ. 14. The term 'rhetorical command' is used to designate a device of verbal rhetoric in which an injunction or imperative is employed by the speaker to create an image in the audience's mind such that the enjoined action and its subsequent result were to be mentally rehearsed but not actually carried out. Thus it is similar to 'rhetorical questions' to which the auditors were not expected to answer audibly but rather draw the speaker-intended conclusion in their own thinking.

18

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

were not actually performed15 (e.g. the 'cup' imagery of Jer. 25.15-2916 and injunctions of the 'cooking song' of Ezek. 24.3-14);17 (6) actions

Jeremiah frequently used such 'rhetorical commands' in addressing his audiences, which are clearly indicated grammatically by being second-masculine plural imperatives (addressed to the people: Jer. 2.10; 4.5, 6, 8; 5.1, 10; 6.1, 16; 7.12; 8.14; 9.16; 18.13; 22.10, 30; 30.6), or second-feminine singular imperatives (addressed to the city: Jer. 3.2; 7.29; 10.17; 13.20). Huey (1993: 87-88) argues that even though the imperatives in Jer. 5.1 are plural, such is still a sign-act carried out by Jeremiah analogous to Diogenes' carrying a lighted lamp saying, 'I am looking for a man' (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers6.41). But the plural forms and the frequency of rhetorical commands in Jeremiah, suggest that this was not an action actually performed by the prophet. 15. Since all communication involves verbal and nonverbal elements, it can be assumed that the prophets frequently used nonverbal elements and may have frequently used actions which depicted their spoken messages. But when those actions are not explicitly noted and described, it becomes futile to reconstruct hypothetically what actions might have been performed and then to speculate about the rhetoric of those imagined actions. 16. That Jer. 25.15-29 is verbally created imagery rather than an actually performed action is argued on the bases of: (1) the mixing of metaphors in that the cup's effect is explained in terms of a military reality as 'the sword which I (Yahweh) am sending among them' (vv. 16, 27); (2) the figurative language of Jeremiah being commanded to take the cup from 'the hand of Yahweh' (vv. 15, 17); (3) the hyperbolic language of the extensive list of nations which Jeremiah is to make drink (cf. vv. 18-26; 'all the kingdoms of the earth which are upon the face of the ground', v. 26); (4) the immediate context of the MT in which vv. 15-29 can be taken as a figurative application of v. 13, so that 'Yahweh's words' are synonymous with 'the cup of wine of wrath' in vv. 15-16, and 'prophesy' in v. 13, synonymous to 'giving to drink' in vv. 15-16. The statement of performance in v. 17 refers then not to a physical taking of a cup and giving it to the nations, but a figurative expression of the fulfilling of the divine mission to be a prophet to the nations. The LXX arrangement of the oracles against the nations (MT chs. 46-51) between MT 25.14 and 15, and 25.13b ('which Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations') as a title for 25.15-29 reinforces this argument since 25.15-29 is then a concluding statement indicating that Jeremiah fulfilled his commission with respect to those countries. (5) The broader context in which this image correlates with the call narrative of 1.9 in which Jeremiah was to take the 'words' from the 'hand of Yahweh' (in 25.15 he took the cup of wrath from Yahweh's hand) and in 1.10 he was to be a prophet to the nations (in 25.15, he gave the cup to the nations to drink). 17. In both Jer. 25.15-29 and Ezek. 24.3-14, the injunctives are to be understood as 'rhetorical commands' rather than commands for actual performance. In Jer. 25.15-29 the 'rhetorical command' was directed to the prophet, whereas in Ezek.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

19

performed by others besides Jeremiah and Ezekiel (e.g. Hananiah's action of Jer. 28 which was a distinct sign-act in its own right [see Chapter 2 §1.6] and the unsolicited activity of the potter in Jer. 18 [see Chapter 3 §1.3]), with the exception of actions intentionally elicited or commanded by Jeremiah and Ezekiel in direct interaction so that through such the prophets might communicate specific messages (e.g. Jer. 32; 35; 51.59-64); and (7) occasions of writing where the act of writing did not communicate any message-content,18 but rather the message was conveyed through that which was written which is nonvocalic verbal communication19 (e.g. Jer. 29; 30.1-2; 36.2, 4, 28, 32;20 Ezek. 24.1-2).21

24.3-14, which was most likely a 'work song' appropriated for the prophetic communication event, the prophet was addressing an imaginary persona whom the audience had to imagine mentally as fulfilling the enjoined commands. The differences between the oracles of Jer. 25.15-29 and Ezek. 24.3-14, and sign-acts prevent the verbal nature of the former from being used paradigmatically for arguing that the latter were also nonperformed (contra Davidson 1893: xxix; Farbridge 1923: 11; Konig 1892: 651-52; 1904: 175). 18. That the act of writing was not communicative does not deny that it was unintentionally informative about the prophet's role and position. For Jeremiah, the act of writing to the exiles (ch. 29) indicated his perception that he had the prophetic authority and responsibility to do so; ch. 36 informed of his social situation, i.e. his temporary exclusion from public ministry in the Temple; and the written messages of Jer. 30.1-2; 36.32; Ezek. 24.1-2, by their being preserved, would have confirmed and authenticated the prophets' positions and reliability when, in the future, the predictive words were historically verified. 19. See Nolan (1975: 98-100) on the distinctions between nonverbal and verbal, and between vocalic and nonvocalic communication. 20. Kessler (1966: 391; 1969) proposes that Jer. 36 was a 'symbolic action'. But Kessler fails to demonstrate that the act of writing communicated message-content as did the nonverbal behavior of the other prophetic sign-acts. Also the sign-acts were intentionally performed (see Chapter 3 §1) whereas any contrast between the rejection of Jeremiah's scroll and the reception to Josiah's discovered scroll (1 Kgs 22), since it involved audience response, could not have been intentionally staged by Jeremiah. Such a contrast in audience reaction must have been perceived only after the event occurred. See Schmidt (1982: 213) who dismisses Kessler's suggestion on the basis of definition and Gattung. 21. Stacey (1990: 162-66, 203-204) includes Jer. 36 and Ezek. 24.1-2 under the rubric of 'prophetic drama'.

20

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts 3. Actual Performance of the Prophetic Actions

Although many scholars have adopted the view that the sign-acts were actually performed,22 that hypothesis has not gone without challenge. Some of the actions are relegated to the category of literary fictions,23 parabolic speeches,24 visionary experiences25 or imaginations of the mind. 26 If the actions were not performed but only verbally communicated (either in speech or in writing), the study of their rhetorical function could not focus on the acts themselves but only on the literary narratives. Therefore, before the communication and rhetoric models are presented by which the sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel will be analyzed, the hypothesis that the literary accounts recount nonverbal actions which really occurred will be substantiated. 3.1 Arguments against Real Performance The arguments against the real performance of the sign-acts are usually based on five criteria: (1) some of the actions were physically impossible to carry out; (2) the rhetorical forcefulness of the oral or literary presentation of the accounts obviates the necessity for the actions actually to have been performed; (3) some of the actions can be deemed to be nonperformed by virtue of their unaesthetic nature; (4) if performed, some of the actions would have been unintelligible to the spectators; (5) if performed, some of the actions would not have been observable 22. For those who have written specifically on the sign-acts and argue for their actual performance, see Alfrink 1948; Amsler 1985; van den Born 1935, 1947; Buzy 1923; Criado 1948; Fohrer 1952a, 1968; Eraser 1974; Matheney 1965, 1968; Pilch 1981a; Ramlot 1972; Robinson 1927; Swidler 1981; Vorwahl 1932; Woodard 1983. Although Stacey (1990: 225-33) generally maintains that the actions were actually performed, he concludes that questions of actual performance are secondary since in the Hebrews' understanding of reality 'a distinction between subjective and objective happenings is simply not appropriate' (175; cf. also 149). 23. Cf. Carroll 1986; 1991: 111; Davis 1989a; Garscha 1974; Holscher 1924; Klein 1988; McKane 1986, 1996; Wevers 1969; Wilson 1980. 24. Cf. Konig (1904) who classifies all the Ezekiel accounts as parabolic speeches. 25. For those classifying some or all of the accounts in Ezekiel as visionary experiences, see Broome 1946; Cooke 1936; Hines 1923; Howie 1950; Keil 1976; Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed 2.46. 26. Cf. Davidson 1893; also Haeussermann (1932) that they arose out of the unconscious and were only orally or literarily narrated to the audiences.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

21

by an audience. Each of these will be shown to provide an inadequate argument against the actuality of the actions' performances when such is indicated by the text. 3.1.1 Physical Impossibility of Performance. The actions found in Jer. 13.1-11 and Ezek. 4.4-8 are generally the ones cited to substantiate that the sign-acts were, at times, impossible to perform.27 It is argued that the physical distance and time needed for travel makes it improbable that Jeremiah made two trips to the Euphrates River (Jer. 13.1-11).28 The extended period of immobility while Ezekiel is said to have lain on his sides is considered by some to have been beyond physical capability (Ezek. 4.4-S).29 But the purported obstacles to the possibility of performance can be interpreted in different ways. For example, the Perat to which Jeremiah traveled may not have been the Euphrates River but a place near Jerusalem. Others see the journey to the Euphrates as being a real possibility and attempt to find time in the chronology of Jeremiah's life when he could have accomplished such an extended journey (see the discussion in Chapter 2 §1.3). Ezekiel may not have lain on his side both day and night but only during the daylight hours when there would have been observers (see the discussion in Chapter 2 §1.9). Difficulty must be distinguished from impossibility, since the former does not obviate actual performance. The criterion for actual performance that a behavior must be within a certain range of easiness should be dismissed since an action's higher degree of difficulty may have a correspondingly greater rhetorical impact on the audience. Behaviors which are more difficult to perform may attract more attention, provoke more reflective thought by the audience, and inform of a more intense

27. Besides the actions cited for Ezekiel and Jeremiah, Isaiah's going naked for three years (Isa. 20.2-4) has received the same criticism that such an action would be impossible given the climate of Jerusalem. 28. Therefore Jer. 13.1-11 is frequently classified as a visionary experience (cf. Baumann 1953; Driver 1907; Herrmann 1908; Konig 1904; Lindblom 1962; Robinson 1927; Rudolph 1958), 'Einkleidung eines Gedankens' (Cornill 1905: 171), parabolic speech or literary fiction (cf. Duhm 1901; McKane 1986; Wendland 1916). 29. For those arguing the impossibility of performing Ezek. 4.4-8, see Cooke 1936; Davidson 1893; Herrmann 1908; Hines 1923; Howie 1950; Keil 1976; Konig 1904; Robinson 1927; Wendland 1916; Wevers 1969; Wilson 1980.

22

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

level of personal involvement by the rhetor. Although several of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts were difficult to perform, none of them can be considered impossible. 3.1.2 Non-Necessity of Performance. It has been argued that the rhetorical effect upon the audiences would have been just as great whether the actions were performed or whether they were only forceful speeches or literary compositions.30 Although it is not denied that verbal (whether written or oral) communication can be very forceful and image producing, the very nature of communication is both verbal and nonverbal. To deny to the prophets the nonverbal expression of ideas seems to be unnaturally limiting their means of communicating. Exegetical considerations, which must acknowledge that the text intends the reader to understand the acts as actually occurring, override the hypothetical speculation as to whether they needed to have taken place. 3.1.3 Unaesthetic Nature of the Performances. Some actions have been described as being too childish or in too bad taste to have been performed.31 Aesthetics are a matter of cultural and individual taste, and caution must be exercised so as not to impose on the prophets modern cultural and/or personal values and standards for appropriate behavior. Ezekiel's objection in 4.14 to the use of human excrement as a cooking fuel shows that when a commanded action was perceived to go beyond acceptable cultural, personal or moral bounds, the prophet could object to such performance. Since the case cited is the only one in which a prophet voiced an objection, it can be adduced that the other actions must have fallen within the limits (even if on the outer fringes of such) of that which was personally acceptable.32 Even if the actions were 30. Cf. Davis 1989a: 67-71; Konig 1892: 652; 1904: 175. Cf. similarly Davies' (1996: 55-58) discussion of Jer. 13. 31. For those arguing that the unaesthetic nature meant nonperformance, see Farbridge 1923; Konig 1904. Maimonides (Guide to the Perplexed 2.46), after citing Ezek. 4-5, states the position well: 'God is too exalted than that He should turn His prophets into a laughingstock and a mockery for fools by ordering them to carry out crazy actions' (translation by S. Pines). 32. The same argument holds true against Maimonides' (Guide to the Perplexed 2.46) contention that such acts as Ezekiel's shaving his head and beard could not

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

23

childish, bizarre, deviant, eccentric, repugnant or shocking according to both modern and ancient taste, this does not deny their actual performance. One might compare the actions of Diogenes, the Greek Cynic, who performed bizarre actions for communicative and rhetorical purposes.33 Some of his actions were considered by his own contemporaries as going beyond the bounds of decency, but this did not prevent him from performing them. In a similar manner, rhetorical concerns may have outweighed aesthetic concerns when it came to the prophets' performance of the actions. Certainly part of the persuasive force was the nonverbal behaviors' unaesthetic nature. 3.1.4 Unintelligibility of Performance. Due to the ambiguous nature or to the complexity of the actions, some have suggested that the nonverbal behaviors would not have been intelligible to the audiences, thus substantiating the argument that they were not actually performed.34 Although nonverbal behavior is inherently ambiguous, the uncertainty of the meaning of the prophets' actions could have served an important rhetorical function of causing the audiences to speculate about the actions' meanings and implications. The intelligibility of the nonverbal actions came through the accompanying verbal explanations, so that the meanings which the prophet desired to transmit through the nonverbal behaviors were eventually made clear to the people (see Chapter 4 §2.2). 3.1.5 Unnoticeability of Performance. Some have argued that Ezekiel's action of trembling (Ezek. 12.18) would not have been readily observable by the audience.35 But most of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's actions were of such a dramatic nature that their performances were certainly noticed. If one views the actions as being intentionally performed to communicate specific messages to the audiences, then even the trembling could have been carried out in a manner which was clearly observable (see Chapter 2 §1.12), just as mimes communicate emotions have been performed because they violated the legal injunctions imposed upon priests. For Ezekiel and Jeremiah, the importance of communicating a message to the people outweighed strict adherence to certain legal injunctions or social propriety. 33. For a discussion of some of Diogenes' actions, see Chapter 1 §5.2.5. See also Sayre 1938. 34. Cf. Wilson (1980: 283) on Ezek. 4-5. 35. Cf. Konig 1904: 175.

24

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

and feelings through overt and subtle gestures, facial expressions, and body postures. 3.2 Indicators of Real Performance The actions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel are not narratively presented as what the prophets did, but rather what the prophets were commanded to do. With the exception of the narratives of Jer. 32.8-15 (the purchase of Hanamel's field) and Jer. 51.59-64a (the scroll concerning Babylon) all of the actions are literarily reported in the context of divine command. Although Jeremiah's action of 32.8-15 was narrated as an account of what happened, the text explicitly notes that the action was performed because of divine injunction (vv. 7, 25). Even Jer. 51.59-64 is similar to the other literary descriptions in that it recounts only Jeremiah's command to Seraiah to perform the specified actions. Since almost all of the accounts are reception-language and not proclamation/performance-language, the actuality of the performances has to be derived from other indicators. Several types of indicators are found within the literary texts to confirm the actual performances of the deeds. The following indicators will be noted: (1) statements of the actions' execution; (2) the notations of the presence of eyewitnesses; (3) verbal audience responses which indicate a viewed performance; and (4) the application of the nomenclature 'sign' to the actions.36 Jeremiah 13.1-11 16.1-9 19.1-13 27.1-28.17

32.1-44 35.1-19 43.8-13 51.59-64a

statement of the execution of the command (vv. 2, 5, 7) NO CONFIRMATION eyewitnesses (vv. 1, 10) statement of the execution of the verbal message (v. 12) [inferred that such also subsumed under it the performance of the accompanying nonverbal action]; eyewitnesses (28.1-11); execution of the command (implicit in 28.12 of Hananiah's breaking the yoke) statement of the execution of the command (vv. 8-16); eyewitnesses (v. 12) statement of the execution of the command (vv. 3-5) eyewitnesses (v. 9) NO CONFIRMATION

36. In establishing the actual performance of legal Mesopotamian symbolic acts, Malul (1988: 23-29; similarly Viberg 1992: 9-10) uses a number of criteria

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

25

Ezekiel 3.24-27; 24.25-27; 33.21-22 4.1-3 4.4-8 4.9-17 5.1-4 6.11-12 12.1-16

12.17-20 21.11-12 21.13-22 21.23-29 24.15-24 37.15-28

term 'sign' (24.27); execution statement (33.22); eyewitnesses (24.27; 33.22) term 'sign' (v. 3) NO CONFIRMATION eyewitnesses (v. 12) NO CONFIRMATION NO CONFIRMATION statement of the execution of the command (v. 7); eyewitnesses (vv. 3-7); verbal audience response (v. 10); term 'sign' (vv. 6, 11) NO CONFIRMATION eyewitnesses (v. 11); verbal audience response (v. 12) NO CONFIRMATION NO CONFIRMATION statement of the execution of the command(v. 18); term 'sign' (v. 24); verbal audience response (v. 19) eyewitnesses (v. 20); verbal audience response (v. 18)

3.2.1 Statement that the Prophet Carried out the Divine Command?1 Statements which confirm that the prophets carried out the commanded actions are not sufficient by themselves to establish categorically actual performance since similar statements express the prophets' compliance in fulfilling a command while in the midst of vision experiences (cf. Jer. 25.17; Ezek. 3.2, eating the scroll; Ezek. 8.5, 8, 10, passim; Ezek. 37.7, 10). But the statements of command-fulfilment combined with other indicators lead to the conclusion of physical, and not visionary, performances. Conversely, the lack of a statement of the action being carried

including performability, performance (versus being a figure of speech), intention and solemnity, limited duration of execution, and an appropriate context. The latter involves 'The accumulation of contextual detail like the mention of witnesses, the situation and place where a legal transaction had taken place, and other "narrative" details, may be taken as auxiliary evidence for proving the performed character of some written remark' (25). 37. See Fohrer (1952a: 103; 1968: 81-82) who classifies the 'Bericht iiber die Ausfiihrung' as one of the 'selbstandigen Merkmale'; cf. also Matheney 1965: 23638; Woodard 1983: 80-82.

26

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

out, fails to prove that the action was not performed.38 Since the reports were narrated as divine commands to act, the theological presupposition of the text is undoubtedly the prophet's obedience to the divine word. So it is implicitly assumed that the actions were carried out, thus making, at times, the statements of performance unnecessary redundancies. In a similar manner, very frequently the literary form of the 'messenger formula' in which the prophet (or another person) was commissioned to deliver a message lacks an execution statement. But that omission does not imply that the entrusted message was not delivered.39 3.2.2 Presence of Eyewitnesses.4® Several of the sign-acts express, either in the command (Jer. 19.1, 10; 43.9; Ezek. 4.12; 12.3 [twice], 4 [twice], 5, 6; 21.11; 37.20) or in the report of the command-fulfilment (Jer. 32.12; Ezek. 12.7), that the actions were performed in the presence of audiences. The usual terminology for this is 'in the sight of (... TU1?) which in other passages has a technical meaning of a transaction being performed so that the spectators might legally bear witness to the fact of its execution.41 Because the sign-acts were rhetorically motivated, the spectators were not uninvolved witnesses merely testifying that the prophets had performed the actions, but were rather participatory witnesses in the communication events who were to respond to the personal and national implications of the messages. It is acknowledged that in its overall biblical usage, the phrase DTI/7 is primarily used idiomatically and not exclusively for a visual action. For instance, the phrase is used in the context of verbalization as in Jer. 28.1, 5, 11. But in Gen. 23.18 the phrase clearly indicated the visual nature in contrast to the audible nature expressed in v. 16 by D'OTtQ. Thus, in its generalized use, the expression indicates the presence of witnesses and thereby the actual performance, but not necessarily the nature, whether verbal or nonverbal, of the communication event, unless such is made clear by the specific context. 38. Contra Hines 1923: 55-56; Howie 1950: 79, 81; Konig 1892: 652; 1904: 175. 39. Cf. Schmidt 1982. 40. See Fohrer (1952a: 103; 1968: 18) who classifies the 'Angaben iiber Augenzeugen' as 'unselbstandigenMerkmale'. 41. Cf. DTJft in Gen. 42.24; Exod. 4.30; Deut. 25.9, and specifically the use for legally binding transactions in Gen. 23.11, 18 and Jer. 32.12 (cf. Reventlow 1959: 34-36).

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

27

There were undoubtedly audiences for all of the actions (even Jer. 51.59-64a; see Chapter 2 §1.7) even when such is not explicitly stated.42 The size of the audiences becomes secondary to the issue of the audiences' presence. 3.2.3 Verbal Audience Response. Sometimes the literary accounts report that verbal audience responses were elicited by the actions.43 Although indicating that there were witnesses to the prophetic sign-acts, the mere existence of verbal audience responses does not determine whether the prophetic messages were verbal or nonverbal, nor whether the inquiries about the messages were by first-hand observers/auditors or by those who heard second-hand about the proclamation events. But in several cases the content of the response demonstrates that nonverbal behaviors were observed by the inquirers, therefore providing substantiation that such were really performed.44 Ezek. 12.9: 'What are you doing?' This response indicates that the audience saw the prophet 'doing' something and did not just hear him verbally recount an experience. If the latter were the case, then 'What are you saying?' would have been more appropriate. Ezek. 21.12: 'Concerning what are you groaning?' The audience obviously heard the nonverbal paralinguistic sighing of the prophet. Ezek. 24.19: 'Will you not tell us what these things (mean) for us since you are doing (them)?' Again the audience focused on what the prophet was 'doing', not 'saying'. 3.2.4 Designation of the Actions as 'Signs' (DIN, D21Q). In Ezek. 4.3 the placing of the iron griddle (thus incorporating the whole model siege of 42. Contra Stacey (1990: 133, 138) who maintains that the lack of mention of eyewitnesses, as in Jer. 13.1-11, means that there was no audience which therefore indicates that the primary purpose of the sign-acts was not communication. 43. As to whether the citations of audience inquiry reflect actual responses made in the course of the prophets' performances or were merely stylistic devices employed in the literary compositions, see Clark (1984) who views the citations in Ezek. 12.9 and 24.19 as 'representative' of the people's view, 21.12 as 'simulated (?)', and 37.18 as'genuine (?)'. 44. This same type of description appears in the Deir 'Alia inscription (Combination 1, lines 3-4) where the people inquire of Baalam's nonverbal behavior of fasting and weeping asking him: 'Why are you fasting and crying?' (For text and translation, see Hackett 1980.) See also the audience verbal responses in the examples of the nonbiblical, nonverbal communication in Chapter 1 §5.2.5.

28

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

the city) is called a 'sign' (niN) for the house of Israel. In Ezek. 12.6, 11 when going out like an exile, in 24.24 when refraining from mourning at his wife's death, and in 24.27 when released from the speechlessness, Ezekiel is called a 'sign' (nsiQ). Since niN and DD1Q are frequent synonyms in parallel construction,45 in Ezekiel a strict distinction in meaning is unwarranted.46 The only distinction that can be drawn in Ezekiel is that HEJ1Q is reserved for the prophet himself47 and, by extension, his behavior which would or should be imitated by the people (12.6, 11; 24.24, 27).48 Yet in Ezekiel, ni« is also used for persons (14.8),49 in addition to inanimate miniature depictions (4.3) and sabbaths (20.12, 20). The terms, even in Ezekiel, can therefore be considered synonymous as to their basic meaning.50 45. Eighteen of the 36 occurrences of fiDlQ are in conjunction with flitf (Ezek. 7.3; Deut. 4.34; 6.22; 7.19; 26.8; 28.46; 29.2; 34.11; 13.2, 3; Neh 9.10; Isa. 8.18; 20.3; Jer. 32.20, 21; Pss. 78.43; 105.27; 135.9). Of the 18 remaining occurrences, 4 refer to the events in Egypt (Exod. 4.21; 7.9; 11.9, 10) which are referred to by either term (cf. especially where the snake turning into a staff is called HEJIQ in Exod. 7.9, but fritf in 4.8, 9, 28) and 2 refer to the 'sign' given Hezekiah of the sun moving back on the steps (called HS1Q in 2 Chron. 32.24, 31, but n1« in 2 Kgs 20.8, 9). The distinction of PID1Q being a negative portentous or a miraculous sign is therefore unwarranted (contra Rengstorf 1972:118). In Ezek. 4.3 and 14.8, the niniN were part of calamitous prophecies, and there was nothing miraculous about the person of Ezekiel to whom the term DS1Q was applied (12.6, 11; 24.24, 27). 46. Cf. Bailey 1991: 203-206, 210-11. 47. Although the distinction holds true for Ezekiel that only PID1Q was used of the prophet, it is not so in other prophetic books. In Isa. 8.18 DS1Q is used in parallelism with DiK in reference to Isaiah and his children, and in 20.3 in reference to the prophet when performing the sign-act of going naked to represent the Egyptians' and Cushites' captivity. 48. Blank (1974: 123-24) translates the term as 'paradigm' in that the prophet served as a visual analogy or example. Bailey (1991: 205-206) notes the coordination of prophets being called 'signs' almost exclusively in instances of performing sign-actions. Although he emphasizes that the 'the prophet and not the activity is called a sign' (205), he also notes that the prophets are designated 'signs' 'due to their connection with the particular activity in which they were engaged'. He then draws comparisons with similar language usage in other ancient Near Eastern omen texts. 49. See also Ps. 71.7 where the psalmist had become a nsiQ, and Ps. 86.17, an

ni». 50. The synonymous nature of the two terms in Ezekiel and the specific use of nitf in Isa. 20.3 in reference to a sign-action obviate Odell's (1998: 233) argument that the use of fritf in Ezek. 4.3 indicates that 4.1-5.4 are to be understood as part of

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

29

The primary characteristic of the two biblical terms, whether in secular or religious usage, is that the 'sign' was something perceived by the senses. As such, when the sign was an object, the stress was always upon visible apprehension,51 and when the sign was an event, upon participatory involvement.52 Auditory perception was not part of the sign's sensory mode of communication. 53 The visual aspect of signs is evidenced in the conjoined use of the verb n*O ('see'54) and in the signs being displayed in the people's sight (cf. Josh. 24.17, referring to the 'signs' God performed in Egypt and in the wilderness: 'He made these great signs [nln&n] in our sight [irrD^]').55 As applied to the prophetic the private initiatory rites of the preceding call narrative rather than activities performed in the public proclamation of the prophetic message. 51. Examples of visually observable 'signs' include those in Egypt (niX/nQin: Num. 14.22; Josh. 24.17), the altar splitting apart (HD1D: 1 Kgs 13.3, 5), heavenly signs (naiD: Joel 3.3; nit*!: Gen. 1.14), the staff becoming a snake (Tn'R: Exod. 4.8; nDID: Exod. 7.9), and the signs (iTinltf) of the rainbow (Gen. 9.12, 13, 17), circumcision (Gen. 17.11), the Passover blood on the door (Exod. 12.13), the signal banner (Num. 2.2), the censers on the altar (Num. 17.3), Aaron's rod (Num. 17.25), Gideon's fleece (Judg. 6.17), the stone memorial (Josh. 4.6), the growth of trees instead of briars (Isa. 55.13), and the altar (Isa. 19.20). 52. E.g. the sabbaths as signs (Exod. 31.13, 17; Ezek. 20.12, 20), the eating of the harvest (2 Kgs 19.29; Isa. 37.30), worshiping at the mountain (Exod. 3.12). 53. Cf. Anderson 1962: 349; Keller 1946: 56-57; Quell 1961: 292-93; Rengstorf 1971: 211-12. The only occurrence of either of the two terms in which a verbal message was the 'sign' is 1 Sam. 14.9-10 (HiR) where the enemy troops would tell Jonathan to wait or to proceed. Even in that case, the 'sign', rather than consisting of only a specific verbal content, was more generally that of a receptive or nonreceptive attitude toward Jonathan's approach which, in that particular case, was to be indicated in a verbal manner. (Cf. a similar situation in 1 Mace. 5.40-41 in which the indicator of military success or failure was completely nonverbal: whether Judas's army advanced across or halted at the river.) In Isa. 8.18, the sign incorporated the verbal names of the children, but was not solely confined to that aspect for the physical presence of the prophet and his children were also aspects of the sign (cf. Wagner 1997: 178). 54. Cf. Num. 14.22: 'Because all the men who have seen [D'tOil]... my signs [TDK]...'; Ps. 74.9, 'Our signs [ynniK] we have not seen [irtO »*?]'; Ps. 86.17, 'Make of me a sign [~1K] for good that those who hate me may see [iKT'iJ..." 55. Cf. Rengstorf (1971: 212), who also finds the visual character of the term niK expressed in the verbs related to the 'signs' occurrence: D'E, rrtD (cf. Exod. 10.1-2; Jer. 32.20; Pss. 78.43; 105.27—the latter three using both m'R and HD1D); and factuality suggested by HOT (Exod. 4.17; Num. 14.11, 22; Deut. 11.3; 34.11 [both ni« and H31D]; Josh. 24.17; Judg. 6.17; Ps. 86.17).

30

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

sign-acts, the terms connoted the nonverbal rather than verbal nature of the actions, and their ability to be observed visually which by extension implies the presence of eyewitnesses.56 The two terms for 'sign' also always indicate that the referent so designated served a functional purpose which was interactive and persuasive,57 in that, the intention of a 'sign' was to transmit understanding and to alter the observers' perceptions of the situation which would have an effect on subsequent beliefs and behaviors.58 The rhetorical aspect of the two lexemes is evidenced by their connection with the knowledge formula, 'and you/they shall know that I am Yahweh',59 for example, Ezek. 14.8; 20.12, 20; Jer. 44.29, and specifically with respect to the sign-acts, Ezek. 12.15, 16, 20; 24.24, 27. The sign served an epistemic function of imparting knowledge, but knowledge of a very specific type: recognition of God. This connection shows that the intent of the signs was not merely to produce intellectual understanding about God, but to be the catalyst in changing the observers' theological belief system. Ezek. 14.8 and Jer. 44.29 illustrate the rhetorical nature of a sign. The speech context of Ezek. 14.8, in which the idolater was said to become a sign, is a call to repentance (v. 6) indicating that the purpose of the sign was to motivate the addressees toward a change of behavior. The signs of Ezek. 14.8 and Jer. 44.29, when they actually occurred, were to be rhetorical proofs presented as part of the attempt to 56. Cf. Fohrer 1968: 83-84. 57. Cf. Exod. 4.8; Num. 14.11. 58. The interactive nature is seen in Helfmeyer's (1977: 170-86) other categories of the functions of DIN besides that of the 'sign-acts': impart knowledge (epistemic signs), provide protection (protection signs), motivate to believe and worship God (faith signs), maintain faith through remembrance (mnemonic signs), remind of the covenant (covenant signs), confirms something beyond itself (confirmation signs). See also Fox's (1974: 562-69) threefold categorization of: (1) proof signs 'whose purpose is to convince the onlooker of the truth of a certain proposition' (562); (2) symbol signs, including the prophetic sign-acts, which 'serve to make that event vivid to the consciousness by translating it into actions' (562); (3) cognition signs (subdivided into 'identity' and 'mnemonic' signs) 'whose purpose is to awaken knowledge of something in the observer' (563). On the interactive nature, see also Keller 1946: 57-59; Quell 1961: 294; Rengstorf 1971: 216. 59. On the knowledge formula, and its use in Ezekiel, see the articles in Zimmerli 1982b. On the occurrence of 'sign' and the recognition formula in other biblical passages, see Helfmeyer 1977: 171-75; Keller 1946: 58-59; Rengstorf 1971: 215.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

31

persuade the people to adhere to the belief that God was interacting in human history through acts of judgment.60 As the two 'sign' lexemes were used for Ezekiel's sign-acts, they can be similarly understood as visually observable depictions, in contradistinction to auditory messages, and which functioned rhetorically with respect to intent and purpose. The Hebrew designation of the actions as 'signs' thereby implies actual performance. 3.3 Unconfirmed Acts Those acts which have no explicit indicators reflecting actual performances can be assumed to have been physically carried out as well. If Jer. 15.17 ('I did not sit in the circle of merrymakers, nor did I exult; because of your hand, I sat alone') is a reference to the actions in Jer. 16.1-9, then the latter is confirmed through that statement of execution (see Chapter 2 §1.2). Even if that is not the case, there are no barriers to the actuality of Jeremiah's abstinence from marrying and withdrawal from certain customary social interactions. In Jer. 51.59-64, the narrative style of Jeremiah's giving instructions to his messenger leads to the conclusion that this was an act really performed by Seraiah upon his arrival in Babylon. Although no specific statements of confirmation can be adduced for the actions of Ezek. 4.4-8 and 5.1-4, when understood as part of the complex of actions of chs. 4-5 (see Chapter 2 §1.9), the confirming indicators of the term 'sign' in 4.3 and the reference to eyewitnesses in 4.12 can be adduced to substantiate the actual performance of all of the actions in the complex. The actions of Ezek. 6.11 (clapping, stamping the feet), 12.18 (trembling and quivering), and 21.17-22 (wailing, striking the thigh, clapping) were common nonverbal gestures and expressions whose actual performance need not be questioned. The marking of two ways in Ezek. 21.24-25 similarly involved no activity which could not have been easily performed. 3.4 Distinctive Language The actual performance of all of the sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel can also be adduced indirectly from the fact that the language used to recount the nonverbal behaviors is distinctive from that of visionary 60. Cf. Helfmeyer 1977: 175. Similarly McCullough (1962: 346) lists Ezek. 14.8 as an 'object lesson'.

32

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

experiences and verbalized messages. Such differences in literary presentation point to the texts' intention that the sign-act accounts be understood as actually occurring. 3.4.1 Language of Vision Experience. The recounted sign-acts of Ezekiel are the ones most severely questioned as to their actual performance, and often relegated to visionary or imaginary contexts. But within Ezekiel, the visions are clearly designated as such through distinctive vocabulary of 'visions', 'hand of Yahweh', 'Spirit lifting him up', 'looking/seeing'.61 Also some of the vision accounts incorporate specific injunctions that what had just been visionally experienced by Ezekiel was to be verbally communicated to those who had not experienced it (11.25; 37.12; 40.4). When Ezekiel performed an action in the midst of a vision (Ezek. 2.8-3.3, eating the scroll; ch. 8, going to the various parts of the Temple; 9.8, falling on his face; 11.4-13; 37.7, 10, prophesying), the context of a visionary experience was clearly stated. Such distinctive language of the visionary experiences of Ezekiel is totally lacking in the sign-act accounts with reference to the performances of the actions. The only sign-act which is found in the context of vision language is Ezekiel's speechlessness. In 3.26, the commencement of the speechlessness was communicated via the visionary experience (cf. 3.22: 'the hand of Yahweh was upon me'; 3.24: 'the Spirit entered me'), and in 33.22, Ezekiel had a visionary experience ('the hand of Yahweh was upon me') the evening preceding the cessation of the speechlessness which occurred the following morning (see Chapter 2 §1.8). But the speechlessness and the release from it were not executed during, rather, subsequent to, the visions. So the visions were the context of the prophet's reception of the announcements about the speechlessness and not the context of its performance.62 61. Ezek. 1.1-3.15: 'I saw visions of God' (1.1); 'the hand of Yahweh came upon him' (1.3); 'as I looked, behold' (1.4, 15; 2.8); 'I heard' (1.24); 'I saw' (1.27); 'the Spirit entered me' (2.2); 'the Spirit lifted me up' (3.12, 14). Ezek. 8-11: 'the hand of the Lord Yahweh fell on me' (8.1; cf. 8.3); 'I looked, and behold' (8.2, passim); 'the Spirit lifted me up' (8.3; 11.1, 24); 'brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God' (11.24). Ezek. 37.1-14: 'the hand of Yahweh was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit' (37.1). Ezek. 40-48: 'the hand of Yahweh was upon me' (40.1); 'in the visions of God' (40.2). 62. If chs. 4-5 are chronologically linked to 3.22-27, it may also be that the

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

33

Similarly in Jeremiah, the distinctive visual language of vision ('look', 'see', 'behold'—Jer. 1.11, 13; 4.23-26; 24.1, 3; 30.6) is lacking in the sign-act accounts. The distinctiveness in reporting types of experiences leads to the conclusion that the literary renderings of the sign-acts intend one to interpret the actions not as visions but as actual performances. 3.4.2 Language Enjoining Verbal Communication. The terminology used in the commands for the prophets to address the audiences verbally is different from the commands for nonverbal behavior in the sign-act accounts. In Jeremiah, the language commanding verbal pronouncement is clearly indicated by im (1.17; 7.27; 26.2), Kip (2.2; 3.12; 7.2; 11.6), TOR (5.19; 7.28; 8.4; 11.3; 13.12; 34.2; 39.16) and 13] (5.20). In Ezekiel, besides the terms im (14.4; 20.3, 27; 33.2), Km (6.2; 13,2; 21.7, 33; 25.2; 29.2; 30.2; 34.2; 35.2; 36.1; 38.2; 39.1) and 1QK (12.28; 14.6; 17.12; 28.2; 31.2; 33.10, 11, 12, 25), some specific types of verbal discourse are enjoined upon the prophet: 'propound a riddle' (rrpn Tin, 17.2), 'speak a parable' (^CQ *7fe?!?, 17.2; 24.3), "take up a lamentation' (nrp Stp, 19.1; 27.2; 28.12; 32.2). While the injunctive mood is employed whether enjoining a verbal message or a nonverbal action, the distinction as to the type of communication behavior is made through the terminology employed. The distinction in terminology is readily seen in those instances when, within the sign-act accounts, a command to verbalize is coupled with a command to act nonverbally.63 Ezek. 6.11: 'Clap your hand [nonverbal action], stomp your foot [nonverbal action], and say [verbal expression]...' Ezek. 12.1-16: There is a clear contrast between the commands for nonverbal action in vv. 3-6 and the verbal response to the people's inquiry of the meaning of the actions in vv. 8-11: 'Say to them...'

commands in those chapters to perform the sign-acts were also communicated to Ezekiel during the same visionary experience. But again the reception of the commands must be distinguished from the execution of the commands. 63. A similar form of command is found in Jeremiah in which the prophet was commanded to change his locale and then once having done so, verbally address the people: 'Go t"]1?!"!—a nonverbal action] and speak' (e.g. Jer. 2.2; 3.12; 28.13; 34.2; 35.2, 13; 39.16).

34

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Ezek. 21.11-12: 'Groan [nonverbal paralinguistic expression]... then you shall say [verbal expression]...' Ezek. 21.19: 'Prophesy [verbal expression] and clap [nonverbal gesture]...' Ezek. 24.15-24: The contrast is made between the nonverbal actions in vv. 16-17 and the verbal communication in vv. 20-24 ('Say to the house of Israel', v. 21). It should be noted that the commands to perform the sign-acts are given in similar terminology as are other commands for noncommunicative nonverbal actions whose real performance is not questioned (e.g. 'write' in Jer. 30.2; 36.2, 28). This use of normal, nonverbal terminology for the communicative actions enjoined in the sign-acts, which is distinct from the terminology for verbal communication, implies that the literary accounts of the sign-acts were intended to be understood as real performances. 3.5 Conclusion: The Sign-Acts' Actual Performance The sum of the arguments support the hypothesis that the literary accounts of the sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel report nonverbal behaviors which were really and publicly performed by the prophets as part of their prophetic ministries. This being the case, the actions can be defined more precisely as to type, function and purpose according to nonverbal communication theory. Even if one ends up disagreeing with the assumption of actual performance, the ensuing study has validity since it cannot be denied that the literary accounts of the sign-acts intendthe reader to assume that the actions really took place. Thus, even if one holds that the acts were visions or parabolic speech, benefit can be derived from this study by construing it as an analysis of the rhetorical functions and impact intended by the literary accounts. 4. Nonverbal Communication Model In analyzing a communication process, five aspects must be considered: (1) the level of the speaker's awareness and intention of the sign; (2) the primary function of the nonverbal behavior; (3) the coding of the communication signs; (4) the nature of the nonverbal behavior; and (5) the associated relationship between the verbal and nonverbal elements. The prophetic sign-acts are defined more precisely as nonverbal communication when analyzed according to these aspects. At this juncture,

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

35

the terminology used with reference to the five aspects of communication theory will be defined. The synthesis of the sign-acts and communication theory will be dealt with in Chapter 3. 4.1 Intentionality in Communicating In communication theory, intentionality is defined as 'the deliberate use of a nonverbal act to communicate a message to another interactant' (Ekman and Friesen 1969: 53).64 That information can sometimes be sent unconsciously is affirmed, but such is excluded by the definition of intentionality: 'Intentional nonverbal behavior must be... within awareness and the sender must want to send a message through his act' (Ekman and Friesen 1969: 54). The term 'intent', as employed in this study, will include both conscious awareness and deliberateness in using the nonverbal behavior to communicate a specifiable messagecontent. This definition of intent, as conscious performance by the sender, does not mean that the receivers will accurately acknowledge either the appropriate level of the sender's motivating intent or the meaning intended by the sender. Since an outside observer cannot accurately determine the sender's intent, by necessity the determination of intent depends on the evaluation of such by the sender. The primary considerations, with respect to intent, are whether the sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel are presented as intentionally performed, and if so, is such intent accurately ascribed to the prophets' motives. 4.2 Functions of Nonverbal Communication Nonverbal communication functions in three ways, which overlap for any single action: it is communicative, informative and interactive (cf. Ekman and Friesen 1969: 57). 4.2.1 Communicative. Communicative nonverbal behaviors are 'those acts which are clearly and consciously intended by the sender to transmit a specifiable message to the receiver... Presumed unconscious intentions to transmit a message are also excluded from our definition' (Ekman and Friesen 1969: 55-56). 64. On intentionality in communication, see also Harrison and Knapp 1972: 34445; Knapp 1978: 5; Nolan (1975: 113-17) who uses the term 'propositionality'; Scott 1980.

36

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The encoded meaning by the speaker of the message may be either idiosyncratic or shared (conventional). Ekman and Friesen (1969: 54) define idiosyncratic and shared meanings as: 'An act has idiosyncratic meaning if there is some regularity in the information associated with its occurrence but the association is peculiar to a single individual. An act has shared meaning if the information associated with it is common across some specifiable set of individuals.' 4.2.2 Informative. Informative behavior can inform the receiver of the sender's emotions, convey interpersonal attitudes (such as like/dislike, dominance/submission), and present personality (cf. Knapp 1978: 21). The information thus conveyed is not necessarily consciously transmitted by the sender.65 The distinctiveness of informative behavior is that it does not attempt to communicate a specific message-content, but informs of tangential and peripheral aspects associated with the speaker and primary message. Since the primary, conscious intent of the prophetic sign-acts was that of communicating messages rather than informing of the prophets' social status and interpersonal attitudes, the informative aspect will be dealt with in this study only as it relates to the rhetoric of enhancing the prophets' ethos. 4.2.3 Interactive. Interactive nonverbal behaviors are those 'acts by one person in an interaction which clearly modify or influence the interactive behavior of the other person(s)' (Ekman and Friesen 1969: 56). An interactive behavior has a persuasive aspect as it evokes responses, such as drawing the attention of the spectators (cf. Ekman and Friesen 1969: 64). In this study, the terms 'rhetorical' and 'persuasive' will be used as the characteristic aspects of the 'interactive' function of the prophetic sign-acts. 4.3 Coding of Nonverbal Behavior Nonverbal behavior is coded by the sender (encoder) as it is transmitted to the receiver (the decoder). Coding is the process through which the 65. Cf. Ekman and Friesen (1969: 55): This 'does not imply that the act was intended to convey the information it does, nor does it imply that the act was intended to convey any information at all, though it does. The term informative refers only to decoded meaning.'

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

37

sign is associated with its referent resulting in 'meaning' (cf. Nolan 1975: 111).66 A three-part continuum shows the principle of correspondence between the act and its meaning with the distinguishing feature of each kind of coding being the proximity of the code to its referent (cf. Ekman and Friesen 1972: 356; Knapp 1978: 10): Intrinsic

Iconic

Arbitrary

4.3.1 Intrinsic Coding: 'Index'. Intrinsic coding has the greatest correspondence between the sign and the referent, that is, 'the meaning of the act is intrinsic to the action itself; and the referent can be the code itself, that is, 'the act does not stand for but is its significant' (Ekman and Friesen 1969: 60). A sign which is intrinsically coded is called an 'index'.67 4.3.2 Iconic Coding: 'Icon'/'Representational'. Iconic coding involves a close resemblance between the sign and the referent. 'Acts which are iconically coded carry the clue to their decoding in their appearance; the nonverbal act, the sign, looks in some way like what it means, its significant' (Ekman and Friesen 1969: 60).68 Since the term 'icon' has other connotations in religious terminology differing from its usage in communication theory, the term 'representational' will be used in this study to designate the iconically coded prophetic acts.

66. In their studies of the prophetic actions, Amsler (1980: 195; 1985: 61-64) and Clerc (1985: 109-10) attempt to apply the schema of digital versus analogical coding to verbal and nonverbal communication respectively, but as Nolan (1975: 111-12) points out, some nonverbal communication can be digitally coded, so that the digital/analogical distinction is not adequate for precisely defining how nonverbal behavior is coded (cf. also Ekman and Friesen 1969: 60). 67. Cf. Firth (1973: 61) who defines 'index' as 'a sign directly related in fact to what it signified'. Cf. also Hawkes (1977: 127): an 'index' is 'something which functions as a sign by virtue of some sort of factual or causal connection with its object'. 68. Cf. also Hawkes 1977: 127. Firth defines an 'icon' as 'a sign that represents its object by resembling it' (1973: 61) and a sign in which 'a sensory likenessrelation is intended or interpreted. Change of scale or motion or dimension may be involved, since an icon is constructed as a physical or imaginative representation, suggesting a referent by a complex combination of elements' (1973: 75).

38

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

4.3.3 Arbitrary Coding: 'Symbol'/'Figurative'. Arbitrary coding has the least correspondence between the sign and referent in that there is no sensory resemblance between the two.69 A sign which is arbitrarily coded is referred to as a 'symbol'.70 To avoid misunderstanding between the term 'symbol' as defined in this study as an arbitrarily coded sign and its much broader use in previous studies of the prophetic actions,71 the term 'figurative' will be applied to those prophetic actions which are of this type of coding. 4.3.4 'Sign'. While the terms 'index', 'icon' and 'symbol' are defined by the type of respective coding, the term 'sign'72 is inclusive under which the above three types of coding are subsumed. It is acknowledged that there is not total unanimity regarding the above distinctions between 'sign', 'index' (intrinsically coded), 'icon' and 'symbol' (arbitrarily coded).73 But the distinctions, as presented above, provide clearer and more precise definitions which allow the prophetic sign-acts to be more accurately described and categorized as to their nature and function.74 69. Verbal behavior is of this type since words do not visually or audibly (with the exception of onomatopoeia) resemble the object being spoken of. 70. Firth (1973: 61) defines 'symbol' as 'a sign determined by its object only in the sense that it will be so interpreted—an allocation depending on habit, convention or agreement, or natural disposition of the interpreter' and (1973: 74) 'No sensory likeness of symbol to object may be apparent to an observer, and imputation of relationship may seem arbitrary'. See also Hawkes (1977: 127) that a 'symbol' is 'something which functions as a sign because of some "rule" of conventional or habitual association between itself and its object' and (1977: 129) '[the symbol's] relationship to [the referent] remains fundamentally arbitrary (or "imputed"...) sustained only by the structure of the language in which it occurs, and which is understood by its interpretant, and not by reference to any area of experience beyond that'. 71. Cf. Konig (1904: 170) who uses the two broad categories of an act 'performed for its own sake or an act executed in order to express an idea'. Then everything included in the latter category is called 'symbolic'. 72. Cf. Hawkes's (1977: 127) definition: 'A sign [or representamen} thus stands for something (its object); it stands for something to somebody (its interpretant); and finally it stands for something to somebody in some sense (this respect is called its ground): Cf. also Firth 1973: 74. 73. See, for example, Skorupski's (1976: 116-24) discussion of differing views about the various terms as to which type of coding each has reference. 74. Stacey (1990: 20-22) dismisses the use of both terms, 'symbol' and 'sign',

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

39

4.4 Types of Nonverbal Communication Even though verbal and nonverbal behaviors are not exclusively independent entities within the communication process but rather interact with each other to produce the total message,75 a distinction can be made so that the nonverbal elements can be analyzed separately and categorized according to their different types.76 The nonverbal communication types significant for this study 77 are: (1) body motions (kinesics), (2) artifacts, and (3) paralanguage. 4.4.1 Body Motions. Kinesic behavior includes gestures, movements of the body, facial expressions, eye movements, and posture. These bodily behaviors are further subdivided: (1) emblems, which are stylized movements with conventional meanings; (2) illustrators, which serve to illustrate what is being said verbally; (3) affect displays, which are the behavioral consequences of emotional states; and (4) regulators, which maintain the flow of the communication without bearing any messagecontent.78 with respect to these prophetic actions. He distinguishes between the two in that 'symbols are normally supposed to participate directly in what they represent', and that they 'do more than convey information' which is how he defines 'sign' (20). He further states that 'symbols have an inner, compelling power that signs lack. Symbols communicate through the senses to the unconscious and the response is profound, not entirely rational nor volitional' (21). But his definitions of the two terms deal only at the level of function (thus symbols are interactive, while signs are only informational), rather than with how the message is encoded. But it is the latter level of encoding which is foundational in producing the appropriate definitions. 75. Cf. Knapp (1978: 20): 'Nonverbal communication cannot be studied in isolation from the total communication process. Verbal and nonverbal communication should be treated as a total and inseparable unit.' 76. The following categories are taken from Knapp (1978: 12-20) with modifications from Cronkhite and Liska (1980: 109). For a similar categorization, see Brembeck and Howell 1976: 207-11. On other categorizations of nonverbal behavior, see Harrison and Knapp 1972: 346-47. 77. Nonverbal communication also involves proxemics and environment, chronemics (aspects of the temporal interaction between the communicants), tactile behavior (intercommunicant touching) and physical (nonmovement bound) communicator characteristics (e.g. physique, height, hair, skin color). But the biblical accounts of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts do not provide sufficient information on these aspects to warrant discussion in this study. 78. The category of 'kinesics' also includes 'adaptors' which are adaptive acts

40

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

4.4.2 Artifacts. Artifacts are the objects, external to the interactants, which the communicator employs as nonverbal stimuli to aide in the transfer of the message (cf. Knapp 1978: 19). 4.4.3 Paralanguage. Paralanguage incorporates the nonverbal elements involved in how something is said, not what is said. The paralinguistic elements (cf. Knapp 1978: 18-19) are divided into: (1) voice qualities and (2) vocalizations. The former involves elements such as tempo and pitch, rhythm, and articulation control. The latter is subdivided into: (a) vocal qualifiers (e.g. intensity, pitch height, and extent); (b) vocal segregates (e.g. 'uh-huh', 'um', 'uh', 'ah'); and (c) vocal characterizers (e.g. laughing, crying, sighing, coughing, moaning, groaning, whining, yelling, whispering, sneezing). 4.5 Coordination of the Verbal and Nonverbal Elements Within a communication event, the verbal and nonverbal elements of the message are coordinated both temporally and functionally. Whereas 'timing (chronemics)' involves the temporal aspects of speaker-audience interaction, this category refers to when and how the speaker conjoins the verbal and nonverbal elements in communicating the message. 5. Sign-Acts and Rhetorical Theory The rhetorical (interactive) function of the prophetic sign-acts was a significant part of the whole communication event, for the prophets were not merely trying to disseminate message content didactically but were attempting to persuade their audiences of a different way of viewing their situations and circumstances. Through the sign-actions, the prophets were trying to alter the people's perceptions, attitudes and behavioral patterns. Before analyzing the suasive purposes and effects of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts, it is necessary to deal with the theoretical issues of the definition of 'rhetoric', the reasons the sign-acts are to be considered rhetorical rather than having an inherent effectiveness, and the rhetorical model. maintained by habit, and therefore are unintentionally and unconsciously performed without correlation to the communication context (cf. Ekman and Friesen 1969: 8492; 1972: 361-64; Knapp 1978: 17-18). But this category is not pertinent to the study of the prophetic sign-acts.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

41

5.1 Definition of 'Rhetoric' When defined as 'the art of persuasion', 'rhetoric' is far broader than just analyzing structural and literary techniques,79 but must incorporate an analysis of how those features are utilized within the persuasive attempts by the sender and of the resulting effects upon the audiences. Thus the analysis of the rhetoric of the nonverbal actions is more than identification of types and description of the structural components and arrangement, but must include analysis as to how those features were used as suasive techniques in their various forms of interaction such as instructing, advising, arguing, ordering, persuading, threatening and warning. 5.2 Rhetorical Effect versus Inherent Efficaciousness Many studies dealing with the prophetic sign-acts, rather than viewing them as communication techniques designed for the purpose of audience persuasion, have viewed the actions' effectiveness as an inherent quality traceable to a relationship either with 'sympathetic magic' or with the supposed 'power of the spoken word'. In those studies, a signact's effectiveness is perceived as setting the depicted event in motion through the very performance of the action.80 This view is succinctly expressed by Bowker (1964: 130) that the prophetic act 'releases an event in miniature, it says that a particular consequence is not simply 79. Wuellner (1987: 451-52) calls the type of 'rhetorical criticism', which only deals with literary and structural patterns, 'rhetoric restrained' since it is the 'reduction of rhetorics to stylistics, and of stylistics in turn to the rhetorical tropes or figures. Reduced to concerns of style, with the artistry of textual disposition and textual structure, rhetorical criticism has become indistinguishable from literary criticism.' 80. On the sign-acts being associated with sympathetic magic or the power of the spoken word and being initiators of the depicted future reality, see Amsler 1980: 198; 1985: 47-52; Aune 1983: 100, 153, 374; Bourguet 1987a: 251-58, 44547; 1987b: 177-84; Bowker 1964: 130; Clerc 1985: 108-109, 132; Fishbane 1971: 185-87; Fohrer 1967: 250-53; 1968: 14, 19, 93-107; Fox 1912, 1913/14; Fraser 1974: 47, 51-53; Godbey 1923; Guillaume 1938: 170-74; Hals 1989: 33-34, 39-40, 77, 274-75, 354; Keller 1946: 49-50; Kooy 1962: 472-74; Lawhead 1985-86: 14; Lindblom 1962: 52, 54, 172; Lods 1927: 59; 1929: 173-75; 1950: 58-60, 240-41; March 1974: 172-73; Matheney 1965; 1968: 261; Paul 1971: 1158, 1162-63; Pilch 1981a: 107-108; von Rad 1962: 61, 74-76; Robinson 1927: 2-10; 1942: 132-33, 137; Rosen 1968: 44-48; Rowley 1963: 92-93; Vorwahl 1932: 68-69; Woodard 1983: 101-28, 137-38; Zimmerli 1965: 518-20; 1979: 55, 156.

42

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

possible, not simply predictable, it is unavoidable because it is already in being... It is the release of an inevitable circumstance which nothing can avert.' But, as will be shown, the assertions that the prophetic sign-acts incorporated inherent qualities of participation and effectiveness in carrying out their referents are based on questionable presuppositions.81 5.2.1 Presuppositions of Links with Magic or the 'Power' of the Word. The link with 'sympathetic magic' has been explained either as being an overt one, in that the sign-acts were sympathetic magic, or as a derivational one, in that the sign-acts originated out of 'sympathetic magic'82 but as employed by the prophets had 'overcome' and 'transformed' the magical elements.83 The 'overcoming' is explained as having occurred at several levels: (1) while the power of magic depended upon an inner power connected with it or with proper technical execution, the power of the sign-acts derived from God; (2) .while magic coerced or constrained the deity, the sign-acts were done at God's command; (3) magic often sought personal ends while the sign-acts were the divine will which, at times, even contradicted the prophets' personal desires; (4) magical acts relied on the present to bring the future into being, while the sign-acts brought the future into the present; (5) the magical act had an independent existence and function, but the sign-act was subservient to the proclamation of the divine word and thereby had a kerygmatic function. It is also argued that the 'transformation' did not obviate the sign-acts' inevitability of outcome; rather, it based the assurance of the outcome on different theological presuppositions, such as the divine promise.84

81. For arguments against the sign-acts having an inherent power, see van den Born 1935: 26-28; 1947: 34-36; Criado 1948; Lang 1978: 167-70; 198la: 278; 1981b: 86-87, 89; 1983a: 81-82, 88; 1985: 7-8; 1986: 301 (except for Jer. 51.59-64 and 2 Kgs 13.14-19); Ramlot 1972: 970, 972-73; Stacey 1990: 234-59. 82. Cf. Fohrer (1968: 10): 'Die prophetischen Handlungen stehen phanomenologisch in engem Zusammenhang mit uberall anzutreffenden magisch-zauberhaften Handlungen, in denen sie ihren Ursprung haben und aus denen sich ihre magische Ausftihrung und Wirkung ergibt.' 83. Fohrer (1967: 248, 251) speaks of a broken or dialectical relationship (gebrochene order dialektische Art) of the prophetic sign-acts to magic. 84. See Fohrer 1967: 251; 1968: 105-107, 114-18; Matheney 1965: 302-303; Stacey 1990: 268-75.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

43

The proposed ways in which the sign-acts have 'overcome' the magical elements are, with some modifications, potentially valid observations of the differences between magical acts and the prophetic nonverbal behaviors. But those observed contrasts need not reflect the process of transforming what was once a magical action into a nonmagical one. Rather, the differences may indicate an attitudinal difference toward actions perceived as magical and those intended as rhetorical communication. As such, regardless of any similarity in outward form, the noted contrasts could as well be used as arguments against the prophetic actions having a magical background. Some of the differences reinforce the view that the prophetic nonverbal communication was rhetorical in intent. The conclusion that the power to carry out the events depicted by the sign-acts resided with God (argument T, above), is a statement about the rhetor's authority: the prophet as the human rhetor, because he was God's messenger, was backed by the divine authority. Since the sign-acts did not coerce the deity (argument '2'), then they must have been audience-directed for the purpose of persuasion. Since the contrast between the prophets' personal desires and the messages of the sign-acts reinforced the divinely imposed nature of the actions (argument '3'), the messages' arguments were ones based on authority which should have enhanced the suasive impact on the audiences. Although the sign-acts depicted future events in the present (argument '4'), it can be argued that the purpose of such was not thereby to bring the future event into being, but rather to attempt to change the audiences' present beliefs and dispositions so that their personal futures might be thereby altered. Part of the 'kerygmatic' function (argument '5') was that of convincing the audiences of the proclamations. One of the major arguments for linking the prophetic actions to 'sympathetic magic' is that the primitive world-view was essentially magical-mythopic.85 Since it is assumed that the ancient Israelites shared such a world-view with the other 'primitive' ancient Near Eastern peoples, it is postulated that Israelite practices must have derived from such magical concepts. It is then argued that even though the magical elements had been overcome in the sign-acts, the original Sitz im Leben of magic can be detected through residues or survivals within the actions.

85. Cf. Fohrer 1967; Guiliaume 1938; Lods 1927.

44

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The whole theory that a primitive mindset must be magical is now dismissed by many recent anthropological studies of 'primitive' cultures, and the methodology of using 'survivals' for differing cross-cultural phenomena is recognized as being based on some erroneous presuppositions.86 Other studies have focused on the efficaciousness of the actions as being equated with the 'power' which the Israelites supposedly ascribed to the spoken word.87 It is proposed that the view of the efficacious word existed because of a lack of distinction between the word and its entity.88 It is argued that this is reflected in the Hebrew language because ~Q1 can be used for a verbal pronouncement or for a nonverbal thing, and in the biblical texts where the 'word' is treated as a substantive element.89 This concept of the 'efficaciousness of the word' has been perpetuated within biblical scholarship despite refutations of the concept from etymological and sociological studies. The view, that the 'power' of the word resided inherently in the word as an objective entity, is countered by the position that the power and ability to expedite resided rather in the speaker who was in a position of authority to carry out that which was stated (cf. Thiselton 1974: 29093). This accords with persuasion theory that the speaker's power, which is the ability to administer rewards or punishments, is significant in producing results (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 68). The position is also countered by the fact that words, such as blessings and cursings,

86. Against a magico-mythical world-view approach, see Douglas 1966; Munn 1973: 592; Rogerson 1978. On a critique of the 'primitive mindset' assumptions with specific reference to the prophetic sign-acts, see Lang 1983a: 88-89; 1985: 7-8; 1986: 303-304. 87. This has resulted in the sign-acts being referred to as 'visual words' (cf. Lindblom 1962: 171: verbum visibile). But this kind of designation clearly destroys the verbal/nonverbal distinction in the communication event, and therefore is unsuited for these nonverbal actions. 88. Cf. Rabinowitz (1972: 121): 'words and entities were felt to be necessarily and intrinsically connected with each other... To encounter the word was to encounter the entity, the reality designated by it... The word is the reality in its most concentrated, compacted, essential form.' 89. Cf. Jer. 5.14; 23.29 where the divine word is like fire; Jer. 23.29, the word is like a hammer which breaks rock; Isa. 55.11, it does not return empty, without accomplishing the divine desire; Hos. 6.5, the word slays and is like lightning; Ps. 107.20, the word heals; Ps. 147.18, the word melts ice.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

45

were performative.90 When spoken in the proper contexts following accepted conventional procedures, performative words actually 'do' something. But this is still to be distinguished from any 'power' which the word inherently has, for taken out of the proper context, the word becomes 'infelicitous'.91 Also, the argument that "Ql can mean both 'word' and 'thing', and therefore the two were indistinguishable in the minds of the Israelites, has been refuted on the basis of the nature of polysemy (cf. Barr 1961: 133-38; Thiselton 1974: 289-90). Also the arguments which are based on interpretations of the biblical passages where 'word' is referred to in some substantive manner and which thus conclude that the 'word' was an objective reality with an inherent power, result from overliteralizing language which is metaphoric description. In poetry, any concept or abstract thing could be hypostasized, but this did not mean that the poetic expression reflected the speaker's ontological understanding of the subject. Those who adhere to the assumption of an inherent power frequently postulate differing degrees of efficaciousness in bringing about the predicted future events. It is proposed that actions were more efficacious than spoken words.92 There is a rhetorical difference between verbal and nonverbal behaviors with respect to the effects on the audience. But the rhetorical nature of a behavior's effect on an audience is quite different from, and not necessarily due to, any 'inherent efficaciousness' in the format of the message's presentation. With respect to an action's efficaciousness, all that can be evaluated is the communicants' perspectives or attributions of such. As will be shown, neither the prophets nor the audiences viewed the sign-acts as inevitably bringing about the depicted future occurrences. This being the case, one need not postulate any inherent

90. For a definition and general discussion of 'performative' utterances, see Austin 1970, 1975; Hancher 1988. On 'performatives' as rhetorical constructs, see Benjamin 1976. For specific correlations of performatives: to the biblical view of the 'word', see Thiselton 1974: 293-94; to prophetic utterances, see Carroll 1979: 69-75; to biblical 'blessings', see Mitchell 1987; to prophetic sign-acts, see Button 1995. 91. See Austin (1975: 12-24) for the definition of what comprises 'infelicitous' occurrences of performatives. 92. Cf. Fohrer 1968: 92; Lindblom 1962: 52; Lods 1950: 241; Robinson 1942: 132-33.

46

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

efficaciousness, but rather attribute all effects of both verbal and nonverbal behavior to their employment as persuasive tools and devices designed by the prophets to elicit specific audience responses. The assumption of various degrees of effectiveness is also used as an argument for the 'false' prophets' similar nonverbalactions93 not hav ing an efficaciousness like that of the 'true' prophets. In other words, the events nonverbally depicted by the 'true' prophets would actually occur, while those of the 'false' prophets need not or would not occur. This line of reasoning is linked to the hypothesis that the degree of 'power' of a word was contingent upon 'the strength of the "soul" in which the words originated, of the person who uttered them or caused them to be uttered' (Rabinowitz 1972: 120).94 The hermeneutical ploy is then adduced that since the 'false' prophets were not sent by God, their actions were not efficacious. But this is an argument based on hindsight, for the immediate audiences probably could not have so clearly discerned who was a 'true' or 'false' prophet. In the confrontation of Jeremiah with Hananiah (Jer. 28), both prophets spoke in the name of Yahweh (28.2, 11, 13) and both performed nonverbal actions which depicted the theological positions which they proclaimed (Jer. 27.2; 28.10). How would the immediate audience have been able to know which of the two actions was efficacious, and thereby know which of the prophetic messages to structure their future lives by? The supposition of varying degrees of efficaciousness, to the point that a 'false' prophet's action had none, contradicts the basic hypothesis upon which the supposition of the actions' effectiveness is based. The words or actions cannot be considered efficacious in and of themselves if their effectiveness depends upon the performer. It is better to maintain a consistent perspective regarding the actions, regardless of the performers, as communication devices employed for their rhetorical impact upon the audiences. According to the latter hypothesis, a signact's impact on the audience was partly contingent upon the rhetor's ethos and abilities to reward or punish, not upon an 'inherent power' residing in the action itself.

93. The only texts which recount such actions by 'false' prophets are Jer. 28.10, Hananiah's breaking the yoke worn by Jeremiah, and 1 Kgs 22.11 (- 2 Chron. 18.10), Zedekiah's use of iron horns, in which he possibly placed them on his head to imitate the goring of the enemy. 94. Cf. also Lindblom 1962: 117.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

47

Some authors, while adhering to the actions' inherent efficaciousness analogous to magical rites or to the 'power' of the word, do acknowledge the performed sign-acts' suasive impact on the audiences.95 But attempting to maintain the two positions usually results in a diminishing or negating of the suasive importance. If a sign-act's effectiveness is considered to be inherent and not audience-bound, so that an audience did not even have to be present for the performance, then the suasive impact which necessitates an audience is negated. If the primary motivating factor behind the prophets' performances of the actions is considered to be 'setting the future events in motion', then the rhetorical impact becomes secondary and insignificant since the audiences' responses to what the prophets communicated would have an inconsequential affect on what happened in the future. But once the verbal words and nonverbal sign-acts are stripped of the nonexistent 'inherently efficacious power', then they can truly be considered 'rhetorical' communication devices.96 Thus the purpose and function of the sign-acts are to be found in the inherent need and desire to communicate effectively, rather than in the context of magical ritual. 95. Cf. Fohrer 1968: 91-92; Lindblom 1962: 172; Matheney 1965: 304. Mutton (1995) tries to take a mediating position between the two arguing that the sign-acts are a form of cursing which is a performative, thus being both illocutionary in that they 'have the power to "do things" because of the social conventions which form the context for this power' (257), as well as perlocutionary in that they elicit an affective response within the audience such as 'to modify behavior by clarifying the consequences of one's actions' (258). Although this is certainly a step in the right direction, Mutton still seems to work with the assumption that the sign-acts are predictive of what will happen in the future. Yet not all sign-acts are future-oriented (see Chapter 1 §5.2.3) nor do all of the sign-acts portray negative judgment, as implied by the term 'curse' (e.g. Ezek. 37.15-28 which would rather have to be a 'blessing'). Thus some of the sign-acts cannot be explained through Mutton's interpretative paradigm. 96. When Stacey (1990) denies that the sign-acts are inherently efficacious, he argues from a metaphysical perspective. He seeks to understand their relationship to future events as not being linear, cause-effect, rather the prophetic actions and the future events are 'different modes of expression' of the divine will (275-82). Although he acknowledges the rhetorical function of the prophetic actions (20-21, 280), he also dismisses the communicative and persuasive aspects (264-68); cf. Mutton's (1995: 255-56) critique of Stacey. By focusing solely on the metaphysical relationship between divine will, drama, and future event, he fails to explain how the sign-acts functioned specifically as communication in the context of proclamation.

48

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Rather than attempting to bring about historical events through prophesying about them, the primary motives for the prophets' transmission of their messages through nonverbal channels can be found in the desire to influence suasively the audiences together with the need to communicate the messages' contents in a comprehensible manner. 5.2.2 Actors' and Spectators' Views of the Sign-Acts. In arguing for a link with magic and therefore an inherent efficaciousness, it must be assumed that either the prophets and/or the audiences viewed the signacts as efficacious.97 For if neither the prophets nor the audiences viewed the actions as inherently 'powerful', then such refutes that perspective as being a valid way of interpreting the sign-actions. What is significant is that, as literarily recounted, the audience responses to the prophetic messages do not warrant the view that the audiences themselves viewed the prophetic words and actions as efficacious in the sense that the mere utterances or performances were sufficient to bring about the realities predicted. The people are characterized as not listening to (not heeding) the messages of Ezekiel and Jeremiah (cf. Ezek. 2.3-7; 3.7; 12.2; 33.31) or as discounting them (cf. Jer. 17.15; Ezek. 12.22; 33.30-32). The auditors frequently dismissed the prophetic messages as if they were optional advice, with the choice to heed the messages based upon the auditors' own dispositions at the time. Zedekiah requested words from Jeremiah (Jer. 21; 37.17; 38.14-28), yet once the prophetic words were given, Zedekiah felt no compulsion to alter his policy which would have resulted in different consequences (cf. 38.17-23). Similarly Jeremiah's answer to the people's request (42.143.7) was dismissed as a lie and not heeded without any apparent fear of negative repercussions for not complying with the prophetic advice. If the audiences considered the prophetic words and deeds efficacious, then certainly the people would have ascribed them greater credence.98

97. Cf. van den Born (1947: 35; also 1935: 27) who argues that whether an action is considered magical depends upon the intention of the actor: 'the difference between magical and symbolic action frequently only exists in the purpose of the person performing the action. Two people can do the same thing; it all depends what the personal attitude of those people is, whether the same deed means a magical action for one and a symbolic action for the other' (translated from Dutch). 98. Cf. Carroll (1979: 73): 'If there had been a belief in the magical power of the prophetic word or gesture in ancient Israel then we would have expected the prophets to have been taken more seriously than they appear to have been.'

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

49

Some commentators have proposed that Jehoiakim, in burning the scroll of Jeremiah's oracles (Jer. 36.22-24), thereby 'magically' or effectively counteracted any effect that the proclamations inherently possessed." But this action by Jehoiakim can be interpreted as being either an act of contempt toward the prophet and his message or that of a tyrant who did not desire the words of Jeremiah to be disseminated publicly. He therefore destroyed the only copy of the written text so that the oracles could no longer be properly remembered or repeated in their full form by the audience who had initially heard them (36.8). Thus the action was not 'counter-magic', but rather practical in nature. The king's reaction of not being afraid of the proclamations nor being sorrowful (36.24) indicates that the king did not view the written words as having any inherent efficaciousness about which he had to be overly concerned. It has also been proposed that Hananiah broke the yoke (28.10-11) to counteract, overcome and alter by his nonverbal action the reality already set in motion by Jeremiah's wearing of the yoke.100 First, this type of argument misinterprets the action of Jeremiah as being a predictive prophecy which Hananiah would need to nullify. But through the nonverbal action of wearing the yoke, Jeremiah was not depicting some event yet to be actualized in the future which contrasted to the present situation. Jeremiah was not predicting, but exhorting and arguing for the people of Judah to continue the present condition of subservience to Babylon instead of attempting to throw off the yoke as they were being counselled to do. Hananiah's action should be seen as a prophetic act in its own right, not as being 'counter-magic'. Just as Jeremiah had dramatically presented his case by wearing the yoke, so Hananiah wanted to communicate his prophecy dramatically and legitimate his authority as a prophet by breaking the yoke. Thus his action is a rhetorical counter-action done to nullify the persuasive impact of Jeremiah's act, not one which effectively countered any inherent efficaciousness of Jeremiah's act. 99. Cf. Carroll 1986: 667; Fohrer 1967: 262-63; Huey 1993: 328; Kessler 1969: 383; Nicholson 1970: 9; Paterson 1984: 44. Stacey (1990: 164-65) suggests that such a notion of instrumental effectiveness was present from the perspective of Jehoiakim and his supporters, but that such was not part of Jeremiah's theological or metaphysical viewpoint. 100. Cf. Carroll 1986: 537, 545; Fraser 1974: 47, 49-50; McKeating 1961: 51; Nicholson 1970: 96-97; Stacey 1990: 252, 266.

50

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Frequently the prophetic messages elicited responses which were directed against the prophets themselves and not against the messages (cf. Jer, 11.18-19, 21; 12.6; 15.15, 20; 18.18, 20-23; 20.1-2, 7, 10; 26.10-11, 16; 29.26; 32.2-5; 36.26; 38.1-6, 14-15; also 1.19; Ezek. 2.6). This indicates that it was the prophet's continued presence, not the already uttered word, that was considered a threat to the community. For example, Pashur's placement of Jeremiah in the stocks (Jer. 20.1-6) cannot be interpreted adequately as an act intended to counter any presumed power inherent in the prophet's announcement of destruction so as to prevent its occurrence101 since Jeremiah's arrest and spending the night in the stocks would not have affected the already spoken proclamation. As a punitive measure, the confinement of Jeremiah was a persuasive attempt to stop Jeremiah from any further utterances rather than trying to rectify past utterances. Similar are the other incidents where Jeremiah was arrested and imprisoned. In Jer. 29.26-27 when Shemaiah questioned why Jeremiah had not been put into the stocks and thereby rebuked, no comment was made about the punishment in any way thwarting already stated messages, but rather it was aimed at preventing further utterances. In Jeremiah 26, after proclaiming the destruction of the Temple, even the call for Jeremiah's death (26.11) cannot be understood in the sense that his death was tied to any belief of altering the judgment proclamation. Rather the audience perceived that the oracle was not inevitable, but conditionally based upon their response to it (26.17-19). In 38.1-6, Jeremiah's imprisonment in the cistern occurred specifically because his prophecies were causing the Judahite soldiers and citizenry (v. 4) to lose morale. The intent behind having the prophet imprisoned was not to counteract the words already spoken, but to prevent the public from hearing any more of his discouraging and seditious prophecies. There is no need to resort to views of any supposed efficaciousness of the word to explain the hostile responses against the prophets, since such reactions against rhetors are commonly associated with messages intended to persuade as noted by studies on psychological reactance (see Chapter 4 §3.2).102 The negative reactions were against persuasive 101. Contra Fraser 1974: 47; Lods 1927: 60; 1950: 59,186-87; Rosen 1968: 47. 102. On the motivational theory of psychological reactance, see Petty and Cacioppo (1981: 155-60), in which 'psychological reactance' is defined as the attempt to somehow reinstate one's 'freedom to act or hold a certain position' when one believes that that freedom 'may be or has been limited' (155).

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

51

messages which were of a high level of personal interest for the addressees and which were also radically discrepant from what the people desired to hear or believed would happen. The hostile responses of threatened, or actually inflicted, physical abuse on the prophet were aimed at preventing the prophet from further utterances and stemmed from a concern for the uttered messages' persuasive impact which could result in alterations in the people's morale and political stance. 5.2.3 Nature of the Sign-Acts as Prophecy. Prophecy is multifaceted with respect to the types of prophetic messages and to their resultant outcomes. Since the sign-acts are prophecy, this varied nature is applicable to them as well. When these factors are taken into consideration, it is obvious that the sign-acts cannot be categorized in toto as efficaciously bringing about the depicted events.103 The argument that the prophetic sign-acts were efficacious assumes that all the actions were of one type: they predicted future events. Fohrer (1968: 110) laid down the principle: 'There exists in the prophetic action no double symbolism, perhaps that of the present or past and moreover that of the future, but rather always a single symbolism as in magical action. It signifies an imminent event.'104 But all of the nonverbal behaviors did not depict events which were yet to come. 1. Some of the actions depicted past or current conditions rather than future conditions. Jer. 13.1-2, the wearing of the waist-sash, depicted the people as they had been in the past in their closeness to God. Ezek. 4.4-5, the lying on the left side, depicted the people bearing their sin during the preceding and current years.105 The eating of unclean food 103. Cf. Stacey 1990: 273-74. 104. 'Es liegt in der prophetischen Handlung keine doppelte Symbolik vor, etwa die der Gegenwart oder Vergangenheit und ausserdem die der Zukunft, sondern stets eine einfache Symbolik wie in der magischen Handlung. Es ist ein bevorstehendes Geschehen gemeint' (my translation). On the prophetic sign-acts only depicting future events, without consideration of other types of usage, see Fohrer (1952a: 120) that 'sie symbolisiert immer ein zukiinftiges Geschehen'; Wevers (1969: 14) that all of Ezekiel's 'concern future events'; Fox (1974) who categorizes the prophetic sign-acts as 'symbol signs' (566) which 'always inform by representing a future event in the human sphere' (576). See also Buzy's (1923: 3) definition of 'symbol': 'un signe, acte ou vision, ayant pour but de presager un evenment futur'. 105. As argued in Chapter 2 §1.9.1, the time reference of 390 years was to the period from the dedication of the Temple until its destruction. Even if one interprets

52

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

(Ezek. 4.12-15) and being scattered into exile (Ezek. 5.2) were, for Ezekiel's immediate exilic audience, a depiction of their present circumstances, although still a future experience for those remaining in Jerusalem. None of those actions reflected wholly future attitudes and actions which were not to some extent already present. 2. Some of the sign-acts were advice to the people of how they shouldrespond to the circumstances, not predictive of how theywould respond. Jeremiah 27, the wearing of the yoke, was not a portrayal of a future condition, but of the current experience which was the best posture in which the nations should continue so as to experience the least amount of adversity in the future (see Chapter 2 §1.6). It is also argued in this study (see Chapter 2 §§1.13 and 1.14) that the actions of Ezek. 21.11 (groaning), 17 (crying out, striking the thigh) did not represent the people's future emotional reactions which they would perform when the destruction occurred, but rather were admonitions of how the people should be reacting in the present to the sinfulness and to the news of the coming destruction. The speechlessness of Ezek. 3.2627 reflected how the people should currently be responding in their relationship to God (see Chapter 2 §1.8). Ezekiel's lack of mourning at his wife's death (Ezek. 24.16-17) was advice and an exhortation of how the people should act in the future at Jerusalem's destruction. Thus the sign-act did not depict how the people would react. Since the action was a form of advice, its performance could not inevitably bring about the depicted reaction, for that rested solely on the people's prerogatives. 3. One of the nonverbal prophecies was a comparison. Jeremiah 35, the offering of wine to the Rechabites, contained no actions which can be interpreted as future-oriented, but rather the nonverbal behaviors illustrated the Rechabites' faithfulness so as to bring an indictment against the past and current unfaithfulness of the Judahites (see Chapter 2 §1.5). The very nature of the act as creating a comparison removes it from being predictive in nature. Thus a number of the nonverbal sign-acts cannot be subsumed under the category of depicting future events. Since they did not depict future events, the argument of efficaciousness and inevitability of the events

the action as a reference to the exile of the Northern Kingdom, this does not obviate the fact that the referent involved a past time period which extended into the present.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

53

depicted is misapplied, and those actions must be explained from another perspective. Even though those actions were of different types— they depicted past events, they were advisory, they created comparisons—they still all served the same function: they were devices to communicate messages nonverbally and persuasively. Rather than segmenting or singling out those actions which did predict future happenings and then assume that they are the paradigm by which the function of 'sign-acts' is to be understood, it is better to have a paradigm under which the various types of sign-acts (advice, comparison, warning, future-oriented) can be incorporated. The best paradigm is that of understanding all of the sign-acts as having a communicative and rhetorical function. This then removes the necessity of viewing the primary function of the future-oriented sign-acts as inaugurating the depicted events. Viewing the future-oriented sign-acts as not inherently efficacious also is consistent with the functional nature of future-oriented verbal prophecy. A very mechanical view of prophecy results when verbal or nonverbal prophecy is thought inevitably to set in motion the prophesied historical realities. But if the prophecies were viewed as inevitable and irrevocable, then why did the prophets, once having declared the coming judgment, continue to preach? Since 'inevitability' is not a matter of degrees, once the message was proclaimed, what more could be said or done to assure the coming judgment? For example, Jeremiah's prophecy of Jerusalem's total destruction, nonverbally depicted through the shattering of the earthenware jar (Jer. 19.1-13), was given, most probably, during the reign of Jehoiakim. If the people could not alter the future event thus nonverbally depicted, what purpose or benefit were the subsequent prophecies about the same topic? The subsequent oracles could not reinforce the 'inevitable fulfilment' of the previous oracle in the sense of making it any more inevitable. But subsequent repetitions of the same message do affect the hearers by making them aware of the coming judgment, by indicting them for their behavior, and by declaring that they bore the responsibility for the judgment, and giving the possibility for the people to change. But that latter purpose is almost exclusively rhetorical in intent. So the repetitious nature of the prophecies suggests that they served a rhetorical function. The multifaceted nature of prophecy also included the aspect of conditionality, either in an absolute sense (i.e. proper audience response would completely negate the calamity or the promise) or in a temporary

54

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

sense (i.e. the proper audience response would divert the calamity or promise to a subsequent period). When a prophecy was conditionally contingent, the motivation for giving the prophecy primarily incorporated functional and rhetorical aspects in that the public proclamations were designed to create the necessary behavioral and attitudinal changes within the audiences so that either the judgment could be averted or the promise realized. If the future-oriented sign-acts were perceived as contingent, then they would have been interpreted as that which would imminently occur only if there was not an appropriate, responsive change by the people. Although it is very difficult to determine exactly which future-oriented sign-acts were considered contingent when the accompanying verbal proclamations did not hint of conditionality, the possibility exists that all prophecies which were based on the outworkings of the blessings and curses of the covenant obligations were considered such. Within Jeremiah there are indications that prophecy was considered contingent even when the conditional aspect was not verbalized. Jeremiah 18.7, 9 present straightforward predictive prophecies, yet vv. 8 and 10 imply that the conditional aspect was certainly in effect. That Jeremiah, as well as the spectators and auditors of his oracles, viewed at least some of his prophecies as contingent can be seen in several passages. In the Jeremiah 26 account of the Temple sermon, which is dated to the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim (26.1), v. 3 expresses the conditional nature of the following judgment upon the Temple (cf. also v. 13 and 7.4-6). The audience's response also understood Jeremiah's threat in the same context of conditionality as Micah's previous judgment statements, that it would not inevitability come about (vv. 16-19). Jeremiah 36.3 and 7, during the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign (36.1), express the possibility that the people would turn from their evil ways, with the implication being that God would then change his course of action. When Zedekiah approached Jeremiah during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem his inquiry expressed the hope that perhaps the Lord would yet change his mind (21.2). The attitude in this case indicates that the prophetic messages of doom were perceived to be in some sense contingent, if not upon the people's behavior, then upon the mercy of God. In some of Jeremiah's messages to King Zedekiah (21.1-10; 34.1-2), no conditional aspect was given, but merely the judgment that the city would be burned. Yet in a subsequent message (Jer. 38.17-23) the view

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

55

was expressed that if Zedekiah surrendered, the city would not be burned with fire and he and his household would live.106 From the latter passage it can be deduced that chronologically antecedent prophecies must have been considered conditional, even when the contingency aspects were not explicitly stated. Since Jer. 38.17-23, with its conditional nature, was given years after the future-oriented sign-acts of shattering the jar to depict the destruction of the city (Jer. 19.1-13) and of not having a wife and not attending funerals or feasts (Jer. 16.1-9) to depict the calamitous postdestruction situation, the possibility remains that the previously enacted sign-acts should be viewed as containing an implicit conditional aspect as well. In Ezekiel, the same conditional aspect to the declaration of a divine sentence of judgment is found. In Ezek. 3.17-21 and 33.12-19 (cf. 18.21-32) the declaration is given in unqualified terms that the righteous will live (33.13) or that the wicked will die (3.18; 33.14). But the point of the argument is exactly that the subsequent behavior of the individual can totally negate the divine pronouncement which initially appeared inevitable. These passages provide a theological framework for understanding the divine declarations given by Ezekiel as contingent upon the human response. It has frequently been noted that Ezekiel's prophecies about the coming destruction and exile were more uncompromising in tone than Jeremiah's. But before thereby assuming that Ezekiel's sign-acts were depicting inevitable events, the rhetorical strategies of addressing an exilic audience must be taken into consideration. Many of Ezekiel's prophecies employed the rhetorical strategy of 'indirect address' which is the strategy of the prophet speaking as if he were directly addressing the Jerusalemites but yet being overheard by the exilic audience. Yet the real force of the messages were the unexpressed ramifications for his immediate exilic audience. The nonverbal depictions of the coming judgment upon Jerusalem (4.1-3, 7, 9-11; 5.1-2; 12.1-16; 12.17-20; 21.24) employed such a form of 'indirect address' since they did not depict the conditions Ezekiel's immediate audience would experience. For rhetorical purposes they were presented as inevitable occurrences because the immediate exilic audience was not in any position to alter what happened in Jerusalem—only the Jerusalemites (Jeremiah's audi106. Cf. Kessler (1965: 62-68, 73-75) who discusses the hortatory nature of the five 'contingent' or 'conditional' oracles found in Jer. 26-29, 32^1-5 (i.e. ch. 27; 26.1-6; 38.2, 17-23; 42.7-22).

56

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

ence) could alter such by their behavior. In contrast to Jeremiah's 'direct address' which served the suasive function of warning the people of the coming judgment, with the intent that the people, through behavioral changes, could, to some extent, alter God's judgmental dealings with the city,107 the purpose of Ezekiel's 'indirect address' in depicting future events in Jerusalem served a different function of attempting to persuade the exilic audience to divest itself of its hope for an imminent return. Because of the rhetorical strategy being employed, Ezekiel's sign-acts cannot be considered totally unconditional in nature.108 Even if Ezekiel and Jeremiah may not have held any hope of the people repenting and thereby commuting the sentences of judgment, the prophets' personal expectations would not have obviated the conditional nature of the prophecies themselves. Of importance for understanding the conditional nature of the signacts is the one recorded prophetic sign-act of the New Testament (Acts 21.11). Upon Paul's arrival in Caesarea Maritima, Agabus took Paul's belt, bound his own feet and hands with it, and stated that in like manner the person who wore the belt would be bound at Jerusalem. In vv. 12-13 the people begged and implored Paul to abandon his visit to Jerusalem. The people's response to the prophetic action clearly reflected the notion that the depicted event was not considered inevitable, 107. Cf. Gitay (1996: 221-25) who speaks of the rhetorical strategy of prophetic oral proclamations of verbally describing potential situations in order to persuade the audience to a change of behavior. 108. This line of argument is also of significance for Raitt's (1977: 35-49) discussion of the sequential development of the radicalization process of the judgment messages between Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Although Raitt acknowledges the rhetorical motive eliciting Ezekiel's use of the judgment theme (48: 'Because those who had gone with him into Exile based their hopes not upon God but upon Jerusalem's escaping destruction and quickly returning from captivity, Ezekiel had to proclaim the destruction of Judah in the most uncompromising terms'), he overlooks the implications of Ezekiel addressing an audience physically removed from the events in Jerusalem. Because of Ezekiel's exilic locale, calls for his immediate audience to repent so as to alter what happened in Jerusalem would have been totally meaningless and inappropriate. The messages which portrayed the coming events in Jerusalem were used to foster attitudinal and behavioral changes in conjunction with the immediate audience's own future in the exile. The inevitable tone of Ezekiel when speaking about the coming destruction is thus explicable upon the basis of the audience addressed and the rhetorical purpose for speaking of the judgment, and may not be as much the result of a linear development as Raitt assumes (36).

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

57

but would occur only if Paul persisted in his present course of going to Jerusalem. By their entreaty, they assumed that not going to Jerusalem was a viable option which would obviate the events depicted by the sign-act. Even though the sign-act did not present the events as being contingent in nature, the audience understood them to be such. By analogy, even though the sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel did not explicitly contain declarations of their conditional nature, this does not necessarily mean that they were considered inevitable. The above arguments do not categorically demonstrate that all of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's future-oriented sign-acts were considered conditional, but they do show that some prophecies were considered such, thus creating that possibility for the sign-acts. As such, the events depicted by the future-oriented actions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel would have been considered inevitable only if the people persisted in their breach of the covenant relationship with God.109 If all of the acted prophecies are viewed as inevitably bringing about the events because of a supposed inherent power, then any functional aspect, outside of the dissemination of information, becomes irrelevant, and both the nonfuture orientation of some of the actions and the conditional aspect of the future-oriented ones are denied. So in order to deal with all of the sign-acts in a consistent manner which accommodates both the varied types of the sign-acts and the conditional nature of future-oriented prophecies, it is better to analyze the sign-acts from the functional standpoint of suasive communication techniques.110 5.2.4 Ritualistic versus Idiosyncratic Actions. Since the sphere of magical ritual is only one of the multifarious contexts in which nonverbal

109. In some ways, they thus functioned like the conventional nonverbal actions in ancient Near Eastern treaties which depicted what would happen only if the parties breached the treaty. The depicted conditions were inconsequential as long as the treaty obligations were faithfully adhered to. 110. The approach here is thus similar, in this respect, to that of Borchardt's (1990) as he deals with 'doomsday speculations' (of which biblical judgment prophecies are a subcategory), that they have a rhetorical purpose even when such is not explicitly stated: 'If they pretend to be assertions pure and simple, they deceive because they actually represent a means of coercion, a persuasive strategy to get others (or the world) to do something or stop doing something... Speculation about the end of things is therefore a discourse of persuasion and, like all such forms of discourse, it employs a strategy of persuasion—"a rhetoric" ' (2).

58

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

elements are used,111 the nonverbal communication of the prophets need not be automatically relegated to the same conceptual paradigm. Just because the prophets carried on 'religious' functions and performed within the 'religious' sphere does not make them ipso facto practioners of magical or quasi-magical practices. Also, just because the simileform of relating sign to referent, which is employed in the prophetic sign-acts, is found in enacted rituals of the ancient Near Eastern magical texts and the curses of vassal-treaties,112 it does not mean that the sign-acts' original Sitz im Leben was magical rituals.113 The simile-form of expression is so common and so varied as to contexts of usage that it is not evidence of an organic link. So neither the external form nor the religious nature of prophetic sign-acts necessitates interrelatedness with respect to use or origin between them and enacted curses in treaties or magical rites. Many studies of the prophetic sign-acts have drawn the lines of distinction between nonverbal behaviors according to a religious/secular dichotomy. Therefore, the distinction was made between the uses of nonverbal behavior by the prophets to declare the divine will and by other persons to express ideas on secular issues.114 This resulted in the propensity to liken the sign-acts to ritual actions performed in religious contexts.115 What was overlooked is the distinction between conven-

111. On the various settings of ancient Near Eastern nonverbal communication, see Gruber 1980. 112. On the nonverbal aspects of the vassal treaties, see Millers 1964: 18-24. 113. Contra Fohrer (1968: 12-14; 1967: 250-51), Matheney (1965) who compare the magical texts of Maqlu and Surpu. 114. Fohrer (1968) distinguished between profane actions, which symbolized and taught but did not establish a result, and the prophetic acts which, because of the attached divine promises, were certain of their results. According to Fohrer (1968: 105), the profane actions contained no magical elements and therefore are not to be equated with the prophetic actions. Similar is Keller's (1946: 99-100) conclusion that the prophetic actions were 'revelation-' (Offenbarung-) or 'oraclesigns' (Orakelzeichen), and therefore not to be equated with 'gestures' (Gesten). Also Konig (1904) uses the divisions of secular actions and religious actions, placing the prophetic acts in the latter category along with ritual and cultic actions. All of these distinctions are based solely on a religious/secular dichotomy of contextual usage and not upon the functional aspects of the nonverbal behaviors. 115. Cf. Robinson (1942; 1946: 227) and Rowley (1963: 91-92) who stress the connection between prophetic and cultic ritual acts. Fohrer (1968) draws the majority of his examples for comparison from cultic rituals.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

59

tional (ritualistic) and individualistic (idiosyncratic) actions.116 There is a clear distinction between those actions which are formal and those which are informal, regardless of whether the contexts are religious or secular. Ritual (both religious and secular) action is often emblematic, stylized in performance, standardized in meaning, with that meaning being clearly understood by the participating culture-group, and performed only within the contexts of particular circumstances, such as mourning, performing sacrifices and other cultic activities,117 covenant making, rites of passage in life, and confirming legally binding commitments.118 From a perspective of communication theory, rituals are primarily interactive or informative. Religious ritual interactively affects the actor119 while informing of the actor's relationship to the deity. Secular rituals are often informative, indicating one's status or relationship to the other person in the interaction.120 In contrast, individualistic (idiosyncratic) acts are not stereotypical and frequently arise out of particular exigences of the moment to communicate messages. Since the acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel were idiosyncratic in their performance or in context of usage, comparison with ritualistic actions so as to derive their meanings does not give adequate credence to the uniqueness of the prophetic communicative 116. In studies of the prophetic actions, van den Born (1935: 3-8), Lang (1978: 170; 1981a: 278; 1983a: 88; 1986: 305), Swidler (1981: 185) make this distinction, classifying the sign-acts as 'unconventional'. Viberg (1992: 11-12), in dealing with Israelite 'legal symbolic acts', also draws this distinction between legal acts which are conventional and the prophetic acts which are 'non-conventional / innovative'. 117. For biblical gestures of worship, supplication and prayer, see Gruber 1980: 22-181. 118. On legal actions in Israelite culture, see Viberg 1992; in Mesopotamia, see Malul 1988. 119. See Munn (1973: 593) on ritual and 'symbolic instrumentation' which is the connection of ritual symbols with specific aims and immediate imperatives in the sociopsychological situations of the actors. 120. Krout (1971: 18), when speaking of ceremonial and ritual actions, notes that their 'general aim is group unity and group security'. There are several examples of conventional, biblical behaviors which indicated social status and interpersonal relationships: dominance was expressed by placing the foot on the conquered enemy's neck (cf. Josh. 10.24; Isa. 51.23; Ps. 110.1); a hole was placed in a slave's ear to indicate the slave's perpetual status as a slave (cf. Exod. 21.6; Deut. 15.17); friendship was expressed through a handshake (cf. Jer. 50.15; Ezek. 17.18; 2 Kgs 10.15; Ezra 10.19; Lam. 5.6; 2 Chron. 30.8).

60

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

actions.121 The dichotomy based only upon a religious/secular premise, without the situational context of the conventional/idiosyncratic factor being taken into consideration, has often led to adducing meanings for the prophetic acts which may have been quite foreign to the intentions of the idiosyncratic acts. Even for an emblematic action, what it means within one established ritualistic/conventional context might be quite different from its meaning when used in another conventional context, and different still when used in the communication process by an individual outside of the ritual context.122 An example of the importance of situational context for determining the proper interpretation of an act is seen with respect to crying: within the context of a funeral, it is probably an affect display for sorrow, yet in the context of greeting a friend, it probably displays joy. Due to context, the same action indicates totally opposite feelings.123

121. This is contra Robinson (1942: 133) who argues that the prophetic actions were not spontaneous expressions but rather stereotypical actions, and that it is only because there are not enough accounts preserved that the stereotypical nature is not apparent. He suggests that if there were more accounts, it would be found that the prophetic behaviors were 'conventional and stereotyped'. But there is no basis for this argument from silence and the accounts we do have, in which no two actions are alike, indicate the contrary conclusion. Because Stacey (1990: 23-48) does not adequately take into account the functional and meaning differences between individualistic and conventional actions, he merely defines the distinguishing characteristic of 'conventional actions' as 'their formality and artificiality'. Since prophetic sign-acts are 'contrived and artificial acts', he then sees that 'it is appropriate to look for parallels among conventional forms' (23). He does acknowledge that due to the single performance of the prophetic act in contrast to the standardized repetition of conventional acts, 'the parallel is by no means perfect' (23). To his credit, he focuses on drawing parallels at the conceptual level, so as to determine the mode of thought by which prophetic sign-acts are to be understood, rather than on specifics of external similarities. 122. Fohrer's work (1968), when using comparative examples, has two major weaknesses in methodology. First, Fohrer failed to take into account the situational contexts. Noting contextual differences is necessary in order to differentiate between the actions' types of coding and primary functions. Secondly, he failed to take into account the cultural contexts of the nonverbal behaviors. For Fohrer, the situational and cultural contexts seem to have been irrelevant for his comparisons as long as there were some external similarities with the prophetic actions. That methodology of comparison is faulty for it assumes a specifiable meaning for a nonverbal act regardless of its situational or cultural contexts. 123. This concept becomes very significant for Ezekiel's clapping in 6.11 and

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

61

Distinctions between the idiosyncratic use of nonverbal behaviors in the religious realm and idiosyncratic use in the secular realm are not found in the communicative and interactive purposes, but rather occur in the perceptions of the messages' origins (i.e. in the religious realm the message has a divine origin while in the secular, a human origin) and of the communicators' roles (i.e. in the prophetic context, the prophet is merely the messenger, not the originator of the message, whereas in the secular context the rhetor is both speaker and source of the message). 5.2.5 Comparison with Other Examples of Nonverbal Communication. There are numerous ancient examples of idiosyncratic nonverbal behaviors used in nonreligious, nonmagical contexts where the intent was clearly that of communication and persuasion. The cited examples are not an exhaustive listing, but are rather representative for the purpose of making typological comparisons. The majority of the ancient examples are from secular or non-prophetic settings. But they still provide valid typological comparisons to the prophetic actions since the religious/secular dichotomy is not paramount for determining type of communication usage and purpose. It is not at all assumed that the performers of the nonverbal communication, who existed in diverse chronological and geographical settings, shared similar cultural, religious or philosophical views. Rather the point of the comparisons is to show how idiosyncratic nonverbal communication is an intrinsic part of human experience irrespective of religious or secular contexts, and that just as those cited examples arose out of the innate need to communicate which engenders both verbal and nonverbal means of expression, so too the prophets' sign-actions can be understood in a similar way. Both of the following cited biblical examples are individualistic nonverbal behaviors which were communicative and interactive in their primary functions. In 1 Sam. 11.1-7, it is recounted that in response to the request of the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead for help against the besieging Ammonites, Saul took a yoke of oxen, cut them into pieces and sent the pieces throughout Israel with the message: 'Whoever does not come out after Saul and after Samuel, thus shall it be done to his oxen' (1 Sam. 11.7). The motivating factor behind the action was to stir the people to action (interactive), but the artifacts in the nonverbal 21.19, where, because of the situational contexts, the gesture needs to be differentiated in meaning from that in Ezek. 25.6 (see Chapter 2 §§1.10 and 1.14).

62

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

behavior also communicated a message-content in a representational manner. This action was also contingent in that if the people responded to the request, the nonverbally depicted action would not happen. In 1 Sam. 20.20-22, 35-39, the action of Jonathan shooting arrows beyond his servant was a previously agreed upon sign between himself and David. The combination of the nonverbal action, performed with the artifacts, and the verbal statement to the servant, which expressed direction, was clearly designed to communicate a message. The nonverbal action was figurative, but idiosyncratically coded as such: if the arrows went beyond the servant, David was to go away from the place, whereas if the arrows were between Jonathan and the servant, David was to draw near. In this case the intent was to communicate a message, but the message had interactive ramifications in that David was to respond appropriately according to the placement of the arrows. This action did not depict an inevitable result, but was advice as to what David should do based upon the circumstances of Saul's disposition toward him.124 In Mari text 206 (Durand 1988: 434-35; Huffmon 1997: 13-14), there appears to be the sole extant ancient Near Eastern extrabiblical account of a prophetic sign-act. In that text, an ecstatic prophet of Dagan demands a lamb to devour (11. 9-10), which he does devour uncooked in front of the gate (11. 11-12). After gathering the elders (11. 13-16), he then speaks to them the message based on the word-play, that there was coming a 'devouring' (1. 18). There are numerous similarities to Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's prophetic sign-acts.125 Significant to note is that this Mari prophet's action was publically performed, followed by a publically declared verbal message. The nonverbal was coordinated with the verbal message through an implied simile-form: just like the prophet had devoured the lamb, so

124. Van den Born (1935: 6; 1947: 13-14) compares this action to 2 Kgs 13.1417 and sees it as being originally an 'oracle-of-arrows' whereby Jonathan wanted to expose what God's will was. But this was not the case, for Jonathan's shooting of the arrows was a prearranged sign between the two and was based upon Jonathan's discerning Saul's disposition toward David in the latter's absence. 125. See Gordon (1995: 77) who views the Mari sign-act as being 'within the bounds of familiar or accepted behavior for prophets in this Mari region', and thus the implications of this parallel for understanding the Old Testament prophets' signact performances as being part of both their self-conscious 'prophetic' behavior as well as the societal perception of them as 'prophets'.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

63

there would be devouring, probably referring to pestilence. Thus the prophet's eating of the lamb figuratively represented the devastation which would come. Like many of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts, the nonverbal action preceded the verbally coordinated message. Clearly the Mari prophetic nonverbal communication depicted a conviction or perspective of what would happen in the future. Yet, the ecstatic's final instructions to return the forbidden material and to expel from the city anyone who made an assault (11. 20-22) imply that the devastation could be avoided if appropriate actions were taken. Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean literature provides many examples of idiosyncratic nonverbal behaviors, performed by persons other than prophets, which were both communicative and interactive.126 1. To give advice. Livy (Early History of Rome 1.54)127 gives the account of Sextus sending a messenger to Rome to inquire of his father, Tarquin, as to what steps he should take to ensure his recently gained power over Gabii. As Tarquin strolled through his garden, with the messenger following, while not saying a word he began to knock off poppyheads with his stick. Finally, the messenger, having wearied of waiting for a reply, left. The messenger told Sextus what he had seen Tarquin do. Sextus realized that though his father had not spoken, he had, by his action, expressed his meaning clearly enough. So Sextus proceeded at once to put to death all the influential men in Gabii.

126. All of the actions cited were also 'informative' concerning the senders' relationships to other people, their status in society, their attitudes and emotional dispositions. But in the examples cited the communicative and interactive functions were those which were of primary importance and which were intentionally part of the communication events. The informative aspect was either unintentional or only marginally intentional. 127. This incident is also recorded in Ovid, Fasti 2.703-10 and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 4.56. A similar action is attributed to Thrasybulus upon Periander's inquiry (Herodotus, Persian Wars 5.92), or to Periander upon Thrasybulus's request (Aristotle, Politics 1284a, 131 la). Dionysius (4.56) notes that Tarquinus was imitating the action of Thrasybulus and that is why Sextus was able to understand the meaning. There is also a similar story given in Gen. R. 67.6 during the reign of an Antoninus who inquired of R. Judah the Prince as to how to fill the treasury. R. Judah replied by the nonverbal action of uprooting the large radishes from his garden and planting small ones, whereupon Antoninus dismissed officers and replaced them with others.

64

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Tarquin's nonverbal communication was used as a substitute for the verbal message. It was a figurative depiction, which functioned interactively to give advice so that the recipient would know what to do. That the communication was not following conventional signs, but was rather idiosyncratic is deduced from the messenger not being aware of what the message was nor even that a message had been given. In the sense of giving advice, this action is comparable to Jeremiah's wearing the yoke (Jer. 27) to depict the political route that Judah should take, and to Ezekiel's nonverbal displays of how the people should be reacting (Ezek. 3.26; 21.11, 17; 24.15-24). 2. To express intention or conviction about the future. Herodotus (Persian Wars 4.131-34) recounts the incident of the Scythian princes sending a message to Darius by means of the artifacts of a bird, a mouse, a frog and five arrows. Since the artifacts were unaccompanied by any verbal explanation, the Persians came to two diverse opinions as to the intended message. One was that the Scythians intended to surrender themselves to the Persians (signified by the giving of the arrows which were signs of power), as well as their land (signified by the mouse who lives on land and eats the food of humans), their water (signified by the frog), and their army or animals (signified by the bird which resembles a horse). The second interpretation was that if the Persians did not become like birds and fly away into the sky, or like mice and burrow into the ground, or like frogs and take refuge in the swamp, they would not escape but die pierced by Scythian arrows. The latter interpretation was the one which dictated the Persians' subsequent actions. In this nonverbal communication, the artifacts were used as substitutes for the verbal message, and were figuratively and idiosyncratically encoded. That they were not conventionally understood signs is apparent from the ambiguity in the objects' meanings which resulted in two contrasting interpretations. In the seventh century BCE, as recounted in K 2852 and K 9662 ('Der "Gottesbrief" Tablet 2, column 2,11. 13-23; Borger 1956: 104-105),128 Esarhaddon set up siege walls against Uppume. Upon seeing the siege, the ruler of Uppume had a human image made which was wrapped in a penitent's robe, wearing shackles, and positioned at a handmill. The artifact was transported to Esarhaddon to communicate the vassal's 128. Cf. the text also cited in Lang (1978: 168-69; 1986: 300).

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

65

intent of complete submission, as that artifact representationally depicted what future actions he would perform and the future posture he would take.129 The action was also clearly interactive as it attempted to persuade Esarhaddon to alter his attitude toward the vassal, as explicitly expressed in the text (1. 23) that the ruler of Uppume did this so as 'to arouse compassion and save his life'. Herodotus (Persian Wars 1.165) records that the Phocaeans, before departing by ship to relocate, dropped a heavy mass of iron into the sea, and swore never to return to Phocaea until the mass reappeared upon the surface of the water. As part of an oath, this action nonverbally exemplified the conviction which the Phocaeans had about their future. That it only expressed a conviction and that the people considered the future ramifications contingent on their own prerogatives and not inevitably bound by the action, is evidenced from the fact that before they set out, half of the people returned to Phocaea. This action has similarities to Jeremiah's instructions to Seraiah (Jer. 51.63) to tie a stone to the scroll of curses against Babylon and dispose of it in the Euphrates River to express the future fate of Babylon. The cited nonbiblical examples reflect how intentions and convictions regarding the future could be expressed nonverbally. The actions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel which depicted coming events are comparable and should probably be approached from the perspective of conveying divine intention and conviction, not necessarily inevitability due to some inherent nature of the actions themselves. 3. To indict a person or society. In each of the following cases the indictment was leveled against personal or social conditions. The nonverbal actions signified either the conditions or the speakers' attitudes toward such conditions. The Greek Cynic Diogenes performed numerous nonverbal actions as part of his tirades against practices he found unacceptable. He is said to have gone about in the broad daylight with a lighted lamp saying, 'I am looking for a man' (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 6.41; Philo, Gig. 34).130 While visiting a man's house Diogenes was 129. Another similar action from the eighteenth century BCE was the exchange of gifts between the Hittite king Anitta and the prince of Purushandu. The prince gave the king an iron throne and iron scepter, thereby acknowledging Anitta as his overlord (cf. Starke 1979: 105; Lang 1986: 300). 130. On the historicity of this incident, see Sayre (1938: 99) who denies its attribution to Diogenes since it was a popular story before Diogenes' time being

66

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

told not to spit, but he promptly did so into the man's face explaining that he could not find a more suitable receptacle (Lives of Eminent Philosophers 6.32). He begged alms of a statue, and when asked why, he replied, To get practice in being refused' (6.49).13i He once placed the crown of pine, which was for the winner in the Isthmian games, on his own head. When he was told to remove it, he replied that he deserved to wear it since he was the only victor over many antagonists such as poverty, exile, disrepute, pain, anger, desire, fear and pleasure (9.10-13). When visiting Plato's house, he trampled on Plato's carpets, stating, 'I trample upon Plato's vainglory' (6.26). On an occasion of the games, Diogenes saw two horses that were hitched together begin fighting and kicking each other. When one horse became exhausted, it broke loose and ran off. In the presence of the large crowd which had been watching, Diogenes placed a crown upon the head of the remaining horse and proclaimed it the winner of an Isthmian prize because it had won in kicking (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 9.22). Diogenes' nonverbal behaviors functioned not only to communicate content but also served to draw the people's attention interactively to the addressed conditions which Diogenes was bringing under condemnation. The intent was thereby to indict the persons responsible for the said conditions. On at least two occasions, the accounts note that after Diogenes had done something, the people asked him what it meant (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 6.49; Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 9.10-13), making it clear that the nonverbal action had been insufficient by itself for the audience to understand the intended communicated meaning. In some cases, the interactive intent produced the results of the audience agreeing with Diogenes' positions. The specific effect of crowning the horse for winning in kicking was that the people applauded Diogenes' action, derided the athletes, and some did not stay to witness the games (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 9.22). Frequently indictments were made by means of explicit comparisons between the nonverbal behaviors performed or the artifacts employed. Herodotus (Persian Wars 3.32) records the event which led to Camby ses' execution of his sister. While sitting at the table, she took some lettuce, stripped the leaves off, and asked her brother when the lettuce told of Aesop, Heraclitus, Democritus and Archilochus. 131. Sayre (1938: 108) believes that this story is attributed to Diogenes but was actually performed by Aristippus (cf. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 2.75).

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

67

looked prettier—with its leaves on or with them stripped off. After he replied that it looked best with the leaves on, she rejoined that as she had done to the lettuce, so too he had made bare the house of Cyrus by killing their brother, Smerdis. Through the nonverbal action she sought to produce regret, remorse and guilt in her brother. After Xerxes fled from Greece, Pausanias had Xerxes' cooks prepare a meal and set a table with tapestried couches, gold and silver utensils, and magnificent and good food like that which Xerxes normally had. He then had his own cooks make a Spartan meal. When the two meals were served, Pausanias used the vast difference between the two fares to point out to the Greek generals the folly of the Median captain, who, when he enjoyed such fare as that, needed to come to Greece to rob them of their penury (Herodotus, Persian Wars 9.82). The comparison was used to mock the enemy's motives. When Amasis reigned over Egypt he needed to persuade the people to accept his rule since he had come from a house without distinction. He had his golden footpan remade into an image of one of the gods, and when it was set up in a public place, the Egyptians began worshiping it. Then Amasis called an assembly and explained how the image had once been his footpan in which they had formerly washed their feet, regurgitated and urinated, but now it was greatly reverenced. He compared it to himself who formerly was a private person who was now the king and commanded them to honor and reverence him because of his present position (Herodotus, Persian Wars 2.172). Herodotus states that the suasive intent was effected as 'he won over the Egyptians and brought them to be content to do him service' (translated by G. Rawlinson, 1942). Those uses of comparative actions for indictment are similar to Jeremiah's use of the Rechabites as a comparative example of covenant loyalty to castigate the other Israelites for their unfaithfulness in their covenant with God (Jer. 35). 4. To present alternate plans of action for the future. In the following examples, nonverbal comparisons were the prominent elements in the attempts to persuade the people of one specific course of action over against another. The two alternatives were nonverbally presented, with the decision as to which to follow being left up to the audience. When Sertorius wished to take away his soldiers' dejection after a military defeat, he placed before the army two horses. One horse, accompanied by a tall robust man, was very weak and old. The other

68

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

horse was large and strong and was accompanied by a small man of contemptible appearance. The strong man seized his old horse's tail with both hands and tried with all his might to pull it out, while the weak man began plucking out the hairs of the strong horse one by one. After it was over, Sertorius stood and addressed the men: 'You see that perseverance is more efficacious than violence, and that many things which cannot be mastered when they stand together yield when one masters them little by little' (Plutarch, Lives, Sertorius 16; translated by B. Perrin, 1919).132 Cyrus, in attempting to persuade the Persians to revolt against the Medes, had some Persians come one day with their reapinghooks to clear a tract of land covered with thorns. The next day they were commanded to relax and feast. Afterwards he asked them which they enjoyed most, the day of work or the day of feasting. When they obviously chose the latter, Cyrus remarked that if they chose to obey him, they could enjoy delights and never descend to slavish toil. But if they would not listen, then they would have unnumbered toils. The desired result of Cyrus's nonverbal comparison was achieved as the Persians were delighted to follow him in shaking off the Median yoke (Herodotus, Persian Wars 1.125-27). Lycurgus, who wished to recall the Spartan citizens from their current mode of living so as to lead them to a more sober and temperate type of life, raised two puppies. One he raised as a house pet fed on dainty food, and the other as a hunting dog. Then be brought the two dogs into the public assembly and put down some dainty food and also let loose a hare. The dogs each went for the dining fare to which they were accustomed. Lycurgus then explained to the people that even though the two dogs were from the same stock, by virtue of discipline, they had turned out utterly different, and exhorted the Spartans that the hunting dog was the one which should be emulated (Plutarch, Moralia, Apophthegmata Laconica 225F).

132. A similar point was made when Scilurus (Plutarch, Moralia, Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata 174, De Garrulitate 511C), upon his death-bed, gave each of his 80 sons a bundle of javelins to break. When they could not, he then took the javelins one by one and easily broke them, thereby teaching them if they were united they would be strong and invincible, whereas their disunion would make them weak and unstable.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

69

These actions were used primarily to persuade the people to undertake certain courses of actions which had future ramifications. The examples of the horses' tails and the dogs depicted the alternatives in a figurative manner while the reaping/feasting presented the contrast in a representational way. Jeremiah used the technique of nonverbally presenting contrasting conditions with an implied option to choose between them. Jeremiah (13.1-11) used the comparison of the waist-sash in its new condition with its later spoiled state to indicate the consequences of either staying close to God or coming under divine judgment. Although not explicitly stated, certainly it was implied that the former state was preferable to the latter. Jeremiah wore the yoke (27.2) to present one side of the alternatives being presented to the people as to how they should respond to the Babylonian rule. Although Jeremiah did not depict the contrasting option, Hananiah's action of breaking the yoke (28.10) did nonverbally provide such. The combined actions of the two prophets thus presented the people with the two options between which they had to choose. Although all but one of the cited comparative examples of idiosyncratic nonverbal communication differ from the religious, prophetic actions in context of performance (nonreligious settings) and role of the performers (nonprophets), they do not differ substantially in type, form and usage of the nonverbal behaviors for communication purposes. Besides the similarities in purposes of giving advice, expressing intentions for the future, indicting persons or society, and presenting alternate plans of action, there are also similarities on the functional level, such as in the frequent use of artifacts to transmit the messages, the persuasive intent of the messages, the ambiguity of the actions which thus required accompanying verbal interpretations, and their employment to elicit inquiring responses from the audiences as to why the actions were performed. The similarities between these idiosyncratic, secular nonverbal behaviors reinforce the understanding of the prophetic actions as communicative and rhetorical in nature rather than inherently efficacious. These cited secular actions were not perceived as having an efficaciousness inherent in the actions themselves, but originated out of the need to communicate messages persuasively. The nonverbal channel became the avenue which the senders chose to most effectively transmit the messages which they felt their audiences needed to hear and be convinced of.

70

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

5.3 Rhetorical Model There are no extant Hebrew theoretical discussions of rhetoric from the period of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, so it is not known what conceptual models there might have been or if such abstract theoretical conceptions of rhetoric were even formulated. Thus, for this study, a theoretical model, used only for the purposes of analysis and systematization, has been selected which fits the 'implicit rhetoric' of the prophets.133 It is not assumed that the rhetorical model or the organization of specific suasive techniques within that model was necessarily thought of by the prophets in the same manner as explained in this study. Although the general conclusion that the prophets intentionally sought to persuade their audiences is implied by the nature of the prophetic messages, certain specific aspects of the rhetoric are beyond our recovery, such as why, on only certain occasions, the prophets chose the medium of nonverbal actions rather than verbal proclamation, or why they chose the specific actions and rhetorical strategies as opposed to others. Unless the reasons for the particular choices are revealed by the communicators, they are impossible to determine via the literary accounts of the communication events from which we are so far removed, not only chronologically, but culturally. According to the biblical texts all of these specifics are subsumed under the divine fiat: God commanded the prophets to use the particular nonverbal actions, in the manner prescribed, at those particular times. Thus the question of the motivational logic and intent behind specific rhetorical decisions will not be dealt with in this study. Also speculation will not be made as to 133. On 'implicit rhetoric', see Scult 1975: 216. The hypothesis underlying the validity of using a rhetorical model to analyze the biblical texts has been expressed by Kennedy (1984: 10), when arguing for the application of a classical model of rhetoric to New Testament texts: 'Though rhetoric is colored by the traditions and conventions of the society in which it is applied, it is also a universal phenomenon which is conditioned by basic workings of the human mind and heart and by the nature of all human society.' Black (1980: 82) assumes that 'rhetorical propensities are neither innate nor immutable, but are activated by cultural conditions. They are a social epiphenomenon and will be historically fluctuant with the society itself.' Even so, he acknowledges that 'We commonly postulate that men and women have always stood in roughly the same relationship to persuasive messages as we; that, modified by the particulars of their situations, people have always been disposed to understand persuasive messages in similar ways and to experience similar reactions to them. This postulate is a way we have of making sense of history, and it is procedurally impeccable.'

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

71

whether the specific actions and strategies were the best ones that could have been used, nor will the actions or strategies be compared or contrasted with other techniques which might have been appropriately used. Rather this study will confine itself to analyzing the performance of the actions as recounted, in order to determine the persuasive effects they should, might or did have on the spectators. The rhetorical model employed in this study contains three major elements, in keeping with Black's (1978: 134) definition of a 'rhetorical transaction': (1) rhetorical situation, (2) rhetorical strategies, and (3) audience effect (i.e. response). 5.3.1 Rhetorical Situation.134 Since the sign-acts arose out of the exigences of the particular moments, it is important to note the situational contexts (or environments) which elicited the performances of the nonverbal behaviors. The situational context includes ideological and philosophical conditions as well as external physical conditions. The motive for rhetoric is provided when within the environment something is perceived as being 'other than it should be, that is, an exigence; and something else is recognized as a means of remedy or modification' (Bitzer 1980: 23). The rhetorical situation is thus defined as a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence (Bitzer 1968: 6).

A rhetorical situation consists of: (1) an exigence which is a perceived problem or defect; (2) the rhetor who recognizes and seeks to remedy or modify the exigence through communication; (3) an audience which is capable of being influenced by the rhetor and of effecting a change in the exigence;135 and (4) rhetorical strategies which can influence the audience.

134. The definition of 'rhetorical situation' essentially follows that of Bitzer (1968, 1980). 'Rhetorical situation' is also referred to as 'argumentative situation' by Wiklander (1984: 158-75); 'exigential flow' by White (1980a: 14-17). 135. On the importance of audience, see Bitzer (1980: 23): 'The presence of an audience is necessary because only by means of its mediating influence can the exigence be modified. Since the audience must be capable of modifying the exi-

72

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

In prophetic studies, it is a basic assumption that particular prophetic oracles were elicited by specific situations even when the literary accounts give no indication as to what the specific situations were. Some of the specific occasions of the sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel were given, such as the gathering of foreign ambassadors in Jerusalem during the reign of Zedekiah to consider rebellion (Jer. 27), the final period of the Babylonian siege of the city of Jerusalem (Jer. 32), Seraiah's journey to Babylon in the fourth year of Zedekiah (Jer. 51.59-64a), and the death of Ezekiel's wife (Ezek. 24.15-24). With respect to the rhetorical situations of other of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts, the particulars are not always known, but the broader political and theological-ideological exigences of that time period can be extrapolated. Even though the locale of the two audiences respectively addressed by the two prophets differed, both audiences were affected by the same political happenings, and, as part of their communal identity, shared similar ideological perspectives. Lacking the necessary sources from the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel which could help explicate the rhetorical situations, the exigences being addressed by the two prophets have to be derived from the biblical accounts. The deriving of the exigences from the suasive discourses themselves is based on the following principles: (1) rhetorical address indicates rhetorical situation—'the existence of a rhetorical address is a reliable sign of the existence of situation' (Bitzer 1968: 2); (2) a specific rhetorical address is linked to specific exigences—'a particular discourse comes into existence because of some specific condition or situation which invites utterance' (Bitzer 1968: 4); (3) exigences are 'objective' realities136 and 'are therefore available for scrutiny by an gence positively, it follows that listeners incapable of this modifying influence will not count as a rhetorical or functional audience.' 136. It is acknowledged that there are 'sophistic situations' in which the exigence is only asserted to be real, 'spurious situations' in which an exigence is erroneously or ignorantly alleged to exist, 'fantasy situations' in which the exigence is imaginary, and 'fictive situations' in which the exigence is established by the novel or play. (These types are defined by Bitzer 1968: 11.) In the biblical texts, the rhetorical situations addressed by Ezekiel and Jeremiah are presented as being real. Since knowledge and awareness of how properly to address the situations were part of the divine revelation, the prophets' understandings of the situations were presented as not being sophistic or spurious. On the contrary, Ezekiel and Jeremiah regarded the 'false' prophets discourses as addressing 'spurious situations' precisely because those prophets had not been in the council of Yahweh (i.e. received a

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

73

observer or critic who attends to them. To say the situation is objective, publicly observable, and historic means that it is real or genuine—that our critical examination will certify its existence' (Bitzer 1968: II). 137 Thus 'the critic perceives and explicates these exigencies as part of his experience of the meaning of the rhetorical response. All he need establish is that what he perceives as exigencies were in fact present in the situation that persisted throughout the development of the rhetorical response' (Scult 1975: 26). Since exigences are implicit in rhetorical responses, the messages of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, especially those which directly argued against specific audience views, can be used to formulate the prophets' perceptions of the rhetorical situations which they addressed. As implied by the depictions of Ezekiel's and Jeremiah's sign-acts, the exigences which the two prophets perceived and attempted to rectify belonged to the mental realm of the belief systems of their audiences—the people's theological viewpoints and predispositions which assumed God's saving intervention on their behalf.138 The theological complex of ideas which the two prophets were attempting to change had extensive ramifications for the perception of how God would concretely work in history with respect to the destruction of Jerusalem and the return from exile. The occurring historical events were not denied by the audiences, but rather disagreement with the prophets arose over the events' causes, consequences, and theological implications. Because the people's interpretations of the occurring historical events, as well as their future expectations of what would happen, were based on the theological tenets to which they adhered, their understanding of God's functioning was radically different from that of the two prophets. The people's theological suppositions certainly had implications for their ethical, political, economic and social conduct and attitudes. But

divine revelation of the 'real situation'; cf. Jer. 23.18, 22; similarly Jer. 14.14; 23.16, 21, 26-28, 32; 29.33; Ezek. 13.2-3, 6-9, 17, 19; 22.28). Since the sign-acts were actually performed to address real audiences and were therefore not merely visionary experiences or literary inventions, the situations cannot be considered 'fantasy' or 'fictive'. 137. See Brinton (1981: 243-44) who, in regard to mental exigences, clarifies that it is still 'objectively' the case that the persons hold certain beliefs and experience certain emotions. 138. Bitzer (1980: 23) notes that 'The exigence is sometimes in the audience addressed—for example, its false beliefs'.

74

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

such must be considered to have been, for the prophets, subsumed under the theological belief system so that only changes in the belief system would result in significant and lasting behavioral modifications in the other areas. Thus the primary concern of this study's analysis of the rhetorical situations and strategies will be the theological suppositions of the audiences rather than their ethics, social structures and conflicts, or economic and political policies.139 5.3.2 Rhetorical Strategies. In attempting to counteract and alter ideological positions which the prophets considered untenable, they employed numerous strategies which were associated both with themselves and with the messages. A basic categorization of strategies is presented here, while in Chapter 2 the specific strategies will be identified for the individual sign-acts and Chapter 4 will give an amplified synthesis of the strategies of the sign-acts. Within the persuasion process as defined by the 'message-learning approach' (cf. Ho viand et al. 1953),140 the processes involved in producing changes in beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors are (1) attention, (2) comprehension, (3) acceptance, and (4) retention. In order for a communication to be persuasive, it must first gain and then maintain the audience's attention. 'Attention' means not only gaining attention in order to deliver the specific message, but also giving the issues a

139. There is legitimacy in analyzing prophetic activity in terms of social, political and economic factors in order to elucidate facets of the prophetic roles (e.g. Lang [1978; 1981b: 84-92; 1983a; 1986: 300] who interprets prophetic activity in terms of political involvement; Gottwald [1981], Long [198la], Mottu [1976], Wilson [1980: 250-51] who interpret the conflict between Jeremiah and Hananiah [Jer. 28] in sociological terms). But focusing only on those issues as the sole motivating factors, to the exclusion of theological exigences, results in a view which is contrary to the textual presentations, in which the primary issues are theological in nature. For example, when Jeremiah wore the yoke (Jer. 27), he gave political advice, yet his reasons for taking that particular position were wholly theological (vv. 5-7). 140. Cf. also McGuire 1973: 221-23; Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 60. The same steps are part of McGuire's (1973: 227-29) 'information-processing paradigm', which is a slight variation of the 'learning paradigm'. Since this is a 'learning' theory, it must also be noted that 'the type of learning and the conditions of learning are ordinarily quite different in the case of producing opinion change through persuasive communication than in the case of other learning situations' (Hovland et al. 1953: 15).

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

75

hearing by focusing the attention on the message content and not just on the rhetor and the delivery style. Besides dealing with the audience's attention, a persuasive communication must also be understood (i.e. comprehension), mentally rehearsed and remembered by the spectators (i.e. retention), as well as provide incentives to alter the behaviors or attitudes (i.e. acceptance). This basic four-point schema will be used throughout this study to delineate how the specific rhetorical strategies of the sign-acts contributed to the steps in the suasive process. Any single attempt at persuasion rarely achieves lasting results (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 87-89). Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's attempts to persuade their audiences extended over the full length of their prophetic ministries. It must not be forgotten that each individual oracle and signact was part of the broader context of extended suasive campaigns. 5.3.2.1 Source Strategies. With respect to prophetic messages, the source of the communication must be considered in its dual aspects: the immediate sources for the audiences were the prophets, and yet the theological presupposition held by the prophets was that the source was ultimately God, with the prophets being the personalized means of transmitting the divine messages. This theological presupposition is clearly indicated in the introductory formulas which explicitly attribute the sign-acts to divine communication: for example, 'thus said Yahweh' (Jer. 13.1; 19.1; 27.2; Ezek. 6.11), 'Yahweh said to me' (Jer. 13.6; Ezek. 3.22; 4.15, 16), or 'the word of Yahweh (came) to me' (Jer. 13.3, 8; 16.1; 32.6; 43.8; Ezek. 12.1, 8, 17; 21.13, 23; 24.15; 37.15; cf. the slight variations in Jer. 32.1; 35.1), and by the accounts of the sign-acts being formulated as divine injunctions.141 When considering 'source' in this study, the referent will be the prophet who performed the action.142

141. The only sign-acts not recorded in divine command-forms are Jer. 51.59-64 which is an action performed by Seraiah at Jeremiah's command, and Ezekiel's speechlessness (3.26-27; 24.27; 33.22). Although in the first-person account of Jer. 32.6-15, the buying of the field is not initially given in command form (v. 7), it is recounted as such in v. 25. 142. Cf. Brembeck and Howell (1976: 252) who note that for cases in which the speaker is not the source of his message, such as diplomats (and in our case, the prophets), it is the immediate speaker (the prophet) who 'will be evaluated in terms of the total impact he makes on the receiver; the mouthpiece of the message and its source merge into one persuasive image'.

76

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

This in no way denies the prophets' theological presupposition regarding an ultimate divine source for the message. Source strategies143 include those factors which dealt with the prophets themselves which aided in the suasive ventures such as the rhetor's credibility, power, similarity, involvement and attractiveness (see Chapter 4 §2.3.1).144 The suasive effects of the source factors are determined by the audience's perception and not by the speaker's self-evaluation (cf. Brembeck and Howell 1976: 252). The rhetor can only say or do things which will aid the audience in creating or enhancing a positive perception of the source so that the source's attributes enhance the message's rhetorical impact. 5.3.2.2 Message Strategies.145 The strategy-categories of style, structure, argument types, and incentives will be used to discuss the specific techniques employed in the persuasion processes of the sign-acts. 1. Style includes the forms in which the rhetorical communications occurred, such as the coding of the actions, whether representational or figurative, their dramatic qualities, and the manner of address, whether indirect or direct. 2. Structure includes the organization of the actions, their sequence for climactic purposes, and the time element involved in their performance.

143. On the influence and variability of source factors in the suasive process, see Brembeck and Howell 1976: 251-66; Hovland et al 1953: 19-55, 269-70; McGuire 1973: 229-32; Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 61-69, 235-37. 144. With respect to communicator attractiveness, the more a source is liked or more physically attractive, generally the more persuasive the communicator will be. Nothing can be discerned from the biblical texts about the likeableness or physical attractiveness of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, except that Ezekiel was referred to, by his audience, as being like a songster who was pleasant to listen to (Ezek. 33.32). Even the numerous occasions of audiences soliciting divine messages from the two prophets (e.g. the elders and people coming to Ezekiel: 8.1; 14.1; 20.1; 33.30-31; Zedekiah and the people inquiring of Jeremiah: 21.1-2; 37.3; 37.17; 38.14; 42.1-3), need not imply favorable dispositions toward the prophets but rather the recognition that the two were divine intermediaries (i.e. recognition of their role function and credibility). Thus, due to the lack of textual evidence, the aspect of the prophets' likeableness or attractiveness will not be dealt with in this study. 145. On message factors in persuasion, see Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 60, 69-80; McGuire 1973: 232-37.

1. Understanding Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

77

3. Types of argument include the rational (logical), emotional and other kinds of appeals employed. 4. Incentives are the types of rewards or punishments presented for either compliance or noncompliance with the speaker's message. Incentives are a key aspect in persuasion because even though attention has been gained, comprehension and retention achieved, without sufficient incentives to adopt the new position over against that initially held by the recipient, persuasion will not occur. 5.3.3 Audience Response. Within the communication process, the addressed audience is an active participant who both receives the message from the sender and also transmits back to the sender a reaction.146 'Audience' can incorporate not only the 'addressed audience' of the immediate auditors or spectators to whom the message is addressed by the communicator, but also 'unaddressed audiences' which include those who hear about the communication event after it has occurred. In this study, 'audience' will be used exclusively in the sense of 'addressed audience' of those persons physically present at and cognizant of the prophets' performances. Descriptions of the 'audiences' and their views are derived from the prophets' perceptions, and frequently throughout this study the term is an abstraction and schematization. Individual members of the prophets' audiences undoubtedly responded to the messages with varying degrees of acceptance or rejection. But the abstraction is a means of delineating the group whose attitudes the prophets perceived themselves as countering, and a means of defining the tenor of the overall responses which the prophets felt their messages were eliciting. In the sign-act accounts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel there are only occasional references to the audiences' responses, such as Hananiah's response of breaking the yoke which Jeremiah was wearing (Jer. 28) or the verbalized questions asking Ezekiel for further clarification (Ezek. 12.10; 21.12; 24.19; 37.18). When specific audience responses are not indicated, only general conclusions, which are adduced from the larger 146. On the role of the audience, see Bauer 1973; Schramm 1973. See also Overholt's (1977; 1981a: 58-60; 1989: 22-25) model of the interrelatedness of the prophet, people and supernatural in the prophetic process. But that model does not reflect the influence of rhetorical or non-messenger and non-recipient factors (e.g. rhetorical situation, physical locale or environment) which are part of the dynamic of the communication process.

78

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

context of the prophetic books, can be made about the overall effects of the prophets' nonverbal behaviors. The focus of the analysis of the audience responses to the sign-acts will be on whether the responses reflect that the prophets were successful in their attempts to persuade.

Chapter 2 JEREMIAH'S AND EZEKIBL'S SIGN-ACTS

This section contains the studies of the individual sign-act accounts in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The sign-acts are divided into two chronological groups: (1) those performed before, and (2) those performed after Jerusalem's destruction in 586 BCE. The exigences of the rhetorical situations which elicited the nonverbal prophetic responses are delineated first before analyzing the specific sign-acts from each period. The study of each passage consists of two parts: (1)

(2)

Communicative meaning: This section addresses the issues and difficulties in interpreting the sign-acts. This portion of the study seeks to establish the meanings of the messages transmitted via the nonverbal channel, and to delineate, according to the terms and definitions from Chapter 1 §4 how those meanings were communicated. Rhetoric: Each action's rhetorical function, as defined in Chapter 1 §5.3, is explored according to the four constituent parts of the persuasion process: (a) attention, (b) comprehension, (c) acceptance, (d) retention. 1. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Pre-586 BCE Sign-Acts

1.1 Pre-586 BCE Rhetorical Situation All of the recorded pre-586 BCE sign-acts of Jeremiah, with the possible exception of the commencement of Jer. 16.1-9, took place after Jehoiakim's accession to the throne in 609 BCE. Ezekiel's took place from 593 BCE (Ezek. 1.2) to 586 BCE, during the reign of Zedekiah. Thus, the two prophets' sign-acts were performed over a period of some 20 years prior to Jerusalem's fall.

80

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Rhetorical situations are not static, but undergo development and change.1 While some rhetorical situations mature and then decay, others mature and persist. Such theological beliefs, as those held by the audiences, which the prophets perceived as the exigence, have a persistent nature which makes them resilient to change, especially when there is group support for them.2 Thus the pre-586 BCE rhetorical situation was one which matured and then continued to persist for a number of years. So, prior to Jerusalem's destruction, both Ezekiel and Jeremiah addressed the same essential exigence which only underwent slight variations as it was affected by the changing historical circumstances. The need for rhetorical responses by Jeremiah and Ezekiel was not precipitated by the historical situations created by the Babylonians, but rather by the belief system of the prophets' fellow citizens. Like the prophets, the other people were attempting to reconcile the political realities with their preconceived notions of God's dealing with them. Precisely because the audiences' theological predispositions caused them to perceive and respond differently to the situations than did Jeremiah and Ezekiel, rhetorical responses were deemed necessary by the two prophets. The prophetic messages sought to alter the audiences' interpretations of the historical events and to influence the resultant corporate behavioral responses (which were frequently political in nature) to the external events. Thus Jeremiah and Ezekiel reacted not to the historical movements of the Babylonians, but to their fellow citizens' perceptions of and responses to those historical realities. It was the realm of theological beliefs which provided the exigence of the rhetorical situation.3 The pre-586 BCE theology held by the people which elicited the nonverbal actions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel will be referred to as the 'popular theology'.4 This reconstruction of the 'popular theology' derives 1. Cf. Bitzer 1968: 12-13; 1980: 34-36. In the latter work, he lists four stages of a rhetorical situation's evolution: origin, maturity, deterioration, disintegration. 2. On the resistance of beliefs to change and the influence of social support on their perpetuation, even in the midst of seemingly contradictory events or circumstances, see the studies on the theory of 'cognitive dissonance': Carroll 1979: 86110; Festinger 1957: 24-28, 177-202; Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 137-52. 3. See Bright (1976: 16-17, 171) who states that the severity of the clash between Jeremiah and his audience is explicable, not as a political difference, but only as a theological one. 4. The term vox populi (or 'popular theology') is used by Crenshaw 1971. Other terms have also been used to describe the same theology: Bright (1972: 331),

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

81

not from sources external to the prophetic books, but from the issues addressed verbally and nonverbally by the two prophets, and is therefore in one sense an imputed theology since it represents the prophets' perceptions of the exigence.5 It is in no way suggested that the 'popular theology' was a monolithic belief system which everyone adhered to, but rather, as extrapolated from the arguments of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, was a consensus, Yahwistic theology held by the addressees. The 'popular theology' of the period can be summarized under the four tenets of: (1) the covenant, (2) Jerusalem and the Temple, (3) the land, and (4) the Davidic dynasty. (1) The people assumed that God, because of the covenant relationship, was unconditionally under certain obligations in regard to the treatment of them, such as national deliverance, protection, and blessing, which ensured the people's continuance. (2) By the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the concept of the inviolability of Zion6 seems to have been an indisputable tenet of the popular theology. God had chosen Jerusalem as the place of his manifested presence in the Temple and the cult which obligated God to protect not only the Temple, but the whole city7 to which the sacredness of the Temple had been extended.8 (3) As understood in the pop'national theology'; Bright (1965, 1976), 'official theology'; Brueggemann (1978, 1986), 'royal theology'; Manahan (1980a, 1980b), 'para-covenantal theology' or 'peace theology'. 5. On the reconstruction of the exigence from the rhetor's arguments, see Chapter 1 §5.3.1. See also Clark's (1984: 33-38) discussion of 'audience analysis' and the deriving of the audience attitudes and beliefs from the audience citations in Ezekiel, and also Trapp's (1992) study of audience quotations in Jeremiah. 6. Cf. 1 Kgs 8.12-21; Pss. 46; 48; 76; 78.68-69; 132.13-15; Isa. 2.2-4; 14.32; 17.12-14; 29.5-8; 31.4-5; Lam. 4.12. 7. This is the attitude which is clearly rebutted in the 'Temple sermon' of Jer. 7 and 26 (cf. Overholt [1970: 7-8, 17-18; 1972: 460] who discusses the 'lie' (IptO) of Jer. 7 as a false sense of security in the Temple). Also Ezekiel's non-use of the term 'Zion' when referring to Jerusalem, may have been a conscious rejection by Ezekiel of the prevailing Zion theology (cf. Boadt 1986: 190). 8. On the extension of the sacredness over the whole city, see Bright 1976: 138; Davies 1974: 150-54. On the flexibility of the term Ti? see Fisher (1963) who finds it meaning not only village, city, state, but also Temple quarter (2 Kgs 10.25), inner room of the Temple (1 Kgs 20.30), and equated with the mountain of God. In regard to Jerusalem, he cites Ezek. 40.2-5 where the term refers to the Temple area; Ezek. 45.6, to the city as distinct from the holy district; Isa. 60.7, 13, 14, where the Temple is 'the city of Yahweh'; Zech. 8.3, to 'the mountain of Yahweh'. Fisher then concludes (1963: 40): 'It seems that, ideally, YHWH does not have a temple

82

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

ular theology, the patriarchal promise of the land therefore meant that God was obligated to deliver the land from foreign incursions because the land was their perpetual heritage from which they would not be removed.9 (4) Because of the Davidic promise of kingship,10 the people assumed that God was obligated to ensure a Davidic heir upon the throne so that there would be perpetual Judahite sovereignty over the land. The above four elements combined to provide a theological basis for the popular theology's emphasis on God's saving activity on behalf of the people. Thus the popular theology fostered both a feeling that Judah was secure (e.g. the audience citations in Jeremiah which attest to this sense of security: Jer. 5.12-13a; 6.14; 8.11; 14.13, 15; 21.13; 23.17; 37.9, 19),11 even in rebellion against the Babylonian military might, and also a sense of hope for the exiles that they would return to Judah within a short time (e.g. Jer. 27.16; 28.3-4; 29.5-9). The former was the exigence against which Jeremiah spoke in Judah, while the latter was that which Ezekiel vied with among the exiles in Babylon. 1.2 Jeremiah 16.1-9n 1.2.1 Communicative Meaning. In contrast to the other nonverbal signacts imposed upon Jeremiah in which he was to do something, this sign-act involved a threefold prohibition (vv. 2, 5, 8) against doing that quarter within a city, but the city is his temple quarter, temple and even the Hill of God.' 9. On the importance of 'the land' in Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's messages, see Brueggemann 1977: 107-29, 133-43; in Jeremiah, see Diepold 1972; Habel 1992. 10. Cf. 2 Sam. 7.1-17; 23.5; Pss. 78.70-72; 89; 132.17-18; Isa. 9.6-7. 11. Crenshaw (1971: 24-26), in his analysis of the vox populi cites Jer. 5.12; 14.13; 21.13; 23.17 as examples of the characteristic of 'confidence in God's faithfulness'. This confidence is defined by Crenshaw (1971: 24-25) as 'an expression of faith in the benevolence of God despite historical circumstances'. 12. This passage has frequently been judged to have undergone editorial work, usually considered Deuteronomic. The expansions have been primarily identified in vv. 3-6. But the proposed glosses do not significantly affect the meaning of the passage for this study, since they only add emphasis to the description of the prophesied destruction. Verses 10-13 form a separate unit so that the people's inquiry in v. 10 is not a direct audience response to this particular sign-act, but more generally to all Jeremiah's predictions of calamity. That vv. 10-13 form a literary unit in themselves is evidenced by the reoccurrence of the same literary schema (i.e. general audience

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

83

which was socially acceptable and expected. The text follows the parallel arrangement of (a) command to nonverbal behavior and (b) interpretation: (la) v. 2, command not to marry and thereby not to have children; (Ib) vv. 3-4, interpretation; (2a) v. 5a, command not to perform the socially expected mourning customs; (2b) vv. 5b-7, interpretation; (3a) v. 8, command not to participate in celebrations; (3b) v. 9, interpretation. The text does not indicate whether all of these commands were given concurrently or rather at chronologically diverse occasions and only literarily joined together. But all three of the prohibitions are mutually linked together both in the resultant social reclusiveness of Jeremiah and in their communicating about the same future occasion. The situation of judgment described in v. 4 is assumed in vv. 6-7, 9. The interpretations are also literarily linked through the chiastic declaration that the dead would not be mourned or buried in vv. 4 ("HDp"1 N'?! HSD"1 $b) and 6 (TIDO"1 ^71 T~np>> 8*7),13 and through 'the great ones and small ones' in v. 6 referring back to the fathers and mothers, sons and daughters in v. 3. Also, the references to marriage form an inclusio: 'you shall not take a wife' (v. 2) // T am removing from this place... [the] voice of [the] groom and [the] voice of [the] bride' (v. 9). The second and third commands are a complementary pair which naturally adhere to one another as they restrict involvement in the emotionally contrasting

question asking the cause of the judgment; prophetic response stating the cause as apostasy, and, frequently, a statement of the divine judgment) in Jer. 5.19; 9.11-15; 22.8-9; cf. also Deut. 29.21-27; 1 Kgs 9.8-9. (For discussion of this literary schema, see Jones 1992: 232; Nicholson 1970: 59-63; Stulman 1986: 70; Thompson 1980: 403, 408; Wilson 1980: 236.) Therefore vv. 10-13 cannot be used to determine the specific content of the 'original' declaration in vv. 1-9 (contra Barstad 1984: 129; Carroll 1986: 340). 13. Kuhl (1952: 7) cites this as an example of a 'Wiederaufnahme'. But this stylistic device cannot be used a priori to argue that vv. 4b-6a are a secondary literary insertion. Resumptive statements can be part of the original composition so as to refer the auditor/reader back to a previous concept.

84

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

situations of grieving and rejoicing. The lack of any introductory formula between vv. 5-7 and 8-9 also points toward a continuous command (and explanation) to Jeremiah. From the standpoint of chronology and ability to enact the commands, there is no insurmountable difficulty in assuming the concurrent commencement of all three lifestyle behaviors. The text also does not delineate any period of duration for the behaviors. It is evident that they were ongoing restrictions on Jeremiah's manner of living rather than prohibitions for a single occasion. It is thus usually assumed that the restrictions were observed over the extended period of time until the fall of Jerusalem when the messages communicated by Jeremiah's sign-acts were actualized in the life of the community. 1. Celibacy. The first prohibition imposed upon Jeremiah14 was to remain celibate and thereby have no children (v. 2): 'You shall not take a wife, and there will be no sons or daughters to you, in this place.' Although there is no date reference associated with this command, it must have been given at the point when Jeremiah was within the socially recognized age for marriage when it was expected of him to fulfil the obligations of rearing a family. 14. Carroll (1986: 338-42) and Barstad (1984: 129) maintain that 16.1-9 originally was not directed to Jeremiah's personal life but rather was directly addressed to the people, so that the prohibitions were not personally imposed on Jeremiah but communally on the people. That argument cannot be sustained. Every other place where the audience is addressed in command form (i.e. 'rhetorical commands'; for a definition and discussion of Jeremiah's use of such, see Chapter 1 §2), the forms of address are either second feminine singular (i.e. to Jerusalem: 3.2; 7.29; 10.17; 13.20) or second masculine plural (cf. 2.10; 4.5, 6, 8; 5.1, 10; 6.1, 16; 7.12; 8.14; 9.16; 18.13; 22.10, 30; 30.6). Second masculine singular is never found in an address to the people, only to the prophet. In the parallel statements, the person shift of the verbs from second singular (v. 5) to third-person (singular and plural, vv. 6-7), as well as the contrast between second singular in vv. 2, 5, 8 and the second plural address to the people in v. 9 confirms the distinction in addressed personages in those verses. Had the statements been addressed to the people throughout, a consistency of second plural would be expected. McKane (1986: 367) suggests that there is no autobiographical core to the account, but rather the whole is an exilic creation (cf. also 1986: xc-xcii). But even if one considers the present literary form to reflect an exilic dating, this does not obviate the prophet actually performing the actions so that the account still retains the essence of the actions and of the interpretations given them by the prophet himself.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

85

Excursus: Dating of the Sign-Act The commencement of this behavior has usually been placed as concurrent with Jeremiah's call in 627 BCE (cf. van den Born 1935: 61; Bright 1965: xc; Kurian 1980: 234) or during the reign of Jehoiakim (609-597 BCE) (cf. Holladay [1981: 61-62; 1983: 152-53, 156], after Dec. 601 BCE). Though there are no biblical references which delineate the age at which young men were married in ancient Israel, it is generally assumed that marriage for the common people15 occurred during the late teen years. If such were the case, then placing this command to Jeremiah in the reign of Jehoiakim seems too late. If the traditional interpretation is followed that Jeremiah received his commission to the prophetic ministry in 627 BCE (Jer. 1.2) and was therefore probably born around 640 BCE, then during the time of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah would have been, minimally, in his thirties. Even Holladay's (1981: 61-62; 1983: 152-53, 156; 1986: 5, 468-69) schema of dating does not eliminate the problem, because if 1.2 is the date of Jeremiah's birth (627-626 BCE), Jeremiah would still have been 26 or 27, well beyond the age generally assumed for marrying, if this oracle was not given until about 600 BCE. Others, also assuming that Jer. 1.2 dates Jeremiah's birth, coordinate the command not to marry with Jeremiah's call which is redated to about 609-608 BCE so that he was in his late teens at the time (cf. Hyatt 1966; May 1945: 227). But the redating of Jeremiah's birth and call is contrary to the explicit statements in 1.2 and 25.13 (cf. also 3.6; 36.2) and seems an unlikely hypothesis (cf. Jones 1992: 61-62; Lundbom 1993; Overholt 1971). Some feel that placing the events at the beginning of Jeremiah's ministry makes him proclaim messages of catastrophic doom which were inappropriate for the period of Josiah. To resolve this incongruity, some have proposed that although Jeremiah did not marry from the inception of his ministry, he either did not attribute to his celibacy (and the other lifestyle patterns) any divine imposition or any intent to transmit a 15. There is some evidence for when some kings were married. Based on calculations of accession age, length of reign, and ages of their sons, de Vaux (1965: 29) estimates that king Jehoiachin married at age 16 and kings Amon and Josiah, at 14. But the practices of the royalty may not be paradigmatic for the common people because of the former's need to assure a successor to the throne.

86

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

communicative meaning until much later in his ministry (cf. van den Born 1947: 58-61; von Ewald 1878: 163-64), or did not proclaim the meaning he understood it to have until the appropriate time. The former position of retrospectively imputed intention to the action goes against the intent of the literary text (see the discussion in Chapter 3 §1). As noted below in §1.2.2, the most advantageous time to achieve the greatest rhetorical impact was at the behavior's commencement, not after some 20 years of observing Jeremiah's celibacy to which he had attributed no significance other than personal preference. After such an extended period, that lifestyle would have been viewed by the audience as being 'normal' for him. At that juncture, the suasive impact of the nonverbal behavior would have been minimal when he attempted to verbally coordinate with it a previously unexpressed communicative meaning. To resolve the difficulties, some have maintained that Jeremiah had been previously married and that his wife had either died or been divorced from him so that this was a command against remarrying. Goldman (1952) interprets 11.15 and 12.7-8 as references to Jeremiah's wife's adultery and cites Jeremiah's preoccupation with the adultery theme (e.g. 2.20, 33; 3.1-3, 6-9; 4.30; 5.7-8) as evidence that Jeremiah divorced his unfaithful wife. But in 11.15 and 12.7-8 the first-person suffix refers to God who is speaking, and a repeated theme in a prophet's ministry need not reflect a psychological preoccupation because of personal experience. Other commentators place the stress of the command on the phrase 'in this place' (v. 2), that is, Anathoth. Thus the prohibition was not a permanent injunction but only that he was not to take a wife from his hometown where he was receiving opposition. But the phrase lacks that specificity of Jeremiah's hometown, for it is clearly synonymous with 'in this land', that is, Judah, in vv. 3 and 6. The difficulties of both a dating during Jehoiakim's reign or at the beginning of his career can be resolved without resorting to a redating of Jeremiah's career. There is the possibility that marriage at a very young age was not universally practiced by the common people. For example, Isaac was married at 40 (Gen. 25.20), and according to 1 Kgs 22.42 and 2 Kgs 8.17, Jehoshaphat's eldest son was born when Jehoshaphat was 28. Thus the social expectations may not have been to marry at a particularly young age, but only rather to marry. So during Jehoiakim's reign, Jeremiah, in his thirties, would have reached the

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

87

upper limits of the marriageable period. Thus everyone would have been expecting him to marry. Such a heightened expectation would have enhanced the dramatic impact of his pronouncement that he was never going to do such. The other possibility exists that from the beginning of his ministry, when he was in his teen years, he understood his celibacy to be divinely commanded so as to communicate a specific message content of judgment to the people (cf. Jones 1992: 229-30), and this he proclaimed in response to the national wickedness instituted by Manasseh. An analogy to the proclamation of judgment upon the people during the reign of Josiah is found in the proclamation of the prophetess Huldah when she read the scroll found in the Temple (2 Kgs 22.16-20). That prophecy too contains a repeated emphasis on 'this place', as in Jer. 16.19. The sentiment is expressed that judgment was sure to come, but would only be delayed until after Josiah's death. Jeremiah may have shared that perspective, and during the early part of his ministry proclaimed judgment through his lifestyle as a catalyst for the people to return to God,16 and later during the apostasies of Jehoiakim, renewed that message with an added vigor. The refrainment from marriage with the accompanying lack of descendants, and thereby Jeremiah's solitary familial existence was interpreted in vv. 3-4. The time was coming when the families of his audience would be decimated by divine judgment of catastrophic proportions (v. 4). Even though the interpretation is not expressed in a simile-form, as for many of Jeremiah's sign-acts, an implied simile was portrayed: just as Jeremiah was deprived of all immediate family members, so too when the judgment occurred, the individual members of the audience would be like Jeremiah in their solitariness of familial existence because their children and parents would be killed. The focus of Jeremiah's nonverbal demonstration was thus not the act of abstaining from marriage and not having children, but the resultant childless and solitary condition which was equivalent to that of a widower. Thus Jeremiah was representationally depicting the future fate of his audience: 16, Although Lundbom does not specifically discuss Jer. 16.1-9, his perception of Jeremiah's early career and its link to the finding of the scroll (1993: 81-96) is similar to what is expressed here. Lundbom dates Jeremiah's birth at 640 BCE, his call to 627 BCE, and the commencement of his ministry to 622 BCE, when Jeremiah would have been 18 years of age.

88

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

just as he was alone, they too would be alone. Implied in the message is that once the judgment occurred there would be no future hope for the community because there would no longer be any progeny to continue it, just as Jeremiah had no progeny to carry on his familial line. Jeremiah's refrainment from marriage was thus not for convenience's sake to save him (or his potential descendants) from the distress of the coming disaster, nor that it would be inappropriate to bring children into such a calamitous time,17 nor to facilitate his functioning in the prophetic role without the encumbrances of family responsibilities.18 Rather his behavior had a specifiable communicative message in which he functioned in the role of the people as he depicted what their manner of existence would be like in the future. There is no exhortation that the people should imitate, in anticipation of the coming judgment, any of the three prohibitions, but rather his lifestyle portrayed the consequences of the executed devastation which some of them would have to endure. 2. No mourning rituals. The second prohibition was not to participate in the customary mourning rituals (v. 5). The specific mourning customs prohibited are those of going to the house of grieving19 (Kinn ^K 17. Contra van den Born 1935: 61; Brueggemann 1988: 144; Carroll 1981: 132; McKane 1986: Ixvi-lxvii. 18. Contra van den Born 1947: 60-61; Hyatt 1951: 82; Lang 1986: 307; Rudolph 1958: 101; Stacey 1990: 139-40. 19. Although in its only other biblical usage (Amos 6.7), nno refers to feasting in revelry, here in Jeremiah it clearly refers to an aspect of the mourning customs as the context of v. 5 indicates. It therefore has the connotation of a 'wake' for the dead (cf. Bright 1965: 110; Greenfield 1974: 453; Gruber 1980: 441). The noun, PIT~1Q, is attested in various sources from the fourteenth century BCE through the Talmudic times and is associated with both funeral rites and bacchanal revelry. (On those sources, see Avigad and Greenfield 1982; Barstad 1984: 127-42; Bryan 1973; Dahood 1971: 52; Eissfeldt 1966, 1973a, 1973b; Friedman 1979-80: 192, 200-201; Greenfield 1973: 48; 1974; Halpern 1979-80; King 1988a: 137-61; 1988b; 1993: 140-41; Lewis 1989: 80-94; L'Heureux 1974: 266-67, 270; Loretz 1982, 1993; Margalit 1979-80: 100-105; Miller 1971: 44-48; Pope 1972: 190-94; 1977b: 214-21; 1981: 176-79; Porten 1968: 179-86; Teixidor 1981.) In the nonbiblical sources, the term can refer to a feast (as in Amos 6.7; cf. Piraeus inscription), a cultic association (cf. the nonmythological Ras Shamra texts; Marseilles Tariff inscription; Palmyra sources; Nabatean inscriptions), or the place of feasting (cf. RS 24.258 [KTU 1.1141). Thus, the 'house of the nriD' could be the site of the feast or property belonging to the association (cf. RS 15.70; RS 15.88). To explain the contrastive contexts of the term in Amos 6.7 and Jer. 16.5 (as well

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

89

rrTHQ rP3), mourning (Tisob "j^n 'p&'i),20 and expressing condolence (nnb TJfl 'PNl).21 Participation in the social amenities of mourning as in the extrabiblical usages), it has frequently been assumed that the root fin means a 'shrill sound', and therefore could be either a cry of joy (thus the context of feasting in Amos 6.7) or of sorrow (thus the context of mourning in Jer. 16.5) (cf S. Driver 1907: 94; Eissfeldt 1966; 1973a: 119-21; 1973b: 136-38; Harrison 1973: 104; Keil 1977: I, 268; Meyer 1979: 603-604). But Pope (1972: 193-94; 1977a: 164-65; 1977b: 220-21; cf. also Margalit 1979-80: 101) suggests that it is cognate to the Arabic rzh, meaning 'to fall down from fatigue and to remain prostrate without power to rise'. Collapse from drunken overindulgence was part of revelry (cf. RS 24.258 11. 15-22) as well as part of mourning activities. Thus, in that wa the term has been related to both types of occasions (cf. Lewis 1989: 88-89, 93). In applying the nonbiblical usages of the term to an understanding of Jer. 16.5, a couple of distinctions should be made. Clearly, as the parallel to nntOQ in v. 8 shows, the term in Jeremiah refers to an event and not to an association. Although in nonbiblical usages the term can have the technical meaning of a specific place of feasting, since the emphasis in Jer. 16.5 is not on the locale but on the activity, nPiQ ITD should not be understood as a technical term specifying a locale with a specialized function (e.g. not a 'funeral parlor', nor a particular place set aside only for 'funeral feasts'; contra Loretz 1982: 91), but generically as any building, including private domiciles, in which mourning was occurring. Although in the nonbiblical usages the term involves cultic feasts, in Jeremiah it need not carry connotations of nonYahwistic rites (cf. Ackerman 1989: 279) but was rather a generic term for funeral feasts. It is interpretatively unsound to assume, merely on the basis of the use of the same term, that there is an identity between pre-1300 BCE Ugaritic practices, Israelite practices of the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, and Palmyrian practices of the first three centuries CE. This is contra Barstad (1984: 129) who argues that the occasion mentioned by Jeremiah did involve such pagan rites. But he does so on the basis that v. 5 was a prohibition addressed to the people, who according to vv. 11, 13, 18 were involved in pagan worship. But his argument fails at two additional points, which are discussed above: (1) the prohibition is not directed to the people, but personally to Jeremiah. Such a command not to participate in nonYahwistic rituals would seem to be totally superfluous to a prophet of Yahweh. The structural parallelism of the command in v. 5 with those of vv. 2 and 8 show that the former was not an undesirable thing which was prohibited, but rather something which was socially expected and an event in which the prophet would naturally participate. (2) There is no interpretative link between vv. 10-13 and vv. 1-9 by which the nature of the activities in vv. 5-9 can be evaluated as non-Yahwistic. 20. Although 130 derives from the nonverbal gesture of 'beating the breast' and can also refer to paralinguistic 'wailing, lamenting' (see under Ezek. 24.15-24, Chapter 2 §2.2), here it has the general meaning of 'mourning' (cf. Gruber 1980: 438-39). 21. TO derives from the nonverbal gesture of shaking the head (cf. Jer. 18.16)

90

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

rituals is not only a show of respect for the dead or a catharsis to alleviate personal grief, but is also a means of expressing, through socially recognized channels, concern, and of offering sympathetic assistance to those in the grieving process. In the latter case, the focus of one's participation is not on the dead person but on the bereaved. Jeremiah's behavior was not only an abstaining from activities which showed respect for the dead (suggested by v. 6. As evidenced by the connotation of the term 11] (v. 5), 'to console', and the emphasis in v. 7 ('and they will not break [bread] for them22 in mourning23 in order to comfort him or perhaps from the shaking of the whole body (cf. Gruber 1980: 406; Holladay 1986: 441), possibly as a result of violent sobbing and lamenting. But here the prohibition does not mean to refrain from making that specific gesture, rather not to express the emotions of mourning and sympathy which that gesture displays. In v. 5, the object of the preposition, in the phrase nn'p 13D, is not explicit, and the understanding of the referent affects the understanding of the connotation of TO. In Jer. 22.10, ... t 7 ~!1] clearly means to mourn for the dead person: l~I]n ^Nl IDDfl *?$ i?. (Contra Gruber [1980: 406] who, in order to make ~I1] consistently mean 'console', must insert words into the translation: 'do not console [those who mourn] for his sake'.) If that connotation is applicable to Jer. 16.5, then the sense is 'do not mourn for them, i.e. the dead'. But in numerous other places,... *? "113 means 'console, condole, comfort the one(s) mourning' (cf. Gruber 1980: 406407): //*7an in Jer. 15.5;//Dm in Isa. 51.19; Nan. 3.7; Job 2.11; 42.11; Ps. 69.21. Therefore the meaning here would be 'do not console them, i.e. those who are mourning and grieving' (cf. Gruber 1980: 441; Thompson 1980: 405). In light of v. 7 where the emphasis is on acts of comfort and consolation to the bereaved, and the use of QI13, a frequent synonym of "T13, the latter meaning of 'console' is preferable here. 22. Isa. 58.7 reads DFI^ DID indicating that in this expression the direct object should be 'bread'. But Lam. 4.4 only reads Dil^ 2712, with the direct object, 'bread', being implied. So it is possible that here in Jer. 16.7, the direct object, 'bread' is unexpressed, but implied. The LXX reads DPI1? for MT's D!"!1?, and is generally followed. 23. ^DK ^U: If the MT pointing is retained, the preposition is that of norm, thus meaning 'in accordance with mourning (customs)'. ^Dtf is a technical term for the conventional mourning rituals performed over the whole period of mourning (cf. Baumann 1977: 45). Frequently it is repointed to the adjective, 'mourner' (^58), with the whole phrase meaning 'do not break [bread] for/to a mourner'. The resulting structure makes the emendation plausible since it provides a referent for the suffix (which is lacking in LXX) on lam1?. But Holladay (1966: 418-19) argues for the MT pointing on the basis of the parallelism between cola 1 and 3 ('[bread] for mourning'//'cup of consolation') and that of 2 and 4 ('for the dead'//'for his father and his mother').

2. Jeremiah's and Eiekiel 's Sign-Acts

91

on account of the dead, and they will not give them24 the cup of consolation to drink25 on account of his father and his mother'), 26 it was also an abstention from mourning customs which served the social function of expressing sympathy and condolences to the survivors of the deceased.27 There was thus emphasis on abstaining from the communal interaction within the mourning process. For Jeremiah to abstain from such would not have been considered just eccentric, but within the context of familial and communal solidarity, such behavior was disrespectful both to the dead and to the survivors. The interpretation of Jeremiah's action is found in vv. 6b-7 which form an implied simile with v. 5a. Structurally the first two points of comparison form a chiasmus:

24. DniK is frequently emended to TUN, consistent with the following singular suffixes. But if MT's CH1? is retained with CH1? implied, then the sequence of number follows an a: b: a': b' pattern: plural (Dnb), singular (inn]'?), plural (CHIN), singular (ION, TDK). 25. The breaking of bread and drinking from the cup of consolation refer to the practice of either food provided by friends and neighbors at the conclusion of the fasting period during mourning (cf. 1 Sam. 31.13; 2 Sam. 1.12; 3.35; 12.20-21) or to food and drink brought into the house of the deceased for the surviving relatives since food preparation was prohibited in the dwelling because of the uncleanness produced by the death. On food associated with mourning, see Tob. 4.17 and the references to 'bread of mourners/men' in Ezek. 24.17, 22; Hos. 9.4. The 'cup of consolation' is not mentioned biblically elsewhere, but in later Judaism it was prescribed that ten cups of wine were to be consumed in the mourner's house (cf. Ket. 8b; Sem. 14.14), one of which was for the comforting of the mourners (D'^riK "Cimrr?). 26. Loretz (1982) argues that originally in v. 7, there were no references to comforting the survivors (deleting 7aB, 7b6 as secondary additions), but only references to food and sacrifices offered to the dead. Thus, he interprets the HPlD in v. 5 as the place where the cultic association performed those death rites. But Loretz's understanding and deletions are questionable since it is unlikely that the Yahwistic prophet, Jeremiah, would have naturally associated with such an association and rituals so that his participation needed to be prohibited, and since in v. 5, showing sympathy to the survivors was already part of the prohibited action to which v. 7 correlates as interpretation. 27. See King's (1988a: 137) assessment of the function of the nrin: The purpose of the funerary aspect of the maneah was to offer consolation to those in mourning. By sharing food and drink with the mourners, participants offered solace and comfort' (cf. also 1988b: 36-37; 1993: 141; Lewis 1989: 138).

92

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts v. 5.

(a) you shall not go to the house of grieving (i.e. a specific action in the mourning process); (b) and you shall not go to mourn (ISO); (c) and you shall not express sympathy (11]); v. 6b. (b') and they will not mourn (120); (a1) and one will not lacerate himself or make himself bald (i.e. specific gestures in the mourning process);28 1 v. 7. (c ) and they will not break bread and not give the cup of consolation to drink in order to comfort (Din). As in the abstention from marriage, so too in this behavior, Jeremiah functioned in the role of the people and representationally depicted what the people would do when the judgment came.29 The basis of properly interpreting the simile-relationship between Jeremiah's behavior and the corresponding people's behavior is clear in v. 6a which refers to the future event of people dying, also mentioned in vv. 3-4. The temporal sequence is thus established that when those future deaths occurred, then vv. 6b-7 would happen. Just as Jeremiah refrained from the mourning customs and expressions of comfort (v. 5), so too would the people refrain from their customary expressions of mourning. Like Jeremiah's 28. Certain types of self-laceration and of shaving the head bald in mourning were prohibited in the law (Lev. 19.27-28; 21.5; Deut. 14.1), but some types were apparently practiced by the Israelites (cf. shaving in Jer. 7.29; Ezek. 7.18; Isa. 22.12; Amos 8.10; Mic. 1.16; Job 1.20; shaving and body gashing: Jer. 41.5). The statement here expresses neither condemnation nor approval of the practices, but merely acknowledges that such practices were part of the customary rituals which would no longer be practiced in the circumstances specified. 29. Jeremiah depicted what the people would do in the future, not what they should do in the present. Thus his actions were not exhortations for the people currently to refrain from mourning and from joyous actions because such behaviors were considered inappropriate in anticipation of the coming destruction (contra Carroll 1986: 340; Cornill 1905: 203-204; Thompson 1980: 405). Jeremiah's refrainment from mourning thus contrasted with Ezekiel's (24.15-24; see Chapter §2.2) in that Jeremiah's was a prediction of what would happen in the future while Ezekiel's was a demonstration of appropriate behavior in the future. Since Ezekiel's exilic audience could only react to the distant destruction as observers, Ezekiel therefore demonstrated to them what their appropriate response should be. In contrast, Jeremiah's audience would be active victims of the judgment events; therefore he predicted the conditions in which they would find themselves after the destruction.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

93

action (v. 5), the people's actions would have a two-pronged focus: the one was directed toward the dead (v. 6) to show respect, and the other toward those who grieved (v. 7) so as to give comfort. Jeremiah's nonverbal behavior only showed the resultant behavior of the people, not the psychological motivation for such. There is no reason to assume that the lack of mourning by the people resulted from their callousness because they had become so accustomed to death because of the enormity of the slaughter, nor that the point of the message was that the public calamities were too great to permit individual losses to come into consideration. Rather, the people's lack of performing the mourning amenities was due to the circumstance of the decimation of the population (v. 6a). The death toll would be so massive, that the normal consolations and rites, including burial, were beyond the capability of the few who survived.30 For the dead not to be buried was considered a most disgraceful circumstance.31 So just as Jeremiah's behavior was 30. This is similar to the situation, as described by Thucydides, during the plague in Athens in 430 BCE during which some 'were so overwhelmed by the weight of their calamities that they had actually given up the usual practice of making laments for the dead... The bodies of the dying were heaped one on top of the other... The temples ... were full of the dead bodies of people who had died inside them. For the catastrophe was so overwhelming that men, not knowing what would happen next to them, became indifferent to every rule of religion or of law. All the funeral ceremonies which used to be observed were now disorganized, and they buried the dead as best they could. Many people, lacking the necessary means of burial because so many deaths had already occurred in their households, adopted the most shameless methods' (History of the Peloponnesian War 2.51-52, translated by R. Warner). The Egyptian 'Prophecy of Neferti' refers to the dissolution of mourning as part of the social collapse: 'This land is (so) damaged (that) there is no one who is concerned with it, no one who speaks, no one who weeps... There is no one who weeps because of death; there is no one who spends the night fasting because of death; (but) a man's heart pursues himself (alone). (Dishevelled) mourning is no (longer) carried out today, (for) the heart is completely separated from it' (ANET 445a, c). But in this passage, the refraining from mourning seems to be the result of self-absorption in which no one is concerned about what is happening to anyone else, rather than resulting from the extensity of destruction. 31. The theme of nonburial is repeated in Jer. 8.2; 9.21; 14.16; 22.19; 25.33; 36.30, and the result is that the bodies become food for the animals (v. 4) in Jer. 7.33; 19.7; 34.20. Such is mentioned elsewhere in Deut. 28.26; Ezek. 39.17-20; Pss. 79.2-3; 83.11; 1 Kgs 14.11; 16.4; 21.24; 2 Kgs 9.10, 36-37; Isa. 5.25; 18.6; 1 Sam. 17.43-46; Gen. 40.19. Being left unburied was part of the ancient Near East

94

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

perceived as socially disrespectful, so too the survivors' future behavior would be a form of disrespect since they would not be able to bury the dead properly or mourn over them. From an emotional standpoint, the extent of the catastrophe touched everyone. Because each individual survivor would lose family members and would be alone, just as Jeremiah had no descendants because of his celibacy, they each would undergo such an extreme sense of loss that they would be personally unable to express consolation and condolence to their friends and neighbors who had experienced similar losses. The customary rituals which expressed the communal solidarity with the sufferers would not be exercised because there was no longer any community and the few who survived were not in the circumstantial position to console. In v. 5b, God's withdrawal of his peace is not the interpretation of the action, but rather the motivation for the desolating judgment expressed in v. 6a (cf. also v. 4) which would result in the people's behavior of vv. 6b-7. So Jeremiah was not functioning in the role of God, and thus his nonparticipation in the social function did not depict God's withdrawal from his people.32 The emphasis of this prohibition (v. 5), and the following one in v. 8, was not on Jeremiah's total social withdrawal, but rather his nonparticipation in a specific communal activity. 3. No festive activities. The third prohibition (v. 8)33 was Jeremiah's abstinence from participation in joyous festive occasions: 'And to the treaty curse (cf. Fensham 1963: 161-63; Killers 1964: 68-69): e.g. Esarhaddon treaty, lines 426-27 (ANET 53Sc), 451-52 (ANET 53&d), 483-84 (ANET539a);Seti I decree (ANET 328a); Eshmunazar sarcophagus (ANET 662c); Maqlu 4.42-44; 8.85-89. 32. Contra van den Born 1935: 31, 61-62; 1947: 61; Clerc 1985: 131; Klein 1988: 36-37; Thompson 1980: 405, 407. 33. Holladay (1986: 470; cf. also Pope 1981: 176-77; Lewis 1989: 89, 138-39) suggests that rather than two prohibitions, one against attending funerals (v. 5) and another against joyous festivities (v. 8), there may only be a single prohibition against funerals. Thus ni"l2?Q JT3 (v. 8) is merely a redundant, synonymous restatement of nriQ ITD (v. 5). This interpretation is based, in part, on the name of the rabbinic tractate on 'mourning' which is euphemistically called 'rejoicings' (Semahof) and on the tractate's reference to the dead as 'groom' and 'bride' in Sem. 8.2, 7 (cf. 3.1, 7; 11.4-5). Thus v. 9 would be a euphemistic manner of speaking about mourning activities. But such an interpretation overlooks the stereotypical nature of the phraseology in v. 9. Such language is also found in Jer. 7.34; 25.10; 33.11 where it clearly does not refer to the removal of mourning activities, but of joyful sounds.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

95

house of feasting 34 you will not go to sit with them35 to eat and to drink.' Although the context gives weddings as a specific type (v. 9b: 'groom's voice and bride's voice'), 36 the proscribed activities were undoubtedly broader than that since there is the general reference to the removal of '(the) sound of joy and (the) sound of gladness', and nntOQ refers to the joyous communal and family celebrations which took

Also Zlotnick (1966: 14-15) discusses the tractate passages, and although he takes the terms 'bride' and 'groom' to be references to the dead, he notes that the terms did not express the deceaseds' state of being, but rather designated their youthful age. Thus the terms cannot be considered synonymous with 'dead persons'. As Holladay(1986: 470) points out, the chiasmus formed by the verb and indirect object of location between vv. 5 (nnn JT3 [b] K13H btf [a]) and 8 («nn K1? [a'] nran IT3 [b'J), and the structural parallelism between vv. 5-7 (v. 5a: [a] prohibition; vv. 5b-7: [b] interpretation // v. 8: [a'j prohibition; v. 9: Lb1]interpretation) suggest a shift in the subject matter. More decisive for understanding the two as contrasting commands is the use of nnro !T3 in antithetic parallelism to ^3K m in Eccl. 7.2; cf. also in Eccl. 7.4 where the latter is antithetic to HPTO 173. The same contrast is brought out in Est 9.22, that when the people were delivered from the threat of destruction, it was for them a month in which sorrow was turned to gladness and mourning into a good day (310 OV1? ^3^01 nnDCC1? j'ro), so that it was a time of feasting and gladness (nriQOI nrra 'Q'). The term, nnro, never refers to a feast held in conjunction with funeral rites, but always in conjunction with joyous occasions. In Sem. 8.15, the mourner is forbidden to go to a nnSQ JT3. In Jer. 51.39, the nntira did take place in the context of death, but there the feast was preparatory so as to make the Babylonians drunk in judgment. So even there it was not a feast after death occurred. In an inscription from Palmyra (cf. Teixidor 1981) there is reference to a WTO (1. 14) in which the rtno H S13J (11. 3-4) participate. But in this much later text, it cannot be concluded that the 'feast' was a funeral meal. 34. nntOQ 1T3, literally 'house of drinking'. The point of the prohibition was not to restrict Jeremiah from going to a specific locale, but rather to refrain from the festive occasion which was associated with the place. Although the term could have the technical meaning of 'banquet hall' (cf. Est. 7.8 where it refers to the banquet room of the palace), it probably here has the broader connotation of any house or private domicile at which a feast was taking place. 35. nmtf is frequently repointed. But the MT pointing is a variant vocalization of the preposition which occurs repeatedly in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and is not the direct object marker (cf. BDB 85c). 36. The reference to the voice of the bride and groom is clearly an allusion back to Jeremiah's not marrying in v. 2: there would be no wedding feast of his own to attend and he was not to attend those of others.

96

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

place not only at marriages (Gen. 29.22; Judg. 14.12, 17), but also when a child was weaned (Gen. 21.8), at birthdays (Gen. 40.20; cf. Job 1.4), at the queen's coronation (Est. 2.18), and during sheepshearing time (1 Sam. 25.36). The emphasis of the restraint seems therefore to be upon nonparticipation in varied communal festivities. Although the verbal explanation which was given to the people (v. 9)37 was not explicitly expressed in simile-form, a simile between Jeremiah's behavior and the people's behavior is implied. By analogy to the other two actions in which Jeremiah functioned representationally as the people, such is the case here. Since he does not function in the role of God, his abstention should not be understood as communicating God's withdrawal from the people. Verse 9 does not express that God withdraws himself but rather, via judgment, he removes from the people their occasions for rejoicing.38 The day would come when the people would not be able to attend such festivities. Jeremiah thus anticipatorily functioned as if those occasions had already been taken away. His lack of attending joyous celebrations was not because of an inappropriateness of doing so in light of the coming destruction, but rather to communicate representationally the people's future behavior. In all three prohibitions, Jeremiah functioned in the role of the people representing to them what their future life would be like when the judgment came. In none of the nonverbal displays did Jeremiah express the psychological motivation for the people's imitative behavior, but only the people's resultant condition and external behavior after the devastation had occurred. In the celibacy he represented the state of familial solitariness in which they would find themselves. In the latter two behaviors he represented the type of actions which they would no longer perform because of the destruction's overwhelming totality: they would no longer be capable of communally expressing sympathy while 37. The stereotypical nature of v. 9 does not mean that it could not have been an ad hoc interpretation. Undoubtedly the prophets used the same stereotypical expressions in various spontaneous utterances. This is contra van den Born (1947: 59) who argues that the stereotypical nature of v. 9 reflects an interpretation given in retrospect, which in turn indicates the same for all the interpretations of the actions ofvv. 1-8. 38. The removal of joyful sounds is a common description of judgment: Jer. 7.34; 25.10; 33.11; Ezek. 26.13 (cf. the motif of joy turned into mourning in Lam. 5.14-15; Amos 8.10). The motif is also one of the stereotypical curses in ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties (cf. Fensham 1963: 171-72; Hillers 1964: 57-58): e.g. Sefire I A 29 (ANET660&); Ashurnirari treaty rev. 4.19 (ANET533b).

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

97

in the depth of grieving, nor would they have festive occasions in which to communally empathize with each other. 1.2.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. Attention was clearly gained through the nature of the behaviors which were contrary to the social norms and expectations. By his celibacy, Jeremiah would have no children to perpetuate his inheritance or remembrance. Such was considered catastrophic by a culture which stressed the continuance of one's memory through familial lines (cf. Jer. 22.30).39 There is no extant biblical Hebrew term for 'bachelor', which probably reflects the unusualness of the condition.40 So when Jeremiah publicly declared himself to be a bachelor, such certainly would have elicited from the audience a questioning attitude and from his family a shock that he was making no attempt to continue the lineage. Lack of participation in the communal activities of mourning and celebrating would have been considered socially unacceptable behavior. Jeremiah's absence from such must have evoked consternation as well as curiosity which would have provided the necessary openings to communicate verbally the meaning of his nonverbal behaviors. 2. Comprehension. The communicative significance of Jeremiah's behavior was probably not obvious solely through observation of the behaviors. His actions could have been easily misinterpreted as condemnatory of the involved social institutions, expressive of a personal desire to be a recluse, or expressive of Jeremiah's psychological condition. The outward behaviors, without any accompanying verbal interpretations, were probably initially interpreted as being informative about the prophet himself, rather than as bearing communicative messages for the people. Only the verbal explanations clarified what messages were thereby being nonverbally transmitted. 3. Acceptance. It may be assumed that the people were anticipating their lives to continue on in relative normalcy since, as vv. 10-13 indicate, they perceived no cause for calamity to occur. In order to 39. Also, in Jeremiah's letter to the Babylonian exiles (29.6), he told them to take wives and have children in Babylon. Such must have been considered, both by the recipients and by Jeremiah, to constitute normalcy of life. 40. Lambert (1963) cites ancient Near Eastern proverbs which reflect the attitudes toward celibacy at that time: for example 'He that supports no wife, he that supports no son, may his misfortunes be multiplied' (Fara II no. 26 III 9-11).

98

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

counteract that attitude, Jeremiah had to present the potential of a coming judgment in a memorable manner. The uniqueness of his behaviors in their contrariness to social norms and expectations not only served the function of gaining the people's attention, but also visually and graphically created an image in the people's minds of what the future would be like. The greatest rhetorical impact on an audience occurs temporally at the point of concurrence of audience expectation, nonverbal action, and verbal explanation. The audience's questioning (whether verbally or only mentally) of his lifestyle was undoubtedly most vociferous when he initially implemented the restrictions. It was the audience's initial curiosity which produced the greatest point of receptivity for the verbally communicated interpretations. After the nonverbal behaviors had been in existence for an extended period of time, there was probably a waning effect on the people who began to accept them as the 'standard operating procedure' for Jeremiah. Since the restrictions involved his total and continuous lifestyle, they comprised a greater depth of personal cost-involvement than did those sign-acts which were only solitary and momentary presentations. For Jeremiah, his behaviors resulted in a lack of offspring, social exclusion with its accompanying loneliness,41 and probably even caused scorn and ridicule to be directed at him. Such a depth of personal involvement must have been noticed by the audience. This should have helped to confirm in their minds the depth of conviction Jeremiah had concerning the issue, as well as to verify that what was being done was not by personal preference but through divine imposition. Recognition of the latter should have lent a greater sense of authority, and therefore suasive credibility, to the message Jeremiah proclaimed.42 41. It is generally noted that 15.15-21 and 16.1-9 have been editorially placed together so that the prohibitions of 16.1-9 provided the explanation, i.e. the prophet acted under divine commission, for the resultant situation of 'loneliness' described in 15.17. If that is the case, then 15.17 can be considered a confirmation, functioning like an execution statement, that Jeremiah actually carried out the commands of 16.1-9 (see Chapter 1 §3.3). The link between the two passages is highlighted more in the LXX in which 16.1 is lacking. Thus 16.2-9 is more closely associated with Jeremiah's 'lament' in 15.15-21, and specifically to the prophetic mission defined in 15.19-21 and to the affirmation in v. 17 that he had not sat in the circle of merrymakers but rather sat alone. 42. Cf. Berquist 1989: 134-35.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

99

4. Remembrance. Not only the unusual nature of the behaviors, but also Jeremiah's extended adherence to them with the resulting flux in audiences and circumstances, provided repeated openings for renewed verbal proclamations. Every time a friend or relative died or was married or had occasion for a festive gathering, Jeremiah was conspicuously absent from the mourning or joyous events. Even to those who already knew what Jeremiah was communicating by his lifestyle and had accepted his eccentric behavior as 'normal', the occasions of mourning and festivity allowed for a renewed heightened awareness of those behaviors, thus providing the mental stimuli to bring his message to remembrance. It must be presumed that on numerous occasions the opportunity presented itself for Jeremiah to repeat verbally the communicative message signified by his behaviors, or at least for the community to talk about his lifestyle commitments. 1.3 Jeremiah 13.1-11 1.3.1 Communicative Meaning. This sign-act was performed43 over an extended period of time, although the precise date at which the activities commenced is not given.44 The nonverbal actions fall into three

43. The discussion here presupposes this sign-act's actual performance rather than the account being that of a vision, literary fiction, or nonacted parable (see the discussion in Chapter 1 §3.) Carroll (1981: 131; 1986: 295-96) interprets the action as only a mime in which Jeremiah did not really do these things over an extended period of time but acted them out at one time before an audience in a dramatic display in which he drew the Euphrates River in the sand or designated some nearby place as such, and merely informed his audience that a long time had passed between the depicted actions. That interpretation runs into two difficulties: (1) the language of the text does not describe the creation of a setting which is quite different as evidenced in Ezek. 21.24. The text presupposes actual locations and an actual performance rather than a 'theatrical' collapsing of time and elements. (2) If there was no real time lapse, unless the prophet employed two waist-sashes, which the text in no way suggests, either he was originally wearing a ruined sash, or when he 'retrieved' the sash, he held before the audience a perfectly good sash which they then had to imagine was ruined. Thus the contrast between the new and ruined conditions is totally lost or contradicted if the sash was not really seen by the people in both its new and ruined states. 44. Although some suggest that the sign-act dates as early as the beginning of Jeremiah's ministry (c. 626 BCE) and therefore refers to the Assyrian, rather than Babylonian, influence (cf. Cornill 1905: 171), it is usually dated to Jehoiakim's reign of 609-597 BCE. The latter seems preferable because at that juncture the threat

100

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

sequential stages of performance: (1) the wearing of the new waist-sash (vv. 1-2), (2) burying it (vv. 3-5), and (3) retrieving it after it was spoiled (vv. 6-7).45 But the interpretation (vv. 8-11)46 is bifold, and structurally forms a chiasmus with the sequence of actions:

of forced exile in Babylon was a real possibility for the inhabitants of the Judahite vassal state. 45. Hubmann (1991) argues that there was originally only the singular action of vv. 1-2 of wearing the waist-sash which was a positive proclamation regarding Israel (i.e. the Northern Kingdom) as reflected in v. 11, and that vv. 3-10 (an references to Judah in v. 11) are subsequent expansions. His arguments are based on the discontinuity, and therefore, improbability of the waist-sash being used conjointly in both a positive (vv. 1-2) and a negative (vv. 3-8) manner, and on t apparent discrepancy of the referent for the waist-sash in v. 11 being 'the people', whereas in v. 9 it is the 'pride'. Yet the argument that positive and negative activities cannot cohere together is questionable, especially if such a contrast is a deliberate rhetorical strategy to depict respectively past and future historical situations. Also 'the pride' and 'the people' are not mutually exclusive terms as indicated by v. 10. Also, in Ezek. 24.21, ]1{W includes the offspring which were taken away. 46. Verses 10-11, or portions thereof, are at times cited as being later, probably Deuteronomic, interpolations. But there is no overriding reason to assume that vv. 10-11 give to the sign-act an interpretation other than what was originally intended. Thiel (1973: 170-73) has rightly pointed out that 13.8-9, lOa (the first three words), and lOb form a very close structural parallel to the interpretation of the sign-act in 19.1 la: 13.8-10 Introductory Statement: -IOK^ iLJK mrr nm TH

19.11a crr'w moKi

Messenger Formula:

mrr IDS nr>

rmnu mrr ~m ro

Announcement of God's Judgment (in terms of the nonverbal action):

rmrr p«j ns rrntDK HDD

run nan ns nnTO nro

nn tf^iT ]isj n«T

n»m Ti?n n«i

n?n T,Tto 7n...inn nn nun

-luvn "^ n» "asr ~W$G

Expression of total destruction:

W? rr?:r ^ ION

-nu nsin1? ^DV K1? nss

That parallelism, as well as the chiastic arrangement of the interpretation in vv. 811 with the actions in vv. 1-7, reinforce the argument that vv. 10-11 represent original interpretation.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

101

Action: Interpretation: A. v. 1: wearing (Action 1) B'. vv. 9-10: ruining B. vv. 5, 7: ruining (Actions 2 and 3) A', v. 11: wearing47 Although there is no reference to eyewitnesses, their presence is not thereby excluded.48 The waist-sash, while being worn, would have been clearly observable to any who saw Jeremiah, and it can therefore be assumed as part of the communication technique that the rained waistsash was displayed to the audience. Thus some of the stages must have been directly observed by an audience, while it is possible that other aspects were only reported to an audience. The repeated sequence of phrases connecting the commands (vv. 1-7) and the interpretation (vv. 8-11)—^K mrr "1QN HD (v. 1)... "Ql sm

^« mm (v. 3)... ^K mrr "iom (v. 6)... ^K mm ~m TH (v. 8)49—is the structure of a chronological schema in which vv. 8-11 follow temporally after vv. 1-7. This literary sequence may suggest that the meaning of the respective stages of activity was not relayed to the

47. Brueggemann (1988: 122) argues that the chiastic literary arrangement between command and interpretation is: '1st command: buy and wear (vv. 1-2) 2nd command: remove and hide (vv. 3-5) 3rd command: recover and1st in useless (vv. 6-7)

3rd interpretation: cling to Yahweh (v. 11). 2nd interpretation: Israel refuses Yahweh (v. 10). tion: Israel is worthless (v. 9).'

But his linking of vv. 3-5 with v. 10 is predicated on the connection between 'removing' the garment and Israel's 'removing' themselves from Yahweh. There is no explicit command in vv. 3-5 for Jeremiah to 'remove' the waist-sash; rather the focus of the command is on Jeremiah taking and burying it in Perat. Also, it is clear that the interpretation in v. 10 goes with the action of v. 7 because of the emphasis on the ruined condition of the waist-sash. It is better to take vv. 9-10 as a single interpretative section which follows the typical Prophecy of Disaster giving the 'announcement of judgment/threat' (v. 9) followed by the 'reason' or 'accusation' (v. lOa), and then concluding with a reiteration of the 'announcement of judgment/ threat' (v. lOb). 48. Contra Balla (1943: 108-109) that the action was done privately and, only subsequently, verbally reported to the people. 49. Stylistically, the formulas, along with the one in v. 9 form an a: b: c: b': a' pattern (cf. Bourguet 1987a: 242; 1987b: 168; Hubmann 1991: 113).

102

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

people as each was performed, but rather the verbal interpretation was given only after the culmination of the totality of actions when the ruined waist-sash had been retrieved. Whether Jeremiah understood the communicative meaning of his nonverbal activities while in the process of performing them is not recorded. But even if he did not understand their communicative significances until the time the message-content was given to him to be verbalized to the people, the actions were intentionally performed at the command of God. 1. Wearing the waist-sash. Initially Jeremiah was to purchase a linen waist-sash and wear it (v. 1). The article of clothing, TUK, has been identified either as a 'loincloth', much like a knee-length skirt or kilt, which was an inner garment (thus no other type of garment was worn underneath it), or as a 'girdle' or 'sash' which was a piece of cloth wrapped around the waist to hold the other garments in place. Other passages show that Tim refers to an outwardly visible article of clothing. In Ezek. 23.15 the wall reliefs of the Chaldeans show them wearing the article of clothing (min Dmrm Tim) and in 2 Kgs 1.18, although the people who saw him did not know Elijah's identity, they gave a visual description of him which included wearing a leather

mm.50

Since an Tim was an outwardly visible piece of attire and since, if it were Jeremiah's loincloth, its removal would have left him naked, the article of clothing was most probably the waist-sash.51 The waist-sash was used not just as the practical item of clothing to hold the garments together and the place for tucking in the edges of the robe when working, but also functioned in an ornamental manner. Thus it also correlates to the people (as waist-sash) being the praise and glory of God (v. lib).52

50. The other occurrences of TltK are not helpful in determining the specific identity of the article of clothing, but only that it was worn by kings (Job 12.18; Isa. 11.5) and soldiers (Isa. 5.27). 51. Also, in Isa. 20 when Isaiah was commanded to remove his loincloth and go naked, pfo is the specified piece of clothing. Since ~11TN is used elsewhere in Isa. (5.27; 11.5), a distinction may be made between the two articles of clothing. 52. Holladay (1986: 397) argues against rnKsn'Tl r6nrr7l DB^I (v. 11) being a Deuteronomistic, redactional interpolation.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

103

The first part of the nonverbal action is interpreted in v. 11. The waist-sash figuratively stood for53 the people of Israel54 and Judah. The clinging of the garment closely to the person, figuratively stood for the closeness of the relationship which the people ('the waist-sash') had with God (the role assumed by Jeremiah in the nonverbal behavior). The first part of the sign-act depicted the past and current relationship of the people with God that they were bound to him through the covenantal privileges and obligations. The waist-sash was specified as being made of linen (DTlEJD). It has frequently been pointed out that linen was the material of the priests' garments (Ezek. 44.17-18), and therefore that aspect possibly reflected the priestly nature of the people (cf. Exod. 19.6).55 But linen was apparently a material worn by any who could afford it (cf. worn by those contracting leprosy, Lev. 13.47,48, 52, 59) and it was not particularly the possession of the priests or nobility. Had the priestly girdle been specifically in mind, QiQN (cf. Exod. 28.4, 39-40; 29.9; 39.29; Lev. 8.7, 13; 16.4) could have been used to make the connection more explicit. The term DTK0S is most often used not as a technical term for a specific type of material, but as a general designation of cloth which is distinct from wool (cf. Lev. 13.47, 48, 52, 59; Deut. 22.11; Ezek. 44.17-18; Hos. 2.7, 11; Prov. 31.13). Outside of Ezek. 44.17-18 (where 'linen' is used in contrast to 'wool'), the priestly garments were to be made of specific types of linen, m (cf. Exod. 28.5-6, 8, 15, 39; 39.2-3, 5, 8, 27-29) or ID (cf. Exod. 28.42; 39.28; Lev. 6.3; 16.4, 23, 32). If the linen garments of the priest were meant, either of those two terms would have made the identification explicit. Since no allusion to 'linen' is made in the verbal interpretation (vv. 8-11) and the description as a linen material is not repeated after v. 1, it need not be assumed that the 'linenness' had any communicative meaning. Possibly the only significance of the linen quality was to describe the waist-sash as being of a 53. Jeremiah's employment of the waist-sash was solely for communicative purposes as a figurative artifact. Thus there is no direct correlation with the use of clothing or with the burial of objects in magical rituals (contra Fohrer 1968: 34-35; Clerc 1985: 127). 54. In v. 11, 'the whole house of Israel' is frequently considered a gloss. But since this portion of the nonverbal action depicts past events, a reference to the totality of the people (both Israelites and Judahites) cannot be arbitrarily excluded. 55. Cf. Clerc 1985: 127; Haulotte 1966: 166; Holladay 1986: 397; Huey 1993: 144; Keil 1977:1, 232; Thompson 1980: 364.

104

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

cloth material in contrast to leather (cf. Elijah's waist-sash of leather, 2 Kgs 1.18). In other words, the waist-sash was to be made of a material which would rot quickly in order to facilitate the communication event.56 An additional stipulation (v. Ib) was given that the waist-sash must not be placed in water. This command has been variously interpreted as part of the message-content of the sign-act. One interpretation is that the command meant not to wash the waist-sash even when it became dirty and required washing. Thus the soiled condition of the sash reflected the people's accumulated spiritual filthiness through disobedience to God.57 Thus, by the sash becoming dirty, the reason for its being ruined was also nonverbally transmitted. But if the point was that the sash should become soiled in order to communicate the people's spiritual 'dirtiness', the command not to place it in water would have been a very oblique way of expressing such. A direct statement for the prophet to allow it to become dirty would be more expectable. Also, a dirty waist-sash would not have been consistent with the rest of the nonverbal depiction. For if the sash became soiled while being worn, because of the roles assumed in the nonverbal communication, such would have to be considered the result of the negligence or lack of care by the wearer (God), not the fault of the cloth (the people). The dirt accumulated through wearing would have been a passive acquisition on the part of the waist-sash (the people), which does not correlate with Jeremiah's contention that the people actively participated in the things which corrupted them. Another interpretation is that not placing the waist-sash in water meant never taking it off, for the spoilage came when the sash was no longer being worn. Thus the prohibition was a way of emphasizing the bond between God and his people as depicted in the continual wearing of the sash.58 But the straightforward statement that Jeremiah was not to remove the sash would have been far more appropriate to express the concept suggested. Although the interpretation emphasizes the wearing,

56. Likewise in Jer. 19.1 the vessel is designated as EHF! "l^V, but its descriptive quality had no communicative value. Its earthenware composition was needed because of its breakable nature in order to facilitate the communication of the message. 57. Cf. Keil 1977:1, 232-33. 58. Cf. Boehmer 1909: 456-57; Duhm 1901: 120; McKane 1986: 290.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

105

it is not just the fact of its removal which brings about the ruination, but specifically its placement in a situation which would bring about such. Yet a third proposed interpretation is that since water was the agent of the sash's destruction, not placing it in water while it was being worn meant that the clothing was preserved intact and guarded from the element that would destroy it. Thus the command was a way of emphasizing the waist-sash's newness and cleanliness which stood for the people's unspoiled purity.59 The major objection to this interpretation is that nowhere does the text indicate that water was the agent of destruction. When Jeremiah was commanded to conceal the waist-sash, he was to do so in 'a crevice of the cliff. It was actually the contact with the decaying forces of the ground, and not with any riverwater, which brought about the quick spoilage of the garment. Also, the verbal interpretation has no reference to the people's initial purity, only to their disobedience. If purity was the point, far better would have been the command not to get the garment dirty, rather than a restriction against not washing it which would have been an action which renewed its cleanliness. Since communicative meaning in the accompanying verbal interpretation is not attributed to the stipulation against placing it in water, it may have served only as an informative contrast to the burying. Thus it transmitted no message about Israel's condition of purity or soiledness, but was necessary only to enhance the contrast being made. The waistsash had not been damaged previous to the wearing and was not destroyed through use or care of it, but rather through a deliberate act of placing it in circumstances where it would be ruined. 2. Burying of the waist-sash. The second stage of the nonverbal behavior (vv. 3-4) was that Jeremiah journeyed to Perat and there, in a crevice of the rock, buried the waist-sash. Although ]QtD literally means 'hide', 'conceal', at times, it clearly has the connotation of 'hiding through burying in the ground' (cf. Gen. 35.4; Exod. 2.12; Josh. 7.2122; cf. also of people: Isa. 2.10; Job 40.13). 'Burying' is also implied by the fact that Jeremiah had to dig (HDPI) the waist-sash out from where it was (v. 7) in order to retrieve it. The major debated issue in the performance of this part of the action is the locale of Perat.60 In all other biblical occurrences, n~lEJ is the name 59. Cf. Buzy 1923: 127; Dyer 1994: 78-79. 60. There is no basis for Clements's (1988: 85-86) and Schreiner's (1981: 81) contention that all the place references were later additions which were inserted, or

106

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

for the Euphrates River, and refers to such in Jer. 46.2, 6, 10, and 51.63. Although the Euphrates River is usually referred to by the fuller nomenclature of n~)S in],61 on occasion (cf. 2 Chron. 35.20; Jer. 51.63), it is designated only by JT1S. So in Jeremiah 13, the specification without ~lil] cannot be decisive in arguing against it being the Euphrates. But in those other two passages, other locational references associated with the term make the addition of 'river' unnecessary (2 Chron. 35.20: D"IS ^y BtonDD; Jer. 51.63: located in Babylon in v. 60). Since nothing else in Jeremiah 13 specifically places it in Babylon, the possibility exists that Perat in this passage is another location other than the Euphrates River. Some commentators have maintained that Jeremiah actually made the journey to the Euphrates River.62 Since Jerusalem to the Euphrates was about 350 miles, this would have meant Jeremiah made two roundtrips, each of which was three to six months in length (cf. Ezra 7.9 where the one-way journey took four months). Those who maintain such an actual journey argue that such extended absences could have occurred during the latter period of Jehoiakim's reign, and that an actual acquaintance between Jeremiah and the Babylonians would help to explain the latter's favorable disposition toward him after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer. 39.11-12). But two such extended journeys just for the sake of a communication event, when the Jerusalemite audience would not observe his actual burying or retrieval, seem unnecessary and improbable.63 After a three to six months' absence, a person's clothing cannot be assumed to be a noticeable item of attention because of the expected change of attire made over such a period. Therefore, upon Jeremiah's return from an extended journey, the missing waist-sash could not be presumed to have been a feature noticeable to the spectators. Since the action was a communication event, an actual journey to the Euphrates need not be demanded. Since the whole of the action was based on the figurative artifact of the waist-sash standing for the people, that of Stacey (1990: 132-34) that the original locale of Parah was later editorially modified, so as to reinterpret an original portrayal of the people's ruined and useless condition into an exilic reference. 61. Jer. 46.2, 6, 10; Gen. 15.18; Deut. 1.7; 11.24; Josh. 1.4; 2 Sam. 8.3; 2 Kgs 23.29; 24.7; 1 Chron. 5.9; 18.3; cf. similarly Gen. 2.14: mD «in...-irrm. 62. Cf. Balla 1943: 99-101; Keil 1977:1, 230-31. 63. Cf. Jones 1992: 195-96.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

107

one can assume that the actual locale of hiding the waist-sash need only carry an allusion to the Mesopotamian region. For the message's communicative meaning, the significance was in the place name, Perat, and not in the actual location of the hiding.64 Probably a location near Jerusalem which bore the name Perat65 or Parah66 was selected so that the name of the hiding place played homonymically on 'Euphrates'.67 Word-plays were part of Jeremiah's repertoire of communication (cf. 1.11-12), so that such can be assumed in this case as well. Although not expressed, when Jeremiah journeyed to this nearby locale, spectators may have accompanied him so as to verify and witness the actual burial and retrieval of the cloth garment (cf. Jer. 19.1).68 3. Retrieval of the waist-sash. The third part of the action (vv. 6-7) was Jeremiah's retrieval of the waist-sash and the discovery that it was

64. Although often assumed that the garment was buried in a river location and thus spoiled by the water, such is not mentioned. Since Perat bore the message through word association which was based on the auditory similarity of the names rather than on the physical similarity of location, it need not be assumed to have been by a river. 65. We cannot rule out the possibility of a locale, still unknown to us, named Perat in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Dyer (1994: 72-76) suggests the identification with the city of Pharathoni (1 Mace. 9.50) and the valley of Pheretae (Josephus, War 4.511-12). In a different vein, Jones (1992: 196) suggests that Jeremiah, for the purpose of the sign-act, simply selected a wadi and arbitrarily called it Perat, although such was not its actual name. Unlikely and unnecessary are the suggestions, by others, of either nnSN (Bethlehem), with an aphaeresis of the prosthetic N, and or the emendation to 'Perez'. 66. Frequently suggested is the town in the territory of Benjamin (Josh. 18.23), located in a rocky valley (Wadi Fara) about five miles northeast of Jerusalem (cf. Birch 1880). It is argued that Parah meets the requirements of the text since the area has rocky crags and an abundant water supply. (But as noted above, the latter need not be an assumed requirement.) If Parah is meant, then in vv. 4 and 7 nrn? should be revocalized to nrns, and in v. 5, n~lD must be emended to n~lD. According to Janzen's (1973: 177; cf. also Holladay 1986: 393) transcription, 4QJera, in v. 5, reads nrnDD, the place name with prefixed preposition and suffixed he-locale (cf. GKC 90e). If this is original, then no consonantal emendation would be necessary to read 'Parah' throughout. 67. Since only a homonymic allusion is being employed here, the fact that the location to which he took the waist-sash was near Jerusalem does not signify 'the Euphrates on Judah's soil', thereby meaning an invasion by the Babylonians into Judah's land (contra Holladay 1986: 398). 68. Cf. Jones 1992: 196.

108

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

totally ruined. Since in the verbal interpretation, only the wearing of the waist-sash (v. 11) and the bringing about of its destruction (vv. 9-10) are ascribed communicative meaning, Jeremiah's acquisition of the waist-sash (vv. 1-2), the refrainment from placing it in water (v. 1), the method of concealment (vv. 4-5),69 and the retrieval of the garment (vv. 6-7) should not be interpreted as bearing specifiable message-contents.70 The act of retrieval was necessary only to present before the people the artifact in its ruined condition so that they could see that it had rotted and was no longer useful for anything. The sign-act graphically depicted that the people would be destroyed through rotting, although ppQ is not specifically used.71 The question remains as to how that was actually to occur in the historical realm:72 is the spoiling of the garment to be understood as occurring through the political and/or theological collaboration between Judah and Babylon, which results from no longer clinging to God,73 or to be understood as an act of punishment either in the form of a Babylonian invasion

69. Thus the burial in a hole is not to be understood as signifying the ignominious and disgraceful condition of the Judahites while living in exile as if they were thrown into a cavern. 70. Bourguet (1987a: 247; 1987b: 173) correctly argues that Jer. 13.1-11 is a 'metaphor', in which every aspect of the figure does not resemble the referent, and not an 'allegory', in which every detail of the figure has a meaning. 71. The metaphor of rotting (ppQ) is used in Ezek. 33.10 and Lev. 26.39 for the consequence of the people's sins, and specifically, for the condition of exile. 72. Stacey (1990: 133-34) contends that such a question is invalid since the original sign-act was a generic, theological statement which did not imply any historical events. Thus 'the introduction of the idea of historical punishment distorts the original meaning of the drama' (134). But since the prophets consistently made very specific historical references in their verbal prophecies, and not just prepositional theological declarations, there is no basis to deny such reference in this case. 73. Cf. Baumann 1953; Brueggemann 1988: 122-23; Clerc 1985: 126-27; Cornill 1905: 170-71; Craigie, Kelly and Drinkard 1991: 191-93; Huey 1993: 144; Jones 1992: 196-97; Lundbom 1993: 16; Rudolph 1958: 86-87; Thompson 1980: 365-66. This interpretation of the spoiling as the corruption through political and theological contacts is frequently linked with the dating of the prophecy to about 605 BCE when Jehoiakim transferred his political allegiance from Egypt to Babylon. The prophecy is then assumed to be a caution against the implications and consequences of that political alliance.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

109

into Judah or the Judahites' exile to Babylon?74 In the former case, the people actively brought about the ruination through their political alliances with and religious borrowings from Mesopotamia, while in the latter the people passively received the punishment inflicted by God. Consistently throughout the sign-act Jeremiah functioned in the role of God, while the waist-sash, the figure of the people, served in a passive manner: just as the waist-sash was worn by Jeremiah, so the people 'clung' to God (v. 11). Since throughout the sign-act the nonverbal artifact was always acted upon by Jeremiah, such an understanding should determine the meaning of its destruction. Thus the key interpretative issue is the explicit activity of the prophetic (divine) burying rather than the passive condition of no longer being worn.75 Since in v. 9, the referent of HDD plus the first-person imperfect is the nonverbal action performed by the prophet, the explicit coordination was between the manner in which God was going to destroy the people and the manner in which Jeremiah brought about the ruination of the waist-sash.76 The correlation was that God would deliberately bring about the people's destruction, just like the ruination of the waist-sash was achieved through Jeremiah's deliberate activity of burying it. Thus the reading of rrrKBR (v. 9: first-person singular hiphil) accurately reflects Jeremiah's nonverbal activity,77 and should not be emended to nnt2J3 which arises

74. De Bondt (1950: 36-39) argues for a double, ironic meaning that the spoiling was a result of both deserting God and coming under Assyrian and Babylonian religious influences, as well as national destruction by going into exile. 75. This is also consistent with the subsequent literary unit of vv. 12-14, which is connected by the catchword HITO in v. 14, where the explicit emphasis is on the divine activity of judgment. 76. Bourguet (1987a: 250-52; 1987b: 177-78) rightly notes that in the verbal oracle (vv. 9-10) the lack of mention of Prat places the emphasis on the fact that it was God who did the destroying, rather than on how the people were to be destroyed. But he then goes on to conclude that the references to P'rat (the Euphrates) in vv. 1-8 were made so as to create an allusion to the magical practices of Mesopotamia, so that the prophetic action was understood in the ideological context of such magic. It rather seems that throughout the description of the nonverbal activity emphasis is placed on Perat as the 'location' of the destruction, and it is difficult to see how the audience would have perceived this place reference merely as an allusion to the abstract concept of Mesopotamian magic. Against the magical understanding of the prophetic sign-acts, see Chapter 1 §5.2. 77. MT's reading in Jer. 13.9 is exactly parallel to the verbalized interpretations of Jeremiah's shattering the earthenware jar in 19.11 and to Hananiah's breaking

110

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

out of the interpretation that the people spoiled themselves.78 The Jeremianic use of nnCD also argues against the sign-act referring to the people's moral corruption through their own actions. In its broader usage, the niphal of nns? can mean either the condition of moral corruption as a result of the people's own actions (cf. Gen. 6.11, 12; Ezek. 20.44) or the state of physical destruction wreaked upon an object by an outside force (cf. Exod. 8.20). But the niphal, as in 13.7, is used elsewhere in Jeremiah (18.4: the vessel being physically marred) only in the latter sense. Likewise in Jeremiah, all the other occurrences of nn0 (hiphil: 2.30; 4.7; 6.5; 11.19; 13.9, 14; 15.3, 6; 36.29: 49.9; 51.11, 25; piel: 5.10; 12.10; 48.18) have the meaning of 'physical destruction' and not 'moral corruption'.79 Since the artifact served a passive function and was only acted upon, excluded must be the interpretation that the ruination of the waist-sash meant the people's active associations with the Babylonians.80 In order to portray the corrupting nature of the peoples' activities, another manner of communication, which did not have the dichotomy between a passive vehicle and active tenor, would have been more appropriate. In this sign-act, the artifact only presented the contrasting conditions of the people (i.e. before and after) and did not portray the motivational causes for either condition. Although the people's disobedience was the motivation for the destruction, that cause was only verbally referenced (vv. 10-11)81 and not nonverbally depicted. Thus the spoilage was not the yoke in 28.11. In both of those actions the artifacts were acted upon by prophets who assumed the divine role and then spoke of God's activity:

rrnrr pto n« rrnEJK rro mrr ia« n^ (13.10) nan n« -OSN rro mrr IDS m (19.11) nswTDn] "75; ns -QEJR rrDn mrr ins ro (28.11) This parallelism supports MT's first-person hiphil reading in 13.9. 78. Contra Rudolph 1958: 86-87. 79. The only questionable occurrence is the hiphil in 6.28 as to whether the people are 'destroying' others, or acting in a morally corrupt manner. 80. In Jer. 2.18, the people's drinking from the waters of the Euphrates is used as a figure for the people's relying on and partaking of Babylonian influences. But that figure is expressed totally in terms of the people's active participation, unlike the passiveness of the waist-sash in 13.1-11. Therefore Jer. 2.18 cannot serve as a basis for the interpretation of Jer. 13.1-11, contra Baumann 1953: 79-80; Cornill 1905: 171; Rudolph 1958: 87. 81. Some interpret JIM in v. 9 as having the negative connotation of arrogance or conceit (hubris) (cf. Amsler 1985: 12; Baumann 1953: 78-79; Keil 1977:1, 234;

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

111

the moral or political defilement through pagan influence and alliances, but rather a punitive judgment imposed upon the people. As an expression of God's activity of imposing judgment upon the people, the question remains whether Jeremiah had in mind the destruction of Judah by the invading Babylonians,82 or the Judahites' exilic experience.83 Although no mention of exile is made, such is implied in the sign-act. As Jeremiah took the waist-sash to a different location (Perat) where it was rendered useless, so too God would destroy his people by removing them to the region of the Euphrates.84 The Stacey 1990: 133-34; Thiel 1973: 170), thus providing another motive for the judgment (cf. Jer. 48.29; Ezek. 16.49, 56). But the term can also have positive connotations and may refer here to the people's position of eminence, that is, their position of closeness to God, and its resultant material and spiritual benefits (cf. Carroll 1986: 294). }ltO then indicates, not a reason for judgment, but rather the excellence and majesty which the people would be unable to enjoy because of its removal. In this passage there may be a deliberate rhetorical play on the two nuances as the negative connotation is brought out in v. 10, while the positive connotation occurs in v. 11. 82. Cf. Dyer 1994; Holladay 1986: 398; Southwood 1979. 83. Cf. Amsler 1985: 12, 14; Balla 1943: 103-104; Bright 1965: 96; Buzy 1923: 128; Carroll 1981: 131-32; 1986: 296; Duhm 1901: 119; Fohrer 1968: 33; Jones 1992: 196-97; Keil 1977:1, 233-34; McKane 1986: Ixxii, 290-91; Thiel 1973: 174; Thompson 1980: 363. 84. This imagery contrasts with that of Isa. 8.5-8 where, to depict the Assyrian invasion, and Jer. 47.2, to depict the Babylonian invasion, the waters of the Euphrates overflow the river's banks and flood Judah and Philistia. Dyer (1994: 7880), Holladay (1986: 398), and Southwood (1979: 233-36) seek to find the understanding of the meaning of Jeremiah's action in the element of iJ^DH p'pl By citing Isa. 7.18 (invasion through the image of bees and flies) and Jer. 16.16 (the image of hunters and fishermen), where the phrase has the connotation of 'hiding places', they then interpret Jeremiah's hiding the waist-sash in the crevices of the rock as Judah's seeking to hide from the Babylonian invasion. But in spite of the attempts to hide, the Judahites will still be spoilt by the rising water of the Euphrates (citing Isa. 8.6-8; Jer. 46.7; 47.2). But this interpretation interpolates into Jer. 13.1-11 situations and circumstances unexpressed there: no reference is made to the flooding conditions of a river; no reference is made to the spoiling occurring through the action of river-water; in fact, no explicit reference is made to a river at all. The interpretation of Jer. 13.1-11 as invasion, on the basis of Isa. 8.5-8 and Jer. 47.2, is a misapplication of two divergent metaphors. In fact, the contrast in imagery between Isa. 8.5-8 and Jer. 47.2 in which the waters come to Judah and Jer. 13.1-11. in which the waist-sash is taken to Perat, makes it unlikely that invasion is intended in the latter.

112

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

ruination of the waist-sash therefore depicted a future event of judgment, and not past or current moral conditions: 'This evil people... shall be85 like the waist-sash' (v. 10). Even though Jeremiah's action of putting the waist-sash in a position where it would be destroyed depicted the people's exile, Jeremiah's retrieval of the waist-sash should not be interpreted as a divine retrieval of the people from exile. As noted above, the retrieval of the garment was only necessary for the transmission of the message and did not have communicative meaning. The climax and conclusion of the nonverbal communication came with the waist-sash's spoilage. i.3.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. The stages of the sign-act have the effect of focusing and heightening the people's attention on the communicative significance of the waist-sash and of the accompanying actions. Initially the sign-act began on a rather mundane level of Jeremiah wearing a new linen waistsash. Although this was undoubtedly observed by the people, such must not have been considered strange or bizarre since the action was part of everyday life and the artifact was common attire.86 If Jeremiah told the audience that he was doing such by divine command, their interest should have been aroused as to what significance would be attached to the action. Yet overall, the initial action was rather commonplace and thus probably only mildly attention attracting. But the burying probably raised a greater interest in the people's minds because of the more unusual nature of such an act. If Jeremiah recounted the divine command to go and bury it or if some actually perceived him doing so, the people's curiosity would have been heightened even more as to why he would do such a strange thing with a relatively new piece of clothing. After he had buried the sash, its noticeable absence as part of his attire

85. TPl should not be repointed to a vav-consecutive (contra Rudolph 1958: 82). 86. Some have suggested that if Jeremiah wore the 'prophetic attire' of a tunic of coarse material with a hair cloak over it (cf. Zech. 13.4: ~I,B& n~l~IK), then a linen waist-sash bound on the outside would have looked quite odd in comparison (cf. Thompson 1980: 363). Such a visual discontinuity in clothing would have attracted attention. But we do not know whether Jeremiah wore any such type of 'prophetic garb', but rather may have dressed like the rest of the people. If the latter were the case, then the linen waist-sash would have only drawn attention because of its newness or because of his verbal references to it.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

113

should have kept the people wondering as to the significance of his actions. In the final stage, the climax came when the ruined waist-sash was presented before them. As the audience thought about this whole sequence, their queries must have undoubtedly revolved around what messages the actions conveyed and the reasons why the prophet would deliberately ruin a good piece of clothing. The aroused attentiveness and questioning opened the avenue of receptivity for the verbal explanations. 2. Comprehension. As indicated above, the meanings of the actions were probably not given until Jeremiah presented the ruined waist-sash before the audience. So for the audience, the comprehension of the actions was delayed over an extended period of time. Such a delay gave them plenty of time to speculate and discuss with each other what they felt were the meanings of Jeremiah's actions. The delay in giving the interpretation would have helped to raise the people's curiosity to the point of an attentive listening when Jeremiah verbally gave the explanation. 3. Acceptance. The sequence of the sign-act moved from an initial depiction, whose message implications were fully agreed upon by both the audience and rhetor, to a climactic culmination in a position over which the two radically disagreed. The initial sentiment of the people clinging to God just as the waist-sash clung to Jeremiah was a viewpoint with which the audience must have heartily given their assent. They too felt that this was what their relationship to God was like because of the covenantal bond and divine promises. Jeremiah strategically began from a position of agreement between himself and the audience. Such a strategy of establishing a common basis of belief between rhetor and audience is often crucial for the rhetor to establish credibility and avoid a counterproductive reaction, so as then to move the audience to a radically different position and conclusion from that which they initially hold. The rhetorical exigence faced by Jeremiah was that the depicted condition of the clinging waist-sash was the one in which the people assumed they would perpetually continue. So, in order to create within the audience's thinking the possibility of another option and another way of viewing the future, Jeremiah used the vividness of the ruined waist-sash to portray the judgment of ruination which would come upon them. In attempting to persuade the current generation of the inevitability of their fate if they persisted in their present course of

114

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

action, Jeremiah did not employ logical arguments and reasons for that conviction, but rather depicted a graphic comparison of the conditions before and after: respectively, of the people clinging to God and of their being ruined and useless. From the audience's point of view, they only observed the waist-sash when it was new and then when it was ruined. The process of spoiling, which occurred while the waist-sash was buried, was not part of the observable phenomenon. So the contrastive relationship between the two conditions of the waist-sash was that which was prominent in the audience's mind. Because of the contingent nature of predictive prophecy (see Chapter 1 §5.2.3), rather than just announcing and declaring judgment, part of the rhetorical strategy involved in presenting the contrasting conditions of the waist-sash may have been to motivate the people to change their course of disobedience so that the depicted ruination might be yet avoided.87 In the nonverbal display, the contrast was so pronounced that the people could not have failed to recognize that the initial depiction of the clinging garment was assuredly the better of the two positions in which to be. By confronting the people with the contrasted conditions, the rhetorical intent may have been that the people would recognize the implied options available to them, and then in light of those options make the proper and favorable choice of doing that which was necessary to remain in the former state of clinging to God rather than suffer the consequences of becoming a useless spoiled garment. With respect to incentives for acceptance of the rhetorical message, the initial depiction focused on the reward of the intimacy of relationship with God. But the concluding depiction of the ruined waist-sash held out no reward or hope since the waist-sash was useless (vv. 7, 10). Also, for the immediately addressed audience, no hope of retrieval from the exile was presented, but rather only the finality of the consequences of the punishment.88 4. Remembrance. The means for remembering the message were created not only through the vividness of the contrast, but also through the employment of a common article of clothing. Each day as the people donned their apparel and bound on and wore their own waist-sashes, 87. Cf. Baumann 1953: 81. 88. Neither Jeremiah nor Ezekiel expressed any hope that the generation taken into exile would return (cf. Jer. 25.8-14; 29; Ezek. 4.6, the length would be '40' years), but this does not in any way negate their belief in a future restoration to the land.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

115

they were doing just as Jeremiah had done. The use of their own waistsashes for practical and noncommunicative purposes had the potential of being visual reminders of the message-content Jeremiah had ascribed to the identical object being worn and ruined. 1.4 Jeremiah 19.1 -13W 1.4.1 Communicative Meaning. Probably during the reign of Jehoiakim, 90 Jeremiah was commanded to acquire an earthenware potter's decanter91 which would be used in the performance of a sign-act (v. la). He was to summon92 some of the elders of the people and priests93 as a selected audience (v. Ib) and proceed to the Potsherd Gate94 which opened onto the Ben-Hinnom Valley95 (v. 2a). Once at that locale, he 89. Although 19.1-20.6 forms a literary unit, the section of 19.14—20.6 recounts a separate communication event, and therefore is not included in the analysis of the nonverbal activity of 19.1-13. 90. This oracle is generally assigned to the period of Jehoiakim, although sug gestions for a more precise date within that period vary: the beginning of the reign between 609-605 BCE (cf. Keil 1977:1, 293; Lundbom 1993: 95; Thompson 1980 100, 445); about 604 BCE (cf. May 1945: 224); about 601-600 BCE (cf. Holladay 1986: 539); shortly prior to 597 BCE (cf. Craigie, Kelly and Drinkard 1991: 258). 91. The construction 1^? p3p3 is equivalent to ~l^T '^D (2 Sam. 17.28; Ps. 2.9), -KTn lL0 (Jer. 19.11), and C-KV ^3] (Isa. 30.14). There is no need to emend to the passive participle "HIT, 'formed of earthenware', as LXX (contra Cornill 1905: 231; Duhm 1901: 160; Holladay 1986: 534). 92. In 19.1, just prior to the reference to the 'elders', a verb must be supplied in the Hebrew (e.g. 'take', 'summon') as in the Versions. The MT is a result of either the syntax being a 'pregnant construction' (cf. Keil 1977: I, 306-307) or because the verb has dropped out (cf. Driver 1907: 112; Duhm 1901: 160; Wanke 1971: 7). 93. For the MT's 'elders of the priests', the LXX lacks ']pT (followed by numerous commentators). On 'elders of the priests', see 2 Kgs 19.2, and similarly 'HB D'TOn (2 Chron. 36.14) and D'TOn 'IOR~I (Neh. 12.7). 94. Rather than D~1H meaning 'sun' (cf. Judg. 14.18; Job 9.7), and therefore 'East Gate', it is a by-form of E~in. Whenever the latter is used alone (except Prov. 26.23), it means a potsherd (cf. Kelso 1948: 7). The Targum reads 'Dung Gate', known from Neh. 2.13; 3.13-14; 12.31, which was probably a later appellation for the same gate. 95. The MT reading here of D]H p m is attested by v. 6. The LXX (eiq TO TtoXxiavdpeiov wwv -cow -CEKVCOV croxwv, 'to the burial place of the sons of their children') has either mistakenly read DIT:n "H or, because of the content of ch. 7 and 19.4-13, has replaced the proper place name with an interpretative description, as 7ioXnav8pelov forK'J suggests. Soggin (1975) maintains that the LXX in 19.2b and 2.23, where ^2 is also translated ev top jioXuav8pio), has transmitted 'a credible

116

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

was to perform the nonverbal action of shattering the jug (v. 10), presumably by casting it onto the ground. Just as the act of acquiring the decanter did not carry any communicative message-significance, neither did the fired, earthenware quality (2Tin) nor the specific type of vessel (p3p3 which was a 4- to 10-inch high decanter with a narrow neck and single handle whose name was onomatopoeic of the gurgling sound its liquid contents made when poured out96). Israel was not in anyway likened to the quality of the clay composition or to the artistic design of the vessel. The material composition and type of vessel respectively designated the artifact as one which would break easily (unlike one of metal or wood) and which would not be repairable once broken.97 Those aspects were noncommunicative features which served to heighten the dramatic effect of the communicative act of shattering. The message-content of this nonverbal communication was transmitted through the combination of the action with the artifact,98 and was enhanced by the locale at which it was performed. Because of the natural features (i.e. the natural drainage, the southern exposure for weathering clay, and the steep hillside for the purification pits) and availability of water from the nearby waterpools, it is likely that the potters' section of the city was located in the Ben-Hinnom Valley.99 Thus the designation 'Potsherd Gate' is attributable to the pottery-making activity and specifically to the discarded pottery in the vicinity. The

tradition of the nature of the cult practices in the Valley' (87), that being infant sacrifice (cf. also McKane 1986: xxiv-xxv). 96. Cf. Amiran 1970: 262-65, PL 89 nos. 1-3; photos 258-61; Honeyman 1939: 79-80; PL 18 Fig. 3; Kelso 1948: 7, 17, Fig. 20; King 1993: 171-72. 97. Although pottery vessels were mended by copper wire or rivets, such was impossible for the damaged narrow neck of the decanter (see Kelso 1948: 7). 98. Stacey (1990: 147) suggests that the onlookers were more than just witnesses to the action, but were in fact 'part of the drama' in that '[t]heir shocked horror when they see a flask... broken in pieces prefigures the horror of those who will see the city fall'. Although in v. 8 reference is made to a reaction to the city's destruction, there is no direct link made to the audience's reaction to the sign-act, nor is there any indication as to how the audience actually did respond. Thus it is concluded that only Jeremiah's action with the artifact, and not the audience response, was part of the communicative intent. 99. Cf. Kelso 1948: 9.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

117

site thus was very appropriate for the depiction of Jerusalem as a pottery vessel which was to be thrown on the dump-heap of discarded rubble. Some have suggested, on the basis of the word-play in v. 7, that prior to breaking the vessel, Jeremiah poured out its contents.100 Thus when uttering the words .. .mirP TiKU DK TpDI, extra emphasis was provided by the contents of the decanter actually gurgling out onto the ground. Although such an action is possible, it is not necessary to assume such here. In the command to acquire the vessel, there is no indication that it was to be filled with any liquid. There is also no command to empty out the vessel in contrast to the explicit command to shatter it. If Jeremiah was to pour out the contents to communicate God's pouring out of the people as a figure for their destruction (cf. 2 Sam. 14.14), one would expect such to be explicitly recounted. The reference in v. 7 is best understood as a verbalized word-play which would not have escaped the auditors' notice. If 19.1-13 is considered an oracular unit (not merely a literary unit),101 then it can be assumed that Jeremiah shattered the decanter in the midst 100. Cf. Craigie, Kelly and Drinkard 1991: 260-62; von Ewald 1878: 175; Harrison 1973: 111; Thompson 1980: 450-51. 101. There is scholarly debate as to whether vv. 2b-9, llb-13 were part of the verbal oracle temporally coordinated with the nonverbal action. The main arguments lor segmenting out 19.2b-9, llb-13 as later editorial expansions are: (1) vv. 2b-9 presume a different audience, 'the kings of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem', in contrast to 'the elders' in v. 1. (2) The content focuses on the locale, 'Tophet'. (3) The stylistic differences reflect a strong Deuteronomic character. More recently arguments for the unity of the text have been presented (cf. Holladay 1986: 536-39): (1) With respect to the addressed audiences, the 'kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem' of v. 3 are not ostensibly different from 'the elders of the people and priests' of v. 1. The designation in v. 3 does not presume that the specified audience was actually present, but was a comprehensive manner of stating that the message would involve all the people of Jerusalem. In this case the selected spectators, the 'elders' (v. 1), were the socially recognized representatives for all the people. (2) Since in the verbal-nonverbal coordination of a communication event, the verbal need not only interpret the nonverbal but can complement it through giving additional information (see Chapter 3 §5.2), any elimination of vv. 2b-9, llb-13 has to be made on other grounds than subject matter. From a communication standpoint, there is no reason why an oracular message cannot both play on the nonverbal artifact and action (the shattering of the decanter) as well as on the locale where it was given (the Valley of Ben-Hinnom). This is especially true when the two sub-

118

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

of a verbal proclamation of judgment (vv. 3, 6-9) and indictment (vv. 45). The climax of the initial verbal message was thus emphasized by the performance of the related nonverbal action. Just when Jeremiah proclaimed the total desolation of the city (v. 8) and of the people (vv. 7, 9), he smashed the jar. The decanter's ruined condition correlated with jects were already linked by the actual geographical proximity in the Valley of BenHinnom of both the potters' section and Tophet. (3) The supposed Deuteronomic characteristics of vv. 2b-9, llb-13, which are argued to be non-Jeremianic, actually reflect a diction which is distinctive within Jeremiah. Although such does not prove a Jeremianic authorship, it certainly makes it feasible. (4) In v. 7, Tip 31 is a word-play on the name of the vessel (vv. 1, 10). Although some cite this as evidence for the artful work of the editor who incorporated the 'sermonic material' between vv. 2a and 10, it could equally be the result of the prophet's artistic efforts. (5) In the reference in v. 3 to the 'ears ringing', there is a subtle play between the verbal expression and the nonverbal sign. Just as the people's ears would ring upon hearing of the actual destruction, so when the earthenware vessel was shattered on the ground, the spectators had their auditory senses aroused by the sound of the breaking. Although such an allusion could be literarily created, its impact works far better in the verbal-nonverbal coordination where the breaking of the vessel was literally heard. (6) It is only the indictment of vv. 4-5 which provides any justification for the divine actions as portrayed by Jeremiah. (7) The similarity of the message between vv. 3-9 and 7.30-34 can be accounted for by 19.1-13 being a narrative account of 7.30-34, just as ch. 26 is a narrative version of 7.1-15. (8) The structure of 19.1-13 is not a haphazard arrangement of elements but a structured parallelism of nonverbal action (vv. l-2a), verbal speech (vv. 2b-9), nonverbal action (v. 10), verbal speech (vv. 11-13). (9) The language of v. 12 presupposes the previous action. The sequence of p...")2NO...!"DD (vv. 11-12) also occurs in 13.9, 11 with the same conjoined references: (a) i"D3 + reference to God's destructive activity against the people (19.11: "ae?« rcO; 13.9: rrriEJK POD); (b) followed by lizno + reference to the prophet's action (19.11: ISTTI ^O n« 13^ "IW«3; 13.11: BPK ^JIQ "limn p3T "ItZHO); (c) followed by p + reference to God's activity (19.12: nfay« p; 13.11: TpTin p) (d) followed by miT DK] (19.12; 13.11); (e) followed by an infinitive construct declaring what God will make the people into (19.12: DSHD nKTH TJJil HN flrf?; 13.11: JTlNSn1?! rf?nnL71 DBfrl UZb ^ mTf?). The parallel structure indicates a stereotypical formula of address for Jeremiah so that 19.12 should not be considered merely a superfluous restatement of v. 11. If the comparison to Tophet in v. 12 is an original part of the verbal interpretation, then the references to Tophet throughout vv. 3-9 and 13 may also be considered such.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

119

the verbally created picture of the city's architectural destruction (v. 8), and the fragments of the shattered artifact lying on the ground correlated with the verbal statements of the human destruction resulting in the bodies strewn on the ground (v. 7). The message stressed not only the city's shattering, but also the irreparable nature, and therefore the finality, of the destruction. Once the city was totally destroyed, the addressed audience need not hold out any hope for the city's rebuilding or for personal restoration to the land since that generation would be destroyed (killed or exiled) along with the material city. The communicative meaning of the nonverbal action is clearly explained in v. lla: 102 'Just so will I break103 this people and this city, just as one breaks the potter's vessel which (then) can no longer be repaired.'104 The decanter figuratively stood for the people and the city, while Jeremiah, in the act of shattering it, played the divine role. In employing this image, Jeremiah was nonverbally enacting a familiar verbal expression105 and a common ancient Near Eastern motif,106 'to 102. Verse 1 Ib ('And in Tophet...') is not represented in LXX and is intrusive in its present location. It would fit better at the end of v. 6 (cf. Cornill 1905: 232; Rudolph 1958: 116; Wanke 1971: 7, 12) or at the end of v. 13 where it occurs in LXXL. Janzen (1973: 43) suggests that it is a clarifying gloss on nSfD in v. 12 so that it has been 'taken into the text at approximately the intended spot'. 103. On the connotations of "Q2J both in Jeremiah and other passages, see Bourguet 1987a: 448-49. 104. There is no real basis for Hubmann's (1991: 123) proposal that the original action of 19.10 positively signified the destruction of the Tophet (interpreting 'this place' in v. 12 as a reference to such) and thus supported the cult reforms as carried out by Josiah. The referent of the action being the negative destruction of the city (v. 1 la, and also the references in v. 12 to the inhabitants and the city) is thus considered a later expansion. As argued above, vv. lla and 12 are so tightly tied together structurally that they seem to constitute the original interpretation. 105. Cf. Ps. 2.9: 'You shall break them with a rod of iron; like a potter's vessel you shall shatter them.' In Eccl. 12.6, death is portrayed by the image of 'the golden bowl is crushed, and the jar is shattered'. 106. In the ancient Near East, the 'breaking of vessels', whether as an actual action or as a verbal image, had wide contexts of usages and meanings: (1) To curse and destroy one's enemies, whether human or 'spirit': (a) In execration texts against human enemies: e.g. the nineteenth-eighteenth century BCE Egyptian texts (cf. ANET 328-29; Keel 1978: 266-68, Fig. 359; Posener 1958); the Mesopotamian text, Assur 4129 rev. 11. 11-12 (cf. Ebeling 1949 190-95; Fishbane 1971: 188-90). Another frequently cited example is the Egyptian

120

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

be broken like a pot'. The imagery is used in verbal proclamations by Jeremiah in 22.28; 48.12, 38. In fact, Jeremiah's nonverbal enactment is very close to the verbalized statement of Isa. 30.13-14. The difference is that in Isaiah it was the people's own sin which, like a collaps-

Saqqara execration figurines (ANEP 538) which were presumably shattered (cf. ANEP 320; Keel 1978: 268). But Posener (1940: 19), in the original publication, states that the figurines bear no traces of intentional mutilation—any damage has resulted from the fragility of the material. (b) In funerary ritual (cf. Grinsell 1961; Keel 1978: 268): e.g. the Egyptian rite of 'shattering red pots' mentioned in Pyramid Text 249b, Utterance 244 (cf. Mercer 1952:1, 74; II, 114; Gilbert 1985: 44); for other Egyptian texts and illustrations, see Borchardt 1929. In Babylonian literature, the goddess Belili was said to have broken a valuable vessel to show her grief for Tammuz (cf. Farbridge 1923: 221). (c) In cultic and temple ritual: e.g. the Egyptian relief of Amenophis III (fifteenth-fourteenth century BCE) shattering the red pots (cf. Moret 1946; for an illustration of the relief, see Keel 1978: Fig. 357a). In the Mesopotamian Akitu Festival, the shattering of the pot stood for Marduk's subjugation of Tiamat (for the text, see Fishbane 1971: 179; cf. also Matheney 1965: 45-48). (2) To counteract evil forces whether they be demons, sickness, or evil spells imposed by another (cf. Fohrer 1968: 39; Clerc 1985: 134): e.g. Gittin 69a; the Mesopotamian texts VAT 10018 1. 20 and AO 8895 1. 17 (cf. Ebeling 1949: 203-208). (For other texts, see Fishbane 1971: 177-78, 184, 186, 188-90, 194-95; Thompson 1908: 28-31, 124.) (3) To preserve ritual cleanness: e.g. in Lev. 11.33; 15.12, a vessel which became unclean through contact with something unclean was to be shattered; in Lev. 6.28, the earthenware vessel in which the sin offering was boiled was to be broken to avoid its future use in a profane manner. Borchardt (1929: 15) suggests a similar possibility for the Egyptian funerary rite that the vessels were shattered so as to serve no longer for profane purposes. As part of a verbally created image, the motif is also present in the 'Oracle of the Potter' (cf. Koenen 1968; 1970), which possibly dates to about 130 BCE: a potter (an incarnation of the potter god, Chnum) was sent by Hermes Thoth to the island of Helios where he fired pots. Since such was considered a sacrilege by the observers, they pulled the pots from the kiln and dashed them to pieces. The potter then fell into a trance and began to prophesy that the broken pots stood for the destruction of Egypt. There is a significant difference between that account and Jeremiah's employment of the image: the smashing of the pots was not performed by the 'potter prophet', rather he merely gave an interpretation to the already transpired action which was performed by someone else, unintentionally with respect to communicative function; in contrast, Jeremiah, for communicative purposes, intentionally shattered the jar, and then verbalized the message which he himself had intended by the action.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

121

ing wall, shattered them, whereas in Jeremiah, although sin was the cause of the shattering, it was God who did the smashing. Jeremiah's action may also have been partially predicated on the practice of breaking earthenware vessels which had somehow become ritually unclean (cf. Lev. 11.33, unclean through contact with an unclean animal; Lev. 15.12, unclean because of a bodily discharge).107 Thus the indictment of vv. 4-5 established the defilement of the city of Jerusalem, here represented by the earthenware jar, and thus provided the 'legal' (according to cultic stipulations) justification to break the jar. Although the type of uncleanness with which Jeremiah charged Jerusalem does not correlate specifically with those in Leviticus, and no explicit reference is made to the cultic practice, certainly such a principle that a defiled earthenware vessel was to be destroyed may have provided the religious legal precedence upon which Jeremiah based his action. Frequently Jeremiah's action has been cited as an imitation of the ritual exemplified in the Egyptian execration texts where the names of cursed persons were inscribed on pottery bowls which were then smashed, or likened to other magical rituals in which a clay artifact was broken.108 It is therefore frequently assumed because of the similarity in outward form that Jeremiah's action also shared a similar perspective of the efficaciousness so that Jeremiah's action insured the defeat of the city.109 But similarity of motif does not imply sameness in the meaning or in the identical theological presuppositions attached to those actions performed in a magical or ritualistic context.110 107. Cf. Bourguet (1987a: 450) who notes the conceptual and semantic connections between Leviticus 11.33 and Jer. 19 (although considering vv. 3-9, 13 secondary additions): the similarity of the description of the vessels in Lev. 11.33 (also 15.12) as fenn ^D and as &nn ~i!iV and IHTn ^D, respectively, in Jer. 19.1, 11; the same term, "DEJ, for the means of destruction (Lev. 11.33 [also 15.12]; Jer. 19.10, 11 [twice]); the same term, NDED, for the defilement (Lev. 11.33; Jer. 19.13); defilement of the vessel in Leviticus occurs because of contact with a dead animal body (Lev. 11.32-35) which conceptually links with the dead bodies implicitly present in the unclean Tophet (Jer. 19.4b-5; cf. also v. 7). 108. Cf. Berridge 1970: 180; Bourguet 1987a: 445-47; Clerc 1985: 134; Fishbane 1971: 185-87; Fohrer 1961: 311; 1968: 39-40; Gilbert 1985: 44-46; Lods 1927: 59-60; 1950: 186;Matheney 1965: 17; Rudolph 1958: 117; Woodard 1983: 111-12. 109. Cf. Carroll 1986: 386-87; Lods 1927: 59-60; 1950: 59; Rosen 1968: 47; Thompson 1980: 452. 110. See Chapter 1 §5.2. Cf. also van den Born (1935: 68-69) who argues against any presuppositional connection between Jeremiah's act and the Egyptian rituals.

122

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The context of Jeremiah's action was an idiosyncratic communication event with the motif being used to transmit a very specific message-content. Jeremiah's action did utilize a common imagery, but did so for communicative purposes and therefore should not be interpreted as a theological imitation or employment of magical rituals. In fact, Jeremiah's use of the imagery apparently resulted from his taking a verbal expression, which he himself used, and nonverbally enacting it. The verbal expression may have originally entered the language via the experiences of everyday life in which broken pottery was a common feature and not necessarily via the execration texts or some other 'magical' context. But even if it derived from the latter, the verbal expression can only be assumed to have perpetuated, as a simile, the imagery and not the theological presuppositions.111 Thus as an enactment of a verbal expression, Jeremiah's action is yet another step removed from any actual magical ritual. 1.4.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. Initial attention was certainly gained for the selected audience through Jeremiah's invitation (command?) for them to come with him. As the entourage of Jeremiah, the elders and the priests went to the gate, it may have attracted the attention of others from the general populace who also came along as curious onlookers. 2. Comprehension. The act of shattering the vessel was immediately interpreted to the people. That immediate explanation, coupled with the act's drawing upon a common motif of 'being a broken vessel', made the communicated message unambiguously clear. If the act was subsequent to the prophet's verbal indictments and statements of destructive judgment (vv. 3-9), as argued here, then the shattered jug standing for Jerusalem would have certainly been anticipated. Thus people should not have lacked understanding of the meaning or the significance of Jeremiah's action.

111. Contra Fishbane (1971: 177-202) who raises the question of the derivation of the motif in Jeremiah (19.1-13; 22.28) and opts for a background in magical incantations. He then argues (180-82, 185-87) that because of external similarities between the simile-form in Jer. 19 and the simile-form in incantations, Jer. 19 also reflects a 'transfer of essence' between the referent (vehicle) and the object standing for it (tenor). But similarity in outward form is not sufficient to establish similarity of theological and presuppositional content.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

123

3. Acceptance. Jeremiah's stance within the nonverbal behavior was that of active participant functioning in the divine role. Since the action was presented as being God's action, it was a rhetorical argument based on authority. The audience's 'popular theology' which perpetuated the view of Jerusalem's inviolability because of the divine protection was totally contradicted and challenged by the message proclaimed by the smashing of the jug which was that God would destroy Jerusalem. Because of the radicalness of Jeremiah's message, a dramatic display was needed to emphasize the point so as to convince the audience of its validity. Jeremiah employed the motif of 'being shattered like a pot' in an ironic manner. For within the popular theology, it was God who would shatter Israel's enemies. If the elders and priests surmised, prior to the giving of the oracle, that Jeremiah was going to use the vessel in a figurative manner to depict God's judgment against a nation, it is probable that they expected the judgment to be expressed against their enemies. They may have expected Jeremiah to display nonverbally the sentiments expressed in Ps. 2.9. But to the contrary, Jeremiah turned the image of God breaking the nation's enemies into an announcement against God's people who were now in the position of the 'enemy'. Although the whole nonverbal and verbal presentation was completed within a very brief time, the visual and auditory elements must have forcefully impacted upon the audience. The impact resided not just in the act, but in the collation of the various aspects: the locale of the event at the Potsherd Gate; the visual setting of other pottery dumps in the vicinity; the auditory sound of the pot striking and breaking on the ground which was verbally reinforced by the allusion to Jerusalem's destruction making the ears ring (v. 3); the nonverbal action forming the climax of the verbal statements (vv. 3-9); the use of a jar which, once broken, could not be repaired. The dramatic impact was also heightened by the nonverbal performance being in the midst of the complementary verbal oracle (vv. 3-9). Once at the location, the verbal message initially spoken by Jeremiah focused on the locale, not on the vessel he carried. Thus while standing by the exact spot being spoken of, the people's attention was diverted away from the earthenware vessel with the exception of the word-play in v. 7. So when at the height of the verbal proclamation, Jeremiah shattered the jar, the dramatic aspect of the nonverbal action was height-

124

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

ened by its unexpectedness for the jar was, at that moment, not the center of the spectator's attention. Although not explicitly stated, it is implied that the purpose of the dramatic presentation was to set before the people vividly the consequences of their present course of action. Through depicting the judgment, the implied incentive was for the people to adopt behaviors which would avert the depicted irreparable destruction. So the rhetorical purpose for the nonverbal communication was not merely to pronounce that such a judgment was irrevocably determined, but to show suasively that if the destruction did occur, it would be irrevocable. 4. Remembrance. The forcefulness of the action itself produced a memorable image. But the message was also kept before the people through Jeremiah's employment of an artifact which was a common item of everyday life and use. Subsequent to the proclamation, every time the audience members, even inadvertently, broke a vessel and whenever they saw the potters taking out vessels and breaking them as they were cast onto the discard piles, an occasion was created for the remembrance of Jeremiah's deliberate action. Jeremiah also performed the action at a locale which was part of the people's daily setting. So every time the people went by the Potsherd Gate and observed the broken pottery from the numerous destroyed vessels of the potters, the visual catalyst was present so as to remind them of Jeremiah's message. 1.5 Jeremiah 35.1-19 (LXX: 42.1-19) 1.5.1 Communicative Meaning. According to the introductory statement of v. 1, this incident is dated generally, but without any preciseness, to the time of Jehoiakim.112 According to v. 11, the Rechabites explained their presence in the city as the result of the threat of the Babylonian and Syrian armies.113 Two possibilities have been proposed for the specific date of the Rechabites' retreat into the confines of Jerusalem: (1) 605-603 BCE, during one of Nebuchadnezzar's incursions

112. Some consider v. 1 to be editorial (Cf. Duhm 1901: 384; Levin 1994: 312; Migsch 1997; Thiel 1981: 44). But even so, a date during the reign of Jehoiakim is still appropriate. 113. The LXX reads 'Assyria', and Syriac reads 'Edom'. Since the designation of the army associated with the Babylonians has been obscured, a precise temporal reference is also left more uncertain.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

125

into Judah (cf. 2 Chron. 36.6-7; Dan. 1.1-2);114 (2) after 601/600 BCE when, in response to Jehoiakim's rebellion, Nebuchadnezzar sent contingent forces from the vassal states of Aram, Moab and Ammon against Judah (cf. 2 Kgs 24.1-2), followed by the Babylonian invasion in 598/597 BCE (cf. 2 Kgs 24.10-11).115 In either case, the Babylonian threat of destruction was imminent enough for the Rechabites to feel that their survival without the protection of a defensive city-wall was not possible (vv. 10-11).116 This passage informs very little about the Rechabites since it states nothing about their origin as a group,117 the purpose for their lifestyle restrictions, their geographic locale prior to coming into Jerusalem, their occupational livelihood, or their religious beliefs.118 According to 114. Cf. Buzy 1923: 148; Keil 1977: II, 88. 115. Cf. Bosman 1983: 83-84; Bright 1965: 189-90; Cornill 1905: 382-83; Harrison 1973: 147-48; Holladay 1989: 246; Jones 1992: 434; Luria 1987: 112; May 1945: 223; Rudolph 1958: 207; Stacey 1990: 159; Thompson 1980: 615. 116. There is no reason to adopt other suggestions which place this event during a period other than Jehoiakim's, since the Babylonian activities during Jehoiakim's reign adequately explain the Rechabites' fearful response. 117. Besides Jer. 35, 'Rechab' as a proper name occurs only in 2 Kgs 10.15, 23; 1 Chron. 2.55; Neh. 3.14; 2 Sam. 4.2, 5, 6, 9. The only link that can be made with any degree of certainty between the 'Rechab' in those passages and the 'Rechabites' in Jer. 35 is in 2 Kgs 10.15. Any genealogical correlation with the person(s) in any of the other references is only supposition (cf. Knights 1993a). 118. The 'Rechabites' have frequently been identified as a (semi-) nomadic clan of herders (cf. Harrison 1973: 148). But that view has been challenged. Frick (1971; followed by Benjamin 1994: 137; Holladay 1989: 247; McNutt 1994) suggests that they were 'a guild of metal-workers involved in the making of chariots and other weaponry' (285) and that their non-agricultural mode of life was 'an occupational pattern, but not a religious vocation' (287). Cummings (1979) suggests that they were a prophetic group on the basis that in 2 Kgs 10.15-24, Jonadab fulfils a prophetic function (specifically the one which, in 1 Kgs 19.17, was prophesied for Elisha); the term 'father' can mean the head of a prophetic band; Jeremiah took them to the chamber of a prophetic group (Jer. 35.4); the promise 'stand before Yahweh' (Jer. 35.19) is used of prophetic activity; the name, 'Rechab' correlates with the chariot motif in the Elijah and Elisha cycles (2 Kgs 2.12; 6.17; 13.14). Knights (1996a) also holds that they were an itinerant prophetic group with the prohibition not to drink wine being a prohibition against any intoxicant corresponding to Isa. 28.7, which suggests that prophets were to be abstinent. Keukens (1983) argues that the Rechabites were house-born slaves (on the basis of the designation in Jer. 35.5, 'son of the house of...'; cf. Gen. 15.2, 3; Eccl. 2.7)

126

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

vv. 6, 8, 10, 16, 19, the establisher of the disciplines which the Rechabites followed was Jonadab, son of Rechab. He is probably the same as the Jehonadab, son of Rechab, in 2 Kgs 10.15-24 who collaborated with Jehu in his revolt against the Israelite house of Ahab during the second half of the ninth century BCE. But neither passage clarifies Jonadab's function, whether he was the genealogical 'father' or 'father' in the sense of 'leader', or the meaning of 'son of Rechab', whether it signified physical descent or membership in a guild-type association. Jeremiah 35 is the only passage which delineates the Rechabites' observance of the prohibitions against wine consumption, dwelling in permanent structures, and agricultural and viticultural activities. No theological basis for these prohibitions is given,119 whether they considered sedentary life to be associated with the corruptions of Baalism;120 whether they sought to preserve the ideals of the period of the Israelite wilderness wanderings;121 whether it was an anti-urban reaction against

who had been given, by their patron, Jonadab ('father' in the legal sense; cf. Ps. 68.6; Job 29.16; Isa. 22.21), the legal status of protected citizens (citing Isaac and Lot as 'protected citizens' in Gen. 26.3, 12-14 and 19.2, 3, 9 respectively). Thus the restrictions were placed on the Rechabites for the purpose of maintaining distinction between their status as protected citizens and that of free citizenship which was held by Jonadab (cf. the restrictive distinctions in Lev. 22.10-11). Keukens's argument that the Rechabites were house-born slaves rests on the MT's designation in v. 5 'the sons of the house of the Rechabites'. Verse 5 is the only place where this designation occurs, and it is lacking in the LXX which reads simply 'them'. (Cf Janzen [1973: 74] who cites the MT reading as a case of expanding the original pronominal reading.) The more frequent designations of the Rechabites in Jer. 35 are 'the house of the Rechabites' (vv. 2, 3, 18) and 'the sons of Jonadab' (v. 16; cf. vv. 6, 14). In v. 19, it states that no person would be cut off 'from Jonadab', not from 'the sons of the house of Jonadab'. Certainly if a distinction between 'slaves' and genealogical or group progeny was meant, one would expect the preciseness in designation to have been consistently carried out. Even though 'son of the house of...' may in some places be a technical term for house-born slave, such does not seem to be the case in Jer. 35. Frequently comparison has been made between the Rechabites and the fourth century BCE Nabataeans as described by Diodorus Siculus (19.94). But against any connection between the two groups, see Knights 1993b. 119. Cf. Gamberoni 1996. 120. Cf. Bronner 1971: 8-10; Cornill 1905: 383; Keil 1977: II, 89; Rudolph 1958: 207-209. 121. Cf. Jones 1992: 432; Rudolph 1958: 209; de Vaux 1965: 14-15. But Fox

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

127

trusting in fortifications rather than Yahweh and against the urban economic and social injustices;122 or whether there was any religious motive at all behind the prohibitions. The specifics of the group's structure, origins and theological presuppositions are not crucial for understanding Jeremiah's activity with them, since the only issue pertinent in the interaction was their fidelity to the instruction not to drink wine. Although virtually nothing is known about the Rechabites, there is no basis for assuming that the group and these restrictions were mere fabrications for the purpose of the story which never actually occurred.123 Jeremiah was divinely commanded to go to the Rechabite group124 for the purpose of bringing them into one of the Temple chambers (1973: 450) and Knights (1992: 82) argue against any link with a wilderness idealization. 122. Cf. Knights 1996a: 139-40. 123. Contra Carroll 1986: 652; McKane 1988; 1996: 890-98. McKane argues such on the basis of the unaesthetic nature of either the presumed action ('the prophet creates an artificial spectacle which does not redound to his credit', 1988: 117; 1996: 896) or of the literary account (cf. 1996: 895). But against aesthetics being a basis for judging actual occurrence, see Chapter 1 §3.1.3. Others consider the literary composition of the chapter to be exilic (cf. Aull 1971: 97-99; Duhm 1901: 284-88; Migsch 1997; Nicholson 1970: 32-37; Rudolph 1958: 207). But even that need not obviate the account being based on an event performed and a contrast drawn by Jeremiah himself. That the action goes back to Jeremiah, see Bright 1965: 190; Knights 1995: 144; Thompson 1980: 616. There is also no basis for Levin's (1994: 307-15) suggestion that in the original sign-act the Rechabites (as described in vv. 6-11) were not even involved, but rather it only dealt with Jeremiah presenting wine to the Judahite army 'charioteers' (revocalizing D'HDHH in v. 2) as a message of judgment on the nation similar to the drinking of the cup of wine of wrath in Jer 25.15-29. According to Levin the account of the original sign-act is found only in vv. 2aa, b, 5, 12-13, and thus did not establish a contrastive behavior which formed the basis for an indictment against the Judahites. 124. In v. 2, D'ZCnn JT3 should be understood like in vv. 3 and 18 (cf. v. 5, DTlDin JTD ^D) in the sense of 'group, clan, community'. Thus Jeremiah was not instructed to go to the physical structure in which the Rechabites resided (contra Carroll 1986: 651-52, 654; Holladay 1989: 247; LXX which implies such through the distinction between OIKOV Ap%a(3iv in v. 2 and oiiciav Apxafhv in v. 3), but to make contact with the familial entity. The text makes no explicit statement about whether the Rechabites lived in tents or permanent structures during their stay in Jerusalem, only that their presence in Jerusalem was a concession performed out of necessity (v. 11). Because of their fidelity in adhering to the strictures imposed upon them by Jonadab, it may be presumed that they continued to reside in tents

128

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

where he was to offer them wine to drink (v. 2). Verses 3-5 recount in first person, Jeremiah's execution of the command: he brought the Rechabite men to the Temple125 and specifically into the chamber named for the prophetic band headed by Hanan (v. 4).126 The apparent purpose for bringing the Rechabites into the Temple area was so that the incident could be publicly observed.127 Had Jeremiah desired within the confines of the city walls (on that possibility, see Amsler 1985: 58; Bronner 1971: 10; Thompson 1980: 616). Since the focus of the demonstration was the injunction against wine drinking, no explicit statement about the type of dwelling was necessitated. Thus there is no reason to assume that if they did live in tents, such would be specifically stated and, since it is not, they must have resided in permanent buildings (contra Carroll 1986: 652; Kessler 1965: 218). 125. The Rechabites' attitude toward the Temple and participation in its ritual is not expressed. So speculation that they were opposed to such is unwarranted (contra Bronner 1971: 11). 126. Although this is the only occurrence of DTT^Kn 2TK in Jeremiah, in other places it is clearly attributed to persons who function in a prophetic role (cf. Moses: Deut. 33.1; Josh. 14.6; Ezra 3.2; 1 Chron. 23.14; 2 Chron. 30.16; Ps. 90.1; Elijah: 1 Kgs 17.17-24; 2 Kgs 1.9-16; Elisha: 2 Kgs 4-8, passim; Samuel: 1 Sam. 9.6-10; Shemaiah: 1 Kgs 12.22; 2 Chron. 11.2; anonymous prophets: Judg. 13.6, 8; 1 Sam. 2.27; 1 Kgs 13; 20.28; 2 Kgs 23.15-20; 2 Chron. 25.7-9), and is synonymous with the other terms for prophet (cf. Bratsiotis 1977: 233-35). Holstein (1977: 70-75) argues that the term is an honoric title and therefore does not designate the specific functional role of prophet. (Cf. Hallevy [1958] who argues for a semantic shift in the term from its pre-exilic equation with the functional role of prophet to a postexilic designation of a special relationship to God irrespective of functional role.) Holstein (1977: 74) therefore suggests the possibility that Hanan's role was a priestly, rather than a prophetic, one (cf. also Huey 1993: 314). But he acknowledges that, with the exception of Hanan and David, 'every "man of God" is clearly a prophet' (74). Even the exception of David breaks down since in the postexilic presentation of David, David also, on occasion, functions in a prophetic manner (cf. 2 Chron. 29.25; lQPsa 27.11). Thus 'man of God' must be considered an honorific title, but one which seems to be exclusively applied to prophets. It is assumed that |3n "OH here refers to a prophetic band like the term D^Din "03 (cf. 1 Kgs 20.35; 2 Kgs 2.3, 5, 7, 15). It is unknown whether this prophetic group functioned specifically as cult prophets. Also, Jeremiah's relationship with them is unknown. Some suggest the possibility that either Jeremiah shared a work area with them or that they were sympathetic toward his ministry (cf. Bright 1965: 189; Carroll 1986: 654; Harrison 1973: 149; Jones 1992: 433; Keown, Scalise and Smothers 1995: 194; Thompson 1980: 616-17). 127. Cf. Duhm 1901: 286; Harrison 1973: 148-49; Thiel 1981: 46; Thompson 1980: 617.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

129

merely to perform the action and then report the Rechabites' reaction to an audience which had not observed it, it could have been done in the privacy of the Rechabites' own dwellings. There is no reason to assume that within the chamber area itself Jeremiah and the Rechabites were the only ones present. As indicated in Jer. 36.10 in which Baruch, while in one of the Temple chambers, read Jeremiah's scroll 'to all the people', the chambers may have been large open areas so that all those in the immediate vicinity could be aware of what took place within. Thus the specific identification of the location (v. 4) as being next to the chamber of the civil officials and above that of some of the Temple personnel,128 may have ensured the awareness of Jeremiah's activities by the civil and religious leaders of the people in those adjacent chambers. When Jeremiah set pitchers129 full of wine before the Rechabites, and then verbally directed them to drink (v. 5), he may have anticipated their reaction. Jeremiah was probably acquainted with the customs of the Rechabites, and thus aware of their stance against drinking wine. In fact, the locale of the Temple, besides assuring of an audience, may have facilitated the refusal on the part of the Rechabites. Since their commitment to the restrictions probably involved either an actual or an

Contra Stacey (1990: 160-61) who views their refusal not as a public act, but rather as a private one whose purpose was 'not intended as a visual aid, nor even as a public example' (161), and therefore not primarily prescriptive as to how Israel ought to act. Rather, the act was 'the stable conduct that witnesses to and helps to secure the stability of Israel as the people of God' (161-62). But this noncommunicative understanding is contrary to the verbalized interpretation in vv. 12-19, which according to Stacey are later sermonic additions. 128. The 'keeper of the gate' (^Dil ~OQ), is ranked third among the priests after the 'chief priest' and the 'second priest' in Jer. 52.24; 2 Kgs 23.4; 25.18 (cf. also 2 Kgs 12.10). Maaseiah may be the same person to whom reference is made in Jer. 21.1; 29.25; 37.3 as the father of the priest, Zephaniah. 129. Although in Gen. 44.2-17 1)23 is used of the 'cup' with which Joseph served Pharaoh, and in Exod. 25.31-34; 37.17-20 of the ornamental 'cups' on the branches of the tabernacle menorah, here the plural refers to 'pitchers' rather than 'bowls' (cf. Targum: p^D; LXX: Kepduiov). Kelso (1948: 13, 17) argues tha when the term refers to ceramic ware it means 'pitcher', but when made of metal it designates a 'cup'. Most probably the pitchers were the one-handled jugs, 8 to 10 inches in height, similar to the Greek wine pitcher, oivoxori (cf. Honeyman 1939: 80, PI. XVIII Figs. 4(a), 4(b); Kelso: 1948: 176, Fig. 18).

130

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

implied oath which invoked the divine authority, the setting of the Temple—the abode of the divinely invoked deity—should have impressed on the Rechabites the importance of their commitment, making their refusal to drink the wine more probable. These activities are unlike many of Jeremiah's sign-acts, in that a message-content was not communicated through simile-form referenced by the prophet's nonverbal actions, but the point of the message resided in the refusal of the Rechabites to drink the wine. Jeremiah's actions and words were only the catalysts which facilitated the evocation of a response from the Rechabites which concretely demonstrated and brought to the foreground their commitment to their lifestyle behaviors. But like Jeremiah 32 in which the prophet created the communicative message as part of an interaction with other humans which in that case was Hanamel, so here the communicative intent of the message is attributed to the prophet, not to the other participants. The Rechabites' intent in refusing to accept Jeremiah's command to drink wine was not to communicate a message of covenant fidelity to the broader Judahite audience, but to communicate to Jeremiah a specific personal refusal and its reasons. Yet Jeremiah was intentionally seeking to elicit such a specific response so that he could use it in the broader communicative context. The Rechabites' response provided to the people of Judah an example, not in the specifics of drinking wine, but in the abstract area of fidelity to commandment observance.130 The communicated message was structured around a contrast: the covenant fidelity of the Rechabites which was evoked through the activities of Jeremiah (vv. 6-11) contrasted with the infidelity of the Judahites which was only verbally expressed by Jeremiah (vv. 13-16). The demonstration with the Rechabites only presented one of the two elements of the contrast. As an element in the contrast, Jeremiah's offer and the Rechabites' response were not future-oriented,131 but rather focused on the Rechabites' past 130. In the demonstration, Jeremiah does not express commendation for the specifics of the Rechabite asceticism, but only focused on their obedience to such. It is clear that Jeremiah did not share the same perspective with respect to the specifics of the prohibitions, for in his letter to the exiles (ch. 29) he commanded them to 'build houses, and plant vineyards' (v. 5), two things which the Rechabites would not do. 131. In its literary form, Jer. 35 follows the pattern of the other sign-acts: command to act (vv. 1-2); report of the execution of the action (vv. 3-11); interpretation

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

131

and current behavior, and thereby provided the basis for an indictment against the Judahites' current and past behavior. The accompanying verbal indictment and the presentation of the other part of the contrast (vv. 12-19) were immediately delivered to the audience after the engendered demonstration.132 The term 'go' (v. 13) may imply that Jeremiah was to move to a position where the people could hear him, or it may be an example of where "[^n functions merely as an introductory word (cf. BDB 234a 5f) without indicating any physical movement. Thus it does not suggest that he was to address an audience which had not seen the activity in the chamber. The verbal proclamation left no doubt as to the point of Jeremiah's interaction with the Rechabites. It placed the Rechabites' obedience (vv. 14a, 16a) in contrast to the Judahites' lack of obedience (vv. 14b-15, 16b),133 which (vv. 12-17). But in Fohrer's (1952a, 1967, 1968) discussions of 'symbolic actions' he does not include Jer. 35, and gives no reason for that omission. He only calls Jer. 35 'ein symbolahnlichesTun' (1968: 72). One surmises that the omission is because Jer. 35 contradicts his premise that the sign-acts must be future-oriented (cf. 1952a: 120; 1968: 110), and since a contrast-demonstration is purely communicative in nature, Jer. 35 could not substantiate his thesis which was to demonstrate the magical roots and affinities of the prophetic acts. 132. Sometimes either the whole or parts of vv. 12-19 are considered later, usually Deuteronomic, editorial additions. But without the accompanying verbal statements in vv. 12-19, the point of the demonstration of fidelity is totally lost. Both elements (the Rechabites' behavior and Jeremiah's verbal indictment) are required to form the contrast and explicate its implications for the audience and participants (cf. Knights 1995). Certainly the purpose of the activities was not just to give a word of promise to the Rechabites (vv. 18-19) without intending to use their behavior as a contrastive indictment. The public nature of the activities argues against their functioning as only an avenue for a private message to the Rechabites. If such were the case, then certainly the proving of their loyalty and word of commendation could have occurred in the confines of the Rechabites' dwellings. Since drawing contrasts was frequently a part of the Jeremianic style (e.g. 2.11, 32; 8.7; 18.14-15), the essence of the contrast drawn here need not be denied to Jeremiah. 133. The same contrast is made in the literary structure of chs. 34-35 in which the account of the Rechabites' faithfulness (ch. 35) is juxtaposed to the chronologically disparate incident of Zedekiah's and the people's infidelity in keeping the commitment of the manumission of the slaves (ch. 34.8-22). Martens (1987: 37-43) has demonstrated the symmetrically parallel structural sequence (40) and the identical theme of 'integrity in covenant keeping' (41) between 34.8-22 and 35.1-19. The structural parallelism is as follows: prophetic revelation formula (34.8/735.1); description of incident (34.8b-ll//35.2-13); prophetic revelation formula and messenger formula (34.12a//35.12a-13a); divine retelling of incident with accusation

132

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

in turn resulted in a contrast in the future divine disposition and actions towards the two groups. Once the contrastive indictment against the Judahites' unfaithfulness had been given (vv. 13-16), then followed a verbal pronouncement of the ramifications of God's future response of judgment which was justified because of the Judahites' behavior (v. 17). The prophet then addressed the Rechabites, and after commending their faithfulness (v. 18), pronounced the ramifications of God's future response of a promise134 of their survival135 and their service,136

(34.12b-16//35.13b-16); general announcement (34.17-20//35.17); particularized announcement (34.21-22//35.18-19). In both passages, the locale of the covenant obligation is the house of Yahweh: in 34.16, the covenant to free the slaves is made in the Temple, and in 35.4, the Rechabites' covenant is tested in the Temple (41). Thematically, the contrast between the two is also made through an a fortiori argument: Zedekiah is unfaithful to a divine covenant which concerns other people's human rights and freedom while the Rechabites are faithful to human impositions concerning personal diet and living conditions (42). The endings of the two accounts form a contrast between Zedekiah's fate and the Rechabites' reward. Brueggemann (1991: 112-20) emphasizes and develops the 'listening' theme and theology which link the narratives of chs. 34.8-22 and 35. The Leitwort (DQ2J) is used in 34.10 (twice), 14, 17; and 35.8, 10, 13, 14 (twice), 15, 16, 17, 18. The juxtaposition of the two chapters literarily provides a concrete, historical confirmation of the charge levelled in 35.12-16. When taken together, the sequence of chs. 34-35 makes the Rechabites' faithfulness stand out even sharper in contrast to the king's and the people's infidelity. It also literarily places the Rechabites' faithfulness and the promise in the climactic position of emphasizing the contrast. 134. On the promise of v. 19 following the language pattern of the 'covenant of grant', see Levenson 1976. 135. 2TN rnD1 tib expresses a guarantee of progeny. It occurs in the promises to the Davidic lineage (Jer. 33.17; 1 Kgs 2.4; 8.25; 9.5; 2 Chron. 6.16; 7.18) and Levitical priests (Jer. 33.18) (cf. Levenson 1976: 510). 136. In v. 19, "^D1? "IQD does not refer merely to 'survival', but 'service' in some capacity (cf. 1 Kgs 1.2; 10.8; 12.8 with reference to 'standing before a king'). 'Stand' OQU) is used for various types of 'serving': (1) with respect to prophetic ministry (cf. Jer. 15.1, although there it may also include priestly service; 15.19; 18.20; 1 Kgs 17.1; 18.15; 2 Kgs 3.14), (2) with respect to priestly ministry (cf. Num. 16.9; Deut. 10.8; 18.5; 1 Kgs 8.11; 2 Chron. 29.11; Pss. 134.1; 135.2), and (3) as a designation for a nonsacerdotal's act of worship (cf. Jer. 7.10; Deut. 4.10; 1 Kgs 8.22; 2 Kgs 5.16). Since the phrase is not unique to any specific type of service, it should not necessarily be interpreted that the Rechabites would become priests or menial Temple servants (contra Keukens 1983: 235; McKane 1988: 12021), or that they were a prophetic group (contra Cummings 1979: 122; Knights

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

133

which was justified on the basis of their behavior (v. 19).137 1.5.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. The very presence of the Rechabites in Jerusalem probably attracted attention because of the peculiarities of their manner of living, especially if they lived in tents while in Jerusalem. So in using the Rechabites for the sign-act demonstration, Jeremiah took advantage of the opportunity presented by the attention-arousing quality of the Rechabites' proximate presence. The other worshippers undoubtedly took note as Jeremiah entered the Temple area with the entourage of Rechabites, and their curiosity must have been evoked as to why Jeremiah was bringing the Rechabites there. 2. Comprehension. Initially Jeremiah's activities with and injunctions to the Rechabites gave no indication that the demonstration had any message import or application for anyone other than the Rechabites, and so the spectators may have presumed that, on this occasion, they could be detached observers rather than addressees. They may have anticipated that Jeremiah would rebuke the Rechabites for refusing to follow his divinely commissioned command to partake of the offered wine. This delayed awareness allowed the audience to enter fully into 1996b). In light of the use for nonsacerdotals, the promise with respect to the Rechabites may mean nothing more than service either in the sense of being able to worship God, or that their lives, as a living demonstration of fidelity, were a continual form of service. 137. The variants in the LXX of vv. 18-19 do not affect the general conclusions expressed here. The MT's construction of vv. 18-19 structurally forms a better parallel with vv. 13-17 than does the LXX's. Initially both groups are directly addressed in second plural, but in the contrasting manner of indictment and commendation: vv. 13-17: men of Judah a. Thus says Yahweh (v. 13) b. say to the men of Judah (v. 13) 2nd plural: c. (indictment) (vv. 14-16)

vv. 18-19: Rechabites b'. [say] to the house of the Rechabites (v. 18) a'. Thus says Yahweh (v. 18) c'. (commendation) (v. 18)

When the speech moves to the contrasting statements of judgment and promise, the speech shifts to third person. d. Therefore, thus says Yahweh (v. 17) d'. Therefore, thus says Yahweh (v. 19) 3rd person: e. (word of judgment) (v. 17) e'. (promise) (v. 19)

134

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

the communication event without expecting an indicting message directed against them and without preemptively building defenses against such. Also, the audience's initial lack of awareness and expectation of any audience application should have heightened the impact of the message when the fidelity of the Rechabites was verbally contrasted with the people's infidelity. 3. Acceptance. The coordination of the Rechabites' behavioral response and prophet's verbal message was structured in a linear manner of building toward the climax. The behavioral demonstration served the function of creating the situation which was employed in the verbal message as a contrast. The climax then occurred with the verbal proclamation which contained the main point of the message for the hearers. The verbal message itself moved from indictment (vv. 13-16), based on the contrast created by the Rechabite response, to judgment (v. 17), based on the audience's behavior. The total message, which centered around the contrast created by the refusal of the Rechabites, formed a logical argument. In the verbal portion of the oracle, the two sides of the contrast were presented: (a) the Rechabites are faithful, and (b) the Judahites are unfaithful. The contrast is structured in an a: b: a': b' pattern: (a) Rechabites, v. 14a; (b) Judahites, vv. 14b-15; (a1) Rechabites, v. 16a; (b?) Judahites, v. 16b. As a result of the initial propositions, the logical consequences are expressed, but in a chiastic manner: (b1) because the Judahites are unfaithful, they will be punished (v. 17), and (a1) because the Rechabites are faithful, they will be rewarded (vv. 18-19). The point of this logical contrast was stressed through the rhetorical question which began the verbal portion of the message: 'Will you not receive instruction...?' (v. 13).138 The specific type of rational argument used to emphasize the contrast was an a fortiori (lesser to greater) one which functioned on two levels: (1) human versus divine: the Rechabites faithfully observed the commands of their human ancestor—how much more should the Judahites observe the commands of the deity (vv. 14, 16); (2) one time versus numerous repetitions: the Rechabites faithfully observed the commands delivered to them through only one human agent—how much more 138. This type of logical argument is similar to that employed elsewhere in Jeremiah in which the people are indicted for their sinfulness through the use of a contrast which is expressed in the form of a rhetorical question: Jer. 2.9-13; 2.32; 8.4-7; 8.8-12; 18.13-17; 30.6-7.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

135

should the Judahites observe God's commands which had been repeatedly delivered to them by the prophetic messengers (v. 14-15). Although based on a logical appeal, the contrast also incorporated an emotional argument. By presenting the Rechabites as a model which should be emulated with respect to fidelity in commandment observance, the Judahites should have been ashamed of their own behavior. That shame could then become a motivating factor causing the Judahites to change and become faithful to God's ordinances as the Rechabites were to their forefather's commands. The incentive to change also focused on the emotional aspects of the fear of being punished in contrast to the satisfaction of receiving blessings. Since the message communicated focused not on Jeremiah's activities but on the Rechabites' behavioral response, Jeremiah functioned in the role of a facilitator. He only expedited the demonstration of one element of the contrast and did not representationally depict either the Judahites' or God's behavior toward the Rechabites. But the audience may have perceived Jeremiah as functioning in the role of 'tempter', or 'tester', similar to Amos 2.11-12,139 in relationship to the Rechabites.140 When the Rechabites refused to follow the imperative to drink the wine —which must have been assumed to be a divine command because it was delivered by the prophetic messenger under specific commission of God, and done so while in the Temple area, the ultimate locale of the divine presence—the audience may have felt a condemnatory reaction against the Rechabites: how dare the Rechabites tenaciously adhere to a humanly imposed standard and refuse to heed a divine injunction by a prophet? Yet that internal audience response against the Rechabites unsuspectedly aided in the response Jeremiah sought to evoke: if the audience felt repulsed by the Rechabites not obeying a command by a 139. In Amos 2.11-12, the people are accused of making the Nazarites drink wine. Jeremiah, who may have been influenced by that passage, incorporated in this interaction significant variations for the purpose of emphasizing the Rechabites' fidelity. In Amos, the people as 'tempters' made the Nazarites violate a divine injunction whereas in Jer. 35, Jeremiah 'tempted' the Rechabites to violate a human injunction. In Amos, the focus was on the 'tempters' activity and only peripherally on the Nazarites' response, whereas in Jer. 35, the focus was on the Rechabites' response and only tangentially on Jeremiah's role as their 'tempter'. So in Amos, although the Nazarites succumbed to human pressure, it was the 'tempters' who came under judgment. But in Jer. 35, the Rechabites who did not succumb, were commended for their faithful adherence to a human injunction. 140. Cf. Amsler 1985: 58.

136

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

prophet, how much more should they feel condemnation towards themselves because of their own disregard for divine injunctions also given by prophets. So any sense of condemnation toward the Rechabites only added to the force of the indictment against themselves. While the audience may have focused on the Rechabites' refusal to drink, Jeremiah refocused attention away from the refusal and onto the motive for their refusal: their deep sense of commitment to commandment observance. 4. Remembrance. Whenever the Rechabites were observed on the city streets, the occasion was presented to focus on the peculiarity of their customs and to rethink Jeremiah's activity with them. If the Rechabites lived in a tent-city, the visual presence of their dwellings which also demonstrated their adherence to Jonadab's instructions, reinforced the demonstration Jeremiah had performed. Thus the continued presence of the Rechabites in Jerusalem must have been for the Jerusalemites a constant reminder of Jeremiah's message of fidelity in obeying commands and an inescapable living indictment against the people's lack of adherence to God's directives. 1.6 Jeremiah 27-28 (LXX: 34-35 )m 1.6.1 Communicative Meaning. According to 28.1, some time during Zedekiah's fourth year (594-593 BCE), a group of delegates from the political entities neighboring Judah—Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon—gathered in Jerusalem (27.3). Excursus: Dating of the Events of Chapters 27-28 Regardless of stylistic differences, the incidents of chs. 27 (in first person) and 28 (after v. 1, in third person) must be taken together as sequentially arranged events. Hananiah's breaking Jeremiah's yoke becomes inexplicable without the incident of ch. 27.142 But there is a 141. There are numerous variants between the LXX and MT texts with the latter being longer. None of the variant readings substantially affects the interpretation of the nonverbal communication and its communicative meaning. For comparative studies of the differences between the texts of the LXX and MT, besides the commentaries, see Goldman 1992: 123-88; 1997; van der Kooij 1994; McKane 1989; Janzen 1973; Stulman 1986: 86-89; Tov 1979, 1981, 1985. 142. Carroll (1986: 530, 540-41) argues that chs. 27 and 28 'are doublets rather than two historical incidents' (530), so that the two should not be read as sequential

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

137

discrepancy between the dates given in 27.1 and 28.1. (For a thorough discussion of the textual issues involved, besides the commentaries, see specifically Schmidt 1921; Seidl 1977a: 34-42, 72-76; 1979.) On the basis of 28.1, the events of chs. 27-28 are almost universally dated to the fourth year of Zedekiah. Congruency is best achieved when 27.1 is considered an erroneous reading (Dp"HIT PD^QD rPI2JK""Q), probably based on 26.1, and therefore deleted following the LXX. In 28.1, flD^QQ rPEJK"")^ because it does not correlate with 'the fourth year', should also be deleted (and ^ added before 'Zedekiah') on the basis of the LXX. The phrase is apparently a gloss which occurred after the erroneous dated superscription of 27.1 had been inserted, and whose purpose was to harmonize the discrepant dates in the two superscriptions. Elimination of 27.1 solves the problems of having to correlate the MT's readings in 27.1 and 28.1 through such assumptions as Jeremiah began wearing the yoke at the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign and continued to do so for some 15 years until the events of ch. 28 (contra Guillaume 1938: 154) or that the divine commission was directed to Jeremiah during the accession year of Jehoiakim, but only actually performed during the reign of Zedekiah. That the events clearly occurred during the reign of Zedekiah is indicated by the reference to Zedekiah in 27.3 and 12, the references to the 597 BCE deportation of Jehoiachin in 27.20 and 28.3-4, and the date in 28.1 which the MT seeks to connect explicitly with the events of ch. 27 ('in that year'). Even though the phrase KTin PHED is lacking in the LXX it seems to link the sign-act of ch. 27 accurately with Hananiah's action in ch. 28. Some commentators retain 27.1 but emend 'Jehoiakim' to 'Zedekiah', following the Syriac and a few Hebrew manuscripts. But this does not eliminate the difficulty of the technical term ro^QQ rr2JN~l, accounts. On the assumption that Zedekiah would not have entertained the idea of rebellion, Carroll then argues that the doublets are not historical, but must be read as a fabricated story. But even those who see in the two chapters a great deal of editorial work and development (cf. Duhm 1901: 216-17; Hossfeld and Meyer 1973: 90-103; Jones 1992: 346-49; Martin-Achard 1977: 53-54; Roulet and Bonvin 1985: 151-52; Wanke 1971: 34-36) attribute at least 28.10-11 to the original account, thus linking it with the action of 27.2-3. Even if the composition of the two chapters is late, there is no reason to doubt their historicity. For example, Nicholson (1970: 95) holds to their historicity even though considering major portions of the chapters to be Deuteronomic.

138

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

which means the accession year, correlating with the fourth year of the reign, unless one considers 'the fourth year' in 28.1 to be a later, erroneous addition (cf. May 1945: 217-18). Others attempt to retain th verse through emending 27.1 to read irrpn^ mnnn men, 'in th fourth year of Zedekiah'143 or by transposing the date, 'in the fourth year, the fifth month of Zedekiah, King of Judah', from 28.1 to 27.1.144 There is no textual evidence for either of the latter two emendations. There is no need to retain 27.1 on the basis that the sign-act account should commence with a date superscription, since such is not mandatory as evidenced by 13.1-11; 16.1-9; 19.1-13. In fact, the elimination of 27.1 makes the account begin in an identical manner to the sign-act accounts of chs. 13 and 19: mrr "ION PD. Some have sought to retain both readings of 'the beginning of the reign' and the 'fourth year', either by taking the former as a general term indicating the first part of the king's reign which could incorporate the latter ( cf. Keil 1977:1, 397-98), or by ascribing varying nuances to the former and to its accompanying prepositions, such as 'after the completion of the reign of Jehoiakim' in 27.1 and 'after the beginning, or accession year, of the reign of Zedekiah' in 28.1 (Althann 1988). But Althann's solution results in two very different nuances for the term JT2JN") in proximate contexts of identical formulaic expressions. Such seems unlikely. HD^QQ rPCto"] (cf. Jer. 26.1; also PID^Q rTm-Q in Jer. 49.34) seems to be a technical term,145 equivalent to the Babylonian reS Sarriiti and the Akkadian, Surrdt Sarruti, meaning the accession year of the king, and thus cannot correlate with the 'fourth year' in Jer. 28.1. Besides the Babylonian and Akkadian occurrences, it occurs in Aramaic with the same technical sense as part of the date formula: for example, £>tf~l rnD^n in the Wadi Daliyeh papyrus (335 BCE) of the contract for the sale of a slave (cf. Cross 1963: 113), and NrDI^Q tftn in an Ele phantine papyrus, Cowley no. 6.1-2 (465 BCE) (cf. Cowley 1923: 16). Some commentators maintain that ch. 27 occurred in the accession year of Zedekiah, and that the gathering of the foreign diplomats in Jerusalem was to win the support of Judah's new ruler (cf. Driver 1964: 143. Cf. Buzy 1923: 140-41; Carroll 1981: 322; Fohrer 1952a: 108; Holladay 1989: 112; Prinsloo 1981: 69; Wanke 1971: 19, 21. 144. Cf. Cornill 1905: 304-305; Duhm 1901: 217, 223. 145. On the term, see Kutsch 1985: 12; Sarna 1978: 91*; Tadmor 1956: 227-28; 1958: 27-29. On its occurrences in Jeremiah, see Seidl 1977b: 29-31.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

139

83-88; May 1945: 217-18), or to plan for the revolt which would not actually occur until two years later, concurrent with the uprisings in Babylon (cf. Sarna 1978: 94-95*). If one maintains that the actions of ch. 28 did not occur until the fourth year of Zedekiah, then Jeremiah must have worn the yoke for the intervening four years. But Driver (1964: 86) emends 28.1 to read 'that same year, in the year of the accession of Zedekiah... in the first year, in the fifth month' on the basis that 'in the fourth year' arose from a misunderstanding of the original text's abbreviation "in 2D. The abbreviation, actually standing fornnCNTin TO3, was misunderstood as rrimn n]2b. But Driver's solution still does not eliminate the difficulty of the verse, for the accession year (as Driver acknowledges, 84) was not the same as 'the first year'. His proposed reading still leaves two conflicting dates juxtaposed to each other. Sarna (1978: 95-96*) resolves the four-year hiatus by proposing that the anomaly of the MT's date formula for the fourth year means that the fourth year was not that of the king but of the sabbatical year cycle which corresponded to the regal accession year. But Sarna makes no comment about the LXX's reading which conforms precisely to the majority of date formulas, 'in the year X of Y (the king)' (cf. 25.1; 32.1; 36.1, 9; 39.1, 2; 42.7; 45.1; 46.2). Much of Sarna's argument (93-94*) is based on the appropriateness of the date of ch. 29 to the beginning of Zedekiah's reign and the assumption that ch. 29 must be dated at the same time as chs. 27-28 (92*). But the thematic unity of chs. 27-29 does not necessitate a chronological unity between chs. 2728 and ch. 29. The latter begins with its own superscription which in no manner explicitly connects the sending of the letter to the same year as the preceding incidents. Also against the event occurring in Zedekiah's accession year is the content of Jeremiah's response which implies a gathering that was not just trying to assess the current political situation, but rather sought to solidify a coalition for revolt. It seems highly unlikely that such an attitude of rebellion would have occurred in Judah just a matter of months after the Jerusalemites had experienced the siege of the city and the deportation of many of the citizens, and after Zedekiah's appointment by the Babylonians presumably because of his pro-Babylonian tendencies at that time. Although the purpose of the meeting is not explicitly stated, from the message which Jeremiah directed to the diplomatic messengers and to

140

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Zedekiah (27.4-15), it can be assumed that it was to plan rebellion against Babylon. The conferees must have perceived that a rebellion and a reasserting of their independence of their respective nations was somehow linked to an anticipated demise of the Babylonian supremacy. The thoughts of rebellion were probably fueled by the political events of Elam's attack on Babylonia in 596/595 BCE, rebellion within Babylonia in 595/594,146 and promises, or at least anticipation, of support from the Egyptians. Prophets, both in Judah and in the neighboring countries (27.9-10, 14-15), encouraged the movement by proclaiming the success of the rebellious venture147 and that two years from then the Babylonian power would be broken (Jer. 27.9, 14, 16; 28.3-4). Because of the prophetic declarations that this was the auspicious time to take action against the Babylonian domination, the consideration to revolt was not merely a political matter, but carried theological overtones as well. While the gathering of diplomats took place, Jeremiah received the divine command to make a yoke fa) consisting of a bar (HCDIQ) and bonds (rrnoiQ),148 and place it on his neck (27.2). The simplest form of a yoke149 used for oxen when ploughing, threshing or pulling a wagon150 146. On the accounts of these two events in the Babylonian chronicles, see BM 21946, Reverse lines 16-22 in Wiseman 1956: 72-73. 147. That during the same time this nationalistic feeling was also being encouraged—possibly accompanied by involvement in seditious actions—by the proclaimers of the popular theology within the Babylonian exilic community is clear from Jeremiah's advice to the exiles in his letter (Jer. 29.1-23) dated after the 597 BCE exile. Some commentators understand Jer. 29.7-9 as a reference to some of the Jewish exiles being involved in disorderly acts during the rebellion in Babylonia in 595/594, and vv. 21-23 to the prophets being killed because of utterances considered seditious by the Babylonians (cf. Bright 1972: 328; Carroll 1981: 191; Overholt 1967: 246-47; 1970: 29, 46). 148. In Jer. 27-28, the distinction is quite consistently made that when the physical artifact is meant, the terms ntDlQ/niQQ and rmoiQ are used (27.2; 28.10, 12, 13a), whereas when the metaphoric image is meant, ^i) is employed (27.8, 11, 12; 28.2, 4, 11, 14). The only exception to this distinction is in 28.13b where mUQ, instead of *?&, is used figuratively for Babylon's rule. But that verse seeks to play on the literal 'yoke-bar' which Hananiah broke (v. 13a) and the 'yoke-bars' which would replace it (v. 13b). Then subsequently in v. 14, ^ is once again used for the figure of subservience. 149. For examples of this simple type of yoke, see the Egyptian model (23502000 BCE) in ANEP 84 and the Assyrian relief (668-633 BCE) in ANEP 167. 150. It is generally assumed that the yoke was patterned after the draught animal

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

141

was that of a cross-bar (HQID)151 placed across the back of the ox's neck and fastened by rope or leather thongs (miDlQ) either to the animal's horns or passed around the front of the neck.152 Jeremiah could easily have fashioned such a yoke which visually resembled very closely those employed with animals. While wearing the yoke, Jeremiah was to declare publicly the message to the foreign ambassadors (27.3-11) and to Zedekiah (27.1215)153 that they should submit to the yoke of Babylon (27.8, 11, 12). In yoke rather than a porter's yoke or the yoke-bar and thongs used to restrain slaves or prisoners of war. Such is substantiated by the nonfigurative use of *?'& exclusively for an animal yoke (Num. 19.2; Deut. 21.3; 1 Sam. 6.7). Supportive of the yoke being of the type used for animals is also the reference to wild animals as part of the argument strategy in v. 6 (cf. Holladay 1989: 119). There is no doubt that captives, when deported, wore wooden shackles on their hands which were attached to their necks by cords (cf. the Egyptian reliefs of the fourteen and thirteenth centuries BCE in ANEP 49, 51, 55). There are also references to dog collars being placed on the captured kings' necks (cf. ANET 292a; 298b, c; 300b). Biblically, the terms pt ('fetter': Isa. 45.14; Nah. 3.10; Ps. 149.8), pm ('manacle': Jer. 40.1, 4), and to ('fetter': Pss. 105.18; 149.8) are used for the instruments to bind captives. Against Jeremiah's yoke being something which a captive would have worn are the facts that there are no references to Jeremiah binding his hands (cf. Jer. 40.4), the biblical terms for the binding of captives do not include ^i), and as Jeremiah wore the yoke he figuratively communicated submission and did not representationally depict the deportees. It was precisely the exilic captivity which would be avoided if the people 'wore the yoke' (cf. 27.11). 151. Besides being part of a yoke, HQ1Q is also used for the poles used in carrying the ark (1 Chron. 15.15), and similarly CD1Q for a pole for carrying things on (Num. 4.10, 12; 13.23). Such usage suggests that as part of the yoke, it was the cross-bar. 152. Another style of yoke included the cross-bar, wooden pegs which fastened into the cross-bar on each side of the animal's neck, and a rope or leather thong which went around the front of the neck whose ends were attached to the wooden pegs. For illustrations and descriptions of this type of yoke, see the Assyrian relief (668-633 BCE) in ANEP 168, and King 1993: 161. Holladay (1983: 155; 1986: 7; 1989: 119-120) and Zwickel (1991) suggest that mtDQ does not refer to the cross-bar, but to the yoke-pegs. Thus Jeremiah would have only worn the leather or rope bonds and the yoke-pegs, but not the cross-bar. But the non-yoke usage of HCDIQ for a pole (see above), the singular rather than the plural in 28.10, 12, and 13a (see n. 154 below on the reading in 13a), and Hananiah's ability to break the artifact (28.10) best fit the identification as the single cross-bar of the yoke rather than the two yoke-pegs. 153. Schreiner (1984: 159-61; cf. also 1987: 3) argues that originally the inci-

142

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

27.3, the MT's Dnn^CZJl implies that Jeremiah also sent yokes with the foreign emissaries. Likewise the plural form JT1CDC, which is conjoined with plural suffixes in v. 2 and contrasted with the MT's singular H21D in 28.10, 12 and 13a154 suggests that Jeremiah initially made at least six yokes and bore them on his neck. 155 When he addressed the emissaries from the five foreign nations, he then presented a yoke to each of them.156 So when the conferees personally relayed Jeremiah's dent only included vv. 2, 4a and 12, and thus only involved Zedekiah and not the foreign ambassadors. He considers the amplification of giving the message to the foreign ambassadors as a later exilic addition. There is no reason to assume that Jeremiah did not also give the message to the foreign dignitaries, even though his primary purpose was to dissuade the Judahites from participation in any rebellious efforts. Others who consider much of 27.4/5-22 (with the possible exception of vv. 11 or 12b) as secondary additions to the account (cf. Duhm 1901: 216-18; Fohrer 1952a: 108; 1968: 40-41; Hossfeld and Meyer 1973: 90-103; Martin-Achard 1977: 53-54; Nicholson 1970: 95; Roulet and Bonvin 1985: 151-52; Thiel 1981: 5-10; Wanke 1971: 27, 33-36), view as secondary the explicit statement that the message was verbalized to Zedekiah. Even if the message was not given explicitly to Zedekiah, there is no doubt that the Judahites were also recipients of the message as indicated by Hananiah's response in ch. 28, which shows full awareness of Jeremiah's message. 154. In 28.13a, DOIO should be revocalized as a singular construct on the basis that consistently for the plural only the second holem is written plene (mtOQ) as in Jer. 27.2 and 28.13b, and also Ezek. 30.18; 34.27; 1 Chron. 15.5. The only exception is Lev. 26.13 in which both vowels are written defectiva. The defectively written initial holem in the plural spelling contrasts with the singular, in which the initial holem is consistently plene (~01D) as in Jer. 28.10, 12, and also Isa. 58.6, 9. 155. Huey (1993: 242) suggests that the plural does not refer to six yokes, but rather to two wooden cross-bars, one worn over the neck and the other under the neck, joined by the thongs. Thus Jeremiah constructed only one yoke. Wanke (1971: 24) suggests the distinction between the plural (moc) and the singular (HCDID) usages corresponds to the two aspects of the making of the yoke and the completed condition of the artifact. When reference occurs in conjunction with the former, the plural is used (27.2; 28.13b), and with the latter, the singular (28.10, 12). But there is really no explanation as to why such an artificial, and inaccurate, distinction would be made when the process of making the yoke also only involved, not a plurality, but a single cross-bar. Even though such a distinction is possible, the plural and singular usages can also be explained as above, that the plural was used consistently when more than one cross-bar was meant, while the singular was used when only one cross-bar was involved. 156. Cf. Holladay (1983: 155; 1986: 7; 1989: 120—but he views the artifacts as

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

143

message to their respective kings, their transmissions were nonverbally reinforced through those artifacts. In the encounter with Hananiah (28.10), Hananiah then broke the remaining bar (singular) which Jeremiah, serving as the messenger to Zedekiah and Judah, had on his neck. But in 27.3, the Lucianic tradition of the LXX does not reflect the suffix, so that frequently the MT is emended to nn'PCCh with the implied object being 'the message'157 rather than the yokes. In that case, Jeremiah only made one yoke which he himself wore, and the emissaries only reported verbally to their masters what Jeremiah had done and said. Also, in 28.10 and 12 where the MT has the singular 'bar', the LXX and Syriac have the plural. Thus the plural/singular distinctions made in the MT are obviated in those translations whose consistent plural forms apparently reflect the understanding of only a singular artifact made and worn by Jeremiah. Although Jeremiah had no authority to command the foreign emissaries to dutifully transmit to their masters the message which he gave them, the circumstances may have made such a transmission of the message very probable. In the ancient Near East, the auspiciousness of any military venture was determined beforehand through the consultation of religious personnel and ritual (cf. 1 Kgs 22.1-28; Ezek. 21.2627). With respect to this consultation for rebellion, prophetic messages were being given which indicated its appropriateness (vv. 9-10; cf. also vv. 14-17). So when Jeremiah gave a contrary prophetic message which questioned the propriety of the planned action, it can be assumed that such was duly noted.158 The correspondence between Jeremiah's nonverbal action and the message-content was that of a simile-form: 'Just as I am wearing the yoke, so the nations should wear the yoke of the king of Babylon.' The nonverbal action figuratively depicted a metaphor for submission.

only the pegs and ropes); Keil 1977: I, 399-400; Keown, Scalise and Smothers 1995: 49. 157. T3 n^SJ also occurs in Exod. 4.13; 2 Sam. 12.25; 1 Kgs 2.25 without any direct object, which is inferred to be 'word' or 'message'. 158. Jeremiah's position is analogous to that of Micaiah in 1 Kgs 22, when in the consultation before battle, he gave an inauspicious message which was contrary to the other prophets (v. 17). Although Micaiah's message was not heeded, it was also not categorically dismissed (vv. 17-28).

144

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Within the biblical literature, the imagery of 'being under the yoke' or 'wearing the yoke' was common as a means of describing subservience. In only three of its biblical occurrences, does ^i)159 refer to a literal yoke used for cattle (Num. 19.2; Deut. 21.3; 1 Sam. 6.7). All of its other occurrences refer figuratively to a subservience which is usually, but not always (cf. Jer. 5.5), oppressive in nature (Hos. 11.4; Gen. 27.40; Lam. 1.14; 3.27). Most frequently the 'yoke' is that of political servitude to one's overlord (the yoke of Solomon in 1 Kgs 12.4, 9, 10, 11, 14 = 2 Chron. 10.4, 9, 10, 11, 14; the yoke of the enemies in Deut. 28.48; Jer. 2.20; 30.8; Isa. 9.3; the yoke of Babylon in Isa. 47.6; Ezek. 34.27; Jer. 27.8, 11, 12; 28.2, 4, 11, 14; the yoke of Egypt in Lev. 26.13; the yoke of Assyria in Isa. 10.27; 14.25).160 Outside of Jeremiah 27 and 28, HQ1Q, both in its singular and plural forms, is always used in the figurative senses of either foreign domination (cf. the plural for the yoke-bars of Egypt in Lev. 26.13; Ezek. 30.18; the yoke-bars of Babylon in Ezek. 34.27; cf. also tOlQ, the yokebar of Assyria in Nah. 1.13) or oppressive wickedness (Isa. 58.6, 9; singular).161 miDlQ is only used of literal 'bonds' for a donkey in Job 39.5. In all its other cases, it is a figure for oppressive distress (Pss. 107.14; 116.16; Isa. 28.22), conformance to the divinely imposed ordinances (Jer. 5.5), or subservience to one's enemies (Jer. 2.20; 30.8; Isa. 52.2; Nah. 1.13; Ps. 2.3).162

159. For a discussion of the meaning of 'j'V,see Seidl 1978: 124-26. 160. The imagery of being freed from the yoke (^i1) is expressed frequently by the verb "Dti (Jer. 2.20; 5.5; 30.8; Lev. 26.13; Ezek. 34.27) just like Hananiah's declaration in 28.2, 4, 11. But the breaking of the yoke is also expressed by Finn (Isa. 9.3), pis (Gen. 27.40), and ^IH (Isa. 10.27), or its removal by T10 (Isa. 10.27; 14.25). In all of these cases, except Gen. 27.40 and Jer. 5.5, the one who does the breaking or removing of the yoke is God. (On the literary formulas for 'removal of the yoke', see Seidl 1978: 237-42; also Becking 1989: 75-76.) 161. In every case of non-Jeremianic usage, the context in which HCDIQ is used is that of deliverance from the yoke. When the 'yoke-bars' refer to foreign lordship, it is God who breaks or removes them ("1383: Lev. 26.13; Ezek. 30.18; 34.27), and when wickedness, it is the people's responsibility to do so (110 and pn]: Isa. 58.6, 9). 162. The removal of rmOIQ, and therefore freedom from the subservient conditions, is most frequently expressed by pn] (as a human action: Ps. 2.3; Jer. 5.5; as a divine action: Jer. 2.20; 30.8; Nah. 1.13; Ps. 107.14; Isa. 28.22) or by FTPS (as a

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

145

The figure of the yoke for domination/submission is also very common in the extant ancient Near Eastern literature. The figure, referring either to the yoke of the king or to the gods, is found in cultic (e.g. Hymn of Ishtar [ANET 383d]) as well as the historical literature of the Assyrians and the Babylonians.163 It occurs in an Assyrian prophetic oracle concerning Ashurbanipal (667 BCE): ' "[The kings] of the lands [I shall overthrow, place under the yoke, bind their feet in [strong fetters]"' (K. 883.12-13).164 The figurative expression of 'wearing the yoke' to signify subservience to one's enemy may have derived from an actual practice of the victor's placing a yoke on the neck of the conquered leaders. In the annals of Ashurbanipal is the account: 'I harnessed Tammaritu, Pa'e, Ummana[ldasi, king(s)] of Elam, (and) laute', king of Ishmael whom I had captured personally... like choice foals to my (triumphal) char, my royal means of transportation... and they actually held the straps (abSanu) (to pull the char).'165 divine action: Ps. 116.16; as a human action: Isa. 52.2). (Cf. the discussion in Seidl 1978: 55-57.) 163. E.g. from the reign of Tiglathpileser (744-727 BCE): ANET 284a; from the reign of Sargon II (721-705 BCE): ANET285d; 286b; from the reign of Sennacherib (704-681 BCE) [all the Sennacherib references can be found in Luckenbill 1924]: Oriental Prism 2.36; 2.62 (= AWET 287c); 3.19 (= ANET2S8a); BM 113203: 62; Bellino Cylinder, line 18; Bull Inscription, line 28; from the reign of Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE): ANET29la, b; 292c; from the reign of Ashurbanipal (668-633 BCE): ANET 295d; 296a; 297c, d; 300d; quotation in Gruber 1980: 54; from the reign of Nabopolassor (626-605 BCE): quotation in Heschel 1962: I, 131; from th reign of Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BCE):ANET 307d. For numerous other references, see CAD 1,1 65-66; 11, II 260-63. The common Akkadian term for 'yoke' was nlru (cf. CAD 11, II 260-64), but the image was also expressed through abSdnu, the rope which was part of the yoke (cf. CAD 1, I 65-66): Sargon II: ANET 286c; Sennacherib: Oriental Prism 2.68 (= AMET287d); Bavian Inscription, line 5; Nebi Ynus Inscription, line 15 (=ANET 288c); Ashurbanipal: ANET291c, d; 300d. Whereas nlru was used both literally for a yoke as well as figuratively for domination or rule imposed by the gods or by a human king, abSanu, does not occur in the extant Akkadian texts as a part of a literal yoke (as in Sumerian), but only in metaphoric contexts of labor or corvee imposed on gods by gods, on men by gods, or on conquered peoples by the conquering king. 164. ANET451&- cf. Strong 1894: 633-35, 645. 165. ANET 300d. See also CAD 11, II 261, translating Strech Asb. 82 x 29: 'I made (the defeated kings) pull the yoke [mm] of the carriage.' See also the

146

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

In his sign-act of wearing the yoke, Jeremiah drew upon a common verbal expression and performed it nonverbally in order to convey dramatically the prophetic message. Jeremiah thereby depicted to the foreign ambassadors and to the Judahites the course of action which they should currently take: rather than attempting to throw off the yoke through the plans for the revolt, they should continue to wear the 'political' yoke of the Babylonians.166 The issue was not whether the people would resist coming under the yoke, but whether they would remain under the yoke. Also, the issue was not whether at some point in the future the yoke would be imposed upon them, for the Judahites had unquestionably been under the yoke of the Babylonians since the 597 BCE exile and the appointment of a Babylonian-ordained ruler. In 27.6, the current condition of subjection to the Babylonian yoke by Judah and the neighboring countries was noted: 'even I have given [Tin]] all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar'. TIP] expresses the past and current reality, and is not a 'prophetic perfect' expressing what would happen in the future. Thus, by wearing the yoke, Jeremiah was not depicting a future, yet unrealized, condition.167 Rather, he was thereby exhorting the Judahites and neighboring nations to perpetuate the condition which they currently were under. Jeremiah's action was thus not a prediction about what the people would do in the future, but rather counsel as to the divinely decreed action which the people should

Egyptian relief (1550-1350 BCE) of the plow being pulled by four slaves, ANEP 85. Similar is Ashurbanipal's treatment of Uate': 'I put a pillory (on) his (neck) together with a bear (and) a dog and made him stand on guard (duty) at the gate in Nineveh' (AW£T298b). 166. Hester (1982: 292) suggests a double meaning to Jeremiah's action: subservience to Babylon and 'continued livelihood on the land the oxen plows [sic]'. But the reference to 'working the land' in v. 11 is the only statement which would allude to his proposed second meaning of the action. Had the second meaning been intended, one would expect a more explicit reference. It is best to view Jeremiah's action as only portraying the option (subservience), and not the consequences (livelihood on the land). 167. Contra Keown, Scalise and Smothers (1995: 56) that Nebuchadnezzar's control over the area did not yet reflect the extent of servitude which Jeremiah portrayed. But Hananiah's subsequent sign-act (28.10-11) was clearly premised on the assumption that Jeremiah's sign-act did indeed accurately indicate the current situation of Judah from which God would bring relief.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

147

take in the present.m Jeremiah's message placed before the people a behavioral option which had political and religious ramifications: they could wear the yoke, or they could cast it off; but they had to be aware of the consequences of each action. Jeremiah did not in any way nonverbally depict, but only verbally declared (27.5-15), the future consequences of both heeding his nonverbally depicted advice (remain in the land to work it, v. 11; remain alive, v. 12) and of rejecting his advice (punishment by sword, famine and pestilence, v. 8, and similarly v. 13; exile from the land, vv. 10, 15; death, vv. 10, 13, 15).169 His nonverbal behavior only depicted the option which Jeremiah recommended to the people. In contrast, Hananiah's action presented the other option. The accompanying verbal statements (vv. 4-22) not only interpreted the action and described the consequences of adhering or not adhering to the advice, but also placed the whole choice into a theological context (e.g. vv. 5-6, and the first person of divine address in vv. 8, lOb, 11, 15).170 Just as the other prophets perceived the throwing off of the yoke in theological terms (cf. 28.1-4, 11: God would break the yoke), so too Jeremiah perceived his political advice in theological terms. Jeremiah presented the submission to the Babylonians as tantamount to continued submission to God. The verbal messages added a dimension to the communication which the nonverbal behavior could not convey. The nonverbal only depicted the submission option, while the verbal was able to express the motivations and reasons for the advised submission. 1.6.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. There is no doubt that, because of the action's unusualness, when Jeremiah appeared in public wearing the yoke, he attracted attention. The Judahites' curiosity should have been aroused, and maybe

168. Because of the commonness of the imagery as a verbal description for submission, and since it did not predict the future, there is no need to view Jeremiah's yoke actions as magical (contra Carroll 1986: 530), or to look for its origin in magical rituals of consecration, purification or healing (contra Fohrer 1968: 41-42). The functions of the yoke in those cases are totally different and they provide no illumination on the communicative meaning of Jeremiah's employment of the nonverbal artifact. 169. Cf. Kessler's (1965: 67-68, 73-75,88-89) discussion of the hortatory nature of ch. 27 as a 'contingent/conditional oracle'. 170. On the theology of 27.1-11, see Lang 1983b; Prinsloo 1981.

148

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

even more so when he did not initially proclaim a message to his own people but approached the foreign ambassadors (27.3). 2. Comprehension. Since the action had correspondence to a common metaphor (i.e. bearing the yoke), there was probably an initial level of understanding over the general concept being portrayed. Yet such may have further aroused the people's curiosity as they wondered what type of specific message or what further activity Jeremiah would attach to such. They may have wondered if he would perform with the yoke some further action, such as throwing it off or breaking it (as Hananiah later did), which would communicate a message supportive of the rebellion efforts. They may have initially hoped that Jeremiah would utter an oracle against Babylon, thus prophesying that Babylon would come under the yoke of another nation. The unspecifiedness inherent in Jeremiah's nonverbal action and an ambiguity in its meaning allowed for an initial openness to a message which would ultimately be contrary to what the people were hoping to hear and contrary to what others were prophetically speaking. 3. Acceptance. In considering rebellion against Babylon, the people had before them two options: one was not to rebel, but continue to submit (wear the yoke), and the other was to rebel (throw off the yoke). Jeremiah's nonverbal act only displayed to the people the option of not rebelling and continued submission to the Babylonians, and that option was presented in a very graphic manner in order to impress upon the people the appropriateness of that option. In attempting to persuade the people to follow the option which he presented, Jeremiah employed the speaker strategy of identification with the people. While performing the nonverbal behavior, Jeremiah functioned in the role of the addressed audience and figuratively modeled the behavior they were to emulate. This acting in the people's role placed the choice on the people themselves: it was they who had to bear or not bear the yoke. Although the verbal message stressed the divine activity in decreeing subservience to the Babylonians, the nonverbal display did not present the divine imposition of the yoke, only the people's responsibility to wear it.171 Thus the nonverbal display stressed the optional nature of the behavior and focused on the audience's role in the decision-making process. 171. This contrasts with Hananiah's action in which Hananiah functioned in the divine role, so that the nonverbal display became totally God's action without any human responsibility or involvement.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

149

Even though Jeremiah initially addressed the foreign emissaries, the primary rhetorical concern was undoubtedly to persuade the Judahites not to participate nor to have confidence in any attempts of rebellion. When addressing the foreign ambassadors, Jeremiah was employing a form of indirect address with respect to the Judahite audience which is presumed to have overheard his speech to the foreigners (cf. v. 13). Jeremiah's initial message was explicitly addressed and applicable to the foreign nations, not to Judah. But by first speaking to the foreign representatives, Jeremiah was able to express indirectly the message to the Judahites who were opposed to the position Jeremiah espoused. Certainly Jeremiah's castigation of the foreign prophets (vv. 9-10) and the declaration that they were prophesying falsely may not have been reacted to in an overly negative manner by many of the Judahites, for, after all, those foreign prophets were non-Yahwists who certainly could be wrong. So the initial address to the foreign ambassadors should have helped to alleviate some of the negative reactions to the message in contrast to what might have happened had Jeremiah come out and only confronted the Judahite political leaders and prophets without such a preparatory indirect address. The movement from the indirect address to the direct address thus placed the application to his immediate audience in a final climactic position. As he spoke to the foreign ambassadors, the implied message of that indirect address for the Judahites was clearly that they too should not participate in the efforts to throw off the Babylonian yoke. Those implications were not left for the audience to draw by themselves but were explicitly stated as Jeremiah shifted from indirect to direct address when he spoke to Zedekiah and the people (vv. 12-22). The conclusion which Jeremiah wanted the Judahite audience to draw was stated in unequivocal terms: the same message which was addressed to the foreign kings was addressed to Jeremiah's own nation. As noted above, the nonverbal action only displayed the advocated option, while the accompanying verbal declarations placed the whole issue into the theological realm. The choice which the people would make had ramifications far beyond just the political consequences since it involved the people's covenant relationship with God. The 'other prophets' were declaring that to cast off the yoke would be the politically and theologically expedient thing to do. As such, they maintained that one still bore God's yoke while casting off the Babylonians' yoke. But Jeremiah admonished that to continue wearing the Babylonian yoke

150

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

was the only means to continue wearing God's yoke. This theological element served as an argument from authority. It was the divine will that the Judahites continue under Babylonian hegemony. The advocated position in the nonverbal display was not Jeremiah's private counsel, but a divine mandate. 4. Remembrance. The time period over which Jeremiah wore the yoke and continued thereby to proclaim his message of submission is not known. But certainly it can be assumed that Jeremiah continued this method of nonverbal communication on a daily basis for some time until the confrontation with Hananiah (ch. 28).172 During this period of wearing the yoke, it can be assumed that Jeremiah also took advantage of the opportunity to proclaim messages verbally which either reiterated the yoke imagery or gave variations on that theme which emphasized other aspects of the subservience.173 Through Jeremiah's repeated act of wearing the yoke, he made the action more memorable. Whenever he was seen with the yoke bound to his neck, the message was once again placed before the people. The remembrance of his message was also aided by his employment of a common item, an ox-yoke, and even more so, by the fact that his action had depicted a common figure of speech. Any verbal reference to that image or any observation of yokes literally being used by oxen, provided the allusion to Jeremiah's action which could have brought his message of submission into the conscious cognitive realm. 1.6.3 Audience Response. In 28.1-4,174 10-11 is recounted Hananiah's response to Jeremiah's nonverbal behavior.175 Hananiah's response cor172. There is no reason to assume that the incidents of chs. 27 and 28 occurred on the same day. 173. Verses 16-22 may be such an example of one of the variant, but related, themes of submission to the Babylonians which Jeremiah proclaimed during this period. Verses 16-22 do not constitute a direct interpretation of the wearing of the yoke, but a complementary message focusing on a different subject (the Temple vessels). Yet the starting point of that message, as indicated in v. 17, was the yoke. 174. Some commentators consider vv. 2-4 to be later expansions which were incorporated into the account of Hananiah's response (cf. Hossfeld and Meyer 1973: 90-93; Martin-Achard 1977: 53-54; Roulet and Bonvin 1985: 151-52; Wanke 1971: 31, 34-36), partially on the basis that a sign-act's explanation occurs after the action, not before (cf. Hossfeld and Meyer 1973: 94). But there is no basis for that kind of assumption about the fixity of the temporal coordination of the nonverbal and verbal elements (see Chapter 3 §5.1).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

151

relates directly with Jeremiah's accusations against the other prophets (compare 28.3 to 27.16; 29.8-10) who were presenting the people with a hope of an imminent return from exile which implied the imminent demise of Babylon, and who were advocating Judahite participation in the attempt to revolt. As part of the prophetic group which was voicing the popular sentiments, Hananiah's reaction can be considered paradigmatic of the response of the broader audience to Jeremiah's message on this occasion.176 Thus, when considering Hananiah's actions as exclusively 'audience response', Hananiah can be classified as a type of 'mimetic-orator' whose function 'is not to shape an audience's beliefs and disbeliefs but to reflect them. He is the spokesman, official or unofficial, of some group in society, and his discourses may be taken as expressing the mind of that group' (Black 1978: 167). Black (1978: 173-74) makes the distinction between a prophet and a mimetic-orator: while both may express ideas which coincide with the auditors' opinions, the prophet is regarded by the group as the source of or motivat-

Other commentators have argued for the originality of the verses, or at least vv. lb-3a (cf. Duhm 1901: 216-17; Schreiner 1984: 164-65; 1987: 1-3). There is no reason to assume that vv. 2-4 do not reflect Hananiah's sentiments and motives for breaking the yoke. 175. At this juncture, only Hananiah's attitudinal response to Jeremiah's message is dealt with as 'audience response'. In Chapter 1 §5.2.2 it has already been argued that Hananiah's action was not one of countering any inherent power or efficaciousness attributed to Jeremiah's action, but rather a rhetorical sign-act in its own right. Therefore Hananiah's action could be analyzed as a nonverbal communication event, with Jeremiah's responses (28.5-9, 12-16) analyzed as the 'audience response' to Hananiah. Cf. Overholt's (1977: 139-43; 1989: 56-58) analysis of Jeremiah's and Hananiah's interaction as a 'proclamation-feedback-proclamation' sequence, and Lundbom's (1991: 21-22) analysis of the classical rhetorical arguments employed by Jeremiah in his response. 176. The dialogue between Jeremiah and Hananiah involved the issue of prophetic conflict between 'true' and 'false' prophets. (On the theology and sociology of prophetic conflict in Jer. 28, besides the commentaries, see Carroll 1976; 1981: 181-89; Goldenberg 1982; Hester 1982: 290-304; Hossfeld and Meyer 1973: 90103; Long 1981a, 1981b; Lys 1979; Manahan 1980b; Martin-Achard 1977; Mottu 1976; Osswald 1962; Overholt 1967; 1970: 24-48; 1977; Quell 1952: 43-67; Roulet and Bonvin 1985; Sanders 1977; Seebass 1970; Sheppard 1988; Wilson 1980: 25051; 1984b: 67-80.) But the issue dealt with here will not be that of Hananiah as a 'false' prophet, rather, his reaction as demonstrative of the broader audience's attitudes.

152

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

ing influence on their opinions, while the mimetic-orator only pronounces the tenets of the group's common doctrine. Hananiah is certainly functioning here in the religious role of a prophet, but from the perspective of 'audience response' in communication theory, he also functions as a mimetic orator in that he expresses the views previously given to the group and already held by a significant segment of it. That Hananiah's response was based on the basic premises of the popular theology is evident from the issues which were stressed: the land (e.g. the unequivocal emphasis on 'this place' in 28.3, 4), the Temple (28.3),177 the Davidic monarchy (28.4), and the covenantal relationship of God with his people. Although not explicitly stated, Hananiah, in presenting the divine activity, was drawing upon the traditions of God salvationally fighting on behalf of his people. It was God who, in the past, had broken the yoke of Judah's enemies and removed the bonds (Jer. 2.20), broken the yoke of Egypt (Lev. 26.13), and removed Assyria's yoke (Isa. 10.27; 14.25; cf. also Nah. 1.13). Because of the covenant relationship, Hananiah viewed God as Judah's ally which meant deliverance for Jerusalem. The conflict between Jeremiah and Hananiah, and thereby the larger audience, was not between two divergent religious traditions, but over what specific tenets of the tradition were to be stressed and applied to the specific historical circumstances.178 For even Jeremiah in 30.8 177. Presumably tantamount in the people's thinking, as indicated by 27.16-22, was also the restoration of the Temple vessels which had been taken in the 597 BCE captivity. On the functioning of the passages in chs. 27-28 which deal with the Temple vessels as part of the 'continuity theme' in which the vessels' restoration re-establishes continuity of the cultus which has been disrupted by the events of 597 BCE, see Ackroyd 1987. Some consider 27.16-22 to be later, even postexilic additions to the text because of the emphasis on the cultic vessels (cf. Hossfeld and Meyer 1973: 102-103; Martin-Achard 1977: 53-54; Roulet and Bonvin 1985: 151-52; Schreiner 1984: 162-64: 1987: 9-11; Wanke 1971: 27, 33-34). But there is no reason to deny such a concern to the period between 597 and 586 BCE. 178. Long (198la) seeks to define the prophetic conflict in more political terms (48) reflective of the pro- or anti-Babylonian affiliation of Jeremiah and Hananiah. Although the prophets may have been respectively so politically oriented, such a political alignment on their part, according to the biblical witness, did not stem from purely political motives, but rather was based on their underlining theological presuppositions. Therefore their conflict is considered here to have been over religious ideology which had political ramifications.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

153

prophesied that God would act as Hananiah prophesied. But that expectation, according to Jeremiah was not applicable to this particular historical situation. Thus, it was the misapplication of specific theological presuppositions to the current Babylonian domination which Jeremiah perceived as the exigence which needed to be rhetorically addressed by his wearing the yoke. Hananiah's response undoubtedly reflects how deeply the popular theology held sway over the people. Thus any message which did not emphasize God's deliverance of the people and the preservation of the land, the Temple and the Davidic monarchy was rejected and countered by a further entrenchment into the popular theology's positions. Theories which deal with the motivational aspects of persuasion show 'that there is a strong tendency for people to maintain consonance (consistency) among the elements of a cognitive system' (Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 126). Thus whenever a person's belief system is presented with a message which challenges an aspect of that belief system, thereby causing cognitive disequilibrium (dissonance) and tension, the person is motivated to restore the cognitive equilibrium through some manner. The dissonance may be eliminated through alteration of the belief system and behavior so as to adopt the conflicting position advocated by the rhetor.179 Or it may be eliminated through rejection of the Wilson (1980: 250-51; 1984b: 77-80), acknowledging the theological distinctions, argues that the roots of the conflict were sociological because Hananiah was a 'central' prophet while Jeremiah was a 'peripheral' prophet. For arguments against Wilson's position, see Carroll (1986: 548), Hester (1982: 225-325) and Long (198la: 43-44) who argue that the proposed sociological distinctions cannot be substantiated. Mottu (1976), and similarly Gottwald (1981), attempt to define the conflict in socio-economic terms of a class struggle between the interests of the ruling class (represented by Hananiah) and the masses of the people (represented by Jeremiah). But such an alignment of the prophets with specific socio-economic viewpoints and such an understanding of the text according to Marxist ideology are speculations rather than derivations from the text. (For arguments against Mottu's position, see Carroll 1986: 548-49, and against Gottwald, see Long 1981b: 127-28.) 179. Carroll (1979: 194) views the position espoused by Hananiah in ch. 28 as an example of 'dissonance reduction by changing original cognition'. Prior to 597 BCE the prophets (including Hananiah) had predicted no deportation. But once that event had indeed occurred, their espoused position had to accommodate the reality of the circumstances. At the same time they would not totally abandon their previous perspective, but would only shift to an acknowledgment that the exile would be very brief.

154

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

conflicting alternative, either by rationalizing that it is more profitable to maintain the already held position, or by strengthening the held position by selectively increasing favorable information. When the Judahites were presented with Jeremiah's message which challenged their belief system, they (as exemplified by Hananiah) responded in the latter manner of rejecting Jeremiah's option. Thus Hananiah strengthened the already held position through the additional prophetic confirmation that it correlated with God's intended activity (28.2-4, 11), and he reinforced a hopeful attitude through the reiteration of the view that restoration was imminent (e.g. 'in two years', 28.3, 11). Assuming Hananiah's response to Jeremiah's sign-act was representative of the audience, through the sign-act of the yoke Jeremiah apparently did not convince the people to abandon their theological presuppositions which, from Jeremiah's perspective, were instilling in the people a false sense of confidence and hope. Although the immediate political plans for revolt apparently did not materialize in 594— 593 BCE, and thus Jeremiah's advocated position of remaining subservient to the yoke of Babylon was for that current time followed, such may have been due to political realities or other factors and totally unrelated to any conscious effort to heed Jeremiah's advice. That the audience's theological and political perspectives persisted is evidenced in that a few years later (589 BCE) Jeremiah's advice was totally disregarded as Judah did revolt against Babylon. 1.7 Jeremiah 5L59-64am (LXX: 28.59-64a) 1.7.1 Communicative Meaning. This sign-act is dated to the fourth year of Zedekiah (594/593 BCE) when Seraiah,181 the 'tribute officer',182 180. Verse 64b, irPQT nm mn IS "Bin, should be seen as an editorial comment, not specifically related to the sign-act of vv. 59-64a. The phrase is appropriately lacking in LXX where the different placement of the oracles against Babylon does not make this the conclusion to the oracles against the nations or to the Jeremianic portion of the whole book. 181. According to Baruch's lineage in Jer. 32.12 (the son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah), Seraiah and Baruch, Jeremiah's scribe, may have been brothers. A seal has been found which reads, 1HH] | imfo1? (Seraiah [son of] Neriah) (cf. Avigad 1978a: 56; 1978b; 1979: 118; King 1993: 97). The 'Seraiah' of the seal is possibly to be identified with the one in this passage. 182. Such is the LXX reading: dpxcov 5c6po>v. The Greek plural need not reflect a plural in the Vorlage, but rather the singular nran (cf. Budde 1878: 531; Holladay 1989: 432, 434; Lundbom 1986: 111), which is frequently used in the technical

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

155

made a journey to Babylon (v. 59). The exact historical circumstances motivating the visit are not known,183 but significant for understanding the communicative purpose of Seraiah's nonverbal action are the broader, corresponding events and beliefs which constituted the rhetorical situation. As indicated in chs. 27-28, there was a renewed interest sense of 'tribute' that a vassal pays to its overlord (cf. Judg. 3.15, 17, 18; 2 Sam. 8.2, 6 = 1 Chron. 18.2, 6; 2 Kgs 17.3, 4; 2 Chron. 17.5, 11; 26.8; Hos. 10.6). Thus the LXX and MT stem from the same consonantal text, nrt]Q, which was understood with different vocalizations (respectively nrijQ and nrnp), and then in the MT came to be written plene, nrtlDD. The MT literally means 'officer of the resting place'. nni]Q is used in Num. 10.33 to designate the place of encampment when on a journey. According to that reading, Seraiah's function was that of quartermaster who was responsible for the bivouacking of the caravan or the troops in the evening, or more specifically for the king's well-being while on the journey, and was thus the king's chamberlain. The Syriac has il]nQ, 'camp', probably as a result of metathesis, but the meaning is essentially the same as the MT's. Either the MT's or the LXX's designation of Seraiah's function is possible. Other proposals are unconvincing. Godbey (1923: 100) suggests that the title 'chief producer of quiet' is the designation for a functionary of curse-rituals which Seraiah is assumed to have performed on this occasion. But in its biblical usage, niTDQ is never associated with divinatory practices. Based on niTOD in 1 Chron. 22.9 (cf. also 1 Kgs 8.56) being an antonym of non^D (v. 8), another proposal (cf. McKane 1995: 700; 1996: 1352, citing Ehrlich) is that Seraiah was an antiwar statesperson who was opposed to any rebellion attempts by Judah against Babylonia. 183. It is often suggested that the trip correlated with the events of chs. 27-28 during the summer of 593 BCE. As a result of the gathering of delegates in Jerusalem, Zedekiah was instructed to renew his loyalty to Babylon. If this was the case, there is the possibility, as indicated by the MT, that Zedekiah himself made the journey to appear before the Babylonian king. The LXX states that Seraiah 'went from' (J"!KQ) Zedekiah, in the sense of an official ambassador, so that Zedekiah may have only sent a royal delegation which did not involve his personal accompaniment. Others suggest that the purpose of the delegation's journey to Babylon was not directly related to the conference of Jer. 27. Rather, it may have correlated with Nebuchadnezzar's campaign into the region in 594 BCE and involved the payment of tribute monies. Because of Judah's tendency to seek Egyptian support, Zedekiah could have been obliged to pay his tribute in person. But even if that was the case, Zedekiah may have only presented himself to Nebuchadnezzar at the headquarters in Syria while Seraiah journeyed on to Babylon with the tribute (cf. Freedy and Redford 1970: 475). It is also possible that the journey was a diplomatic mission unrelated in any specific manner to either of those incidents.

156

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

in Judah's independence, and even prophecies to that effect were being given that the Babylonian power would be destroyed in two years' time (cf. 28.3, 11). Those in Judah and the exiles in Babylon were emphasizing that the current timing, which they perceived as being auspicious for political rebellion, should be taken advantage of. In Babylon, Seraiah was to do four things as part of the total communication event: (1) read all the words concerning Babylon which Jeremiah had written down (v. 61); (2) verbally acknowledge the divine authority behind the words (v. 62); (3) perform the nonverbal action of casting the scroll, which was tied to a rock, into the Euphrates River (v. 63), and (4) verbally state the interpretation (v. 64a). Seraiah performed the action at the command of Jeremiah (v. 59) so that he was functioning as Jeremiah's official messenger.184 The reason for the task being delegated was practical: Jeremiah was not personally making the journey to Babylon. As a delegated messenger, the message was Jeremiah's, not Seraiah's, so that it carried the same authority and intentional communicative purpose as if performed by Jeremiah.185 Yet since the sign-act was performed by a representative who was not a prophet in his own right, the account does reflect slight differences in the message's presentation than if it had been performed by the prophet himself. 1. Reading of the scroll (verse 61). Jeremiah sent his oracle of Babylon's doom with Seraiah in a single186 scroll (v. 60). The specific content of the written prophecy is not given, but the sentiment, viewpoint and intent of the message must have been similar to those expressed in 50.1-51.58.187 184. In v. 59, the LXX is explicit that Jeremiah's command to Seraiah was a divine commission: 'the word which the Lord commanded the prophet Jeremiah to say to Seraiah'. 185. On a form-critical analysis of Jer. 51.59-64 as 'prophetic delegation', see Schmidt 1982: 213. 186. "irTN "1DO: the adjectival designation as a 'single' scroll is uncertain whether 'one' is an intentional contradistinction to the many scrolls written by Jeremiah which formed the main collection, or only an expression of indefiniteness, 'a scroll'. Budde (1878: 546; cf. also Wanke 1971: 137) understands the phrase to mean 'a single sheet' (Blatt), but such is based on his view of the shortness of the contents. The length of the scroll is not known and may easily have been more than a single piece of papyrus. 187. Verse 60b, 'all these words [which are] written concerning Babylon', seems to link the content of the scroll with the oracles against Babylon in 50.1-51.58.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

157

The purpose for writing down the oracles against Babylon was twofold. First, it served the practical function of being a manner of transmitting the message via a delegated messenger. The text attaches no 'magical' significance to the prophecies being written down. There is no reason to a priori assume that in this case the transmission in written form served other than a practical function similar to the written correspondences of Jer. 29.1, 29, and 2 Kgs 20.12. Since Jeremiah was not traveling to Babylon where he could orally deliver the message, the exact transmission of the message was assured through the message being written down. Secondly, the scroll then served as the artifact which figuratively stood for Babylon in the nonverbal action of sinking it in the river. Seraiah was to read (K~lp) the scroll upon his arrival in Babylon. Since in the ancient Near East, all reading was done aloud, excluded is the interpretation that Seraiah read the scroll inaudibly to himself. The text does not explicitly indicate whether the scroll was to be read in the hearing of an audience. Yet the cumulative evidence suggests that an Some consider that preceding passage (or the authentic materials therein) to have been the scroll's content (cf. Buzy 1923: 155; Holladay 1989: 433-34; Keown, Scalise and Smothers 1995: 373; Lundbom 1986: 103). Yet the majority of commentators view v. 60b as a later editorial insertion made after vv. 59-64a had been joined to 50.1-51.58. If the latter is the case, then 50.1-51.58, considered by some to be a compilation of materials incorporating post-Jeremianic material, would not have been the specific contents of the scroll. Lundbom (1986: 101-104, 107) understands vv. 59-64 as an 'extended colophon' to chs. 50-51 which was attached to the scroll containing those chapters when Seraiah made a copy prior to throwing the original in the Euphrates. Clearly vv. 59-64 form a literary conclusion to chs. 50-51, and thereby function in a colophonic manner of authenticating the preceding words. But to classify vv. 59-64 as Seraiah's 'extended colophon' to the scroll which he copied, is extending the meaning of 'colophon' beyond its form-critical boundaries and inferring too many elements which are not explicit in the passage. The literary genre is not that of a colophon but a narration of a delegated sign-act. The account contains no reference to Seraiah making a copy of the scroll, and Lundbom assumes that 50.1-51.58 were the contents of that scroll without even broaching the possibility of vv. 59-64a being a separate narrative which was only editorially attached to the preceding. The only part of vv. 59-64 which can technically be classified as a 'colophon' is the phrase at the end of v. 64: 'Up to here are the words of Jeremiah' (cf. Gevaryahu 1970: 369; 1975: 56). Yet Lundbom (1986: 109) takes this to be a later editorial addition thereby weakening his own argument. For without v. 64b, vv. 59-64a lack the specific characteristics of colophonic language.

158

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

audience is presupposed. This is partially based on the fact that elsewhere in Jeremiah when N~)p is used with respect to the written word it always signifies a reading aloud in the presence of an audience (cf. Jer. 29.29; 36.6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 21, 23). Also the commands in 51.59-61 parallel those of 36.4-6 for Baruch to read the scroll in the Temple: (1) specification of a delegated representative (51.59 // 36.4a); (2) notation of the writing down of the message (51.60 // 36.4b); (3) command for the messenger to read the words (51.61: n^KH Dnmn HN ntOpl // 36.6: mrr nm n«...n«np1). The only difference is that in 36.6 the audience is explicitly mentioned (Dm "ONO). But in 36.8, in the summation report of the execution of the reading, there is no reference to auditors, and such is only made explicit in the following detailed account in vv. 9-19. The parallel structure with 36.4-6 supports the conclusion that 51.59-64a is to be understood according to the typical account form of the delegated reading of a message, and that auditors are presumed to be present at the execution of the commands of 51.5964a even though their presence is not explicitly mentioned. 2. Verbal acknowledgment of the divine authority (verse <52).188 When the scroll had been completely read,189 Seraiah was to address God. Such an address expressed confidence that the prophecies just read had been spoken by God and that God would surely execute his word.190

188. Cornill (1905: 522-23), Fohrer (1952a: 108; 1968: 46), McKane (1995: 704; 1996: 1356-57), Stacey (1990: 168), and Wanke (1971: 138) delete v. 62, in total or in part, as a later editorial expansion, and therefore do not consider it part of the original communication event performed by Seraiah. The deletion is made on the basis of the similarity between v. 62 and 50.3 and 51.26. But even if 50.1-51.58 is a later compilation, in many passages it undoubtedly expresses genuine Jeremianic sentiments and wordings. There is no textual basis for deleting v. 62. 189. Duhm (1901: 376-77) argues that the words of v. 62 were an introductory statement to the reading and not a concluding statement. But this study sees vv. 6163 as three sequential commands in which the command to read in v. 61 is assumed to be carried out prior to the execution of the next command given in v. 62, just as the new command in v. 63 is subsequent to the execution of the commands in vv. 61 and 62 (although v. 63a makes no reference to the action of v. 62). In the final analysis, the temporal sequence, whether before or after the reading, does not affect the confirmatory purpose of the address to God in v. 62. 190. Budde (1878: 546-48; cf. also Cornill 1905: 522-23, but he deletes the verse) argues that v. 62 is the total content of the scroll and thus n~lQNl functions like ~1Q^^. But the second-person direct address to God does not correlate with this verse being the contents. The contents of the oracle would not have been addressed

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

159

This verbal declaration is another indication of an audience, for the purpose of the address to God was to certify that the word was truly a divinely given prophecy. Such an address is appropriate only when other people are present to witness the event. The need for the statement arose out of the fact that the activity was being performed by a delegate who held no prophetic status in his own right. So through this address to God, Seraiah confirmed to the audience the validity of the message he was reading. Since Seraiah performed in a delegated role, the address to God substituted for the typical prophetic statements of validation of 'Thus says Yahweh' (miT "IQK J"D) or 'declaration of Yahweh' (mrr DJJ]). Thus the address to God was integral to the performance as a delegated task, serving the specific function of confirming the prophecy which was delivered by a delegated messenger who was not a prophet. 3. Nonverbal action (verse 63), and 4. its interpretation (verse 64a). The nonverbal action consisted of Seraiah binding a stone to the scroll, then casting it into the Euphrates. The purpose of the stone being attached to the scroll was to facilitate the nonverbal demonstration by producing the desired illustrative effect needed to communicate the message: the communicative analogy was with the scroll sinking. So as to prevent the scroll from floating on the surface, and thus obviating the communicative analogy, the stone ensured its sunken status. Since the stone functioned to facilitate the communicative message about the sunken scroll, to attribute other noncommunicative reasons to the use of the stone, such as to prevent the scroll from being found by the Babylonians,191 is unnecessary. And if the stone bore a simile function, it was not as a figure of the nation (unlike the simile of Exod. 15.5) or of the divine will which would destroy Babylon, but as the calamity (v. 64a) which God brought upon Babylon which caused that city to sink. The specific medium (water) in which the scroll was sunk does not appear to have carried any specific message-content. Certainly the function of the water was not to dissolve the written words to carry them into the city so that the Babylonians would drink them. If that were the case, the sinking of the scroll becomes irrelevant when a washing off of the ink into the water would have sufficed. Rather the significance of the river seems to be its locale, specifically the Euphrates River, which to God, but Babylon, as other oracles against the nations were addressed to the respective nations (e.g. Jer. 50.24; 51.25-26). 191. Contra Fox 1913/14: 115; Rudolph 1958: 294.

160

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

reinforces the emphasis of the sign-act's message being focused on the nation of Babylon. It was the fact of the scroll's sinking and the failure to rise which constituted the connection between the nonverbal artifacts and the referenced communicative meaning. The action (i.e. the sinking) and the artifact (i.e. the scroll) were related to their referents through the simileform expressed by HDD: 'Like this, Babylon will sink and will not rise' (v. 64a).192 The scroll figuratively stood for Babylon, while its sinking figuratively expressed the city's irreversible destruction.193 Just as the papyrus would readily disintegrate in the water, so the city would be destroyed, and just as the scroll could not rise again because of the attached stone, so the city would not ascend to its previous position of dominance.194 192. Fox (1912: 308-309; 1913/14: 121-22), Godbey (1923: 100), Lindblom (1962: 119), Lundbom (1986: 104) do not classify v. 64 as the 'interpretation' of the action, but rather as a 'curse' (cf. similarly Stacey 1990: 169-70). But this conclusion results from their perspectives of the action as a magical curse ritual and lacking an addressed audience. Clearly, the literary form of v. 64a follows that of other verbal interpretations which accompanied prophetic sign-acts, and therefore is to be considered the verbal interpretation which was expressed to clarify the significance of the action for those who observed it. 193. Stacey (1990: 167-70) finds two separate meanings in the scroll's sinking. The first focuses on the words which stood for the doom of Babylon which were sunk so that they 'cannot be recovered or revoked'. The second meaning deals with the scroll figuratively standing for Babylon. But the first meaning is not attested in the text itself, as the interpretation in v. 64a explains the action fully in terms of the scroll standing for Babylon. 194. Paterson (1984: 44), from the presupposition that throwing a prophecy into the river means to destroy it and thereby cancel its effect, suggests that the original intent of the action was to counteract the 'false' prophets in Babylon who were promising the exiles an imminent return. Thus Seraiah read a prophecy of destruction which was akin to that of the 'false' prophets, then deliberately destroyed it, thereby demonstrating the ineffectiveness of that type of prophecy. According to Paterson, the message of the sign-act was drastically reinterpreted during the exile to keep alive the hopes of Israel's restoration to the land. But Paterson's interpretation is based on two faulty presuppositions: (1) that casting into water can only mean cancellation of the written word, and (2) that an oracle of destruction against Babylon is inconsistent with Jeremiah's other messages about Babylon. (1) Within the context of 'magical' ritual, placing the written word in water served various purposes with either positive or negative consequences and was not confined to cancellation of effect (e.g. the tabellae defixionum were placed in the water to ensure that the curse would be fulfilled; cf. Fox 1912: 309-10). To assume only one

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

161

In the accompanying verbal interpretation (v. 64a), the focus was on what happened to the artifact, that is, that it sank and would never rise, and not on Seraiah's performance of the action. This contrasts with the other two occurrences of PDD in Jeremiah's interpretation of sign-acts (13.9, burying of the waist-sash; 19.11, shattering of the earthenware vessel) where the initial focus of the simile was on the performer and God producing the results: 'Thus says Yahweh: "Just so (HDD) [as the prophet has done]" + first-person statement of judgment (e.g. "I will destroy", "I will break").' The similes between God who acts in a specified way and the prophet who performs the specific nonverbal communication were made explicit when Jeremiah performed those actions.195 But in this passage, although when throwing the scroll into the river, Seraiah performed in the role of God, the initial verbal emphasis was on the artifact and the action ('like this Babylon will sink and will not rise') and only secondarily on the executor and action ('on account of all the calamity which I am bringing upon it'1%). The shift in manner of expression may have been because Seraiah, a non-prophet, functioned in a delegated role. Thus the equation of God with the messenger was not made explicit as it was when the action was performed by a prophet. Of all the prophetic sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, this one is considered by many commentators to be the most 'magical' in character and thereby efficaciously ensured Babylon's downfall.197 The reameaning, as Paterson does, is misdirected. With respect to nonverbal behavior whose purpose is communicative, rather than magical, rhetors are free to encode the action with their own idiosyncratic meanings which may vary significantly from any stock meaning found in different contexts of usage. There is no reason to assume that Jeremiah's originally intended message was any other than that given in v. 64. (2) As shown in this study, there is no inherent inconsistency between this action and other statements about Babylon which precludes the action being performed in 594/593 BCE to convey the meaning ascribed to it in v. 64. 195. Similarly in Jer. 28.11 when Hananiah, the prophet, performed the action of breaking the yoke, the simile is between the prophet performing the action and Yahweh performing the event: Thus says Yahweh: "Just so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar..."' 196. Duhm (1901: 377), Fohrer (1952a: 108; 1968: 46), McKane (1995: 705; 1996: 1357-58), Rudolph (1958: 292) and Wanke (1971: 138) delete this whole phrase as an editorial addition. There is no textual basis for the deletion. 197. Cf. Carroll 1986: 855-56; Gilbert 1985: 147; Godbey 1923: 100; Greenberg 1983: 122; Lods 1950: 59; McKane 1995: 705-706; 1996: 1357-58; Wanke

162

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

sons for that supposition are that there was no audience, which correlates with the 'magical' nature for which the presence of an audience is precluded or at least not necessary, and that the techniques involved have affinities with those of magical actions in which an object was deposited in water.198 The presupposition that the scroll's content was not read in the hearing of an audience rests on the premises that:199 (1) no references to an audience are made; (2) in v. 61 the phrase 'and see and read' was an admonition to take precautions so that no one would see him work his spell since secrecy was necessary to avoid annulment of the curse; (3) if heard by the Babylonians, Seraiah's life would have been endangered because of the malicious words against Babylon; (4) if heard by the exiles, it may have endangered their lives and fueled their hopes of an imminent return to Judah—hopes which Jeremiah considered false and ill-founded. (1) The absence of a reference to an audience does not mean that such was not present, since other sign-act accounts do not always explicitly indicate eyewitnesses even though such are presumed (see Chapter 1 §3.2.2). As argued here, the reading aloud (v. 61), the address to God (v. 62), and the vocalized interpretation of the action (v. 64) presume the presence of an audience. Like the other oracles against the nations, whose primary function was that of addressing the Israelite audience through 'indirect address', so too the purpose of this 1971: 139. Even Lang (1986: 306), who classifies most of the sign-acts as 'street theater' (i.e. non-magical), considers this one 'magic'. 198. Cf. Fohrer (1968: 47) who cites Maqlu 4.43 of an image thrown into the water and Surpu 4.79-80 of the tablet with the record of the person's sins, errors, and crimes, thrown into the water (cf. Reiner 1958: 26). But the context of the latter act is expiation and has nothing to do with judgment as does Jer. 51.59-64. Fox (1912: 303-304; 1913/14) and Fishbane (1971: 200) equate Seraiah's action with those of Greek and Roman tabellae defixionum (curse tablets). Fohrer (1968: 47) and Lindblom (1962: 119) cite examples of actions in which the written word was dissolved in water and then drunk. But the point of Seraiah's action was not that the Babylonians would drink the water in which the word was dissolved, and the nonbiblical comparative examples of drinking the water do not refer to judgment but to beneficial results such as acquiring knowledge and the removal of an undesirable situation like sterility. 199. On these various arguments for secrecy, see van den Born 1935: 78-81; Budde 1878: 536-37; Cornill 1905: 522; Duhm 1901: 376; Fox 1913/14: 115, 120; Lods 1929: 173; Paterson 1984: 44; Rudolph 1958: 293; Thiel 1973: 175.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

163

sign-act was to speak of Babylon's fall in the presence of the exiled Judahites. (2) As indicated by the use of !TN~n in Jer. 2.31, the phrase 'and see and read' here in 51.61 is probably paraphrastic for 'then heed (my/ Yahweh's word) and read'. The command was thus an admonition to be sure to read the text, and it did not contain any connotations of the occasion (i.e. not 'seek out an appropriate occasion', whether secretive or not) or of the lack of witnesses. (3) It is presumptuous to assume that the Babylonians were aware of everything that went on within the communities of the various exiled peoples, even within the capital city. An oracle against Babylon could have easily been uttered to an audience of Judahite exiles without any awareness of it reaching beyond the Judahite community itself. In Jer. 43.8-13. (see Chapter 2 §3.1), while in a very public place in Egypt, Jeremiah uttered a prophecy of judgment against Egypt, but did so only to the Judahite exiles. (4) As heard by the Judahite exiles, the message of the action may have been misapplied by them to bolster their hopes of an imminent return. But the misapplication of the message cannot be confused with the communicator's intent and purpose which was only to express dramatically the divine intent to destroy utterly, at some unspecified time, the Babylonian power and thereby reaffirm God's continued working with his people in exile. The interaction between an audience and rhetor for a given situation does not require that on every occasion when a particular subject is addressed that the totality of the rhetor's beliefs about the subject have to be expressed. In fact, since the rhetor's message is tailored to the specific constituency of the addressed audience, on the surface a particular message may seem contradictory to other statements about the same subject. Yet such an 'observed' inconsistency occurs only due to the specific point being made to a specific audience at a specific time, while the various statements still stem from a very integrated and consistent view held by the rhetor. It may even be that the written prophecy contained statements which would have been correctives against misapplications of Seraiah's action with respect to the audience's immediate future, just as in other places Babylon's demise is placed in the lifetime of the succeeding generation of exiles (cf. the 'seventy years' in 25.12; 27.22; 29.10).200 200. The Jeremianic authenticity of the specific references to 'seventy years' in

164

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

There is no inherent contradiction between this nonverbal display and the other prophecies addressed to the exiles or spoken about Babylon which are found in Jer. 24; 25.12-14; and 50.1-51.58. In the vision of the figs in ch. 24, dated to a time after the 597 BCE deportation (v. 1), it was the 'figs' in exile through whom the future continuance of the nation was assured (vv. 6-7). In Jeremiah's letter to the exiles in ch. 29, he instructed the exiles to settle down and live in Babylon (vv. 5-7 yet with the realization that in the future, the Babylonian power would be eliminated so that the people could once again return (vv. 10-14). The oracles of 25.12-14 and 50.1-51.58 expressed the belief that in the future the Babylonian power would be destroyed by God (cf. also Jer. 30.11). The action of 51.59-64 was a confirmation, addressed to the exiles, that Babylon would one day be destroyed, but it did not specify at what time in the future that would occur. There is also no inherent inconsistency between the two actions of chs. 27-28 and 51.59-64 being performed before two different audiences within the same time period.201 Also dated to the fourth year of Zedekiah, the message of chs. 27-28 was directed toward those residing in Jerusalem. Yet for Jeremiah, his advice of current submission to the Babylonian power did not necessarily imply a permanent situation of submission. Jeremiah's oracle of the yoke was evoked specifically by those who were advising immediate overthrow of the Babylonian lordship. Chapters 27-28 were advice to the Jerusalemites for the immediate situation, while 51.59-64 was the divine perspective for the future. The theological basis for Jeremiah's advocating current submission to the Babylonians was the sovereignty of God (27.4-7; similarly the advice in the letter to the exiles to submit, for the present, to the these passages is highly debated. Regardless of one's decision on the genuineness of these references, it cannot be denied that any future Judahite restoration which Jeremiah expected would occur only subsequent to the period of Babylonian sup remacy, the demise of which he did not view as being imminent (cf. chs. 27-29). 201. Because of the sentiments expressed against Babylon in 51.59-64a, the passage is frequently considered to be contradictory to Jeremiah's statements in chs. 27-29. Because of that, this passage is then considered an exilic or postexilic literary fiction whose actions were never really performed by Jeremiah (cf. Balla 1943: 87-88; van den Born 1947: 26-27; Fox 1913/14: 123; McKane 1995: 706 1996: 1358-59; Stacey 1990: 167-70). But most commentators consider 51.59-64a as reliably recounting a historically performed action (cf. Bright 1965: 212; Budde 1878: 529-32; Buzy 1923: 156; S. Driver 1907: 326; Holladay 1974: 125-26; 1989: 434; Huey 1993: 430).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

165

Babylonians, cf. 29.11). The action of Jer. 51.59-64 was based on the same theological perspective of divine sovereignty. Together, chs. 2728 and 51.59-64 emphasized that it was not current political maneuverings of rebellion or homage out of resignation to Babylon's supposed permanence which would ensure the continued existence of the Judahite people, but rather the purposes of God who controlled the fate of all nations. With respect to the external affinities between this nonverbal action and 'magical' actions, it must be stressed that whether an action is 'magical' is determined by the purpose and intent of the performer, not merely by similarity in external form (see Chapter 1 §5.2). If Jeremiah .did not hold theological presuppositions which legitimately incorporated 'magic', then a 'magical' intention cannot be inconsistently attributed to him with respect to this specific action. The position that the action was 'magical' also results in too many internal inconsistencies when the performed action is correlated to the presuppositions of its magical nature. If one accepts the hypothesis that the uttered words or performed actions were efficacious in bringing about that which was prophesied, then the locale of the utterance/performance becomes irrelevant.202 For example, the oracles against the nations were uttered by the prophets, not in the respective countries against which the prophecies were directed, but in the prophet's own country of residence. The validity of those prophecies did not rest upon their being delivered in the country against which the oracle was directed. Since that is so, why did not Jeremiah perform the action in Judah? The only reason postulated is that the oracle's effectiveness was 'more efficacious' when read in Babylon.203 But since efficaciousness is not a matter of degree (something either is efficacious, or it is not), locale becomes an irrelevant issue. Thus the reason for a Babylonian setting evades a 'magical' interpretation.

202. This is acknowledged by Rudolph (1958: 294): 'ihre Wirksamkeit wiirde nicht beeintrachtigt, wenn die Versenkung in irgendeinem anderen Wasser geschahe'. 203. Cf. Duhm 1901: 376; Gosse 1986: 392. Although Stacey (1990: 170) argues against the metaphysical view of the sign-acts being instrumental magic, he comments that the reason the scroll was taken to Babylon was 'to lodge it securely in the place where it was to be fulfilled and to inaugurate the event with which it was concerned... like a time bomb ticking away beneath a city'.

166

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Likewise, with respect to efficaciousness, there is no distinction between the 'magical' effectiveness of the spoken and that of the written word.204 That being the case, what was the purpose of Jeremiah's writing the prophecies down? Even more so, why did the written word have to be read aloud by Seraiah upon his arrival in Babylon? If the 'efficaciousness' of the oracle depended not on the technique, but on the authority of God to execute the action, whether it was written or spoken and whether it was delivered in Judah or Babylon become irrelevant. The 'magical' interpretation cannot adequately explain the purpose for the writing or the reading of the scroll. The view that the purpose of the actions was communicative, and non-magical in nature, resolves those difficulties. The prophecy needed to be uttered in Babylon because the message-content was directed to the Judahite exiles in Babylon. The oracles against Babylon were written on the scroll for the practical purposes of accurately transmitting the message via a delegated messenger and to serve as the artifact in the nonverbal demonstration. The prophecy was to be read aloud so that it would be heard by an audience. The purpose of the nonverbal action was to communicate forcefully to the audience the message that the Babylonian supremacy would not last indefinitely. Through this message the Judahite exiles were to understand that it was God, not the Babylonians, who orchestrated the flow of historical events. 1.1.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. Since the nonverbal action and its interpretation were the climactic conclusion to the sequence of activities in this communication event, attention for the nonverbal demonstration was gained through the preceding verbalized reading of the scroll (v. 61) and the address to God (v. 62). The read contents of the scroll and the confirmatory

204. This is acknowledged by Fox (1913/14: 114): 'there is no fundamental difference in magic between oral and written formulae'. Again: 'the spoken word was in defixiones endowed with powers equal to those of the written word, as in the broader field of general magic' (119). Yet the only alternative in explaining the necessity for the writing is to postulate varying degrees of 'efficacious power'. Thus the written word, in that it was more powerful than the spoken word, was needed against such a powerful enemy, or it was needed as a strong reinforcement to the spoken word (cf. Carroll 1986: 855; Duhm 1901: 376; Holladay 1974: 12526). But such arguments are insubstantial attempts to evade an internal inconsistency in the 'magical' presupposition.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

167

address to God also focused audience attention on the content of the message, which was God's destruction of Babylon, and on the rhetorical argument from authority that it was God who would bring about the judgment (v. 62). 2. Comprehension. There are certain specific aspects of the action itself which were probably initially outside the range of the people's understanding. The people may not have expected the dramatic, nonverbal ending to the communication event. So when Seraiah tied the rock to the scroll, they may have been puzzled over what exactly he was about to do with it. Although the initial verbal prophecies against Babylon would have indicated to them that the sinking of the scroll was a continuation of the theme of Babylon's destruction, momentarily they may not have understood whether it in some way was a confirmation or a disconfirmation of the verbalized and written prophecy. In other words, did the scroll figuratively stand for Babylon, thus a nonverbal restatement of the prophecies of destruction, or did the scroll represent that which was written on it, that is, the prophetic oracle, and thus the sinking demonstrated that the prophecy was now irrevocable since it was unrecoverable and thereby unalterable or contrastively annulled through destruction? Because the nonverbal action was immediately explained, there should have been no lingering doubts that the action specified the former meaning. 3. Acceptance. The nonverbal demonstration, preceded by the reading of the scroll and the address to God, provided the climactic conclusion to the total communication event. This climax was enhanced through the dramatic crispness of the action. The message of destruction was summarized, not in a plethora of words or descriptive images, but in this precise, staccato-type nonverbal display. The sign-act used a form of 'indirect address' in that the nonverbal demonstration and its verbal interpretation only dealt with the fate of Babylon and made no explicit reference to the exiles. But the fate of Babylon had implications for the addressed audience of Judahite exiles. When in the future the predicted destruction of Babylon occurred, the situation of the exilic community would also drastically change. But those ramifications were not expressly stated in the interpretation, so the audience, on their own, had to think through the intended implications for the exilic community. The sign-act was unusual because of its dissimilarity from Jeremiah's customary repertoire which proclaimed submission to the Babylonians

168

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

(e.g. chs. 27, 29). As noted above, the two messages were not inconsistent but such a message as 51.59-64a was undoubtedly unexpected. The expected message from Jeremiah would have been one of affirming the Babylonian power and their right to control rather than a message of their future destruction. Such an unexpected content should have had a greater impact on the audience. When a rhetor presents a position which is outside of the audience's expectations for the rhetor, the audience will be more easily persuaded of the message. This must have been the case with this sign-act which disconfirmed the audience's expectations of what Jeremiah would say, but rather expressed a congruence with the people's way of thinking. This similarity in viewpoint established a point of identity with the people in the midst of other of Jeremiah's addresses which alienated the prophet from his audiences (e.g. the negative response to Jeremiah's letter in 29.25-28). Since the message of Babylon's destruction correlated with the people's hopes, there was probably no difficulty with them accepting the explicit message. There should have been no negative reaction against the message, but full acceptance. The only difficulty may have come in their drawing unintended conclusions from the prophecy and misunderstanding it with respect to the timing of the depicted events, thus misapplying it to their current situation. Yet, as noted above, some other, nonextant aspect of the communication event may have clarified those features which could have mistakenly fueled a hope for an imminent return to Judah. If it is presumed that the king's delegation was in Babylon to express homage, in some manner, to the Babylonians, then the timing of the sign-act was 'ironical'. Precisely in that temporal context Seraiah, a member of the royal delegation, performed this action which proclaimed the sovereignty of God and the ultimate doom of the Babylonians to whom homage was being made. With respect to speaker strategy, Seraiah's role was implicitly that of the divine actor. Yet that role was placed in the background so that the rhetorical focus was not on the messenger's credibility or credentials, but on the content of the message. The authority for the action was thus not ascribed to or based on the messenger. In order to validate his behavior, Seraiah appealed to authorities extefnal to himself: to Jeremiah who wrote the scroll (v. 60) and to God via the confirmatory address (v. 62).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

169

4. Retention. The nonverbal action's dramatic nature and the message's correspondence with the exiles' hopes should have embedded the message-content in the people's memories. But the action was also linked to a specific location, that of the Euphrates River. So the locale of the action provided a reminder of the proclaimed message. Whenever the exiles were by the Euphrates or came to the particular spot where the scroll had been sunk, a physical and external catalysis was present to remind and reinforce Jeremiah's message delivered by Seraiah. 1.8. Ezekiel 3.22-27; 24.25-27; 33.21-22 In the context of a vision of the glory of Yahweh (vv. 22-24), Ezek. 3.26-27 reports the commencing imposition of speechlessness.205 In a unit which is thematically joined to the sign-action of Ezekiel's lack of mourning at his wife's death,206 24.25-27 recounts how Ezekiel was foretold about the end of the speechless condition. Then Ezek. 33.21-22 reports the cessation of the condition.207 1.8.1 Communicative Meaning of the Speechlessness. The major espoused positions regarding Ezekiel's speechlessness can be schematically summarized: (1)

A dumbness of incapability in speaking whose duration was (a) uninterrupted from the beginning of Ezekiel's ministry until the reception of the news of Jerusalem's fall;

205. The term 'speechlessness' rather than 'dumbness' is used to refer to the abstention from speaking by Ezekiel. The latter term carries the connotation of a physical incapability to speak, and when used here, will bear that specific meaning. The former term is more neutral referring equally to a voluntary abstention or a physical impossibility. 206. The similar phraseology between vv. 25 and 21 results in the thematic joining of Ezekiel's wife's death with the announcement of the release from speechlessness, thereby emphasizing the import of the speechlessness that even her death was not sufficient grounds to forego the abstention of nonprophetic speaking so as to utter lamentations. 207. Herrmann (1908: 75-78), who interprets the speechlessness in a figurative manner, argues that the muteness in 3.22-27 does not correspond with that of 24.25-27 and 33.21-22. But the similarity of description indicates that the texts speak of the same condition. Also, if the two conditions are distinct, then that of 3.26 textually lacks an end point and that of 24.25-27, a beginning point.

170

(2)

(3)

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts (b) intermittent from the ministry's beginning until the reception of the news; or (c) uninterrupted from sometime during the city's siege until the reception of the news. A voluntary speechlessness which was (a) uninterrupted from the ministry's beginning to the reception of the news of the city's fall; or (b) intermittent from the beginning of Ezekiel's ministry to the reception of the news. A metaphorical description of his ministry from its beginning until the change in its emphasis which occurred at the reception of the news of Jerusalem's fall.

From that summary, it can be seen that in analyzing Ezekiel's condition of speechlessness, there are several debated issues: (1) the type of speechlessness as to whether it was a literal, physical condition (i.e. either Ezekiel was incapable of or he refrained from speaking) or only a metaphorical expression intended to convey a non-literal reality (i.e. Ezekiel spoke normally but the 'speechlessness' was a figurative motif referring to some aspect of his prophetic ministry); (2) if it was a literal, physical condition, the nature of the speechlessness as to whether it was a dumbness of incapability or a voluntary abstention from speaking; (3) the length of its duration; (4) the condition of the speechlessness whether it was continuous or intermittent; (5) its function as to whether it had communicative meaning (the speechlessness and the release from such bore specific message-contents) or only informative value (it only informed about the prophet and his ministry). 1. Type of speechlessness: literal/physical or metaphorical. Some commentators have suggested that there was no physical restraint from speaking but instead the motif of speechlessness was only a metaphorical way of expressing an aspect of Ezekiel's prophetic ministry. The proposed figurative meanings have included: (1) The content of the prophetic messages. Prior to Jerusalem's fall Ezekiel could pronounce only judgmental doom and was restricted from speaking messages of hope or repentance.208

208. Cf. Greenberg 1958: 103; Holscher 1924: 56-57; Klein 1988: 9; Tromp 1986: 210; Wilson 1972: 102.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

171

(2) The nature of the prophetic office. The command not to be a 'mediator' (ITD1Q CTK) is understood as being definitional of the speechlessness in that, prior to Jerusalem's fall, Ezekiel was not to be an intercessor on the people's behalf.209 (3) The difficulty of the prophetic task and the message's ineffectiveness due to the audience's lack of reception (cf. Herrmann 1908: 75-78; Komlosh 1973).210 Since speechlessness involves an inability to speak clearly, it is argued that it incorporates an inability to be understood. After Ezekiel spoke, the audience responded as if nothing had been said, as if he were speechless. (4) The motivation or impulse for the prophetic messages. Ezekiel spoke only what God wanted him to (cf. Klein 1988: 9, 39; Wevers 1969: 53). (5) The locale of the prophetic activity. There was to be an absence of public proclamation (cf. Gronkowski 1937: 399-400; Wilson 1984a: 129). As such, the various motifs of 3.24b-26 (shutting himself in his house, being bound with ropes, not going out in the people's midst, being speechless, and not being a mediator) are all interpreted as different ways of metaphorically expressing a single meaning of lack of 'public' ministry. (6) The nature of the prophetic messages. As 'a metaphor for the move toward textualization of Israel's sacred tradition' (Davis 1989a: 50),211 the speechlessness meant that Ezekiel could not speak any new word of prophecy except that which was already part of the written sacred tradition.

209. Cf. Herrmann 1908: 77-78; Odell 1998: 246; Stroete 1977: 173-74; Wilson 1972: 102; 1984a: 129. 210. Garfinkel (1989; cf. also Block 1997: 159-60) seems to imply this metaphorical understanding as he suggests that Ezekiel may have borrowed from Akkadian incantations regarding the binding of the mouth and limbs. Although there are parallels in language, such does not demonstrate similarity of context of usage between the Akkadian texts and Ezekiel. 211. But there is no preciseness as to exactly how Davis (1989a: 48-58; 1989b) defines the metaphor of 'speechlessness'. Although initially defined as a metaphor for the move toward textualization (1989a: 50), she also refers to it as meaning no 'new' oracles could be given (1989a: 56), that the swallowed scroll speaks through Ezekiel (1989a: 56), and even that Ezekiel's prophecies were written in nature (1989a: 54). But she interprets the release from speechlessness solely in the sense of the ability to speak a new word (1989a: 57).

172

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

(7) The initiation into prophetic ministry. The speechlessness, along with the binding and confinement, were all means by which Yahweh ensured that the prophet would speak only the divine word (cf. Block 1997: 159-60).212 There are difficulties with each of the metaphorical interpretations which prohibit their adoption as the proper understanding of the speechlessness as intended by the texts themselves. (1) Although the release from speechlessness did correlate with the shift in the thematic content of Ezekiel's messages, this does not a priori dictate that the speechlessness be understood in a nonliteral manner. (2) In 3.26b, the prohibition against functioning as an 'mediator' (ITDIQ tfTtf)213 cannot be understood in the sense of refraining from

212. Yet Block (1997: 796) also states that it 'symbolized the monotonously judgmental tone of his pronouncements'. Even though adopting this metaphorical interpretation, Block (1997: 154-161) still argues for the literal, voluntary, intermittent nature of the speechlessness. 213. The hiphil participle occurs nine times besides here: Amos 5.10; Isa. 29.21; Job 9.33; 32.12; 40.2; Prov. 9.7; 24.25; 25.12; 28.23. One meaning of the hiphil of flD*1, in its legal sense (cf. Boecker 1964: 45-47; Liedke 1978: 730-31; Mayer 1990; Seeligmann 1967: 266-67; Wilson 1972: 99101) is to bring accusation against someone, that is, act as prosecutor (cf. Gen. 21.25; Job 19.5; 22.4; 32.12; Ps. 50.8, 21). In other passages where the specific setting may not be that of the legal court, the term has the similar connotation of bringing an accusation of wrongdoing against someone and, in order to correct the behavior, executing the appropriate disciplinary judgment: Lev. 19.17; 2 Sam. 7.14; Jer. 2.19; Job 5.17; 13.10; Pss. 6.2; 38.2; 105.14 (= 1 Chron. 16.21); 141.5; Prov. 3.12; 9.8; 30.6; and the participle in Prov. 9.7; 24.25; 25.12; 28.23. But, the hiphil can also have the legal meaning of to advocate on behalf of someone, that is, act as defender (cf. Job 13.3, 15; 15.3; 16.21; 40.2; Isa. 37.4 [= 2 Kgs 19.4]). The noun, FDin, refers to arguments presented in defense of one's case in Ps. 38.15; Job 13.6; 23.4. In Gen. 31.42; 1 Chron. 12.17, and Isa. 11.4 God is spoken of as the 'judge' or mediator of the case, but the specific connotation is that in that function he will defend the rights of the person who has been wronged, and therefore he performs in the dual role of impartial judge and also defense attorney. Or the hiphil can bear a neutral sense of acting as a judge who, without prior advocacy for either position, would decide between two options declaring which was right in that specific case (cf. Gen. 31.37; Job 9.33; Isa. 2.4 [= Mic. 4.3]; 11.3). The denotation of the hiphil of nD' is that of entering into a legal case, while the connotation of defender or prosecutor comes from the specific contexts as to whether the participation in the legal case was to defend one's innocence against an

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

173

bringing reproof against the people on God's behalf, since in Ezek. 20.4 and 22.2, the prophet was called upon by God to judge (QSC?) the people for their sins.214 Ezekiel clearly functioned in the role of bringing accusation against the people.215 Thus, it must mean that in his prophetic role he was not to act before God as a defender of the people, and thus similar to the commands to Jeremiah not to intercede on the people's behalf (7.16; 11.14; 14.11-12; 15.1). As such, the injunction, rPDIQ fl'tib DPI1? irnn $&, should be understood as a distinct statement about the execution of the prophetic office, rather than being given an inclusive and metaphorical definition of the speechlessness (you shall be speechless, meaning you shall not be a 'mediator').216 Instead, the two can be understood in a coordinated manner: the speechlessness was to be nonverbally displayed to the audience in conjunction with the restriction in the prophetic ministry of not being a public defender. Both thus reflected the breakdown in dialogic relationship between God and the people in that the speechlessness communicated to the people their nonspeaking role in the breakdown of the dialogue between themselves and God (see the arguments below), while the limitation of not accusation already levelled or a wrong already perpetrated by another against the defendant, or to accuse and prove that the other person was in the wrong. Because of its legal connotations, there is no basis for interpreting 1TD1Q as 'preacher of repentance' in the sense of one who reproves in attempting to convert (contra Holscher 1924: 56-57; Tromp 1986: 210), so that the prohibition here meant that Ezekiel could only preach messages of doom at this juncture in his ministry. 214. TO' is parallel to QSEJ inlsa. 2.4; 11.3-4; Mic. 4.3; Hab. 1.12. 215. In light of Ezekiel's denunciatory prophetic activities, the only way in which the prohibition rPDlG tti'R1? DPI1? HTin $b could be applied to Ezekiel, in the sense of not rebuking, would be on the personal level that he was to refrain from rebuking the people for their opposition to him (v. 25). In this sense, the coordination of speechlessness and not rebuking would be similar to that of Isa. 53.7; Pss. 39.3, 10; 38.14, where in the midst of attacks or abuses by others, the sufferers voluntarily imposed speechlessness upon themselves, thereby abstaining from verbally responding to the ones doing the oppression, but rather allowing God to render proper judgment. 216. Also contra Allen (1994: 62) who translates rPDIQ as 'proclaimer of punishment', and then understands that it means that when Ezekiel is speechless he cannot function as a messenger of judgment (v. 26), which in turn means that when he does speak (v. 27) messages of doom are the only type he can give. This seems to be a very convoluted way to understand the interrelatedness of the phrases and does not provide an interpretation of the speechlessness which can be consistently applied to the release from that condition in the later passages.

174

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

being a 'mediator' expressed the ramifications of that breakdown for Ezekiel's interaction with the people as he functioned in the prophetic ministry. (3) If employed to indicate the message's ineffectiveness, the metaphor of the prophet's speechlessness is unusual since the prophet's lack of speaking would not directly relate to the people's lack of hearing. If the people's unwillingness to receive the message were the point of the metaphor, their 'deafness'—a motif employed elsewhere in the book (cf. Ezek. 12.2)—rather than the prophet's 'speechlessness' would be the appropriate figure.217 (4) The argument that the speechlessness was only a metaphor for speaking when God wanted him to, breaks down in that, subsequent to his release from the speechlessness, Ezekiel, in his prophetic role, was still not free to nor made capable of speaking any oracles other than those given by God. (5) The injunctions and declarations in 3.24-26 need not be understood in a singular manner of referring to the 'locale' of ministry, and thus definitional of the speechlessness. Clearly the statements in vv. 2426 describe various restrictions on Ezekiel's prophetic lifestyle, but they are not total prohibitions of his public ministry. In fact, the public nature of his prophetic activity may be assumed from 12.1-16 where the sign-act clearly involved being away from his house. Also the phrase 'in their sight', associated with some of the nonverbal sign-acts (4.12; 12.3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 21.11; 37.20) denotes spectators, and probably indicates that such actions were not performed in the privacy of his own home where spectators on a daily basis would be unlikely. The 'public' nature of his prophetic actions and speeches need not mean that he traversed throughout the city enacting or verbalizing the prophetic oracles, but he may have only carried them out in the vicinity of his house where the community was cognizant of what he was doing and saying.218 217. See also Jer. 5.21 and Isa. 6.10; 43.8 where the people's lack of understanding was expressed through the motif of 'deafness'. 218. In only one passage (8.1) is the location of the giving of an oracle specified, and that is Ezekiel's house. Ezek. 14.1 and 20.1 (and at times 33.30-31) are frequently cited as indicating the locale of the prophecies being Ezekiel's house. But in none of those passages is the locale specified. Even if those incidents are assumed to have occurred in his house, such need not be indicative of where unsolicited prophetic messages were given. The argument from silence, with respect to

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

175

Thus the injunctions in 3.24b ('Shut yourself in the midst of your house') and 25b ('and you shall not go out in their midst') should not be understood as a suspension of Ezekiel's public ministry and a reversion to a private one in which he performed the nonverbal sign-acts or spoke the verbal oracles only within the confines of his house. Rather they are reflective of his life when not engaged in direct prophetic proclamation, just as the speechlessness, according to v. 27, is suspended for public proclamation of the divine word. So too the opposition expressed in 3.25 that the people219 placed cords upon the prophet220 does not refer to the total prevention of publically exercising his prophetic ministry. Rather, as the reassurance in 2.6 and 3.8-9 indicated, when he had a message to deliver, he was freed from the confining nature of that opposition. Thus his prophetic

the lack of references in chs. 1-33 to proclamation in public places, cannot be used as a conclusive argument against such. For in chs. 34-48 (the period after the restrictions were lifted) there are also no references to proclamations in public places although such locales are assumed. 219. The subject of 3.25a is understood to be the people as the third plural suffix at the end of the verse indicates. Garfinkel's (1989: 46-47) interpretation that the referent of the pronominal suffix on DDTO is the cords and thus means that Ezekiel would not go out while being bound, does not correlate with the semantic use of ~pn3 which indicates location and not the state or condition. The third plural verbal forms are not impersonals (contra Buzy 1923: 213; Taylor 1969: 73; Wilson 1972: 89) nor should they be revocalized as passives (contra LXX; Bertholet 1897: 22; Cornill 1886: 194), resulting in the restriction being interpreted as either self-imposed (contra Cooper 1994: 87) or as a divine action as in vv. 2627 and 4.8. 220. The cords are understood here in a metaphoric sense just as opposition in 2.6 is expressed through the figures of thistles, thorns and scorpions. At times, 'binding' and 'cords' are used biblically in a metaphoric sense with the meaning of the imposition of punishment or persecution: 'binding' ("ION) is used of punishment in Hos. 10.10; Job 36.8, 13; and the imposition of 'cords' (CTTDD) for persecution in Ps. 129.4 (cf. also Ps. 2.3, for an authority which must be thrown off). See also 1QH 5.37 where opposition is expressed metaphorically in terms of being bound with cords. Since there are no accounts of hostile acts perpetrated against Ezekiel, it is difficult to understand the 'cords' in the sense of overt acts of persecution. Rather the opposition was in the form of an audience disposition which rejected Ezekiel's words as being authoritatively relevant. There is no contradiction in understanding the cords as a metaphor and the speechlessness as literal since only the speechlessness is related to Ezekiel being a 'sign' (24.27), that is, an observable phenomenon.

176

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

activity was not restricted as to its execution, but in its impact by the people's unbelief and apathy (cf. 12.21-28; 33.30-33).221 Similarly the prohibition of being a 'mediator' is a restriction involving prophetic function rather than a reference to locale of ministry. Even though in Amos 5.10 and Isa. 29.21, the ITDia functions 'at the gate', where legal disputes were carried out, those two passages are not primarily focused on the locale such that the prohibition against Ezekiel functioning as a 'mediator' is a to be understood as a vaguely expressed prohibition against public activity.222 The various statements of vv. 24-26 thus emphasize different aspects of the prophetic ministry and the restrictions which were imposed on that ministry by the prophet himself (vv. 24b, 25b), by others (v. 25a) and by God (v. 26a). (6) To understand the metaphor as descriptive of the move toward textuality, the speechlessness must be connected with the image of 'swallowing the scroll' in 2.8-3.3. But the text makes no such connection. Even though Ezekiel's messages during the period of speechlessness were primarily those of judgment, Ezekiel was not merely parroting previous traditions. Rather he found new, creative ways to communicate the messages to his exilic audience, as well as reformulate and adapt the traditions so that they were applicable to the current situations. More significantly, subsequent to the 'release from the speechlessness', the messages of hope were also based on previous, sacred, written traditions. Thus the speechlessness and release from such cannot be metaphorically understood as the former having the meaning of 'being bound by previous tradition', and the latter as 'being free to speak new material'. 221. The Targum understood the metaphor in 3.25, not as that of opposition, but as the imposition of the divine ordinances. In a different vein, Odell (1998: 245-46) argues that the binding cannot refer to popular opposition since such had not arisen at that point since Ezekiel had not yet begun his ministry. She then interprets the binding along the lines of an initiation rite of identification as symbolizing the captivity of Ezekiel's fellow-exiles, and that the exiles bound him so as to 'express their willingness to accept him as their representative' (246) in his new role as prophet. But understanding the binding as the restrictive nature of the people's opposition is preferable in light of the use of the metaphor of 'binding' and 'cords' elsewhere, and especially in light of the thematic parallels with 2.3-7 and 3.7-9 which speak of opposition. Just as those passages inform Ezekiel of future opposition, so 3.25 can be understood as an anticipatory declaration. 222. Contra Greenberg 1958: 103.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

111

(7) If the speechlessness is a metaphor for initiation, and lacks communicative meaning, the question arises as to why this behavior (along with the binding and confinement) continued well beyond the commencement of the prophetic task. Even more significant is that the speechlessness ceased (33.21-22) even though Ezekiel still continued in the role of a prophet. The major difficulty with interpreting the speechlessness in a metaphorical sense is that the terminology used to describe the condition points to a literal abstention from speaking. Not only do the specific semantic designations refer exclusively to a literal condition, as discussed below, but also in 24.27, Ezekiel, in the release from speechlessness, is referred to as a 'sign', HS1Q, for the people. As noted previously in this study (see Chapter 1 §3.2.4), a 'sign' is an observable phenomenon. The description as a 'sign' places the speechlessness in the category of an objectively detectable, nonverbal happening.223 2. Nature of the literal, physical speechlessness. If the nonspeaking was literal, then the nature of such speechlessness needs to be determined. Some maintain its literalness in the sense of a dumbness, that is, the physical incapability of speaking. The origin of the incapability is then often explained as resulting from a physiological or pathological malady,224 or emotional trauma (e.g. from being in exile225 or resulting from a visionary experience226), or being a psychological 'conversion reaction' ,227 223. Since in 24.27 it was only the release from speechlessness which is referred to as a 'sign', it can be assumed that the other aspects of 3.24b-25 did not have communicative meaning, and therefore are to be understood only in an informative and interactive sense. Thus highly questionable are attempts to interpret the 'being bound' or 'being shut in the house' in terms of specific message-contents in simile-form, such as Ezekiel was thus displaying the lifestyle of those in Jerusalem who, because of the impending danger, would shut themselves in their houses (cf. Isa. 26.20; contra Zimmerli 1979: 159, 161), or that the seclusion communicated God's estrangement from the people (contra Allen 1994: 61). 224. Cf. Bertholet 1897: 18-19, 23-24, 26, 130; Broome 1946: 280-81; Fuhs 1984: 30-31; Jaspers 1951: 99-100; Klostermann 1877: 422; van Nuys 1953: 24849; Stacey 1990: 178-79. 225. Cf. Lang 1981b: 71-74; Matheney 1965: 272. 226. Cf. Howie 1950: 90; Wevers 1969: 52. 227. Cf. Halperin (1993: 199-216) who classifies Ezekiel's muteness and immobility as 'conversion reactions' which occur when the psychic energy of unwelcome feelings is 'diverted away from the consciousness by being transformed [i.e.

178

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

If the speechlessness was due to recurring visionary traumas or an emotional pathology, the question arises as to why such did not continue into the subsequent period as well.228 If the speechlessness was due to the exilic situation, that external circumstance was not changed, but made more permanent, by the fall of Jerusalem. If due to the trauma after each visionary experience, one would expect such to have continued after the visions of 37.1-14 and chs. 40-48. Nor can the catastrophe of Jerusalem's destruction be adduced as a catalyst for the prophet's psychological healing,229 if the expectation of the destruction was the cause of the speechlessness. Although a physical or emotional incapability can not be a priori excluded, the language which describes the speechlessness does not necessitate such an understanding. Two expressions were used to describe the speechlessness: the niphal of D'PK (3.26), and "ffl + pTT + JIEJ^ (3.26). The release from the speechlessness was expressed either by the negation of the niphal of D^K (24.27; 33.22) or by a form of HD + nfB (3.27; 24.27; 33.22). Although the adjectival form of D^K is not used in Ezekiel of his speechlessness, in other places it does refer to the physical inability to speak (e.g. Exod. 4.11; Ps. 38.14; Isa. 35.6; 56.10; Hab. 2.18). But in Prov. 31.8 it is used (parallel to 'unfortunate', 'afflicted' and 'needy') in a court setting to refer to those who were not able to defend themselves. In other words, due to the circumstances, they were unwilling or not allowed to speak, and thus were not physically dumb, but circumstantially speechless. converted] into a physical symptom'. Halperin then psychoanalyzes these actions of Ezekiel as stemming from suppressed 'sexualized rage against females' (207) and as re-enactments of infantile traumas of being helpless and ignored (175, 212). 228. Lang (1981b: 73) tries to remove this difficulty by explaining the reference to 'the hand of Yahweh' in 33.22 as an indication of divine healing. But the expression does not carry that connotation elsewhere in Ezekiel—it is merely a way of indicating visionary experience. 229. Contra Brownlee 1986: xxxiv. Using a psychoanalytic approach, Halperin (1993: 212-15) argues that the release from muteness occurred because the destruction of the Temple confirmed to Ezekiel that Yahweh shared Ezekiel's hatred of women (symbolized by the Temple), thus absolving Ezekiel of guilt and of fear of punishment for having such rage. But Halperin's analysis results in an inconsistency which does not adequately explain why there were two quite different somatic responses to the two events of the death of his wife and the destruction of the Temple when those two were so inextricably linked psychologically.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

179

Significantly, the occurrences of the niphal verbal form of D^K, which is used of Ezekiel's speechlessness, do not denote physical incapability, but rather connote self-imposed speechlessness due to the situations.230 Most often the circumstances were those of affliction or oppression to which the persons responded by not speaking against the persecutors. In Isa. 53.7, although it was the sheep which was speechless (ilQ^Ni), the comparison is being made to the 'servant' who 'does not open his mouth' (VD nflD1' ^) while suffering. In Ps. 39.3, the speechlessness (conjoined with iT'QTf) is referred to as 'guarding the mouth as with a muzzle' (v. 2), and in v. 10 is parallel to ""S nnSK $b. Yet the ability to speak is still retained (39.4: 'I spoke with my tongue'). In Ps. 31.19, the psalmist's desire was that the 'lying lips' of those speaking against the righteous would be speechless (cf. 1QH 7.12). The synonymous expression VD nnET $b is used in Ps. 38.14, in the context of suffering, parallel to 'and there are no rebuking arguments (mrDTl) in my mouth' (v. 15); but the psalmist was still able to speak (v. 17). The niphal of D^ is also used in Dan. 10.15 as Daniel's response of anguish (v. 16) to the vision he had just received. But he still retained the ability to 'open his mouth' (HS + nns) and speak. In none of the uses of the niphal verb does the speechlessness consist of a permanent condition of dumbness but rather is a response to a given situation. The only occurrence of ~[n + pTl + jltt^ which might mean a literal dumbness is Ps. 137.6 where the psalmist desires that this be the result of forgetting to speak of Jerusalem. But even in that case, the condition is not expressed as being irreversible. In all the other cases of the phrase's employment, the situations are never permanent conditions. In Ps. 22.16 the condition is part of physical suffering (probably due to dehydration) and in Lam. 4.4 the result of thirst due to the famine. In Job 29.10, the phrase indicates a self-imposed speechlessness out of respect and awe for the person of Job (parallel to 'refraining from words' [D^QH "I1SU] and 'placing the hand over the mouth', v. 9).231 The temporariness of the latter three cases is evident, and they clearly do not refer to the physical incapability of speaking (i.e. dumbness). The phrase, ""D + PIPS, which expresses the release from speechlessness, means the ability to speak without implying any previous con-

230. Cf. the similar use of the niphal for circumstantial speechlessness, not literal dumbness, in 1QH 7.1; 8.36-37; 12.32. 231. Cf. the similar use in 1QH 5.31 in the context of anguish and oppression.

180

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

dition of dumbness.232 When referring to a verbal pronouncement,233 the phrase means the commencement and act of speaking (Dan. 10.16; Job 3.1; 33.2; Pss. 78.2; 109.2; Prov. 31.8, 9, 26), frequently with the connotation that the speaker, although having the capability of verbalization, has not utilized such to address the issue until that particular juncture.234 In Num. 22.28, it is used of Balaam's donkey whose previous condition was not dumbness but an inability to communicate in human articulations. All of the phrases used to describe the speechlessness—both its imposition and the release from such—do not refer to the physical incapability of speaking, that is, dumbness. Likewise, they are not just metaphorical expressions for nonphysical realities, but refer to conditions of literal nonspeaking which were not permanent in nature. The terminology therefore indicates that Ezekiel's speechlessness was an actual, voluntary nonspeaking. This is reinforced by the fact that when the elders came to Ezekiel inquiring for oracular messages (8.1; 14.1-4; 20.1) and when the spectators asked him to explain his sign-actions (12.9; 21.12; 24.19), those respective audiences viewed Ezekiel as capable of speaking to them. As a voluntary nonverbal behavior by Ezekiel, this is the only signact which is expressed in terms of divine-imposition rather than an injunction of self-imposition by the prophet. In 3.26 it is clearly God who causes Ezekiel's tongue to stick to his palate, and in 3.27 and 33.22 it is clearly God who releases him from the speechlessness. But this manner of expression should not be pressed to mean that this was the divine imposition of a physical dumbness upon Ezekiel. In light of the fact that the injunctive forms are also present in the context of the instructions regarding the speechlessness (3.24b, in the

232. As already noted, the negation, HD + riDD + «*?, in Pss. 38.14; 39.10; Isa. 53.7 (twice) does not imply a physical incapability to speak, but the voluntary abstention from speaking due to the circumstances. The same is true in Prov. 24.7 of the fool who does not open his mouth in the gate. 233. In addition to verbal pronouncement, the phrase is used in Ezek. 3.2 of the commencement of the eating of the scroll and in Ezek. 21.27, figuratively, of the devouring in the slaughter of battle. 234. Similarly HD2? + nns in Job 11.5; 32.20. Cf. HD + FTPS in 1QH 10.7 and 12.32 that the teacher has nothing to say (i.e. no authoritative teaching) unless God opens his mouth.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

181

imperative; 3.25b, 26b, in the negated imperfect; 3.27a and 24.27, perfect with vav-consecutive), it is possible that nQ^KH (3.26) and$h> D^n (24.27) should not be understood as indicatives but injunctives. This understanding is reinforced by the parallel structure of 3.26a and 3.27a: v. 26a. v. 27a.

a. And I shall make your tongue cleave to your palate, b. and you shall be speechless; a'. I will open your mouth, b'. and you will speak unto them.

In 3.27, the release from the speechlessness (a') enables Ezekiel to speak, but the actual speaking is a wilful act by Ezekiel, and therefore enjoined upon him (b'). The parallel structure points to the imposition of the speechlessness (3.26a) being understood in a similar manner that God enabled Ezekiel to be speechlessness (a), but that the actual nonspeaking was a wilful act by Ezekiel himself (b). Thus the emphasis on the divine imposition of the speechlessness does not negate the aspect of the condition being a voluntary self-imposition by the prophet. Rather, the stress on the divine participation can be understood as a stylistic way of stating that the divine ability was given to Ezekiel to fulfil this difficult nonverbal behavior over the required, extended period of time.235 3. Duration of the speechlessness. If the speechlessness were literal, as maintained here, then the question arises as to when the speechless behavior began. The present arrangement of the passages within the book suggests that it commenced at the beginning of Ezekiel's prophetic ministry and continued until news of the fall of Jerusalem reached him some seven-and-a-half years later. But some commentators have questioned that chronology and have maintained that 3.2527 has been placed in its present literary position for theological reasons so as to incorporate into the prophetic call some aspect of Ezekiel's ministry (e.g. his suffering [cf. Brownlee 1986: xxxviii, 54-57; Eichrodt 1970: 75-76, 348]236 or the difficulty of the task [cf. Wevers 1969: 29])

235. See the similar coordination of divine enabling and human carrying out of the action in 3.8-9 where in response to the people's obstinacy, God gives to Ezekiel a stony disposition equal to the people, yet Ezekiel is also commanded not to be afraid. 236. This position is summarized by Roehrs (1958: 183).

182

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

which only became evident at a later period.237 Or, its literary position serves as an apologetic explaining why the prophet did not function as an intercessor to help thwart the divine wrath (cf. Wilson 1972: 104). 3.25-27 is thus considered either an editorial fabrication based on 24.25-27238 or an actual part of that text which was editorially moved to its present location.239 Thus the speechlessness of Ezekiel was a continuously permanent condition, but only from the period of 24.25-27 to that of 33.21-22. As such, most often the speechlessness has been understood as a dumbness, not a voluntary abstention, resulting from the emotional trauma of his wife's death,240 of waiting for the news of Jerusalem's fall (cf. Lindblom 1962: 198-99), of having already prophetically received the news from God (cf. Matheney 1965: 272; Vogt 1981: 99-101), of actually receiving the news from the human survivor (cf. Bertholet 1897: 130), or an ecstatic dumbness (cf. Wevers 1969: 52, 178-79). Thus the dumbness was continuous, but only for at most two years based on the dates of 24.1 and 33.21. Against the rearrangement of the text as proposed above is the fact that if 3.25-27 is considered an editorial fabrication, then neither in 24.25-27 nor in 33.21-22 is there any statement of the onset of the speechlessness, rather it is an already assumed condition. The omission of reference to its onset seems unlikely. The assumption that 3.25-27, 24.25-27, and 33.21-22 (or portions thereof) at one time constituted a single literary unit, obviates the above argument. But it is not logical for a coherent original account to have been fragmentized to the degree in which it is presently found in the texts (cf. Greenberg 1958: 102). Also, not all of the difficulties are removed by the assumption of a 237. Cf. Hals 1989: 26. Komlosh (1973) links 3.24-27 chronologically with Ezekiel's call, but then argues that the injunctions and prohibitions did not express instruction to the prophet but descriptively hinted at the future prophetic ministry. Such a position is unsatisfactory since the injunctions of 3.24-27 occur in the midst of other instructions which were to be immediately carried out (3.22-23; 4.1-5.4), and if 3.26-27 does not indicate the time of the speechlessness' commencement, then there is no other specification of such in the book. 238. Cf. Eichrodt 1970: 75-76; Garscha 1974: 85-86; Holscher 1924: 55-59; Wevers 1969: 52-53; Wilson 1972: 93, 104; Zimmerli 1979: 161. 239. Cf. Brownlee 1978: 394-95; 1986: xxxviii, 55-58, 93; Cooke 1936: 46-47; Fohrer 1952b: 30, 47, 254; 1955: 25; Fuhs 1984: 30-31; Te Stroete 1977: 173; Vogt 1981:33-35,93-98. 240. Cf. Bewer 1936: 114-15; Brownlee 1986: xxxiv, 56, 58, 93 (along with suppressed grief and fear for his personal safety); Eichrodt 1970: 33.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

183

continuously permanent condition between the time of 24.25-29 and that of 33.21-26. There are numerous verbalized prophecies against the nations (Ezek. 26.1; 29.1; 30.20; 31.1) dated between the date of 24.1 and that of 33.21, which thereby necessitates dating the onset of the speechlessness only after the third month of the eleventh year of the exile (Ezek. 31.1).241 Clearly the intent of the extant text is that the speechlessness started at the beginning of Ezekiel's ministry and ended when he received the news of the fall of Jerusalem. Most of the arguments for not accepting the chronology implied by the textual arrangement of the passages revolve around the assumption that the speechlessness was a type of dumbness which was permanent in nature. But that the speechlessness need not be understood as a physical dumbness has already been demonstrated. 4. Condition of the speechlessness: continuous or intermittent. The continuous or intermittent nature of the speechlessness, besides being based on presuppositions about its nature and duration, is dependent upon the interpretation of ''""CH?') in 3.27 as to whether it is iterative, 'whenever 1 speak', or durative, 'when (i.e. the next time) 1 speak'. In the former sense the verse means that Ezekiel's speechlessness was interrupted and nullified whenever Yahweh gave to the prophet a divine word to utter. In the latter sense, the speechlessness was uninterrupted in its duration. In its present context, the phrase must be understood in the iterative sense since the interpretation of a continuous speechlessness is nullified by the numerous prophecies in chs. 4-33 which are explicitly or implicitly dated between the beginning of Ezekiel's ministry and the time

241. Cf. Roehrs 1958: 183-84. Aware of this difficulty, Fohrer (1955: 25; 1968: 66-67) dates the beginning of the speechlessness after the Egypt oracles (30.20-26; 31.1-18) and Vogt (1981: 100) from the date of the city's fall to the reception of the report (about six months). Bewer (1936: 114-15), Hals (1989: 240), Wevers (1969: 178-79), and Zimmerli (1969: 149; 1983: 193) view the speechlessness as lasting only the one evening mentioned in 33.22. But this latter position results from the supposition that only 33.22 is original and that 3.25-27 and 24.25-27 are completely editorial fabrications (cf. Wevers; Zimmerli) or that 24.18-27 and 33.22 refer to two sequential days (cf. Bewer). But such a brief time span of one evening, during a typically, nonspectator period, especially if confined to his house as Zimmerli maintains, would not have had enough of an audience impact for the event to be described as a 'sign' for the people.

184

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

of the arrival of the news of Jerusalem's fall. The only way the interpretation of a continuous speechlessness during that extended period can be maintained is to argue that all of the prophecies which are attributed to that period were not delivered orally but were either written down by the prophet (cf. Robinson 1923: 147), or were all inventions stemming from a later period and then subsequently attributed to the preceding period (cf. Buttenwieser 1930: 4). The difficulty with the latter view is that the prophecies of chs. 4-24 anticipate the destruction of the Jerusalem and would be irrelevant to the exile's situation after such had occurred. The former interpretation, that the prophecies were exclusively written compositions, flounders on the presentations of the prophecies themselves. They are expressed, not in terms of writing, but of speaking. In the injunctions to prophesy, ~IQN was used (6.3, 11; 12.23, 28; 13.2, 18; 14.6; 16.3; 17.3, 9, 12; 19.2; 21.3, 8, 14, 33; 22.3, 24; 24.3, 21; in the oracles against the nations: 25.3; 27.3; 28.2, 12, 22; 29.3; 30.2; 31.2; 32.2). There are reports of Ezekiel actually speaking to the people (Hin: 11.25; 24.18; "ION: 24.20). The prophet was enjoined to carry on verbal dialogues with the people after they had inquired of him (12.9-10; 14.1, 4; 20.1, 3; 21.12; 24.19-20). The people are reported to have 'heard' his voice (33.30-32). Thus the position of a continuous, permanent speechlessness from the beginning of his ministry is not textually tenable.242 Yet some interpret 3.27 as being a later editorial comment inserted after the present placement of 3.25-26 so as to elevate the discrepancy with the numerous verbal prophecies which follow (cf. Cooke 1936: 47; Wevers 1969: 53). But such reasoning is circular based on the assumption that 3.25-26 are editorial insertions based on the assumption that the speechlessness must be a literal dumbness which was of a continuous nature. When the speechlessness is understood as a voluntary abstention, then the iterative nature of v. 27 is acceptable as an intrinsic 242. Torrey (1970: 39), in maintaining a literal, yet continuous, speechlessness at the beginning of the ministry, argues that 24.25-27 and 33.21-22 are editorial. Thus he maintains that the speechlessness only lasted through the period of the sign-acts of chs. 4-5 (similarly Odell 1998: 246). Yet there is no record of its cessation outside of 24.25-27 and 33.22. Likewise his contention that both of those passages are purely editorial is linked to his position that they give a Babylonian setting to what he considers an original setting in Judah. Such a setting in Judah, and therefore the basis for assuming the passages to be editorial, has been refuted on other grounds and is no longer generally accepted.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

185

part of the original command, and the textual arrangement assumes that the point of the speechlessness' commencement was at the beginning of Ezekiel's prophetic career. There is no reason that 3.27 must have a durative sense. In the watchman commands of 3.18 and 33.8, which constitute along with 3.22-27 a clarification of Ezekiel's prophetic role, there is a similar construction: 'when I speak to the wicked' ("HOND). In those passages, the form does not mean that God will speak only once more to the wicked or that the prophet's obligation was fulfilled with the utterance of just the next prophetic warning. That parallel construction helps substantiate an iterative meaning of •"Dim in 3.27. Since there are no inherent difficulties which a priori negate understanding Ezekiel's speechlessness according to the intent of the passages as they now stand, this study assumes that Ezekiel's speechlessness was a voluntary abstention, carried out through the enablement of God, which spanned the initial period of his ministry (c. 593-586 BCE). The imposition of speechlessness was lifted throughout the seven-year period whenever Ezekiel was divinely compelled to utter a prophetic message. The speechlessness thus means that Ezekiel still verbally prophesied, but that he did not carry on any nonprophetic conversation with those around him.243 5. Function: communicative or informative.The questions still remain as to whether the speechlessness and the release from such communicated specific message-contents, and, if so, what were those communicated messages. To find the answer to the first question, appeal is made to the term 'sign' which is used in 24.27 to describe Ezekiel in his release from the speechlessness. Elsewhere whenever Ezekiel referred to himself as a HS1Q, it always meant that the activity bore a message-content through simile-form: 'just as I have done, so should/will the people do' (cf. 12.6, 11; 24.24). There is no reason to assume that the designation has another meaning when referring to the release from speechlessness.244 Thus the appli243. Cf. Greenberg 1983: 121; Taylor 1969: 27, 73-74; Tromp 1986: 21 244. Bertholet (1897: 130), Holscher (1924: 131), Keil (1976:1, 352) argue that the term 'sign' in this passage must be construed differently from its use elsewhere in Ezekiel, and thus did not refer to Ezekiel's specific behavior of speechlessness but to the whole of his ministry which had happened and would yet happen. In light of the consistent Ezekielian use of the term, to understand the use in this single instance as an exception is unwarranted. When the totality of Ezekiel's prophetic

186

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

cation of the term 'sign' (24.27) to the release from speechlessness indicates not only its observable nature, but also its communicative value. Although the speechlessness bore a message-content regarding the breakdown of the dialogue between the people and God, in the literary accounts the precise meaning of the behavior is not interpreted. Did Ezekiel perform in the role of God to portray the divine silence toward the people, or in the role of the people to display the manner in which the people should be relating to God? Many have assumed that the speechlessness reflected the former: God was silent and hidden which signified his disfavor toward the people (cf. Amos 8.11-12; Lam. 2.9).245 The difficulties with that interpretation are: (1) in the book, God is nowhere else presented as being nonspeaking and silent. God is only presented as being unresponsive to the people's inquiries, unless he deemed otherwise. In fact, in this disrupted dialogue, it was only God who was to do the speaking in unsolicited monologues. (2) Similarly in the coordinated negation of the role of 'mediator' (3.26), Ezekiel could no longer function on the people's behalf. He was still clearly functioning in the divine role as a rebuker of the people. (3) The word 'sign' (naiQ), when applied explicitly to Ezekiel, always refers to the prophet acting representationally in the role of the people and not of God.246 Thus the designation as a 'sign' always meant that Ezekiel was performing behavior which either was being enjoined on the people or would be imitated by them: 'just as I have done, so should/will the people do'. All of these arguments lead to the conclusion that, on the communicative level, the speechlessness was a representational expression ministry was spoken of as having an interactive impact, DS1Q was not used, but rather the general description that the people 'would know that there had been a prophet in their midst' (33.33). Since elsewhere in Ezekiel, the referent of HS1Q was the prophet when performing a specific behavior, such an understanding should be maintained for 24.27 (with reference specifically to his speechlessness). 245. Cf. Allen 1994: 61; Brownlee 1986: 57; Buzy 1923: 217-18; Fohrer 1952b: 30; 1955: 25-26; 1968: 66-67; Garner 1980: 188; Greenberg 1983: 120-21; Janzen 1981: 108; Konig 1892: 653, 657; 1904: 175-76; Roehrs 1958: 182-83; Stacey 1990: 179-80; Tromp 1986: 210. 246. In 4.3, when the divine disposition was being displayed along with the model siege, the whole event is referred to as an HIK, thus linguistically differentiating it from Ezekiel being the 'sign'.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

187

about the people's behavior: just as the prophet was speechless, so they should be in relationship with God. Ezekiel was not demonstrating that the people were speechless in the sense that they had given up in attempting to speak to God, rather, in light of their iniquity, they should be silent and no longer assume a normal dialogic relationship with God. Clearly throughout the book, the breakdown in the dialogue between God and the people is ascribed to the latter's sins (cf. 14.3-11; 22.3031). Although 16.63 is not referring to the action of Ezekiel's speechlessness, the passage does exemplify the kind of meaning ascribed in Ezekiel to the nonverbal behavior of 'not having an opening of the mouth'. There it is stated that an acknowledgement of their sin should force the people into a speechlessness (HQ jinns ill) "]*? nTP KL?'))247 which outwardly displayed their humiliation. Thus, Ezekiel's speechlessness not only demonstrated to the people what their overt participation in the divine-human relationship should be, but it also connotated the motivating disposition, which in this case was one of shame. Just as he was speechless, so should they be as they took responsibility for their sins. The people's role in the human-divine relationship at that juncture was to be one of listening, not of speaking. Commands to listen (cf. Ezek. 6.3; 16.35; 18.25; 21.3) correlated to the prohibition to be speechless as they expressed the people's part in the dialogic relationship.248 Speech was now to flow only unidirectionally from God to the people in monologue discourse, with the latter silently and attentively hearing, and then appropriately responding in behavioral obedience. The message expressed by Ezekiel's act of speechlessness ran directly counter to the people's beliefs at that time: they felt that they had every right to continue the dialogue with God. That the people continued to participate in the dialogic relationship as if nothing was wrong is evident from their numerous inquiries (i.e. acts of speaking to God) 247. Variations of the Hebrew phrase HD + nns always refer to the act of speaking. Thus there is no reason to interpret (contra Kennedy 1991) HE3 }inns in Ezek. 16.63 as a technical designation regarding the ceremony of opening an idol's mouth so as to be the source of oracles, and understand 16.63 to mean that the Jerusalemites would no longer practice that cultic ritual. 248. Throughout Ezekiel, there is an emphasis on the people's role as listeners (e.g. 3.27b; 2.5, 7; 3.11; 20.39). But just as the people were not being speechless in Iheir communication relationship with God, so too they were not being effective listeners (cf. 3.7; 12.2; 33.30-32).

188

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

as found in Ezek. 14.1-11 and 20.1-3, The speechlessness was therefore a contrastive display which provided an indictment against the people by demonstrating to them what their proper attitude should be. Throughout chs. 4-24, with the exception of the questions when the people asked about the meanings of Ezekiel's sign-acts, the people's 'speaking' was always presented in a negative manner. When they spoke to God in inquiry (cf. 14.1-11; 20.1-3), they were told that such was inappropriate because of their inward sinfulness. Whatever the people said in describing God's attitudes or intentions was refuted as being misspoken (cf. 8.12; 9.9; 11.3, 15; 12.22, 27; 18.2, 19, 25, 29; 20.32; 21.5). Whenever the 'false' prophets spoke, they were accused by Ezekiel of speaking without divine revelation (cf. 13.2, 6, 7, 10; 22.28). Thus in chs. 4-24, the people's 'speaking' in relationship to God is presented as being inappropriate, thus correlating with the message of Ezekiel's speechlessness that the people should not be speaking in normal, unrestricted dialogue with God. 1.8.2 Communicative Meaning of the Release from Speechlessness Ezekiel 24.25-27 recounts the prophet being foretold that the divinely imposed restraint of voluntary speechlessness would come to an end (v. 27) subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem (v. 25) when the news of that disaster was reported to Ezekiel (v. 26).249 In 33.21-22, the 249. The construction in vv. 25, 26, and 27 of Sinn DV3...«inn DV3...DV3 reflects a collapsing of the time references between the event of the city's destruction and the survivor arriving with the news for Ezekiel and the exiles. The same collapsing of time between event and reception of news or reaction to the event is found in other Ezekiel prophecies. In 26.18, the coastlands will tremble 'on the day' of Tyre's fall. But the coastlands are all of those with whom Tyre had carried on sea trade, many of which were too distant to be aware of the city's fall on the very day of its occurrence. In 32.9-10, 'on the day' of Egypt's fall, lands which Egypt does not know (clearly farther away than one day's journey) would be appalled and afraid. Cf. also 30.9. In each of those cases, the reaction to the event is presented as occurring within the same time reference, although the reaction would not occur until some time after the event when awareness of the event occurred. Similarly in 24.25-27, DTD must be understood as a general time period rather than a literal 24-hour day. Such precludes having to understand Ezekiel's locale as Palestine so as to receive the news on the very day of the city's fall (contra Herntrich 1933: 112-13), or that Ezekiel expected a supernatural transport of the messenger from Jerusalem to Babylonia on the very same day of the city's fall (contra Halperin 1993: 196-98). Such also means that Sinn in v. 26 need not be

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

189

narrative of the cessation of the speechlessness is given.250 Just as the injunction to be speechless had been received in a vision (3.22-24a), so too the return to normalcy in speaking was accompanied by a visionary experience on the evening before the news of Jerusalem's destruction arrived (33.22a). When the survivor 251 arrived in Tel Abib with the news that Jerusalem had fallen some six months previously,252 Ezekiel

deleted to make vv. 25 and 26 refer to two separate days (contra Cooke 1936: 273, 276; Eichrodt 1970: 330; Fohrer 1952b: 86, 242-43; 1968: 143; Stacey 1990: 177; Wevers 1969: 144; Zimmerli 1979: 508). Likewise the whole of v. 26 need not be stricken as an addition based on 33.21 to reconcile the supposed time differences between the two passages (contra Fohrer 1951: 44; 1968: 65, 67; Garscha 1974: 84; Herntrich 1933: 114; Herrmann 1908: 26, 75-76; Holscher 1924: 131; Lang 1981b: 29, 73; Te Stroete 1977: 169; Wevers 1969: 143-44). 250. The question as to whether 24.25-27 (with modifications) was originally literarily joined with 33.21-22 is tangential to the purpose of this study and need not be resolved here. The position here taken is that 24.25-27 records the announcement of the speechlessness' end which the prophet received sometime prior to the actual release from such at the messenger's arrival. The message to the prophet in 24.25-27 may have occurred around the time of the prophet's wife's death (as its literary placement and the thematic linking through similar phraseology of vv. 21 and 25 indicate) or as late as the evening before the messenger's arrival. If the latter was the case, then 24.25-27 would have comprised part of the message-content of the vision mentioned in 33.22a. 251. CT^EJ refers not to someone who has fled from the city in an attempt to escape the siege and destruction, but rather to one who was delivered from the danger in the sense of being spared the fate of the city. This is clear from Ezek. 6.810 where the masculine noun (as here) refers to those carried away into the nations, and the feminine noun in 14.22, to those going into exile. Thus the messenger was most probably one of the exiles forcefully deported to Babylonia after the city's destruction rather than a fugitive who made the journey on his own. 252. The MT's 'twelfth year' (33.21) can be retained with only a six months lapse between Jerusalem's destruction and the survivor's arrival in exile on the basis that either a vernal calendar was used in Ezekiel while the date of the city's fall in Jeremiah and Kings (cf. Jer. 39.2; 52.5-6; 2 Kgs 25.2-3), in the 'eleventh year of Zedekiah', was based on an autumnal calendar, or that there was precisely a one year difference because the Ezekiel calendric calculations were based on the years of exile and not Zedekiah's reign so the first year of the exile equalled the accession year (year zero) of Zedekiah (cf. Allen 1990: 152; Freedy and Redford 1970: 468; Greenberg 1958: 101; 1983: 11; 1997: 681; Kutsch 1985: 41-45; Lang 1981b: 39, 43; Vogt 1981: 100-101; Wevers 1969: 179). Therefore the emendation to 'eleventh', following the LXX, is unnecessary. The LXX's reading appears to be a harmonization with the dates in Jeremiah and Kings.

190

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

was freed from the restrictions of speaking and was allowed to carry on normal conversation with the newsbearer (cf. 24.27: 'your mouth shall be opened with253 the survivor') and, from that point onward, with everyone else: 'And he [God] opened my mouth254 at [his, the newsbearer's255] coming to me in the morning, so that my mouth was opened and I was no longer speechless' (33.22b). Precisely at the point in time when the people felt that the dialogue with God had been shattered due to the loss of the Temple and Jerusalem (the cultic center for properly carrying out the dialogic relationship), the land (the proper locale for the dialogic relationship), the Davidic monarchy (the nonsacral, governmental avenue for the dialogic relationship) and the covenant (the whole basis for the dialogic relationship), Ezekiel through his normalcy in speaking proclaimed that the way was opening for the people to enter into dialogue with God freely and appropriately. On the communicative level, when Ezekiel returned to normal verbal interaction, he representationally portrayed, by performing in the role of the people, the future possibility of the people entering into dialogue with God. Ezekiel's renewal of speaking did not nonverbally depict that God was turning once again toward the people in a favorable disposition so as to speak with them, since it was not God who had previously refrained from speaking. Rather, it was the people who could once again speak with God. Previous to the destruction, the people's inquiries of God were deemed inappropriate and such attempts by the people at dialogue with God were cut short (cf. 14.1-11; 20.1-3). But after the destruction, as part of the restoration process, God would allow 253. B^SH PK: PK is not the direct object marker, but the preposition expressing association and temporal simultaneousness (cf. BOB 86a). In a communication interaction, PK signifies a dialogic relationship of mutual interaction rather than a monologic, static communication of speaker 'to' listener (cf. 3.22, 27 where God speaks 'with Ezekiel'). So here the meaning is that Ezekiel's mouth would be opened 'with' (i.e. in dialogue along with) the survivor'. 254. 33.22b CD PR np±n) does not connect with the preceding in the sense that in the evening before the survivor came God released Ezekiel from the speechlessness, but goes with the following RH ~Ii5. ~IU does not refer to the terminal point ('until'), but to concurrence in time (cf. BDB 724c) as in Judg. 3.26; Exod. 33.22; Job 7.19; Jon. 4.2, and 1 Sam. 14.19 (the latter two are also constructed with an infinitive). 255. KID must be understood either to have the third masculine suffix or be emended to have such.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

191

the people to speak to him (cf. 36.37) and he would honor their requests. The restoration would involve mutual dialogic interaction. The return to normal conversation correlated with the destruction of the city in that once the judgment had passed, the historical circumstances were set for the reestablishing of the dialogic relationship. The renewal of the dialogue with God was only one aspect of the new relationship which would emerge between God and his people, but Ezekiel's return to normalcy in verbal interaction metonymically stood for that new relationship in all of its facets. The timing of the release from speechlessness thus appropriately coincided with the change in emphasis of Ezekiel's messages which sought to inculcate the people with an attitude of hope for the future.256 Because Ezekiel's previous predictions of Jerusalem's fall were given credence by the historical events, the prophetic authority attributed to him by the people must have been heightened, thus making his forthcoming prophecies more credible and persuasively influential. But such issues were not communicatively transmitted by the return to normalcy in speaking, rather, they coincided with it. Although his enhanced credibility affected the interactive and informative levels in the prophet's subsequent message transmissions, the communicative message-content of the release from speechlessness was not that the prophet had gained a right to be heard or that he now had freedom to express his prophecies in a manner which he had been previously unable.257 The 256. Similarly in Isa. 35.6, one of the aspects of the new divine restorative work was that the dumb would be able to shout for joy. If during Ezekiel's time the motif of release from speechlessness was associated with a new divine work (as in Isa. 35.6), then this may be another case in which Ezekiel took a known verbal expression or motif and deliberately enacted it as a nonverbal behavior. 257. Contra Clark 1984: 294-95; Cooke 1936: 272; Greenberg 1983: 121; 1997: 513; Gronkowski 1937: 400; Klein 1988: 9; Taylor 1969: 183; Vogt 1981: 101102; Zimmerli 1969: 150; 1983: 194. The view that the release from speechlessness meant 'a right to be heard' or 'freedom to express prophecies in a new way' is based on HE) |inns in Ezek. 29.21 where the phrase can be understood as a metaphorical expression either meaning 'having a claim to be heard' in the sense that the ministry was now authenticated, or as having freedom of expression. Since 29.21 is not directly related to Ezekiel's speechlessness, and if dated with the preceding (vv. 17-20) it refers to a much later period, then the possible metaphorical use there does not obviate the literal understanding or the divergent communicative meaning of 'opening the mouth' in 3.26; 24.27; 33.22.

192

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign -Acts

communicated message was that the avenue was now open for the people once again to enter freely into the communication process with God, just as Ezekiel was now free to interact verbally with those around him.

\S3Rhetoric™ 1. Attention. Because of the informative aspect of the speechless behavior, whenever Ezekiel publicly spoke or nonverbally acted, the people were aware that he was doing so in the prophetic role since that was the only time he suspended his nonparticipation in verbal and social interaction. Whenever Ezekiel did speak, it should have drawn the people's attention because of the nature of their anticipation that what he said was a prophetic word. Since the distinction between whether Ezekiel was speaking in the prophetic role, or merely carrying on normal conversation, was resolved through the total refrainment from the latter, the focus of attention shifted onto the message-contents of the verbal pronouncements which were uttered.259 So while communicating a message-content through the speechlessness, Ezekiel, by the behavior, was also forcing the people to focus more attention upon the other prophetic messages which he proclaimed and enacted. 2. Comprehension. The reasons for and the meaning of the refrainment from normal verbal interaction were probably initially ambiguous to his fellow-exiles. Ezekiel had carried on normal conversation with those around him and then suddenly one day he ceased speaking with them. The people may have initially wondered whether he was suffering some kind of physical malady, whether he had been struck speechless by God as a reprimand for some misconduct, or whether he had decided, for some reason, to become a social recluse. Thus initially the behavior of speechlessness was ambiguous as to its meanings. Was it communicative of a prophetic message from God, or was it merely informative of Ezekiel's personal disposition? If communicative, was Ezekiel functioning in the role of God and thus reflecting God's not speaking? Yet how could that be reconciled to the fact that when the prophet spoke he was speaking the prophetic word, indicating God's ongoing speaking to the people? Were the speechlessness and seclusion 258. On the interactive functions of silence as nonverbal communication, see Bruneau 1973; Jensen 1973; Knapp 1978: 359-61. 259. Cf. Bruneau (1973: 35): 'when punctuated by long silences, words mean more'.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

193

forms of social protest reflecting God's or Ezekiel's anger? Or was Ezekiel modeling to the people what they should be doing? The nature of the message-content of the behavior was ambiguous, and, like other of the prophet's nonverbal actions, the uncertainty in meaning remained without further explanation from the prophet. Since in the book there is no specific interpretation of the behavior, it is uncertain whether Ezekiel explicitly defined the meaning for the people or whether he only made indirect references (cf. 16.63) thereby allowing the people to ascertain the meaning on their own. It may have been that in the silence of the speechlessness, Ezekiel allowed the people to ponder the nature of his action, and thereby created an ongoing inquisitiveness toward his behavior and verbal messages.260 3. Acceptance. In the pre-586 BCE period, Ezekiel's audience continued to speak to God as if the dialogue in the divine-human relationship still existed. In order to persuade the people that the dialogic relationship had indeed broken down because of their sinfulness and therefore that the only proper relationship was that of monologue by God to the people, Ezekiel used the dramatic demonstration of abstaining from dialogue with his fellow-exiles. One of the message strategies involved in the speechlessness was presenting contrastive behavior to that of the people's. As such, the people's behavior was brought under indictment, but in a subtle manner. Ezekiel's lack of conversation with them did not present an explicit frontal attack against the people's posture of inappropriate speaking, thus avoiding an initial negative reaction against the message, but attempted to persuade them gradually as they grappled with the action's ambiguity and then recognized the meaning of what he was nonverbally communicating. The message strategy of indictment through contrast was accompanied by the speaker strategy of performing in the role of the people. In that role, Ezekiel, as rhetor, should have created a closer bond and identification with the people. Any defensive attitude evoked by the indictment which was authoritatively presented through the prophetic role, was thus counterbalanced by the rhetor-audience identification. One of the speaker strategies which was employed was the high degree in which Ezekiel personally involved himself in the nonverbal 260. Cf. Bruneau (1973: 29-30): 'Lengthy interactive silences appear to allow each participant a chance to make inferences and judgments about the many possible meanings of a message (including the meaning of the silences).'

194

Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

behavior. Undoubtedly it was not easy for Ezekiel to abstain from normal verbal and social interaction when such must have been both personally desirable and culturally expected. When the audience perceived Ezekiel's behavior, they must have sensed that he acted as he did because of divine injunctions which he felt were placed upon him. That recognition by the audience should have given greater credence to Ezekiel's prophetic messages because of the divine authority which Ezekiel thereby ascribed to them. The behavior also involved climactic transition points over the span of its implementation. The two major climactic points were the initial transition from normal conversational relationships with the people to the speechlessness and then the return to normal speaking, with the minor climactic points being the periodic suspensions of the nonspeaking to utter prophetic words. The major climactic points should have drawn the most attention and speculation due to the sharp contrasts in the behavioral changes. From the audience's perspective, here was a fellow-exile who reported a visionary experience with God and then quite unexpectedly became a speechless recluse in his own house. Unless one ventured to his house, nothing was publicly seen nor heard from him except the occasions of his coming out to proclaim or enact prophetic messages. Then after seven years of such behavior—to which the people must have gradually become accustomed—Ezekiel returned to normalcy in speaking and social interaction. The timing of Ezekiel's release from speechlessness (concurrent with the reception of the news of Jerusalem's destruction) was also crucially important in the persuasive process so as to link it to the shift in Ezekiel's messages from doom to restoration. That point in time marked a radical shift between the addressed rhetorical situations. With the destruction of Jerusalem, the judgment on a national level had been accomplished, so the focus of attention could be directed to that which God would in the future do with the people who survived the destruction. While the people's attitudes and responses to Judah's destruction and to their extended exile were still in the seminal stages of development, Ezekiel, through his behavior, sought to shape the people's proper attitudinal response to that disaster. So at the point when the people felt the dialogue with God had been broken, Ezekiel's return to normal conversational demeanor was paradigmatic (like that of the non-mourning in 24.15-24) and thereby attempted to persuade the people that such was the proper attitude to be assumed as they moved

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

195

into the future. Unlike the speechlessness' negative image of the suspended dialogue with God, the state of speaking presented a positive motif of the relationship's renewal. Thus the latter employed the rhetorical strategy of depicting a positive reward, which in this case was that the people would be able to enter into dialogue with God once again. 4. Remembrance. The repetitive nature of the behavior over an extended period of time must have made Ezekiel's not carrying on normal conversation memorable to the audience. Over the whole seven-year period they would have been constantly reminded that Ezekiel was functioning abnormally with respect to what was usual and expected in social interaction. That continual reminder of Ezekiel's nonverbal behavior should have served as an ever present reminder of the message about the people's conversational relationship with God which the behavior represented. 1.9 Ezekiel Chapters 4-5261 The specific sign-acts of chs. 4-5 can be literarily separated out, identifying the constituent nonverbal actions and artifacts. But questions still remain as to diachronic and synchronic interrelatedness of the actions. The literary interspersing of siege-related and exile-related nonverbal depictions lacks sequential movement with respect to those two addressed historical situations, and such has led some to conclude that the performances of the actions dealing with the two situations 261. Odell (1998) has argued that chs. 4-5 are not to be understood as reports of public proclamation. Rather, they are a continuation of the preceding report of Ezekiel's inaugural experience which function for Ezekiel as part of his transformational initiation into the newly given prophetic role (cf. 234). For the exiles the actions of chs. 4-5 confirm Ezckiel's new role as a prophet, and are thus informative but not communicative. Her arguments that these are not public proclamation reports are based on the structural unity of 3.16-5.17, that all of the elements expected in the literary genre of a report of a sign-act are not found (i.e. there is no execution statement and no record of any audience response), and that the term 'sign' (PIS) is not usually associated with sign-acts, but rather with call narratives (232-33). The latter two arguments are dealt with elsewhere in this study (see Chapter 1 §3.2). Although the links with the preceding call narrative are fully acknowledged, such does not obviate 4.1-5.4 being commands for public proclamation. Rarely in Ezekiel is there a 'report of a proclamation', rather everything is expressed in terms of 'reception' language. So 4.1-5.4 can be understood as the commands received in conjunction with the call narrative of 3.16-27 which were to be subsequently performed so as to inaugurate his public proclamation.

196

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

must be separated chronologically from one another. Thus numerous commentators consider the siege displays as being an interrelated performance consisting of only three actions, or slight modifications thereof: (1) the model siege in 4.1-2 (and possibly the iron griddle in 4.3); (2) the eating of the rationed food in 4.9a, 10-11 (or alternately eating the unclean food in 4.12, 14-15 as a siege symbol); and (3) shaving and dispensing the three parts of hair in 5.1-2. Such a position then ascribes the actions of 4.4-8, 12-15 and 5.3-4 to: siege displays which were literarily altered into exilic references;262 chronologically separate performances by Ezekiel depicting the exile which were interpolated into a text originally only dealing with the siege;263 or nonperformed, literary inventions by either Ezekiel or his disciples which were created and interpolated after the exile had occurred.264 This assumption of chronological separation results in treating the actions as separate unrelated entities without attempting any synchronic understanding of the performed actions as an integrated whole. For theological reasons, the exilic references are often placed at a later, chronologically separate time from those of the siege displays because of the assumption that even though Ezekiel could depict the siege/destruction of Jerusalem before it occurred, he would not have depicted the exile either until afterit had occurred or was on the verge of happening. Such reasoning assumes that the issue of the exile was not relevant until the time of Jerusalem's destruction. But the arguments that the prophet would not speak of the themes of the city's destruction and exile within the same oracle are not cogent. Ezekiel had to deal realistically with both themes because of the ideological and historical contexts in which he existed. Ideologically, he prophesied that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed, and historically, he lived in the midst of exile. For him and his immediate audience, the exile was not something that was yet to come and could therefore only be spoken of after Jerusalem's fall, rather it was a present reality of daily life. Therefore the issue of exile had relevance for Ezekiel's immediate audience since they were already active participants in it. 262. Cf. Cooke 1936: 50. 263. Cf. Brownlee 1978: 395; 1986: xxxii, xxxvi, 67, 70, 77, 84; Buzy 1923: 190-91; Cooke 1936: 49-54; Eichrodt 1970: 21, 76-77, 85; Fohrer 1952b: 31; 1955: 30; Zimmerli 1979: 70, 164. 264. Cf. Garscha 1974: 88-91; Stacey 1990: 180-92; Wevers 1969: 27, 32-33, 53; Uehlinger 1987: 115, 118-19; Zimmerli 1979: 155, 162, 171-72.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

197

The exile was spoken of by Ezekiel in other oracles and sign-acts dated prior to Jerusalem's fall. The three actions of 5.1-2, most often considered original even when other parts of chs. 4-5 are not, reflected the sequence of siege (during which one-third would die of famine), destruction (when the city fell, one-third would die by the sword), and dispersion/exile (the remaining third was scattered to the wind). In ch. 6 in prophesying against the mountains of Israel, he referred to the slain (vv. 3-7, 13), the ones dying by famine (v. 13), and then also the remnant (vv. 8-10) who would be scattered (see also 7.16-17; 11.16; 14.22). The sign-act of 12.1-16 (cf. especially vv. 14-16) dealt exclusively with the theme of going into exile. Since the 'exilic theme' was a consistent part of Ezekiel's pre-fall proclamations, it therefore need not be considered a later development which was, in chs. 4-5, subsequently attached to the topic of the city's siege. Thus, on the basis of content, there is no foundation for arguing that the actions of chs. 4—5 could not have been performed within the same timeframe. The exilic material has also been extracted for structural reasons because: (1) it interrupts the thematically cohesive siege-related actions; (2) if such exile-related material were to be originally included, the present placement does not conform to the more expected ultimate placement of such in the natural sequence of siege, destruction, dispersion; and (3) there is no reference to exile in the interpretation of 5.5-17. Yet these reasons for extracting the exilic material are not insurmountable. With respect to T and '2', as argued in the subsequent discussion, the literary recounting of the events is arranged thematically, and not chronologically either with respect to the sequence of the actions' performances or to the sequence of the actual historical occurrences. Also the chronological rearrangement of the actions' performances which is proposed in this study does place the nonverbal activities into the naturally expected sequence which corresponds with that of the referents' sequence of occurrence. With respect to '3', nonverbal communication need not be accompanied by verbal messages since it can substitute for the verbal. Since the exilic actions were self-evident, it could be argued that no verbal explanations were needed. But in fact, it is only 4.6, the lying on the right side, and 5.3, the activity with the scattered hair, which have no verbal interpretations in the literary account. The exilic food of 4.12 is clearly interpreted in 4.13; 5.4a is explained in 4b; 5.10b refers to the scattering, that is, the exile, of 5.2b.

198

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The present literary structure of chs. 4-5 can be explained through the thematic groupings of the same types of actions which has taken precedence over recounting the actions in the actual sequence which they were performed. Chapters 4-5 can be divided thematically into two main sections: 4.1-5.4 deal primarily with nonverbal actions, while 5.5-17 consists of verbalized information.265 With the bulk of the accompanying verbal addresses (5.5-17) coming after the series of instructions concerning the nonverbal activities, the two chapters have a general conformity to the typical literary structure of the sign-act genre in which the verbalized interpretation followed the nonverbally performed actions. The first section of 4.1-5.4 consists of four thematic groupings of nonverbal actions: A. 4.1-3: Actions concerning the model siege depiction. B. 4.4-6: Actions of lying on the sides. This section is internally structured according to the natural sequence from siege to exile with the descriptions of action and interpretation being in a: b: a': b1 parallelism: 1. siege. 2. exile. A1. 4.7: B1. 4.8:

a. action (4.4a: lying on left side);266 b. interpretation (4.4b-5); a', action (4.6a: lying on right side); b'. interpretation (4.6b).

Resumptive statement about the model siege.267 Resumptive statement about the lying on the sides.

265. In this study, 5.5-17 are considered summary statements of the verbalized prophecies which accompanied all of the actions of 4.1-5.4. By viewing the verses as a summary compilation, the argument that these verses comprise later accretions evidenced in the changes in number, gender and person of the addressees is negated since the prophet may well have changed the style of address in the chronologically dispersed verbal proclamations. The variances in addressees were simply not eliminated when the various proclamations were later summarily compiled into the present literary text. 266. For the detailed arguments assigning the meaning of the lying on the left side to the siege aspect of the message, see below in this chapter §1.9.1. 267. After the exilic reference in 4.6, v. 7, by its repetition of 4.3, can be a understood as a resumptive statement referring back to the model siege. Thus it need not be taken as an editorial gloss resulting from the intrusion of vv. 4-6, but rather a literary technique necessitated by the thematic arrangement of the actions.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

199

C. 4.9-17: Actions of eating foods. Rather than a confused arrangement, the commands and interpretations are arranged in a typical chiastic structure (cf. Parunak 1978: 183) with the narrative of the objection and alteration of the command in vv. 14-15 inserted between the interpretations: a. siege action (4.9-11); b. exile action (4.12); b'. exile interpretation (4.13); a', siege interpretation (4.16-17). D. 5.1-4: Shaving and subsequent actions with the hair: a. siege action (5.1-2a); b. exile action (5.2b-4). The literary account clearly presents the actions of 4.1-5.4 as part of an interrelated complex. There are sufficient indicators in the literary text so that the chronological sequence of performance can be reconstructed. One such indicator is the term "ITCQ in 4.3, 7, 8, and 5.2.268 In 4.3, the term signified the model city, that is, Jerusalem, inscribed on the brick. In 4.7, the prophet was commanded to set his face toward 'the siege of Jerusalem' (D^TT ~11^Q), that is, toward the brick and the model siege works which were in front of him. In 4.8 the time reference for turning from one side to the other was ~p1KQ ^ "[P'to "TU, that is, when the period relating to the model siege representation had been completed.269 In 5.2, the burning of the first third of hair temporally took place DK^QD "Tl^Qn ''Q1',270 that is, at the conclusion of the time of the model siege representation, and locationally T^H "pro, that is, on the brick.271 Thus See Parunak (1978: 178) who points out that the phrases 'siege' and 'set the face' in vv. 3 and 7 form an a: b: b': a' folded chiasmus. 268. On the structuring function ofnSQ in 4.1-5.17, see Parunak 1978: 176-77. 269. The nominal form, TI2SQ, nowhere has the meaning of 'binding' in the sense of being tied up. Thus its use in 4.8 should not be understood as a reference to any supposed literal binding or physical paralysis of the prophet. 270. This phrase has been deleted by some as a later gloss (cf. Eichrodt 1970 80; Fohrer 1951: 44; 1955: 33; Zimmerli 1979: 172). But it is here proposed that was a deliberate literary indicator pointing to the original chronological sequence of the events. 271. In 4.1 and 3, TU was used without modifiers to designate the brick city. There is no need to delete this locational designation from 5.2 as a gloss (contra Fohrer 1955: 33; Zimmerli 1979: 172) since such would leave the situatio

200

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

the occurrences of ~n2£D imply that while the prophet was occupied with the model siege, he was to prophesy against the city (4.7) not shifting from the side he was lying on (4.8). But then when the days for the model siege were completed, he was to shave his head (5.2) and turn to lie on his right side (4.8). The foods of 4.9-11 and 4.12 are to be separated by the two interpretations given in 4.16-17 and 4.13. As noted above, the culinary siege actions (4.9-11) and interpretation (4.16-17) literarily bracket the exile actions (4.12, 14-15) and interpretation (4.13). That v. 13 goes with the actions of 4.12, 14-15 is indicated in that the commands to bake over dung bracket the interpretation. Since v. 13 interprets v. 12, the baking with dung did not have as a reference the people in the midst of siege. The actions of 4.9-11 and 4.12 were also two different types: the rationed food was representational, thus accurately depicting what would happen, while the food baked over dung was figurative (see the subsequent discussion). The latter did not represent how the people would cook their food, but rather demonstrated through the pungent metaphor of dung that all food, because of the exile, would be unclean. The only way v. 12 can be conjoined with the siege demonstrations of eating and drinking is through the unnecessary extraction or ignoring of v. 13.272 The food of 4.9-11, representational of the scarcity of food (not uncleanness due to the mixed nature), was explicitly stated in the text (4.9) to be eaten during the 390 days the prophet was on his side (singular, "pH *7D). This indicates, because of the correlation to the time in 4.5 of 390 days for lying on the left side, that the siege food was to be eaten only while upon the left side. The literary phrasing in 4.9 thus serves to clarify the exact time and side273 upon which the rationed food was to be eaten. This implies that the other food of 4.12, 14-15 was to be eaten while lying on the right side. undefined (cf. Cooke 1936: 157) and destroy the alliterative quality of the text (cf. Greenberg 1983: 108). 272. Contra Allen 1994: 69-71; Cooke 1936: 55; Eichrodt 1970: 79; Fohrer 1951: 44; 1952b: 80; 1955: 331; Fuhs 1984: 35; Uehlinger 1987: 115, 182; Zimmerli 1979: 149. The shorter form of the verse in LXX does not warrant taking the whole as a gloss. 273. The phrases of 4.9b need not be considered later glosses nor does the singular, IK, necessarily indicate that v. 6 was a later interpolation (contra Cooke 1936: 55; Cornill 1886: 196; Eichrodt 1970: 79; Fohrer 1951: 44; 1952b: 80; 1955: 31; 1968: 50-52; Freedy 1970: 140-41; Lang 1981b: 23-24; Uehlinger 1987: 115, 118; Wevers 1969: 27, 54, 56; Zimmerli 1979: 168).

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

201

3. The instructions to lie on the right side in 4.6 begin with DK IT^D! n^K. The plural referent could either be: D'Q"1 in v. 5, that is, when the prophet had finished lying on the left side for the determined number of days, he was to turn onto the right;274 or, all of the previous siege actions expressed in vv. 1-4 (the model siege, the setting of the griddle, and the lying on the left side). In the latter case, the phrase would be synonymous with TKQn W H^^QD in 5.2, referring to the fact that the lying on the right side was to take place after the symbols of the siege had been finished. These literary indicators point to the reconstruction of the events in a sequence which was consistent with the coming historical sequence of siege-destruction-exile. Once the verbal interpretations and messages of 4.13, 16-17 and 5.5-17 are separated from the descriptions of the nonverbal communication, the verses can be ordered in a diachronic schema of performance:275 4.1-3, 4-5, 7-8 (accompanying verbal message: 5.5-9, lla, llbB), and 9-11 (accompanying verbal message: 4.1617;5.10a) occurring concurrently = siege; 5.1-4 (verbal message: 5.12-17, lOb, llba) = destruction and its consequences; 4.6, 12, 14-15 (accompanying verbal message: 4.13) occurring concurrently = exile. Siege depiction: The prophet first made the model of the besieged city (4.1-2), setting the iron griddle between himself and the model city (4.3). Then with that model in front of him, he lay on his left side (4.45) with his face set toward the model siege (4.3, 7) for 390 days to represent the period of the whole nation's ('the house of Israel's') culpability for iniquity which would culminate with the city's destruction. While in that position, he bared his arm and prophesied against the besieged Jerusalem (4.7), with 5.5-9 and portions of 10-11276 providing 274. Thus the phrase would negate taking the numbers in the MT in a concurrent manner that after 350 days the prophet turned over for 40 more making a total of 390. 275. This schema has been followed by Block 1997: 168-70. 276. In the literary composition, 5.10-11 are transitional. They incorporate elements associated both with the siege depiction and the subsequent hair actions showing the destruction: lOa, cannibalism = siege (the results of the famine, 4.911); lOb, scattering = destruction (5.2); lla, indictment = reasons for the siege

202

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

a summary of the verbal messages given during that period. While lying on the left side facing the besieged model city, Ezekiel ate the siege food rations as specified in 4.8-11, and interpreted the action to the people as given in 4.16-17 and 5.10a. Destruction depiction: Once the period for the siege representation had been completed (cf. 5.2) he then performed the sign-acts of shaving his head, dividing the hair into three parts to show what would happen to Jerusalem's population at the time of its destruction (5.1-2) and gave the verbal message of 5.12-17, lOb to interpret the actions. Exile depiction: The scattered hair (5.3-4) was further used to display the nature of God's continued punishment and protection for those who were scattered. Continuing the theme of dispersion in exile, the prophet then lay on his right side (4.6) to indicate the length of the exile (40 years) during which he ate the unclean bread (4.12), interpreted in 4.13 as the people's eating unclean food among the nations. The communicative meaning and rhetoric of chs. 4-5 will be analyzed in three sections correlating with the above schema of the depictions of the siege, destruction and exile. A summary section which deals with the rhetoric of the whole as a unified complex will conclude the discussion. 1.9.1 Ezekiel 4.1-5, 7(5.5-9, 11); 4.8-11 (4.16-17; 5.10a) 1.9.1.1 Communicative Meaning 1. Model of the siege. The prophet was first commanded277 to take a brick and to set it in front of himself, and then to inscribe upon it a city,278 which, at that juncture, was identified to the prophet as Jeru-

which culminates in the destruction (cf. 'bearing the iniquity' on the left side, 4.45); llbfl, shaving = destruction (5.1); llbB, divine disposition = siege (cf. iron griddle, 4.3) and the resultant destruction. 277. Brownlee's (1986: 61) suggestion that vv. 1-2, by analogy to Ezek. 24.314, were a work song that Ezekiel sang while performing the representational siege is untenable. There is no indication that Ezek. 24.3-14 was enacted (see Chapter 1 §2), and the specification of address here, DTK p nflNI, points to these verses being personal instructional commands to the prophet which were not necessarily recounted during the nonverbal enactment. 278. The brick was used only to represent the city, not to show figuratively the quality of its defenses, since the text makes no point of specifying the composition of the brick, i.e. clay, in contrast to the specification that the griddle was to be of iron. The use of the clay brick seems to have been to facilitate the communication

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

203

salem279 (4.1). Once the inscribing of the city on the brick was completed, Ezekiel was to set up a siege wall,280 build siege towers (i.e. the mobile siege engine towers which were pushed up to the walls),281 pour out a siege ramp (i.e. the earthen and wooden ramp placed against the city wall up which the siege engines were moved),282 set up camps,283

event by using an artifact which could be easily inscribed, rather than the clay quality bearing a communicative meaning. 279. The phrase D'PtOIT PS can be understood as an apposition for emphasis. Because of the grammatical inconsistency of an undetermined noun being followed by a determined noun in apposition, the phrase is often excised as an explanatory gloss which comes too soon in the narrative. The grammatical inconsistency of the undetermined city being specified as Jerusalem may indicate that Ezekiel's drawing was to be a sketch of a city without anything in the sketch pointing to any specific city. Yet for the purposes of the prophecy, the prophet was informed that the sketch would very specifically represent Jerusalem. In regard to the identification coming too soon, it must be noted that the literary account here is a report of the prophet's reception of the command to perform the actions and not a report of the performance. As such, it is feasible that from the beginning the prophet understood the depicted city to be Jerusalem, yet this does not mean that the identification was initially transmitted to the audience either verbally by the prophet or by a ready identification of the drawing. The identification to the audience may not have occurred until the prophet uttered the verbal pronouncement as recorded in 5.5. 280. "IIKQ can be: (1) a general term meaning 'state of siege' (cf. Ezek. 4.3, 7, 8; 5.2; Jer. 10.17; 52.5; Deut. 20.19; 2 Kgs 24.10; 25.2); (2) a general term for 'siege works'; or (3) a specific type of siege work, that of a 'siege wall', a 'circumvallation', which was built around the besieged city by the attackers for defense and for preventing escape from the city (cf. Hab. 2.1; Zech. 9.3). In 4.2, if the term means 'state of siege' or generally 'siege works', then it is a summary term followed by the specification of the items of which it is comprised. Whereas, if it means 'siege wall', then it is the first of the several specific items which the prophet was commanded to model. Although the term is used in the general sense in 4.3, 7, 8, and 5.2, here in 4.2 the specific meaning of 'siege wall' seems most appropriate because of its conjunction with the following delineated items. 281. pH (cf. Ezek. 17.17; 21.27; 26.8; Jer. 52.4; 2 Kgs 25.1) is either an Aramaic participial form or an Akkadian loan-word meaning 'siege tower' rather than an earthen mound, bulwark, rampart or trench (contra Bertholet 1897: 23; Wevers 1969: 55). 282. On rf^O -|SiB, see Ezek. 26.8; Jer. 6.8; 2 Sam. 20.15; 2 Kgs 19.32; Isa. 37.33. 283. rrana can either be the place of encampment or the soldiers (cf. 2 Kgs 3.9). If the former, then Ezekiel built in miniature the attacker's walled camp, and if the latter the prophet set up soldiers all around the besieged city. Either of the depic-

204

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

and place battering rams284 in position (4.2). In all of these activities, the prophet was taking on the theological role of God. Such was brought out in the verbal interpretation of 5.5-11. Just as Ezekiel inscribed the city of Jerusalem on the brick and set it in front of himself (4.1), so too God had set Jerusalem in the midst of the nations (5.5). Just as the public display of the model siege was open to the view of Ezekiel's audience, so too, the divine judgment would be seen by the nations (5.8). Just as Ezekiel had placed and maneuvered the siege works and machines around the city (4.2), so too God was the one who would bring judgment (5.8, 9) upon the city. Even though theologically God was considered to be the one actively directing the actions against Jerusalem, the historical outworkings of such were performed by the Babylonians. Thus distinction between the historical role of the enemy and the theological role of God was blurred, allowing Ezekiel to take on simultaneously the role of God and the enemy without a definite dichotomy being made between the two. Although the general commands concerning the model siege were recorded, the text lacks a description of details, such as where the actions were performed, the size of the brick,285 what the drawing of the city looked like (a map viewing the city from above or a side view), and the placement (or drawing) of the siege machines. Regardless of the specific details, the artifacts in vv. 1-2 were representational since they were a miniature depiction of the actual siege of a city.286 tions would have been possible, and the action by Ezekiel may have included both the camp enclosure and the soldiers. Driver's (1954: 148) suggestion, that this was the covered part of the siege tower which concealed the attackers, results from his misunderstanding that all the various terms of the verse refer to parts of one siege machine. 284. Whether D'-D (cf. Ezek. 21.27) comes from TO, 'lambs', or TD, 'to dig' (cf. Cooke 1936: 64) does not alter its designation as a mobile siege machine with a beam used to break down the city wall. 285. If it was the size of extant maps drawn upon bricks it would have been rather small, as the size of such was about 7 by 8 inches. But if it was the size of a normal brick used in buildings, its length and width would have ranged from roughly 16 by 8 inches to as much as 23 by 15 (cf. Kelso 1948: 34). Taylor (1969: 75) suggests that if Hj^b could mean 'brickwork1, although not its natural meaning, then it may mean that the scene was depicted on the outer wall of Ezekiel's house. 286. The brick and model siege were used strictly as representational, communicative artifacts, thus any comparative connection to the magical use of figures or

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

205

The actions may have been performed in the vicinity of the prophet's house,287 but were certainly carried out where they were readily observable to the public as the phrase 'before their eyes' in 4.12 indicates. Although the inscribing of the brick with the city is often likened to that of maps from Mesopotamia288 in which the view of the city was from above,289 there is the possibility that the inscribed city was rather a sideview depicting the city walls (cf. Uehlinger 1987: 141-49). Such was a common way of illustrating in victory reliefs the triumphant campaign by the king against a foreign city. If the latter was the case, then the brick need not be thought of as lying flat on the ground, but rather set on edge with a sideview of the city depicted thereon. Since such depictions of cities under siege were very stylized, this heightens the possibility that the drawing of the city was not immediately identifiable to the spectators as Jerusalem.290 engraved stones as substitutes for idols or people is irrelevant (contra Fohrer 1968: 48-49; Fox 1913/14). The account in Pseudo-Callisthenes (cf. Budge 1933: 2-3) of the magical employment of figurines by Nectanebus (358 BCE), the last king of Egypt, provide an interesting comparison of external artifacts to Ezekiel's model (cf. Fox 1912: 304; Thompson 1908: 155-56). Whenever Nectanebus's country was threatened with invasion by sea, he filled a bronze vessel with water on which he floated tiny ships of wax to represent the enemy fleet. After he recited a magical spell, the wax ships would sink. If the invasion was by land, he made wax figurines of soldiers and horses to represent the enemy army. After saying a magical spell, the figurines would fall to the ground. (For other examples of the use of effigies in magical rituals to defeat one's military enemies before the battle, see Budge 1933: 219; Thompson 1908: 157-58.) But in Ezekiel's sign-act, there is no hint that the models were being used in a magical, cursing manner so that the similarity of external form does not mean identical purposes of usage. 287. Even though, based on 3.24, some have assumed that Ezekiel was inside his house when performing the activities of 4.1-5.4, that injunction need not be understood as excluding the performance of these actions outside his home in public view of all those who went by (see Chapter 2 §1.8). 288. For illustrations and discussions of such maps drawn on brick, see ANEP 260; Keel 1978: Fig. 4; Uehlinger 1987: 141-47. 289. Cf. Block 1997: 171; Brownlee 1986: 76; Cooke 1936: 50; Howie 1950: 18; Keel 1978: 18; Zimmerli 1979: 162. 290. There is no reason to assume the engraved city was easily identifiable to the audience (cf. Uehlinger 1987: 174; contra Stacey 1990: 181). Even if Ezekiel's drawing was patterned after an overhead map-type view, this would not necessarily ensure immediate recognition of the city since such drawings were also very schematized (e.g. see the illustrations in Yadin 1963:1, 146; II: 292-93, 432).

206

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The employment of various verbs to describe the placing and setting up of the siege works and machines (4.2: D'CC, ~[D2J, H3D, ]fl]), none of which corresponds with 'inscribing' (4.1: ppn), gives credence to the assumption that the siege works were separate objects strategically set up around the engraved brick (cf. Uehlinger 1987: 150-52) rather than drawings either on the same brick, on the ground, or on separate bricks. The command to 'lay siege' to the city (4.3: m^"i), may even indicate that Ezekiel was to maneuver the siege weapons into place during the course of the presentation like someone playing with toy soldiers. 2. Iron griddle. In conjunction with the model of the siege, Ezekiel was told to set up an iron griddle as an iron wall (4.3).291 Again the command does not elaborate upon the specifics of the execution of the action as to how the iron griddle was to be placed, only its location between the prophet and the city-brick and that the prophet was to face the iron griddle and the inscribed city (cf. vv. 3, 7). In 4.3, the referent of the feminine suffix in the command iT^K ~pD HN nnrDm is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the 'iron griddle' which is mentioned at the beginning of the verse, or the 'city' which is the immediately preceding referent. The object referent in the rest of the verse is clearly the model city (iT^y mxi) and v. 7 states that the prophet was to set his face against the whole model siege depiction. Thus the prophet must not be viewed as having his face pressed hard right up against the iron griddle, but rather the command only indicates that the prophet was to face the whole model siege with the iron griddle between himself and the model city. The exact interpretation of the iron griddle is ambiguous due both to the lack of any explicit interpretation in the text and to the figurative nature of the nonverbal artifact. It has been proposed that the iron griddle is a representational sign depicting the besieger's shield, many of

291. Some have considered 4.3 a secondary intrusion. The arguments for its exclusion are based either upon the nature of the action, i.e. it is figurative rather than representational like the actions of 4.1-2, or because the intransigent attitude which it portrayed was alien to the original. But there is nothing unacceptable about combining figurative and representational nonverbal behaviors, and the iron plate signifying an intransigent attitude was consistent with Ezekiel's presentation elsewhere of God's attitude toward the people. Thus there is no basis for excluding 4.3 from the complex of actions, or for assuming that 4.3 was a separate unrelated action since the meaning of the action was contingent upon vv. 1-2.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

207

which would have been set up in array against the city.292 In Isa. 37.33 = 2 Kgs 19.32, in the context of siege warfare, the shield is mentioned along with the siege mound. But if the griddle represented a shield, to refer to it as 'an iron wall' seems to be a very unusual and obfuscating way to speak of such. As a figurative 'wall' between the prophet and the city, the iron griddle has been understood (1) totally as a metaphor, thus reflecting the separation in the spiritual realm between God and the people with the iron indicating the impenetrable nature of the separating wall.293 If understood in this way, the one who erects the wall is either God, with the iron indicating the divine determination to carry out the punishment and the disposition towards the people,294 or the people, because of their sins295 on the analogy of Isa. 59.2. (2) The 'wall' could be understood as partially metaphorical and partially literal, meaning both a physical wall, either the besieger's siege wall or the fortifications of Jerusalem, with the quality of iron understood figuratively as, respectively, the severity of the siege296 or the strength of the city's defenses.297 Several factors argue against the griddle having as referents either the besieger's wall or the defenses of Jerusalem. That the griddle did not stand for the besieger's siege wall can be surmised from the shift in the representational displays of the model siege to the figurative display of the iron pan. Had the intent been to continue displaying an aspect of the siege works and machinery, it would have been most effectively accomplished through another representational model. The stylistic change to a figurative artifact fittingly indicated that a shift in meaning had also occurred. The misapprehension of the iron griddle as 292. Cf. Iwry 1961: 29-30. Although interpreting the griddle as primarily signifying the divine attitude, Krilger (1989: 128) also suggests that there may be an allusion here to Yahweh as 'shield', but in an inverted sense of being against, not protecting, Jerusalem. Understanding the griddle as 'shield', whether the Babylonians' or God as such, seems highly questionable in this passage. 293. Cf. Allen 1994: 65; Greenberg 1983: 104; Lang 1986: 299. 294. Cf. Block 1997: 173; Bron 1981: 25; Davidson 1893: 30; Eichrodt 1970: 83; Fohrer 1968: 48-49; Garner 1980: 178; Klein 1988: 41; Taylor 1969: 76; Wevers 1969: 55; Zimmerli 1979: 163. 295. Cf. Cooke 1936: 51; Keil 1976:1, 70. 296. Cf. Buzy 1923: 221; Lods 1950: 240; Uehlinger 1987: 180. In Jer. 15.12 the enemy from the north is described as unbreakable iron. 297. Cf. Davidson 1893: 30; Uehlinger 1987: 180. See also Brownlee's (1986: 64-65) interpretation of the griddle as a replacement for the brick.

208

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

the strong and impregnable defenses of Jerusalem may have been imposed upon the nonverbal display by the spectators because of their convictions of Jerusalem's invincibility. That such was not the meaning imparted to the nonverbal artifact by the prophet is evidenced from the command that the griddle be set up between the prophet and the city. Since the walls of Jerusalem were already inscribed upon the brick, any display enhancing the fortifications of the city would have been more appropriately attached to the brick rather than independent of it. Since Ezekiel was acting primarily in the role of God, the griddle should be interpreted within that context. The coordination in performance of positioning the griddle (4.3), setting his face (4.3, 7), and baring his arm (4.7) associate the three actions in meaning.298 Since the latter two were displays of the divine disposition toward the city, the former should be interpreted similarly. In the verbal message (5.lib), the divine disposition toward the people which resulted in the siege was expressed: 'and my eye will not pity, and even I, 1 will not spare'. This disposition was portrayed in the nonverbal actions of 4.3, 7: God would have no pity or compassion but rather an iron determination and intensity, which would bring the siege upon the city. So the intensity figuratively depicted by the iron quality was that of the divine disposition rather than either that of the siege or of the historical besiegers;299 although that divine disposition would have been theologically understood as the motivation producing the harshness of the siege and the tenacity of the besiegers. The figurative use of the griddle for the divine emotion contrasted with the previous representational displays of the siege, and the stylistic shift correlated with the presentation's shift from objective facts (4.1-2) to subjective emotions (4.3, 7). This understanding of the iron griddle as displaying the divine disposition toward his opponents, the Judahites, corresponds well with the use of the metaphor in Jeremiah and Ezekiel of a hard metal or 298. Contra Uehlinger (1987: 179-80) who contends that the meaning of the iron griddle should not be interpreted as related to Yahweh or to the siege but rather to some aspect of the brick city, since according to the sequence of v. 3 the griddle was put in place (v. 3a) prior to the siege demonstration (v. 3b) and since up to this point in the text none of the actions are associated with Yahweh. Yet the siege in miniature has already been introduced in v. 2 and, theologically, such was held to be ultimately the activity of God. 299. Contra Buzy 1923: 222; Davidson 1893: 30; Fuhs 1984: 33.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

209

stone wall specifically for the disposition of the prophets in carrying out their ministry in relationship to their audiences. The Lord assured Jeremiah that when encountering opposition to the prophetic message, Jeremiah's face (i.e. emotional disposition) would be made like a pillar of iron and a wall of bronze (Jer. 1.18-19; 15.20). Ezekiel (3.8-9) was reassured that even though the opposition he faced was hard, his forehead (i.e. emotional disposition) would be made hard as stone (cf. Isa. 50.7). This similarity in imagery does not imply that the communicative purpose of the griddle was to reflect Ezekiel's attitude toward Jerusalem instead of God's. Rather, through the nonverbal artifact, Ezekiel sought to communicate the divine disposition not to inform of his own, even though Ezekiel, in his own feelings toward the people and about the siege, may have empathized with that divine pathos. Although the catalyst for God's withdrawing his compassion and mercy was the sin and wickedness of the people, the nonverbal artifact and actions associated with the iron griddle dealt not with the cause of the divine disposition but rather reflected only what the disposition was toward the city. The opaqueness of the iron griddle may have reflected the idea that God, in one sense, had concealed his face from the people of the city which allowed the besiegers to carry out their assault (cf. Ezek. 7.22; 39.23). If the iron griddle carried this connotation, then Ezekiel introduced an ironical twist into the actions: God had hidden his face, yet at the same time was fully cognizant of, and in fact, ordaining what was happening historically. 3. 'Setting the face'. As part of the display of the divine disposition toward the Jerusalemites, Ezekiel also 'set his face' (4.3, 7). Unlike ~p]S C'&J which in Ezekiel referred to an adversarial, emotive disposition in the act of prophesying without involving a nonverbal action (see Chapter 1 §2), the expression used in 4.3, 7, "pa ]'r>n, did refer to a nonverbal movement of turning the face in the direction of the model siege. The difference between the former verbal idiom and the latter actual nonverbal action was contextually evidenced by the command in 4.3, 7 being in the midst of other enjoined nonverbal gestures and actions and semantically indicated by the use of ]D (only here) rather than D^.300 The various biblical, idiomatic expressions of 'setting the 300. The use of ]D is thus not merely a matter of emphasis or intensification (contra Greenberg 1983: 104; Layton 1986: 173), but rather a viable way of semantically distinguishing between a nonverbal action which was actually performed

210

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

face'301 toward or on an object indicated either favor (cf. ^ D^S D'GJ in 1 Kgs 2.15; similarly ^ GTS D'to in Jer. 24.6; 39.12; 40.4) or hostile intent. So the nonverbal directing of the face must be considered to communicate a specific emotion, and other accompanying facial features indicated whether or not the gaze was favorable. When God was the subject of 'setting the face', the idiom usually carried a negative connotation. The 'setting of the face' was the divine reaction to sin (almost always specifically enumerated) with the subsequent divine action being the execution of judgment which was always death (cf. ...3 D^S ]H] in Ezek. 14.8; 15.7a; Lev. 17.10; 20.3, 6; Lev. 26.17, and ...2 D'B n't) in Ezek. 15.7b; Jer. 44.11; Lev. 20.5). Especially instructive are the passages of Jer. 21.9-10 and Amos 9.4 which speak of the judgments in identical terms as do Ezekiel chs. 4-5: ' "He who dwells in this city will die by the sword and by famine and by pestilence... for 1 have set my face against (...3 C^D D'27) this city for harm and not for good", declares Yahweh. "It will be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will burn it with fire'" (Jer. 21.9-10; cf. Ezek. 5.1-2); 'And though they go into captivity before their enemies, from there I will command the sword that it slay them, and I will set my eyes (D"1® 'JS DTJJ) against them for evil and not for good' (Amos 9.4; cf. Ezek. 5.2, 4). Although the specifics of the facial expression assumed by Ezekiel as he gazed toward the model siege are not given, the expression 'set the face', in this instance, must have expressed the hostile divine determination to execute wrathful judgment upon the city of Jerusalem which was represented by the brick. 4. Baring his arm. Appropriately in relationship with the model siege, Ezekiel was to bare his arm302 (4.7) as a warrior would have done in readiness for battle, and thereby again expressed an aggressive, hostile intent.303 Since this gesture was performed in conjunction with and a metaphorical expression which did not require any accompanying nonverbal behavior. 301. On the biblical expressions and their meanings, see Layton's (1986) study. 302. Unfounded is Helfmeyer's (1980: 136) view that Ezekiel did not perform this action, rather only turned his face so as to prophesy about Yahweh's bared arm. The second masculine suffix ('your arm') clearly continues the address to the prophet. 303. The LXX's tov ppa/lovd oov aiepecoaeii; (cf. Targum: ^'pnn ~]in"n), is most probably a paraphrasing (cf. Cooke 1936: 64) of a Vorlage identical to the MT. The LXX, by interpreting the meaning of the nonverbal gesture (incorrectly in this case), has removed the concreteness of the action.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

211

setting the face and prophesying, it too can be understood as indicating the divine intent with respect to the siege. The arm movement, because it was a military gesture and was enacted within the sphere of divine activity, also provided the theological clarification that the besiegers were not the ultimate enemy. The divine intent would merely be historically realized through the Babylonian besiegers, but it was God who, as warrior, orchestrated the siege. Such a theological perspective of divine hostility against his own city was contrary to beliefs within the popular theology. The only other biblical occurrence of the expression VHT ^ton is Isa. 52.10 where Yahweh bared his arm for the purpose of redeeming Jerusalem with the hostile intent directed against the city's enemies. If, during Ezekiel's time, the belief in divine protection was expressed through the figure of 'Yahweh baring his arm' so as to fight against Israel's enemies and save Jerusalem, then Ezekiel drew upon a verbal image which had a favorable meaning to the spectators, but nonverbally performed it with an ironic, contrasting meaning that Yahweh was prepared to wage war, not against Israel's enemies, but rather against Jerusalem itself.304 This reversal in meaning may not have been initially detected by the audience. They may have misunderstood who the recipients of the depicted disposition were and assumed it was the enemy's siege weapons and soldiers rather than the brick city. Thus, to display the divine disposition, Ezekiel coordinated three nonverbal features: the artifact of the iron griddle, the facial expression and movement of setting the face, and the bodily gesture of baring his arm. These actions also conjoined figuratively (the iron griddle) and representationally (setting the face and baring the arm) encoded nonverbal elements to communicate a similar emotive state. The latter two representational gestures must have been conventionally understood nonverbal displays, although the prophet used them in an idiosyncratic manner to inform the people of God's disposition by way of anthropomorphism. 5. Lying on his left side. Concurrently with the depiction of the model city under siege, Ezekiel was to lie on his left side for 390 days bearing the 'iniquity of the house of Israel' (4.4-5).

304. See Jeremiah's similar reversal in the object of God's warring activities in Jer. 21.5 where, with outstretched hand (iTQ] T), God attacks Jerusalem.

212

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The grouping of the various actions thematically within the literary account has resulted in the juxtaposition of the description of the lying on the left side and its correspondence to 'Israel' (4.4-5) to that of lying on the right side to bear the iniquity of 'the house of Judah' (4.6). This juxtaposition has resulted in the terms 'house of Israel' and 'house of Judah' often being interpreted in a contrasting manner of the former being the Northern Kingdom and the latter, the Southern Kingdom. It is then assumed that the lying on the left side must mean the Northern Kingdom's period of exile305 since the lying on the right side for the Southern Kingdom for 40 days (= 40 years) was clearly an indication of exile. Since the length of the Northern Kingdom's exile does not correlate with the number 390 (4.5, 9), the LXX's readings of 150 (4.4) and 190 (4.5, 9) are often considered correct.306 In contrast to the above interpretation, when the sequential arrangement of the nonverbal behaviors as proposed in this study is followed, then the terms 'Israel' and 'Judah' are no longer juxtaposed in a contrastive manner. That 'Israel' in 4.4, 5 should not be understood as a technical term for the Northern Kingdom is evident from the uses of the

305. Cf. Bertholet 1897: 25; Brownlee 1986: xxxii, xxxiii, 66; Buzy 1923: 22930; Cooke 1936: 49, 51; Cooper 1994: 95; Cornill 1886: 194-95, 198-99; Davidson 1893: 30; Fohrer 1952a: 109; 1952b: 31; Keil 1976:1, 72; Taylor 1969: 78; Wevers 1969: 14, 32, 55. 306. But the LXX's '190' in 4.5, 9 and '150' in 4.4 must be considered secondary, resulting from the misunderstanding due to the juxtaposition of the terms 'Israel' and 'Judah'. Because of the misunderstanding that the Northern and Southern Kingdoms were meant, '390' was altered to conform to the interpretation that 4.4-5 referred to the length of exile of the Northern Kingdom, which, calculated from the 730s or 720s BCE, was only 150 years (secondarily inserted in v. 4) to Jerusalem's fall plus another 40 years for the concurrent period of exile with Judah's. The mistranslation, 8ijo for ""]$ in 4.5 (cf. Targum) resulted from the same misinterpretation (cf. Cooke 1936: 64; Greenberg 1983: 105; Zimmerli 1979: 148). Bertholet (1897: 26) and Driver (1960: 126; 1966: 76-77) consider the LXX's 190 to be original and suggest that the MT number results from a gematrya of ~l(l)KQ
2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

213

term in Ezekiel307 (see the following 'Excursus'). Rather the designation 'Israel' (4.4-5) is understood as the whole of God's people whether they were of the Northern or Southern Kingdoms, while the designation 'Judah' (4.6) localizes the reference since it was only those of Judah who, on this occasion, were going into exile. Likewise when the two lyings are correlated with the other respective nonverbal actions of siege and exile, the two are seen to have two different historical points of reference. Excursus: 'Israel' in Ezekiel The term 'Israel' occurs over 180 times in Ezekiel, while 'Judah' occurs only 15 times. When occurring by itself, 'Judah' is not used as a contrasting notion to the political entity 'Israel'. 'Judah' occurs in 21.25 as a geographic specification for Jerusalem, and in 48.7, 8, 22, 31 in the list of the 12 tribes. The issue is over the meaning of the two terms when conjoined together. 1. The immediate context of 4.1-5.17. In 4.3, the model siege with the iron griddle was to be a sign to the 'house of Israel', which clearly signified the Judahiles and more specifically those currently in exile (Ezekiel's audience). In 4.13, the unclean food was interpreted as a demonstration of how the 'sons of Israel' ate their food in exile. The term there meant Ezekiel's exilic audience as well as the future refugees from Jerusalem and Judah. In 5.4, the hair which stood for the scattered inhabitants of Jerusalem was used to show that the judgment (i.e. fire) would go out to all the 'house of Israel',308 which referred to the survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem. In none of the three cases in the immediate complex of actions in chs. 4-5 was the term 'Israel' used for the Northern Kingdom. 2. Other passages where distinctions are made between the northern and southern kingdoms. In Ezekiel, two passages (chs. 23 and 37) 307. On 'Israel' in Ezekiel, see the discussions in Danell 1946: 237-60; Harford 1935: 31-32, 93-101; Rost 1937: 74-90; Zimmerli 1958; 1983: 563-65. In those studies, the only cases in which the meaning 'Northern Kingdom' is adduced are 4.4-6; 9.9, and possibly 27.17. And in those three cases, 'Judah' is often considered a secondary insertion which resulted in the connotation of 'the Northern Kingdom' being attached to the term 'Israel'. 308. The LXX's reading 'say to the house of Israel' makes the referent of 'Israel' the immediate exilic audience.

214

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

clearly referred to the distinct political entities of the two kingdoms. But in those cases the terms 'Judah' and 'Israel' were not used to express the contrast, but in fact, those two terms seem to have been intentionally avoided. In ch. 23, the names of the capital cities, Samaria and Jerusalem, were used.309 In 37.15-28 (see Chapter 2 §3.2), in the signact of joining the two pieces of wood together to present the reuniting of the two kingdoms, the inscribed names (v. 16) were 'belonging to Judah and to the sons of Israel' and 'belonging to Joseph... and all the house of Israel'. In the interpretation the only designation for the people from both kingdoms was 'sons of Israel' (v. 21) and the locale of their restoration, 'the mountains of Israel' (v. 22). 'Israel' was clearly used as an inclusive term to designate the totality of the people with Judah and Joseph being its constituent parts. Such a deliberate avoidance of 'Israel' and 'Judah' in contexts where the two terms would seem appropriate to designate the two kingdoms contrastively (cf. Jer. 3.6-11), presents a strong argument against interpreting the two terms as such in other contexts. 3. 'Israel' and 'Judah' in proximate contexts. When occurring in the same oracular context or in similar forms of expression, the two terms bear synonymous meanings. In 8.1, the 'elders of Judah', Ezekiel's fellow-exiles, were sitting with the prophet anticipating a divine message. The referenced group is identical with the 'elders of Israel' who in 14.1 and 20.1 came and, while sitting before the prophet, inquired for divine messages. In the vision of ch. 8, while being shown the various abominable practices occurring in the vicinity of the Temple, reference is made in 8.17 to 'the house of Judah' committing the acts. Yet in 8.6, those performing the great abominations are designated 'the house of Israel'; in 8.10, the abominations are called 'idols of the house of Israel'; in 8.11 and 12, the performers are specified as the 'elders of the house of Israel'. The terms 'Judah' and 'Israel' in the context of that vision are synonymously interchangeable terms. In three cases (9.9; 25.3; 27.17) the two terms are found in a conjoined grammatical construction. In 25.3, the people of Ammon are castigated because of their rejoicing over the profanation of the Temple, the desolation of the 'land of Israel', and the exile of the 'house of Judah'. The reference is to the historical destruction of Jerusalem which excludes understanding 'Israel' in the sense of the Northern Kingdom. 309. Similarly in 16.44-58, 'Samaria', 'Jerusalem', and 'Sodom' were employed.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

215

The context of ch. 25 bears this out, when in similar accusations against Moab, Seir and Edom the term 'house of Judah' was used (25.8, 12) alternately with 'my people, Israel' (25.14). In 9.9, 'Israel' and 'Judah' form a parallelism with 'the land' being filled with blood and 'the city' full of perversion. Just as 'the city' does not describe an antithetical locale to 'the land', so too 'Judah' was a particularization within the generalization 'Israel'. Since ch. 9 is a continuation of the same vision in which the two terms were used synonymously (8.6, 10, 11, 12, 17), the argument is strengthened that the terms should not be understood in a contrasting manner in 9.9.31° In 27.17, 'Judah and the land of Israel' are characterized as traders with Tyre and the iniquity of 'the house of Israel and Judah' is described as very great. 'Judah' is often judged to be a secondary intrusion in this text which results in 'Israel' being understood as the Northern Kingdom.311 But just as the conjoined terms in 9.9 and 25.3, where 'Judah' and 'Israel' are both usually considered original, can be understood as inclusive rather than contrast! ve, so too can the reference in27.17.312 Thus in all of the cases where the terms 'Israel' and 'Judah' are in proximate contexts, they do not make a distinction between the political entities of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. Rather, 'Judah' is a subset of 'Israel', so the two terms thereby express an inclusiveness. 4. 'Israel' used in the other sign-acts. Besides the coordination of 'Judah' and 'Israel' in the sign-act of 37.15-28 (see above), 'Israel' occurs solitarily in conjunction with other sign-acts. In 6.11, the actions expressed an emotive response to the 'abominations of the house of Israel'. In 12.6, 9, 10, when performing the act of going into exile the prophet was a 'sign for the house of Israel' (v. 6), the 'house of Israel' would ask what the prophet was doing (v. 9), and the meaning concerned 'all the house of Israel' (v. 10). In 12.6, 9 the connotation of 'Israel' is the immediate exilic audience, and in v. 10, the people still residing in Jerusalem. In 12.19, the trembling while eating and drinking referred to 'the inhabitants of Jerusalem upon the land of Israel'. In 310. On the conjoined titles indicating totality in 9.9, see Cooke 1936: 108; Greenberg 1983: 178. 311. Cf. Harford 1935: 31; Rost 1937: 76-82; Zimmerli 1958: 82; 1983: 563, 565. 312. Danell (1946: 256) argues that, by analogy to 25.3, 27.17 should be understood as '(the people of) Judah and the land of Israel (i.e. Judah)'.

216

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

21.17, the crying out and wailing occurred because the sword of judgment was coming against God's people and 'all the leaders of Israel', that is, those in Jerusalem (cf. 21.30). The exilic audience, who questioned Ezekiel about his lack of mourning behavior when his wife died, is called 'the house of Israel' in 24.21. So when associated with nonverbal sign-acts, the solitary designation 'Israel' was never used in an exclusive sense for the Northern Kingdom, but was totally inclusive carrying the specific nuances of the exiles, those in Jerusalem and Judah, and in 37.15-28. for both the peoples of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, inclusively. Although the meanings of 'Israel' as the Northern Kingdom and 'Judah' as the Southern Kingdom are semantically possible, since 'Israel' was not used with the meaning 'Northern Kingdom' anywhere in its more than 180 occurrences in Ezekiel, and when the Northern Kingdom was specifically meant the term 'Israel' was avoided, it is highly improbable that only in 4.4-5 'Israel' has the singular meaning of 'Northern Kingdom'. Thus 'Israel' in 4.4 can be understood as a reference to the totality of God's people irrespective of political alignment or geographic location. The use of 'Judah' in 4.6, as a subset of 'Israel', probably resulted from the existential reality that the exilic event with which Ezekiel was concerned would only involve the people from that specific political and geographical entity. Likewise, the terms 'left' (4.4) and 'right' (4.6), although frequently cited as substantiating the Northern and Southern Kingdom interpretation, need not be considered compass references.313 Biblically the terms 'right' and 'left' can be: (1) literal designations without any compass or positive/negative connotations. When used in the combination, 'right and/or left', they indicated: (a) opposite sides or directions (cf. Exod. 14.22, 29; Judg. 16.29; 2 Sam. 16.6; 1 Kgs 22.19; 2 Chron. 18.18; Neh. 8.4; Job 23.9; Isa. 9.19; 54.3; Zech. 4.3, 11), or (b) the options available (cf. Gen. 13.9; 24.49). (2) Compass designations of 'right' = south and 'left' = north (cf. Gen. 14.15; Josh. 17.7; 19.27; 1 Sam. 23.19, 24; 2 Sam. 24.5; 2 Kgs 11.11; 23.13). (3) Symbolic connotations of: (a) right and left being both negative in value, as when used for deviations from a prescribed path, whether that be physical 313. Contra Bertholet 1897: 25; Buzy 1923: 229-30; Cooke 1936: 51, 53; Cornill 1886: 198; Davidson 1893: 30; Greenberg 1983: 105; Keil 1976: I, 72; Taylor 1969: 78; Vogt 1959: 491; Wevers 1969: 56; Zimmerli 1979: 166.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

217

(cf. Num. 20.17; 22.26; Deut. 2.27; 1 Sam. 6.12; 2 Sam. 2.19, 21) or moral (cf. Deut. 5.32; 17.11, 20; 28.14; Josh. 1.7; 23.6; 2 Sam. 14.19; 2 Kgs 22.2; 2 Chron. 34.2; Prov. 4.27; Isa. 30.21); (b) right being positive in the sense of favor or strength (usually 'right hand'; cf. Gen. 48.1219; 1 Kgs 2.19; Job 30.12; Isa. 62.8; Jer. 22.24) but without a deliberate contrast being made with the left;314 (c) both right and left being positive (cf. Prov. 3.16); (d) right being positive and left, negative (cf. Eccl. 10.2). In Ezekiel the terms were used, outside of 4.4, 6, to designate: (1) (sense 'la' above) opposite hands in 39.3, opposite sides in describing the faces of the creatures in the vision in 1.10, and opposite directions to which the slaying sword would go in 21.21. In 21.27, the divination of the Babylonian king indicated the option on the right; (2) (sense '2') the directions of the compass in 16.46; 47.1, 2, and possibly 10.3. Because of 'right' and 'left' having multiple scriptural and Ezekielian usages, one meaning (that of compass direction) cannot be a priori read into 4.4, 6.315 Since the terms are not interpreted in the text,316 in 4.4, 6 they may not be designations of compass directions, nor have any positive or negative connotative values, 317 but rather express, without any

314. Included in this category are also possibly the cultic emphasis on the right side in Lev. 7.32-33; 8.23-26; 9.27; 14.15-18, 26-28; Exod. 29.22; Num. 18.18; also 'the right hand of Yahweh' in the Psalms. 315. Viewing the terms 'left' and 'right' as capable of only the singular meaning of compass directions, lies behind the evaluation of the term 'left' as a later gloss in 4.4 arising out of the misunderstanding of 'Israel' as the Northern Kingdom, and the accompanying argument that if 'left' is extracted from 4.4, 'Israel' can be interpreted as other than that political entity (cf. Freedy 1970: 140; Vogt 1959: 489, 491; 1981: 103, 105; Wevers 1969: 55; Zimmerli 1979: 164). The multiplicity of connotations of 'right' and 'left' negates the above presupposition for evaluating 'left' as a gloss in 4.4. 316. The designations of 'Israel' and 'Judah' cannot be considered interpretations of the terms 'left' and 'right' respectively, although the understanding of the terms as compass directions is often hermeneutically connected with the accompanying place designations. Had the term 'Israel' been a clear designation of the Northern Kingdom elsewhere in Ezekiel, then its association with the 'left side' would favor the latter being interpreted 'north', but since the former does not bear that meaning in Ezekiel, the meaning of the latter as a compass reference becomes suspect. 317. Contra Greenberg (1983: 104) who suggests that 'The inauspicious quality of left... suffices to explain the choice of the left side for "bearing iniquity".' But

218

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

attached interpretive significance, the duality of opposite sides on which Ezekiel was to lie (sense T above). The usage would then be the same as that in 1.10; 21.21, and 39.3. The sequence of left being first, followed by the right, would then be arbitrary. One possibility for the left having have been arbitrarily chosen as the first side of lying was thereby to leave the right arm free for the concurrent action of being 'bared' (4.7). Every minute detail of a nonverbal action need not carry communicative significance.318 Thus it was Ezekiel's act of lying on opposing sides (with the implication of contrasting concepts thereby being indicated, pre-fall and post-fall), and not the specific designations of the sides that contained the message-content.319 Since 'Israel' indicates the entire people without reference to political or geographical grouping and since 'left' need not be the compass direction of 'north', the lying on the left side should not necessarily be understood as a sign dealing with the length of exile of the Northern Kingdom. Then pu in 4.4 must be understood, not as punishment (exile), but as culpability for iniquity.320 The 390 years was a round Greenberg fails to comment on how this correlates with Ezekiel also bearing iniquity 'on the right side' which would then be the auspicious side. 318. An analogous example of 'right' and 'left' lacking communicative meaning is found in the 'symbolic vision' of Zech. 4.3-14 in which one olive tree stood on the right side of the lampstand and another on the left side (vv. 3, 11). But in the explanation of the vision only the objects were interpreted and not their specific location of being on the 'right' or 'left'. 319. If the terms must be considered as bearing a communicative meaning with respect to Ezekiel's actions, they could be interpreted in the sense of 'left' indicating 'disfavor' and 'right' connoting 'favor'. But such connotations were not linked to the terms 'Israel' and 'Judah' (contra the view that 'right' was chosen for 'Judah' because it indicated precedence in dignity in contrast to the Northern Kingdom; cf. Buzy 1923: 229; Keil 1976:1, 72), but to the meanings of the actions themselves. Thus, ironically, Ezekiel lay on his left side (disfavor) to show the culpability for sin during the period of the Temple—precisely the period during which the people felt they were in a position of divine favor because of the Temple. Conversely, the exile was when the people felt they were outside of the divine favor, and Ezekiel depicted such by lying on the favorable right side to show ironically that the exile would be the circumstances out of which God would produce a new, favorable relationship with his people. 320. There is a play on the connotations of ]li! between 'culpability' in v. 4 and 'punishment' in v. 6. In Ezekiel, ]1U means both (a) sin/guilt for which the accused bore responsibility (cf. Ezek. 9.9; 16.49; 21.28, 29; 28.18; 29.16; 36.31, 33), and

2. Jeremiah's and Ezeklel's Sign-Acts

219

number, most probably, for the period of the Temple from the time of Solomon's dedication of it (c. 970 BCE) to its destruction (586 BCE).321 Within the popular theology, the existence of the Temple was a key (b) the resulting punishment for sin (cf. 21.30, 34; 32.27; 35.5). The frequent expression pI?D is ambiguous as to which nuance, or possibly both, is meant: 'on account of sin' or 'in punishment for sin' (3.18, 19; 4.17; 7.13; 18.17, 18, 19, 20; 24.23; 33.6, 8, 9; 39.23). When the phrase pi) + NC3 is used biblically, it functions with both senses of pi): (la) culpability for sin (cf. Lev. 5.1, 17; 7.18; 22.16) for which provision was given for the atoning of the guilt incurred; (Ib) bearing responsibility as a substitute or representative in incurring the guilt of others (cf. Aaron and the priests with respect to the Temple and people: Num. 18.1, 23; Exod. 28.38; husband for his wife: Num. 30.16); (2a) receiving the punishment for the sin. In these cases no atonement for the sin was provided, but rather the person was 'cut off (Lev. 7.18; 19.8; 20.17, 19; Num. 5.31; 14.34; 15.31). (2b) The punishment was borne by a representative or substitute (scapegoat; Lev. 10.17; 16.22). (On the biblical meaning of pi) KD], see Ben-Mordecai 1941; Freedman et al. 1986: 633-40; Milgrom 1970; Schwartz 1995; Stolzl979: 113-14.) In Ezek. 14.10; 44.10, 12, pi) + KDJ means bearing the punishment, i.e. the judgmental consequences of the sin (meaning '2a' above; cf. also 23.49: NQn + Kta), and pin REJ] in 18.19, 20 is ambiguous as to whether it means sharing the responsibility for or bearing the punishment for. In Ezek. 4.4, the expression fits best with Num. 18.1 as a substitute incurring the guilt (meaning 'Ib'), while 4.6, a substitute in punishment (meaning '2b' above). But in Ezekiel's actions, the term 'substitute' is applied not in the sense of the expiatory transfer of the culpability or punishment, but in a metonymic sense of Ezekiel being the representative of the people (cf. Allen 1994: 66). Unwarranted in Galloway's (1861: 40) suggestion that Ezekiel is functioning in the role of God in the sense of God's bearing with (i.e. forebearing) the people while they are incurring guilt. 321. Such an interpretation is suggested by Allen 1994: 66; Block 1997: 178; Fuhs 1984: 34; Galloway 1861: 33-53; Greenberg 1983: 118, 125 (although interpreting 'Israel' as the Northern Kingdom); Klein 1988: 42-43 (or the period of the monarchy); Koch 1982: 290-91; Kriiger 1989: 132 (period of the monarchy); Planas 1955: 153; Zimmerli 1979: 166. Predicated on 'Israel' meaning the Northern Kingdom, others have suggested that the MT's 390 refers to the period from the division into the two kingdoms up to Jerusalem's destruction (e.g. Brownlee 1986: 60, 67; Cooke 1936: 53; Driver 1966: 76; Fuhs 1984: 34; Taylor 1969: 80; Thiering 1969: 31; Vogt 1959: 490; 1981: 105; Wevers 1969: 33, 55). Rabinowitz (1954: 14, 33-34) also argues that in the Damascus Document 1.6, the citation of the figure from Ezekiel understood the 390 years to culminate with Nebuchadnezzar's coming and therefore referred to the period from the time of the division of the kingdom.

220

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

argument against culpability for sin on the people's part (cf. the 'Temple sermon' in Jeremiah chs. 7 and 26). For Ezekiel, who was of priestly descent, the Temple was a key factor in the people's relationship to God. In the verbal indictment of ch. 5, the only specific deed which is mentioned as warranting the nonverbally depicted judgment is the defiling of the sanctuary with idols and abominations (5.11). In chs. 8-11, the whole judgment of the city was justified in terms of the abominations which were being performed in the Temple. Although the Temple provided an avenue for the expiation of the people's guilt, the prophet, by lying on his side, figuratively exemplified that the mere existence of the Temple for the past 390 years had not released the people from responsibility for their sins,322 but had in fact resulted in the incurment of guilt because of their inappropriate actions. Ezekiel was to place their accrued guilt upon his side (4.4),323 thereby to 'bear' it. He figuratively illustrated the burden of their iniquities by having the bulk of his own body weight rest upon his left side while in the lying position. In the enactment of 'bearing the iniquity', Ezekiel was performing that which was part of his function as a priest, for within the priestly tradition, the culpability for the desecration of the Temple resided upon the priests as the people's representatives before God (see the identical terminology in Num. 18.1, 23; Exod. 28.38). But

322. The argument that the lying on the left could not delineate the years of accruing the guilt on the basis that sign-acts must depict future events (cf. Eichrodt 1970: 84; Fohrer 1952b: 31) is incorrect since the sign-acts were not necessarily future-oriented predictions (cf. Chapter 1 §5.2.3). To hold simultaneously to the position that the act must depict a future event as well as to the interpretation that the 190 indicated the years of the Northern Kingdom's exile, is self-contradictory since 150 of those years were already in the past. 323. r^JJ.-.pi: HK nnfin (4.4): Tutting the guilt on' the guilty person, in the idiomatic sense of 'attribute' or 'impute', was the sequential prerequisite to bearing the iniquity (cf. Judg. 9.24; also the similar expressions in Lev. 16.21-22; Deut. 22.14, 17; 1 Sam. 22.15). The third masculine singular object of the preposition refers to the prophet's left side. The emendations to "[^...TIDCI with God as subject (cf. Bertholet 1897: 25; Fohrer 1955: 29; Fuhs 1984: 33; Vogt 1981: 103) or n^EJDI (second masculine singular) and deleting V^JJ or emending to ~\"h$ (cf. Cornill 1886: 194; Hals 1989: 27; Wevers 1969: 55; Zimmerli 1979: 148) are unnecessary. Zimmerli's (1979: 148) contention that the MT is impossible because it makes the prophet simultaneously the 'bearer' and 'transmitter' of guilt is misdirected for in the complex of actions the prophet frequently assumed both the roles of God and of the people (e.g. the shaving of his own head in 5.1).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

221

in his action Ezekiel did not expiate the sin, rather only provided a figurative, nonverbal demonstration of the people's responsibility for their sin which would result in divine punishment, that is, the siege.324 The complementary verbal proclamation in 5.6-11 reinforced the nonverbal demonstration of culpability by expressing the indictment that judgment was to come because of the people's abominations. Thus the lying on the left side was not a representational depiction of the siege experience itself325 as were the other actions of the model and eating the rationed food, but rather it nonverbally exemplified the basis for the indictment which justified the siege. The combination of the nonverbal behavior of lying on the side (4.4) with those of the siege (4.1-3, 7, 9-11) incorporated, in a concurrent manner, respectively the reason for and also the specification of the judgment.326

324. The view that the prophet's action was 'atoning' (cf. Brownlee 1978: 395; 1986: 69-70) misunderstands the illustrative nature of the nonverbal communication taking it as an 'intrinsically' coded action. Kriiger (1989: 129-31) argues that vv. 4-5 are to be understood as a request for Ezekiel to perform an expiatory rite to atone for the sin. But Ezekiel did not carry this out since such a request was considered unexecutable given the perspective (cf. 4.7) that atonement could not be made for the people. Kriiger's arguments related to the non-performance of this action are based on two questionable assumptions: (1) that 'to bear iniquity' here must mean substitutionary forgiveness, and (2) v. 6, the corollary action of lying on the other side, must be excised as a later addition. 325. Konig (1904: 176; cf. also Fohrer 1952b.31) suggests that the 'lying' of Ezek. 4.4-8 was a suitable posture to illustrate the captive condition (cf. elsewhere where the exiles are spoken of as 'sitting' in isolation). But this mistakenly assumes that the lying on both sides means exilic captivity. 'Sitting on the ground' was a conventional posture for mourning (Ezek. 26.16; cf. Gruber 1980: 460-63), and therefore fitting for the exilic experience. But 'lying on the side' is not evidenced as a conventional gesture. Also, the text interprets the 'lying' in terms of 'bearing', so that it was not the posture per se, but rather the functional character of the posture which figuratively communicated the meaning. Since the lying does not represent the siege experience, the 390 days is not to be interpreted as specifying the length of the siege (contra Planas 1955: 153). The actual siege may have been two and a half years in length, and thus well over 390 days. 326. Allen (1994: 66) and Block (1997: 180) draw the analogy to the two-part judgment oracle which consists of both accusation and announcement of punishment.

222

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The lying on the left side (likewise, the model siege and eating of siege foods) was to last for 390 days (4.4).327 In attempting to explain Ezekiel's ability to perform the action for such an extended period, rather than resorting to the explanation of physical malady, such as catalepsy or stroke, or determining that the action was physically impossible and therefore performed for only a briefer period,328 the assumption is adequate that the lying on the left side (and similarly on the right side for 40 days) was not a continuously permanent posture, but a position taken in public view only during the time when the people were cognizant of his activity. Since the actions were intended to communicate a message to the people, all that is required is that they were performed as part of Ezekiel's public ministry, and not necessarily part of his private, nonprophetic life. It is possible that during the evening, in the privacy of his home, the prophet carried on a normal life during which he was able to prepare for the next day's enactment.

327. The time factor of 390 days for these nonverbal activities need not provide a difficulty with the chronological date in Ezek. 8.1 (contra Fohrer 1955: 29). The consecutive enactment of 390 days plus 40 days results in 430 days while between the dates of 1.2 and 8.1 are a year and two months. Thus to fit the time span some maintain that the 390 and 40 must be understood concurrently, i.e. the total length was 390 days. But the dated prophecy in 8.1 need not have come after the activities of chs. 4-5 were fully completed. An alternate proposal is that after the shaving and actions with the hair in 5.1-4 (the nonverbal enactments of Jerusalem's destruction), the elders came to inquire of Ezekiel as to why God would do such a thing (8.1). The vision in chs. 8-11 was explanatory of the reason why the city was destroyed, i.e. because of the people's abominations, and how such a destruction could happen to the divinely chosen city, i.e. God's presence had departed from the Temple and the city. The reference in 8.1 to Ezekiel 'sitting* (Tr33 nt2V ^K) need not refer to a specific posture but rather more generally 'dwelling', 'residing'. With respect to the locale, the 3 can be understood in the sense of proximity (cf. Ezek. 10.15, 20; BDB 89a II. 1), so that it does not specify that Ezekiel was literally inside the house, but rather 'at his house', i.e. just outside. 328. The argument that such an action performed over such an extended period was impossible and therefore warrants the number '390' to be regarded as a late interpolation (cf. Cooke 1936: 52; Hals 1989: 33; Vogt 1959: 488-89; 1981: 103, 105; Vorwahl 1932: 77) or a cipher only verbally given but not the actual length of the nonverbal prophetic activity (cf. Keil 1976: I, 72) becomes unnecessary in light of the position, as advocated in this study, of it being a daytime performance only.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

223

6. Placing cords on the prophet. The language of 4.8 is not injunctive for Ezekiel to perform an action, but declarative of the divine imposition. That contrasting style of expression in the midst of specific injunctions indicates that the being bound was not part of the nonverbally performed sign-acts and thus the 'cords' were not literal cords.329 Although DTTaJJ, in its biblical usages, can refer to literal cords (cf. Judg. 15.13-14; 16.11-12; Job 39.10), it is also used figuratively (cf. Pss. 2.3; 129.4; Hos. 11.4; Isa. 5.18). Although the figurative meaning of 'cords' would also be consistent with the view of physical paralysis resulting from physiological or psychological illness, since no other indicators of the latter are present, such an extreme sense of 'being bound' need not be applied.330 Rather, the reference in 4.8 to God placing cords upon the prophet is a figurative way of expressing the divine enablement of the prophet to carry out daily the difficult task of remaining upon one side for an extended period.331 Since the binding, either through the use of real cords which were physically perceptible to the audience, or by acting as if he were bound by cords without literally applying them, was not part of the prophet's nonverbal communication to portray 'immobility', the condition of 'being bound' should not be interpreted as having the communicative value of depicting representationally the binding of captives going into exile, nor figuratively, the helpless conditions of the exile,332 the rigors of the siege,333 nor the battered, suffering condition during the period of sin.334 Since the emphasis of 4.8 is upon the temporal enablement of the prophet to refrain from turning from side to side until the appointed time for the switching of the lying positions occurred, it is assumed that 329. Contra Taylor 1969: 81. 330. Contra Bertholet 1897: 18-19, 26; Brownlee 1978: 395; 1986: xxxii-xxxiii, 63-64, 66; Buzy 1923: 177, 215; Cooke 1936: 54; Fuhs 1984: 34; Halperin 1993: 175, 210; Lang 1981b: 71; Lods 1950: 241; Stacey 1990: 186; Vogt 1981: 103-104; Vorwahl 1932: 77; Wevers 1969: 56; Zimmerli 1974: 146; 1979: 20, 149. 331. This is also the understanding found in the Targum: 'Behold, I decree my word upon you, like bonds of cords, so that you cannot turn from side to side.' There is no reason to attempt to link the 'binding' with magical rites of binding effigies, contra Fohrer 1968: 11; Gilbert 1985: 169. 332. Contra Greenberg 1983: 126 (the lying on the right side); Matheney 1965: 268. 333. Contra Davidson 1893: 30, 32; Eichrodt 1970: 84; Herntrich 1933: 48. 334. Contra Greenberg 1983: 125.

224

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

such does not mean a total immobility preventing facial expressions, arm movements, or verbal speech. Also commanded to be performed concurrently while in the posture of lying on the left side were the movements of setting the face, baring the arm and prophesying (4.3, 7), as well as eating and drinking (4.9-11). 4.8 has been frequently taken as a doublet of 3.25,335 but the contexts of the two verses are quite different. The action of binding with cords in 3.25, is expressed in the third-person plural in the context of the people's restrictive response to the prophet's ministry (see Chapter 2 §1.8). In 4.8 God, not the people, is the one imposing the 'cords' upon the prophet, and does so not as a response to the prophetic ministry, but as an enablement to carry out the divinely enjoined ministry. The similarity between the verses is only in the use of the metaphor of 'being bound with cords', but the image is applied to divergent situations and motivations. 7. Eating of rationed food. With the model of the siege in front of him, and facing it while lying on the left side, Ezekiel was to perform the dietary demonstration of eating, in measured portions (4.10), a mixture of grains (wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, spelt; 4.9) and drinking water in specified amounts (4.11).336 He was do so HJJ ~IU H^Q, that is, at a specified time each day (4.10-11).

335. Cf. Bertholet 1897: 22; Buzy 1923: 212-16; Cooke 1936: 46-47, 54; Eichrodt 1970: 348; Fohrer 1955: 25; Freedy 1970: 141; Fuhs 1984: 34; Herrmann 1908: 11; Keil 1976: I, 65, 77; Sherlock 1983: 296-97; Vogt 1981: 92, 102-104; Wevers 1969: 53; Zimmerli 1979: 20, 158, 160, 164-65. 336. Block (1997: 182-85) understands two separate sign-acts in v. 9 and vv. 10-11 respectively. This dichotomy is based on the assumption that v. 9 refers to a singular act of making a single loaf of bread, which then does not correlate with the rationed amounts of food in v. 10 which would result in a loaf of bread about 85 kilograms in size. Thus Block argues that v. 9 deals with making a single loaf of bread from which Ezekiel ate a small bite each day over the 390 days. Verses 10-11 refer to additional foods and water consumed in supplement to the bread of v. 9. But the adjective 'single' in v. 9 is attached only to the vessel (iriK '"7D3) in which the accumulated ingredients were to be placed. It is not attached to the making of them into bread (Dn^1? "["p DTTIK D'tol). The latter command can be easily understood as an iterative, in that each day he was to take some of the accumulated ingredients and make bread from them, just like v. 12 should be understood in an iterative sense. Verses 9 and 10 are also connected through the reiterated ifosn (vv. 9b, lOa, b), which suggests that the urh of v. 9 is the referenced "[^DtfQ of v. 10. In vv. 9-10, the commands progress in the logical sequence of preparation

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

225

Since there was no biblical injunction against the eating of mixed food,337 the point of the behavior was not to represent the uncleanness,338 but rather the scarcity of food during the time of the siege339 as noted in the accompanying verbal interpretation of 4.16-17.340 And in 5.10, the severity of the famine was described in even worse terms of cannibalism. The scarcity was nonverbally communicated through: (1) the combination of various foodstuffs which showed that during the siege every available food would be collected to provide a sufficiency for survival; (2) the placement of various foods in a single vessel341 which showed that during the siege there would not be enough of any single food to fill a vessel; and (3) the consumption of the food and water in meager portions, approximately 250 grams and a little less than a liter respectively, which showed that during the siege the food and water would

(v. 9: the ingredients and the manner in which they should be made), followed by the consumption (v. 10: the amount to be eaten and the timing). 337. The passages cited as evidence for the mixture being unclean are Lev. 19.19 and Deut. 22.9-11. But in those passages the restrictions on mixing were confined to the interbreeding of cattle, sowing fields with two kinds of seed, wearing garments of two kinds of material, and plowing with an ox and donkey yoked together. Nothing is stated which prohibits the combining of harvested food products when eaten. 338. Contra Bertholet 1897: 28; Brownlee 1986: 77; Buzy 1923: 188, 194, 23738; Eichrodt 1970: 86; Matheney 1965: 268; Planas 1955: 153. The attribution of uncleanness to 4.9 results from the misapplication of other biblical injunctions of mixtures (see preceding note) and the failure to distinguish that two types of food were spoken of in 4.9-11 and 4.12 with the uncleanness of the latter being mistakenly read back into the former. 339. Cf. Lev. 26.25-26, and on the actual conditions during the siege of Jerusalem, 2 Kgs 25.3; Jer. 37.21; 52.6; Lam. 1.11, 19; 2.12, 19; 4.3-5; 5.6, 9-10. 340. On 'breaking the staff of bread', see Ezek. 5.16; 14.13; Lev. 26.26; Ps. 105.16; Isa. 3.1. 341. The contention (cf. Wevers 1969: 56; Zimmerli 1979: 168) that the use of a single vessel meant that the original length of the enactment could not have been 390 days because the foodstuffs were liable to decay is not cogent since foods were placed in storage jars (cf. LXX's explanatory addition ei? ayyo<; ev ocrrpaiavov, which points to such a vessel) for extended periods of preservation and there is the possibility that Ezekiel at some point refilled the vessel for this public demonstration. The actions revolved around the mixture, the amount daily eaten, and the singleness of the vessel, not around the amount in the vessel.

226

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

be sparingly rationed.342 This culinary exhibit, in which the prophet performed in the role of the besieged, was representational nonverbal behavior which displayed the conditions which the Jerusalemites would experience while undergoing the Babylonians' siege. 8. Command to prophesy. The nonverbal displays were then reinforced by the accompanying verbal prophesying of the divine word. The command to prophesy (4.7) is to be understood as a command fo verbal expression.343 5.5-9 and portions of vv. 10-11 undoubtedly pro vide a summation of the verbal messages given during this period of Ezekiel's depiction of the model siege, lying on his left side, and eating the siege rations. It is not known how soon after the beginning of the nonverbal behavior Ezekiel began the verbal prophesying, but it might be assumed that sufficient time was given for the people to ponder his actions before clarification of the actions came through the verbal proclamation.344 The verbal message stunningly clarified the drawing of the city on the brick: This is Jerusalem' (5.5a). Once the identity of the city was made known, the meaning of the miniature siege machines of

342. The question has arisen as to whether this very meager diet was enough to sustain Ezekiel physically for an extended period of time (cf. Brownlee 1986: 77 It has been suggested that since the eating was part of his public ministry which focused on the amount eaten as the people watched, for his own survival, Ezekiel may have supplemented this with other food in the privacy of his home in the evening (cf. Taylor 1969: 82). But it is possible that due to Ezekiel's reduced activity, this amount may have been sufficient for survival, yet over the duration of the nonverbal portrayal the physical effects of the meager diet also became readily visible to the audience. 343. The reference to speechlessness in 3.26 cannot be understood that during the activities of chs. 4-5 the prophet was reduced to total verbal silence (contra Odell 1998: 246-47). Not only is the command given in 4.7 to 'prophesy', but 5.5 begins with the typical introductory formula for verbal proclamation: Thus says Yahweh'. Odell's (1998: 247) contention that N3J in 4.7 does not mean to prophesy, but rather means being in an ecstatic trance cannot be substantiated since the frequent use of the niphal elsewhere in Ezekiel clearly indicates it refers to verbalized proclamation of the prophetic word (e.g. 6.2-3; 11.4-5, 13; 13.2, 17-18; 21.2-3, 7-8, 14, 33; 25.2-3; 28.21-22; 29.2-3; 30.2; 34.2; 35.2-3; 36.1-3, 6; 37.4, 9,10, 12; 38.2-3, 14; 39.1). 344. The literary placement of the bulk of the verbal messages (5.5-17) after the record of the nonverbal actions cannot be used to prove that Ezekiel did not speak until all of the actions of 4.1-5.4 were finished (contra Eichrodt 1970: 87; Fuhs 1984: 34).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

227

4.2, because of their representational nature, would have been self-evident, and may not have been verbally discussed by the prophet to any further extent. Although there is no textual evidence of verbal explanations for the nonverbal behaviors of 4.3 and 7, the intransigence of the divine disposition was expressed in 5.1 Ib. The interpretive statements which explained the other accompanying 'siege' activities (4.4-5, lying = bearing the iniquity; 4.16-17, eating = scarcity of food) were undoubtedly also verbalized to the audience during the course of the actions' performances. The explanation of lying on the side as 'bearing the people's iniquity' coordinated with the complementary verbal messages of 5.6-9 which provided an indictment against the Judahites for their behavior. Those accusations justified the divine action of bringing the city under siege. 5.10a, with its repulsive statement about cannibalism, complemented the statements about the scarcity of food in 4.16-17 which interpreted the nonverbal display of famine. In 5.5-10a, there is no reference to the destruction of the city which may indicate that during this stage of the nonverbal sequence of behaviors, no verbal indication of the city's destruction was given, only that judgment—nonverbally depicted as siege—was coming. 1.9.1.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. The commencement of Ezekiel's activities must have drawn public attention when he hauled out a brick and began engraving upon it, and then, like a child playing with toy soldiers, began to build siege walls and ramps and set up battering rams against the city inscribed on the brick. Such childish actions must have aroused the interest of the fellow-citizens of his community. Although able to see clearly that Ezekiel was representing the siege of a city, the placement of the iron griddle and the posture on his side with his face set toward the griddle and the model siege, must have caused the people to wonder what message the prophet was thereby attempting to convey. As the complex of behaviors unfolded before them, the ambiguity of the actions' meanings must have kept the people's attention as they attempted to discern accurately the various meanings and the interrelationships between the different nonverbal gestures and artifacts. 2. Comprehension. The audience's evaluation of what Ezekiel was doing must have been, as is typical of any audience, interpreted through

228

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

their own belief system and their perception of Ezekiel as a prophet. Since this complex of nonverbal behaviors must be attributed to the initial phase of Ezekiel's prophetic ministry,345 the audience may not have had any preconceived notions as to the type of prophet Ezekiel was going to be. Due to the lack of any repertoire of his previous messages, they would not have known whether Ezekiel was going to be a prophet like those who were proclaiming an imminent return from exile and exhorting the people to rally around those advocating Judah's rebellion against Babylon (cf. Jer. 27-29), or whether he would be a prophet similar to Jeremiah who spoke about God's judgment against Jerusalem. The lack of Ezekiel's previous public proclamation coupled with the influence of the popular theology may have led the people to anticipate that Ezekiel would proclaim messages which favorably corresponded to their own beliefs about the future of Jerusalem. Their anticipation, coupled with the ambiguous aspects in the nonverbal behaviors, could have led the audience to some initial misconceptions of the message. But the misconceptions of understanding the actions as being favorable, would have meant the lack of producing counterarguments against Ezekiel's message, and thus resulting in a more receptive audience attitude. In the representation of the model siege (4.1-2), there was no ambiguity as to what the nonverbal artifacts represented—they illustrated the siege of a city. But there was probably ambiguity over specifics of the representation, such as what city it was and who the attackers were. Since the inscribed city may have been like that of a victory depiction showing the siege from the ground level with primarily only the outer city walls being depicted, distinctive internal characteristics of the city, such as the Temple, the royal palace, significant streets, would not have been represented. Due to the schematized nature of the drawing, regardless of whether it was a side view of the city walls or an overhead, maptype drawing, the specific identification of the city may well have been very difficult to ascertain immediately. Because of the popular theology, the audience may have thought or hoped that Ezekiel was representing the siege of Babylon itself, and thus declaring a message like

345. Regardless of whether the date in 3.16a is considered to be directly connected with chs. 4-5, the literary placement of chs. 4-5 before any other public oracles suggests that these actions were among the very first public proclamations given by Ezekiel.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

229

other prophets (cf. Jer. 27-29) who were proclaiming Babylon's imminent demise. This ambiguity was not clarified until the verbal proclamation was given by Ezekiel (4.7). If the nonverbal displays by the prophet were thus erroneously misconstrued by the audience because of their being filtered through the popular theological beliefs, the impact of Ezekiel's words 'This is Jerusalem' (5.5) must have been immensely shocking. It was a message the audience would not have anticipated hearing nor desired to hear. But their argumentative defenses would have been down, making the suasive impact more forceful. If the drawing of the city was recognizable as Jerusalem, the meaning of the action was still ambiguous as to whether the prophet was thereby depicting a future event or recreating the siege of 597 BCE (2 Kgs 24.10-11) which he and his audience had gone through. If the prophet was recounting his audience's past experiences, then the avenue was open subsequently to make a favorable statement about their imminent return from exile. Only the accompanying verbal proclamation clarified that the nonverbal activities depicted a future judgment upon the city. The ambiguity of what Ezekiel was doing was further enhanced by the combination of representational with figurative elements. The representational siege model (4.1-2) was combined with the figurative iron griddle (4.3), and these nonverbal artifacts with the concurrent nonverbal actions of the figurative lying on the left side (4.4-5) and the representational eating of the rationed food (4.9-11). These were associated with the nonverbal displays representing the divine disposition of setting the face and baring the arm (4.3, 7). While the representational nonverbal elements would have been more readily interpreted with the ambiguity being confined to specifics about the interpretations, the figurative elements would have been ambiguous even as to their meanings. Once the inscribed city was understood as Jerusalem, what did the iron griddle and the accompanying actions of setting the face and baring the arm stand for? Because of their beliefs, the audience may have hoped that the iron griddle represented the ironness and impregnability of Jerusalem's fortifications, so that they initially perceived the prophet as proclaiming a favorable oracle that the impregnable Jerusalem would withstand the onslaught of the siege. Since the image of Yahweh 'baring his arm' could have favorable connotations (cf. the sentiments of Isa. 52.10), the activities with the iron griddle could have been misunderstood as the divine warrior's disposition toward the besiegers rather than toward the city. The people may have thought that Ezekiel was

230

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

going to proclaim that God had set his face to save the city from destruction. The ambiguity of the actions left open the possibility of interpretations which were consistent with the people's viewpoint. But when accompanied by the verbal indictments against Jerusalem (5.511), the message was clarified that the prophet was not communicating a favorable oracle, but rather a menacing oracle, with the nonverbal behaviors portraying the antagonistic disposition and unrelenting hardness of God toward Jerusalem. The ambiguity was inherent not only on the level of the type of nonverbal behavior, but also in the intermingled roles assumed by Ezekiel. The prophet concurrently acted as the besieger (primarily God but also secondarily the human besiegers when placing the siege works around the city), as God (in setting the face, baring the arm), as the priestly representative of the people (when lying on the left side), and as the besieged (eating the siege food).346 Until the people understood the meaning of each of the constituent actions, they may have also misunderstood who the prophet was depicting. The ambiguity served the function of delaying full comprehension of the exact meaning of the prophet's nonverbal display. Since Ezekiel's message was that God would fight against Jerusalem, that Jerusalem would not be spared, and that the events were the result of the people's sins, it was not a message which the people would readily accept. So the delayed comprehension would have also meant a postponement of immediate rejection of Ezekiel's harsh message, giving the prophet a greater chance of both being heard and of convincing them of his position. 3. Acceptance. In the various roles assumed by the prophet, those in which he identified with the people (the lying on the side, eating the siege rations) incorporated high personal involvement for the prophet himself because of the ensuing physical affects. The lying in one position for an extended period would have been uncomfortable and possibly even painful, and the meager food consumption may have taken a physical toll. Such an intensive identity with the people should have aided in the process of persuasion. Yet at the same time the prophet performed in the role of God (through the iron griddle, in setting the 346. The rhetorical value of the prophet having concurrently assumed contrasting roles negates Davidson's (1893: 32) contention that the incongruity of the simultaneous performance of two opposite roles, i.e. besieger and besieged, points toward the actions' nonperformance.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

231

face, baring the arm) as the people's enemy and as the ultimate orchestrator of the siege. The prophet retained his authority as the divine spokesman who was able to communicate the divine hostility toward the people while simultaneously empathizing very deeply with the suffering the Jerusalemites would undergo. This part of the complex of nonverbal actions used the message strategy of 'indirect' address through depicting events which were directly pertinent to those in Jerusalem. Although what happened to Jerusalem had strong ramifications for the exilic audience, these actions did not portray what would happen to exiles, but only to the Jerusalemites. The rhetorical effect of using indirect address should have been the distancing of the audience from the message which they did not want to hear nor were ready to accept. By focusing the message on Jerusalem, rather than upon the exiles, the audience could be drawn into the message as outsiders before realizing that the message also carried major implications for themselves. As long as Jerusalem still stood and the people believed in its impregnability, they would tenaciously hold on to their hope that God was soon going to restore them to their land. By showing what would happen to Jerusalem, the prophet intended to undermine the exiles' basis for an imminent return. The prophet's message did not directly confront the people's false hope, but only indirectly commented upon it through the depictions of Jerusalem under siege, of God's attitude toward Jerusalem, and of the people's culpability for the judgment. Since the implications for the exilic audience were not explicitly expressed, the strategy of indirect address forced the audience to participate actively in the rhetorical event so as to draw out the conclusions for themselves. The nonverbal depictions also, through their graphicness and vividness, involved emotional appeals which were related not only to the strong psychological and ideological ties the audience still had with Jerusalem, but also through the emotive recollections which the actions could stimulate. Even though Ezekiel's miniature siegeworks and eating siege rations represented a future event, since the exilic audience had gone through the siege of 597 BCE (2 Kgs 24.10-11), they had actually experienced, to some degree, the besieger's efforts and the distressing existence as the besieged.347 The prophet's visual presentation 347. An empathetic memory link with the events of 597 BCE does not mean that Ezekiel was thereby actually depicting those events, contra Krtlger (1989: 135-36) who argues for a multiple sense level of Ezekiel's action that he was simultaneously

232

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

should have evoked sensitive reminiscences which increased the people's emotional involvement in the message. 4. Retention. The strategy of repetition was employed in the daily routine of lying on the left side next to the brick and eating the same food in the same manner at the same time. But repetition over an extended period can result in tedium and/or negative reaction against the message, resulting in an increase of the audience's counterarguments and a reduction in favorable response (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 239-40). The longterm monotony of Ezekiel's actions may have resulted in the people dismissing the prophet's position because of increased reaction against the annoyingly antagonistic message or ignoring it once the novelty had worn off. As the lengthy repetition of the events would have caused the interest of the people to diminish, the proclamation of verbal messages (4.7) provided a temporary contrasting deviation from the monotony thus causing the attention to focus on the verbal content. The repetition of the nonverbal behaviors therefore highlighted the verbal messages by way of contrast, making the people focus more specifically on the prophet's indictments against Jerusalem. Although interest in daily observing Ezekiel's repetitive activities may have severely waned, the issues Ezekiel raised should have maintained an interest in the subject matter, specifically as to what would be the outcome of the depicted siege. Ezekiel had spoken of the siege in terms of divine judgment, raising the question whether the divine wrath would be abated so that the siege would be lifted. Because of their popular theology, the people must have hoped that the siege encompassed the totality of the message of judgment. Other past sieges of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kgs 18.17-19.37; 24.10-16; 2 Chron. 32.9-22) had resulted in similar dire conditions as those depicted and spoken of by Ezekiel, yet previously the city had been spared by an action which was considered divine intervention. So, even though the stressful conditions of siege were portrayed by Ezekiel, it would not have necessarily negated the people's hopeful expectation that the city would be spared final destruction, thus leaving open the avenue for their return to the homeland. Such was the issue addressed by the next series of sign-acts (5.1-4).

depicting past experience (597 BCE events) as well as future expectations (586 BCE events).

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

233

1.9.2 Ezekiel 5.1-4 (5.10b, 12-17) 1.9.2.1 Communicative Meaning 1. Shaving his hair. After Ezekiel had finished the prescribed length of 390 days for the display of the model siege (cf. 5.2: TliSan -Q11 nK^QD) during which he lay on his left side and ate siege rations, he then performed the tonsorial actions as commanded in 5.1-4. Taking a sharpened sword, and using it like a barber's razor,348 he proceeded to shave off349 the hair of his head and beard resulting in baldness (5. la). The act of shaving the hair remains ambiguous as to whether it was a figurative or representational action. The depiction may have derived from the figurative language of Isa. 7.20: 'In that day, the Lord will shave the head and hair of the legs with the razor of hire from the regions beyond the River, with the King of Assyria; and it shall also remove the beard.'350 Although only a verbal metaphor for Isaiah, it became for Ezekiel a nonverbal enactment. If patterned after Isa. 7.20, Ezekiel would have been figuratively portraying the devastation of the land, that just as his head was denuded of its hair, so the land, 348. Although the comparative is not expressed, it is implied on the basis that the sword was the artifact subsequently used in v. 2 (cf. LXX, Targum, Syriac which translate it as a comparative). Thus the phrase is not in apposition, meaning 'take a sharp sword, that is, a barber's razor' (contra Greenberg 1983: 108); rather it expressed the manner in which the sword was to be used. Although H~in can mean a flint knii'e (Josh. 5.2-3) or even a chisel for cutting stone (Exod. 20.25), it is, with only one exception, used elsewhere in Ezekiel either as the literal military weapon or a metonymic figure for military force (Ezek. 5.12, 17; 6.3, 8, 11-12; 7.15; 11.8, 10; 12.14, 16; 14.17, 21; 16.40; 17.21; 21.8-25, 33; 23.10, 25, 47; 24.21; 25.13; 26.6, 8, 11; 28.7, 23; 29.8; 30.4-6, 11, 17, 21-22, 2425; 31.17-18; 32.10-12, 20-32; 33.2-3, 6, 26-27; 35.5, 8; 38.4, 8, 21; 39.23). The only exception is Ezek. 26.9 where it seems to be a cutting instrument to break down a city tower; but such a meaning is not relevant to Ezek. 5.1-2. So the meaning of 'knife' in 5.1-2 is probably not warranted (contra Cooke 1936: 57; Zimmerli 1979: 172). 349. Although n~QUn has no accusative, the grammatical coordination with the preceding phrase assumes the sword to be such. Technically the form could have a person as an accusative: 'and you shall have someone shave your head and beard' (so understood by Brownlee 1986: 83). But if such were the meaning one would expect the accusative to be expressed. Since in Ezekiel's sign-acts no other persons actively participated in the performances, it can be assumed that Ezekiel shaved himself. 350. Similar language is used in Ezek. 14.17: HJDn Ti~om fltQ ~QUn mn nnrm m«. See also Ezek. 21.8-9.

234

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

specifically Jerusalem, would become desolate and barren of its inhabitants as a result of the besiegers' activity. If the practice of shaving enemy captives was current at that time,351 then Ezekiel's action could have representationally depicted the Babylonians shaving the heads of the Jerusalemites after the former had successfully captured the city. Thus Ezekiel may have been presenting himself as a singular example of that which would occur to the captives of Jerusalem. In such cases being shaven was an indignity and the shaving was a general sign of inflicting humiliation and disgrace.352 Both the representational and figurative senses equally fit the context, although the figurative may have been primary without excluding the representational. The figurative sense of signifying the land's devastation and the concomitant humiliation which the people would suffer correlates well with the immediately following actions of the burning and chopping of the hair which signified an annihilation rather than captivity. Although the representational act of being shaven as a captive does not correlate as well with those two actions with the hair, it does correlate with the third which was scattered and with Ezekiel's subsequent presentation of exilic conditions enacted through lying on the right side and eating the unclean food. For it was precisely the shaven captives, looking just like Ezekiel in his shaven state, who would have such an existence in the foreign land. In either case, the shaving would have carried the more general figurative connotation of humiliation whether such was localized in the specific captives being personally humiliated by the act or more generally as a result of the defeat of the city. The dual aspects of being desolated and thereby humiliated were 351. On the practice in the Middle East, see Morgenstern 1973: 227; among the Romans and other cultures, see Cooper 1971: 44; for illustrations from Mesopotamia, see ANEP 298 (mid-third millennium BCE), and from Egypt, ANEP 314, 315 (1400sBCE). 352. See 2 Sam. 10.4-5 (1 Chron. 19.4-5) where the Ammonites shaved off half the beards of David's ambassadors. Cf. Herodotus's Persian Wars 2.121 for the Egyptian story of the shaving in mockery of the right side of the soldiers' beards, and in Plutarch's Lives, Agesilaus 30, that one of the penalties for deserters in battle was to have half their beards shaved off. Firth (1973: 289-90), in analyzing the social understanding of the enforced cutting of hair, maintains that it conveys contempt because of reduction in social status. The removal of the hair signifies a destruction, or alteration, of personality. In Ezekiel's case, the lowering of status would have been to that of captive slave which also meant, for Jerusalem, the destruction of its corporate personality.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

235

brought out in the accompanying verbal interpretation in 5.14-15 by the declarations that the city would be a desolation (m~in, 5.14—a play on Tin in 5.1), thus being humiliated by becoming a reproach (HEnn, 5.15) and a reviling (riSTW, 5.15) for the nations round about. Although the act of shaving can bear a multiplicity of meanings dependent upon contextual usage,353 the other most frequent interpretation of Ezekiel's action is that it was an act of mourning.354 Although 353. Tn various cultures, hair is shaven at many diverse times and for divergent circumstances: (1) The act of shaving can substitute for the life of a person who should die. (2) The shaven hair can be offered to the deity to fulfil a vow. (3) It could serve as a rite of passage involving social status as when a woman reaches marriageable age, a young man reaches puberty, a wife divorces her husband, a person becomes a prisoner, a prisoner is released, a person becomes a slave, or a slave is given freedom. (4) It can be performed at the transition from a state of ritual uncleanness to cleanness as with the foreign, female captive taken by an Israelite (Deut. 21.12), when one converts to the Islamic faith, when a leper is cured (Lev. 14.8), when a traveller returns from a journey, or when the exilee returns from captivity. (5) It can be performed at the transition from a state of consecration back to normal life as in the Nazarite vow (Num. 6.1-21), when a warrior returns home after a campaign, or by a celebrant at the conclusion of religious festivals. (6) In some contexts, shaving is a legal punishment for such cases as raising a finger against a priestess, for bearing false witness, for blasphemy of parents, or for adultery. (7) Shaving can be done simply for personal hygiene. (On the numerous connotations of shaving the hair, see Botterweck 1978; Cooper 1971; Firth 1973: 28890; Greengus 1969; Hallpike 1987; Kilmer 1974: 180; Konig 1904: 171; Lindblom 1962: 68-69; McCurley 1968: 160, 176-77; Morgenstern 1973: 84-106; Sikes and Gray 1955; Thompson 1908: 146-48; Trau, Rubin and Vargon 1988.) In view of the multiplicity of contexts and connotations of shaving the hair, Ezekiel's shaving must be interpreted in the context of communicating a message about the destruction of Jerusalem rather than just arbitrarily being likened to other external uses and significances of hair. So comparisons of Ezekiel's actions with the hair to the Babylonian ritual for curing (cf. Watson 1982: 194), to unconscious castration fancies (cf. Broome 1946: 289; Halperin 1993: 229-30), become irrelevant for determining either the origin or meaning of Ezekiel's usage. When Ezekiel's actions are viewed as illustrators for the purpose of rhetorical communication, there is no reason to seek affinities with either the actions or the theological presuppositions of homeopathic magic where what happened to the hair would also happen to the person (contra Fohrer 1955: 34; 1968: 54-55; Rosen 1968: 47). 354. Cf. Cooke 1936: 57; Fuhs 1984: 33; Taylor 1969: 85; Uehlinger 1987: 18485; Wevers 1969: 56; Zimmerli 1979: 172. Ezek. 7.14-18 speaks of the survivors mourning with baldness on their heads (v. 18). Jer. 41.5 also refers to the people shaving in mourning after Jerusalem's fall.

236

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

shaving as a mourning custom to express grief was a common practice,355 Ezekiel's action probably was not carried out as that conventional activity. The role in which Ezekiel was performing does not correlate with that understanding of the action. In all the subsequent actions performed specifically with the hair, Ezekiel functioned in the role of God/besieger. If the shaving was performed to depict representationally the inhabitants mourning over the city's destruction, then Ezekiel would have had to perform that solitary hair-related action in the role of the people. Such suggests that the act of shaving (an active gesture) was also performed in the divine role and thus it did not depict a self-imposed emotive response by the people. As a mourning custom, shaving was an external, nonverbal display of the sorrow being experienced, whereas shaving when imposed by the enemy conqueror (either figuratively as in Isa. 7.20, or literally of captives) was part of the inflicted humiliation. By being the one shaved, Ezekiel assumed the role of the people of the city; by being the one doing the shaving, Ezekiel performed in the role of God/the enemy besieger.356 Ezekiel thus simultaneously combined in himself the passive role of the people receiving the judgment and the active role of God wielding the instrument of judgment.

355. Cf. Amos 8.10; at the death of an individual: Jer. 16.6; ANET 88 (Gilgamesh pulls out his hair in mourning for Enkidu); Ug 67 [5], 6.18-19 (Latipan for Baal); as the result of the devastation of war: Ezek. 7.18; 27.31; Jer. 41.5; 47.5; 48.37; Isa. 15.2; in anticipation of a coming dreadful event: Isa. 22.12; Mic. 1.16; in response to sin: Jer. 7.29; in response to a distressing situation: Job 1.20; Merodach-Baladan IPs response upon learning that the Elamites would not deliver him from Sargon (cited in Gruber 1980: 472). (On shaving as a mourning ritual, see Benzinger and Hirsch 1904: 157-58; Botterweck 1978: 10-12; Farbridge 1923: 23738; Gruber 1980: 471-72; McCurley 1968: 194; Morgenstern 1973: 105-106; Vorwahl 1932: 12-13.) 356. If SJ~ON in 5.11 is an allusion to the act of shaving, then God proclaims himself as the one performing the action. In Isa. 15.2 and Jer. 48.37, JHJ bears the technical sense 'to shave', which can be retained here in 5.11, rather than the sense of 'to withdraw', 'to diminish' (contra Davidson 1893: 39; Keil 1976: I, 91-92; Wevers 1969: 58), or 'to consume' (contra G. Driver [1954: 148] deriving it from an Arabic root 'to swallow down'). Cf. the Targum's use of the root i)";3 for the Hebrew n^J in Judg. 16.19 and 2 Sam. 10.4. The Versions renderings in 5.11 (the LXX's presumed ffl~U or ^JJJ; Vulgate's and Targum's presumed D13) can be understood as resulting from attempts to translate a difficult text or as copyists' errors.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

237

2. Weighing the hair. Once the shaving was completed, Ezekiel took a balance scale and weighed out the shaven hair into three equal groups (5.1b).357 The meticulous dividing of the hair was not specifically interpreted. Yet the manner of the action must have left the impression of exactitude in the whole process implying that God was not meting out judgment haphazardly, but rather in a very deliberate and determined way.358 3. Actions with the three portions of hair. A third of the hair Ezekiel burned in fire359 upon the inscribed brick of the city (5.2a).360 Another third, the prophet was to strike with the sword round about the model city (5.2b). Although not expressed how he was to strike the hair, it might be presumed that he dispersed it on the ground all around the city-brick and as it lay there, vehemently slashed away with the sword so that the hairs were cut into smaller pieces. The last third, he was to scatter to the wind (5.2c). One can imagine Ezekiel taking that third, and as a breeze was blowing he allowed the hair to be wafted away, landing at a distance from the model city. If the phrase, 'and 361

357. In 5.2, the LXX's reading of 'fourth part' plus the expansion of KOI Xr|u\|/T) TO TEiapTov Kai KaTCtKccuoeii; CCUTO ev neocp axnfic are clearly secondary due t the understanding in 5.12 of famine and pestilence as two separate items (cf. Allen 1994: 51; Buzy 1923: 243-44; Cooke 1936: 57; Zimmerli 1979: 150). 358. On the imagery of balance scales and weighing being used with respect to judgment, see Prov. 21.2 and Dan. 5.27. 359. T.8 as a synonym for tf« is attested in Isa. 44.16; 47.14 (cf. Isa. 31.9; 50.11). The choice of the term may have been deliberate because of the consonantal and vocalic alliteration in TOT -Jinn TJnn T«3 (cf. Greenberg 1983: 108; Zimmerli 1979: 151). Watson (1982: 196-97) suggests that since the meaning of TK as 'fire' is redundant after the command to burn the hair, it should be translated 'on the roof so that it fits more closely with the Babylonian ritual of curing which was performed on the rooftops. His suggestion is a slavish attempt to correlate it with the Babylonian magical ritual to which Ezekiel's actions had no affinity outside of the artifacts of hair, a balance, and the hem of a garment. Such external similarities are not sufficient to equate meanings (cf. Uehlinger 1987: 186-87), rather only the contextual use of the artifacts suffices to do so. In these two cases, a ritual for curing sickness and a communication about destruction are totally antithetical. 360. That TOT was the city inscribed on the brick is evidenced from 4.1, 3 where the same term is used without qualifiers for such. 361. Reading pnn for p'"lK. The textual error of interchange can be explained by the similarity of D fortf in the paleo-Hebrew script.

238

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

shall unsheathe the sword after them', was part of the original action,362 it would mean that the prophet was to follow after the blowing hair with drawn sword, possibly slashing at it in imitation of the swordbearer who was the force driving the hair forward and also expressive of the reality that judgment, that is, the sword, would pursue those who were fleeing and going into exile (cf. the interpretation in 5.12).363 While the prophet performed in the role of God, but historically that of the besiegers, his activities with the three portions of hair combined figurative and representational features in portraying what was to happen to the Jerusalemites. The fire in the brick-city figuratively depicted death by starvation and disease (5.12) during the siege as well as representationally illustrated the city's fiery architectural destruction (cf. 2 Kgs 25.8-9; 2 Chron. 36.19; Jer. 39.8). In both cases, the entrapped inhabitants who would die because of the famine and literal inferno were figuratively portrayed by the individual hairs. The burning by fire, as an inclusive sign of those who would die in the siege and in the destruction, provided a transitional nonverbal action between the preceding siege and famine portrayals (4.1-5, 7-11) and the subsequent depictions of the destruction (5.2b). The smiting with the sword (5.2b) representationally depicted those who would be slain by the enemy soldiers (5.12). Within the three activities with the three hair portions there is clearly a movement of widening concentric circles away from the model city: (1) hair is burned 'in the midst of the city'; (2) hair is struck 'round about it'; and (3) hair is scattered, implicitly, 'further away from the city'. This same concentric arrangement occurs in the interpretation of v. 12. Such seems to imply that those slain by the sword referred to those who survived the siege 362. If the first person p'~lR is retained, then the phrase must be considered part of the interpretation and not part of the action performed by the prophet (cf. Allen 1994: 71; Block 1997: 194). The phrase has often been assumed to be a secondary addition from v. 12 (cf. Cooke 1936: 58; Cornill 1886: 202; Fohrer 1951: 40, 51; 1955: 33; Stacey 1990: 189-90; Uehlinger 1987: 115, 119-20; Wevers 1969: 57; Zimmerli 1979: 151) or based on Lev. 26.33 (cf. Greenberg 1983: 109). But if the emendation suggested above is accepted, then the phrase is in its proper place as referring to Ezekiel's action and then subsequently interpreted in v. 12 as God's action. 363. There is similar imagery in Ezek. 12.14; Lev. 26.33, 36-37; and Jer. 9.15. This may be another instance of where Ezekiel nonverbally enacted an already existing verbal image which he took either from Jeremiah's utterances or from the priestly tradition as expressed in Lev. 26.33.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

239

efforts (i.e. survived the death by 'fire') and were executed by the Babylonians when the city fell. The specification of the locale of smiting the survivors correlates well with records which recount the mass execution of captured prisoners which occurred subsequent to a successful siege in the presence of the conquering king whose camp was located outside the conquered city (cf. 2 Kgs 25.18-19; 2 Sam. 8.2),364 as well as with the nonsystematic slaughter of those who attempted to escape the besieged city (cf. 2 Kgs 25.7). But the specification of who the slain are should probably not be made too precise, that is, whether only the defenders of the city (cf. Eichrodt 1970: 87; Taylor 1969: 84), or only the inhabitants who sought to escape the besieged city (cf. Bertholet 1897: 30; Davidson 1893: 36; Zimmerli 1979: 173), or only the inhabitants slaughtered during the razing of the city (cf. Wevers 1969: 57). Rather the smiting could signify more generally all those who died by the sword regardless of the status in which they fell. The scattering to the wind figuratively illustrated the dispersion of the survivors (5.12). Whereas the dispersion of the people in judgment is often concretized as being 'scattered among the nations' (cf. Lev. 26.33; Pss. 44.12; 106.27; Ezek. 12.15; 20.23; 22.15; of Egyptians: 29.12; 30.23, 26), here the nonverbal throwing of the hair to the wind was a literal enactment of the verbal metaphor 'scattering to the wind' (cf. Ezek. 5.10, 12; 12.14; cf. the people of Razor, Jer. 49.32; Elam, Jer. 49.36). The scattering probably had reference both to those who voluntarily fled into the surrounding areas (cf. Ezek. 7.16; Zedekiah's attempt in 2 Kgs 25.4-5) and nations (cf. Jer. 42-43) and to those who were involuntarily forced into exile by the besiegers. 4. Binding some of the hairs. Once the actions with the three parts of hair were finished, Ezekiel was to display nonverbally further ramifications of what would happen to the scattered portion of hair (5.3-4).365 364. Cf. also such mass slaughterings during the military campaigns of Ashurnasirpal II, ANET 276b; Sennacherib, ANET 288a; Ashurbanipal, ANET 300c. 365. Ezek. 5.3-4 have frequently been considered later actions or literary additions which were not originally associated with vv. 1-2 (e.g. Brownlee 1986: 81-82, 84; Buzy 1923: 244-45, 247; Cooke 1936: 57-58; Fohrer 1951: 44, 51; 1952b: 188; 1955: 33; 1968: 52-53; Fuhs 1984: 36; HOlscher 1924: 61-63; Reventlow 1962: 23; Stacey 1990: 189-90; Uehlinger 1987: 118-19; Wevers 1969: 27, 53, 56; Zimmerli 1979: 173-74; 1980: 182-83). The removal of vv. 3-4 is based primarily on the premise that in vv. 1-2 the hair was totally disposed of, thereby depicting total annihilation. It is then argued that this contradicts the more developed concept of a remnant which is found in vv. 3-4.

240

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

So from that last third of hair which was lying dispersed in all directions around him,366 Ezekiel was to take a small portion ("ISOQD CDUQ) and bind it367 in the hem of his garment. This probably is to be understood as placing the hairs into the carrying pouch of the garment which was formed by tucking the long extremities of the tunic into the waistsash. The action was figurative as it employed the metaphorical understanding of being bound in the edge of the garment which had the positive connotation of being protected and preserved.368 Ezekiel here Against this, it is argued that vv. 1-2 do not present total annihilation of the inhabitants of the city. Smit (1971: 47-49) argues that Ezekiel, in the smiting, burning and scattering, was employing the stereotypical concepts of total obliteration. It should be noted that there is a significant difference between the parallels Smit presents for this typical concept of total obliteration (e.g. Exod. 32.20; Deut. 9.21; Ug 49 [6], 2.31-36; 5.9-19) and Ezekiel's actions: in the former the destruction dealt with a single entity which was or became inanimate (the golden calf, Mot) while Ezekiel's object was a corporate, animate group. It would be proper to say that Ezekiel depicted that Jerusalem, as an entity, was totally obliterated because all of its people suffered death or scattering. But such a pronouncement deals with the corporate identity and existence, not with the individual constituents, some of whom survived the corporate catastrophe. Thus Ezekiel's action allows for a remnant. Also, there is no indication in vv. 1-2 that the last third of hair was totally destroyed or became nonexistent when it was scattered. In fact, the contrary is true since the interpretation of the scattered hair as those taken captive into the foreign land means their continued existence. So the theme of remnant, which is found in other parts of Ezekiel (cf. 6.8-10; 12.16; 14.21-23), is not excluded by the actions of vv. 1-2, but was an implicit part of it. The elimination of vv. 3-4 also falters when the relevance factor of the message for Ezekiel's immediate audience is taken into consideration. Although speaking of the yet to come exile after the fall of Jerusalem, the message of continued judgment in exile was just as applicable to his fellow exiles and was pivotal in Ezekiel's persuasive attempts. Thus vv. 3-4 seem crucial to the move from 'indirect' address to 'direct' address. 366. C27Q, in 5.3, refers to where the hairs were scattered not 'from the city' (contra Brownlee 1986: 81, 83-84; Wevers 1969: 57). Brownlee's (1986: 81) and Holscher's (1924: 63) argument that to recover hair scattered to the wind would be problematic and therefore the actions of vv. 1-2 could not be enacted together with vv. 3-4 as real dramatizations is cogent only if one thinks, unrealistically, in terms of gale-force winds. 367. A verbal play occurs over the opposite connotations of TK: in 5.3 it means to bind the hair in the positive sense of protection while in 4.3 it means to besiege the city in a negative, destructive manner (cf. Greenberg 1983: 109-10). 368. See 1 Sam. 25.29 for binding as a figure of protection. For a similar

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

241

assumed the role of God, so that the act of protecting referred to the divine action in respect to a portion of those scattered.369 Since the scattering of the hair did not in any way imply the extinction of the people, but only their dispersion, Ezekiel's act of binding some of the hairs communicates more than just the concept of the dispersed people's survival. The action created a distinction between survivors of the destruction (the dispersed hairs still remaining on the ground) and a preserved remnant (the ones bound in the garment). The latter, it is presumed were under divine favor, possibly because of their moral righteousness (cf. Ezek. 14.12-20). Undoubtedly it was among the unbound survivors that Ezekiel would have grouped the wicked who, in other places, he acknowledged would also survive the city's destruction (cf. 12.16; 14.21-23). 5. Burning some of the hairs. In 5.4, the referent of the suffix on DHQ1 is understood, not as the hair placed in his garment,370 but the last third of hair which was scattered and still lying on the ground. Such an interpretation is warranted since "TIU carries the sense of repeating the previous action which dealt with the scattered hair specified in v. 3. Thus Ezekiel was to pick up some of the scattered hairs and cast them into the fire (5.4). The 'fire' in which the hair was to be burned was undoubtedly that of the burning model city (v. 2). The actions of v. 4 with respect to the 'fire' appear to be parallel in meaning to the last phrase of 5.2, 'and shall unsheathe a sword behind them'. Both statements meant that those scattered were not totally safe from the judgment which is metonymically referred to as 'sword' in 5.2 and 'fire' in 5.4.371 Thus in 5.4, 'fire' has taken on the

meaning, in a Mesopotamian context, of divine protection through the imagery of being tied into the hem of the deity's garment, see Malul 1988: 195-96. 369. If the custom was practiced at that time of wearing tassels with a blue cord (cf. Num. 15.37-39; Deut. 22.12), then the divine aspect and covenantal relationship would have been visually reinforced through that nonverbal artifact when the binding in the edges of the garment was performed by the prophet (cf. Brownlee 1986: 83). 370. Contra Allen 1994: 72; Block 1997: 195; Cooke 1936: 58; Fuhs 1984: 36; Greenberg 1983: 110; Keil 1976:1, 84; Taylor 1969: 85; Vorwahl 1932: 78. 371. In Ps. 78.63-64 the imagery of 'sword' and 'fire' are also combined when speaking of the divine judgment.

242

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

broader connotation of generalized judgment,372 not just pestilence or a literal conflagration within the confines of the city walls as in 5.2. Judgment would come upon some of the survivors of the city's destruction. Of those scattered by their own volition (those who attempted to escape and flee to safety in the hills around Jerusalem), some would end up being caught and put to death (e.g. Zedekiah's sons in 2 Kgs 25.7) and thus suffer the same fate as those killed in the city (cf. Ezek. 33.27). Although Ezekiel was to throw the hairs into the fire on the burning model city, this does not mean that the fleeing survivors would be literally brought back to the city where they would suffer judgment. Rather the aspect of judgment is the significant element, not necessarily the specific locale where the judgment occurs. By using the fire on the brick, it implies that the survivors' fates were similar to and bound up with that of the city. Likewise among those scattered involuntarily (captives taken into exile), the exile was not to be assumed to be exclusively a situation of safety (being bound in the edge of God's garment), but, according to the MT,373 was also a position in which the continued work of judgment would be experienced: 'from it [the fire of judgment burning in the city],374 fire [of judgment] will go out to all the house of Israel' (5.4). God's punishments would not be finalized with the destruction of Jerusalem, but would continue to exact their toll upon those who were in exile.375 372. On 'fire' as a general term for unspecified judgment in Ezekiel, see 15.4-7; 21.3-4, 37; 22.19-22; 28.18; 30.8, 14, 16; 39.6. 373. The LXX has a quite different rendering of 5.4b: 'and say to the house of Israel' (KOI epeu; uav-d OIKCQ lapaqX). 374. The masculine suffix on 1]QQ probably refers to GJK and is either a scribal error or evidence of the weakening of grammatical gender distinctions (cf. Block 1997: 190). The suggestion that the referent of the suffix was the whole of the signacts of chs. 4-5 in the sense that from them, as divine proclamations, the judgment was set in motion (cf. Greenberg 1983: 110; Keil 1976: I, 85) seems improbable both because it does not use an immediate contextual referent and because it presupposes an unattested quasi-magical nature to the sign-acts. Nor is the referent of the suffix the surviving 'remnant' (contra Davidson 1893: 37) since the judgment was not coming out from them but rather upon them. 375. This same concept is expressed in Ezek. 15.7, and similarly in Jer. 29.18 and in the proclamations of Jer. 42^14 of continued judgment of sword, famine and pestilence upon those in Egypt who thought themselves safe in their voluntary exile (esp. 42.13-22; 43.8-13 [see Chapter 2 §3.1]; 44.11-14, 27).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

243

1.9.2.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. After the long period of the siege depictions' monotonous repetition and immobility in lying on the side, the mere change in behavior, coupled with the new behavior's plethora of movement, should have stirred audience interest because of its stark contrast to the former's stagnant inactivity.376 When viewing the siege depictions, the people may have wondered what, if anything, would the prophet do next? Because of their theological presuppositions, they may have hoped that the prophet, after having depicted Jerusalem under siege, would depict God's deliverance of the city from its enemy besiegers. So when Ezekiel initially took the sword, they may have wondered if he would use it to destroy the siege weapons around the model city showing that the period of punitive judgment for Jerusalem was now completed and God was again graciously disposed toward his people. The bizarre nature of what the prophet was doing—shaving himself bald, meticulously dividing his hair into three parts, burning part of it, flailing away at another part with the sword, scattering the rest to the wind, then regathering part of it, placing some in his garment but burning other regathered hairs—must have retained the audience's attention throughout the full sequence of actions. 2. Comprehension. The initial action of shaving off all of his head hair should have caused the people consternation since Ezekiel, a member of the priestly family, was performing an action which as part of the priestly regulations was prohibited (cf. as a prohibition for the general populace, Lev. 19.27; Deut. 14.1; and specifically for the priests not to do such, Ezek. 44.20; Lev. 21.5). The shaving and weighing of the hair may have initially created uncertainty as to their meanings, but once the subsequent actions with the hair in association with the model were performed, the meanings would have become more evident. Following the actions of siege, the hair-related actions (5.1-4) would have been perceived as the sequential culmination of destruction. The only obscurity in meaning might have been with some of the specific nuances of the figurative actions and artifacts (the fire being a depiction of famine and pestilence as well as literal fire; the shaving indicating humiliation)

376. Cf. Oliver (1957: 122-23): 'If a stimulus persists regularly and monotonously, it loses its attention value... [T]he sudden cessation of... any longcontinued stimulus will of itself attract the attention.'

244

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

but even then the general message-content should have been readily comprehended. 3. Acceptance. The message portrayed by Ezekiel, that Jerusalem with its inhabitants would be systematically destroyed, was contrary to the expectations of the exiles as it postulated that all the objective bases for their hope of returning home would be eliminated. The issues were thus ones of high personal involvement for the audience, making the antithetical viewpoint of the prophet more difficult to accept. Equally difficult for the audience to accept would have been the prominent theme of God being Judah's enemy and the blurred distinction between God and the foreign besiegers. Although in 4.1-3, 7, God was portrayed as the ultimate source of the siege, that concept did not have the harshness of the portrayal in 5.1-2 of God as the destroyer of the city. The former could have been assimilated by the people's belief system, in that God would punitively judge his people (as was done in 597 BCE); but the latter, that God would bring a complete end to Jerusalem, ran contrary to their tenets of God being their covenant-bound protector. To the people, the 'sword of Yahweh' was an image of God's judgmental execution against Israel's enemies.377 But here Ezekiel used that image in an ironical sense of judgment against Jerusalem.378 The further contention that the divine action of destruction was to be realized historically through the pagan enemy Babylon, must have caused the people to react negatively against Ezekiel's message. To counteract the reaction against a message which the audience would not accept, one of the suasive techniques the prophet employed was the source strategy of high speaker involvement. The prophet's voluntary performance of the prohibited action of shaving his own hair, must have reinforced in the audience's mind that the prophet was not performing an action of personal preference, but that which had been enjoined upon him as a prophetic messenger. Since priestly shaving was forbidden, Ezekiel, as a result of being shaved, must have felt personal humiliation quite apart from that which he was attempting to communicate about Jerusalem. This high personal involvement should

377. On the 'sword' being used against Edom, see Ezek. 25.13; against Sidon, Ezek. 28.23; against Egypt, Ezek. 30.24-25; 32.10. See also Deut. 32.41; Isa. 31.8; 34.5-8; 66.16; Jer. 25.31; 50.35-37; Zeph. 2.12. 378. See Ezekiel's similar thematic use of the sword of judgment being wielded by God against Israel in 6.3; 11.8; 12.14; 14.17, 21; 21.8-25.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

245

have increased the prophet's credibility, thus aiding in the prophet's suasive intent. Ezekiel also employed the source strategies of combining the roles in which he depicted himself. While shaving and performing the subsequent actions with the hair, Ezekiel acted in the role of God/the besieger, a role which would have created a greater distance between himself and the audience. Yet, by being the one shaven he simultaneously assumed the role of the people. By being in the shaven state while performing the subsequent actions, the identity with the people was still visually present to the audience. The latter identity with the audience should have enhanced the people's receptivity to the message. The message strategy of vivid depiction undoubtedly helped the people visualize what the destruction of Jerusalem would be like. But the action involved not only the sense of sight, but also smell as the stench of the burning hair (5.2, 4) replicated the smell of the city and its inhabitants being burned. The depictions of destruction played upon the people's emotions of fear and horror in the attempt to convince them that their hopes in Jerusalem's survival would not be verified. If, in fact, some of the audience had been shaven when taken into captivity after the siege of 597 BCE, then Ezekiel's tonsorial act would have evoked strong emotional responses because of the empathic link with the people's own past experiences. This group of nonverbal activities formed the transition point in the complex of actions (chs. 4-5) both in its message emphasis and in style of address. The shift in style of address was from indirect address to direct address. Prior to this Ezekiel was displaying actions which showed what would happen to the people living in Jerusalem. The primary referent point of the actions was the Jerusalemites, not his immediate exilic audience. This indirect address continued up to the point of the scattering of the hair to the wind. At that juncture, Ezekiel began portraying the exilic situation which had direct implications and applications for his immediate exilic audience. Even though the immediate historical referent of his action was the future destruction of the city and the subsequent exile of the remaining population, Ezekiel's audience was already situated in the exile and would thus participate in a conjoined fate with those yet to be exiled. This shift to direct address involved a shift in the argumentative emphasis of the message. Although both the indirect and direct forms of address implied that the hope of an imminent return was ill-founded, the former did so by

246

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

showing that the survival of Jerusalem, to which the immediate exilic audience had linked their hopes, was misdirected. The latter direct address countered the exiles' hope by focusing on the exiles' need to accommodate themselves to the reality of an extended exilic experience. Rhetorically, this strategy of shifting from indirect to direct address should have been very effective. When visually experiencing a replication of the siege of the city and then its destruction, Ezekiel's immediate audience may have felt a sense of relief that they, by already being in exile, were the fortunate ones to have escaped the ferocity of the divine wrath. Although their immediate hopes for a quick return to their home would be shattered by the destruction of Jerusalem, at least they would be spared the fate of the two-thirds who were destroyed. But any illusion of their escaping the judgment of God by their being in exile was negated by the subsequent actions with the scattered hair which showed that the punishments—the sword (5.2, unsheathed after them) and fire (5.4)—would continue among the dispersed. Although the prominent persuasive incentive in those actions was that of punishment, the binding of a few hairs in the edge of his robe (5.3) was based on the incentive of reward, that is, some of them would be saved and protected. The impact of the preponderance of judgment themes may have been blunted by its combination with this single note of hope, yet at the same time the addition of the latter element may have made the people more amenable to accepting the totality of his message. Although Ezekiel may not have included his immediate audience in the category of those who would be divinely protected, the exilic spectators may have perceived themselves in that position, so that they may have been willing to accept the veracity of the predictions of doom while still being able to extricate themselves from the implications that they too deserved judgment. 4. Retention. The performance of the actions of 5.1-4 must have lasted only a brief time, yet the actions contained a significance element which would have helped the people continually remember the actions for quite some time. Because Ezekiel had shaved off all of his headhair, his baldness served as a residual reminder of the whole sequence of actions dealing with the hair. Since it took an extended period for his hair to grow back, the bald condition followed by the growth of stubbly hair kept the remembrance of the actions and its message visually before the people. Thus, until his hair had sufficiently grown back,

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

247

every subsequent public appearance of the prophet could have caused the people to rehearse again mentally the previous prophetic activities. 1.9.3 Ezekiel4.6, 12, 14-15(4.13) 1.9.3.1 Communicative Meaning 1. Lying on the right side. Once Ezekiel had moved to direct address in speaking of the issue of exile (5.2-4) which was relevant to his immediate exilic audience, he continued the theme of the divine judgment's continuation after Jerusalem's destruction. He lay on his right side to portray the period of punishment for the sin379 of the 'house of Judah' (4.6). Previously Ezekiel had been lying on the left side facing the model city (4.1-5, 7). Now on the other side, it can be assumed that he was facing away from the brick which was blackened by the fire which had burned the hairs (5.2). The prophet's inability to see the brick-city which was now behind him would have heightened the message that he was depicting the people's physical separation from, and thereby their inability to see, Jerusalem. The length of lying, 40 days, indicated that the exile would not be just a quickly passing phenomenon as the people were hoping and as they were being told by other prophets (cf. Jer. 27-29). Rather it would be a long-term proposition lasting for at least a generation, as indicated by the 40 days (= 40 years).380 The implication for the immediate audience was that the end of the exile was not a matter which would be of personal benefit to themselves (cf. Jer. 29: 70 years), but relevant only for the next generation. 2. Eating the unclean food. By lying on the right side, Ezekiel nonverbally depicted both the punishment and length of exile; and in the eating of food which was made unclean by the cooking conditions (4.12-15), he emphasized the type of existence the people would have 379. As discussed previously, in 4.6, ]1U has the connotation of 'punishment for sin' in contrast to 4.4's 'culpability for sin'. Galloway (1861: 43) tries to maintain the sense of 'culpability' in both verses, and thus argues that the 40 years for Judah stood for the period under Solomon prior to the division of the kingdom. But such seems unnecessary given the other exilic references in chs. 4—5. 380. The 40 years is understood as a round number, designating a generation, like the 40 years' punishment of remaining in the wilderness (Num. 14.28-35) until that current generation had perished.

248

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

in exile. Since any land except that of Israel was considered unclean, any food grown and eaten in a foreign country was ipso facto unclean, rendering the eaters ceremonially unclean.381 This condition of uncleanness, figuratively presented in Ezekiel's cookery, was that in which the exiles would continue their prolonged existence.382 The prophet was first commanded (4.12) to bake his cakes of barley upon human excrement: 'And a barley cake,383 you shall eat;384 and as for it, you shall bake it in human balls of excrement in their sight.' The common method was to bake bread on hot stones (1 Kgs 19.6) or on an iron griddle. But for dramatic and communicative purposes, the command seems to imply that the dough was to be placed directly in the embers of the burning dung,385 as the preposition D, in contrast to ^U in 4.15, infers. The LXX's eyKpt)(|)iav (cakes baked in hot ashes) and EyKp-uxj/eK; also suggest that the bread was to be baked in direct contact with the dung. It is specified that the cooking was to be done in the sight of the people (DiTTD1?) since it was only through the people's actual observation of the method of preparation that they would have an awareness of the food's uncleanness.

381. Cf. Hos. 9.3; Amos 7.17; Josh. 22.19; Dan. 1.8; Tob. 1.10-12. 382. It is going too far, as does Kriiger (1989: 133), to understand in the eating an allusion to ritual practices such as fasting, with the uncleanness of the food thereby negating the effect of such rituals which are seeking atonement. 383. The singulars of v. 12 need not mean that this was to be a one-time act (contra Buzy 1923: 190, 239). By analogy to the culinary instructions in vv. 9-11, the use of the singular may have meant that the prophet was to eat a single cake baked in that manner each day while lying on the right side. 384. rcfo^D: the feminine suffix is resumptive because of the casus pendens construction and refers to 'cake' (cf. Buzy 1923: 189-90; Greenberg 1983: 107), not to the masculine UT\~> in v. 9 or ^DKQ in v. 10 (contra Allen 1994: 51; Bertholet 1897: 28; Fohrer 1955: 31; Keil 1976: I, 81; Zimmerli 1979: 149, 170). The latter view, which requires reading an unexpressed comparison ('and like/as a barley cake you shall eat it', i.e. cooked on hot stones as opposed to wheat cakes cooked in an oven [Cooke 1936: 55], or treating the preparation like that of barley cakes [Keil 1976:1, 78, 81; Zimmerli 1979: 170]), comes from the wrong assumption that the commands about the food in vv. 9-10 are continued in v. 12 (similarly the LXX reading aired). That the command to eat the barley cake in v. 12 is unrelated to the food of vv. 9-10 is clearly made through the suffix attached to 'TOtfn in v. 12 being feminine while in vv. 9-10 the same verb (three times) bears the masculine suffix. 385. There is no need to assume that Ezekiel used the iron griddle mentioned in 4.3 (contra Fohrer 1955: 32; Uehlinger 1987: 178).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

249

But Ezekiel vehemently objected to the abhorrent uncleanness of human excrement (4.14).386 His objection was expressed in terms of his personal adherence to the ritual scruples of food consumption. The unclean foods mentioned in Ezekiel's objection correlated with the character of the unclean food the prophet was commanded to eat. The foods were not inherently unclean, but only became unclean because of the external conditions. Just as the animals, which were clean to eat, became unclean when they died a natural death (n'TO!!)387 or were killed by other animals (rfDItO),388 and the sacrificial food which was eaten became unclean when it became leftovers (^IK),389 so too the barley cakes only became unclean by their contact with the dung.390 Just so, food which would have been clean in Israel became unclean by virtue of its being grown and prepared in a foreign land. The uncleanness was not inherent, but derived.391 Because of Ezekiel's objection, the compromise of cattle dung (4.15) was made. Apparently animal dung used for cooking purposes was 386. On the defiling nature of human excrement, see Deut. 23.12-14. Some commentators suggest that the use of human dung indicated a shortage of fuel (an assumption made when v. 12 is considered a siege sign, as done by Allen 1994: 69; Fohrer 1955: 33; Garner 1980: 179; Uehlinger 1987: 182-83). But such is obviated by the compromise to use animal dung, one of the very things which was supposedly in short supply which necessitated the prophet's use of human excrement. It is better to assume that the human dung was originally to be used because of its ability to signify extreme uncleanness. 387. Cf. Ezek. 44.31; Deut. 14.21; Lev. 7.24; 11.40; 22.8; 17.15. Since Ezekiel's objection concerned eating, n^D] must be understood in the sense of the carcass of a clean animal. When the term was used of the carcasses of inherently unclean animals, the prohibition was against even touching the dead animals (cf. Lev. 5.2; 11.8, 11, 24-25, 27-28, 35-38; Deut. 14.8). Thus a statement about eating such would be superfluous. 388. Cf. Ezek. 44.31; Exod. 22.30; Lev. 7.24; 17.15; 22.8. 389. Cf. Lev. 7.18; 19.7. Isa. 65.4 may, but does not necessarily, refer to that which was inherently unclean. 390. There is no reason (contra Gorg 1982) to resort to an etymological derivation of rttl? from Coptic 'mud' so that it means 'Scheusalskuchen'. 391. In v. 13, the MT might literarily indicate the distinction between inherent and derived uncleanness in the undetermined KQffl which follows the determined noun 'their bread'. Grammatically, 'unclean' is not an attributive adjective (i.e. not 'their unclean bread'). Rather, it is the predicate of an asyndetic relative clause, i.e. 'their bread (which) is unclean'. The inference of the asyndetic phrase may be 'their bread which has become unclean', i.e. because of the exilic situation.

250

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

considered to transmit uncleanness to the food,392 although no other biblical passage corroborates such. The message-content being communicated dictates that the cattle dung substituted for human excrement, still conveyed, at least when used by the prophet,393 the message of uncleanness. Otherwise the point of the message (4.13) would have been contradicted and thereby obviated by the nonverbal behavior.394 It must therefore be assumed that the nonverbal behavior illustrated accurately the contentual message in a figurative manner with the animal dung, as one unclean thing, metonymically standing for all ritual uncleanness, which in this case was specified as the uncleanness of being in a foreign land. The compromise to use animal dung instead of human excrement was thus a matter of degree of uncleanness rather than a contrast between cleanness and uncleanness. 1.9.2.3 Rhetoric 1. Attention. The resemblance to the lying and eating during the siege depiction may have initially resulted in the audience assuming that Ezekiel was once again doing the same thing he did before. Yet the placement of the actions after an announcement of coming exile for the Jerusalemites should have engendered the expectation that he was going to continue with that theme. So the resemblance to his previous actions should have also caused the audience to focus their attention on the details and specific variations from those previously performed (he was now on the opposite side; the food and manner of cooking were different). By performing similar, yet different, actions the prophet focused attention on those differences which contained the important message-content: the shift in sides meant punishment rather than culpabil-

392. Contra Buzy (1923: 240-41), Cooke (1936: 56), Cooper (1994: 97-98), Taylor (1969: 83), Zimmerli (1979: 171) who maintain that animal dung was ritually pure for cooking. 393. It might be that the uncleanness in the use of animal dung was related to Ezekiel's priestly lineage: certain things, although practiced by nonsacredotals, were for sacerdotals considered unclean (cf. Greenberg 1983: 108). 394. Planas (1955: 155) suggests that the nonverbal cooking on animal dung need not have communicated uncleanness because such would have been done through the verbal recounting of the previous order concerning human excrement. But such still does not adequately remove the difficulty of the incongruence and contradiction between the nonverbal behavior and the intended communicated message.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

251

ity, and the manner of food preparation signified the exiles' unclean existence. 2. Comprehension. Any slight obfuscation of meaning because of the resemblance to the previous actions, should have been quickly cleared up. Since the actions followed immediately those depicting the destruction and scattering of Jerusalem's inhabitants, it was probably soon apparent that Ezekiel depicted exilic conditions. 3. Acceptance. In the exilic depictions, Ezekiel used the source strategy of total identification with his immediate audience in the role that he assumed. While lying on the side and eating the unclean food, he represented those in exile. The merging of various roles which had occurred previously was now lacking, so that the distancing from the audience in the previous role of divine adversary was eliminated. Ezekiel reflected a total empathy with and participation in the condition in which his audience currently resided and the condition in which those in Judah would be placed once they were brought into exile. In his role of identifying with his audience, Ezekiel invested a great depth of personal involvement, for he actually ate the unclean food. His objection to the use of human excrement showed that he was not just a detached actor assuming a role in his sign-acts, but was actively and personally involved. He would not perform, even at divine command, an action which to him was so repulsive that it went beyond the permissible proprieties of his religious convictions.395 The audience must have sensed this personal involvement as he ate the cake made unclean by the animal dung and as he verbally relayed the initial command which enjoined even a greater degree of defilement. The message strategy was that of 'direct address'. Because the ramifications of the message for his audience were explicitly expressed, there should have been no uncertainty about them. Any personal hope 395. The meaning is taken too far when Ezekiel's objection is viewed as part of the sign-act's message in which the prophet functioned in an intercessory role and God's accommodating response is interpreted as a concession to the exilic community (contra Clark 1984: 236-37) or taught the lesson that when the community asked for grace after turning aside from God's commands, it would be given (contra Zimmerli 1979: 171). Since the condition of exilic uncleanness was not obviated by the accommodation to animal dung, Ezekiel's objection must be viewed as serving a personal function with respect to the manner of nonverbally communicatin the message of uncleanness. He was allowed to use an artifact which, because of its lesser degree of uncleanness, was not as repugnant.

252

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

that the audience may have imputed into the act of some of the scattered hairs being bound into the hem of the garment (5.4) was invalidated by the realization that Ezekiel's depiction of exile meant that for the immediate audience there was no hope: none of those observing Ezekiel's actions would be participants in a return to their homeland. Any promises or expectations of the exile ending were not applicable to the current generation. 4. Retention. The daily routine, extending over a month, of lying on the right side and eating a barley cake baked with dung should have embedded the image in the people's mind by its repetition. The repeated performance coupled with the direct implications for the audience should have made it a communication act long remembered after Ezekiel had ceased to perform his nonverbal actions publicly. Ezekiel's presentation of the unclean condition of exile employed a very common and daily event—eating. When the exiles themselves partook of food in their own homes, they would have been consciously reminded that they were in exile and in a state of ceremonial uncleanness. That connection between Ezekiel's act of eating and the audience's subsequent daily lives should have brought back to memory the totality of Ezekiel's message about the length of exile and the reason for it as displayed and verbalized in the prior message of Jerusalem's siege and destruction. 1.9.4 Rhetoric of the Sequential Actions in Chapters 4-5. As previously discussed, literary indicators suggest that the chronological sequence of the actions' performances followed the historical sequence of events: siege-destruction-exile. From a rhetorical standpoint, the siege depiction of 4.1-5, 7-11 was incomplete since it did not communicate the ultimate message Ezekiel was desiring to transmit. The pre-586 BCE message of Ezekiel was not that Jerusalem would be besieged by the Babylonians, but rather that Jerusalem would be destroyed.396 The concept that the city might punitively suffer under a siege could have been incorporated into the people's belief system just as the events of 597 BCE had been. What the popular theology would not accept was that the city would be utterly destroyed in judgment. Thus it was not the depiction of the siege in 4.1-5, 7-11, but rather the actions of 5.1-2 which

396. Cf. Ezek. 6.1-7, 12-14; 7.20-24; ch. 9; 12.19-20; 14.21; 16.38-41, where the messages were always those of destruction, not merely siege.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

253

were contrary to the popular theology. Since Ezekiel was attempting to alter the people's belief about what would happen to Jerusalem, the radicalness of the nonverbal message in 5.1-2 was what constituted the climax of the message. But the depiction of the destruction with its consequences of death by famine and pestilence, death by sword, and scattering (5.1-2) held a natural opening for the prophet to then address his immediate audience which was already experiencing the latter aspect of dispersion in exile. From a rhetorical standpoint there is no reason that the exilic actions of 5.3-4; 4.6, 12, 14-15 could not follow those of the siege and destruction, but rather their inclusion would have resulted in a compelling rhetorical strategy of stylistic shift in the nonverbal portrayals: the initially depicted events (the siege and destruction of distant Jerusalem) only had 'indirect' implications for Ezekiel's exilic audience while the events which culminated the sequence (the exile and existence therein) had 'direct' ramifications. Since the exilic audience would not experience the physical consequences of the siege and destruction, they could only empathically relate to those events. Yet they would existentially participate in the exilic situation. The two stylistic manners of address, that is, indirect and direct, corresponded with the two-pronged argument used to combat the exiles' hope of an early return from exile. Through the actions of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (4.1-5, 78; 5.1-4), the argument was presented that the basis for their hope, which was the belief in the survival of Jerusalem, was not tenable, and in the concluding actions (4.6, 12-15), that their existence in exile would be an extended situation. In the sequence of actions there were two points of greatest dramatic impact in attracting attention. The first was the start of the complex of actions with the depiction of the model siege. But that soon became a monotonous, long-term presentation which, even though it was unusual in nature, because of its repetitiveness probably resulted in decreased attention. The second major dramatic point was the starkly contrasting depiction of destruction (5.1-4). But this too was followed by an extended monotonous demonstration, which then ended in a rather unclimactic manner. Upon the completion of the 40-days' lying and eating, the prophet apparently got up and went back to, what was for him, normal living. The uneventfulness of the cessation of the exilic nonverbal actions was so unlike the conclusion of the 390-days' siege depictions in which the prophet dramatically shaved his head. Although not

254

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

explicitly expressed, the unclimactic ending of the exilic depictions correlated well with Ezekiel's belief that the people would rot away in the exile—an unimpressive conclusion to their exilic existence (Ezek. 24.23; 33.10; cf. also Lev. 26.38-39). 1.10 Ezekiel 6.11-12391

1.10.1 Communicative Meaning. To express an emotional mood, Ezekiel was commanded398 to clap his hands, stomp his feet, and utter an interjection, 'Ah!', which are best understood as repeated actions done prior to and then possibly concurrent with the uttering of the verbal message. But there is no need to interpret the actions as a specific form of dance. Within the account, these nonverbal behaviors are not explicitly interpreted as to their exact communicative meanings. Thus it is possible that this represents a case in which the nonverbal actions were not verbally interpreted to the audience and the significance was left for the people to figure out on their own. Commentators have proposed essentially two very different interpretations as to the type of emotional excitement which the behaviors were depicting:399 (1) delight,400 with the connotations of scorn, contempt or 397. Whether the verbal statements in vv. 13-14 are considered part of the original oracle and thus contemporaneously associated with the nonverbal actions of clapping and stomping does not affect the interpretation of those actions. 398. The formula miT "OIK ~)Qtf PD is not usual in Ezekiel for introducing a command to perform a nonverbal behavior. But the formula does introduce the sign-acts of Jer. 13.1-11; 19.1-13; 27.2-22. There is no reason to suppose the subject of these single imperatives is any other than the prophet. Brownlee (1986: 101-102), on the basis of the use of the introductory formula ('Thus says the Lord Yahweh'), directs the command to the people to perform these actions and views the words as a taunt song against their enemies. But the use of the second masculine singular is the typical form for an injunction directed to the prophet, while the second plural is used when addressing the people (cf. 6.3-10). 399. Another line of interpretation of the actions links them not to emotive expressions but to magical activity, as exemplified by Eichrodt (1970: 97) who suggests that clapping was a magical action which 'could make a misfortune firm and irrevocable, and even increase its power'; cf. also Hals 1989: 39-40. But there is no basis in the immediate context, or in the nature of the prophetic sign-acts, for such 'magical' qualities. 400. On the actions expressing delight, see Bertholet 1897: 36; Cooke 1936: 7 Fohrer 1955: 40; Fuhs 1984: 41; Greenberg 1983: 135; Halperin 1993: 213; Stacey 1990: 192; Taylor 1969:91.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

255

malicious joy over another's misfortunes, because of Yahweh's judgment which was to come, or (2) indignation tempered by grief and sadness.401 The former interpretation is based on other biblical references in which clapping the hands, stomping the foot, and an interjection reflect the actors' joy. Also to maintain the interpretation that the combination of actions indicates delight, the paralinguistic interjection (PIN) must be emended to the form which clearly expresses joy (flNi!), on which see below. But any nonverbal behavior must be interpreted within the context of the individual communication event without superimposing on the behavior one generalized 'dictionary' meaning, especially when clapping is a polysemic nonverbal action within the Bible.402 1. Clapping the hands. In biblical Hebrew there are four different verbal roots which are used for 'clapping' the hands (^D or T): (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

PC]: Besides its use in Ezekiel (here and in 21.19, 22; 22.13), it is only used in 2 Kgs 11.12. The latter case is in the context of a joyous celebration of anointing the king. NnQ: Used only in the context of joyful expressions (Ps. 98.8, // 'sing for joy'; Isa. 55.12; Ezek. 25.6, // FOD). NpD: A joyful mood is reflected in Ps. 47.2 (// 'shout for joy') and Nah. 3.19 in the context of rejoicing over Assyria's fall. The latter is parallel in context to the rejoicing over an enemy's defeat in Ezek. 25.6 (NPIQ). But sp Kpn in Proverbs signifies a gesture ratifying a bargain and thereby pledging surety (Prov. 6.1; 11.15; 17.18; 22.26). In Proverbs the gesture may not be a 'clapping' of one's own hands, but the 'mutual shaking of hands' by the two parties involved in the contract agreement (cf. Falk 1959: 268; Vorwahl 1932: 28). pDO: Associated with the emotions of anger (Num. 24.10) or mocking (// 'hiss' in Lam. 2.15 and Job 27.23).

401. Cf. Ackroyd et al 1986: 415; Allen 1994: 89; Block 1997: 234-35; Keil 1976; I, 97. Some commentators view the actions as stemming from mourning customs. On 'clapping the hands' and 'stamping the feet' as mourning customs in Judaism, see Stahlin 1965a: 152; 1965b: 843; Gen. R. 100.6; M. Qat. 27b, 28b. See also the Akkadian references to clapping the hands in the context of mourning in Gruber 1980: 474; also ANET289c in the Esarhaddon Prism. 402. Similarly in ancient Greek and Roman cultures, clapping the hands could be both an expression of joy or grief (cf. Sittl 1890: 18-19).

256

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Thus biblical attestations of clapping involve at least three different emotive dispositions: (1) joyful acclamation, either in praise to God (Pss. 47.2; 98.8; Isa. 55.12) or in honor of the king (2 Kgs 11.12); (2) joyful scorn over an enemy's defeat and destruction (Ezek. 25.6; Nah. 3.19; Lam. 2.15; Job 27.23); (3) anger (Num. 24.10). Therefore, one must not merely superimpose the meaning of joy onto the clapping in Ezek. 6.11, but must examine the specific context to ascertain the appropriate mood expressed by the gesture. Since the actions of Ezek. 6.11 reflected the mood elicited by the abominations of the house of Israel, the parallel with Num. 24.10 is more appropriate in which Balak, out of anger for Balaam's repeated disobedience, clapped his hands. Although the exact interpretation of the emotions expressed by the nonverbal behaviors cannot be made solely upon the basis of the literary terms used for the actions, it is significant that in Ezekiel, where clapping was clearly a gesture of joy (25.6), the root NTO was used. Here in 6.11 and also in 21.19, 22 (see Chapter 2 §1.14) and 22.13403 where the connotations are different, the root PD] is employed. The vocabulary used in Ezek. may be an intentional indication so as not to equate the meanings of the two similar nonverbal actions. 2. Stomping the feet. The only other biblical reference to such a nonverbal action is Ezek. 25.6 where it is clearly an expression of joy parallel to PlftCO. But because it expressed joy in that context does not dictate that it means such in 6.11. Rather it must be interpreted as an expression of the same mood as the clapping and the paralinguistic interjection in 6.11. 3. 'Ah!'. The interjection, PIN, has often been taken as a form of Pf^Pf which is used in Ezek. 25.3; 26.2; 36.2 as an expression of joy. But it may be that the deliberate use of PIN here and in 21.20 (see Chapter 2 §1.14) was to distinguish it from the term of delight, PIKPI.404 Since in the context of joy (Ezek. 25.3, 6) both the interjection (PIKPf) and the verb for clapping (NPfQ) are different than here in 6.11 (respectively PIN 403. The clapping in Ezek. 22.13 is frequently interpreted as reflecting God's scornful joy (cf. Cooke 1936: 242; Taylor 1969: 167). But it need not be interpreted as such, and can be understood equally well as a manifestation of indignation, vexation, or despair over the wickedness (cf. Ackroyd et al. 1986: 415, 424; Greenberg 1997: 456; Keil 1976:1, 313; Wevers 1969: 130). 404. Cf. Zimmerli 1979: 184-85. This would be similar to 'in and 'IN which are very similar in form, yet have different connotative meanings: the former being that of threat, and the latter, a cry of despair and anguish (cf. Zobel 1978).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

257

and !~D]), the supposition is reinforced that the different terms were intentional to express divergent emotional moods manifested by similar nonverbal actions. In the context of the clapping and stomping as mournful anger, the interjection can be understood as an expression of lamentation. The text clarifies that the actions were to be performed 'on account of all the abominations of evils405 of the house of Israel' (v. 11). The nonverbal actions were expressive of an emotional response, not to the destruction which was pronounced in the accompanying verbal message, but to the cause of the destruction—the people's wickedness. To maintain the interpretation that the actions expressed malicious joy, the motivating clause must be overlooked or deleted so that the nonverbally expressed mood reflects an attitude conjoined with the accomplishment, not the cause, of the judgment. Following that line of interpretation, the nonverbal behavior then either depicted God's or Ezekiel's attitude toward the Tightness of judgment, or it was an ironic display of Ezekiel assuming the role of the people's enemy and taunting the Judahites because of the judgment (cf. Fohrer 1955: 40). It seems unlikely that such a taunting attitude would have been assumed in the prophetic address when it is precisely that type of attitude which results in God's judgment against Judah's neighbors (cf. Ezek. 25.3, 6; 26.2; 36.2). In other passages, it is made clear that God's attitude toward the wickedness of the people was one of anger, and that in having to execute the judgment it was one of sorrow. God did not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18.23; 33.11). 405. If mm is an adjective, its indefiniteness is grammatically incorrect and its position breaks the construct chain. As is, it is most probably a genitive construction: 'abominations of evils' (cf. GKC 128c; Cooke 1936: 71). The Peshitta separates the two terms with a conjunction. But the LXX does not attest the term, either because it took the phrase mu~) rVQJJin as a hendiadys (cf. Parunak 1978: 192), or mu~l was not in its Vorlage. If the latter, the term might be a variant or marginal reading which was inserted into the MT resulting in an appositional construction. But the exact literary reading does not alter the fact that the prophet was to perform those nonverbal behaviors on account of the abominations/evils of the house of Israel. Brownlee (1986: 101) views JTnuin as the gloss and then interprets min not as 'evil' in the moral sense but as misfortunes which would overtake the house of Israel. But there is no textual basis for his suggestion, and the meaning 'misfortune' does not fit the use of the term's plural form elsewhere in Ezekiel (cf. 6.9 MT; 20.43).

258

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Thus to postulate that here God was rejoicing over the judgment which he was about to bring does not correlate with the pathos of God presented elsewhere in the book. The nonverbal behaviors in 6.11 are best understood as reflecting the divine emotion of indignation over the people's wicked practices of worshiping other gods which are enumerated in vv. 13-14. That emotion of indignation, when coupled with the destruction of the people (vv. 1 lb-12), would be motivated by sadness and mourning rather than scornful delight. But in depicting the divine emotion, the implication for the immediate audience was that their emotions should correlate with the divine emotions. For the audience, the outwardly manifested divine behaviors became examples of what their inward emotions should be in respect to the wickedness around them. So the actions were not only a communicative expression of the divine pathos but also inferentially displayed the mood which should characterize those who empathized with God. In the present literary context, the motivating phrase of 6.11 is thematically related to 6.9 (cf. Parunak 1978: 191) in which those who survived (Ezekiel's immediate audience which consisted of 'survivors' because of their presence in exile) were to acknowledge the wickedness in Judah, and as a result, to loathe (D!"P]SD ICDpT), an attitude of disgust and sorrow)406 such behavior. Throughout the pre-586 BCE oracles, Ezekiel pictured the 'righteous' person as one who was in empathy with the feelings of God which incorporated an attitude akin to mourning over the unrighteousness within Judah. In 7.15-16 (MT) in a description of judgment by sword, pestilence and famine, the survivors would moan over their own iniquity (131m GTN man D^D) and don garments of mourning (v. 18). In the vision of ch. 9, the ones marked for preservation were those who 'sigh' (n3N) and 'groan' (p]N), that is, perform paralinguistic behaviors of mourning (cf. Ezek. 24.17), over all the abominations which were done in the city's midst (v. 4). The prophet's groaning in Ezek. 21.11 was representative of what the people's reaction should be in light of the news of the coming destruction (see Chapter 2 §1.13). In 21.17, the prophet's crying and striking the thigh (a mourning gesture) in anticipation of the coming judgment is set in a comparative context to 406. Cf. Ezek. 20.43 and 36.31 (DD^SD DntDpTI). Cf. also Ps. 119.158, and Ps. 139.21 where CDlp//tWtD ('hate'). In all of these cases, 01p represents an indignant attitude against disobedience to God.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

259

juxtapose those actions with the irresponsible rejoicing of the people (see Chapter 2 §1.14). Both the immediate context and the larger context of chapters 4-24 point to the nonverbal behaviors of 6.11 as reflecting the divine emotion of indignation at the sin and of sorrow over the ensuing destruction. If the people were truly aware of the divine posture toward them, then such emotions should be emulated by them as well. I.W.2 Rhetoric I . Attention. As Ezekiel began to clap his hands, stomp his feet, and utter 'Ah!', he would have attracted the people's attention, especially if he performed these in a public place where he could be easily observed. Once he had diverted the people's attention toward himself and evoked curiosity as to exactly what he was doing, then the verbal message would have been delivered to an attentive audience. Since the behaviors themselves bore a communicative message, they not only drew the people's attention to the communication event, but also helped focus the attention on the message-content which was partially contained in the behaviors. 2. Comprehension. The popular theology held that God was on Judah's side and the people could not comprehend that actually God was displeased with them at that time. Thus the message that God was indignant over their abominations and would destroy them, was not a message which was favorable to the people's way of thinking. To avoid their immediate rejection of the message, the nonverbal behavior of Ezekiel was ambiguous enough so as to make the message initially uncertain. Such an initial avoidance of comprehension should have drawn the people into the communication event, for even if they recognized that he was expressing anger or sorrow, they need not have assumed at first that they or the residents in Judah were the focus of such emotions. Part of the ambiguity of the nonverbal behaviors may have been the closeness and similarity to actions which expressed rejoicing over an enemy's destruction. Without the total context of the verbal message and Ezekiel's tone in performing the actions, the people from a distance may have initially thought that Ezekiel was about to produce a taunt song over Judah's enemies as a way of predicting the enemies' (even Babylon's) defeat. Initially the people may have felt he was imitating the joyful mockery which they would be able to perform in the near

260

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

future. The initial ambiguity should have raised the people's level of curiosity rather than evoking a defensive posture. But to their amazement when they fully understood what Ezekiel was doing, he was speaking not against their enemies, but against Judah. The ambiguous aspects of Ezekiel's nonverbal behavior were eliminated through the content and tone of the accompanying verbal proclamation. It was the totality of the conjoined nonverbal and verbal portions which clarified that the message was not one of joy over the enemies' defeat, but an expression of indignation on God's part toward the abominations and of sadness because of Judah's resultant destruction. 3. Acceptance. Beside the message strategy of delaying the defenses through ambiguity, the actions also appealed to the people on the emotional level. As displays of emotional sadness and mourning, these may have been actions which the people had performed at the event of their exile in 597 BCE when they left their land and families. Thus they would have been reminded and could relate to the mood that Ezekiel was expressing, although in this sign-act the focus of the prophet's message was on the cause for the coming destruction, which was the people's sin, rather than just an emotional response to the destruction. Since the actions not only depicted, in an anthropomorphic way, the emotions of God, but implied that this should be the attitude of the people, in his role representation, Ezekiel bridged the speaker-audience identification gap created by standing authoritatively in opposition against the people as he represented God in the indictment by simultaneously assuming the role of the audience as he displayed to them what their attitude should be. 4. Retention. By employing gestures which were conventional behaviors used to express deep emotions, on later occasions when the people themselves performed similar nonverbal actions in the expression of their anger or sorrow the opportunity was present for the people to be reminded of Ezekiel's message. Because of the outward similarity to behaviors expressive of joy over an enemy's defeat, when the people observed or performed even those actions expressing an emotion contrary to that which Ezekiel displayed, they could have been reminded of Ezekiel's actions which transmitted the opposite message both in regard to the emotions expressed and to confidence about Judah's sure deliverance.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

261

l.ll Ezekiel 12.1-16 1.11.1 Communicative Meaning*®1 In vv. 3-6 occur the commands to Ezekiel to perform the actions.408 In v. 3, after the specific command to prepare the exile baggage, all the other commands take on a general nature which should be understood as a summation409 of the specific commands which then follow in vv. 46.410 Following in v. 7 is a statement that he executed the actions. Then in vv. 8-16 is the accompanying verbalized interpretation of the nonverbal behaviors. In determining the actual sequence of what happened, primacy should be given to the first-person report of the execution of the actions in v. 7, which is a condensed version of the commands in vv. 4-6a, since it reflects the chronological movement by day, by evening, by twilight. Verse 7 focuses on only one key activity within the time schema of daytime-evening-twilight and thus there is a lack of mention of the 407. Halperin (1993: 227-30) argues that for 12.1-16, the conscious 'historical application cloaks a more elemental unconscious symbolism' (228), and explains it in the following manner. The 'prince' is a self-representation of Ezekiel, who as a fetus is expelled from the womb. The 'digging through the wall' symbolizes Ezekiel's imagined 'memory of his birth' (228), but also simultaneously expresses 'Ezekiel's yearning for reentry, by means of his penis' (229). The references in vv. 14-16 to the sword are Ezekiel unconsciously wielding his castrating sword against himself, and 'thereby punishes himself for the incestuous wish to "dig through the wall"' (230). The phrase ]
262

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

preparation of the baggage (v. 3), the covering of the face (v. 6),411 or going to another place (v. 3). Just as the lack of reference in v. 7 to the preparation of the exile baggage (v. 3) does not exclude that from the prophet's actions, so too the lack of reference (v. 7) to his covering his face (v. 6) does not automatically exclude that from his actions. Rather 'the covering of the face' and 'not seeing the land' fit well into the passage's Leitmotif of 'seeing': v. 2, the people had eyes but did not see; v. 3, when the action was performed in their sight (literally, 'eyes') perhaps they would see; vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the command was given to perform the actions DITTI?1? (cf. v. 12: flft). 1. Preparation of the exile baggage. Ezekiel prepared for himself baggage (v. 3) which was like that which persons would carry as they went into exile (vv. 4, 7),412 which incorporated only the bare necessities for survival during the forced relocation. Essential to the message-content of the nonverbal communication were not the specific items which constituted the baggage but rather the total ensemble of items which was to be recognized by the audience as baggage for a journey. In the daytime he was to bring his exile baggage out (vv. 4, 7a), presumably leaving it either in the doorway of his house or just outside so that the people would notice it. It is also possible that this command involved not just bringing out the completely packed baggage, but rather the individual items with which Ezekiel prepared the exile's pack in full view of an audience. Ezekiel's preparation of the exile baggage, in anticipation of the city's coming fall, is reminiscent of Jer. 46.19 in which Jeremiah gave the rhetorical command to Egypt: 'Make an exile bag ["]^ ""faJJ riVo ^D], O daughter dwelling in Egypt, for Memphis will become a desolation; and it will be burned [and] without an inhabitant.' If Jeremiah's oracle is dated, according to the superscription in 46.13, to 604 BCE, then it may have been known by Ezekiel. So in the actions of 12.1-16, Ezekiel may have been nonverbally concretizing a rhetorical command which Jeremiah used only verbally. But Ezekiel would have employed the Jere411. Greenberg (1983: 211) argues that v. 7 does not contain 'covering the face' because the verse has eliminated whatever was unconnected to the exile's pack. Greenberg's argument is not quite accurate, since v. 7 includes the digging which was also not directly associated with the exile baggage. 412. For illustrations of captives carrying bags over their shoulders, see ANEP 311, 366, 373; Keel 1978: PI. 5; Yadin 1963: II, 430-31, 433-34.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

263

miah motif with an ironic twist since Jeremiah's was directed against a people of a foreign land, while Ezekiel's message was directed against the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Also in Jer. 10.17, if PIJJD in the rhetorical command is understood as 'bundle', there is a similar rhetorical command to Judah to pick up their possessions in preparation for departing into exile QHNQ ''DON "ll^Ea raizr ^n^]D).413 If this oracle dates prior to the 597 BCE exile,414 then Ezekiel and his exilic audience may have heard Jeremiah give the verbal oracle. Then, as recounted here in Ezek. 12.1-16, Ezekiel later transformed that verbal proclamation of Jeremiah into a nonverbal enactment and applied it to yet another future forced exile of the Jerusalemites. In both of the Jeremiah passages, the rhetorical commands involved preparatory and anticipatory actions before the actual destructions of the cities occurred. This correlates with the sequence in Ezek. 12.3-7 in which the bag was prepared prior to both the digging through the wall and the leaving. As argued below in this study, the digging represents the breaching of the wall by the Babylonians. Since in the sequence of the sign-actions, the preparation of the baggage occurred prior to the digging through the wall, it is assumed that the action's referent occurred before the city's capture and therefore must be seen as an anticipatory action by the inhabitants, and not an action subsequent to the city's capture done in compliance with the conquerors' command for the captives to prepare to leave. 2. Departure with the exile baggage. In the evening, Ezekiel reappeared outside of his house at which time he proceeded to dig415 a hole 413. On the various interpretations of the term in Jer. 10.17, see Holladay 1986: 341. 414. Holladay (1986: 6) dates the Jeremiah oracle to the siege of 597 BCE, prior to the exile. 415. Several suggested meanings of T3, 'by hand', in v. 7 have been offered: (la) Literally, 'with (his) hand', and thus excluding the use of any tool. It could then have the communicative meaning of haste, improvisation by those surprised by catastrophe (cf. Greenberg 1983: 211), or stealth so that the escape would not be heard. The assumed communicative value in this case rests on the interpretation that the whole complex of actions represented an attempt by the citizens of Jerusalem to escape. The alternate understanding of the action, as being that of the besiegers breaching the wall, excludes the above communicative meaning. (Ib) Literally, 'with (his) hand', but not excluding the use of a tool in doing so (cf. Keil 1976:1, 158).

264

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

in the wall of his house (vv. 5, 7).416 Once a sufficient sized hole had been made he proceeded back into the house, and reappeared through the hole in the wall with the exile baggage417 upon his shoulders (vv. 5b-6a, 7). If the hiphil of t«r is retained in vv. 5b, 6a, 7b and 12, it must thereby be assumed that, at some juncture, he had taken the baggage, originally placed outside the house, back inside the house,418 (2) Figuratively, 'with strength' (cf. Lang 1978: 18). (3) Some have suggested emending to ~irP3, 'with a tent peg' (cf. Eichrodt 1970: 148). Since neither the method nor instrument of digging were part of the enjoined command, T3 in the report of executing the act, if original, need not be considered to have any communicative meaning, but merely reflected how Ezekiel performed the enjoined action. TH is lacking in LXX and Syriac, and some advocate its deletion as a possible miswriting of the preceding Tp3. 416. Although the 'wall' is not specified, it is assumed to be that of Ezekiel's house. This assumption derives from the fact that Tp usually refers to the wall of a house (cf. Ezek. 33.30; Lev. 14.37, 39; 1 Kgs 6.5, 6; 2 Kgs 4.10; Amos 5.19; Hab. 2.11). In all of its uses, the only two cases in which it does not refer to the wall of a house, a palace, the Temple buildings, an altar or a field, but to a city wall, are Num. 35.4 and Josh. 2.15. This contrasts to HQin, the usual term for a city wall (cf. Ezek. 26.4, 9; 27.11; 38.11). The latter almost always has the connotation of a defensive structure, even when used figuratively. Thus the wall through which Ezekiel dug was probably not the city wall even if such were only a low retaining wall around the village (contra van den Born 1935: 101, 105; 1947: 73; Buzy 1923: 252). 417. Throughout vv. 5b, 6a, 7b, and 12, the object of the hiphil NiT and qal Kfo3 is not expressed. But it must be the 'exile baggage' as indicated in vv. 4a and 7a, except possibly in v. 12b following the infinitive (on which, see below). By leaving off an explicit reference to the object, the focus is placed upon the 'act' of carrying the baggage rather than on the baggage itself. Thus the hiphils must not be taken as reflexive with the prophet's self being the object in the sense of 'take yourself out' (contra Targum; Driver 1954: 150). The Versions' readings of noncausals, 'go out', and passives, 'be carried', must be considered secondary simplifications (cf. Greenberg 1983: 210, 218; Uffenheimer 1978: 53; Zimmerli 1979: 265-67, 274). So there is no reason to emend the hiphil occurrences of KIT to qal. Reading passive forms of N2J] in vv. 6, 7 and 12 results in the prophet inappropriately being carried out on someone else's shoulders. But the account makes no reference to other participants and in none of his other sign-acts did Ezekiel solicit others to participate actively so as to transmit, by their actions, message-content, and such should not be assumed in this case. 418. Such an assumption brings Ezekiel's representational sign-act closer into correspondence with its referent of the exiles and their exile baggage in that the

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

265

although such is not explicitly commanded or indicated. The lack of mention of placing the baggage back inside can be accounted for in that that action did not bear any message-content in the context of the signact. With the baggage on his shoulder, he proceeded off to another unspecified locale which was not necessarily far away, but merely far enough for the audience to understand that he had departed from the community. As he left, he did so 'like one going away into exile' (v. 4).419 That phrase may indicate the manner in which Ezekiel was to perform the action, in that he was to assume a nonverbal body posture (e.g. slumped shoulders, lowered head) and manner of walking to show the dejected demeanor of those driven into exile. Since twilight420 had already come, as he was wandering away he would have been engulfed by the falling darkness. He presumably remained at the other place until such a time when the audience would not interpret his return as exiles did not pick up their baggage on the outside, but carried it from the inside as they went out. Allen (1994: 171-72) argues for the emendation of the hiphils of fc^ to qals in vv. 5-12 on the assumption that the bag remained outside and only after Ezekiel had gone out through the breached wall did he pick up the bag, as per the sequence of v. 7 (179). But that reconstruction does not fit the sequence of vv. 6 and 12 in which reference is first made to the baggage being placed on the shoulder prior to the reference of departing through the breached wall. 419. n^l3 ""K^IQD: literally, 'like goings forth (noun masculine plural construct) of exile', with the meaning of 'like those going forth into exile' (cf. BDB 425d, Ib). The phrase should not be deleted as a gloss (contra Cooke 1936: 130; Eichrodt 1970: 148) because of its balancing nature in the two-part parallelism of the elements in v. 4: (a) command: 'and you shall take your baggage' (b) comparison, 'like baggage of exile' (c) temporal reference: 'by day' (d) audience reference: 'in their sight'

(a') command: 'and you shall go out (c1) temporal reference: 'in the evening' (d') audience reference: 'in their sight' (b') comparison: 'like ones going into exile'

420. nvfru (cf. Gen. 15.17) is the period immediately following sunset, therefore dusk. At twilight there would still have been plenty of light for the audience to have seen the prophet leaving his house through the hole in the wall. Therefore the arguments are not cogent which delete nOL?I> in vv. 6 and 7 on the basis that it means a total darkness which would have rendered the action unobservable and which consider it an addition based on the interpretation of the action as Zedekiah's attempt to escape in v. 12 (contra Cooke 1936: 130-31; Garscha 1974: 104, 111; Zimmerli 1979: 272-73).

266

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

part of the communication event. Possibly he did not return until the next morning at which time he gave the verbal message to the people (vv. 8-16). The understanding of Ezekiel's activities depends upon whether th nonverbal actions portrayed the general inhabitants of Jerusalem going into forced exile, or an attempt by them to escape the city, or an escape attempt specifically by Zedekiah and his men. That a forced exile was meant by the actions is indicated implicitly through the root H^ which elsewhere in Ezekiel refers to a forced exile,421 not to a voluntary fleeing to escape captivity, and explicitly in v. 11 where H^in is appositioned by "QSD.422 As a portrayal of the Jerusalemites being forced into exile by the Babylonians, all the activities in which the artifact of the exile baggage was part of the specific focus of attention, can be interpreted as representational actions of Ezekiel performing in the role of the inhabitants of the city.423 Just as he prepared his baggage, so the 421. Cf. the verb in 39.23 (qal) and 39.28 (hiphil). The noun rftia is the normal designation of Ezekiel's audience which had been forcibly taken into exile in 597 BCE (1.1; 3.11, 15; 11.24, 25), and in 25.3 refers to the exile after Jerusalem's fall. The noun m'73 is the normal designation for the state of exile in Babylon (1.2; 33.21; 40.1). 422. Some consider the term 'into captivity' a gloss (cf. Cooke 1936: 134; Fohrer 1951: 42; 1952b: 192; 1955: 63; 1968: 56; Freedy 1970: 143; Wevers 1969: 82; Zimmerli 1979: 266). Even if it is an interpretative gloss, it still reflects the understanding of n^l3 as forced exile. 423. Contra Greenberg (1983: 212, 217-18) who understands Ezekiel's action of carrying the baggage as being both figurative and representational (Greenberg uses 'symbolic' and 'predictive' respectively) in that the baggage was more than just an artifact in the representational display but figuratively stood for the Jerusalemites who were borne away as captives. But nowhere in the text is the baggage explicitly attributed a figurative meaning, and the artifact is not the primary referent of the message-content. In vv. 6 and 11 the 'sign' is not the baggage, but the prophet. Although the baggage is the implied direct object in vv. 5, 6, 7, 12, its lack of specification results in the emphasis being on the action, not on the artifact. In v. 11 a, if DH^ niDV is understood in the passive sense of 'it shall be done unto them' (cf. Greenberg 1983: 217) with Ezekiel performing in the role of the Babylonians, then it is possible that the baggage had a figurative sense: just as Ezekiel carried out the baggage, so the Babylonians would carry out the Jerusalemites. But a passive sense in v. lla does not necessitate understanding the baggage as standing for the Jerusalemites. For even if the phrase is understood in the passive sense, Ezekiel can still be viewed as performing in the role of the Jerusalemites so that the meaning is, just as Ezekiel, under divine compulsion, went into exile, so too the Jerusalemites

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

267

Jerusalemites would prepare their baggage for exile, and just as he carried it as he left his home, so the Jerusalemites, including their ruler, would go into exile carrying their baggage on their shoulders (vv. 1112): 'Just as I have done, thus it shall be done by them;424 into exile, into captivity they shall go. And the ruler who is in their midst, he shall bear [it] upon [his] shoulder; in the twilight .'425 Other commentators have suggested that both forced exile and voluntary fleeing were depicted in Ezekiel's actions (the former in v. 3, interpreted in v. 11, and the latter in vv. 4-6, interpreted in vv. 12-14426) or that the original sign-act of Ezekiel involved only forced exile, to which were subsequently added the aspects of escape (specifically digging through the wall [vv. 5, 7], the reference to twilight [vv. 6, 7], covering the eyes [v. 6], and the interpretation in vv. 10, 12-16) after the facts of Zedekiah's attempted escape had actually transpired.427 In maintaining the latter position, it is assumed that the prophet or his followers saw in the sign-act a further meaning than what had originally been intended. Although such subsequent reinterpretation is possible, it needs to be determined whether the actions in vv. 5-7 and the accompanying verbal interpretations in vv. 10, 12-14, which commentators have interpreted as referring to Zedekiah's attempted escape, unequivocally reflect an awareness of that event and therefore can only be interpreted in light of such. The following 'Excursus' deals with each of the issues involved.

would be forced to carry their baggage and go into exile. Also, if the figurative use of the baggage was meant, one would expect passives also in vv. 1 lb-12 instead of the active verbal forms. 424. DH^ n&iT: the preposition with the passive construction expresses personal agent or efficient cause, 'it shall be done by them' (cf. GKC 121-22), rather than 'it shall be done to them'. This rendering is supported by the subsequent parallel active construction ID'?1', 'they shall go', rather than a passive, 'they shall be taken'. 425. Reading K^T for the MT's Kin (the result of metathesis), so that the phrase is parallel to that in vv. 6, 7 (cf. Uffenheimer 1978: 54; Zimmerli 1979: 266-67). 426. Cf. Buzy 1923: 252-53. This view is based on the misassumption that all of the commands in v. 3 were separately carried out, followed by a different executing of the actions of v. 4 (against such, see above). 427. There is no unanimity among commentators regarding which elements are to be considered later additions referring to Zedekiah's escape attempt or whether they were made by Ezekiel or by later redactors.

268

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Excursus: Zedekiah's Attempted Escape and Ezekiel 12.5-7, 10, 12-14 In vv. 10428 and 12-14, the focus on 'the ruler' may have been because of his position as the representative of the people so that the verbal interpretation, rather than focusing on what would happen exclusively to the 'ruler' (Zedekiah), was using the ruler to refer metonymically to the corporate citizenry as the broadening in vv. lOb and 14-16 suggests.429 Since the preservation of both Jerusalem and the Davidic monarchy were key tenets of the popular theology which Ezekiel was here countering, the focus in the verbal interpretation upon the 'ruler' adds to the rhetorical impact: this exile not only meant the demise of the general populace of Jerusalem, but also of the Davidic monarchy. 428. D^ITD ntn K&on N^n has been variously translated and understood as follows: (1) The understanding preferred here is that K&Q is taken as a nominal verb, 'bearing', 'carrying' (cf. the same use in reference to carrying objects in Num. 4.24; 2 Chron. 20.25; 35.3, ^nra KtoD). The only other occurrence of the term in Ezekiel is 24.25 where it does not mean 'oracle', but 'uplifting'. The whole phrase in 12.10 then means 'this (act of) carrying (refers to) the ruler'. The understanding as the ''act of carrying the baggage' correlates precisely with the emphasis of the whole passage which is on the 'action' as having communicative meaning as evidenced by the direct object, understood as 'the baggage', being unspecified in vv. 5, 6, 7, 12, which causes the focus to be on the 'act' rather than on the 'artifact', and by the prophet (v. 11), not the baggage, being the 'sign', which indicates that the importance was on what he did. (2) N&Q means 'oracle' (literally 'burden') by analogy to the word-play in Jer. 23.33, so that the phrase means 'this oracle is [or, 'concerns', with an understood ^U] the ruler in Jerusalem'. Against this understanding is the fact that N&Q is not used elsewhere in Ezekiel in the sense of 'oracle' or 'prophetic utterance'. (3) N27Q means literally 'load' or 'burden' and refers to the exile baggage of the sign-act: (a) in the figurative sense, 'the ruler in Jerusalem is the load' (cf. Block 1997: 363, 373-74; Greenberg 1983: 211-12, 217). According to this interpretation, Ezekiel's exile baggage figuratively stood for the Jerusalemites and the ruler. Against this understanding is that a figurative employment of the baggage does not carry through in vv. 11-12. Or, (b) K&Q refers to the burden of the baggage which the Jerusalemites would actually bear: 'the prince (will carry) this burden (of baggage) in Jerusalem' (cf. Syriac). 429. Similarly in the oracles against Tyre and Egypt (Ezek. 28.1-10, 11-19; 29.1-16; 30.20-26; 31.1-18; 32.1-10), the focus is judgments specifically on the king and Pharaoh respectively. Yet it is clear that these individuals are only representatives for the whole nations which will receive the judgments.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

269

The statements in vv. 13-14 are general statements about judgment contingent on rebellion and are therefore applicable to forced exiled and not exclusively to attempted flight. The 'spreading the net and capturing the ruler' in v. 13a is a general statement for coming under divine judgment. The expression was employed elsewhere by Ezekiel with reference to Zedekiah (Ezek. 17.20, which is clearly not a reference to an attempted escape), Jehoiachin (19.8-9) and Pharaoh (32.3).430 Thus, as a summary statement about the 'ruler', v. 13a refers to the whole episode of capturing the city and forcing the 'ruler' into exile without any specific reference to the particulars of the pursuit and capture of Zedekiah after his flight from Jerusalem. In v. 13b, the reference to exile and the ruler's death there (cf. Ezek. 17.16) reflects normal ancient Near Eastern policy against a rebellious people and king. The reference in v. 14 to his warriors and troops being scattered need not refer only to those who accompanied Zedekiah in his escape attempt, but may refer more generally to the whole of Zedekiah's army whose primary function was the defense of the city (cf. Ezek. 17.21 where there is no reference to an attempted escape). Thus, as part of the rhetorical argument, these military personnel were spoken of to show that those in whom the people had hoped for the protection of the city would prove to be insufficient for the task since they too would be dispersed into exile. The aspects which are singled out as supposedly showing the clearest reference to Zedekiah's circumstances of flight are in v. 12, 'he shall cover his face because he shall not see the land with [his] eye',431 and v.

430. The imagery of being ensnared in a net as the result of breaking a treaty is used in Ezek. 17.20-21; Jer. 48.43-44; 50.24; Isa. 8.14; 28.13; Hos. 7.12; ANET 540b, no. 82. On the motif as part of the curses for breaking vassal treaties, see Millers 1964: 69-70, and its use in the Poem of Erra and other Mesopotamian literature, see Bodi 1987: 136-59; 1991: 162-82. In the Nungal-Hymn, the goddess Ninegal executed judgment against the person who did not acknowledge the gods by casting her finely meshed net over the land to catch the evildoer, and then once caught, the person was led away blindfolded and naked (Frymer 1977: 81-82). 431. p«n HN Nin 'p'? PINT $b: even though the LXX is passive, 'in order that he shall not be seen by an eye', and is followed by many commentators, the MT should be retained. In the command to perform the action of covering the eyes (v. 6), the 'not seeing the land' cannot be understood passively because of the specified direct object. The reading in v. 6 dictates against the passive sense in v. 12 which can be maintained only if f~l^n HN Kin is deleted. Also in v. 12, the LXX

270

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

13, 'and I shall bring him to Babylon... but he shall not see it'. If in the phrase of v. 13, 'he shall not see it', the antecedent of nniK is the immediately preceding 'land of the Chaldeans', then the meaning may be that because of blindness the ruler would not see the land into which he was exiled. For Zedekiah, this was actually fulfilled in his blinding at Riblah (2 Kgs 25.6-7; Jer. 39.6-7). Since the blinding of captives was practiced in the ancient Near East,432 the statements in vv. 12 and 13, could be general statements of judgment like the other phrases in vv. 13 and 14 without deriving from ex eventu knowledge of the specifics of the Zedekiah incident.433 But another possibility is that 'the land' (Judah) in v. 12 is the distant antecedent for the direct object in v. 13. Then the statement in v. 13 is the same as in vv. 6 and 12 (on which see below) and it comments on the permanence of the exile, and has no reference to blindness: the ruler would not see the land of Judah ever again. In the latter sense, the phrase is synonymous in meaning to the following: 'and there [in Babylon] he shall die'. Both phrases emphasized from two perspectives that the exile into which 'the ruler' was going would be, for him, an irreversible situation. This latter understanding of the phrase structurally fits the context better than the former. Another argument against the elements in vv. 5-6, 10, 12-14 being interpolations based on Zedekiah's attempted escape is that they do not correlate with that event as recounted in 2 Kgs 25.4-7; Jer. 39.4-7; 52.7-11. Zedekiah was said to have fled through the middle gate between the two walls (2 Kgs 25.4; Jer. 39.4; 52.7). There is no reference to his men having to dig through the wall in order to provide a means of escape for him. Had the facts of Zedekiah's flight been known, why would not the editor have made Ezekiel exit through one of the village retains both a passive and an active reading indicating an awareness of two interpretations, both of which were incorporated into the translation. 432. In the palace relief of Sargon II (eighth century BCE) the eyes of his captive are being put out (in Parrot 1955: 62 Fig. 23). In Sefire 1A.39, one of the consequences of breaking the treaty is being blinded (cf. AW£T660b). Similarly, in the Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, 11. 422-24 (no. 40), 626-31 (no. 95), the curse for breaking the treaty involve blindness (cf. ANET 538c; 540c). In the Hittite 'soldier's oath' (ANET 353-54), the curse of blindness for those who betray the king is repeated twice. In the second occurrence, a blind woman was set before them to depict nonverbally what would happen to them if they broke the oath. 433. Cf. Deist (1971) who, on the basis of the Sefire inscription, proposes that Zedekiah's blinding was 'an inescapable consequence of breaching the oath of loyalty'.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

271

gates or the doorway of his house at night, so as to maintain the representational character of the action? The sequence of Ezekiel's actions also did not follow the chronology of the actions of Zedekiah's flight. Zedekiah's blinding did not occur until after the attempted escape had been aborted, while Ezekiel was to cover his eyes as he left the city with the exile baggage (v. 12). Certainly an editor supplementing Ezekiel's original actions with other activities and interpretations would have made the interpolations consistent with the event to which it had reference.434 There is nothing in the whole passage (vv. 1-14) which can be conclusively interpreted as making specific, ex eventu reference to the particulars of Zedekiah's attempted escape, and which, as such, needs be considered a later interpolation, or needs to be interpreted specifically as the attempted escape and blinding of Zedekiah. But rather, the signact indicated more generally, that Zedekiah along with his subjects would be taken into permanent exile when the Babylonians captured the city. 3. Digging through the wall. The activity which becomes difficult to interpret as representative of the people going into exile is the digging through the wall (vv. 5, 7, 12). For why would the ones being forced into exile dig through the walls of their homes or through the city wall before going out?435 Because of this anomaly, the digging has often been interpreted as standing for the people's,436 or specifically Zedekiah's and his men's,437 activity in their furtive and desperate attempts to

434. Block (1997: 366) also argues that if the Ezekiel account has been drawn from the Jeremianic or Deuteronomistic historian accounts, one would expect greater lexical links between them. 435. The interpretation that this meant the destruction of the people's homes (cf. Cooke 1936: 130; Eichrodt 1970: 151-52; Greenberg 1983: 210) to signify that the people would not return home, still leaves the difficulty of this action being executed by the inhabitants of the city. The dwellings were destroyed by the Babylonian conquerors, not by the Jerusalemites (cf. 2 Kgs 25.4, 8-10; 2 Chron. 36.19; Jer. 39.2, 8; 52.7, 12-14). 436. Cf. Brownlee 1983: 93; 1986: 170-71; Cooke 1936: 130; Greenberg 1983: 209-10; Taylor 1969: 115; Wevers 1969: 82; Zimmerli 1979: 267, 272. 437. Cf. Cooke 1936: 131; Greenberg 1983: 213, 218; Keil 1976:1, 160; Taylor 1969: 115.

272

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

escape. But this understanding does not correlate with the explicit interpretation (v. 11) of the baggage-related actions that they illustrated not voluntary escaping, but forced exile. Within the context of forced exile, a feasible explanation of Ezekiel's digging through the wall is that he was functioning not in the role of the Jerusalemites, but rather in the role of the Babylonians. This could also explain the ambiguous third plural T~in!T438 in v. 12 which has no direct antecedent: 'through the wall they shall dig to bring [him/it]439 out through it'. The subject of the plural verb can be understood as the Babylonians. In the role of the besiegers, Ezekiel would then have been indicating either the Babylonians' breaching of the wall (cf. Jer. 39.2) or their complete tearing down of the wall which occurred just before the trek into exile (cf. 2 Kgs 25.10; Jer. 39.8; 52.14).440 The former seems more likely. This interpretation requires Ezekiel to switch roles in the midst of the performance. But this does not create an insurmountable difficulty since in other sign-acts he also functioned simultaneously in more than one role (cf. the complex of chs. 4-5). The indicator as to the switch in roles was the active use of the exile baggage: while functioning with the exile baggage, he portrayed the Jerusalemites, but when performing the activity of digging through the wall which was independent of the baggage, he functioned in a different role. If he dug through the wall from the outside, that too would have indicated penetration of the wall by the besiegers rather than by the inhabitants who were on the inside. Therefore, his appearances before the audience carried different meanings: when he initially appeared

438. There is no reason to emend to third-person singular on the basis of the LXX since such is a smoothing of the text (cf. Greenberg 1983: 218). 439. t^in1? is ambiguous as to whether the understood object refers to the ruler or to the exile baggage (as in vv. 5, 6, 7, 12a). If the diggers are the implied subjects of the infinitive ('to bring out'), and the diggers are the Babylonians, then a personal direct object is more appropriate giving the sense that they dug through the wall in order to bring out the ruler. But if 'the ruler' is considered the subject of the infinitive then 'the exile baggage' would appropriately be the implied object giving the sense that they (the Babylonians) dug through the wall for him (the ruler) to bring out his exile baggage. 440. Cf. Allen 1994: 179. Both Zimmerli (1979: 268, 272) and Garscha (1974: 111) interpret the digging as standing for the Babylonians' breaching or demolishing of the walls, but neither consider the action to have been carried out by the prophet.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

273

setting out the baggage for the audience's viewing, he representationally portrayed the Jerusalemites; when he reappeared and dug through the wall, and then disappeared into the house, he representationally portrayed the Babylonians; when he again reappeared from the inside through the hole in the wall, this time carrying the baggage, he representationally portrayed the Jerusalemites leaving through the breached city wall (cf. Amos 4.2-3). 4. Covering the face. As he left the community, Ezekiel also had his face, specifically his eyes, covered (v. 6). How he covered his face is not specified, only that it signified the communicated meaning of 'not seeing the land'. Because 'covering the face' is not mentioned in the execution statement in v. 7, it has often been assumed that it was not part of the original nonverbal actions, but added later, on the basis of v. 12, after the other actions were likened to Zedekiah's attempted escape and his blinding. According to that line of interpretation, the 'covering the face' was representational of Zedekiah's disguise to facilitate his escape,441 or figurative of his subsequent blindness,442 or figurative of the secrecy or fearful anxiety in the attempted escape.443 But as argued above, Ezekiel's actions need not have specific referents of Zedekiah's escape and capture. Others have interpreted 'the covering of the face' as reflecting the grief or humiliation444 which accompanied the city's destruction and the people's exile. It is true that biblically the gesture of 'covering the face/head' could signify 'grief (D'US 0^ in 2 Sam. 19.5; CJfcO HSH in 2 Sam. 15.30; Est. 6.12; D2& ^ ntDU in Ezek. 24.17, 22), or 'shame' and 'humiliation' (tffcn HSR in Jer. 14.3, 4; Est. 7.8; DD& ^ H£D^ in Mic. 3.7),445 or 'fear' in the presence of God (D'B oft in 1 Kgs 19.13). Yet different terminology than the DS]S HDD446 of Ezek. 12.6 and 12 is used to designate those various emotive behaviors. 441. Cf. Brownlee 1986: 174; Buzy 1923: 253; Cooke 1936: 132, 135; Stacey 1990: 194; Taylor 1969: 116; Wevers 1969: 82. 442. Cf. van den Born 1947: 74; Brownlee 1986: 172, 174; Cooke 1936: 130, 132; Fuhs 1984: 66; Holscher 1924: 80; Klein 1988: 47-48; Taylor 1969: 116. 443. Cf. Eichrodt 1970: 151. 444. Cf. Brownlee 1986: 170; Eichrodt 1970: 150; Fuhs 1984: 67; Keil 1976:1, 160; Lang 1978: 21-22; Uffenheimer 1978: 53; Zimmerli 1979: 270-71; 1980: 179. 445. Cf. Frymer (1977: 82) on the Hymn to Nungal in which the person who did not acknowledge his god was shamed by being led away blindfolded and naked. 446. This same expression occurs elsewhere biblically for: (1) a prostitute covering her face (Gen. 38.15); (2) as a literal gesture of reverence (Isa. 6.2, the

274

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Both times when 'the covering of the face' is mentioned here in Ezekiel 12, it is explained as 'not seeing the land' (vv. 6, 12447). The phrase 'shall not see the land' was used in Jer. 22.10-12 with reference to Jehoahaz to express the permanence of the exile into which he was taken.448 Thus by covering the face, Ezekiel was figuratively portraying the permanence of the exilic situation into which the Jerusalemites were going.449 The 'covering of the face' thus showed that from that point on, the land of Judah would no longer be seen. The 'covering of the face' therefore had an ironical component in that the people who currently still had the option of seeing (vv. 2-3) would eventually, as exiles, not be allowed to see.450 The 'covering', and thereby 'not seeing', in the sense of 'permanent physical separation from', fits well into this message of Ezekiel and into the rhetorical situation which Ezekiel was addressing. The immediate exilic audience was hoping for an imminent return from their exile. So to counter that unfounded expectation, Ezekiel figuratively portrayed the permanence of the coming exile. This was made explicit in the accompanying verbal message that the 'ruler', as representative of all the people taken into exile, would die in the foreign land (v. 13). 5. Time references. Another figurative element in the sign-act was the timing of the actions. Ezekiel set the baggage out in the daytime, dug through the wall in the evening, and carried the baggage out through the hole in the wall at twilight. In the timing of his actions, in moving seraphim); (3) a figurative expression meaning to render the office or normal functions ineffective (Job 9.24; cf. also Isa. 29.10, 2JK~1 HDD). But none of those meanings or situations correlates with this passage. 447. In v. 12, the expression and its interpretation are linked by ~I2?N ]JT, 'because'. This should not be emended (cf. Allen 1994: 173; Greenberg 1983: 21314), on the basis of LXX, to ]UQ^, 'in order that', which then, inappropriately, reflects a cause-effect relationship. 448. Cf. the curse for breaking the treaty made between Ashurnirari V and Mati'ilu (ANET 532d): 'just as this spring lamb, brought from its fold, will not return to its fold, will not behold its fold again, alas, Mati'ilu, together with his sons, daughters, officials, and the people of his land [will be ousted] from his country, will not return to his country, and not behold his country again'. 449. Cf. Block 1997: 375-76; Uffenheimer 1978: 53. Allen (1994: 180) generally agrees, but interprets the reference to seeing, in v. 13, as a redactional gloss referring to Zedekiah's blindness (176-77, 182). 450. See Isa. 44.18 in which God smeared over the people's eyes so that they could not see.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

275

progressively from daylight to darkness, Ezekiel figuratively portrayed the city's progressive decline to its ultimate demise. Before the end of the city had occurred (figuratively in the daylight), the besieged would recognize that the city's and their own fates were inevitable and would prepare their baggage for exile. Ezekiel's digging through the wall, which represented the breaching of the wall by the besiegers, occurred in the evening—the end of the nation was drawing closer but had not fully come. Finally, the going into exile was to occur at the point of twilight as full darkness approached.451 Darkness, as often used biblically, is a figure for calamity and termination.452 So the specific time schema (daytime-evening-twilight) figuratively aided the representational nonverbal activities in communicating the message of Jerusalem's end as an inhabited city. I . I I . 2 Rhetoric

1. Attention. When Ezekiel initiated the sequence of actions by setting his baggage out during the daytime, it certainly should have drawn the people's attention. Although through observation of the baggage, the spectators would have assumed that Ezekiel was preparing to go on a journey, even so the reason for his trip or its significance would not have been evident to them. So the people's curiosity must have been heightened as they expectantly awaited further actions or clarification by the prophet. The bizarre action of digging through the wall of his house probably caused consternation as to why he would destroy his own dwelling in such a manner. As he trudged off with the baggage 451. Thus the going out at twilight was not: (1) representational of the exiles setting out on the long trek in the coolness of night (contra Bertholet 1897: 65; Fohrer 1955: 64; Uffenheimer 1978: 48; Zimmerli 1979: 271; 1980: 178-79), for there is no reason to assume that the captors would have been so considerate of their captives; (2) representational of Zedekiah's (or other Jerusalemites') actual flight at night (contra Buzy 1923: 253); (3) figurative of the furtiveness in the desire to escape (contra Greenberg 1983: 210); (4) figurative of the gloom of the mental state of the exiles; (5) figurative of Zedekiah's blindness (contra van den Born 1947: 73-74; Holscher 1924: 80). None of the above interpretations seeks a unified or consistent understanding of the whole gamut of time references (daytime-evening-twilight) specified in the sign-act account. 452. Cf. Ezek. 32.7-8, the description of the coming destruction of Egypt. See also Jer. 13.16; 23.12; Isa. 24.11-12; Nah. 1.8; and darkness as a motif in 'the Day of Yahweh' imagery: Joel 2.2; 3.4; Amos 5.18, 20; Zeph. 1.15.

276

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

over his shoulder, they must have wondered when or if he would return. Yet his performance of the whole sequence of actions was done in silence, without answering their inquiring questions as to what was the meaning of his actions (v. 9).453 The strategy of delaying the accompanying explanation until the following morning (v. 8) served the function of an attention-maintaining technique. Before delineating the meanings of his nonverbal actions, Ezekiel allowed his audience ample time to re-enact them mentally and to draw their own speculative conclusions as to what they meant. 2. Comprehension. The actions which Ezekiel performed were, to the observers, ambiguous as to their meanings and implications, as indicated by the audience response (v. 9). In light of the people's hopes for an imminent return from exile, they may have misread into his actions a message which was favorable to their own expectations. They may have thought that Ezekiel was enacting their own anticipated return to the homeland. Or, if they suspected that he was depicting exile from Jerusalem, they could have assumed that he was merely representing their own journey in 597 BCE, with the expectation that his return from wherever he had gone would communicate that they too would be returning to Judah. Although Ezekiel's prophecy was contrary to the people's hopes and expectations, the actions' ambiguities, which left open the possibility of the audience misinterpreting the message as favorable, allowed the people to remain open to the message which Ezekiel was communicating. By not initially understanding the message as opposing their viewpoint, the spectators would have delayed producing counterarguments against the message-content, thus drawing them into the persuasion process. From the standpoint of comprehension, the nonverbal activities (vv. 3-7) were preparatory message elements leading to the climax which occurred in the verbal proclamation (vv. 10-16) which was given the next morning. It was only in the accompanying verbal statements that the meanings and ramifications of the nonverbal elements were clarified. Only when the people heard the verbal message were they able to

453. The question in v. 9 indicates that the nonverbal actions were not concurrently accompanied by any verbal proclamation. Therefore vv. 3-6 must be considered words directed specifically to the prophet, and not a work song which Ezekiel sang as he carried out the divine command (contra Brownlee 1986: 171).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

277

realize fully that Ezekiel's oracle was diametrically opposed to that which they wanted to hear. 3. Acceptance. In order to communicate and persuade, Ezekiel employed the message strategies of indirect address and emotional appeals. Although Ezekiel was a 'sign' to his immediate exilic audience, his nonverbal depictions were a form of indirect address in that he portrayed what would happen to the Jerusalemites, rather than what would happen to his immediate audience. In v. 11 Ezekiel, declared to the exiles, 'I am your sign' (second plural suffix = immediate audience),454 and explained that what he had done would be done by 'them' (third plural suffix = Jerusalemites). Ezekiel only enacted the exile journey of the Jerusalem ruler and citizens, but did not explicitly depict or say in what way that event would affect the present exiles. The strategy in the indirect address was that of leaving the implications of the messagecontent up to the audience to decipher. The message contained an implied argument against the people's hope of an imminent return. Ezekiel's action of 'covering the face', which was interpreted as 'not seeing the land', figuratively communicated the permanence of the exilic situation for those whom Ezekiel depicted. The ramification was that the immediate audience's exilic situation would be permanent as well. If the future exiles would have no hope of return, why should the immediate exiles? The indirect address should have motivated Ezekiel's audience to enter into the prophet's thought processes, forcing the spectators to go beyond that which Ezekiel, as rhetor, did and said so as to perceive, for themselves, the logical conclusions of his arguments. The audience had to participate actively in the communication process to understand fully the message's ramifications. If the audience remained passive recipients, then they would fail to 'see' (v. 3) what the message for them really was. The message strategies also involved emotional appeals. Rather than presenting logical refutations of the audience's misdirected hope, Eze-

454. Although the second masculine plural suffix of DDD31D, is not represented in the LXX, it clearly refers to Ezekiel's immediate audience and provides a contrast to the third plurals in the rest of the verse which signify the Jerusalemites. Both the LXX's lack of the suffix and Syriac's translation of v. lib in second masculine plural are mistaken attempts to smooth the text (cf. Uffenheimer 1978: 45-46; Zimmerli 1979: 269).

278

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

kiel provided, in predictive form, a concrete display of the Jerusalemites, which included family members and friends of the immediate audience, going into exile. It was not just a matter of who was being depicted, but it was also the issues themselves which were laden with emotion. Those theological tenets which were held with emotional fervor—the inviolability of Jerusalem, the permanence of the Davidic monarchy, the preservation of the people in the land—were being challenged by the prophet's message through the nonverbal portrayal of the exact opposites: the inviolable city would be breached, the ruler would be captured (verbally expressed in v. 13), and the ruler and people would be forced out of the land. For an emotional appeal to be effective, it needs to have a contact point within the audience to which the audience can relate emotionally. Ezekiel's nonverbal depictions effectively touched upon the audience's own past experiences. Since they themselves had been forced into exile in 597 BCE, the packing of the exile baggage for the long trek to Babylon and the departure from the land were actions with which they themselves were experientially acquainted. The emotional reminiscences of their own leaving of Jerusalem years before should have been stimulated by Ezekiel's visual presentation. In conjunction with the message strategies, Ezekiel primarily employed the speaker strategy of role identification with the audience in that the majority of the actions were performed in the role of the ones going into exile. The only exception to that was when he dug through the wall and thereby represented the besiegers. Although the role performance as the besiegers, who were the audience's enemy, could have had the effect of separating him from, and even placing him in opposition to, his audience, when functioning in the role of the Jerusalemites, Ezekiel aligned himself with his audience on the basis of the connections the audience had with their fellow-Jerusalemites. 4. Retention. The unusualness of the actions and the bizarreness of digging through the wall should have imprinted the prophet's activities on the people's memories so that they were not quickly forgotten. But it is also possible that for a period of time there was a 'residual reminder' of the activities. Nothing is said as to what happened to the hole in the wall. The possibility exists that Ezekiel merely left the wall as it was without making any repairs to it. Thus every time someone went by his house, they would see the gaping hole and again be reminded of Ezekiel's actions and their meanings. Or even when the hole was

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

279

repaired, the act of repairing would have been a reminder of Ezekiel's activities. And once repaired with new material being placed over the old, the repair work might have been visibly evident for some time. Regardless of whether there was a physical, residual reminder of the action, the people's personal existence in exile was a catalyst for remembering the actions. Every time they discussed or contemplated their own exilic existence, even if in mistaken anticipation of it ending, the subject of the exile could have stimulated remembrance of Ezekiel's prediction that the other Jerusalemites would yet join them in exile. 1.11.3 Audience Response. In the account of this sign-act, the audience's attitude prior to the persuasion process (v. 2), and the inquisitive response to the nonverbal portion of the communication event (v. 9), are recounted. The section begins with a statement to Ezekiel about both the audience's attitudinal predisposition which elicited the specific, enjoined nonverbal communication, and also the difficulty of the persuasive task to which he was commissioned: they have eyes to see, but do not see; they have ears to hear, but they do not hear (v. 2). The 'not seeing' may reflect the disparity between the audience's level of awareness and divine perspective in that the people saw historical events occurring, but they did not have the insight to interpret them correctly.455 Or 'not seeing' may be a specific allusion to Ezekiel's previous nonverbal signacts.456 Then 'not seeing' along with 'not hearing' would form a merism referring to the lack of response to all of Ezekiel's prophetic actions and speeches. It is implied that either because of the people's lack of insight or because of their negative predisposition toward the divine word, that this new message must be presented in a forceful, attention-getting manner. So the prophet was commanded to perform the following nonverbal actions, the visual nature of which correlated with the emphasis throughout the passage that the actions were to be performed 'before their eyes' (vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). The audience's attitudes prior to this communication event thus affected the manner of communication. But besides influencing the method of communication, the people's attitudes also affected the whole task of persuasion. Ezekiel was again 455. Cf. Wevers 1969: 81. 456. Cf. Cooke 1936: 129; Cooper 1994: 148; Greenberg 1983: 209; Taylor 1969: 115.

280

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

reminded (cf. 2.3-7; 3.25) of the difficulty of persuading a people who held views diametrically opposed to those he was espousing. But he was given a slight sense of hope that his persuasive efforts would produce the intended results: 'perhaps they shall see' (v. 3). In the midst of the nonverbal performance, the audience inquired of the prophet, 'What are you doing?' (v. 9). Although in the literary account, the audience question has become subsumed under the divine word to the prophet, it must be considered as legitimately reflecting the sentiment of the audience as they observed the prophet's nonverbal actions.457 Since the form of the divine inquiry to the prophet K^n is a rhetorical question, it means that the people had asked,458 which affirms that the prophet's communication techniques had caught the people's attention and had aroused a curiosity as to the meanings of the actions. The question seems genuinely to have arisen from the ambiguity in the meanings of Ezekiel's nonverbal actions, yet also highlights the people's lack of perceptive understanding as noted in v. 2.459 After the nonverbal behaviors were amply clarified as to their meaning through the subsequent verbal message, were the people persuaded of Ezekiel's message? The account gives no indication about the overall effectiveness of the prophet's persuasive techniques upon the audience in this particular communication event. But in the following, separate, oracles of vv. 21-28, Ezekiel's exilic audience is characterized as having dismissed his messages (both nonverbal and verbal) as being irrelevant to the current situation (v. 27) and not truly descriptive of that which would happen (v. 22). The literary bracket created by vv. 2 and 21-28 suggests that the audience's attitude of deliberate rejection (v. 2) which evoked the nonverbal actions (vv. 3-7) persisted (vv. 2128) even in spite of Ezekiel's persuasive efforts.

457. Clark (1984: 71) classifies the question as 'representative' of the people's words. 458. Cf. Block 1997: 363; Greenberg 1983: 211; Keil 1976:1, 158. Cf. Brongers (1981: 181-83) who discusses the emphatic stress nature of K^n. 459. Clark (1984: 67) summarizes the rhetorical function of 'explanatory citations' (Ezek. 12.9; 21.5, 12; 24.19; 33.21; 37.18): 'Explanatory quotations sharpen the edge between sign-actions and their interpretations through a heightening of popular ignorance, thus weighting with greater significance the prophet's intended meaning.'

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

281

1.12 Ezekiel 12.17-20 1.12.1 Communicative Meaning. Ezekiel was instructed that when he ate his food and drank water, he was to do so with a display of quaking (2JIH) and shaking (HT31). Since the imperfect forms in v. 18 are understood to function in an injunctive sense, the trembling should be viewed as a self-imposed action. Thus the shaking was unrelated to the prophet's physical or emotional condition in that it was not an involuntary affect display, that is, he did not feel the emotion which in turn unconsciously evoked the somatic nonverbal behavior, nor was it evoked through physiological or psychological stimuli or malady.460 If the latter were actually the case, then the nonverbal behavior would have merely been informative of Ezekiel's emotions or condition, which Ezekiel subsequently reinterpreted. The text gives no hint of such reinterpretation. Also if the trembling and shaking had been persistent, involuntary conditions which the prophet suffered, the specification in the injunction to do so while eating becomes meaningless, since the people would have observed his trembling whenever he did anything, not just when he ate. The specification to display only the trembling when eating and drinking indicates that this was a nonverbal display which the prophet consciously controlled and performed only on given occasions. Thus the text presents Ezekiel as intentionally using the external movements of trembling to illustrate representationally how others reacted emotionally to the situation in which they found themselves. The shaking and quaking must have been executed to the point of obvious noticeability (possibly even exaggerated) for the audience's sake.461 Because of the shaking, he possibly fumbled the food in his hands in attempting to pick it up. Possibly in bringing the food to his mouth, he missed placing it properly into the mouth because of the shaking of his hand and head. When taking the water, one imagines him spilling it over the edges of the container in attempting to drink. 460. Contra Brownlee 1986: 179; Eichrodt 1970: 153; Fuhs 1984: 68; Stacey 1990: 196;Zimmerli 1969: 141; 1974: 145-46; 1979: 278. 461. Konig's (1904: 175) argument that the shaking would not have been obvious and thus the action was never truly performed, is countered when Ezekiel's shaking is considered a dramatic, communicative performance. In the process of eating, when objects were handled, it probably did not take an extreme quantity of shaking for it to be noticeable. One need only think of the analogy of how a mime can very effectively communicate emotional states through gesture, body posture, and facial expression.

282

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

When shaking while eating, one can infer from 27in, that there was not only the visual aspect, but an auditory one as well, since the term implies not only quaking but also a rattling sound.462 One can imagine the prophet's teeth chattering as he shook and the eating utensils and vessels clattering together as he attempted to use them with trembling hands. As with many nonverbal behaviors where a very similar type gesture or action can carry several different meanings depending upon the context, so too with shaking and trembling. For example, such behavior can be an affect display of various emotions, such as grief, happiness, fear or anger; or it can be an intrinsically coded action which is the result of physical or psychological stimuli, such as when one is cold, feverish, pained, cramped. But in this pericope, both the injunction to act (v. 18) and the verbal interpretation (v. 19) clarify the type of emotion the prophet's shaking was to represent. In the injunction, the clarification occurs through the terms used to describe the shaking and trembling. Elsewhere the verbal forms of 2Jm show the singular emotive connotation of fear. The verbal forms, although frequently used with 'earth' (or a synonym or complementary pair thereof, such as 'land', mountains', 'heavens'), rarely refer exclusively to the geological phenomenon of an 'earthquake'. In many cases the quaking of the 'earth' was a poetic expression which indicated that the inhabitants of the earth were quaking. This broader connotation is evident in Ezek. 38.20 where fish, birds, animals and people quake. Likewise, in Isa. 14.16, it was the 'kingdoms', and in Ezek. 31.16, the 'nations', which quaked, so that the quaking was a human response and not just a geological occurrence. In the contextual employment of the verbal forms of C7JJ"l, the occasions which elicited 'the earth's' (including its inhabitants) quaking are, almost without exception, either actualized or anticipated destruction. And the destruction is attributed to the divine execution of wrathful judgment.463 Thus the verbal form has virtually a singular connotative 462. The dual aspects of physical movement and accompanying sound are connotative meanings of 2?m which distinguish the term from other terms for shaking, trembling or agitation. In Ezek. 3.12, 13, the term is used of the sound during the theophany. In Ezek. 37.7 it is associated with the noise of the bones coming together. Similarly in several passages, the term means the sound of battle implements or fighting: Jer. 10.22; 47.3; Nah. 3.2; and possibly Job 41.21. 463. See the use of tDin in Judg. 5.4; 2 Sam. 22.8; Isa. 13.13; 24.18; Jer. 4.24;

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

283

meaning of fear elicited by an enemy's destructive activity. The use of the nominal term here in Ezek. 12.18 fits into that connotative use as an appropriate nonverbal display of emotion in anticipation of impending destruction or in reaction to wreaked destruction, with the destruction specifically being recognized as the outworkings of the divine anger against the target of the destruction. Thus, given the connotations of the verbal forms in other passages, it is of minor significance that Ezek. 12.18 is the only case in which the noun464 is used for human quaking.465 T3"l, in its verbal, adjectival and common nominal forms (m~l; the form nDI in Ezek. 12.18 being unique), can mean trembling in anger (cf. Gen. 45.25; 2 Kgs 19.27, 28; Isa. 23.11; 28.21; 37.28, 29; Ezek. 16.43; Job 3.17; 12.6; Hab. 3.2),466 anticipatory excitement which was pleasurable (cf. Isa. 14.9; probably Job 39.24), grief (thus associated

8.16; 10.10; 49.21; 50.46; 51.29; Ezek. 26.10, 15; 27.28; Joel 2.10; 4.16; Amos 9.1; Nah. 1.5; Hag. 2.6, 7, 21; Pss. 18.8; 60.4. The verb T3"l, when applied to 'the earth', has an identical connotative meaning as well (cf. 1 Sam. 14.15; 2 Sam. 22.8; Isa. 5.25; 13.13; 14.16; Joel 2.10; Amos 8.8; Job 9.6; Pss. 18.8; 77.17, 19; 99.1; Prov. 30.21). 464. Elsewhere, the noun bears three meanings: (1) earthquake, which at times was clearly related to theophanies (1 Kgs 19.11, 12; Isa. 29.6; Ezek. 38.19—the latter two cases in a destructive sense) and in other cases a specific geological phenomenon (Amos 1.1; Zech. 14.5—but the latter was likened to the theophanic rending of the Mt. of Olives); (2) the sound in a theophany (Ezek. 3.12, 13); (3) either the sound created by or the earth's shaking caused by battle implements (Isa. 9.4, boots; Jer. 47.3 and Nah. 3.2, chariots; Job 39.24, war horse; Job 41.21, javelin; probably also Jer. 10.22, the commotion of the coming army). Although in these cases the nominal forms do not specifically connote fearful emotive responses, the noun is used in the contexts of either divine activity or battle situations. Both of those circumstances were regarded as those which could elicit fear on the part of the human participants. 465. On the basis of the noun's singular usage here for human shaking, at times it has been emended to (BID (= DUD) (cf. Fohrer 1955: 65). But that emendation is clearly misdirected since the connotative meaning of the verbal and nominal forms of OID/2JJJD in the prophetic books is almost exclusively 'anger' which does not fit the context in Ezek. 12.18. (Cf. ODD/tQUD as provoking to 'anger' in Ezek. 8.17; 16.26, 42; 20.28; Jer. 7.18, 19; 8.19; 11.17; 25.6, 7; 32.29, 30, 32; 44.3, 8; Isa. 65.3; Hos. 12,15. The only exception in the prophetic books is Ezek. 32.9 where it means 'fear'.) 466. Cf. also Ps. 4.5 and Prov. 29.9 where the connotation is probably that of 'anger', although 'fear' might be appropriate as well.

284

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

with mourning rituals and gestures: 2 Sam. 19.1; Isa. 32.10, 11), pain (cf. Isa. 14.3; Job 14.1), or fear (cf. Exod. 15.14; Deut. 2.25; 28.65; 2 Sam. 7;10; 1 Chron. 17.9; Job 3.26; Isa. 23.11; 64.1; Jer. 33.9; 50.34; Joel 2.1; Mic. 7.17; Hab. 3.7, 16). Since the term carried such broad emotive connotations, defined only by context of use, the type Ezekiel was to perform was specified through the accompanying i~DN"m.467 The verbal and nominal forms of 3K"7 carry the connotation of 'fearful anxiety' as they are used for three types of situations: (1) response to calamitous news (Jer. 49.23; Prov. 12.25); (2) response to calamitous situations (Jer. 17.8; 38.19; 42.16; Ps. 38.19; Isa. 57.11); (3) anxiety over impending situations which were assumed to be potentially calamitous or distressful (1 Sam. 9.5; 10.2; Josh. 22.24). Thus the combination nJN"m nT3~O can be understood in a hendiadic sense of 'anxious/ fearful trembling'. The specific situation of fearful trembling which Ezekiel representationally displayed was the besieged Jerusalem residents' anticipation of the city's destruction at the culmination of the siege which the Babylonians were determined to carry through to fruition (vv. 19-20). That the sign-act illustrated the emotive response in anticipation of,468 rather than in consequence to, the city's destruction is indicated by the trembling being performed while eating, which linked the behavior to the prophet's previous, nonverbal, culinary illustrations of the period of the siege in 4.9-11, 16-17. The act of eating must be viewed as a linking element because it added nothing to the nonverbal message-content since the besieged people's reaction of fear would not have been confined only to the times at which they ate, but was a general dispositional state during the whole of the latter phases of the siege. When Ezekiel, on the separate occasion of 12.18-20 began the nonverbal display of eating, the audience would have been immediately reminded of the

467. Cf. Greenberg 1983: 222. The deletion of na«-m merely to produce better poetic balance is therefore unwarranted since such would leave unspecified to the prophet the type of emotion he was to depict through the shaking. 468. In many ancient Near Eastern texts, the conquering king describes the natives' reaction to his invasion of their land or to news of his power as one of fear and dread in anticipation of what he might do to them: cf. during Ramses Ill's war against the Sea Peoples (c. 1188 BCE), ANET 263b-c; from the reign of Tiglathpileser (744-727 BCE), ANET 283c; Sargon II (721-705 BCE), ANET 284c, 285a, 286d; Sennacherib (704-681 BCE), ANET 287c, 288d; Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE), ANET2S9d- Ashurbanipal (668-633 BCE), ANET295b, 299a.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

285

previous, extended, culinary display (4.9-11, 16-17), and its contextual and contentual meaning related to the siege. Rather than choosing some other aspect of the previous siege depiction (e.g. redoing the model siege of 4.1-3) to interpretively link the present action with, the eating may have been chosen because in biblical usage meals were frequently appropriate times to express the concomitant emotions elicited by the situation (cf. Eccl. 9.7; Pss. 42.4; 80.6; Job 3.24), and because in the portrayal of the siege (4.1-5, 7-11), the only activity in which Ezekiel functioned solely in the role of the people was that of eating (4.9-11). For the audience, that established connection with Ezekiel's previous action specified the circumstances of trembling rather than leaving the referent as some unspecified consternation over some general calamity.469 A literary link is also made between the two sign-actions by the terms rDKl and "pQQEJ. The two terms are used in Ezekiel only in 4.16 and 12.18-19. The exclusive use of the two terms in the two passages can be appropriately viewed as purposeful semantic indicators which link the two actions so that the latter is properly interpreted in the situational context of the former.470 For interpretive purposes, the two terms provided a semantic link just as the actions of eating provided a nonverbal connection. Since the links were for interpretative purposes, it does not mean that the two actions were at one time sequentially joined together so that 4.16 originally provided an introduction or conclusion to the actions of 12.18-19a,471 or that the account of 12.17-20 is a literary duplicate recension of 4.9-11, 16-17.472 Rather both sets of actions must be taken as separately enacted nonverbal displays, each of which had a distinctive message to communicate about the siege situation: 4.9-11, 16-17 illustrated the situation of scarcity of food and water during the siege, while 12.17-20 illustrated the people's emotive 469. Contra Eichrodt 1970: 153. 470. On the literary correspondence of the two passages, see Block 1997: 382; Parunak 1978: 218. The use of the identical terms in the two passages does not mean that in 4.16 the words were later editorial glosses, since in the accompanying verbal messages regarding the famine during the siege, Ezekiel may well have spoken about the people's fearful reaction to the siege without, at that time, nonverbally displaying such. 471. Contra Brownlee 1986: 76, 177-78; Herntrich 1933: 83. 472. Contra Bertholet 1897: 67; Holscher 1924: 82.

286

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

response to the situation. In 12.17-20 there is no indication that the conditions of famine were also demonstrated in the manner of eating, either by the kind of food or by the quantities of food. The accompanying verbal interpretation in 12.19-20 focused only on the psychological effects upon the besieged. Although 4.16 specifies the fear as resulting from the famine (cf. Jer. 42.16), the fear of 12.18-19, seems to be more generally related to the inevitability of the siege situation. Because of its placement subsequent to the sign-act depicting the exit into exile in 12.1-16, Ezekiel's representation in vv. 17-20 has at times been interpreted as depicting the disposition of the survivors, that is, those left in the land, subsequent to Jerusalem's destruction.473 Although, elsewhere, Ezekiel referred to the 'trembling' of the survivors (7.18: m^D), such was associated with mourning rituals (e.g. putting on sackcloth, shaving the head) which expressed grief and sadness over the city's fall. The 'trembling' after the city's fall was not motivated by fear, like that of 12.17-20. Also vv. 17-20 begin with the introductory formula and must be considered a separate and distinct oracle from vv. 1-16. Therefore, it is not necessary to interpret the latter as depicting an event which was immediately sequential to the actions portrayed in vv. 1-16. The situational context in which the trembling of 12.17-20 is best understood is the siege. The fearful emotion displayed in the trembling would have been the emotional disposition which occurred once the besieged anticipated the unavoidability of the coming fate. The popular theology provided a basis upon which the people could have entered into the initial phases of the siege with a confidence and assurance that God would intervene on their behalf so that the siege would not culminate in a total destruction. Only after the siege began to produce a straitness upon their lives from which they perceived no release and only after they saw and heard reports of the wholesale destruction of the land and all its contents (vv. 19b-20) would the besieged have lost their confidence in their ability to hold out, thus evoking fear of the fate which would come upon them. 1.12.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. Assuming that Ezekiel performed the actions in public view, his act of eating must have drawn the people's attention. Since 473. Cf. Fohrer 1952b: 32-33, 46; 1955: 65; 1968: 57; Fuhs 1984: 64; Garscha 1974: 100; Holscher 1924: 82; Stacey 1990: 195.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

287

the actions bore some resemblance to Ezekiel's previous culinary activities (4.9-11), the oeople may have wondered initially if Ezekiel was merely going to reperform actions they had already seen. Yet the realization that Ezekiel was not now performing the identical dining habits should have caused the people to focus on the distinctiveness of this new action which was his trembling and shaking. 2. Comprehension. Trembling is a multivalent nonverbal behavior, in that it can reflect various emotions such as anger, excitement, pain, fear or sorrow. Thus for the audience observing Ezekiel's shaking, the specific type of emotion (fearful anxiety) which he was thereby communicating may not have been discernible solely through the act of trembling. The emotion may have been made evident through other accompanying nonverbal behaviors such as fearful facial expressions, a cowering posture, or furtive eye movements. Or, the ambiguity of the type of emotion may have been allowed to remain for the audience until it was clarified through the accompanying verbalized interpretation. Without the accompanying verbal message (vv. 19-20), the central aspect of Ezekiel's message, which was the reason for the trembling, was not readily discernible to the audience by means of the nonverbal behaviors. Ezekiel's nonverbal behavior confined itself to the depiction of the emotional response, but left uncommunicated the motivation as to why he was acting in this manner and the identification of who he represented. These two aspects were the focus of the accompanying verbal interpretation: he performed representationally in the role of the Jerusalemites, and the reason for the fear was 'because474 its land shall be desolated... and the inhabited cities will be laid waste, and the land will become a desolation'. Also expressed was the reason for the desolation which caused the fear: 'on account of475 the violence of all the 474. ]UQ^ has been understood as: (1) providing the motive for the preceding emotive response: 'because' (cf. Allen 1994: 174; Fohrer 1955: 65; 1968: 65; Keil 1976: I, 162). It does provide a fitting motive for the preceding in that when the people saw the land around Jerusalem being devastated, they would respond in fear for their own lives and safety. (2) Expressing divine intention: 'in order that' (cf. Brownlee 1986: 177; Zimmerli 1979: 276). It may be elliptical for 'I, God, am doing this in order that'. But if it is a purpose clause, the best interpretation is to connect it with the concluding acknowledgment formula in the sense 'in order that you will know that I am Yahweh ... its land will be desolated'. (3) Expressing result: 'so (with the result) that' (cf. Block 1997: 380; Greenberg 1983: 223). 475. The preposition on DDFIQ is causative.

288

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

inhabitants' (v. 19b). Although not explicitly expressed, there was an implied ironic twist in the indictment that just as the people in their perpetrating violence had made their victims tremble in fear, so now they became the victims who were trembling for their own lives. The nonverbal behavior, by its ambiguity, focused the climax of the message upon the verbal element of the oracle. The nonverbal aspect allowed the people to be drawn into the communication event and to receive with full force the verbal message, including the indictment against the people still in Judah. 3. Acceptance. Ezekiel used the message strategy of indirect address in that he depicted and spoke of emotions and circumstances which directly related to the people still living in Jerusalem but he did not draw out the implications for his immediate audience. The audience was expected to consider the ramifications of his message for themselves, thus forcing them to participate cognitively in the rhetorical event. One of the implications of Ezekiel's portrayal was that if the people of the besieged city had reached a point of extreme fear and lack of confidence in Jerusalem's deliverance and thus anticipated, as inevitable, the city's destruction, why should the exiles still hold tenaciously to the hope that the city was inviolable and that they would soon be able to return to it. By presenting a Jerusalem event which was in contrast to that hoped for by the audience, and by presenting that event as authentic and divinely foretold, Ezekiel was indirectly levelling an indictment against the beliefs and attitudes held by his immediate audience. Yet the indictment was not confrontationally explicated, only indirectly implied. This style of indirect address also allowed the audience members to distance themselves from the harshness of what Ezekiel was presenting in that what Ezekiel depicted would not directly happen to his audience. Yet distancing can result in dismissal of the message as being irrelevant, resulting in the audience not drawing out the implications for themselves. A countermeasure against the distancing is the message strategy of emotional appeal so as to draw the audience into the message. The emotional appeal of Ezekiel's action functioned on two levels: personal reminiscence and personal relationship. His fellow-exiles had personally gone through the siege experience of 597 BCE, so Ezekiel's trembling may have evoked responsive emotions within them. As they had experienced the siege, and were the ones led into captivity on that

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

289

occasion, they must have experienced feelings of fear which were now recollected because of Ezekiel's demonstration. Thus an emotional empathy could have been created between Ezekiel's audience and the Jerusalemites whom Ezekiel was depicting. But Ezekiel's presentation was emotional also from the standpoint that in representing the inhabitants of Jerusalem, he focused on friends and family members whom his audience had been forced to leave behind. So Ezekiel was depicting a situation and persons with which the audience had deep kinship attachments. In the nonverbal actions, Ezekiel also employed the personal strategy of identification with the people. Every aspect of his display was performed in the role of the people, thus creating an identification bond between himself and those depicted. Such is a more persuasive strategy than the rhetor being perceived by the audience as totally distanced and distinct from them. 4. Retention. It is assumed that this trembling and shaking while eating was not just a one-time occurrence, but that it was performed over an extended period. Thus, by repetition, Ezekiel reinforced the message. By using the common daily event of eating and drinking with which to associate the message of quaking, Ezekiel was able effectively to create a setting in which his actions could be remembered. For as the spectators subsequently partook of bread and water, because of Ezekiel's trembling being attached to such activity, the possibility existed for Ezekiel's message to surface again in conscious recollection. So even long after Ezekiel had ceased his dining exhibit, the audience could have continued to remember its meaning and significance for themselves through their own daily routine of eating and drinking. 1.13 Ezekiel 21.11-12416 (LXX: 21.6-7)

1.13.1 Communicative Meaning. Ezekiel was commanded to perform a paralinguistic nonverbal expression of groaning (v. 11). It was to be done with such vehemence ('with breaking of loins477 and bitter 476. The extent of this particular unit is debated. Whereas some take vv. 11-12 to be a discrete unit (cf. Fohrer 1955: 120; 1968: 58; Guthrie 1962: 269; Wevers 1969: 123), others view the two verses as part of the preceding so that vv. 1-12, or alternately vv. 6-12, constitute a single unit (cf. Cooke 1936: 226; Hals 1989: 147; Holscher 1924: 11-12; Zimmerli 1979: 419, 421). 477. The 'loins', or alternately 'tendons', i.e. 'the strong muscular that links the

290

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

grief478) in front of the people ('in their sight') that the spectators were expected to react to this nonverbal behavior (v. 12a). Apparently Ezekiel was initially only to perform the nonverbal behavior without any accompanying verbal explanation. Thus when the people's curiosity was duly aroused, it was expected that they would inquire as to what his behavior meant. At that juncture he was to explain verbally that the emotional mood he was displaying was the conventional means of reacting to bad news:479 'Concerning the report because it has come. And every heart should melt, and every hand should hang limp, and every spirit should grow faint, and every knee should run with water.480 Behold, it comes, and it shall be accomplished, declares the Lord Yahweh' (v. 12). Since groaning (n]N) was a paralinguistic nonverbal behavior expressing grief and distress,481 the prophet was demonstrating how the people were to react sorrowfully to the 'report'. But the extant verbal response leaves unanswered the question as to what the 'report' was, and thus the exact significance of the prophet's behavior has been variously interpreted. The 'report' may have reference to three things: (1) The report was of the fall of Jerusalem.482 In that case, Ezekiel depicted the future grief of his immediate exilic audience. Then the upper part of the body with the lower' (Greenberg 1997: 420-21), designated strength (cf. Job 40.16; Nah. 2.2), and their breaking signified complete nervous and physical collapse (cf. Ezek. 29.7; Deut. 33.11). 478. rn~P~IQ is a hapax legomenon. The connotation of the term is the bitterness of deep grief rather than bitterness of anger; cf. the adjective "1Q in Ezek. 27.30-31; Est. 4.1; Isa. 33.7; Zeph. 1.14. 479. Hillers (1965), from biblical (cf. Jer. 23.9; 30.5-6; 50.43; Exod. 15.14-16; Deut. 2.25; Josh. 5.1; 2 Sam. 4.1; Ps. 48.6-7; Isa. 21.3-4; Hab. 3.16) and Ugaritic (51, 2.12-20) parallels, notes that in the conventional reaction to bad news, the emotions designated by somatic language are (1) the hands falling helpless, (2) pains in the loins like labor pains, and (3) the melting of the heart. 480. D'Q riDD^n D^-Q 'PDl: cf. Ezek. 7.17. The reference is undoubtedly to urinating on oneself in fright (cf. LXX), with 'knees' possibly being a euphemism for the genitals. The Targum understood the phrase figuratively: 'all knees shall be poured out like water' referring to a state of weakness. There is no basis for Godbey's (1923: 98) suggestion that this phrase implies that Ezekiel performed a ritual of pouring water. 481. Cf. Ezek. 9.4; Exod. 2.23; Isa. 24.7; Lam. 1.4, 8, 11; Prov. 29.2. Cf. Ugaritic &nh, Aqht 2, 1.18. 482. Cf. Cooke 1936: 228; Fohrer 1952b: 232; 1955: 120; Klein 1988: 10, 49; Stacey 1990: 197.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

291

action predictively displayed how the people would react after Jerusalem's fall. But this view is contradicted by the sign-act of 24.15-24 (see Chapter 2 §2.2) in which Ezekiel refrained from mourning as a sign of what the people were to do upon receiving the news of the fall of Jerusalem. (2) The report was of the advance of the Babylonian army toward Jerusalem.483 The behavior of Ezekiel was then predictive of how in the future the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the exiles would respond to the Babylonians' decision to lay siege to Jerusalem. The difficulty with this interpretation is that in 21.28 (see Chapter 2 §1.15) the initial response of the Jerusalemites to the news is said to be one of disbelief, not of sorrow and fear.484 Such was based on a feeling of security, buttressed by the popular theology, that God would deliver his city and his people. (3) The report was the message of God's impending judgment which had already been given prophetically to the exiles.485 In this case the groaning behavior was not a predictive display of how the people would respond to the future reality of the judgment, but rather an exhortation of how the people should be responding to the divinely given messages as they anticipated the coming judgment which had already been announced and was assuredly coming.486 Thus Ezekiel used conventional behavior associated with the reception of bad news to demonstrate and model what the exiles' proper attitude and response should be: the reaction of the people to the divinely decreed coming judgment was to be one of deep grief. When linked with the other use of PUN in Ezekiel (9.4), where it is used for the nonverbal paralinguistic utterance 483. Cf. van den Born 1935: 106; 1947: 75; Keil 1976: I, 290-91; Taylor 1969: 161-62. 484. Ezekiel elsewhere depicted the attitude in the midst of the siege as being of fear and trembling (cf. 12.17-20, eating the food in trembling; cf. also 4.16). In Ezek. 7.17, the descriptions of 21.12 are likewise used. But the emotional reactions displayed or commented on in chs. 4, 7 and 12 were not the responses to any 'report' but rather to the realities of the situation. 485. If the oracle is linked to vv. 1-10, the news may refer specifically to the coming 'sword'. Cf. Harford (1935: 59), Herntrich (1933: 105-106) that the 'report' is the proclamations of vv. 2-4, 7-10, 13-21. This argument may be reinforced by the inclusio link of ^Q2J in v. 3 with ninDBJ in v. 12 (cf. Allen 1990: 23; Block 1997: 671). 486. Cf. Jer. 23.9; 50.43; Isa. 21.3-4; Hab. 3.16, where the prophets speak of similar reactions to the divine messages of judgments which were in anticipation of the consequences, and not subsequent to the calamities' occurrences.

292

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

of those who were deeply distressed by the abominations being committed in Israel,487 the connotation is that the grief, as an anticipatory response, related not only to the reported predicted devastation but also to the motivating causes for that devastation. The action also implied an indictment against the people's attitude of security that all was well and against the receptive indifference toward Ezekiel's messages of destruction because they were perceived as being only allegories (cf. 21.5) or as being contemporarily irrelevant (cf. 12.21-28; 33.32). The literary text does not allow this nonverbal behavior to be interpreted as one which merely arose naturally out of Ezekiel's own emotional distress over the message of destruction which he, as a prophet, had to proclaim, and then only later interpreted as having been divinely commanded.488 In that case it would have been originally only an affect display informative of Ezekiel's personal emotional disposition. Rather, he was commanded to express the emotion—one with which he himself undoubtedly empathized—in order to communicate interactively a message to the people for the purpose of bringing their own attitude of indifference and security under indictment. 1.13.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. Initially the action was performed to draw the people's attention, since it began with only the nonverbal behavior without any verbal explanation. That the people's curiosity over the behavior would be duly aroused is implied in the command to the prophet that when the people inquired as to its meaning, at that point he was verbally to proclaim the interpretation (v. 12). 2. Comprehension. The people's inquiry indicated that the nonverbal behavior was not clear enough in and of itself to communicate fully the total message. The people, although observing Ezekiel perform a conventional behavior signifying grief and deep distress, were unable to comprehend what was the cause of such a distressful reaction on Ezekiel's part. The comprehension, not of the meaning of the action, but of why it was being performed was thus delayed until the verbal message clarified and specified the exact cause. 3. Acceptance. Since the sign-action both explicitly modeled the proper attitude which the people should have and thereby implicitly 487. Cf. also its use in Lam. 1.8 in the context of Jerusalem groaning over her uncleanness. 488. Contra Fuhs 1984: 110; Zimmerli 1969: 141; 1974: 145; 1979: 421.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

293

indicted the people's attitudes, certain of the rhetorical strategies seem to counterbalance the polarity between the message-content and the audience's perspectives. Ezekiel employed the strategy of personal identification with the people. The role he assumed was that of the people and not of God, thus potentially enhancing the people's empathy with him. By communicating on the emotional level, Ezekiel was not trying to convince them through logical arguments that their present attitude was wrong, but was attempting to have the audience feel along with him the emotional distress which the news of impending judgment should have. The argument carried with it a touch of irony in that either the people would feel the grief in anticipation of the coming judgment, and thereby align their feelings, practices and beliefs with God's, or they would inappropriately express the grief (cf. Ezek. 24.15-24) after the destruction was over when the judgment had been irrevocably executed. 4. Retention. The nonverbal behavior with its explanation should have instilled in the people's mind a memory of grief display. Thus whenever in the future they heard further prophetic messages of judgment, they could mentally rehearse the proper emotive response as previously modeled in this sign-act by Ezekiel. 1.13.3 Audience Response. Verse 12 expresses that there was a verbal response by the audience to Ezekiel's paralinguistic behavior. This indicated that they observed and heard Ezekiel's nonverbal performance, that they perceived it to have implications for themselves, that they did not understand the significance of why he was acting in such a manner, that their curiosity was sufficiently aroused for them to inquire, and that they were receptive to what the prophet would further say or do. In the persuasive process, the response shows that Ezekiel had successfully aroused the people's attention both on the level of gaining a hearing and in focusing on the message-content. But the end result is not expressed as to whether the nonverbal act and accompanying verbal proclamation altered the people's attitudes and behaviors. 1.14 Ezekiel 21.13-224*9 (LXX: 21.8-17)

1.14.1 Communicative Meaning. Ezekiel was commanded to utter an oracle regarding a 'sword' (vv. 13-14), the instrument of destruction. 489. Verses 13-22 are usually considered to constitute a single literary unit, but

294

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Although not explicitly stated, the implication from the preceding literary context (vv. 8-10) is that the sword was the 'sword of Yahweh' which was being prepared for the executing of divine judgment. Because of the associated nonverbal behavior (vv. 17, 19) it is best to assume that the oracle was delivered in a sombre mood of judgment, with any resulting reaction of rejoicing arising only within the audience because of their expectations of whom the oracle might be against.490 the attribution of the whole to Ezekiel has been seriously questioned. Crucial to the present study is whether vv. 17, 19a, 22, which contain the two instructions for nonverbal communication and the latter's interpretation, and vv. 15b and 18, are considered part of the oracle. Cooke (1936: 229-30), Herntrich (1933: 105) and Holscher (1924: 112-13) delete all of the above verses along with 13, 14a in attempting to arrive at a poetic sword song. But this approach is based on the unfounded assumption that the prophetic oracles must have been comprised of a consistent metrical structure. Such an approach overlooks the possibility that Ezekiel may have taken a secular sword song or a previous sword oracle and modified it in significant ways, and it seeks only to recover the exact oral presentation of the oracle, rather than accepting the extant text's self-testimony not as a record of the proclamation, but rather as the divine command which also incorporated the injunctions about the nonverbal behaviors which were to accompany the auditory proclamation. Verse 17 is often excised as a later addition (cf. Funs 1984: 111; Garscha 1974: 129; Wevers 1969: 123-24; Zimmerli 1979: 432, 435) on the basis that it comes too soon in the oracle, that contentually it reflects grief rather than rejoicing, and that it presupposes the battle as already having happened and therefore must have been composed after Jerusalem's fall. But there is no basis for the presupposition that nonverbal reactions to a message must come at the end of an oracle, and in fact v. 17 does come at a very critical point in the oracle at the end of the first strophe (vv. 13-18). If the poem is not viewed as reflecting a bloodthirsty exultation, then the actions of grief are not out of place. If one understands the command to lament as a response to the message itself, rather than to the historical realization of the proclaimed events, then there is no basis for assuming it must be post-fall. Zimmerli (1979: 431) argues for the inclusion of vv. 19a and 22 on the basis of the catchword rp and Wevers (1969: 125) on the basis that their exclusion results in only a secular poem, not the proclamation of a divine word. Verses 15b and 18 are often viewed as wisdom insertions and therefore deleted. But the reason for excluding these verses primarily rests not on any contentual or textual basis, but on the difficulty of understanding and integrating them into the oracle. A proposal will be made in this study to interpret them within the present context. 490. This clarification must be made in light of those who have interpreted the whole oracle as expressing a bloodthirsty attitude of satisfaction and exultation at

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

295

Within the context of the popular theology, the Judahites and exiles were expecting that when the divine sword of judgment went forth, it would do so against their enemies. Thus the announcement that the sword was being prepared for slaughter (vv. 14-16) could have raised the audience's expectations that Judah would be released from the Babylonian control, and their return from exile would quickly ensue. Such a perception may have initially fostered a mood of rejoicing and exultation in the audience that God was now about to vindicate his people. It seems that in v. 15b, the prophet echoed the audience's initial sentiment by stating 'Or, we shall rejoice.'491 The phrase is either an exclamation (possibly expressed mockingly) in which Ezekiel echoed the sentiments of the people at the news that the sword of divine judgment was being prepared, or a rhetorical question probably asked in a sarcastic tone, 'Or shall we rejoice?' Regardless of whether taken as exclamation or question, its purpose seems to be to express the mood of the audience which will be contrasted to the mood of mourning which Ezekiel was to display nonverbally (v. 17). Thus the first-person plural the sword's activity (cf. Cooke 1936: 230; Wevers 1969: 124). That interpretation is based largely on the premise that the clapping in vv. 19 and 22 reflected a triumphant attitude like that of the victor over an enemy. The paralinguistic behaviors of v. 17 must then be interpreted either correspondingly as cries of exultation or contrastively as expressions of grief. If the first option is not chosen, the latter option results in a mood which is contrary to that assumed for the oracle, and must be resolved by either excising the paralinguistic behaviors (v. 17) as later additions or by understanding them as reflecting the prophet's grief at the message in antithesis to the divine exultation. In this study, it is argued that the clapping of vv. 19 and 22 should be interpreted as indignation, and therefore corresponds with the nonverbal expressions of sorrow in v. 17. 491. The difficulty in translating v. 15b is readily acknowledged. The translation here proposed is based on the MT. "IK introduces an opposite case or exception to what has just been said (cf. Keil 1976: I, 292): for example 'Or'. The meaning is similar if taken as a corruption of the Akkadian prohibitive ai, thus 'Let us not rejoice!' (Block 1997: 672, 677). Either of the above is preferable to the translation of it as an exclamation, 'Oh!', cognate to an Akkadian expression, 'come then', which is a cry of excitement (cf. Cooke 1936: 237). As pointed in the MT, 2T2J] is a qal first-person plural imperfect. The LXX's ETOIUTI eiq TrapcxXvoiv can be retroverted either to H2J11K (cf. Cooke 1936: 237), or to a form of 01], 'to flee, escape' in the general sense of 'move' (cf. Parunak 1978: 306). The LXX is an attempt to render a difficult Hebrew passage.

296

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

construction does not refer to God and the prophet rejoicing in mirth over the coming destruction,492 but to the people rejoicing inappropriately in anticipation of God's sword vindicating and protecting them. The prophet then immediately proceeded to remind the audience of their haughtiness with respect to other nations (v. 15b): 'the staff of my son [Yahweh's people] despises every tree493 [other nations]'.494 This 492. Contra Delitzsch 1885: 391. 493. In Ezekiel, |"J? is used in five different ways: (1) metaphorically for nations (cf. 15.2, 3, 6; 17.24; 31.4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18; 37.16, 17, 18, 19, 20); (2) metaphorically for individuals (21.3, as interpreted by vv. 8-9); (3) metaphorically for idols (cf. 20.32; so understood here by Targum); (4) as part of the stereotyped phraseology locating the people's idolatrous worship ('under every green tree': 6.13; 20.28), and (5) literally for wood as fuel for fire (24.10; 39.10), building material (26.12; 41.16, 22, 25), or fruit trees (34.27; 36.30; 47.7, 12). In 21.15, the metaphorical use designating other nations best fits the context so that the imagery refers to Judah's unwillingness to be in submission to another nation, even if the submission was the divine will (cf. Jer. 27-28). 494. The MT (f I? ^D HONQ Tl Una;) has been translated and interpreted in several different ways: (1) The translation here takes "OH CDHttJ to be a construct chain and the subject of the feminine participle HOKQ, and j*# ^D, the object. The staff of my son' is understood as a reference to the leader's staff (cf. CDDtD in Ezek. 19.11, 14), which is a metonymic figure for the whole kingdom of Judah (cf. Ezek. 37.15-28 where fl? is so used, and the recurring phrase 'wn&r 'eoti in 37.19; 47.13, 21, 22; 48.19, 29, 31), and 'every tree', to other nations. Against this translation of the phrase it is argued that CD327 is usually masculine while here it is constructed with a feminine participle. But here and in v. 18 are the only occurrences in Ezekiel of the noun as subject, so the gender of an accompanying predicate cannot be compared elsewhere in the book. The term may be like i~!!2Q which can be coordinated with either masculine or feminine verbs (cf. Delitzsch 1885: 388-89; Keil 1976:1, 292). (2) If ^D QHCJ; and ftf ^D HONQ are taken as two independent clauses, then the former ('The staff, my son') is understood as the people's slogan which expressed, based on 2 Sam. 7 and Gen. 49.9-10, the sentiment of the inviolability of Jerusalem. The second phrase is then understood as the divine refutation which declares that city's utter destruction: 'It [the sword] despises every tree [every inhabitant]' (cf. Block 1997: 672, 677-78). Understanding 'every tree' as a reference to individuals correlates with the metaphor in 21.3, as interpreted in vv. 8-9. (3) ^3 has been interpreted as a vocative with 12327 being the direct object and f!} ^D an indirect object. This also necessitates altering the pointing of flOKQ to second masculine perfect: 'My son, you have despised the rod with everything of wood' (cf. Taylor 1969: 162). QD2J then refers to a rod of punishment (cf. Isa. 10.5 where the Assyrians are spoken of as the rod, CDD2J, of God's anger), with the whole phrase meaning that the Judahites had rejected all former punishments which were

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

297

statement appears to be either a declarative statement by the prophet about the people to highlight their unwillingness to submit to the rule of any foreign nation, or it could be a quotation of the people which echoes their sentiments of assurance of God's covenantal promise to Judah, based on Gen. 49.9-10, which presumably ensured their protection from foreign incursions. The probability of the allusion here to Gen. 49.10 is strengthened by the allusion to that passage in Ezek. 21.32b. But the use of the first-person suffix ('my son'), which refers to God in the context of the divine address to the audience, seems to indicate that it is the prophet levelling a declarative and scathing indictment against the people. After having reiterated that the sword was given to the blacksmith to be made ready (v. 16a), the weapon was then given into the hand of the slayer (v. 16b). At this juncture in the oracle there is no explicit indication that the sword was not going to be used against Judah's enemies,

of wood, in contrast to the present sword which was of iron. Against this understanding is that the oracle makes no reference to the sword being of iron in contrast to wood. (4) The construct chain sn CO2J ('the rod of my son'), as subject of the sentence, means 'the rod [Babylon] that punishes my son'. The 'rejecting every tree' is then interpreted as exceeding in severity all rods of punishment made of wood (cf. Davidson 1893: 152; Haupt 1926: 316), exceeding in profitability of punishment (cf. Delitzsch 1885: 388), or rejecting in the sense of not going against any other nation ('every tree') but Israel. The first part of the verse can then be construed as a question 'Or shall we rejoice, when the rod of my son rejects every tree?' (5) The LXX translates the first three words as verbs: 'slay, set at nought, despise every tree'. But the LXX appears to be an attempt to understand a difficult Hebrew text (cf. Block 1997: 672; Parunak 1978: 306-307). (6) The Targum is very interpretive: 'Because the tribe of the House of Judah and Benjamin rejoiced over the tribes of Israel when they were exiled for having worshipped idols, they in turn went astray after images of wood.' Cf. Terrien (1996: 121), Tourney (1983: 251-52) who also understand p in the sense of wood idols as the means by which the despising occurs. (7) Numerous emendations have been proposed for v. 15b (cf. Bertholet 1897: 111; Bewer 1951: 197; 1953: 162; Cornill 1886: 300-303; Tournay 1983: 250-54). Allen (1989: 69-70; 1990: 19) proposes the translation 'Every tree: or the ruler(s) of Israel, the rejected scepter.' This requires 2T2J] to be understood as an abbreviation for L?$rW'1 C)K&] and emending POKO to a niphal participle. The whole then is taken as a misplaced gloss on v. 3 (explaining 'every tree') and unrelated to the 'sword song'.

298

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

but only a hint of such, if the statement of v. 15b was expressed in a mocking or sarcastic tone, indicating that something was amiss. 1. Crying out and striking the thigh. Ezekiel was then commanded to accompany the verbal proclamation with nonverbal behaviors (v. 17): he was to cry out and wail and strike his thigh.495 There is no textual basis for assuming that from the very beginning of the oracle Ezekiel was performing an excited and frenzied 'sword dance' of which the nonverbal behaviors of vv. 17 and 19 were only a part.496 Although it is conceivable that the prophet may have been gyrating in that manner, the text does not indicate such. So only the nonverbal activities specified can be analyzed rhetorically. His crying out and wailing were nonverbal paralinguistic exclamations of mourning and his striking the thigh was a nonverbal gesture expressive of mourning (cf. Jer. 31.19).497 The reason for the mourning was because the sword had been prepared not for Judah's enemies, but for Judah itself (v. 17).

495. The instruction is clearly that of striking the thigh, not the breast (contra Cooper 1994: 213). The latter is expressed through the root HDD (cf. Gruber 1980: 434-56 on 2 Sam. 1.12; 3.31; Est. 4.3; Isa. 22.12; Jer. 4.8; 49.3; Joel 2.12) or through nn'P ^ rpn (Nan. 2.8). The LXX's KpOTT|0ov 87ii TT)v %eipd OOD presupposes ~[T; also Syriac. This was either the result of a textual error of a 1\1 interchange, or an alteration because of unfamiliarity with the gesture of 'striking the thigh' and the more common use of p£50 with clapping the hands (cf. Num. 24.10; Job 27.23; Lam. 2.15). 496. Contra Matheney 1965: 260; Terrien 1996. Terrien (1996) speculatively interprets the striking of the thigh as the prophet being cut by the sword which he had been juggling as part of the sword dance, and the crying out, mentioned at the beginning of v. 17, as the resultant 'shriek of pain at the impacting wound' (123). This act of mutilation of the part of the prophet (128) 'initiates a sympathetic rapport with the falling of the sword upon the people' (123), as well as signifies the self-immolation of Yahweh, who the prophet is portraying in the dance (130). In light of 'striking the thigh' with the hand being an ancient Near Eastern gesture of mourning, such can be maintained in this passage. 497. See also the references to the gesture in Mesopotamian literature (cf. Lipinski 1970: 495; Gruber 1980: 380-84; Viberg 1992: 50) and classical Greek literature (e.g. Iliad 15.113-14; 16.124-25; cf. Sittl 1890: 21, 25) where it is also a gesture of remorse and grief. Bodi (1987: 217; 1991: 238) suggests that it may be here an expression of anger and cites Akkadian literature where the gesture is a sign of anger and consternation. Also in classical Greek literature, besides being a mourning gesture, it also occurs as a gesture of anger (cf. Botha 1996: 8).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

299

With respect to the paralinguistic expressions, the terms pUT and L?L?'1 are used in parallel construction always in the context of expressing deep grief or sorrow (cf. Jer. 25.34; 47.2; 48.20, 31; Isa. 14.31; 15.2-4; Hos. 7.14). p^T is at times associated with other nonverbal customs expressive of extreme grief such as placing ashes on the head, shaving the head, wearing sackcloth, tearing one's garments (cf. Ezek. 27.3031; 2 Sam. 13.19; Isa. 15.2-4). Similarly ^ refers to distress and grief as in Isa. 65.14 ('wail with a broken spirit'). In Jer. 4.8; Joel 1.13 and Mic. 1.8 it is parallel to "ISO, and in Joel 1.5, parallel to PDD. It is used in the context of mourning behaviors of wearing sackcloth and shaving the head in Isa. 15.2-3. The only case where ^ is used for exultation is Isa. 52.5. But whenever it is conjoined with p^T, the context is always grief. Thus the mood expressed by the prophet should not be interpreted as that of exultation. The nonverbal behavior of Ezekiel was in marked contrast to the attitude that he attributed to the people (i.e. rejoicing, v. 15b). Ezekiel's indictment through contrastive nonverbal behavior is therefore similar to the verbal contrast made in Isa. 22.12-13 where the prophet, in anticipation of the coming threat had called the people to weeping, lamentation, shaving the head, and donning sackcloth (v. 12), but instead the people were rejoicing (]")&&) and feasting (v. 13). Therefore Ezekiel's nonverbal behavior became an indictment against the people's misunderstanding of the object of the sword's attack—a misunderstanding arising out of the popular theology that God was irrevocably for them. Ezekiel's behavior therefore portrayed to the people what their response should be in light of the divine proclamation he was giving. The nonverbal behavior must not therefore be interpreted as being indicative of the people's actual response to the divine message of destruction or predictive of the people's response to the reality of the Babylonian destruction,498 but rather demonstrative of what should be the appropriate response to the message of doom. That crying out and wailing were used not only for the natural reaction to a disaster already having occurred, but were appropriate emotive expressions in anticipation of disasters yet to come, is clear from Isa. 14.31 and Jer. 47.2 where forms of p£>T and L?t7* are conjointly used. In Jer. 47.2 the setting for crying out was the coming activity of the 'sword of Yahweh' (v. 6) which was about to occur (vv. 1, 4). In Isa. 498. Contra Stacey 1990: 197; Wevers 1969: 124.

300

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

14.28-32, similar to Ezek. 21.15, 17, the people's (Philistia's) inappropriate attitude of rejoicing (v. 29: 'do not rejoice') because they thought they were secure (v. 29a) was contrasted with the appropriate response of grief (v. 31: 'Wail, O gate; cry out, O city') because of the destruction that was yet to come. Similarly, forms of ^ in Ezek. 30.2; Jer. 4.8; 49.3; Mic. 1.8 (in the latter three the term is parallel to ~I30), and pUT in Est. 4.1, indicate wailing not as a result of destruction but as appropriate anticipatory responses to the news that destruction was coming. Likewise, in Ezek. 21.11-12; 32.18, and Est. 4.3, groaning and wailing, although employing different Hebrew terms, occurs because of the threats of impending judgment. Besides wailing, other mourning gestures were considered appropriate anticipatory responses to an impending threat: donning sackcloth (Jer. 4.8; 6.26; 49.3; Est. 4.1, 3; Isa. 22.12), rolling in dust or ashes (Jer. 6.26; Est. 4.1, 3), weeping (Est. 4.3; Isa. 22.12) and removal of jewelry (Exod. 33.4). Such paralinguistic evocations and mourning gestures served a different function than when performed after a death, since those which anticipated a threat of judgment were done with the knowledge that they might affect a possible change in the circumstances (cf. 2 Sam. 12.15-23; Ps. 35.13-14). The transition to the second part of the oracle is in v. 18. The connection with v. 15b is evident in DOKQ ED£>. Just as v. 15b contained an initial iteration of the people's sentiments ('we shall rejoice') so too v. 18 can be interpreted as expressing the response of the people to the announcement that the sword of judgment was about to come upon them and not their enemies: 'For (it is) a testing!'499 In other words, they would accept the fact that some type of punitive judgment might come upon them (cf. Jer. 9.6), just as it had in 597 BCE, but that did no mean that it was in any sense an ultimate judgment. The people sought to take refuge in the fact that God would only test them with the sword of judgment which would vindicate their true mettle as the covenant 499. JPQ is understood as a noun, 'testing', rather than a pual perfect, 'it has been tested', or 'a testing has been made'. As a pual, the implied subject (that which has been tested) has been understood as being the rod of punishment (the sword), or the Babylonians (cf. Delitzsch 1885: 392; Haupt 1926: 316; Keil 1976:1, 293), or the people of Israel (cf. Davidson 1893: 153-4; Wevers 1969: 124). Taking it as a noun, Block (1997: 674, 679) suggests 'For the testing [is over]', with the referent being the sword which has been proven ready for its mission.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's S

301

people, yet not realizing that even if tested their character would be found wanting (cf. Jer. 6.27-30) and they would be rejected. The sentiment of the people is countered by the question 'And what if also the staff despises [this tree, which is Babylon]?' The response to the question is a divine pronounce that 'It shall not be [a testing]',500 implying that it will be much worse, specifically a total destruction, as the oracle goes on to describe. The second half of the oracle stresses the ferocity with which the sword will be wielded against the people. 2. Clapping the hands. In v. 19, Ezekiel was commanded to clap, and at the end of the oracle (v. 22), the clapping by the prophet was interpreted as being illustrative of God's clapping. The meaning of the clapping has been variously interpreted: (1) As expressing anger.501 The similar use of the gesture would be that in which Balaak angrily clapped his hands before Balaam who had

500. The words PITT1 $b POND antD 03 DN HOT have been variously interpreted: (1) If iTTT K1? is taken as a separate phrase, then the first phrase can be understood with (a) 'staff as the subject, and 'tree' (cf. v. 15; i.e. the nation here wielding the sword—Babylon) the implied direct object: 'And what if [the] staff [of my son] despises [even this tree]?' The answer is a declaration of God, 'It shall not be [a testing]', with the implied subject being the judgment that is about to come. Or, (b) 'sword' as the implied subject and 'staff, the direct object: 'And what if [the sword] despises the staff (cf. Wevers 1969: 124). rTTP 8*7 would then either be a question 'shall it not be?' implying the inevitability of the coming judgment, or a declaration 'it shall be no more', that as a result of the judgment Israel will be completely destroyed (cf. Block 1997: 674, 679). (2) Taking the whole as a single phrase, then nVP 8*7 must be part of the question: (a) with 'staff as the subject: 'What if [the] staff which despises should be no more?', that is, shall perish (cf. Davidson 1893: 154; Allen 1989: 67-69; 1990: 20, although he emends noRQ to a niphal participle, i.e. 'the rejected scepter'; Terrien 1996: 123), or shall not prove itself to possess strength (cf. Keil 1976: I, 293). Or, (b) emending POND to second masculine singular perfect and taking 'staff as the direct object: 'And why, if you despise [the] rod should it not take place?' referring to the appropriateness of the punishment (cf. Bewer 1951: 198; Fohrer 1955: 121). In the former (2a), entB is conjointly constructed with a feminine participle and a masculine imperfect and the question inappropriately remains unanswered in the context. The latter (2b) results in an interpretation similar in meaning to that followed in this study. 501. Cf. Ackroyd et al. 1986: 415; Block 1997: 679; Cooper 1994: 213; Greenberg 1997: 424; Vorwahl 1932: 217-18.

302

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

not prophesied as the king desired (Num. 24.10). Anger is also the emotion in Ezek. 22.13. (2) As expressing grief.502 The emotion of grief need not be excluded from understanding the behavior as expressive of indignation for as in Ezek. 6.11-12 (see Chapter 2 §1.10), the gesture may have signified a combination of anger which was tempered by grief rather than anger associated with vindictive joy. In v. 20, the use of PIS,503 which is an exclamatory cry of grief in 6.11, carries through the paralinguistic behaviors of sorrow from v. 17 and therefore represents the blending of the two emotions when conjoined with the emotive display of clapping the hands (v. 19). (3) Analogous to clapping at the defeat of enemies (cf. Ezek. 25.6; Nah. 3.19; Lam. 2.15), as expressing scornful exultation in anticipatory triumph over the sword's enemies.504 As discussed under Ezek. 6.11 (see Chapter 2 §1.10), the biblical references to clapping do not confine the gesture to this meaning. By analogy to its usage in 6.11, the special terminology of ^]D !~D3, which is distinctive from the triumphant use of the gesture in Ezek. 25.6 (T KOD), points rather to indignation. (4) As a magical act causing the weapons to increase their fury.505 Thus by the gesture, the sword doubled506 and tripled (v. 19) its destruc502. Cf. Parunak 1978: 308. 503. Other ways of handling ITR include deleting it (cf. Wevers 1969: 125); considering it a shortened form of nKH (cf. Block 1997: 674); considering it an abbreviation for the preceding D~in nnDK which has been inserted alongside the full reading (cf. Allen 1990: 20; Driver 1960: 124; Rost 1904: 481); or emending it (cf. Bertholet 1897: 112; Cornill 1886: 306; Oort 1889: 512). But in light of 6.11 where this interjection is associated with clapping, it can here be understood in a similar manner. 504. Cf. Bertholet 1897: 112; Cooke 1936: 230-31; Delitzsch 1885: 391; Fohrer 1955: 121-22; 1968: 72; Fuhs 1984: 112; Taylor 1969: 163; Wevers 1969: 124; Zimmerli 1979: 434. 505. Cf. Bodi 1987: 218-19; 1991: 239-40; Eichrodt 1970: 293-95; Maarsingh 1986: 351; Oort 1889: 511; Terrien 1996: 124-25. Although Fuhs (1984: 112), Wevers (1969: 125), and Zimmerli (1979: 434) interpret the action as primarily a clap of exultation, they also combine with it a magical element of increasing the sword's fury. Although Hals (1989: 151) sees the setting of this oracle in the context of weapon magic, the 'clapping of hands is less clearly a part of this background'. 506. In v. 19, the LXX translated ^S^D as second masculine singular imperfect continuing the command to the prophet to take another sword (KOI SinXaavaaov po|i(j>aiav). But the MT's third feminine niphal seems more appropriate, so that the

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

303

tive potential. But the only analogy to such an action which can be mustered is that of 2 Kgs 13.18 in which the king struck the arrows on the ground three times which was then interpreted as the number of times he would destroy the Arameans. But even if it is admitted that there is a magical element in the 2 Kgs 13.18 incident, the comparison is tenuous, for in Ezek. 21.19 the instrument of destruction (the sword) was not the object used for the striking (clapping) as were the arrows in 2 Kgs 13.18. The increasing of the sword's fury can be explained as resulting, not from a magical act of clapping, but from the divine anger which the emotive gesture of clapping expressed. In other words, because of his wrath, God made the sword's destructive power double and triple. (5) As a gesture to call a servant, which in this case is the sword. The prophet by clapping represented that God was about to summon the sword of judgment into action. The difficulty with this interpretation is that there are no other biblical examples which can be adduced of such a use of clapping.507 (6) As communicating the sound of the sword's blows and thereby indicating the intense fury of the activity. The major difficulty with this interpretation is that it lacks correspondence to the textual explanation of the action as reflective of God's clapping (v. 22). The most fitting interpretation is that the gesture expressed God's indignation at the rebelliousness of the people (i.e. their continued despising of even Babylon which was God's instrument of judgment at that juncture in history, alluded to in v. 18). In Ezekiel, the normal phraseology which expresses God's wrath is 'my anger/wrath will be fully spent' or 'I will fully vent my anger/wrath' (TOPI^N rto: 5.13; 6.12; 7.8; 13.15; 20.8, 21). Here in v. 22, this normal phraseology has been substituted by the expression 'and also I, I shall clap my hands, and I shall make my wrath rest (upon them)'.508 As a result of the

verb is not another nonverbal action commanded upon the prophet (contra Oort [1889: 511] who revocalizes both ^SDJl and nntzr^Ci to second masculine piel). In this verse, the LXX understood three swords to be involved which may indicate that the LXX translators envisioned the prophet performing a type of sword dance with multiple swords. 507. It is acknowledged, though, that clapping is a way of calling a servant in the East (e.g. Egypt, India); on which see MacCulloch 1955: 499. 508. Tinm, although possibly meaning 'causes the wrath to be abated', most

304

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

divine anger, the sword's destructive ferocity increases (v. 19) and the sword is commanded to begin the action (v. 21).509 In this oracle, Ezekiel used conventional nonverbal expressions of emotion in a representational manner to demonstrate, not future emotional responses, but current ones. The first set of nonverbal behaviors (v. 17: crying out, wailing, slapping the thigh) represented how the people should appropriately respond to the news of the judgment coming upon them. The second set (vv. 19, 22: clapping the hands) represented both God's emotive response to the people's disposition and the divine indignation which lay behind the severe judgment. Even though the prophet had assumed the divine role in v. 19, the grief expressed while in the audience role of v. 17 was not completely abandoned. In the midst of expressing the divine sentiment, sadness was still present and expressed in the paralinguistic interjection of v. 20. Thus in the divine sentiment of anger there is a merging with the previously expressed human response of grief. It can be inferred that a similar merging is to be reflected in the human response, that in expressing sorrow over the fact of the judgment, the audience should empathize with the divine anger over the sins which necessitated the judgment. Thus the mood of the oracle as a whole can be understood as one of sorrow (v. 17) and indignation (v. 19), rather than expressing approval and anticipatory triumph at the judgment. 1.14.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. These nonverbal actions were concurrent with the verbal oracle and were therefore not used as initial attention attractors like many of the other sign-acts in which the nonverbal actions were performed before any verbal proclamation was given. The people's attention was already directed toward the prophet who was in the process of likely means 'causes it to settle' on the object of the divine wrath (cf. Ezek. 5.13; 16.42; 24.13); cf. Ackroyd et al. 1986: 415. 509. The sword is addressed in v. 21, contra Guthrie (1962: 276; also Cooper 1994: 199) who takes the verse as an injunction addressed to the prophet. But he does so only by extracting vv. 19-22 as a separate oracle, deleting vv. 19b6-20, reading ^QDH (v. 19) as second-person perfect ('and double yourself up'), and emending the feminine imperatives in v. 21 to masculine ('twist around, go right, go left, wherever your face is pointing'). But his arguments are unconvincing because once the verses are removed from the context of the activity of the sword, the meaning and purpose of the resultant prophetic actions are left unexplained.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

305

verbally delivering the oracle. But the nonverbal elements in vv. 17 and 19 occurred at pivotal points in the oracle where the whole emphasis of the message was altered. At v. 17, the cries of mourning and slapping the thigh occurred in contrast to the mood of the audience which was one of joy over hearing the news of the divine sword's readiness which they anticipated was prepared to be used against their enemies (v. 15b). But the contrasting mood expressed by the nonverbal behaviors in v. 17 should have caused the people to halt abruptly in their emotive response. The unexpectedness of displays of mourning should have caused the people's attention to be heightened, producing a curiosity as to why the prophet, in the midst of a time which they felt should be one of rejoicing, was indeed mourning. The nonverbal behavior thus arrested the people's attention so that they did not miss the point which was subsequently made explicit by the verbal proclamation. The accompanying verbal message clarified the issue in the climax of this half of the oracle: 'For it is against my people' (v. 17). The clapping of the hands (v. 19) provided the transition point to the second part of the oracle which diverted the audience's attention away from themselves and their response to the divine message of doom, and onto the divine emotions and the sword, which in the latter part of the oracle took on an almost independent existence. 2. Comprehension. By physically displaying the conventional gesture and articulations of mourning (v. 17), Ezekiel left no doubt as to what type of reaction to the divine message was appropriate. But since the nonverbal behavior of clapping (v. 19) can have several meanings, the people may not initially have been certain of the type of emotion the prophet was thereby displaying—whether anger or exultation. Although the first behaviors (v. 17) were not explained verbally (their clarity as mourning gestures apparently precluded the necessity for such), the latter behavior (v. 19) needed further verbal clarification. In the audience's understanding of what the prophet was doing, there may have been not only an ambiguity over the meaning of the clapping, but also over whom the prophet was thereby portraying. As the people observed Ezekiel's clapping (v. 19), they may have initially felt that Ezekiel was continuing his role as representative of his fellow-citizens as in the previous nonverbal behaviors (v. 17). The aspects of who was clapping, and why, were clarified in the subsequent verbal declaration in v. 22. 3. Acceptance. The message which Ezekiel was proclaiming in this oracle was not a message which was amenable to the people's way of

306

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

thinking. They anticipated the instrument of judgment to be used against their enemies, and if perchance it was coming against them, it would only do so in a disciplining manner (v. 18a). To facilitate the people's reception of the message which he gave, Ezekiel began the oracle in an enigmatic manner of proclaiming the preparedness of the sword of judgment without initially letting the audience know that it was to be used against them. The people's emotive response of anticipatory joy (v. 15b) would be similar to that of hearing an oracle against a foreign nation which, as a judgment against an enemy, would elicit a favorable audience response. Once the barriers of counterdefense had been minimized through this indetermination of the recipients of the judgment, then, through the nonverbal action of mourning (v. 17), the prophet turned the tables on the people. The suasive force of the prophet's arguments at that point was also enhanced by the fact that in assuming the role of the people, he identified with his audience even though, through the nonverbal behaviors, he was implicitly indicting them for their dissimilar emotive response. The emotions of sadness and sorrow which the prophet displayed must also have been his own emotions, so that as an active participant in the prophecy, he himself was deeply feeling the anguish.510 The sentiment of v. 18a ('For [it is] a testing') may indicate that the audience was receptive to the concept that the sword would be used against them, showing that Ezekiel's persuasive strategies were initially effective. But the prophet could not let the people settle into a complacency of rationalizing that the message of the first part of the oracle was only that of a punitive judgment of testing. The enigmatic verbal statement 'It shall not be' (v. 18b) could have been interpreted by the people in a different manner than that intended by the prophet. As the response to the question 'What if the staff despises?' the people may have supposed that the prophet meant that the tree which was going to punish them would be no more, and thereby expected the prophet to declare that the sword of judgment would not only be against Judah, but against its punishing enemy as well (just as the oracle of Ezek. 21.33-37 turns the sword against Ammon). Was the prophet now going

510. Davidson (1893: 151) views the emotional display of v. 17 as being Ezekiel's agitation at the thought of the coming destruction. That the prophet felt these emotions is affirmed, but the communicative aspect of his displaying those emotions to his audience must also be emphasized.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

307

to portray the sword's triumphant activity over the enemy that had tested them? If so, then they could still rejoice. Ezekiel stressed the divine displeasure and indignation directed against his fellow-people by clapping his hands (v. 19). Since clapping could signify not only anger, but also exultation over an enemy's defeat, Ezekiel's action could have initially been misconstrued by the people who thought that he was proclaiming what they anticipated. But the ambiguity of the nonverbal clapping may have been intentionally used by the prophet to once again restrict the audience's countering arguments against the undesired message that God was angered at his own people. When clapping and thereby performing in the divine role, Ezekiel employed an argument from authority. He assumed an authoritarian position and declared, as a prophet, that this was the manner in which God was acting. In the nonverbal behaviors, Ezekiel used strategies which were emotion arousing rather than logical or rational arguments. Rather than merely verbally arguing that in light of the coming judgment the people should be grieved, he nonverbally modeled the grief response to them. Rather than stating that God was angry with them, he nonverbally displayed that anger. By displaying the outward manifestations of those emotions, the prophet sought to elicit similar, imitative and empathic responses from his audience. 4. Retention. Because of the use of conventional displays of grief and anger, whenever the audience at subsequent times either employed such nonverbal behaviors or saw them being employed, they would have been kinetically and visually reminded of the prophetic oracle and its meaning for them. 1.15 Ezekiel 21.23-29s11 (LXX: 21.18-24) 1.15.1 Communicative Meaning. In vv. 24-25, Ezekiel is commanded to 'make two roads for the sword of the king of Babylon to come... And make a signpost; at the head of the way to the city make512 [it]. A 511. The extent of this oracle is debated as to whether vv. 30-32 are to be considered part of the originally delivered oracle or later additions. Since those verses only involve verbal material, their inclusion as part of the oracle is of secondary importance when analyzing the nonverbal behaviors of vv. 24-25. 512. The repeated use of R~Q in v. 24b has raised numerous questions about its appropriateness. Four solutions have generally been proposed:

308

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

road you shall make for the sword to come.' The details are not given as to how the nonverbal representation was executed. It has been suggested that Ezekiel either drew the fork in the road upon the ground513 or in miniature upon a brick,514 and that the signpost was either a physical object which was erected515 or only a drawing 516 either on the ground or on the brick. The terms for making the roads and the signpost—respectively D'23 and K"n—are not those which usually refer to incising upon a brick (cf. 4.1 where the technical term ppn is used). The former verb is used in Isa. 43.19 for the actual construction of a road. Such usage also argues against Ezekiel merely choosing a fork in an already existing road within the village. Also, the separate command to make a signpost suggests that it was a distinct prop created by the prophet517 and not just a drawing on the ground. Thus it is most (1) Retain both uses and translate it as above. (2) Delete one of the two occurrences, thus 'and make a signpost at the head of the way to the city'. Since the first occurrence of the term is not represented in the LXX, it has been suggested that it is a miswritten dittography of the following

mil. (3) Emend one occurrence and retain the other. Lang (1978: 115-16) emends the first occurrence to C2N~n, thus forming a repetition understood in a distributive sense with the K~D at the end of the verse being the predicate. (4) Delete one occurrence and emend the other. Already assuming the deletion of the first occurrence, the second occurrence is then corrected by some as a miswriting of the preceding &9K~a. Following the LXX, vv. 24-25 are redivided so that T becomes the object of D'6?n. A repetition in a distributive sense results ('and a sign you shall place at the head of the way of the city, at the head of the way [of the city]') which implies the placing of two signs, one for each of the two respective roads. 513. Cf. Block 1997: 684; Cooke 1936: 231; Greenberg 1997: 426. 514. Cf. Allen 1990: 26; Buzy 1923: 255; Eichrodt 1970: 297-98; Keil 1976:1, 296. 515. Cf. Block 1997: 684; Wevers 1969: 125; Zimmerli 1979: 442. 516. Cf. Buzy 1923: 255. 517. Greenberg (1997: 416, 426-27) translates tCD Tl as 'and clear a place' on the basis that the piel of N"O means 'to hew down' (Josh. 17.15, 18) or 'to cleave' (Ezek. 23.47), and T has the meaning of 'place' in Deut. 23.13; Num. 2.17; Jer. 6.3. Thus Ezekiel was 'to clear a space...where he will act out what the king of Babylonia is described as doing' (427). Although the term T can mean 'place', the meaning of 'monumental stela' is also well attested from 1 Sam. 15.12; 2 Sam. 18.18; 1 Chron. 18.3; Isa. 56.5, and that meaning fits well here (cf. Ackroyd et al. 1986: 401-402; Talmon 1984: 9; Zimmerli 1979: 442). Cognates of K~D, such as Arabic bdra which means 'to form', 'to fashion by cutting', or 'to shape out, pare a

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

309

probable that the roads were fashioned on the ground with a separate signpost set up so that the representation was large enough to be visually accessible to the audience. The exact nature of the signpost is also not given, and the text is ambiguous as to whether only a single signpost was used with both cities designated upon it, or if separate signposts were set up at the head of each of the two diverging roads. The material out of which it was made—whether stone or wood518—is left unanswered. The term 'hand' (I1), may indicate that the signpost was hand-shaped.519 But, if the sign was made out of stone, then, more probably, it was a monumental pillar520 like a milestone, with the respective directions to the two cities written or incised upon it.521 But whatever the exact mode of representing this locale, it must have been obvious to the spectators that it was a road with a fork in it with one of the roads leading to Jerusalem and the other to Rabbah in Ammon. Since the command to perform nonverbal actions extends only through v. 25, it is most probable that the prophet only depicted the setting at which Nebuchadnezzar would decide which of the two routes to take, and did not nonverbally mimic the Babylonian king performing the pagan divinatory rites.522 Once the prophet had, with the nonverbal reed for writing or a stick for an arrow' (cf. BDB 135b; Hanson 1972: 354), indicate that the term is appropriate for the fashioning of such a stela. 518. McComiskey (1980: 127), on the mistaken basis that N~D in the piel elsewhere is always used for cutting down wood, suggests that the term need not imply 'carving', but merely a branch or a sapling cut for a marker. But the piel in Ezek. 23.47 does not have reference to cutting wood, but rather cleaving humans with a sword. So the piel refers to a mode of action and is not specifically tied to a particular object. 519. Cf. Ackroyd et al. 1986: 401; Talmon 1984: 9. 520. Zimmerli (1979: 442) views the signpost as an inscribed stone pillar because T, as a marker, usually refers to a memorial stela. This contrasts to the usual word for signal (03) and to the terms for roadmarkers in Jer. 31.21 QVii, THDn). 521. The command (v. 25) seems to imply that the termini of both roads were designated in writing on the sign(s). This argues against van den Bern's (1935: 108) and Buzy's (1923: 156-58) contention that there was only one sign on the road to Jerusalem and the road to Ammon was left unmarked. It is thus argued that in this way the nonverbal representation also indicated the result of the king's divination. But there is no reason to assume that the nonverbal display depicted anything other than the setting which would have heightened the rhetorical impact by initially leaving the result of the presage uncertain. 522. Contra Taylor (1969: 163) that Ezekiel mimicked the divinatory actions.

310

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

props, recreated a representation of the locale (vv. 24-25), he then verbally pronounced what would occur at the setting thus represented (vv. 26-27).523 The significant factor was not the prophet's making, setting in place, and arranging the nonverbal artifacts, for those actions were all preparatory to the verbal communication. The prophet's nonverbal bodily movements did not predict, in the manner of a simile, any future action which his fellow-people, God, or the Babylonians would take. Prior to the verbal pronouncement, the prophet was more like a stagehand who places the necessary props in their respective positions before the opening of the theatrical production. The nonverbal artifacts were employed to provide a visual and tangible setting which accentuated the thrust of the message which explained what would occur at the locale thus depicted. At the fork in the road the Babylonian king would perform the appropriate divinatory rites—belomancy, teraphim-inquiry, heptascopy—to determine which road was the appropriate one to take (v. 26). The divinations would all point to the road leading off toward Jerusalem (v. 27). The divinatory results must not be viewed as simply determining which road to take, but also incorporated the auspiciousness of the course of action under question.524 Thus the results of the divinations indicated that the expedition to Jerusalem would be favorable for the Babylonian army.

Cf. Zimmerli (1979: 440-41) who states that the command to portray in action the obtaining of the decision is expected, and thereby implies that Ezekiel did perform such, but the command is not present because the sign-act has been forced into the background in the literary text. In light of Jer. 43.9 where only the setting was created through the nonverbal activity, there is no reason to assume that Ezekiel had to do more than that here. 523. The shift from command in vv. 24-25 to description in vv. 26-29 does not mean that the actions of vv. 24-25 were only literary inventions (contra Holscher 1924: 114-15). 524. Cf. 1 Sam. 23.14; 30.7-8 where oracular inquiries and responses before military expeditions concerned not only the courses of action to take but the success of such actions. A striking parallel to Ezekiel's portrayal of the Babylonian king's activities is found in Mari letter 404.81-85: 'He (Atamrum) will arrive [either via] Saggaratum or via Terqa [or via Ma]ri. Concerning the three routes [ ] he is going to arrange [an oracular inquiry] and [if his gods render their consent], it is that (particular) route which shall be seized and he will arrive at my lord' (Malamat 1991: 188; cf. also Block 1997: 685-86).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

311

While the prophet almost blasphemously presented God as directing the Babylonian king through pagan divinatory rites which were clearly condemned within the Jerusalem priestly heritage, v. 28 provides the perspective of how the Judahites were viewing this activity by the Babylonian king: 'But to them it will be like divination of falsehood in their eyes.'525 For the Judahites, it was not a matter of whether the Babylonians could attack Jerusalem—although they apparently believed they would not do so at this time (cf. Jer. 37.19)—but it was the success of such an expedition as indicated by the divinatory rites which the Judahites viewed as false (v. 28a).526 They probably speculated that the answer could not possibly be true since it had been derived from pagan divinations and was incompatible with what they believed were God's promises to them. Part of the popular theology was the belief that even if the Babylonian army did march against Jerusalem, such a venture would be unsuccessful because the city was secure by virtue of God's protection. If the people's faith in the inviolability of Jerusalem is reflected in the nomenclature mi^3 D^CJIT (Jerusalem, the fortified, v. 25)527 then the popular theology against which this oracle was being pronounced by Ezekiel was underscored. That terminology subtly, yet ironically, contrasted the people's mistaken sense of security with the coming reality of the Babylonian siege and destruction (v. 27). 1.15.2 Rhetoric. The historical context of this action was most probably the departure of the Babylonian army under the direction of Nebuchadnezzar for a campaign in the west in 588/589 BCE. Word of the alliance

525. Some have understood the 'them' as a reference to Ezekiel's immediate exilic audience with the false divination referring to Ezekiel's predictions (cf. Eichrodt 1970: 300; Guthrie 1962: 278). But the referent of the divination is clearly that of the Babylonian king just spoken of. One would expect direct second-person plural address if Ezekiel's audience was the subject of the pronominal suffix. But it is also not denied that many of the exiles undoubtedly shared the Jerusalemites' perspective that the Babylonian king's pagan rituals were not valid. 526. Fohrer (1955: 124) contends that the implications of the divinations being false is that Nebuchadnezzar would therefore not follow those directives. But the perception of the divinations as false is textually not attributed to the Babylonians, who undoubtedly perceived them as valid and therefore would follow them, but to the Judahites. 527. Cf. Zimmerli (1979: 442) who retains the phrase rather than following the LXX ('in her midst').

312

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

between Judah and Ammon, and the ensuing rebellion, must have previously reached the exiles and fueled the hopeful expectations that Judah would be delivered from Babylonian domination, which would pave the way for their imminent return to their homeland. Once the Babylonian army set out in response to the rebellion, the exiles undoubtedly awaited with eager anticipation reports of the army's military maneuvers. But Ezekiel sought to shatter the exiles' hopeful expectations by reporting that the Babylonian army, which was fresh and ready for battle, would focus its efforts first of all against Jerusalem.528 1. Attention. The prophet's actions of drawing the roads and then setting a signpost at the fork must have attracted attention. The people probably wondered what he was doing, and the attention so attracted by the act of setting the props in place provided a receptive opportunity for the ensuing verbal proclamation. 2. Comprehension. What was obvious to the spectators was that the prophet had represented a road leading out of Babylon coming to a fork with one road leading to their homeland Judah and the other leading to Ammon. But the message's implications which were associated with the roads could not have been discerned until the prophet began his verbal proclamation. If the exiles' hope of an imminent return to Judah was being expressed in terms like those of Jer. 31.21 ('Set up roadmarkers, place guideposts; direct your heart to the highway, the way by which you went; return, O virgin of Israel, return to these your cities') and Isa. 43.19 ('Behold I am doing a new thing... I am setting a road in the desert') then the exilic audience may initially have thought that the road depicted by Ezekiel was that which God was preparing for them to return to their homeland. Therefore, Ezekiel's audience may have expected a very favorable oracle dealing with an imminent end to the exile. Only the verbal pronouncement clarified that this was not the case. Rather than bolstering the people's hopes of returning home on the road to Judah, Ezekiel sought to shatter those hopes by declaring that it was Nebuchadnezzar, in his military campaign, who was traveling that road.

528. Cf. Allen 1990: 27; Hals 1989: 154. But Greenberg (1991: 268; 1997: 42830) argues that this depiction does not recount what actually had or would occur; rather the whole was merely an imaginary scene or 'figment', i.e. 'a piece of threatening rhetoric independent of events' (1997: 428), designed to express the conviction that Nebuchadnezzar would besiege Jerusalem.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

313

Since the departure of Nebuchadnezzar's army for the west was of recent import for the Jewish exiles, it is possible that the audience anticipated Ezekiel would give some kind of declaration about the Babylonian king's movements. Assuming what the general topic of the prophecy was to be, the audience's curiosity would have been aroused as to the specific associated message. Was the prophet going to pronounce that the Babylonians were going to attack Ammon? Such an action could either mean that Judah would be altogether spared a Babylonian attack or that there would be more time for Judah to prepare for the Babylonian onslaught and to appeal to the Egyptians for assistance, thus thwarting any later Babylonian advance against Judah. Would there be a divine intervention which would divert the Babylonians from going to Jerusalem? Or would the Babylonians choose neither road, but return home? So the nonverbal representation should have created questions in the people's mind either as to the topic of the prophecy—was it about their return home or about the movements of the Babylonian army? Or, as to the content of the message, would it be favorable or unfavorable? The nonverbal setting, although arousing the curiosity, delayed a full comprehension of its meaning until the verbal proclamation. 3. Acceptance. Because of the ambiguity related to the depicted setting, the people would not have known initially that the message would be unfavorable toward Jerusalem. Such lack of comprehension should have restricted the production of any counterarguments prior to hearing the verbal oracle. In fact, if the audience anticipated a message which correlated with their hopes and expectations, a favorable mood would have been created. The prophet also used the visual props as a rhetorical strategy to intensify the impact of the message upon the audience. Instead of creating only a mental image through verbal description, Ezekiel attempted to draw the audience into the communication event by creating a tangible setting which helped establish the impression that they were actually at the place and participating in the event itself. Such a strategy should have heightened the audience's emotional involvement in the communication event. The nonverbal artifacts set the stage for the climax of the message which was the verbal description of what would occur at such a place. As the prophet verbally told of the Babylonian king's coming to the

314

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

fork (v. 26), and going through all the divinatory rites, the people's attention would have been further heightened as they awaited the prophet's declaration of the outcome of the rituals. The climax was reached (v. 27) with the declaration that the divination was against 'Jerusalem' with a listing of what the divination meant—a full siege of the city. 4. Retention. It is possible that Ezekiel, after having delivered his oral message, did not dismantle the represented setting, but left the signpost standing. If so, the signpost became an ongoing visual reminder to the people of the prophecy that the Babylonians would attack Jerusalem. The use of T to designate the signpost may indicate its more permanent nature, for this was the term often used to designate a monument set up as a perpetual reminder (cf. 2 Sam. 18.18; Isa. 56.5). But as a reminder, the roadmarker would have been ironic since memorials were set up to commemorate victories which the Israelites had achieved through God's help (cf. 1 Sam. 7.12), while Ezekiel's marker indicated God's intended defeat of his people. 2. Pre-586 BCE Transitional Sign-Acts Three of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts occurred just prior to, or at the point of, Jerusalem's destruction: Jeremiah's purchase of the field, Jeremiah 32; Ezekiel's lack of mourning at his wife's death, Ezek. 24.15-24; Ezekiel's release from the speechlessness, Ezek. 24.25-27 and 33.21-22 (dealt with above in Chapter 2 §1.8). These actions were performed at the transitional point when the people had to reformulate their perceptions and theology so as to adapt ideologically to the postdestruction situation. In performing these actions, Jeremiah and Ezekiel did not focus on the causes of the destruction, but rather sought to aid the people during this period of ideological transition by addressing the conditions subsequent to and the consequences resulting from the destruction. Thus the actions showed the people how to respond to the city's destruction (Ezek. 24.15-24), by illustrating the new relationship with God once the judgment had occurred (Ezek. 24.25-27; 33.21-22), and by depicting the new historical circumstances in the future (Jer. 32). The purpose of these actions was to give the people direction for the imminent future so that their responses to God's judgment would be the appropriate ones.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

315

2.1 Jeremiah 32.1-44 (LXX: 39.1-44) Jeremiah 32 divides into three major sections: First, vv. 1-5529 contain introductory comments and background information which give the date (v. 1) and location (v. 2), along with a parenthetical elaboration of the reason for Jeremiah's confinement (vv. 3-5). Verses 3-5 seem unrelated to vv. 6-44 in that the king's question ('Why do you prophesy judgment?') is in no way addressed or answered by vv. 6-44. Yet the literary juxtaposing of vv. 3-5 with vv. 6-44 thematically emphasizes the context of hopeless in which the sign-act is performed, and also heightens the contrast and incongruity between Jeremiah's message of destruction (vv. 3-5) and the sign-act of hope (vv. 6-15). Second, vv. 6-15530 report the sign-act in first-person narrative with a third-person introductory formula (v. 6a). Third, vv. 16-44 are Jeremiah's prayer and God's response which literarily highlight the incongruity of the message of the sign-act with the contemporary circumstances of judgment. Verses 16-25 are Jeremiah's prayer which seeks to clarify the appropriateness of his action and message. Verses 26-44 contain the divine response to his prayer reassuring Jeremiah of the validity of both the messages of destruction and of restoration.531 The issue of the original linkage of vv. 16-44 to the signact account will be discussed below under 'Rhetor Response'. 2.1.1 Communicative Meaning. The incident is dated in v. 1 to the tenth year of Zedekiah (588-587 BCE), and the repeated references to the locale as 'the court of the guard'532 in vv. 2, 8, 12 support this. According 529. Gevaryahu (1975: 55) suggests that vv. 1-5 were a marginal colophonic note of Baruch 'who supplemented various data to be preserved with the deed of purchase'. But the account of Zedekiah's interaction in vv. 3-5 serves a narrative function, not a colophonic one. 530. Lundbom (1986: 97-98), following Gevaryahu (1970: 370-72), suggests that vv. 6-15 are an 'extended colophon' to the deed of purchase, written by Baruch and possibly placed in the jar with the contract of sale. But as Lundbom himself (97) points out, Baruch's function is only described in vv. 12-14 as taking custody of the document to preserve it, and he is not described either as the scribe who wrote the document or as a signatory witness. The literary genre of vv. 6-15 is a narrative of a sign-act, rather than a colophon. 531. On the literary structure of, and literary devices employed in, vv. 16-44, see Brueggemann 1996; Kessler 1965: 71, 79-81, 176-85. 532. mtDD does not refer to a 'body of men', that is, the palace-guard. So the location was not the place where the soldiers who guarded the palace were

316

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

to 37.11-12, Jeremiah attempted to leave the city533 during the temporary lifting of the siege when the Babylonians went to eliminate the Egyptian threat. Subsequent to his arrest and initial imprisonment 'for many days' (37.13-16), Jeremiah was confined to 'the court of the guard' (37.21; 38.6, 13) where he remained until the city was captured by the Babylonians (38.28). The situation, as indicated in ch. 32, was that the siege was in progress (v. 2) with the siege works completed and in full operation (v. 24). So this incident must be placed after the Babylonians' resumption of the siege,534 in the latter phases of the city's existence, and not during the temporary lifting of the siege.535 The rhetorical circumquartered (contra Balla 1943: 89; Shanks 1987: 64). Rather mcmn ~Kn (cf. Jer. 32.2, 8, 12; 33.1; 37.21; 38.6, 13, 28; 39.14, 15; Neh. 3.25; also moan "OT, Neh. 12.39) refers to the court in which the guarding took place (cf. Driver 1907: 367), that is, the court of the prison house which is presumed to have been a minimum security or 'protective custody' area for prisoners which allowed interactions with nonconfined individuals. 533. Some suggest that the activities of 37.11-12 and ch. 32 are related in that Jeremiah's attempt to leave the city to go to Anathoth in order to take care of the personal business of dividing up property (37.11-12) had to deal with the property offered by Hanamel in ch. 32 (cf. Carroll 1986: 620, 675; Cornill 1905: 357; Eissfeldt 1962; Holladay 1989: 33-34; McKane 1996: 840; Perrin 1963: 411; Rudolph 1958: 191; Thompson 1980: 588). But an explicit connection is not made between the two passages, and the 37.12 incident may not have involved the same piece of property nor the same relatives as that of ch. 32. Others view 37.11-12 and ch. 32 as variant accounts of the same incident (cf. Holladay 1974: 109-10; Stacey 1990: 157). But the differences between the two accounts seem too considerable to be attributable to variations in recounting the same event. 534. Migsch (1981: esp. 19 n. 42, 245, 254) contends that Jeremiah was placed in the court of the guard on two occasions: once before the lifting of the siege and once after. By linking 32.2-5 to 34.1-7, he maintains that the purchase of the field occurred before the lifting of the siege and before the incident of Jeremiah's property dealings of 37.11-12. The focus of the act was thus to counter any false hope which might have occurred due to the anticipated lifting of the siege by showing that there was hope only after the conquest (19 n. 42). To deal with Migsch's complex of arguments about the interrelatedness of the incidents 32.2-5 and 34.1-7 is beyond the scope of this study, but it is noted that the hypothesis of two separate, temporally unconnected, incarcerations in the court of the guard is tenuous and the setting of the sign-act of ch. 32 fits better after the resumption of the siege when the people's hope was waning rather than prior to the lifting of the siege when their hope was waxing. 535. Contra Chang 1984: 246; Duhm 1901:260; Galeotti 1978:163-64; Holladay

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

317

stances of the siege's temporary lifting and that of the resumed siege were quite dissimilar. When the siege was lifted, the Judahites were anticipating that the Babylonians had permanently withdrawn (cf. 37.9) and that life would return to a condition of normalcy.536 So the acquiring of property under those circumstances would have been deemed by the people and even, to some degree, by Jeremiah (as evidenced by his attempt in 37.11-12) very appropriate. But once the Egyptians had retreated, the Jerusalem!tes' hope of an external deliverance by an ally was eliminated, since they could not have hoped to extricate themselves from the renewed siege. Therefore, the probable fate of the city had to be accepted even by those who had previously denied it. So the acquiring of property in the midst of the culmination of the renewed siege and certain destruction of the city, was totally incongruous with the external circumstances. It is this incongruity which was expressed by Jeremiah in the prayer (vv. 16-25), indicating that the incident occurred when the inevitability of the city's fate was becoming an assured reality. Jeremiah was instructed (vv. 6-7) that Hanamel, his cousin, would come and request Jeremiah to exercise his familial right of redemption.537 The implicit assumption in vv. 6-7, as evidenced by Jeremiah's subsequent action, is that Jeremiah was to accept the offer (cf. v. 25).538 No reason is given for Hanamel's desire to sell the property, but such could easily be attributed to the straits of the siege. In documents from Nippur, Babylon and Uruk, there are deeds transacted in the midst of siege circumstances in which the people temporarily sold family members and property, which could then be reclaimed after the siege was

1983: 158; 1986: 9; 1989: 33, 212-23; Huey 1993: 290; Thompson 1980: 586, 588, 592. 536. The attitude of a return to 'normalcy' is evidenced in the incident of 34.822 which is dated to the lifting of the siege: the people re-enslaved their servants whom they had previously emancipated. 537. On the role of the 'redeemer' in buying back family property which was sold out of necessity by the relative, see Lev. 25.24-34 and Ruth 4.1-12 (which also included levirite marriage). Cf. Westbrooke 1971. 538. Holladay (1989: 210) seeks to rectify there being no explicit divine command by moving the phrase 'buy (it) for yourself, which is lacking in LXX, from the end of v. 8a to the end of v. 7 where it is then part of the divine speech to Jeremiah.

318

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

over (cf. Oppenheim 1955: 76, 81). Whatever the circumstances were which necessitated the sale, one possibility is that Hanamel hoped somehow to ensure that the property remained within the family lineage.539 There might have been speculation that when the city fell, the besiegers would spare those who espoused a pro-Babylonian position. Since one of the reasons for Jeremiah's confinement was his pro-Babylonian political stance (cf. 37.13), Hanamel may have assumed that Jeremiah's chances of surviving after the siege were greater than his own and thereby the land could be retained in the family line. Or another possibility is that Hanamel had no hope or expectation about the future of the property but was merely following social and legal protocol that when a family property was sold, the relatives were given the first option of purchase. It is not known whether Jeremiah was the closest kin, and thereby had the primary right and responsibility540 (although such is suggested by the LXX's variation in v. 8: Kai cru Tipeapmepo<;541), or whether Hanamel had approached other relatives who, because of the Babylonian presence in the land, were unable or declined to take possession of the property. When Hanamel came to Jeremiah, the sale and purchase transaction was publicly performed (cf. ...TI)'?, v. 12). There are listed three classes of witnesses to the transaction: Hanamel, the seller; the legal witnesses who signed the deed; the other, non-legal witnesses who were fellow-prisoners with Jeremiah in the court of the guard. The latter group is mentioned because the transaction became not only a private transfer of property, but also a communication event, with the latter persons being part of the audience addressed by the prophetic message.

539. Wang (1973: 19-20; cf. also Huey 1993: 291) suggests that Hanamel offered the property as an accusatory test of Jeremiah's convictions to see whether Jeremiah was truly convinced of his declarations of a new future for Judah. But certainly the narrative, which describes the transaction as normal and natural, would have expressed such ulterior, hostile motives had they been present. 540. See Lev. 25.48-49 for the sequence of relatives having the right of redemption. 541. The LXX's reading is a result either of reading n^ITi "pi (cf. Cornill 1905: 360-61) for rf?N2n ~p\ or of the interpretative understanding that since the right was Jeremiah's it meant that he was the eldest, closest kin.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

319

The transaction was also done with all due legal exactitude: the purchase price542 in silver was weighed out (vv. 9b, lOb), a two-part543 542. Generally on the determining of price when redeeming land, see Westbrooke 1991. The sale price of 'seventeen shekels' is frequently considered to be a very small sum for a piece of property. But since nothing is known about the size of the field, land values, or the purchasing power of silver, speculation over the appropriateness of the 'seventeen shekels' becomes futile. It is known that in the context of 'siege' situations, property was sold at very low prices as evidenced in the 'siege documents' from Babylon, Urukand Nippur (cf. Oppenheim 1955;Hempel 1931:159). In a tablet from Ur (Figulla Ur Excavations. Text 4.8), the impoverished owner of the house sold it at a pittance in order to avoid starvation (Oppenheim 1955: 71). The 'siege documents' also contain 'famine clauses' which are references to the famine conditions with specification of the amount of barley which could be purchased with a shekel. The purpose of such clauses appears to be the prevention of subsequent legal accusation against the buyers for buying at such abnormally low prices. 543. The 'sealed' and 'open' portions of the deed refer to the practice of duplicate deeds on the same page. The deed was written on half of the papyrus which was rolled and sealed, and this 'sealed' portion was the official document. A copy of the deed was written on the other half of the papyrus which was left unsealed (the 'open' portion) so that its contents could be examined without breaking the seal. It is uncertain whether the two were identical copies, or the 'open' one only an abstract or summary. The latter may be supported by the appositional description (although lacking in the LXX) in v. 11 of 'the stipulation(s) and regulations', which is attached only to the description of 'the sealed (part)' and thus may serve as a description of the legal contents exclusive to that part. For descriptions and illustrations of extrabiblical parallels of the use of two-part documents, their being tied up and sealed, and the placement of the witnesses' signatures (e.g. from Elephantine, end of fourth and beginning of third century BCE; the Hibeh [Egypt] Papyri 84(a) and 96, beginning of third century BCE; from Avroman in Kurdistan, first century BCE; from Alexandria, end of first century BC from the Dead Sea area, end of first century to beginning of second century CE; from Edessa, third century CE), see Avigad 1986: 122-27; Fischer 1910; de la Fuente 1955; Grenfell and Hunt 1906: 242, 266; Hammershaimb 1957; King 1993: 90; Koffmahn 1968; Kraeling 1953: 50-51; Kunkel 1936; Lehmann 1963: 53-56; Minns 1915; Porten 1968: 198-99; Rabinowitz 1956: 153-57; Rubensohn 1907: 69; Schubart 1913: 43; Shanks 1987: 64-65; Yadin 1962: 235-38. Wacholder (1986: 358-60) maintains that there were not two copies on a single sheet, but rather two separate copies, one of which normally was kept by the buyer (the 'open' one), while the other was stored away (the 'sealed' one). But in this case because Jerusalem was about to fall, Jeremiah had both copies placed in the jar. Bogaert (1995: 70-72) proposes that the MT speaks of three documents (the document of purchase, the sealed document, and the open document), and that the

320

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

legal deed of purchase544 was drawn up (v. lOa), the deed was sealed by Jeremiah (v. 10),545 then endorsed by witnesses (vv. 10, 12b),546 and proper preservation of the deed, which was readily perishable material, was ensured by depositing it in an earthenware vessel (v. 14).547 On one level, the action was an intrinsically coded, performative act in that it was the actual transfer of property from Hanamel to Jeremiah with all of the accompanying legal ramifications. Thus the proper formalities of the legal transfer had to be followed, even in the context of social disruption due to the siege. Yet Jeremiah used that real-life situation to communicate representationally a message to his fellowJudahites. The communicative message of the action was explicated through the accompanying verbal proclamation to the audience (v. 15).548 The action he performed was a representation in simile-form placing of them in the jar reflects the tradition, found in later sources, of Jeremiah preserving sacred objects prior to Jerusalem's destruction. Such interpretations seem unlikely. They are based, in part, on the MT's plural phrase 'the deeds of purchase' in v. 14 (which is lacking in the LXX), and they do not explain the consistent reference to a single deed in vv. 10 and 12. GKC (124b n. 1) explains the plural in v. 14 as a collective to indicate the single deed in its duplicate form after it was rolled up. 544. Dybdahl (1981: 132-41) argues that the root mp in ch. 32 means to acquire in the sense of 'lease', thus referring to a temporary, rather than permanent, transaction. But he also acknowledges that it may have been an actual sale, which seems the more likely. 545. Avigad (1986: 126; also 127 n. 160 quoting A. Millard) and Hammershaimb (1957: 24) state that the deed was only sealed by the purchaser. The witnesses, and probably the seller, then certified it solely by their signatures in ink. But in other places, Avigad (1978a: 55; 1979: 117; 1986: 128) also suggests that Baruch, whom he assumes to have been the scribe who drew up the document and therefore a witness to the transaction, may have also sealed it. 546. If the textual sequence reflects the actual chronological sequence, then the deed was signed on the verso after it was tied and sealed. 547. On the practice of storing legal documents in jars from Elephantine, see Kraeling 1953: 51; Porten 1968: 191; generally on the practice, Avigad 1986: 12. 548. Wanke (1989) contends that v. 15 is a subsequent secondary interpretation which alters the sign-act (vv. 6-14) into a hopeful event from its original declaration of judgment. In understanding the action as such, Wanke focuses on the securing of the deed in the earthenware jar in v. 14: just as Jeremiah is deprived of the usefulness of his property, so too the Judahites will be deprived of the land for a long time (271). This type of negative judgment is then seen to be consistent with Jeremiah's other pre-586 BCE oracles which spoke of destruction and long-term exile (272-76). But such does not take into consideration the nature of the rhetorical

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

321

of what would happen on a large scale: just as Jeremiah bought the field, so too, in the future, others would buy property in the land of Judah. But Jeremiah's action involved more than just a simile representation, it was also a precursory act which would be literally reduplicated in the future with precisely this piece of property. The declaration of v. 15, immediately following the detailed instructions for preserving the deed (v. 14), can be taken to suggest the motive for the proper preservation of the deed, in that this very deed would be needed when, in the future, this particular field would be one of the pieces of property acquired. Such may also be suggested by the MT's definite singular, 'the field', in v. 43549 which can be understood as designating the specific field just purchased by Jeremiah, as the definite singular does in vv. 9 and 25. In that case, the definite singular in v. 43 would be more specific than just indicating a collective or rural, in contrast to urban, property (cf. Holladay 1989: 218). Thus the comparison and sequence in vv. 43 and 44 would be that this particular field, as well as other fields (plural in v. 44), would be acquired in the future.550 To ensure that ownership of this piece of land could be legally transferred in the future, the execution of the sale to Jeremiah had to be carried out with all due legal exactitude, as well as the deed preserved as a necessary legal document. Since fields and vineyards were the means of economic livelihood, and since the field was purchased in the socially and legally accepted manner, and since as purchaser, Jeremiah functioned as 'redeemer' which was considered a family, as well as covenantal, responsibility, Jeremiah's action was a metonymic expression for the resumption of normal economic, societal, familial and covenantal activities in the land. situation being addressed and also leaves the actions of vv. 6-14 without any interpretation which is contrary to the form-critical literary structure of sign-act accounts. On form-critical grounds, the inclusion of v. 15 as the concluding interpretation has recently been argued for by Hardmeier (1993: 71-72; 1995: 206-207), Migsch (1996: 169). 549. The Versions all read the plural in v. 43. Some commentators suggest the definite article has arisen through dittography (cf. Rudolph 1958: 194). 550. This interpretation is also based on i"l]p]1 being read with a rav-consecutive and thus understood in a future sense. If understood as a vav-conjunctive + perfect, then the simile aspect, possibly implicitly carried over from v. 42 (p..."lE»O), is being emphasized: '[Just asl the field was acquired... [so] fields will be acquired'.

322

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

This action was a total reversal of the prophecies which emphasized the dispossession of the land (cf. Jer. 6.12), the decimation and scattering of the community, and destruction of the covenantal bond. The action expressed hope for the future, but such was not an unrestricted hope, since it had definite exclusions for the immediate audience, the majority of whom would die as a result of the city's siege and destruction. No hope was extended for a broad or general survival or deliverance of the Judahites, rather, the future participation in the purchasing of land, would be restricted only to the survivors. Thus the hopeful message served an anticipatory function of focusing on what God would do for the collective entity of his people in the future rather than being a direct personal encouragement to the immediate audience. The hope was for the future continuity of the community in spite of Jeremiah's audience's own personal demise.551 2.1.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. There was nothing unusual or bizarre about the action itself, but rather the timing due to the incongruency of the action with respect to the immediate circumstances must have attracted attention. The property was most likely under the possession of the Babylonians at that juncture, and possibly even ravished by them. The city was in the midst of a siege. With food becoming scarcer, the personal survival of the Jerusalemites, including those confined in the court of guard, became more precarious. There must have been a growing anticipation that the Babylonians would continue the siege to its culmination, and thus there was no personal assurance that any given individual would survive the onslaught of the Babylonians once the city was breached. Thus hope of personal and corporate survival was waning as the severity of the famine and the probability of the Babylonians' success in their siege efforts increased. In the midst of his own personal uncertainty of survival, Jeremiah purchased a field, of which he himself 551. Thus the action was different from the frequently cited parallel from Livy 26, 11.6-7 and Florus 2.6. While Hannibal's army was encamped around Rome (211 BCE) the land on which the camp set was sold in Rome at no reduction in the price. The Romans' act was out of confidence in Rome's present superiority which meant that Hannibal's occupation was only temporary and would have no adverse effects upon the city or its economy. Jeremiah's action did not express confidence that the Babylonians would withdraw prior to destroying Jerusalem, but rather referred to a future time after the devastation of Jerusalem had assuredly occurred.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

323

might never actually take possession. Certainly if he did not survive, he had no children to whom the land could be passed on as an inheritance. From every angle, the audience must have perceived Jeremiah's purchase of the property as totally senseless.552 At best, it may have been viewed as a humanitarian gesture toward Hanamel who, for some reason, had to sell the property. 2. Comprehension. Although the intent of Jeremiah was, from the beginning, to communicate a specific message-content, initially, the spectators and Hanamel (v. 12) must not have perceived the action as having any communicative meaning for themselves, but only as an intrinsically encoded action of Jeremiah acquiring property for himself. It was only through the accompanying verbal proclamation that the communicative meaning of the action was made clear to the audience. Thus it was Jeremiah's verbal proclamation which caused the members of the audience to view themselves as not just witnesses of a noncommunicative, performative, legal transaction, but as recipients of a communicative, prophetic sign-act. The delay in comprehension of a communicative meaning directed toward the audience should have made the impact of the communicative meaning more dramatic. While observing the whole action, the audience did not anticipate a personal application. Thus when the communicative meaning was verbally expressed, it would have come as an unexpected twist in the transaction. This made the verbal proclamation the climactic point of the whole prophetic message. 3. Acceptance. Rhetorical situations undergo phases of maturation and deterioration.553 As the pre-586 BCE exigence is delineated above (Chapter 2 §1.1), it represents the rhetorical situation in its stage of maturity. As the historical realities increasingly contradicted the people's beliefs in the inviolability and divine protection of Jerusalem, it 552. Carroll (1986: 621-22) suggests that the act may also have been viewed by the audience as an act of treason in that it could signify Jeremiah's collaboration with the enemy in anticipation of their victory from which he would then make a personal gain. Carroll then argues that the action was not really performed, but only a literary, paradigmatic account. But his conclusion does not follow from the former since any initial misunderstanding by the audience does not preclude the action's actual performance. Even though the act may have been viewed with suspicion and hostility, such misperceptions were corrected through the verbal interpretation given at the conclusion of the transaction. 553. See Bitzer's (1980: 34-36) four stages of origin, maturity, deterioration and disintegration.

324

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

must have resulted in cognitive dissonance for the Judahites (i.e. the fall of the city seemed a greater probability even though the beliefs said it was not possible). Such cognitive dissonance associated with greater doubts about the validity of their beliefs which they had tenaciously held on to, would have produced a deterioration of the previous rhetorical exigence. At this stage in the rhetorical situation, Jeremiah, by focusing on what would happen after the destruction, furthered the process of the deterioration of the old in order to implement the new belief system. Jeremiah focused the audience's attention off the present realities of their personal circumstances and onto the future working of God with the survivors. Such presented an alternative perspective regarding the community's future which, if adopted, would alleviate the audience's internal dissonance. But because for the immediate audience the hope was anticipatory rather than actualized, the message's credibility and persuasive effect may have been lessened because of the people's overarching concern with their own survival. Yet Jeremiah's purpose was not necessarily to convince totally of the hope, but only to begin moving the people to that point, so that once the city fell, those who survived were prepared to begin rebuilding their convictions around the proper perspective which had been pre-emptively presented in this action by Jeremiah. In developing this anticipatory hope, Jeremiah built on the basic tenets of the popular theology, but did so in such a manner that the resulting belief system was radically modified. Jeremiah did not abandon the basic tenet of the people's attachment to the land, but modified it so that the possession and habitation of the land could not be considered permanent, uninterrupted privileges. Rather, the devastation and exile would occur, but that was not the final dealing of God with his people. Thus by not totally denying the popular theology, but only modifying it, there was a common basis of agreement between Jeremiah and his audience over the importance of the covenantal bond to the land. Such a common basis should have helped the audience initially agree over the importance of the issue involved, which was possession of the land, thus making them more receptive to the radical modifications proposed by Jeremiah, which was that for a period the land would be devastated and many exiled from it. One of the message strategies employed in this sign-act was that of proclaiming a message which was radically incongruous. The message was so totally incongruous to the current historical situation that even

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

325

Jeremiah questioned how such a message could be given at that time (vv. 17-25). Yet it was the incongruity of the message which opened the people to the radicalness and unexpectedness of the future reality which the message proclaimed. The nature of the action correlated with the nature of the future divine work. By perceiving this incongruous action by the prophet, it established a mental frame of reference to accept a totally incongruous action by God. The message was incongruous not only with respect to the historical circumstances, but also with the previous repertoire of Jeremiah's prophecies. Up to this point, Jeremiah had been clearly prophesying and nonverbally depicting God's judgment upon the people, as indicated by the immediate literary context of vv. 3-5, with only faint references to a future hope. This action did not portray yet another dire message of judgment and destruction, but a hopeful act of future salvation. Such would not have been the type of message which the people anticipated from Jeremiah at that time. The rhetorical impact of this act must have been enhanced by its total disconfirmation of the people's expectations of what the prophet would depict. The disconfirmation of message expectation should have caused this message to be taken more seriously by the audience, especially in light of the fact that Jeremiah was now proclaiming a message of hope which in some ways was similar to that of the 'peace' prophets with whom he had previously carried on a vehement rivalry. The divine authority of the message was confirmed to the people through Jeremiah's prayer (vv. 16-25) which followed the action. (See the following section, 'Rhetor Response' for discussion of the prayer.) The prayer thus functioned as a rhetorical argument from authority. Through Jeremiah's questions to God, the people were informed that Jeremiah, when he performed the action did not do so on his own initiative, but rather under the compulsion of the divine instruction. The performance of the action was a demonstration by Jeremiah of his confidence in the divine word, and not in his personal understanding of the situation. This argument from authority certainly added to the rhetorical impact of the total communication event. On the level of personal strategy, Jeremiah functioned in the role of the people: in purchasing the field, he represented the Judahites.554 By 554. Chang (1984: 246, 249), Galeotti (1978: 194-95) and Wang (1973: 14-15) see Jeremiah, as 'redeemer', functioning in the role of God (also implied by Carroll 1991: 112). Yet nowhere in ch. 32 is God presented in the role of 'redeemer' of the

326

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

Jeremiah assuming a role of identification with the people, the avenue was opened for the audience to participate empathically in the communication event and, thereby, to give greater credence to the future event portrayed by the prophet. 4. Retention. The radicalness of the message made it memorable to the audience. Such an incongruous action could not be easily forgotten. As the conditions of the siege worsened, the incongruity of the action became more contrastive. Yet the attitude of future hope expressed through the action provided something to which to cling. Even though the inhabitants of Jerusalem might not personally survive the siege and exile, now present was the groundwork for the hope that the nation would somehow survive. 2.1.3 Rhetor Response. Although no specific audience response is indicated, there was the response by Jeremiah (vv. 16-25)555 which must land, only as the sovereign facilitator and restorer to the land (cf. vv. 37-42), and explicitly in v. 44 the action is interpreted that Jeremiah functioned in the representational role of the people who would, in the future, buy and sell property. As interpreted in the text, Jeremiah's position as 'redeemer' did not serve as part of the message-content of the action, but only rendered the nonverbal act possible in that it was only because of that relationship that Jeremiah was given the chance to buy the property and thus the opportunity to communicate nonverbally a message through the transaction. In fact, Jeremiah, in buying the land, actually performs an act of pre-emption rather than redemption in that he purchases the property directly from his relative rather than buying it back from a non-family, third party to whom his cousin might have sold it (cf. Westbrooke 1971: 368; contra Carroll [1991: 11112] who proposes the possibility that Jeremiah is here buying back property which originally belonged to him). Outside of ch. 32, the only other occurrence of the participle "783 in Jeremiah (50.34) does refer to Yahweh as 'redeemer'. But in that attribution, the 'redeemer's' function is not associated with the purchase or preservation of the land for Judah, but rather in the legal function (cf. Prov. 23.11; Lam. 3.58; Ps. 119.154; Job 19.25) of the 'helper in a lawsuit to see that justice was done to his protege* (Ringgren 1977: 352; cf. also 353). In Jer. 31.11, the verb is applied to God's action, but there it has the sense of deliverance (// ms), analogous to the freeing of a relative who has been sold into slavery (cf. Lev. 25.47-54). In Jeremiah, the root Vs3 is never applied to Yahweh with the functional meaning of buying familial property. Thus, in the rest of the book, Yahweh, as 'redeemer', is not portrayed as acting as Jeremiah did in ch. 32. 555. With respect to vv. 16-25, either the whole or at least vv. 17b-23, and with respect to vv. 26-44, either the whole or portions are frequently considered—

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

327

have expressed to some degree the sentiments of the observers: how could such a message be true when it drastically conflicted with the current situation?556 It is very plausible that at some point the essence of Jeremiah's prayer (vv. 16-25) and the divine response (vv, 26-44) were also publicly recited before those who were in the court of the guard. Thus the prayer and response may have constituted a subsequent accompanying verbal message which was declared to the people. Jeremiah's response does not indicate lack of communicative intent in acting, or a lack of understanding the meaning of the message, but rather a lack of comprehending both the temporal appropriateness of the message in light of the historical circumstances and the contentual appropriateness in light of his other prophetic declarations. The nature of the question is indicated in the introductory term nntf (v. 17). Whenever that exclamation occurs in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, it begins an address to God (miT ^"IN Hiltf) and expresses perplexity and questioning attitudes in response to divine commands related to the prophetic because of their liturgical rather than ejaculatory or expostulatory style—to be later (possibly Deuteronomic) editorial elaborations attached to the sign-act. (On the issues involved, besides the commentaries, see Aull 1971: 59-74; Clerc 1985: 13538; Galeotti 1978: 83-89, 219-24, 230-31; Hardmeier 1993; 1995; Heyns 1994: 265; Lust 1981a: 135-36; Martens 1972: 85-86; Migsch 1996; Oesch 1995; Stade 1885: 175; Thiel 1981: 29-37; Unterman 1987: 110-15; Werner 1988: 149-59.) Yet, in the basic content and appropriateness to the situation of the sign-act, vv. 16-44 are not inherently inconsistent with the overall emphasis of Jeremiah's ministry. Thus the basic essence of his request (specifically vv. 24-25) and of the divine response (specifically vv. 28, 35-37, 42-44) can be regarded as validly indicating Jeremiah's sentiments and the resolution reached, regardless of whether the specific wording is attributed to Jeremiah at that specific point in time. 556. Cf. Keil (1977: II, 52) who expresses a similar sentiment, but overstates it when he says that the prayer was 'less for his [Jeremiah's] sake than for that of the people'. Cf. Applegate (1997) who, in discussing the rhetorical flow of the literary text, speaks in terms of the narrative drawing the reader 'into the confusions and questionings of the prophet' so that the reader 'begins to ask questions similar to those of the Jrm [Jeremiah] portrayed in the narrative' (81-82). Wang (1973: 18) asserts that the prayer reflects 'not a personal problem, but an important theological question' which Wang defines as 'had Yahweh refused the right of "redeemer"?' (19). But the verses are not just a rhetorical manner of expressing a theological view. They reflect a personal dilemma on Jeremiah's part (mirrored by the audience) as indicated by the term iintf, which reflects perplexity in response to a divine command, and by the verses' focus being not on Yahweh as redeemer, but rather on the timing and appropriateness of the message.

328

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

message or task. In Jeremiah's call in 1.6, it begins the prophet's objection to the divine call expressing the perplexity as to how he can fulfil the commission since he is only a youth and does not know how to speak. In Jer. 4.10 and 14.13 it begins his statements of perplexity because his messages from God are in such contrast to what other prophets are giving.557 In each case, the prophet clearly understood God's command, but it was the unusualness of the commands in light of the circumstances which caused consternation on the prophet's part which required clarification from God. The question which his inquiry posed and the one which the divine response answered was that of correlating Jerusalem's destruction with this message of hope. The correlation was that both messages were valid, and both would be realized: the destruction would come because of the people's sinfulness, and yet God, would in a radical and incongruous manner also restore the nation to normalcy of living.558 The prayer (vv. 16-44) resolved the issues which were in Jeremiah's mind, and also in the audience's, about the incongruity of the message. The potential also existed that Jeremiah's message of hope would be misapplied by the audience. Some may have felt that it signalled the lifting of the siege and the immediate beginning of a new era for the immediate observers of the transaction. Thus, rather than being viewed as a depiction of a far-future event, the nonverbal communication may have mistakenly fostered hopes for immediate deliverance rather than reaffirmed the concept of the finality of the siege. The potential misapplication of the message may have been part of the reason for Jere-

557. The exclamation occurs in similar contexts in Ezekiel: 4.14, Ezekiel's reaction to a divine command which he thinks is inappropriate; 9.8 and 11.13, questioning the extensiveness of God's judgment; 21.5, questioning the effectiveness of his parabolic speaking. Cf. also Josh. 7.7, of Joshua's consternation over why God allowed the defeat of the initial attack against Ai. 558. Raitt (1974: 173, 176; 1977: 116, 118) cites 32.5, 14-15, 36-37, 42 as reflecting the most pivotal element of Jeremiah's promises of weal: 'There is a remembrance of a time of judgment, so that the promised deliverance exists in a residual tension with the judgment without that recognition diminishing or qualifying the dimensions of salvation in the new era' (1974: 173; cf. also 1977: 116). Applegate (1997: 79-83), although remaining sceptical about the historicity of ch. 32, argues that it presents the point of transition in the prophet's thoughts from messages of judgment to messages of hope.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

329

miah's questioning prayer, since the inquiry and divine response corrected any misapplication of the message of hope to the present situation by reaffirming that the destruction was sure to take place. 2.2 Ezekiel 24.15-24 2.2.1 Communicative Meaning. Ezekiel was informed by God that a loved one ('the desire of your eyes')559 was imminently going to be struck down in death (v. 16a).560 Upon his wife's death, Ezekiel was to refrain from performing all of the socially accepted and expected customs of mourning. The assumption cannot be made that he refrained from proper burial of his wife, only that the outward manifestations of 559. Greenberg (1997: 507) notes that from the statement in v. 16, Ezekiel only knows 'that a beloved person was meant, but unless he was childless he could not know that it was his wife'. Such is true only if one assumes a sudden, unexpected death, which the term H32D does not necessarily imply (see below). There is no basis for Holscher's (1924: 129-30) contention that the original oracle consisted only of vv. 16-17 so that 'the desire of your eyes' referred to Jerusalem and not Ezekiel's wife. Hb'lscher maintains that the equating of the phrase with Ezekiel's wife and the making of the behavior into a sign-act was the work of a later interpreter (vv. 18-24). Similarly, van den Born (1947: 76) argues that God did not announce the death of Ezekiel's wife, but vv. 16-17 refer only to Jerusalem. Then after his wife's death, Ezekiel saw the opportunity to transform that event into a sign of the previous exhortation to the people (vv. 16-17). But this contradicts the statement in v. 18b that Ezekiel complied with the command previously given to him, obviously referring to vv. 16-17. Also, vv. 16-17 are in the singular, not the plural, so therefore addressed to the prophet, not as exhortations to the people. Also since the object of ns;o is consistently humans, the term is inappropriate for the destruction of a city (cf. Fohrer 1952b: 232). 560. HS3D does not specify a particular type of death but was used for both the sudden death of being slaughtered in battle (1 Sam. 4.17; 2 Sam. 17.9; 18.7), struck by the sword (Num. 25.8, 9, 18, 19; 31.16; Ps. 106.29-30), by pestilence (2 Sam. 24.21, 25; 1 Chron. 21.17, 22), for the long-term illness of an intestinal sickness which lasted two years (2 Chron. 21.14), and for the rotting away of the flesh (Zech. 14.12, 15). So the term itself cannot be used to substantiate whether Ezekiel's wife suffered a prolonged illness or was in good health and died suddenly (contra Greenberg 1997: 508). The question whether his wife had been previously sick does not bear on the message-content which involved only certain aspects of her death (see below). Therefore unwarranted are attempts to draw further significance from her manner of death: for example, a prolonged sickness would correlate with the prolonged practice of abominations in the Temple; or conversely, if her death was unexpectedly sudden, it would correlate with the people's view that the Temple was inexplicably destroyed.

3 30

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

grief and sorrow over her death were unexpressed. He was not to lament (v. 16b: 120n ttbl) which in that culture meant loud, verbal laments and paralinguistic sighs and groans.561 He was not to weep (v. 16b: inUQT Kinn SI1?! nran fc6l).562 He was not to perform the normal mourning behaviors (v. 17a: 'with respect to the dead, mourning563 you shall not perform', n&J?n $b "?38 DTIQ; on v. 17a see the following 'Excursus'), which may have included hiring professional mourners,564 rending his garments,565 wearing sackcloth,566 neglecting to wash,567 smiting his thigh or breast,568 sitting on the ground,569 and rolling or sitting in ashes.570 He was to keep wearing his turban on his head (v. 17) in contradistinction to the mourning custom of baring the head571 so that dust and ashes might be placed upon it,572 or that the hair might be shaven,573 or allowed to hang down in a dishevelled manner.574 He 561. On the customary practice of lamenting (ISO) in mourning, see Ezek. 27.31; Jer. 4.8; 6.26; 16.4, 5, 6; 22.18; 34.5; 48.38; 49.3; Gen. 23.2; 50.10; 1 Sam. 25.1; 28.3; 2 Sam. 1.12; 3.31; 11.26; 1 Kgs 13.29, 30; 14.13, 18; Isa. 22.12; Joel 1.13; Amos 5.16; Mic. 1.8, 11; Zech. 12.10, 12. On the nonverbal connotations of ISO and the Akkadian cognate, see Gruber 1980: 434-56. Gruber's (1980: 446-47) suggestion that ISO here must mean 'beat the breast' because the context is a list of specific mourning gestures and rites is unfounded because the term can signify paralinguistic utterances of mourning. The term is parallel to 7?' in Jer. 4.8; 49.3; Joel 1.13; Mic. 1.8. 562. On weeping as a sign of mourning, see Gen. 23.2; 2 Sam. 1.12; Zech. 12.10. On weeping as a nonverbal expression of grief in Hebrew, Ugaritic and Akkadian, see Gruber 1980: 402-34. 563. "PDN was a technical term inclusive of all of the conventional mourning customs performed over the whole extended period of mourning (cf. Baumann 1977: 45). 564. Cf. Jer. 9.16; 2 Chron. 35.25; Eccl. 12.5; Amos 5.16. 565. Cf. Jer. 41.5; Gen. 37.34; Josh. 7.6; 1 Sam. 4.12; 2 Sam. 1.2; 3.31; 13.31; Joel 2.13; Job 1.20. 566. Cf. Ezek. 7.18; Jer. 4.8; 6.26; 49.3; Gen. 37.34; 2 Sam. 3.31; 14.2; Isa. 15.3; 22.12; Amos 8.10; Ps. 30.12. 567. Cf, 2 Sam. 12.20. 568. Cf. Ezek. 21.17; Jer. 31.19. 569. Cf. Jer. 15.17; Isa. 47.5; Lam. 2.10; 3.28. 570. Cf. Ezek. 27.30; Jer. 6.26. 571. For an Akkadian example (TCL 3.410-12) of the removal of the headdress as a gesture of sadness, see Gruber 1980: 472. 572. Cf. Josh. 7.6; 2 Sam. 13.19; Lam. 2.10. 573. On the shaving of the head in mourning, see the discussion in Chapter 2 §1.9.2 on Ezek. 5.1.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

331

was to continue wearing his sandals rather than removing them (v. 17).575 He was not to cover his moustache (v. 17) contrary to the mourning custom of veiling the lower part of the face.576 He was not to eat (possibly not even graciously accept) the food which the people brought to him for the customary funeral meal (v. 17: 'the bread of men577 you shall not eat').578 Ezekiel was to act as if no tragedy had occurred, but to continue his daily life as if everything were normal. The only expression of grief which the prophet was allowed to perform was an internalized groaning (v. 17), 'groan in silence' (see the following 'Excursus'). The two commands m pMl and $b "73K DTiQ n&UP are juxtaposed as internal versus external mourning.579 So the allowance of the inward feelings of grief has been contrasted to the See the Syriac translation of the phrase in v. 23: 'your hair shall not be shaved'. Such must be considered a free interpretation (cf. Cooke 1936: 276), in that shaving was probably assumed to be the reason for removing the headcovering. 574. Cf. Lev. 10.6. On hair hanging tumbled down as a token of mourning in ancient Egypt, see Zandee 1977: 207. 575. On going barefoot as a mourning gesture, see Mic. 1.8; 2 Sam. 15.30. For an Akkadian example (Gilgamesh 12.22), see Gruber 1980: 410. In later Judaism, sz&Sem. 5.12; 6.1 (cf. Zlotnick 1966). 576. The covering of the moustache probably refers to the veiling of the lower part of the face (cf. Mic. 3.7 where prophets covered their moustaches out of shame, and Lev. 13.45, lepers because of their uncleanness) rather than the covering of the top of the face (cf. 2 Sam. 15.30; Jer. 14.34; Est. 6.12) down to the upper lip. For the Akkadian expression 'cover the lip', see Gruber 1980: 410-11; but he acknowledges that in the cases he cites, the expression may not have been a literal gesture but only a figurative expression. 577. By analogy to Deut. 3.11 (CTK HD«) and Isa. 8.1 (BUN Bin) where 'human' has the sense of 'ordinary' or more properly 'customary', here in v. 17 the 'bread of humans' (C'EJDR DPI1?) would be the food which was customary in this situation, being that which relatives and friends brought for the mourner to eat. The term has the same sense as D'O'IR nrh (Hos. 9.4), but need not be emended to such either here or in v. 22 (contra Bertholet 1897: 129; Buzy 1923: 261; Clark 1984: 130; Eichrodt 1970: 340, 343; Fohrer 1952b: 232; 1955: 141; 1968: 65; Hals 1989: 173; Holscher 1924: 124; Zimmerli 1979: 503), nor to VtiVS (contra Allen 1990: 56; Bertholet 1897: 129; Gruber 1980: 411, 462), because such means 'wounded' and not 'anguish' or 'despair' in the sense of 'mourning' (cf. Cooke 1936: 276). 578. On the biblical custom of funeral foods, see the references in Chapter 2 §1.2 on Jer. 16.7. 579. The nuance of 'internal' versus 'external' is different than from 'private' versus 'public' (cf. Greenberg 1997: 509) or 'involuntary' versus 'intentional' (cf. Levine 1993: 100, 106).

332

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

prohibition of all external mourning customs.580 Although the sorrow at his wife's death was thus acknowledged, the prophet was to suppress any outward expression of it. The prophet's personal feelings were subordinated to the task of communicating a message to his audience. Excursus: The Meaning and Syntactical Construction of Verse 17a The understanding of TIVVT] V>b bntf DTIO Dl pDKH revolves around two interrelated issues: (1) the meaning of D~I, and (2) the syntactical connection of the words. (1) (a) With respect to meaning, some commentators maintain that the root DOT should be here understood as 'be silent'.581 (b) Others argue that DQ1 cannot mean verbal silence, rather motionless, and should be understood as such here. But the arguments that DOT cannot mean 'to be silent' are not cogent. The term means in a general sense 'to be inactive', and the specific context determines whether that inactivity refers to verbal or nonverbal behavior (cf. Baumann 1978: 26265; Levine 1993: 103-104). In several places the term clearly carries the connotation of verbal silence. In Job 29.21 it is parallel to 1!?Q!0 ""b, meaning they listened and did not speak while waiting for Job to speak, and parallel to not verbally responding (W1 $fr, v. 22) after Job had spoken. In Ps. 31.18, it is used in antithetic parallelism to 'calling (Kip) upon God'. In Lev. 10.3, after Nadab and Abihu were struck dead, Moses explained to Aaron the reason, to which Aaron was 'silent'. The context indicates not a physical immobility on the part of Aaron (contra Schick 1913: 230-31), but rather his lack of verbal response out of acceptance of the situation. Since the term can have the connotation of 'verbal silence', there is no reason to a priori exclude such in this case, (c) Because of the Ugaritic cognate dmm and Akkadian damdmu, others contend that the Hebrew DQ1 means 'to moan'.582 Although in some passages (e.g. Lam. 2.10; 3.28; Isa. 23.2) in the context of mourning

580. ^DN, as Baumann (1977: 45) points out 'does not (in any case primarily) describe the inner feelings of the mourner, but his outward behavior'. 581. Cf. Abramski 1985: 15; Bauer 1957: 92; Buzy 1923: 260; Davidson 1893: 176; Feldman 1977: 97-99; Hempel 1933: 313; Wevers 1969: 143. 582. Cf. Bauer 1957: 91; Block 1997: 783; Cooke 1936: 270, 275-76; Greenberg 1997: 508; Levine 1993: 99-100; Schick 1913: 240; van der Westhuizen 1986.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

333

behavior, DQ~I appropriately means 'to mourn' or 'to moan',583 that meaning is not mandated in this instance, since the root can also mean 'silence' and 'motionlessness'.584In fact, as will be noted below, the meaning of 'moan' does not fit this particular context in that, regardless of the syntactical option chosen, it results in a contradictory command to engage in an outward act of mourning when the rest of the commands clearly prohibit such. The explanation to avoid resulting contradictory commands in 24.16-17 seems forced that both p3K and DQ~ refer to primal, involuntary, irrepressible moaning in contrast to formal and intentional mourning rituals.585 In fact, elsewhere the connotation of both terms is clearly that of audible, paralinguistic expressions of grief fully associated with formal mourning activities. The verbal forms of p]R are used of the groaning of the slain (Ezek. 26.15; Jer. 51.52) which was certainly audible, and parallel toTON(Ezek. 9.4) which is in Ezekiel an audible groaning in grief (cf. Ezek. 21.11, 12). The nominal form is parallel to the outward manifestations of grief, such as tears and weeping in Mai. 2.13. Similarly DOT, in the meaning of 'moan', is associated with outward manifestations of mourning in Isa. 23.2 (// L?L?'1, vv. 1, 6) and in Lam. 2.10 (associated with sitting on the ground, donning sackcloth, placing dust on the head). Likewise the Ugaritic cognate dmm is parallel to bky (cf. II Keret 1 [UT 125J.25-26, 30), an outwardly visible display of emotion. Thus interpreting DQT as 'to moan' merely compounds the problems in trying to understand this verse, (d) The LXX and Syriac translated Dl as the noun 'blood'. But such an understanding is inappropriate here.

583. Cf. Baumann 1978:264; Dahood 1960: 400-402; 1964: 402-403; McDaniel 1968: 38-40. 584. Schick (1913: 219-43), and similarly Haupt (1909: 4-5), can maintain the thesis that Dm always means 'to moan' or 'to mutter' only by taking the occurrences where the root DD"I is purported to mean 'be still' and deriving them from the different root DH which always means 'to cease' but never 'be silent'. But such a change in root can only be substantiated by revocalization of over 20 texts and by reading niphals for qals in two other cases. That questionable methodology does not convincingly refute the evidence of the root DQ~I meaning 'to be still' (cf. Blau 1956: 243). 585. Cf. Levin 1993: 100, 106. Cf. also Bauer (1957: 91) who mistakenly maintains, on the basis of Ezek. 9.4, that p3N was a secret lament, and Haupt (1909: 5) that DO"! means here to mutter or moan in the sense of 'to whisper, to speak with a low, rustling voice', thus translating the two words 'moan softly'.

334

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

(2) With respect to the syntactical connection of the initial words of v. 17, the options fall into the following general categories of phrase divisions:586 (a)

(b)

A threefold division of three commands: (a.l) p3«n and Dl and n&vn $b ^3« DTIO; (a.2) p]Kn and DTIQ GT and nton \tb bltt; Two commands: (b.l) Dt pHRPT andnEOT t6 ^DN DTID; (b.2) D'HQ DT p3RH and n&Un K1? ^K; (b.3) p]«H and niZJUn K*7 ^K DTID Dt.

In cases 'a.l' and 'b.l', the last phrase (nfoiJn 8*7 bDK DTlQ) can be understood as 'you shall not perform mourning for the dead', in which DTlQ functions as an accusative (cf. Keil 1976: I, 348; Levine 199 100). Or DTlQ and b^K can be transposed so as to form a construct chain 'you shall not perform the mourning of the dead'.587 But such a transposition becomes unnecessary if the preceding explanation is accepted. With respect to this phrase, others (cf. Freedy 1970: 15 Wevers 1969: 143) have suggested the deletion of DTlO, leaving th phrase 'you shall not perform mourning'. But the word is clearly evidenced in the Versions. Also, DT1Q cannot be considered superfluous because of the numerous settings in which mourning behaviors can occur, such as for a dead person, in contrition for sin, in anticipation of impending disasters, in response to generalized destruction. In light of v. 23b where there is reference to mourning in contrition over sin, th specification of the type of mourning (for the dead) in v. 17 is appropriate. For the rest of the phrases, the meaning of DQ~I gets fully interwoven with the discussion of the syntax in analyzing what specifically is being enjoined on or prohibited to the prophet. If pJNH and m are taken as separate commands ('2a.l' above), the meaning of Dl is usually taken as 'to moan' ('lc') in the sense of

586. Numerous emendations (cf. Bauer 1957: 92; Bertholet 1897: 129; Bewe 1951: 200; Cornill 1886: 333; Fohrer 1955: 141; 1968: 65; Holscher 1924: 1 have been proffered for this verse, but there are no textual evidences for such. 587. Cf. Allen 1990: 55; Eichrodt 1970: 340; Fohrer 1952b: 232; 1955 1968: 65.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

335

'Groan! Moan!' But, as discussed above, such results in an inconsistency of both imperatives enjoining mourning behaviors in the context of other commands which prohibit mourning. If the initial two verbs are linked together ('2b.l'), then they are to be understood as associated either in an adverbial sense or as a hendiadys. In this case, D"I can be understood in the sense of 'la', 'Groan in silence' or 'Groan silently'.588 Or the phrase can be understood in the sense of 'lb', 'when/with respect to groaning, cease (from doing so)'. The former results in a positive command that the prophet might inwardly grieve while still abstaining from any outward mourning behaviors. The latter is a prohibitive command that Ezekiel was not to groan at all, in conjunction with the other prohibitions against displaying any evidence of mourning. If the first three words are grammatically linked in the sense of '2b.2', one possibility is that Dl should be taken as an infinitive, functioning in a nominal sense, rather than an imperative. As such, when Dl is understood in sense 'la', the meaning is 'Groan (in) the silence of the dead', that is, in deadly silence (cf. Abramski 1985: 15; Halperin 1993: 177). As long as the 'silence' is not interpreted as an actual physical dumbness, the resultant meaning is that Ezekiel might inwardly grieve, but without giving external expression to it. Or, in the sense of 'lb' of motionlessness, the meaning would be 'groan in death-like rigidity' (cf. Fuhs 1984: 132; Zimmerli 1979: 502). Such a reading is usually coupled with the perspective that Ezekiel, in reaction to his wife's death, suffered an actual physical paralysis. But the connotations of the accompanying commands is clearly that of voluntary suspensions of certain activities. The sense of 'lc', 'Groan a moaning for the dead', results in a command inconsistent with the context. If in the syntactical coordination of '2b.2' the construction is that of two imperatives + noun, then the meaning is that of 'Groan! Be silent (like) the dead!' (sense 'la'), 'Groan! Be rigid like the dead!' (sense 'lb'; cf. Fuhs 1986: 274), or 'Groan! Bewail the dead!' (sense 'lc'). Yet such leaves the inconsistent command 'Groan!' in the midst of prohibitions on mourning. If the syntactical coordination is understood as '2b.3', and DQ1 in the sense 'lc', then the command HCJOT ^7 has two objects, DT1D DT and

588. Cf. Driver (1954: 155-56) who suggests the transposition of the two verbs with the meaning 'be silent in respect to groaning'.

336

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

^38: 'Moaning over the dead (and) mourning, do not perform' (cf. Levine 1993: 100). But this, like construction '2a.2', still leaves the preceding contradictory command 'Groan.' The syntactical connection preferred by this author is that of '2b.l'. The initial phrase is taken as two imperatives asyndetically coordinated in which the initial one carries the principle idea followed by a qualification (on this type of construction, see GKC 120h) as in Jer. 4.5: 18^0 lK~lp, 'cry with full (loud) voice'. Since pjtf was auditory in nature, the qualification must have an auditory sense as well, suggesting meaning 'la' ('be silent') for DQ"1. In this case, the qualification was given because p]K by itself did not mean an inaudible groaning (see above). Thus the meaning 'groan (but) be silent (when doing do)' is appropriate here, meaning that Ezekiel was allowed to experience internally the grief, but not to outwardly manifest such. There is no basis for seeing in Ezekiel's refrainment from doing certain things an inability to do them because of the paralyzing effect, either of physical immobility or dumbness, his wife's death had upon him. Rather, he was only commanded to abstain voluntarily from the socially expected mourning customs. In fact, any dumbness is precluded by the fact that he verbally relayed to the people the meaning of his actions. In this sign-act, the message-content was transmitted on two levels: (1) the non-performed event of the death of Ezekiel's wife, and (2) Ezekiel's responsive behavior to her death. Clearly displayed in these two facets of message transmission was the difference between unintentional and intentional performance for communicative purposes. The occurrence of the death of Ezekiel's wife was not an intentional action performed by Ezekiel, as rhetor, nor intentionally designed to communicate a message-content. The manner of expression in v. 16 that God was going 'to take' Ezekiel's wife must not be understood in the sense that God caused her death intentionally for the purpose of providing Ezekiel with an opportunity to communicate a prophetic message.589 Her death is analogous to Saul tearing Samuel's robe (1 Sam. 15.27-28) and the potter remaking the marred vessel (Jer. 18). Neither Saul nor the potter performed the actions intentionally to communicate messages

589. Contra Hals 1989: 176; Holscher 1924: 129.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

337

or to provide the occasions for prophetic messages, yet the actions became appropriate events which the prophets, subsequent to the actions, intentionally encoded with message-contents. So too Ezekiel's wife's death was antecedent to the communication event, but was subsequently encoded with communicative meaning. The event was used like an 'artifact' which provided the proper setting and timing for the reactive behaviors intentionally performed by Ezekiel which bore the primary message-content. 1. Ezekiel's wife's death. For the message-content, the event of the death of Ezekiel's wife was idiosyncratically encoded both figuratively and representationally. Figuratively, his wife stood for the Temple in Jerusalem, but representationally she, in her familial relationship to the prophet, also stood for the sons and daughters whom the audience had left behind when they had been forced into exile in 597 BCE (v. 21). Just as her death occurred, so the Temple would be profaned (figurative level) and also the sons and daughters would fall by the sword (representational level). As explicated in the accompanying verbal interpretation (v. 21), the only contentual aspects of the analogy between Ezekiel's wife and the message to the people were (vv. 16, 21): (1) the fact of her death, (2) God was ultimately the one who brought it about, and (3) Ezekiel's attitude toward his wife. (1) Just as her death provided the appropriate setting for Ezekiel's behavior, so too it was the destruction of the Temple and relatives in Jerusalem which provided the occasion for the people's correlative behavior. Just as Ezekiel was only in a position to respond to his wife's death, so the exiles were only able to react to, and not influence, the destruction of Jerusalem. (2) Just as God was ultimately the cause of Ezekiel's wife's death (rip1? ^]n, v. 16), so too God was the one who ultimately profaned his sanctuary (^bnQ 'Mil, v. 21), even though in the historical realm the former probably occurred through 'natural causes' and the latter occurred at the hand of the Babylonians. The analogy cannot be extended beyond the divine cause of death/destruction to motive or manner of death. The Temple was destroyed because of the people's sin, but there is no indication that the death of Ezekiel's wife was an act of divine judgment.

338

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

(3) The closeness and bond of relationship which Ezekiel had with his wife (~prp "inna, v. 16),590 reflected the attachment the people had to the Temple and to their relatives (p«3, DDT!) 1QTO, DDtiaJ 'POHQ DDTD591 v. 21). All three of those expressions in v. 21 are ambiguous enough to refer to both animate and inanimate objects, so that they were applicable equally to the Temple and to the relatives still in Jerusalem.592 'The desire of the eyes' (DTI? IQnD) in 1 Kgs 20.6 refers to the spoils of victory (similarly IQIIQ, by itself, for inanimate valuables in 2 Chron. 36.19; Lam. 1.10, 11; Hos. 9.6; Joel 4.5), while in Lam. 2.4 to the people of Jerusalem (similarly, by itself, in Hos. 9.16). In Ezek. 33.28, 'the pride of (the land's) strength' (TU ]1«3) refers to the produce of the land (similarly Lev. 26.19). In Ezek. 30.6, 18 'the pride of (Egypt's) strength' refers to the people who fall by the sword. Since the phrase can refer to 'offspring' or 'produce', it correlates with the sons and daughters left behind in Jerusalem. Thus the reference to 590. This phrase must be taken as an expression of intimacy or depth of the relationship, just as its application in v. 21 implies. In Lam. 2.4 and Hos. 9.16, "IQnn refers to close relatives. But that generic usage cannot be used to argue that the phrase was an emotionally neutral designation (contra Zimmerli 1979: 505) since the relationship to a close relative normally bears the connotation of endearment. 591. On the basis of v. 25 which has 2JS3 SfflQ, ^CHD probably comes from the root meaning 'to carry', not from the homonym 'to have compassion' (cf. Allen 1990: 56; van den Born 1935: 111; Dhorme 1963: 19; Kopf 1958: 172; Wevers 1969: 143; Zimmerli 1979: 503). There is no reason therefore to emend to KJCQ in v. 21 (contra Cooke 1936: 272; Fohrer 1952b: 232; 1955: 141; 1968: 65), or to nonQ as in the previous phrase (contra Bertholet 1897: 129). The sense of the phrase as it stands is 'the thing to which the "soul" is uplifted', with EJS] having the figurative meaning of 'desire' (cf. Zimmerli 1979: 507). Alternately, Dhorme (1963: 19) interprets EJD] literally so that the phrase 'that which is carried on the throat' refers to jewelry which is used here in a metaphorical sense to indicate that which is precious to the person. 592. The reference to sons and daughters also occurs in v. 25. Although some delete the reference there as a gloss, the reference seems to fit appropriately with the preceding metaphors which can refer either to an inanimate object (i.e. the Temple) or to persons. Besides the corresponding phrases in v. 21 which can have dual referents, so too can the additional phrase in v. 25 'the joy of their splendour'. B1BQ refers to people in Isa. 62.5 in which the exultation of the bridegroom is for his bride, and to Jerusalem in Lam. 2.15; Isa. 60.15; Ps. 48.3. n~lKBn refers to family members in Prov. 17.6 in which the glory of the sons is their fathers, but also to the Temple in Lam. 2.1; Isa. 60.7; Ps. 96.6.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

339

children in v. 21b is an appropriate understanding of the connotations of the preceding expressions.593 2. Ezekiel's response. The referent of the second-person plurals of vv. 22-24 is the addressed exilic audience who were to imitate the prophet' s behavior. Therefore, excluded are the assertions that Ezekiel was providing either a model of the Jerusalemites' behavior at the time of the city's fall594 or of God's attitude of insensitivity with respect to the destruction.595 The meaning of Ezekiel's nonverbal actions for his exilic audience depends on whether the imperfects addressed to the people in vv. 22-24 are considered nonconditionally predictive in the sense of expressing how the people would inevitably respond ('and you will do that which he has done'), or injunctive in a desiderative or obligative sense ('and you should/ought to do that which he has done').

593. The phrase need not be deleted as a later expansion, contra Fuhs (1986: 274-75), Garscha (1974: 79-80), Herntrich (1933: 109). 594. Contra van den Born 1935: 112. Such an interpretation can be maintained only if one emends the second plural forms (referent being the exilic audience) to third plural (referent being the Jerusalemites), or if one understands Ezekiel's locale as being Judah rather than the exile. 595. Contra Hempel 1933: 312-13. The assumption that Ezekiel functioned in the divine role is based on the metaphor of Jerusalem being the wife of God. Therefore, Ezekiel's wife, standing for the Temple, must mean Ezekiel, as husband, functioned as God. But the husband-wife relationship was not part of the analogy of the sign-act. Rather the relationship as wife was employed only metonymically to represent the family members in Jerusalem. It is plausible that within the divine speech (vv. 21-24), the continuation of the first person in v. 22a ('that which I have done') could be understood as a continuation of the first-person divine referent in v. 21 ('I am profaning'), since in v. 24 the prophet is spoken of in the third person. But the prophet as subject of the first-person verb in v. 22a can be explained as a quotation within a quotation. Verses 22-23 were words spoken to Ezekiel to be addressed to the people, but given without the introductory command 'say' (cf. the construction in 12.10-11). Also, the suggestion that Ezekiel did not reflect the behavior of the people, but rather only that of God, can be maintained only by understanding vv. 21-24 as an audience-directed recapitulation of the commands to Ezekiel already given in vv. 16-17. Such requires radical emendations of the suffixes and verbs in vv. 21-24 to first-person singular (vv. 21, 24) second-person singular (vv. 22-24), and deleting the reference to sons and daughters in v. 21b and to Ezekiel in v. 24a. Such extensive alterations of the text are unwarranted.

340

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The former position assumes that Ezekiel's nonverbal activity mimicked that which the exiles would do in the future in response to hearing about Jerusalem's fall. (1) As such, the meaning of Ezekiel's behavior for the people has been interpreted as being appropriate behavior in that: (a) The grief at the loss of Jerusalem would be too deep for the people to be able to express outwardly. The shock of the events, which they had believed and hoped could not happen, would throw them into a stupefied or paralyzed condition in which they would not be able to perform any of the customary mourning rituals.596 Yet in contrast to that interpretation is the fact that rarely is grief so debilitating that no formal mourning customs are adhered to. (b) The loss would be so psychologically devastating that the normal grieving customs would be considered inappropriate. Since the mourning rituals would be inadequate to express the depth of feeling, the mourning behavior would be suspended.597 But mourning customs are employed within a society precisely because they are appropriate expressions of grief. So it is inconceivable that on that occasion the people would consider them inappropriate. (c) On the analogy of Jer. 16.6-7, the loss would be so extensive in scope that the normal rituals of mourning could not be carried out because no one was in the position of being able to mourn for anyone else since all had suffered a loss (cf. Greenberg 1997: 515). Although clearly such a reaction is portrayed by Jeremiah's sign-act (see Chapter 2 §1.2), the analogy with Ezekiel's sign-act breaks down in that the two were addressing different audiences. Jeremiah, in addressing the Jerusalemites, was speaking to those who would experience and be in the circumstances of the extensive decimation of population in which normal mourning rituals would not be able to be carried out. Ezekiel, in addressing the exiles, was speaking to those who would only hear of

596. Cf. Allen 1990: 61; Bertholet 1897: 130; Bron 1981: 26; Clark 1984: 142, 150, 294; Cooke 1936: 270-71; Davidson 1893: 176; Eichrodt 1970: 344, 350; Fohrer 1952b: 232; 1955: 142; 1968: 64; Fuhs 1984: 132; Zimmerli 1965: 520; 1974: 144; 1979; 57, 508. Keil (1976: I, 350) has a variation of this position: the overwhelming grief resulted not from the event, but rather from the people's acknowledgment of their sin. 597. Cf. Cooke 1936: 272; Garner 1980: 184; Illman 1979: 51; Taylor 1969: 182-83; Wevers 1969: 143.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

341

and react to, but not be a part of, the decimation which occurred in Judah. The collapse of societal rituals and infrastructure which occurred in Judah did not occur in the exile. Rather the societal interactions and structures (including mourning rituals) as configured by the exilic community continued unabated. (d) Because of their exilic position, they would not be able to mourn outwardly. Any outward manifestation of mourning might be interpreted by the Babylonians as being in sympathy with the rebellion which had been crushed, and such an attitude might bring retaliatory action upon the exiles themselves.598 But it is difficult to see how the Babylonians would have considered mourning customs, performed within the constrains of social propriety, as reflective of a rebellious attitude among the exiles. (e) The people would not mourn because they had found in the catastrophe the possibility of a new creative alternative or the dawning of a new era (cf. Block 1997: 794; Te Stroete 1977: 174). But there is no indication in the text that at that historical juncture the people had accepted Ezekiel's view and evaluation of the reason for Jerusalem's fall and thereby anticipated the new situation as one of positive developments. Rather, Ezek. 33.10 and 37.11 indicate an attitude quite otherwise: that the people saw no hope in the postfall situation. (f) The focus of the behavior was not refrainment from mourning but rather suffering. Just as Ezekiel suffered, so the exiles would suffer on account of their sins (cf. Fuhs 1984: 133; 1986: 274-76). This interpretation is maintained only through the deletion of all references in vv. 17b, 22-23 to mourning customs. Even without those sections, the passage clearly intends the focus of Ezekiel's reaction to be his lack of outward displays of grief (vv. 16-17a) not his internalized suffering. (g) The exiles would not mourn because on the actual day of the city's fall they would be unaware that it had occurred. Since they would not learn of the event until months later, they would carry on daily life out of ignorance of the event (cf. Stacey 1990: 206). But the prophet's sign-act was based on the full knowledge of his wife's death, so that his behavior correlated to the people's behavior upon their awareness of Jerusalem's fall. The time reference was clearly that of the people's reception of the news, not the actual day of occurrence.

598. Cf. Bauer 1957: 91; Cooper 1994: 240; Hals 1989: 176.

342

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

(2) Or the behavior is interpreted as inappropriate because the people would not mourn out of callousness and indifference to the situation. As such, Ezekiel's actions were done as an implicit indictment against the people's lack of mourning. Yet, it must be taken into consideration that because of the close ties the people had with the city, and their deep longing to return, they certainly would not have been indifferent or callous to what happened to Jerusalem. Also, in the verbal interpretation, no indictment is expressed; rather, there is clearly a sense of the appropriateness of not mourning. Since none of the positions which maintains that Ezekiel was acting in a predictive sense of demonstrating to the exiles how they would inevitably react provides a convincing meaning, better is the interpretation of the actions as an exhortatory representation of what the appropriate response should be.599 This correlates with Ezekiel's role and indictments as recounted in chs. 1-24. Prior to Jerusalem's destruction, Ezekiel reiterated that the appropriate attitude which the people should have in light of the imminent destruction was one of mourning (cf. 9.4; 21.11-12, 13-22).600 Consistent with that attitude, was that once the destruction had been wreaked, mourning over the loss of their homeland was no longer appropriate (cf. Ezek. 12.16; 14.22-23) since the judgment had been a just one (cf. Levine 1993: 106). The inappropriateness of the mourning was not because the mourning customs were inadequate to express the depth of grief, but rather mourning (as a gesture of contrition) could no longer achieve any effects because the judgment was past, and mourning (as a gesture of sorrow) was not appropriate to the rightfulness of the action. The precedent for Ezekiel's whole attitude of mourning prior to the city's destruction and not mourning after its fall can be found in the Davidic tradition: David's reaction to the affliction of his son who was procreated through the adulterous union with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12.15b23). Once the child had been struck with sickness in divine judgment (v. 14), David sought the Lord through acts of mourning such as sitting on the ground (vv. 16-17, 20), weeping (v. 22), and not washing himself (v. 20). But once the child had died, he arose from the ground, 599. Cf. van den Born 1935: 112 (although considering vv. 22-23 secondary expansions which reflect how the Judahites would react); 1947: 75-76; Buzy 1923: 261-62; Klein 1988: 37. 600. See the discussion of 21.11-12, 13-22, respectively in Chapter 2 §§1.13 and 14, and also the discussion on Ezek. 6.11-12 (Chapter 2 §1.10).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

343

washed, and returned to normal behavior (v. 20) because the attitude of mourning was no longer appropriate once the irreversible judgment had been executed. Until the point of final execution, there was hope that the judgment might be mitigated (v. 22), but once performed, life had to be lived out in reconciliation to that judgment (v. 23). Because of the influence of the Davidic tradition as found elsewhere in Ezekiel (cf. the specific references to David: Ezek. 34.23-24; 37.24-25),601 the prophet's behavior may have been specifically patterned after the Davidic example, just as elsewhere Ezekiel nonverbally enacted former traditions (cf. 5.1-2 and Isa. 7.20; 12.1-16 and Jer. 46.19). Ezekiel's expressed view was that before Jerusalem's destruction an attitude of mourning, in contrast to the people's assurance of deliverance and preservation, was appropriate. In this sign-act he displayed that mourning was inappropriate once the city had fallen. Just as Ezekiel's natural inclination was to mourn, so would the people's be at the loss of their loved ones and the loss of the city and Temple. Just as Ezekiel deliberately suppressed those feelings and did not allow the event to be disruptive to the continuance of living, even though he had to live without his wife, so the people should deliberately continue to carry on their exilic life albeit with the modification of having been stripped of the tangible bases for their theological beliefs. The emphasis of this nonverbal and verbal proclamation was the people's need to shift from their old beliefs and hopes which focused upon Jerusalem to an acceptance of God's judgment and their exilic situation. Verse 23b ('rather you should pine away on account of your iniquities, and you should groan602 to one other [on account of your iniquities]') is then a contrasting statement to the prohibitions against outward mourning displays.603 It exhorts the people that they needed to 601. On the knowledge and application of the Davidic traditions in Ezekiel's ministry, see Wifall 1974: 95-99. 602. The LXX and Targum reflect a misreading of DH3 as DFF]. 603. Because of the difficulty of v. 23b, and its seeming contrast to the prohibition against mourning, it has been considered by some as a later gloss based on Lev. 26.39 (cf. Bertholet 1897: 130; Clark 1984: 131; Fohrer 1955: 114; Wevers 1969: 142-43). But if understood as above, then it fits the context. Some have understood v. 23b as a counterpart to the positive command to Ezekiel in v. 17a to grieve inwardly (cf. Greenberg 1997: 511; Levine 1993: 106; van der Westhuizen 1986: 358-59; Zimmerli 1979: 503), and thereby means that the people were not to mourn openly, but privately to one another, or that DH3 must have meant a low, almost inaudible expression (cf. Bauer 1957: 91; Keil 1976: I,

344

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

be accepting, rather than denying, their own exilic existence as an act of judgment, and instead of mourning in sorrow over the calamity of the city's destruction and loss of relatives, they should be groaning in sadness and contrition over their own sin (cf. Sloan 1992: 151). Verse 23b thus refers to an attitude of contrition and remorse in acknowledgment of sin, but expressed in an exhortatory manner that this was the type of response the people should have, and not in a predictive manner of what the people would actually do when they learned of Jerusalem's fall. The phrase thus provides a contrast as to the focal point of the people's interests, shifting it from the tragedy of the judgment (the destruction of Jerusalem) to their own responsibility for their personal fate (their iniquities). If the exiles focused on the past tragedy, they would only become overburdened with grief and despair since the 'death' affected them not only relationally (the death of their relatives) but also ideologically (their hopes and belief system were totally shattered). But if they acknowledged the divine working in the historical circumstances (v. 24) as presented by Ezekiel, then the milieu would be created for them to focus on God's restorative work in the future. Just as Ezekiel's abstinence from outwardly mourning reflected that a shift in the people's attitude should occur, so too his release from speechlessness, the preannouncement of which is literarily joined to the end of this sign-act (vv. 25-27), reflected that there would be a corresponding shift in the dialogic interaction between God and the people (see Chapter 2 §1.8). Thus the lack of mourning in sorrow was anticipatory of the new thing which God would do after the destruction. Not only was mourning in sorrow not appropriate because of the justness of the destruction, but also in light of God's future plans, such mourning was an inappropriate attitude. In this sense Ezekiel's nonverbal depiction correlated with the sentiments of Jer. 31.15-20. That passage is addressed to Rachel, who was weeping for her children because they were dead (v. 15). She was commanded, 'Restrain your voice from weeping and 350). But the root is used elsewhere for the growling of lions (Isa. 5.29, 30; Prov. 19.12; 20.2; 28.15), the roaring of the sea (Isa. 5.30), and human groaning in suffering (Ps. 38.9; Prov. 5.11). Thus the word alone does not mean a silent moaning. Although vv. 17a and 23b are structurally parallel (16b//23aB; 17a//23b; 17ba//23aa; 17bB//22b), such does not mean total synonymity in meaning. The phrase in v. 23b is a continuation of the commands regarding the manner of outward mourning, but a contrast with respect to the focal point of grieving.

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

345

your eyes from tears' (v. 16), in anticipation of the exiles' return (vv. 16b-17). The Jeremiah passages directly link the cessation from mourning in sorrow with the exiles' mourning in contrition for their sin which involved grieving (v. 18), repenting, smiting the thigh (a nonverbal gesture of mourning), being ashamed and humiliated (v. 19). Both Ezek. 24.22-24 and Jer. 31.15-20 reflect the attitude that, for the exiles, mourning in sorrow was inappropriate, but mourning in contrition was necessary as a catalyst for God's new activity. 2.2.2 Rhetoric 1. Attention. Initially, the event of Ezekiel's wife's death would naturally have drawn the people to Ezekiel, not for the reception of a prophetic message, but to express condolence and empathically participate in his sorrow. So through the event, the people's attention was directed toward the prophet. Upon encountering the prophet, they were confronted with a socially peculiar behavior in that Ezekiel did not show any outward indications of grief. His behavior, which contravened social decorum, must have aroused the people's curiosity as indicated in their questioning inquiry (v. 19). So both the event of his wife's death and Ezekiel's subsequent actions focused the audience's attention upon the communication event. But they drew the people's attention on two different levels: the event of his wife's death focused the people's attention on the prophet himself providing the opportunity for him to deliver a message, while his nonverbal actions produced a receptivity to the verbal clarification of the message-content. 2. Comprehension. When observed, Ezekiel's behavior was ambiguous as to its meaning. Although what the prophet did was clear (he abstained from mourning), what it meant was not clear. The people may have queried as to whether his lack of mourning meant that Ezekiel did not care for his wife, and if so, why was he so callous as to forego the social amenities of mourning for his own wife? Or was he shocked too deeply to grieve? Or had not he yet realized what had happened and what her death meant for him? Was Ezekiel making a comment about the propriety of their social conventions? Or was he just stoically trying to handle a difficult personal situation? That Ezekiel's behavior produced consternation among the spectators and that

346

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

its meaning was not readily discernible to them, is evidenced by the necessity for them to inquire as to what it did mean (v. 19). The ambiguity was heightened in that Ezekiel's behavior revolved around a personal situation for which, to the outside observer, there was no readily discernible link to national or historical events. The figurative equating of the wife with the Temple or representationally to the relatives back in Jerusalem was very idiosyncratic, so that the audience did not probably make this connection until it was made for them by the prophet.604 Comprehension of the message was delayed until the subsequent verbal clarification.605 Not only were the people given sufficient time to 604. The imagery of Israel or Jerusalem as God's wife was a frequent prophetic motif (cf. Ezek. 16; 23; Jer. 3.1-20; Hos. 1-3), yet on the specific occasion of Ezekiel's wife's death, there is no reason to assume that the people would have unaidedly made a connection with that motif. 605. Some understand v. 18 as referring to Ezekiel's speaking prophetic messages to the people on the morning prior to his wife's death and that such messages involved the content of vv. 16-17 that his wife would die and the commands fo him to act (cf. Bertholet 1897: 129; Buzy 1923: 261; Cooke 1936: 271; Cooper 1994: 239; Greenberg 1997: 510, 513). The phrase in v. 18 is difficult to translate for two reasons: (1) determining the subject of the first-person verb, and (2) determining which morning in the chronological sequence was meant—the morning before or after Ezekiel's wife's death. (1) If the phrase is a continuation of the divine address to the prophet (vv. 1617), then (a) God could be the subject, thereby affirming that on the morning following the death, God would address a verbal proclamation to the people. If such were the case, one would expect a vav + first-person singular perfect rather than the imperfect. The syntactical construction of the subsequent phrases in v. 18 indicates that the phrase goes with the following narrative statement which confirms the events rather than with the preceding divine command. Or, (b) the first person should be emended to the second person of ~mP3 (an error which could be accounted for due to the similarity of K and P in the paleo-script), n~mi or "Oil (imperative), so that it continues the instruction that on the morning after his wife's death Ezekiel was to speak to the people explaining his actions as recorded in vv. 20-24 (cf. Eichrodt 1970: 340, 345). With either of the above options, the phrase still part of the divine instructions and the prophet's narrative report of fulfilling the command does not begin until after that phrase. (2) But if the phrase is considered part of the prophet's narrative confirmation in v. 18b, then (a) if the morning was the one prior to his wife's death, it could mean that Ezekiel, after having received the divine instruction of vv. 16-17, carried on his normal prophetic ministry to the people, i.e. he spoke to the people. In light of the people's question (v. 19), and the normal sequence of Ezekiel's sign-acts, it is

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

347

ponder the meaning of Ezekiel's actions, but the delay also probably heightened the level of anticipation for a further explanation. In fact, the inquiry by the people suggests that their attention had been sufficiently heightened to the point of wanting a clarification. Thus the delaying of full comprehension produced within the audience a readiness to be given the verbal statement which became the climactic element of the communication event. 3. Acceptance. At that time, the exiles must have been aware that Nebuchadnezzar had already commenced the siege of Jerusalem (cf. 24.1).606 Since their theological beliefs fostered a hope that the city would ultimately be delivered, they must have emotionally drawn upon such to relieve their anxiety as they waited for news about Jerusalem's plight. The exiles must have been seeking to be reassured in their hopes rather than for their beliefs to be challenged and their fears aggravated. Just as the message was communicated on the two levels of the event of the wife's death and of the prophetic behavior, so too the rhetorical argument functioned on those two levels. The event of Ezekiel's wife's death pronounced the fall of Jerusalem. This was aimed at countering the people's false hopes of Jerusalem's deliverance. The actuality of the 'death' of the city of Jerusalem, which would be individualized and personalized in the death of the exile's relatives still residing there, was highly improbable that he relayed to them the commands of the sign-act before he performed it. (b) If the morning is the one after her death, then either the phrase is out of chronological sequence and belongs more properly before v. 20, or the phrases in v. 18 are not to be taken sequentially, but rather in the sense 'and I spoke to the people in the morning, since my wife had died on the [previous] evening; and on the [same] morning I performed that which I had been commanded'. Verse 20a then is a resumptive statement after the citation of the people's question. The latter sense is the preferable understanding. In the LXX, the phrase 'andmy wife died' has been repetitiously replaced by 'that which I was commanded' from the end of the verse where it is also present. The LXX is clearly a secondary reading (cf. Cooke 1936: 276; Cornill 1886: 334-35; Zimmerli 1979: 503). 606. In 24.1-2, Ezekiel noted the date of the beginning of the siege. Some have associated this sign-act of vv. 15-24 with the date of 24.1 assuming the action was performed either that same day or the next day (cf. Taylor 1969: 181). Since 24.15 begins a totally separate oracle, the sign-act need not be directly linked to the date of 24.1. But certainly it was performed sometime during the course of the siege as its literary placement suggests. So knowledge of the siege on the part of the audience, either through actual news of such or through the prophetic declaration that the siege had begun, can be assumed.

348

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

presented as fact. The flaws in the people's theological premises and hopes were not refuted through specific logical arguments, but rather a blanket pronouncement of their invalidity was made through the deathevent. Even if unpersuaded of the validity of Ezekiel's position up to that point, when Jerusalem fell, the audience would no longer be able to hold on tenaciously to their former beliefs. They would have to acknowledge that God did not intervene so as to preserve their socio-political, cultic and covenantal institutions. They would have to recognize that their existence would be confined, for a lengthy duration or possibly permanently, to the exile. Thus, in preparation for that, Ezekiel, through his actions, exemplified the appropriate behavior for the people to follow when the historical event occurred. Thus Ezekiel's behavior was transitional in that, before the actual event, he began to focus the audience's attention beyond the fall. His behavior was not directed toward a refutation of their current belief system (the death-event did that), but rather toward persuading them of the proper response to the event. It was that response which would form the basis for their proper understanding of the events: the fall of Jerusalem was not to be mourned, but rather the focus was to be on their current exilic situation which could have a redemptive function. If that proper response was made, judgment would be past and the opportunity for a new relationship between God and his people would be provided. The rhetorical strategies employed in transmitting the message were emotional in nature. The death of a person is always emotionally disruptive to friends and relatives and to the whole community when such is a small, closed, ethnic entity seeking to preserve its identity, as the Jewish exilic community at Tel Abib must have been. Thus the setting and timing of Ezekiel's behavior was, for the spectators, already inherently laden with responses of grief and sorrow, expressions of sympathy, and a sense of disruption to life. Ezekiel's bewildering behaviors defied both logical expectations and social obligations of the appropriate emotional manifestations. Yet he merely exemplified the type of behavior which the people should perform in the future without in any way providing logical supporting arguments or justifications as to why this was appropriate behavior for the people. Ezekiel's exhortation was based solely on the premise that this was the divine injunction (v. 20) and that he was the authoritative paradigm for their behavior (vv. 22, 24).

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

349

In presenting himself as the authoritative paradigm for their future behavior, in the sense of just as he acted so they should act (vv. 22, 24), he did so through the rhetorical strategy of identification. In the role assumed in his behavior, Ezekiel identified totally with his audience in that he performed in the role of his audience. Besides identification with the audience, Ezekiel used the speaker strategy of intense personal involvement. The level of personal involvement in Ezekiel's not mourning exceeds that of any of his other performed actions. The sadness and pain when his wife died must have been intense. Yet his natural emotive responses had to be contravened in his external behavior so that his personal tragedy could be subordinated to the proclamation of a divine message.607 When the people fully understood the message which he proclaimed, they must also have sensed the dichotomy within the prophet between his unmanifested inward feelings and his observable external behaviors. 4. Remembrance. Ezekiel's abstinence from participation in the conventional mourning customs continued for at least a seven-day period, possibly even longer,608 so that by repetition of the behavior, his message was brought before the people on a daily basis over an extended period. Although the accompanying verbal clarification of his actions

607. There is no reason to assume that Ezekiel's turning the occasion of personal grief into an opportunity to present a prophetic message reflects an insensitive attitude toward his wife or a psychological ambivalence of love and rage coupled with guilt over wishing her death (contra Halperin 1993: 179-81). Nor should it be understood as an expression of philosophical stoicism. Thus Ezekiel's lack of mourning is not analogous to Pericles' display of stoicism in the midst of personally suffering the deaths of relatives and friends during the Athenian plague of 430 BCE: 'he was not seen to weep even at the funeral rites or at the grave of any of his nearest kin, until at least he lost Paralus, his only remaining legitimate son. Even though he was crushed by this blow, he strove to persist steadfastly in his normal conduct and to sustain his greatness of spirit; but as he laid a wreath on the dead body, the sight overwhelmed him and he broke into a passion of tears and sobs, a thing he had never done before in his life' (Plutarch's Lives: Pericles 36; ScottKilvert 1960: 203). 608. In ancient Israel, the length of the mourning period varied: 7 days (Gen. 50.10; 1 Sam. 31.13; 1 Chron. 10.12; Jdt. 16.24; Sir. 22.12); 30 days (Deut. 34.8; Num. 20.29; Deut. 21.13); 40 days (Jub. 23.7). Frequently the designation is merely 'many days' (2 Sam. 14.2; Gen. 37.34; 1 Chron. 7.22). Judith (Jdt. 8.4-6) wore sackcloth and fasted in mourning for her husband for over three years.

350

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

was probably given soon after their commencement,609 every subsequent day during which the mourning rituals were customarily performed, the audience, upon observing Ezekiel, would have been directly reminded of his reasons for his behavior. Also, by using an event out of daily life, that of the death of a person, whenever another community member passed away, the people could have been reminded of the significance that Ezekiel attached to his wife's death, and reminded of his reactive behavior. So, even after the normal mourning period for his wife had passed, the people were still surrounded by external occasions which brought Ezekiel's message to mind. Since the action was an exhortation as to how the people should react when the news of the fall of Jerusalem arrived (thus confirming Ezekiel's predictive statements that it would), they would have been forcefully reminded of how he had exemplified to them the appropriate responsive behavior. 2.2.3 Audience Response. This is another occasion in which an audience response is recounted (v. 19).610 The inquiry reflected that Ezekiel's unconventional behavior had attracted the people's attention and that the actions were ambiguous as to their meaning. If the question is to be understood as expressed in the MT ('Will you not611 tell us what these things [mean] for us612 since613 you are doing [them]?'), then it also indicated that the people understood Ezekiel's actions as having a communicative purpose for them, yet they failed to perceive what that message was. But the account does not explicitly indicate whether the people were persuaded of Ezekiel's position once the message-content had been verbally declared, or whether, at the later date of hearing the report of the Temple's destruction, the people did actually respond as Ezekiel instructed them to. From the statements in 33.10 and 37.11, it 609. See the previous discussion on v. 18 which might suggest the verbal explanation was given the day subsequent to his wife's death. 610. Cf. Clark's (1984: 129-58) discussion of the audience quotation in 24.19 as an 'explanatory, representative citation'. 611. tfbn is understood here as having an emphatic affirmative sense (cf. Brongers 1981: 187; Greenberg 1997: 510). 612. The lack of 13*7 being represented in the LXX and Syriac, makes the question general in nature as to the behavior's meaning, not specifically that there was recognition of a special meaning for the inquiring spectators. 613. O begins the consecutive clause which 'tells the inducement for the whole question' (Schoors 1981: 262-63; cf. also Greenberg 1997: 510; BDB 472d).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

351

can be deduced that they did not react in that manner, but rather were overwhelmed with grief and hopelessness. 3. Post-586 BCE Sign-Acts 3.1 Jeremiah 43.8-13 (LXX: 50.8-13) 3.1.1 Rhetorical Situation: Judahite Refugees in Egypt. After the fall of Jerusalem, those who remained in Judah had to adapt to a new way of living. Their hopes and expectations of security which had been previously placed in the tangible aspects of the covenant relationship with God—the Temple, the city of Jerusalem, the Davidic monarchy—had to be directed elsewhere. In light of the political situation of the assassination of Gedaliah and the people's anticipation of Babylonian retaliation (Jer. 41.7-18; 42.11), the people sought to determine where they would be secure so as to ensure their continued existence. Disregarding Jeremiah's oracle to stay in Judah (42.7-22) the people felt that their security was no longer guaranteed by living in Judah, but rather was found within the sphere of Egypt's political and military domain (cf. 42.14; 43.1-7). It was the people's attitude of disobedience, lack of trust in Yahweh, and the sense of security by being in Egypt which Jeremiah perceived as the exigence which needed to be modified. He thereby addressed this exigence in his verbal and nonverbal oracles during this time (42.13-22; 43.8-13; 44.14, 24-30). 3.1.2 Communicative Meaning. While in Tahpanhes (v. 8),614 a frontier town with a military garrison located in the eastern Delta of the Nile, Jeremiah was commanded to take some big stones and bury them at the entrance to the governmental building615 (v. 9). He was to do so in the presence of Judahite witnesses (v. 9). 614. Tahpanhes is identified with Tell Defenneh (Daphnae) (cf. Petrie et al. 1888: 47-52; Petrie 1925: 328-30; 1980: 85-87). It is mentioned in Jer. 2.16; 44.1; 46.1 and Ezek. 30.18 among lists of the main centers of Egyptian power. 615. i~!,y~ID ITD has been considered to be: (1) the official residence, royal palace, of Pharaoh when he visited that area (cf. Carroll 1986: 726; Cornill 1905: 424); (2) the government's administrative building (cf. Bright 1965: 263; Holladay 1989: 301; Jones 1992: 480; Kessler 1965: 320; Porten 1968: 14; Rudolph 1958: 237; Schreiner 1984: 229; Thompson 1980: 671); (3) the residence of the local governor (cf. Thompson 1980: 671); (4) the fortress for the soldiers (cf. Kitchen 1983:

352

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Preciseness about Jeremiah's burying the stones is lacking because of the obscurity of the terms CD^Q and p^Q in v. 9.616 The former is a hapax legomenon and the latter only occurs elsewhere in 2 Sam. 12.31 and Nah. 3.14 in the context of brick making (probably meaning 'brickmold').617 p^Q, here, is usually understood as 'brickwork' in the sense 434). The archaeological evidence from Tell Defenneh and the analogous evidence from Elephantine suggest that the building complex incorporated all of those various functions. In the Elephantine papyri (Cowley 2.12, 14, 16; 43.8; Kraeling 11.6; and the phrase reconstructed in Cowley 3.13; 43.7, 10), there is a reference to 'the king's house' (ND^Q JT3) in that southern frontier town (cf. Cowley 1923; Kraeling 1953). It must have been a type of government house (cf. Cowley 1923: 6) since the king did not reside there. It clearly served as the treasury as it is connected with such in Cowley 2.12, 14 (tnsiK) and Kraeling 11.4 (fcO^n "IJSW/KD^Q JT3 in line 6). (Cf. Porten [1968: 60] who suggests that 'house of the king' may be an abbreviation for 'the house of the treasures of the king'; cf. tQ^Q H K^a JT3 and IO'PQ 'TM rP3 in Ezra 5.17 and 7.20 respectively.) Besides the treasury, the 'king's house' may have also included storehouses and an archival department (cf. Porten 1968: 60). By analogy, the one at Tahpanhes also probably incorporated such administrative functions. Petrie (1925: 344; 1980: 87-92; cf. Petrie et al. 1888: 47-52) excavated a fortress which he identified with this building. Petrie (1980) described the building: 'A square pile of brickwork, 143 feet wide, formed a basis, probably 30 or 40 feet high, for the fortress... To the block was added another on the north-east for royal quarters, and on the south were the store-rooms. The whole stood in a great fortified camp, having a wall over 40 feet thick... There were doubtless some state apartments in the fortress for the Egyptian governors who might visit there' (87, 89). See also Petrie's (1925: 330) reconstructed drawing of the structure. 616. 2QJer. is broken at this point, but according to Baillet et al. (1962: 63-64) and Janzen (1973: 202) it does not appear to have room for the phrase p'pQD Q^QD ~\Ui$ and may therefore agree with the LXX in omitting it. But the LXX omission may be due to haplography (cf. Janzen 1973: 183). 4QJerd (previously grouped with 4QJerb) has a lacuna at this point, but in the preserved text also lacks the following n#~IS rP3. The space allows for a longer text than the MT (cf. Janzen 1973: 183-84; Tov 1981: 147; 1985: 213; 1992: 540), and Janzen (1973: 184) suggests 4QJerd may have read: onBnra HHSD ~\m (HtflD ITU "IJflZfr pta 0*703). 617. The LXX does not help in understanding these two words because its ev npoQvpoic, ev 7r6A,rj does not represent either of them, but is a double reading based on the following nnsn (cf. Cornill 1905: 425; Driver 1912: 296; Hoffmann 1882: 67; Janzen 1973: 29) since TruA/rj almost always translates ~ID27 (cf. Jer. 19.2 where ")!)$ riDD is translated rcpoGijpcov 7ruXr|<;). The Aquila and Theodotian texts (similarly Symmachus) read ev TO> Kpi)<|>i(p, 'in secret' (followed by Fohrer 1952a: 108). That reading was possibly derived from

2. Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

353

of a pavement, terrace, or courtyard.618 Although the term derives from 'brickwork', its extension to mean 'pavement' or 'courtyard' need not necessarily mean that the floor of the pavement was constructed of brick. In Exod. 24.10, the normal term for brick (run1?) means the pavement of sapphire under the throne. The later Aramaic use of p^Q also shows the term's relationship to the object's shape, not composition. In the Talmud and Mishnah, p^Q means a four-sided, right-angled wooden frame (like a brick-mold) or the rectangular shape of an object (cf. Hoffmann 1882: 53-66). The term £2^0 is usually considered to be 'clay* which was used for making bricks and mortar.619 In the phrase ...3 ]QD, the preposition is always one of locale and never of instrument or norm of condition (cf. Jer. 13.4, 5; Exod. 2.12; Josh. 2.6; 7.21, 22; Isa. 2.10; Job 18.10; 31.33; 40.13; Prov. 19.24; 26.15). Thus excluded is the translation 'and bury an understanding of the root CD^Q in the sense of 'slip away', 'escape', 'go undetected'; or if from the root ®b, they either read &7'3 or the consonants as in the MT understood as a raem-preformative nominal form (cf. Baillet et al. 1962: 64; van den Born 1935: 76; Cornill 1905: 425-26; Holladay 1989: 301; Rudolph 1958: 238; Thompson 1980: 670). Against this as a correct understanding of the text is the fact that in the Hebrew idiom ...3 ]DCD the prepositional phrase always expresses physical locale and never the instrument or the condition in which the act occurred. Also, in v. 9b, witnesses are commanded to be present. 618. Cf. Bright 1965: 263; Carroll 1986: 725; Driver 1907: 257; 1912: 295; Duhm 1901: 326; Hoffmann 1882: 69; Kelso 1948: 34; Petrie 1980: 92; Thompson 1980: 670. Another suggestion is that the Hebrew means 'brick-kiln' (cf. Keil 1977: II, 14849). With this meaning, the command is interpreted not necessarily to put the stones into the brick-kiln but into the brick-making clay (cf. Duhm 1901: 326) which was near to the brick-kiln. For a brick-kiln to be present in that area, one must postulate that some construction was being performed on the palace so that mortar, a kiln, and other accoutrements for making bricks were temporarily located near the palace gate. But the meaning of 'brick-kiln' is not demonstrable. That meaning was derived from 2 Sam. 12.31 where p^Q (qere) was thought to refer to a type of torture instrument ('pass through the brick-kiln') to which David subjected the captured Ammonites, along with saws, sharp iron instruments, and iron axes (cf. the parallel text in 1 Chron. 20.3). But the reference in 2 Sam. 12.31 is rather to types of corvee tasks, so there the term refers to the molds used to make bricks. 619. Cf. Driver 1938: 122; Holladay 1989: 301; Kelso 1948: 35. In the Peshitta, the Syriac cognate used here also translates "inn in Gen. 11.3. Cf. Arabic cognate milat, 'mortar'.

354

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

them with mortar' meaning that Jeremiah used mortar to cement the stones in.620 Rather, Q^Q indicates the composition of the material out of which the courtyard pavement (p^Q) was made.621 Thus, according to the MT, Jeremiah buried the stones in the clay of the paved courtyard (or alternately, if p*7Q3 is omitted as a double reading: 'in the clay/dirt [floor]') which was at the entrance to the government building. The location of Jeremiah's activity was not within the confines of the building proper, but rather just outside the building's entrance (v. 9). In keeping with the meaning Jeremiah attributed to what would happen at this spot (v. 10), the entrance was the appropriate location for the triumphant king to set up his throne to enter into judgment over the conquered city (cf. Jer. 1.15; 39.3, at the city gates). Assuming the correct identification of the excavated building with that of Jeremiah 43, Petrie's excavations of the fortress of Tahpanhes and its surrounding area help to elucidate the type of structure involved. On the northwest side of the structure was discovered a great open-air platform of brickwork and 'the actual way into the palace was along a raised causeway which rose at the back of this platform' (Petrie et al. 1888: 59).622 Petrie (1888: 51; 1925: 344, 353; 1980: 92-93) has no hesitancy in identifying this platform as the site of Jeremiah's act. He describes the modern Egyptian equivalent as 'A space... reserved outside of the door... covered with hard beaten mud, edged with a ridge of bricks' (1888: 50). Thus Jeremiah's activity involved burying some stones in this platformed area. But it is unknown whether the stones were placed into the sides of the raised platform or into the top surface. On the basis that the Egyptians would not have permitted a refugee to dig up the pavement of the government building, some have assumed that this was never actually performed but only a literary fiction.623 But

620. Contra Hoffmann 1882: 69, 71. 621. Even if the two words are considered dittographic variants (cf. van den Bom 1935: 77; Buzy 1923: 151; Carroll 1986: 725; Holladay 1989: 276, 301; Janzen 1973: 25; Rudolph 1958: 238; Thompson 1980: 670), the understanding remains essentially the same in that D'PD is taken as a reference to the architectural entity as well as its composition, in the sense of 'clay floor'. 622. Cf. also Petrie (1980: 92) that this was the only entrance into the building. 623. Cf. Duhm 1901: 326. On the same basis, Carroll (1981: 134; 1986: 727) suggests the possibility that it was performed in only some mimic manner at another location. McKane (1996: 1065-67) argues against it being an actual event based on the presupposition that Jeremiah never delivered any oracles against foreign nations.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

355

there is no reason that Jeremiah could not have performed the action, nor is there any basis to assume that the Egyptians, who were in the city, would have been aware of or objected to such. Petrie (1888: 51; cf. similar description in 1980: 92) described the purpose of the large platform at Tahpanhes as 'a place to meet persons who would not be admitted to the palace or fort, to assemble guards, to hold large levees, to receive tribute and stores, to unlade goods, and to transact the multifarious business which in such a climate is best done in the open air'. In such a public area, which was presumably filled with other people and activities, Jeremiah's action probably would not have attracted the attention of, or caused any difficulty for, any Egyptian officials or soldiers who might have been present. Even if Egyptians observed his action, they were most likely not within earshot to hear how Jeremiah interpreted the action so would have been totally unaware that the action was an expression of judgment against Egypt.624 Petrie's discoveries at Tahpanhes also turned up another fact which helps obviate the arguments of Jeremiah's action not being performed because of an Egyptian presence which would have prohibited such activity. The archaeological evidence suggests that during the period when Jeremiah would have performed this action, there was, at best, a minimal Egyptian presence in the city. From the reign of Pharaoh Apries (beginning 588 BCE), no seals of royal wine jars with cartouche were found and only one plaque with his name. This contrasts significantly with the numerous finds of seals and other objects from Apries's predecessors and successors. Petrie (1888: 51) concluded: 'This suggests that the place was not inhabited by any important officials, nor visited by the king during the time of Haa-ab-ra [Apries], and therefore it would be the more likely to be granted as an asylum to the Jewish refugees.'625 Thus these verses must be a fiction created to explain etiologically the ruined Egyptian temples seen by the Jews in Egypt subsequent to Cambyses' invasion in 525 BCE. 624. Other speculations about how Jeremiah could publicly perform this action without the awareness of the Egyptians include: (1) that it was performed at night, based on the variant LXX reading 'in secret' (cf. Cornill 1905: 425). But that variant reading is suspect as a correct interpretation (see above). (2) Kelso (1948: 34) suggests that the building was under construction and that the Judahite refugees were part of the labor force helping to build it. 625. Cf. also Petrie 1925: 344: 'The absence of any royal wine jars of this reign agrees with the place having been given up to the Jewish fugitives; and such exiles

356

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The evidence also points to the city being ethnically diverse in the period of 607-588 BCE when Judahite refugees began to migrate to Egypt. Petrie (1888: 49) describes the constituency of the city as 'a mixed and mainly foreign population, Greek, Phoenician, and Egyptian, among whom their [the Judahite refugees'] presence would not be resented, as it would by the still strictly protectionist Egyptians further in the country'. So in the midst of a town with a diversified ethnic population and possibly dominant Judahite constituency after 586 BCE, Jeremiah's action could have been performed in the daytime without any hindrance or suspicion, even if observed by non-Judahite residents. Although precisely how Jeremiah buried the stones is not known, the meaning of the buried stones is apparent through the interpretation given to the action (v. 10): on the very spot where the stones were buried, the throne of the Babylonian king would be set up. In correlating the nonverbal actions to the verbalized meaning (v. 10), the manner of expression is not that of a simile-form. No specific simile relationship is established with respect to the artifact of the stones, which would indicate that the stones were not figurative or representational signs for either the Babylonians or for the throne. Although commentators frequently see the stones as a representational artifact of the foundation or pedestal upon which the throne would be set,626 it seems rather the stones served as a marker. Since the root ]QtD clearly has the connotation of being concealed from sight,627 such semantically suggests that the stones were buried beneath the pavement rather than being erected upon the surface as a visible structure.628 Thus the stones would have been a useful frontier guard, certain not to league with the Babylonians.' 626. Cf. Buzy 1923: 153; Keil 1977: II, 149; Lods 1950: 190; Thompson 1980: 670; Stacey 1990: 166. 627. When the phrase ...3 ]DE refers to an intentional act performed with respect to a physical object, it always has the connotation of concealing the object from another person's view: Jer. 13.4, 5; Exod. 2.12; Josh. 2.6; 7.21-22; Isa. 2.10; Job 18.10. A similar connotation is also frequently present when ]D2 does not occur with the preposition. The verb is used frequently in reference to traps or snares which were hidden to capture the prey: Jer. 18.22; Pss. 9.16; 31.5; 35.7, 8; 64.6; 140.6; 142.4. In Gen. 35.4, the verb is used of Jacob's burying the earrings and household gods under the tree, and in 2 Kgs 7.8 of the lepers burying the loot from the Aramean camp. In both of those cases the intent of burying was so that the items would not be found by someone else. 628. Contra von Ewald 1878: 294, McKane 1996: 1055. This connotation of the

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

357

did not constitute a raised platform or pedestal which formed part of the throne's base, but were rather concealed marker stones. Thus the emphasis in the verbal interpretation of v. 10 on the phrase 'over these stones' points to the stones indicating the site at which the verbally predicted event of the erection of the Babylonian king's throne would occur. Also, no message-content is ascribed to the nature of the stones versus that of the mortar or clay in which they were buried. Thus no reference is made to the Babylonian Empire being of stone (a figure of strength and stability) in contrast to the crumbling nature of the Egyptian Empire which was of clay (contra Keil 1977: II, 419). Neither is there any reference to the hidden nature of the stones such as the Babylonian invasion being still in the hidden future, or the Babylonian power being seemingly hidden by the Egyptian supremacy (contra Brueggemann 1991: 190). Just as there is no simile relationship made between the stones and the throne, there is also none made between the act of burying and the predictedevent,so that it is not expressed as 'just as Jeremiah placed these stones, God / Nebuchadnezzar will place the throne'. The lack of a simile relationship, which is frequently present in other sign-acts, between Jeremiah's act of burying the stones and the subsequent action of either God or Nebuchadnezzar means that Jeremiah did not function representationally in the role of God, the people629 or the enemy as he performed the action. Since it was not the nonverbal act of burying which carried the communicative meaning, but rather the resultant designation of a specific locale, Jeremiah functioned in the role of a facilitating 'stagehand' who created the setting.

verb also obviates Hoffmann's (1882: 69) proposal that Jeremiah constructed a very discernible and immovable monument, such as a type of victory stela. Also, the statement that Nebuchadnezzar's throne would be set on the stones argues against Hoffmann's suggestion. 629. Contra Stacey (1990: 166) who suggests that one level of interpretation is that of the 'mimetic' in which Jeremiah was imitating the workmen who would erect the pedestal for the throne. But he then argues for the 'inceptive' understanding that 'Jeremiah is laying the first stone, others will continue to work and Nebuchadnezzar's ascent of the throne will complete the event. The drama and the reality are part of the same whole' (167). This study maintains that communication about an event (unless that communication is performative) does not constitute part of the reality of the event.

358

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The accompanying verbal explanation (vv. 10-13)630 incorporated not only the description of what would happen at the marked spot (v. 10), but also a pronouncement of judgment of the results of Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Egypt (vv. 11-13).631 The verbal statements thus functioned in a complementary role to the nonverbal marking of the spot. The complementary verbal message emphasized that Nebuchadnezzar's invasion was militarily a matter of Babylonian superiority over Egypt, and theologically a matter of Yahweh's supremacy, over the Egyptian gods, by virtue of Yahweh's superintending Nebuchadnezzar's activity. Thus in Jeremiah's attempts to dissuade the people of their false sense of security (they assumed that they had escaped further suffering and judgment and had been released from the grip of Nebuchadnezzar) he declared that God's dealings with the Judahites were not confined to the territory of Judah. The divine sovereignty extended over Babylon, from where God would bring Nebuchadnezzar, and over Egypt, to where God would bring Nebuchadnezzar, even to this very site marked by the stones buried by Jeremiah.632 This site in which the Judahites put

630. The sequence of the text indicates that as soon as Jeremiah completed the burial of the stones, he gave the verbal interpretation. Thus it should not be assumed that the action was only explained at a later time to the chiefs and leaders in a private meeting and not explained to the immediate observers. 631. Some commentators delete, as secondary additions, all or portions of vv. 11-13 (cf. van den Born 1935: 77; Cornill 1905: 424-26; Fohrer 1952a: 108; 1968; 45; Rudolph 1958: 238-39; Schreiner 1984: 229). Yet the verses express nothing other than common ancient Near Eastern practices with respect to what a conquering army did. 632. Buzy (1923: 153) argues the point of Jeremiah's action was not that Nebuchadnezzar would come into Tahpanhes, thus the stones did not indicate the exact spot where he would set his throne, but rather that the action occurred on Egyptian soil over which Nebuchadnezzar would exercise sovereignty. Yet this prophecy correlates with those of Jer. 46.13-24 and Ezek. 30.13-19 in which Tahpanhes (Jer. 46.14; Ezek. 30.18) is specifically named as one of the cities which would experience the divine judgment (ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar in Jer. 46.13). The location of Tahpanhes on the northeastern frontier of Egypt places it on the route of any invasion of peoples from the northern countries or Mesopotamia. Also, the city's function as part of the defensive line along the border leaves no reason to doubt that Jeremiah meant that the city of Tahpanhes would be involved in the predicted Babylonian incursion.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

359

their trust and felt secure was the place in which God would seek them out in judgment.633 3.1.3 Rhetoric I . Attention. The very strangeness of the nonverbal action of burying stones in a courtyard is in itself attention-arousing. Whether Jeremiah merely began performing the action in the midst of his fellow Judahite refugees who were occupied with other business is not known. If so, his odd behavior undoubtedly drew their attention to the fact that the prophet was publicly performing something odd. It is also possible that Jeremiah (as in 19.1-13) had selected an audience to accompany him to the place, so that the spectators anticipated an act of communication. Regardless of how the initial attention was gained, once that was accomplished, the audience probably focused on what Jeremiah was doing and watched the strange actions with an inquisitiveness about what the prophet was attempting to communicate. Such established an anticipation for the verbalization of the message-content. 2. Comprehension. The action which Jeremiah performed was very ambiguous. Thus, initially, the observers would not have been able to discern what message Jeremiah was communicating by it. Since the stones were buried and only served to mark the spot, they were not representationally creating a visual image which was recognizable. Neither the reason for placing the stones nor their significance was readily apparent. The audience may have questioned whether the stones were being used in a representational or a figurative manner: were the stones, like the pottery jar (19.1-13) and the waist-sash (13.1-11) a figure for the people? Thus did it have something to do with their living in Egypt (like the waist-sash buried at Perat) and being subject to the Egyptian government in whose court the stones were being placed? Or were they 633. Contra McKane (1996: 1058, 1064) who argues that the theme of this signact was only the Babylonians' destruction of Egypt without any implication that the Judahites residing in Egypt would suffer disaster. The Judahite observers of Jeremiah's prophecy are viewed, then, as merely witnesses who publically attested to the oracle against Egypt. But this argument fails on several accounts: (1) the role of an audience everywhere else in relationship to Jeremiah's sign-acts is not that of 'witnesses', but rather that of the prophecy's addressed audience; (2) it does not take into account the whole nature of 'indirect address' which is an inherent part of any oracle against a foreign nation (cf. Chapter 4 §2.3.2.1.4); (3) it presupposes no contextual link with 42.1—43.1 or 44.1-30 in which there are oracles against the Judahites because of their ill-advised flight to Egypt.

360

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

representational in the sense of a buried foundation? If so, the audience may have speculated that after their recent arrival, Jeremiah was indicating something about the permanence of their stay in Egypt. Had Jeremiah possibly changed his mind about the Judahites' coming to Egypt and was now illustratively laying the foundations for the homes or city which they were to build just as he had previously told Babylonian exiles to build houses (29.5, 28)? Due to its ambiguity and because of the audience's mental disposition, the activity could have been interpreted as transmitting a very positive message about their building and settling down in the land of Egypt. Such an uncertain attitude toward the content of the message, with the possibility that the message might not be one of castigation, should have decreased the people's anticipatory rejection of the message, while at the same time heightening the people's expectancy for the accompanying messagecontent. The nonverbal behavior was preparatory for the verbal message in that it did not give any indication of how to discern properly the correlation between sign and referent. The significance of the nonverbal behavior was clarified only through the accompanying verbal proclamation (v. 10). Thus, from the standpoint of comprehension, the verbalized interpretation formed the climax of the communication event. 3. Acceptance. Besides ambiguity, the sign-act also involved the message strategy of indirect address. The site of the nonverbal demonstration, and thereby the focus of the coming destruction, was not the Judahite audience's homes, but the Egyptian government building (v. 9). The verbal message (vv. 10-13), in contrast to those of 42.15-19, 22; 44.11-14, 24-29, which directly pronounced the coming judgment upon the Judahite refugees, made no direct reference to the spectators being victims in the invasion. Thus Jeremiah did not directly level a judgment message against his spectators, but did so only indirectly through speaking of the generalized destruction which the Babylonians would inflict primarily on the land of the Egyptians and against the Egyptian deities. In this sense the oracle took on the style of the oracles against foreign nations with the exception that both the speaker and the auditors were living in the midst of the foreign nation upon which the judgment would come. Thus the message of the sign-act bore definite ramifications for the Judahite refugee audience: they would be caught in the midst of the invasion of Egypt, particularly if they resided in

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

361

areas such as Tahpanhes which were border fortresses, and they would suffer the consequences of the Babylonians' military activities. The verbalized message also carried an implied indictment against the refugees who had disobediently come to Egypt. From Jeremiah's perspective, the refugees' illusion of safety in Egypt was misfounded because they were trusting in a country which depended on false gods. In vv. 12-13, the stress on the destruction of the Egyptian temples and cult objects created the implied contrast between God's action and the inability of the Egyptian gods to deliver.634 The Judahite refugees had forsaken obedience to the God who could deliver and trusted in a country ruled by gods which would not prevail. Direct confrontation usually evokes within an audience a negative reaction. Through diverting the audience's attention onto the judgment against the Egyptians and their gods, the avenue was created for avoidance of an intense audience counter-reaction and for greater receptivity to the implied unpleasant consequences of the refugees being caught in the Babylonian invasion of Egypt. So the indirect address and implied indictment forced the people to participate mentally in the communication event and, through their own thought processes, to understand the full message to which they would otherwise be unreceptive. Jeremiah also touched upon the people's deepest fears. The reason they left Judah was out of fear of Nebuchadnezzar's retaliation for something for which they were not directly responsible (Gedaliah's death). Once in Egypt, the fear had undoubtedly receded into the background because they felt secure. Through this action and message, Jeremiah now sought to rekindle and instill in the audience the very fear which they had experienced in Judah, and which, ironically, Jeremiah had attempted to alleviate there (42.11). Jeremiah was specifically working with the emotive feelings of the people. Just as their fear had motivated a response (although inappropriate) while in Judah, so too possibly the arousal of the same fear would motivate a response which this time would lead to appropriate action. 4. Retention. The oddness of Jeremiah's action should have made it memorable. But Jeremiah also provided a means of continuous recollection of his message through the location of the stones' placement. 634. The MT reading in v. 12 of 'and I (God) will kindle fire in the houses of the gods of Egypt' expresses the theological conflict more directly than if the actions are attributed to Nebuchadnezzar (as the third-person readings of the LXX, Syriac and Vulgate do).

362

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

He buried them in a public place which the people had recourse to frequent on numerous occasions. So through the location, upon which the message focused, a constant, physical setting was unavoidably present to remind the people of the coming divine judgment. 3.2 Ezekiel 37.15-28 3.2.1 Rhetorical Situation: Judahite Exiles in Babylon. In light of the capturing and ransacking of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, the burning of the Temple, and the deportation of the population, Ezekiel's exilic audience, by necessity, had to change their perspectives, beliefs and aspirations. Prior to the city's fall the popular theology had fostered hopes of God's preservation and deliverance, but the historical realities had shattered the basis for the people's presuppositions, thus producing a new rhetorical situation with new exigences. Although through the sign-acts of not mourning (24.15-24; see Chapter 2 §2.2) and the release from speechlessness (24.25-27; see Chapter 2 §1.8), Ezekiel had sought to shape the people's attitudinal response to the city's fall and to the realization of the permanence of their exile, such efforts apparently did not produce the desired results in his audience. Rather, the exilic audience responded in hopeless despair with respect to their future (cf. 33.10; 37.lib) and assumed an attitude of 'cynical nihilism'635 dominated by an inability to imagine God working in a new way. Thus Ezekiel's post-586 BCE proclamations of restoration, like his previous predictions of destruction, expressed sentiments and expectations quite different from those held by the audience. The exigence of hopelessness required a forceful rhetorical approach in order to alter radically the people's perception of the nation as dying in the exile. 3.2.2 Communicative Meaning. Ezekiel was commanded (v. 15) to take two pieces of wood and to write on them (v. 16) respectively, '[Belonging]636 to Judah and to the sons of Israel, his companions' and '[Belong635. The terminology is Zimmerli's (1969: 155-56). See similarly Fox's (1980: 5-7) description of the rhetorical situation for the vision of Ezek. 37.1-14. 636. The preposition is here understood as the lamedh inscriptionis (cf. GKC 119u) which indicates possession. But Zimmerli (1983: 267, 273-74) proposes that it signifies allocation, thus a dedicatory inscription, and Block (1998: 396, 403) that it is a lamedh of reference ('pertaining to...') thus indicating about whom the prophetic oracle speaks.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

363

ing] to Joseph...637 and [to] all the house of Israel, his companions'.63 The titles 'Judah' and 'Joseph' are not to be understood in the restrictive sense of particular tribes but as metonyms for the respective kingdoms (the Southern and Northern kingdoms) of which they were th chief representatives. Throughout Ezekiel, nations, people groups, and rulers are metaphorically depicted under the image of p (cf. 15.2, 3, 6; 17.24; 21.3, 1 31.4-5, 8-9, 14, 16, 18-20).639 The link between the general image of 'wood' and its referent, nations or rulers, is undoubtedly through the word association with 'rod' or 'staff (CDDtfJ)640 which was a figurative emblem for rulership over a nation. In Ezek. 19.11 and 14, in the metaphor of the vine, its branches are referred to as ruler's scepters (19.11:

D^tfo ^ati ^ w moo n^ vm; v. 14: t^m ^ticb tDnaj TJJ nuo m rrn tt^l... nQQQ 2JK). The conceptual link between fl? and a ruler's staff is made here in 37.19, in which Joseph's piece of wood is explained as being 'in the hand of Ephraim'.641 The image is that of the leader or the ruling tribe holding the ruler's staff. Also in v. 19, there is the play on the two terms in the phrases 'the wood of Joseph' (^OV j^)642 and 'the tribes of Israel' (^""lET ^n^).643 Thus the visual image engendered by the two pieces of wood as nonverbal artifacts in this sign-act was that 637. The phrase 'the wood of Ephraim' is explanatory, and need not be understood as part of that which was written on the stick. Most commentators delete it as a secondary gloss. 638. The phrases (qere) van 'WI&T ^l and (qere) van ^ICT rra 'PDI have frequently been considered glosses so that the inscriptions would have only read respectively milT1? and e]OT|t7. Whether part of the original inscription or not, 'Israel' in vv. 16, 19, 21 and 22 is an inclusive term for the whole covenant people of God. 639. See the discussion of the term in Chapter 2 §1.14 on Ezek. 21.15. 640. CD2J is used in Ezekiel with the meanings of: 'ruler's scepter' in 19.11, 14; 21.15, 18 (in the latter two used figuratively for the nation; see Chapter 2 §1.14); 'rod' in 20.37; and 'tribes' in 45.8; 47.13, 21, 22, 23; 48.1, 19, 23, 29, 31. 641. DHSN T3 is often considered a gloss, yet the imagery fits the Leitwort of 'in the hand' throughout this passage. Such also argues against Gordis's (1943: 341-42) suggestion that it is equivalent to ~Fi>3 meaning 'instead of, for', and therefore means 'which stands for Ephraim'. 642. The LXX has already interpreted the image by translating 'tribe of Joseph', and also later in the verse 'tribe of Judah', rather than employing its usual reading, 'rod', which is found throughout vv. 16-20. 643. If ^127'' "IVD!D is considered a gloss, as done by some commentators, such weakens this connection of 'wood' and 'tribe' in the passage.

364

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

of the tribal staff, with the inscriptions designating the nations and peoples for whom the artifacts figuratively stood.644 The use is similar to that in Num. 17.16 where the staffs were each inscribed with the name of the respective tribe's leader and thereby figuratively stood for the tribe as a whole. One should not think that Ezekiel had an actual ruler's scepter, but rather a more ordinary piece of wood. Although fl? can mean 'wood' in general, the artifact employed by Ezekiel was probably a branch cut from a tree, or a small sapling which was cut, or a piece of wood similar to a staffer rod (cf. the LXX's pdp8ov),645 rather than flat boards or wooden tablets.646 A stick or branch, because it is not an actual ruler's scepter, retains a metaphoric distance between the sign and its referent, thus initially creating a degree of ambiguity as to what it represents. 644. Comparisons to the employment of staves in totally different contexts of ritualistic magic (as done by Fohrer 1968: 70) are unnecessary and misdirected, since Ezekiel here uses the staves in a figurative way in the context of an idiosyncratic communication event. 645. Keil (1976: II, 130) argues that if a staff was meant, then the term HOD would have been used; so here the reference must simply be to 'pieces of wood'. But ntDQ is used elsewhere in Ezekiel both for a staff (7.10-11) and for branches of a vine (19.11, 12, 14), so has no more precision in meaning than does ]•*S. Similarly Barnes (1938: 392) argues if 'stick' or 'staff was meant ^pD (39.9), HCDD (4.16; 5.16) or rnwiD (29.6) would have been used. Barnes then opts for the literal meaning of 'trees' so the referents are 'two palms standing solitary and apart on the great Euphratean plain'. But that conclusion is based on the assumption that the account here only involved a verbalized image and not a nonverbal action, and that in v. 17, the prophet is 'losing grasp of his metaphor' (392). If one accepts the textual statements that Ezekiel performed the nonverbal action of joining the two in his hand, then Barnes's hypothesis that they are trees is nullified. See Mazurel (1993; also Greenberg 1997: 758-59) who argues that the use of f JJ, in the sense of 'staff, is a deliberate strategy related to the use of terms for wood, staff, and branches elsewhere in Ezekiel. 646. Cf. Keck 1990. Contra Targum's translation, Krrt>; Block 1998: 399-401; Driver 1971: 549-50; Greenwood 1976: 378; Meservy 1977, 1987. Although Zimmerli (1983: 273-74) understands the reference to be to 'rulers' staves', he does not exclude the possibility of wooden tablets with the inscription being allocatory indicating that something (possibly the land) was being given 'to' Joseph and Judah. Block (1998: 404) goes on to suggest that the words of v. 16 may have functioned similarly to colophonic headings for longer inscriptions which may have also been written on the tablets, which he speculates might have been either real or hypothetical registries of names of Judahites and Ephraimites or the accompanying verbal oracle of vv. 21-28.

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

365

The act of writing was not part of the communicated message, but rather only part of the noncommunicative preparatory actions necessary to convey an understandable message. Although the written message did convey message-content, such is not nonverbal communication, but rather nonoral verbal communication. The communicative message was nonverbally transmitted through two actions (v. 17): the joining together of the two sticks ('and bring them together, one to the [other] one, into a single piece of wood'), and Ezekiel's holding the unified sticks ('and they shall be a unity647 in your hand'648). Since the accompanying verbal interpretation refers to the act of joining the sticks (v. 19), it is assumed that Ezekiel's act of joining was observed by the people. How the sticks were joined is not stated, but it can be assumed that either he grafted or spliced the two ends of the wood together or, placing the two sticks side by side, he bound them together. If, as argued below, v. 20 continues the command to extend the nonverbal action beyond the initial joining, then it can be assumed that the two sticks were joined together in a durable manner. The similarity of language between 37.17 (~p ins *7« ins DDK mpl) and 37.7 (IDiliJ ^K DHP moStf mpm) in which the bones joined together in a permanent bonding, suggests that the joining of the sticks was actual and permanent. Thus it can be assumed that Ezekiel did far more than just hold the ends together so that the end-joints were no longer visible so as to create the allusion of one stick.649 Also, the 647. D'inK: the form also occurs in Gen. 11.1. On the basis of LXX's eiq pdp8ov ulav wO Sfjaai awdq, some rearrange the text and emend either to DID^'P, 'to bind them' (cf. Cornill 1886: 418), orDin^, 'to unite them' (cf. Driver [1938: 182] on ins being an Aramaized or by-form of "IPT). But the MT reading can be retained with the plural understood as being employed for intensification (cf. GKC 124e; Clark 1984: 160), or a case of grammatical assimilation to the plural verb (cf. Allen 1990: 190), or means 'one and the same' (cf. Cooke 1936: 401, 405), or as expressing a theological distinction between the human product which is 'a composite one' (D'HriK) in contrast to the 'seamless unity' in God's hand (v. 19: ~inK) (Greenberg 1997: 574). 648. The preposition of ~[TH in vv. 17 and 20, and similarly 'T3 in v. 19b, expresses location, 'in the hand', and must not be understood as that of instrument; in other words, not 'they shall be a unity by means of your hand' and not 'the sticks upon which you will write with your hand' (contra Barnes 1938: 391-92). 649. Contra Allen 1990: 192; van den Born 1935: 121; 1947: 78; Cooke 1936: 401; Eichrodt 1970: 512; Fohrer 1955: 210; Martin-Achard 1970: 68-69; Taylor 1969: 238-39.

366

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

actual joining can be assumed from the point of the communicated message: the two kingdoms would not just appear to be joined together, but would actually be united. When the people inquired as to the meaning of his actions (v. 18),650 Ezekiel was verbally to relay to them the interpretation (v. 19) that the nonverbal actions of joining the two sticks together and holding them in the hand figuratively communicated God's future actions of joining the two kingdoms into a unified whole ('Behold I am taking the wood of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim,,. and I will place them upon it, [on] the wood of Judah,651 and I will make them into a single piece of wood'652) and their being united in the divine hand ('and they shall be one in my hand'653).

650. The construction... "ffiJfOI must be understood as indicating certainty and not just possibility or probability that the people would ask the question. Contra Clark (1984: 158-89) who speaks in terms of the citation that 'it might be said', and therefore classifies it only as a 'potential' audience quotation. On the basis of LXX (KOI eotai OTOV Xeyoxji) some commentators emend to "127RD iTiTl. 651. mirr fJJ DK is an appositional phrase defining the suffix of the prepositional phrase (cf. Jer. 9.14; 27.8). Even if both the suffix on V^i? and the direct object marker, PS, are deleted, as done by some, or ns is emended to *?N (cf. GKC 117m), the meaning is not altered. If the preceding direct object, nms ('the wood of Joseph and the tribes of Israel'), is deleted, making 'the wood of Joseph' the direct object of 'I will take', the only difference is that instead of the wood of Joseph being placed on the wood of Judah, the wood of Judah is placed on the wood of Joseph. The point of the verse is the uniting of the two pieces of wood, so that even if the latter reading is adopted, it does not warrant the theological interpretation that the sequence expresses that 'Joseph' is the 'true Israel' from which 'Judah' has seceded and needs to be reunited. 652. Cf. Malamat (1997: 73*-75*) who compares the phrase 'make them into a single piece of wood' with the idiom found in Mari documents 'and they became one finger', which refers to the diplomatic practice of kingdom unification. 653. The LXX reads 'in the hand of Judah' (followed by van den Born 1935: 121-22; Cornill 1886: 418-20; Driver 1960: 121; Herntrich 1933: 118), possibl understanding the ' as an abbreviation for mvP, or its Vorlage contained TT3 (th reading followed by Bertholet 1897: 186), the suffix of which was interpreted referring to Judah. The LXX's reading is most likely an assimilation to the parallel, 'in the hand of Ephraim', in the first part of the verse and resulted from the subsequent references to the Davidic king (vv. 24-25). But v. 19, as interpretation, is parallel to the action of vv. 16-17 so that 'and they shall be one in my [i.e. God's] hand' (v. 19) is parallel to 'and they shall be a unity in your [i.e. the prophet's] hand' (v. 17).

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

367

Verse 20 resumes the command to the prophet (vv. 16-17). Because of the renewed command and introductory formula, some have considered either v. 19 as the original accompanying verbal statement with vv. 20-28 as later additions, or vv. 19-20 as later additions with portions of vv. 21-28 being the original interpretation. Structurally the components of vv. 16-19 and vv. 20-28 form a parallelism: (a1) v. 20: command (b1) v. 20b: audience reference ('in their sight') (c) v. 19: interpretation (c1) vv. 21-28: interpretation ('say to them: "Thus says the Lord Yahweh..."') (a) vv. 16-17: command (b) v. 18: audience response

The literary structure suggests that v. 19 should not be separated from vv. 16-18 nor v. 20 from vv. 21-28.654 Because of the parallelism, v. 20 should not be considered just a repetitious variant of v. 17,655 but rather a distinct command for the continued, extended performance of the nonverbal communication: the joined sticks were to be carried about ('and they shall [continue] to be in your hand') in the people's sight. The act of joining the sticks was not to be repeated but the united sticks became part of Ezekiel's prophetic accoutrements. The joined sticks were a visual, repetitive reminder of the initial action. Verses 21-28 may be assumed to be the contentual summary of subsequent verbal messages given at various times over the extended period of carrying the united sticks. Thus it is not assumed that within the verbal statements contained in vv. 21-28 there is any connection due to a singular temporal occurrence, only a communicative connection associated with the extended nonverbal act of carrying the united pieces of wood. The verbal content of vv. 21-28 did not reiterate the nonverbal action, unlike v. 19, but complemented it through speaking of further ramifications. Those subsequent messages, unlike the metaphorical language of v. 19, expressed the realities of the unification in very literal terms. 654. Allen (1990: 191) argues for the logical unity of vv. 16-18 and vv. 20-22: the meaning of the sign-act given in v. 19 is expressed in the form of a metaphor whereas only in vv. 21-28. is the interpretation expressed factually, thus making vv. 21-28 'a necessary interpretation'. But he does not view v. 20 as a separate, distinct command. 655. Contra Cooke 1936: 401; Holscher 1924: 176; Stacey 1990: 207; Wevers 1969: 36, 197; Zimmerli 1983: 272.

368

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

3.2.3 Rhetoric 1. Attention. Although the action of joining the two sticks together was not overly unusual, that it attracted the people's attention and heightened their interest is evidenced through their inquiry about the actions' meanings (v. 18). 2. Comprehension. For the audience, the greatest ambiguity existed not on the level of understanding the meaning of the artifacts, but in understanding the actions associated with the artifacts. The metaphor of a nation as a tree or piece of wood was a common cultural figure, and had been previously used by Ezekiel. Once Ezekiel had designated through writing on the two pieces of wood, exactly what the referent nations were, the meaning of the two pieces of wood may have been fairly apparent to the audience: the two sticks were figures for the two kingdoms of Northern Israel and Southern Judah. The action was apparently performed in silence, thus giving the people time to reflect upon it, to enter cognitively into the communication event, and to contemplate the nonverbal behavior's meaning. The comprehension of the meanings was delayed until the people's curiosity was aroused to the point of desired receptivity, so that they inquired about the meaning (v. 18). Only at that point did Ezekiel then verbally interpret his actions for them. 3. Acceptance. Because the people's hope of restoration had died, Ezekiel presented to them a concept which was considered by them to be radically impossible. Through the figurative nonverbal display, Ezekiel, as in the account of the vision of 37.1-14, sought to 'create irrational expectations in his audience by making them believe in the reality of the irrational, by getting them to expect the unexpected, to accept the plausibility of the absurd' (Fox 1980: 7). In order to convince the people of this potential reality, he used the speaker strategy of functioning in the divine role. Just as he had joined the sticks and held them in his hand, so it was God who would perform a similar action with the two kingdoms in the realm of historical reality (v. 19). The message was presented authoritatively as God's action, with the people, signified by the sticks, being the passive objects of the actions. Because it would be God's action, the people could not deny the divine authority to perform that which seemed to them to be humanly impossible. One of the message strategies employed was that the action involved an argument from the greater to the lesser. The political reconciliation

2. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

369

of the two kingdoms had been something which was not accomplished throughout the centuries of their existences, and now that both the kingdoms were no longer political entities, reunification would certainly be a 'miraculous' feat. Given that the Northern Kingdom had been in exile for a century and a half, the Northern tribes' participation in the reunification and return was surely a feat which would be more difficult to achieve than ending Judah's exile which had been in progress for a comparatively brief time. If God declared the return of the Northern tribes, certainly the Judahite exiles should have hope for their own participation in that reunification (cf. Clark 1984: 180). The incentives to adopt Ezekiel's viewpoint consisted of being able to have hope in the midst of a seemingly hopeless situation. The reward offered in the message was the realization of the people's aspirations about the nation's continued existence. Although the immediate audience was not expected to participate on an individual basis in the reunification of the kingdoms, the promise was given that the future generation would experience such. Thus the message provided a way to hope for the future even though the hope would not be immediately actualized. But the prospect of the future generation's realization of the hope provided the motivation for the current generation's continued survival and maintenance of their ethnic and religious identity in the exile.656 4. Remembrance, Through Ezekiel's continued employment of the joined sticks, possibly as his own staff, in the midst of his daily activities, the people had a reminder of the message of the unifying activity of God. The visual stimulation of seeing the two sticks with the inscribed names would have evoked the mental reminiscence of the message, not allowing the message of hope to be soon forgotten. 3.2.4 Audience Response. The people's inquiry as recorded in v. 18, signifies that their attention had been aroused by Ezekiel's action, that they did not comprehend the meaning of what he was doing, and that they sensed that his action was prophetic and communicative in nature. But again, the final result of Ezekiel's endeavors, as to whether the audience adopted the attitude of hope espoused by him, are not recorded.

656. See Fox's (1980: 6-7) comments on the rhetoric of Ezek. 37.1-14.

Chapter 3 SIGN-ACTS AS NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

In Chapter 2, the individual accounts of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's signacts have been dealt with concerning their specific communicative meanings. At this juncture, a synthesis will be made which places the sign-acts into the nonverbal communication model as delineated in Chapter 1 §4. The sign-acts will be analyzed according to: (1) the intention attributed to the nonverbal behaviors; (2) their functions as communicative, interactive, or informative; (3) their coding as 'signs', whether iconic/representational, arbitrary/figurative, or intrinsic; (4) their nature and type of bodily movements, artifacts and paralanguage; and (5) the coordination of the nonverbal and verbal elements in the communication events. 1. Intentionality of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts As noted previously (Chapter 1 §4.1), 'intentionality' refers to deliberate communicative use of nonverbal behaviors on the part of the sender. Since the determination of whether an action is intentionally performed must be based on the sender's perception of such, the only means of determining whether intentionality motivated the prophetic sign-acts is to rely upon the textual accounts' description of such. The literary accounts present the actions of Ezekiel and Jeremiah as being intentionally performed both on the level of the divine-human dialogue and of the prophet-audience dialogue. In the former, the divine intent to communicate a message to the people was expressed through the command to the prophetic intermediary to perform the nonverbal behavior. On the latter level, the prophetic intent was displayed in the prophet's conscious fulfilment of his commission.1 1.

For those who generally argue for the intentional performance of the sign-

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

371

Some commentators have denied the conscious intention of the performance of certain of the prophetic sign-acts. They have argued that the nonverbal behaviors were unintentionally performed with respect to communicating a message since they were: (1) carried out while in an ecstatic state, that is, a condition involving lack of conscious awareness and involuntary speech and action; (2) the result of a psychological and/ or physiological disposition or illness; (3) only retrospectively interpreted as having been divinely enjoined from their inception. 1.1 Sign-Acts as EcstaticPerformance2 Although issues related to ecstasy3 in Israelite prophecy have not been fully settled, the view that the prophets both received and communicated their prophetic messages in a state of ecstasy is no longer generally held.4 Even if one acknowledges that a prophet received a divine message in an ecstatic condition, it does not follow that the proclamation or performance occurred in a similar state. Although there is clear evidence of ecstatic behavior for some preexilic prophets (e.g. 1 Sam. 10.5-6; 19.23-24) such in respect to the sign-acts is lacking for Ezekiel and Jeremiah. The reception language phraseology, or slight variations thereof, which is most often used to introduce the sign-acts is 'the word of Yahweh came to me' (Jer. 13.3, 8; 16.1; 32.1, 6; 35.1; 43.8; Ezek. 12.1, 8; 12.17; 21.13; 21.23; 24.15; 37.15; cf. Jer. 13.1; 27.2: 'thus Yahweh said to me'). This expression cannot be construed as indicating ecstasy with respect to the prophet's reception of the divine command, much less to the proclamation performance of the message.

acts, see van den Born 1935; Fohrer 1952a; 1968; 1967: 251; Matheney 1965, 1968; Ramlot 1972: 973; Swidler 1981; Woodard 1983. 2. For those who understand some or all of the sign-acts as being performed in an ecstatic condition, see Guillaume 1938: 157; Lindblom 1962: 173; Lods 1950: 60; Robinson 1923: 50. 3. For definitions of 'ecstasy' or 'trance possession', see Wilson 1980: 33-34. See also Uffenheimer (1988) who distinguishes four types of 'ecstasy': mass hysteria, oracular trance, integrative ecstasy, introverted ecstasy. He defines the last two as creative and part of the Israelite prophets' experiences. Lindblom (1962: 12237) also distinguishes between different types of 'ecstatic visions and auditions'. 4. For discussions of the various positions about prophetic ecstasy, see Heschel 1962: II, 104-30; Petersen 1981: 25-30; Wilson 1979: 321-23; 1980: 6-8; Woodard 1983: 47-49.

372

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Since the literary texts give no indication that Ezekiel's and Jeremiah's nonverbal behaviors were performed in the context of ecstasy, the only other determination that the sign-acts were such can be the unusualness of the actions performed. But to postulate that the behaviors were ecstatic solely on the basis of the bizarreness of the actions without any other clear indicators of an ecstatic condition is based on the fallacious reasoning that bizarre behavior must in all cases be equated with ecstatic behavior. That bizarre behavior need not be ecstatic is shown by the examples of Greek Cynics who lived, dressed and acted in unusual manners, but who were not ecstatics. For instance, Menedemus went about in the costume of a Fury saying that he was taking cognizance of the sins the people committed (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 6.102); Diogenes once joined some revellers with his head half-shaven, and after they had treated him roughly, he placed their names on a tablet which he hung around his neck so as to discredit them publicly (6.33); Diogenes called out one day for men and when the people gathered around him, he began to hit at them with his stick telling them he had called for men, not scoundrels (6.32); he lived in a pithos which he rolled over the hot sand in the summer (6.23); he walked barefoot in the snow (6.34). The bizarre behaviors of Diogenes were not performed while in an ecstatic condition, but were quite intentionally interactive in nature.5 Thus, on the basis on the nature of the prophetic sign-acts, there is no a priori basis for assuming that they were performed while in an ecstatic condition. The actions of the two prophets can be explained as unusual behavior which was consciously performed while in a non-ecstatic state of mind. Yet the bizarreness of some of the actions may call into question the prophet's mental stability or health.

5. On other actions of Diogenes, see Chapter 1 §5.2.5. Cf. Sayre (1938: 7980): 'There appears to be something theatrical in these acts. They have the appearance of attempts to attract notice, to cause comment and perhaps to give him an opportunity to explain that he was a [wise man].' He comments further that although some of these acts appear ascetic, 'it seems more probable that these things also were done to attract attention. A cynic had no motive for asceticism' (1938: 80). It is obvious that these actions were also informative in that they expressed the philosopher's attitudes toward, views of, and role in, society. While confirming the cynic's contempt for society, the actions also fulfilled the expectations society had with respect to cynics' behavior.

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

373

1.2 Sign-Acts Resulting from Psychological and/or Physiological Disposition or Illness The argument that the nonverbal behavior occurred during a peculiar psychological disposition and/or physiological illness during which the prophet was unconscious of his actions, has been advanced only in regard to Ezekiel. The diagnoses of Ezekiel's condition go from the extreme of schizophrenic paranoia6 to more moderate positions of milder psychological disturbances7 but not mental illness. Many view the psychological condition as having physiological manifestations such as periods of catalepsy (his speechlessness [3.26] and the immobility of lying on his sides [4.4-8]). The suggested milder psychological disturbances are attributed to the trauma of being in exile, an extreme grief reaction at his wife's death, the trauma in receiving the news of Jerusalem's fall, or the result of visionary experiences. Others have proposed that his speechlessness and immobility were totally physiological in origin: for example, resulting from a stroke (cf. Brownlee 1978: 395; 1986: xxxiv). The explanation of Ezekiel's unique behaviors as being due to an extreme psychological illness is no longer generally held8 and has been adequately countered.9 Outside of the difficulties in psychologically analyzing a person at the distance of two-and-a-half millennia through texts whose intention was not to record psychological data, contextual considerations must not be overlooked. Since the context is the key to determining the meaning of nonverbal behavior, given the context of a

6. Cf. Broorae 1946; Jaspers 1951; Klostermann 1877. See also Nuys 1953: 248-49 who likens the activities of Ezek, 3.22-4.17 to a schizophrenic, catatonic state, but refrains from calling them such, rather referring to them as a 'manifestation of unconscious functioning'. 7. Cf. Eichrodt 1970: 25-26; Halperin 1993; Stacey 1990: 178. 8. Although, Halperin (1993) has recently attempted to argue for the legitimacy of a Freudian-style psychoanalysis of Ezekiel. 9. Cassem (1973) criticizes the type of analysis employed by Broome (1946), in that it: (1) exegetes without first determining what the text means (64-65); (2) applies psychiatric principles in a selectively inappropriate manner (65-67); (3) fails to clarify presuppositions (67); and (4) uses a text for psychiatric analysis which was not intended for such (68). Cf. also Baentsch 1908: 75-81; Bron 1981; Fohrer 1968: 86; Garfinkel 1989: 41-42; Herrmann 1908: 75-80; Howie 1950:69-79; Konig 1892: 654-58.

374

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

psychologically deranged person, the actions of Ezekiel may be symptoms of paranoia. But understood in the context of an intended communication by a psychologically normal individual, a totally different meaning for the actions will result. It is methodologically wrong to adduce a meaning from an isolated act (i.e. that it indicates a psychological abnormality) and then work back from that specific act to determine the overall psychological state of the actor. The viewpoint of nonverbal communication taken in this study is structural/functional rather than clinical:10 the actions themselves do not tell the psychological state of Ezekiel, and the actions must be viewed in context. The presentations of Ezekiel's nonverbal actions in the biblical text are not involuntary behaviors due to psychological or physiological conditions, and therefore the acts cannot be a priori analyzed in that type of context. Ezekiel's lying on his sides and his speechlessness can just as adequately be interpreted as voluntary actions unrelated to any supposed permanent or periodically reoccurring psychological conditions. For example, the lying on the sides, if performed for communicative purposes, could have been carried out only when an audience was expected or apt to be present. Thus the lying may have occurred for only a part of each day, which left the prophet free to carry on a more normal, but secluded, life when not in view of the audience (see Chapter 2 §1.9.1). Similarly the speechlessness need not refer to literal dumbness, but rather to a speechlessness in carrying on normal conversation with his fellow-exiles (see Chapter 2 §1.8). 1.3 Retrospectively Imputed Intent to the Sign-Acts The view that the actions were retrospectively given intent proposes that the prophet performed some common action but did so initially without any intention to communicate a message thereby.11 Only after later reflection did the prophet or a later interpreter ascribe meaning to the act. 10. Cf. Weitz (1974: 87-88) who defines the functional approach as viewing nonverbal behavior 'in the context of communication itself and is interested in the holistic quality of the combined verbal and nonverbal domain. It sees each movement as part of a greater whole but does not seek to attach any externally based meaning, particularly any psychological meaning, to any single movement or combination of movements.' 11. The arguments in this section apply not only to the position that the signacts were originally normal actions performed without any intent to communicate,

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

375

For instance, such a view proposes that Jeremiah purchased a waistsash (Jer. 13.1-11) for himself which in the course of time became spoiled and useless. Only later did the prophet interpret the wearing as Israel's closeness to God, and its becoming spoiled as the judgment coming upon Israel (cf. van den Born 1947: 55-58; Stacey 1990: 13738). Some maintain that as Jeremiah reflected back over his failure to marry (Jer. 16.2-4), he then perceived God's hand in it and ascribed his celibacy to having been divinely commanded (see the references in Chapter 2 §1.2). It has been proposed that the circumstances and activities of Ezek. 3.25; 4.4-5.3; and 12.17-20 occurred during an actual imprisonment when Ezekiel was bound in stocks, shaven, and given rationed portions of food and water to eat (cf. Steinmann 1953: 11118). But in the accounts, the inflicted actions are presented as if Ezekiel was the originator of them and as if they bore a specific message-content for the people. Some suggest that Ezek. 12.3 be viewed as merely a common change of location which the prophet made, to which he subsequently gave a message-content (cf. van den Born 1947: 70). It has been proposed that Ezekiel moaned (Ezek. 21.11-12) due to real pain he was experiencing, then later interpreted it as groaning over the coming destruction.12 Ezekiel's lack of mourning at his wife's death (Ezek. 24.15-24) has been interpreted as a natural grief response which he only later considered to have been imposed divinely. 13 The purported analogies for arguing that unintentionally performed nonverbal actions could be later interpreted as communicative are found in the reports of an observed action which is subsequently given an but also counteract the view of retrospectively imputed intent to ecstatically, psychologically or physiologically induced behavior. For a corollary to the view that the sign-acts were involuntary, nonintentional actions, either as ecstatic behavior or psychological/physiological illness, is also that they were interpreted as having a message significance only after their performance. For example, that the catalepsy or other physical manifestations of Ezekiel's psychological disposition were only later regarded as containing a message for the people, see Bertholet (1897: 26-27), Eichrodt (1970: 25-26), Halperin (1993: 179), Jaspers (1951: 100), Stacey (1990: 178, 186), Regnier (1923: 390), Zimmerli (1974: 143-46). For example, Brownlee (1978: 395) maintains that Ezekiel's stroke was later interpreted as an experience of atoning for the people. 12. Cf. van den Born (1947: 74-75) that it would have been undignified for a prophet to simulate pain. (See also the references in Chapter 2 §1.13.) 13. Cf. Holscher 1924: 130; Lods 1929: 175; 1950: 242; Robinson 1927: 8; Zimmerli 1969: 141; 1974: 143-45; 1979: 507.

376

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

interpretation by the observer (i.e. one who did not perform the action),14 such as 1 Sam. 15.27-28 where Saul tore Samuel's garment and yet it was Samuel who interpreted the action as the division of the kingdom, and Jer. 18.1-10 in which the action was performed by the potter but interpreted by the prophet. It is also proposed that Jer. 32.6-8 and Ezek. 12.8-14 reflect that the prophets received the interpretations of their actions at later times, thus providing analogies of the development of knowledge in regard to the actions. In the former, Jeremiah received the divine word that Hanamel would come (v. 6), but only at Hanamel's arrival was there recognition that it was a divine word (v. 8). In the latter, the interpretation of Ezekiel's action of going out with exile baggage in the evening is given the following morning, which, it is argued, implies that he was not aware of the meaning when he performed the actions. Therefore it is postulated that in other sign-act accounts similar development took place without any textual indication of such (cf. van den Born 1946: 340-41, 351-53; 1947: 20-21, 44-48). It is thus argued that the presentations of the acts as intentional performances reflect later developments rather than being indicative of the actual motives and circumstances at the time of the performances. But the view that intent was retrospectively imputed argues against the manner in which the literary accounts present the actions: that they were performed because of divine command and initiative. Also, since similar personal acts were intentionally performed in other cultural

14. Similar examples of using observed actions to communicate messages are found in classical literature. While ready to attack Corinth, Lysander saw that his Spartan troops were hesitating to begin the assault. At that moment, a rabbit was seen leaping across the moat, whereupon Lysander asked, 'Are you not ashamed to be afraid of enemies who are so lazy that rabbits can sleep on their walls?' (Plutarch, Lives, Lysander 22; Moralia 190E). After having conquered Salamis, Solon justified the rightness of his action by opening graves showing that the dead were buried with their faces toward Athens (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.48). Diogenes while watching a mouse not seeking a place to lie down, not being afraid of the dark, not seeking things considered to be dainties, discovered the means of adapting himself to circumstances (Diogenes Laertius 6.22; Plutarch's Progress in Virtue 5; Aelian's Varia Historia 13.26; see Sayre 1938: 108-10). The respective actions interpreted by Lysander, Solon or Diogenes were not considered portentous oracles or divinatory in their executions, but rather were employed by the interpreters in communicative and interactive ways to take advantage of the suasive impacts which the actions had at those particular moments.

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

377

contexts (see Chapter 1 §5.2.5), there is no a priori reason to dismiss the textual accounts as having to be proleptic attributions of intention. Also, the arguments for the above confuse the issue of intentionality with that of the prophet fully understanding all of the nuances and significances of his behavior. It is possible for the prophet to have received the message in stages. Initially, he may have only received a command to perform a specific nonverbal action, in response to which all he had to do was follow the instructions and perform the action precisely as commanded. Full understanding of the communicative meaning of the act was not a prerequisite to perform it intentionally for communicative purposes, as long as the prophet perceived he was under divine compulsion to do the sign-act. The initial partial understanding of the communicative message could be augmented at a later time, and yet such does not obviate the intentionality of the preceding performance. Thus, even if Ezek. 12.8-14 is interpreted to mean that Ezekiel himself did not understand the action until the following morning, the initial command to perform the action is not thereby obviated nor need be considered secondary, and by virtue of the act being divinely commanded (v. 1) the text sought to establish the intentionality of the act. But, in fact, vv. 814 do not imply that Ezekiel did not understand what he did, rather that the people did not understand. It was the command to speak to the people which was given to Ezekiel the following morning. In the midst of that command the interpretation of the action was literarily recounted, but the meaning may have already been known to Ezekiel. The other text often cited as reflecting a dichotomy between performance and interpretation is Jeremiah 32. But the literary account takes great lengths (vv. 6-7, 25) to establish that, before the event, the prophet was aware of the exact action he was to perform when the occasion to purchase the field actually arose. The wording of the message in v. 7 does not necessarily mean that Jeremiah was not aware of the communicative significance attached to the enjoined action (v. 15). Likewise, v. 8b is a statement of confirmation and not an indication of the reception of a new revelation or understanding of the action's purpose. Jeremiah's subsequent puzzlement (vv. 16-25) was not over the interpretation of the action, but over the appropriateness and possibility of such a message at that particular time. Since there appear to have been no reservations about distinguishing stages in the prophet's level of understanding prior to and subsequent to the action (vv. 16-25), the implication can be

378

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

made that those statements which express intent prior to the act should be understood as reflecting the pre-event motivation of the prophet. When 1 Sam. 15.27-28 and Jer. 18.1-10 are considered, according to the 'retrospectively imputed intent* interpretation, as being on the same continuum with and therefore paradigmatic for interpreting the prophetic sign-acts, distinctions between types of intent become nullified. One difference which is disregarded is the distinction between an act which is part of the prophetic message and an action which is performed by the prophet as part of the normal routine of living.15 In the former, the action is intentionally 'used' as a means of transmitting a specific message, and is therefore 'communicative', whereas in the latter the nonverbal behavior is intentionally performed to 'do' the action for its own sake, and is therefore an intrinsically encoded 'performative'.16 It is the purposeful investing of the behavior with messagecontent about events or emotional states other than those of the prophets themselves which distinguishes the communicative intent from the intrinsically encoded performative. Some of the sign-acts, for example, preparing and eating food (Ezek. 4.9-12) and wearing clothes (Jer. 13.111), were identical in outward form to those done as part of the prophets' daily existence. Yet when performed as part of a sign-act, Ezekiel 15. Stacey (1990: 67-68) does make this distinction with respect to 'neutral actions of a prophet'. Yet he does not carry it logically through to also view the potter's action of Jer. 18 as a neutral action by the potter (143-46), but rather classifies it as a 'prophetic drama'. 16. Cf. Austin (1975) on verbal 'performatives'. Performatives do also communicate information, yet the distinction being made here is with respect to intentional primary function. This distinction needs also to be made with respect to prophetic miracles (e.g. 2 Kgs 4.32-35, 38-41; 6.4-7) which are 'performative'. Therefore subsuming signacts and miracles under the sociological rubric of 'acts of power', as done by Overholt (1982; 1989: 86-96) and Long (1977), can blur the distinction between performative and communicative actions. Cf. Lang (1986: 305) who does distinguish between biblical nonverbal actions which are performative and didactic (i.e. communicative), and includes the prophetic sign-acts in the latter. The 'performative' and 'communicative' distinction also differentiates prophetic sign-acts from legal and cultic ritualized symbolic actions. Malul (1988: 21-23) and Viberg (1992: 12-14) both demonstrate how legal symbolic actions are 'institutionalized performatives' (Viberg 1992: 14) which are 'intended to create and bring about a legal change rather than just communicate it' (Malul 1988: 22). Cf. also Killers 1990. Hutton (1995) also blurs this distinction by classifying the sign-acts as performatives on the analogy of curse ritual.

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

379

did not eat and drink merely for the sake of nourishment; rather, he used the act of eating to communicate a message, not about the fact of eating but about the manner of eating and types of food eaten. Jeremiah did not wear the waist-sash just to be properly attired, but wore it for a communicative reason. When Jeremiah purchased the field from his relative (Jer. 32), the activity followed the conventional standards and legal regulations for the transfer of ownership. But the purpose for the activity was not merely for Jeremiah to assume possession, although such did occur, rather it was to use the action as a vehicle to depict a future circumstance. This latter activity has an interesting rhetorical twist in that the witnesses were probably initially viewing Jeremiah's action as only a performative activity—Jeremiah buying the field— whereas Jeremiah was viewing the activity as a representational sign of what the people would do in the future. The distinction between representational and figurative 'communicative' sign-acts and normal, noncommunicative, intrinsically encoded 'performative' activities is maintained in the literary accounts. For example, alongside the accounts of Jeremiah's sign-acts (reported as being intentionally performed to communicate) are accounts of Jeremiah functioning in normal activities which were not interpreted as having communicative value. For example, when Jeremiah attempted to leave Jerusalem (Jer. 37.11-13), he did so not to make a prophetic statement, but to transact personal business. Such accounts are allowed to stand without being subsequently reworked to impute communicative intent to the actions. Also, when 1 Samuel 15 and Jeremiah 18 are used paradigmatically to interpret the sign-acts, disregarded is the qualitative difference between an action performed by another with an intrinsically encoded, performative intent, and an action performed by the communicator with a representationally or figuratively encoded, communicative intent. In the former case, the action is unintentionally antecedent to the communication event, while in the latter the action is intentionally part of the event. In Jeremiah 18 and 1 Samuel 15, the intent of the actors is presented as being 'performative': the potter's activity of making a pot was nothing other than that (Jer. 18.3-4), and Saul's grasping Samuel's robe was to prevent Samuel from leaving (1 Sam. 15.27-28).I7 The 17. Even if Saul intentionally sought to tear Samuel's cloak, his intent and purpose for doing so was quite different from the idiosyncratic message Samuel gave to the action.

380

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

actions were not performed by the actors to communicate any specifiable message-content. In both cases, the actions were initially decoded by the spectators (Jeremiah and Samuel) in the same manner that they were encoded by the actors (the potter and Saul) as being intrinsically encoded performative actions. But then the spectators encoded the actions with new communicative meanings, fully aware that such meanings were not the original meanings encoded by the actors. Similarly Ezekiel used the event of his wife's death (Ezek. 24.15-26) as an illustration of the loss of Jerusalem, yet he did not ascribe to his wife the motive of intentionally dying so that he might communicate a message.18 Jeremiah used Hanamel's performative action of selling the property (Jer. 32) as part of his intentional communication that land would be 'bought and sold', but Jeremiah did not attribute to Hanamel's motives the intent to communicate any message. Likewise, when the Rechabites (Jer. 35) refused Jeremiah's offer of wine, their intent was to do nothing other than refuse. Yet Jeremiah intentionally evoked that specific response from them so as to use it in a quite different communicative setting than intended by the Rechabites. Their performative refusal became for Jeremiah a figurative example of covenant fidelity to be contrastively used as an indictment against the Judahites. Also, there is nothing unique or inherent in the nonverbal behaviors of the supposed proleptic sign-act accounts which provides motivation for intention to have been retrospectively imputed to them and not to other similar actions. In Jeremiah, there are accounts of performative actions carried out by others with the intent to punish: for example, Jeremiah was placed in the stocks by Pashur (Jer. 20.1-2), in the dungeon (Jer. 37.15-16), in the court of the guard (Jer. 37.21-38.28), in the cistern (Jer. 38.6). But no attempt was made to encode those activities with any message-content. If one maintains that Ezekiel underwent an imprisonment (3.25; 4.4-5.3; 12.17-20) which was later interpreted as having communicative significance for his audience (cf. Steinmann

18. Nor does the revelation that Ezekiel's wife was about to die in v. 16 imply that God purposefully put her to death so that Ezekiel could communicate a message. The verse does not express the reason for her death, but only attributes the death to the activity of God, under whose realm all deaths were certainly placed, and informs of the fact that she would die and that the event provided the occasion for the communication event.

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

381

1953: 111-18), then one needs to provide an explanation as to why Jeremiah's imprisonments were only recounted in ways which informed of the prophet's experiences rather than being reworked into communicative messages in simile-form. In the accounts 1 Sam. 18.27-28 and Jer. 18.1-10, no attempt is made to impute communicative intent to an action which was performed without such even when that action was subsequently utilized by the observer to communicate a divinely given message. Likewise, if the prophets subsequently derived messages from their own performative (noncommunicative) actions, it can be assumed, on the basis of 1 Samuel 15 and Jeremiah 15, that it was not theologically necessary for them to reinterpret the antecedent actions as also having been divinely commanded. Such a reinterpretation would not have enhanced the authority, credibility or the persuasive impact of the performance once the act was completed. Within the prophetic books, four types of accounts of activities are allowed to coexist: (1) an activity which the prophet performed, but without any intent to thereby communicate a message (cf. Jer. 37.1113), and to which no such intent was retrospectively imputed; (2) an action performed by another without intent to communicate, and from which the prophet did not derive any prophetic message (cf. Jer. 20.12); (3) an action performed by another with no intent to communicate, but employed by the prophet to communicate a message (cf. Jer. 18.110); (4) an action which was intentionally performed by the prophet so as to communicate a message. So instead of Jer. 18.1-10 and 1 Sam. 15.27-28 being paradigmatic for interpreting the other sign-acts as actions which were also unintentional with respect to communication, they rather provide a contrasting argument against such a view. 1.4 Conclusions about the Sign-Acts' Intentionality The arguments that the prophetic actions were performed in the midst of ecstatic experiences, psychological or physiological illnesses, or were normal performative actions only later adduced to have been communicative in intent, become inadequate. There are thus no compelling a priori reasons to disregard as inaccurate the literary texts' presentation of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's actions as intentionally performed. As literarily recounted, the prophets' intentions were to communicate, through the nonverbal behaviors, specifiable messages to their audiences and thereby alter the people's views regarding the topics addressed.

382

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts 2. Nonverbal Functions of the Sign-Acts

As discussed in Chapter 1 §4.2, nonverbal communication functions in three ways: informative, communicative and interactive. 2.1 Informative The prophetic sign-acts were informative in the sense that they transmitted information about the prophet's social status and personality. Since the sign-acts were part of the socially recognized behavior of a prophet, by performing those nonverbal actions the role expectations were being fulfilled, thus legitimating for the audience that the performer was a prophet.19 But the performance of the sign-acts by Jeremiah and Ezekiel should not necessarily be viewed as a conscious attempt by them to legitimate socially their status20 since such stereotypical behavior was 'learned behavior'.21 Nevertheless, the sign-acts, 19. On the theory of role expectation, see Sarbin and Allen 1968: 497-506; and on the role expectations of the prophets and their behavior being part of the process of social legitimation, see Berquist 1989; Carley 1975: 67-68; Gordon 1995: 77; Hester 1982; Long 1977; Overholt 1981a: 70-72; 1982; 1986: 13-16; 1989: 69-115; Petersen 1981: 93-95; Wilson 1979; 1980: 62-68; 1984b: 72-74. 20. Bourdillon (1977: 131) comments that the prophetic sign-acts need not have been intentionally performed to establish in the audience's mind the actor's identity as a prophet, but such behavior was an unintentional result of being a prophet. Cf. Wiener el al. (1972: 196): 'to hold that a behavior learned by a group is learned so that the group membership of the individual will be identifiable seems to us to distort what is meant by learned behavior sequences. We call someone a "Southerner" when he speaks with a particular pattern of intonation; the Southerner does not learn to speak with that particular pattern of intonation so that he will be identified as a "Southerner". It would seem strange to say that he enacts or uses a Southern accent rather than simply that he has learned to speak that way.' 21. Wilson (1980: 66-67) states that most often an intermediary's behavior is learned through a process which 'does not usually take place consciously, but... goes on subconsciously over a period of years' through viewing the socially acceptable behavioral patterns of other intermediaries. Lang (1983a: 100-101) describes the vocational genesis of a free prophet as having begun with the phase of perception in which the candidate learned of the prophets, viewed their performances and possibly read their writings, thereby perceiving the role of the prophet which included its special forms of experience (vision) and methods of communicating (sign-acts). This was followed by the phase of learning which involved personal contact and possible accompaniment with the prophet. In the last two phases of breakthrough and prophetic activity, the person became a prophet and then

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

383

as part of the role-legitimation process, probably did affect the perceived rhetorical credibility and power as discussed in Chapter 4 §2.3.1.1. 2.2 Communicative According to the literary accounts, the motivating intent which produced Ezekiel's and Jeremiah's sign-acts was clearly that of communicating specific message-contents. That the sign-acts were communicative is primarily indicated through the frequent employment of the simile-form which made explicit the correspondence between the actions and the message-meanings: 'just as the prophet has done, so other persons will or should do, or God is doing or will do', or 'just as it was done to the artifact, so it will be done to the people'. At times the correlation between the nonverbal behavior and the specified message was explicitly stated through POD (Jer. 13.1-7 / 9; 19.10 / 11; 51.63 / 64; Ezek. 4.12/13), 22 p...^O (Jer. 13.2/11; 19.10 / 11-12; Ezek. 12.1-6/11; similarly 24.16-17 / 22-23, with only -ititO),23 or ...D (Jer. 12.1-2 / 10; Ezek. 24.16-17 / 24).24 In many other cases no term of analogy was employed, yet the comparison was explicitly made in the accompanying verbal interpretation (Jer. 16.2 / 3-4; 16.5 / 6-7; 16.8 / 9; 27.2 / 7, 12; 32.7 /15; Ezek. 4.1 / 5.5; 4.4 / 5; 4.6a / 6b; 4.9-11 /16; 5.2 /12; 12.18 / 19; 21.11 / 12; 21.19 / 22; 37.16-17 / 22). In other places, the correlation between the 'sign' (nonverbal behavior) and the 'referent' (the performed actions according to the previously learned behaviors. On the theory of social role skills being learned, see also Sarbin and Allen 1968: 514, 544-50. 22. The same expression is used by Hananiah when he broke the yoke Jeremiah was wearing (Jer. 28.10/11). 23. Also Isa. 20.3. 24. There is no consistency of usage of any particular term of comparison with respect to the nature of the behaviors, the roles assumed by the prophets, or the coding of the behaviors. For instance in Ezek. 4.13 i~DD was used, but, in v. 16, in a very similar interpretation of eating, there was no term of similitude. In Ezekiel (12.11; 24.22), ~!2JfcO is used when Ezekiel assumed the role of the people, but in Jer. 13.11 and 19.11 while the prophet was in the role of God. HDD in Ezek. 4.13 and Jer. 51.64 referred to an action of the people, but in Jer. 13.9 and 19.11 to God's action. In all the Ezekiel passages the terms referred to representational actions of the people, while in Jeremiah to figurative actions performed against the people by God. So no particular term referred to any particular type of coded behavior. There thus is no basis for arguing from these terms that they designate different types of referent-sign relationships or reflect residues of the magical background (contra Fishbane 1971: 180-82, 185-87; Fohrer 1952a: 117-18; 1968: 99101; Matheney 1965: 253-61).

3 84

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

corresponding meaning) was not verbally explicated (e.g. Ezek. 4.2-3, 7; 5.1, 3-4; 6.11; 21.17, 20; the speechlessness of 3.26-27; 24.25-27; 33.21-22), yet in some of those cases, due to the nature of the act, the simile-form is obvious (4.2-3, 7; 5.1, 3-4) and may be assumed for the remaining few. 2.3 Interactive The sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel were intentionally designed not only to communicate message-contents, but also to be interactive in the sense that they sought to alter the people's thinking and subsequent behavior by persuading of the validity of the action-depicted messages. The interactive nature of the sign-acts is indicated, in a general manner, through their being designated nitf and HD1Q (Ezek. 4.3; 12.6, 11; 24.24, 27) and their coordination with the knowledge formula ('and you/they shall know that I am Yahweh') which occurs in the accompanying verbal proclamations (Ezek. 12.15, 16, 20; 24.24, 27; see Chapter 1 §3.2.4). The rhetorical intent of one of the sign-acts is explicitly expressed. When Ezekiel was commanded to 'go into exile' bearing his baggage on his shoulder (Ezek. 12.1-7), he was to do so in the people's sight, so that when they observed him, they might possibly 'see' (understand) the divine message. The purpose of performing the action was to alter the people's perceptions into alignment with that of Ezekiel. 2.4 Summary: Functions of the Prophetic Sign-Acts This distinction between the three functions of nonverbal communication enables a clearer categorization of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's nonverbal behaviors.25 On the conscious level the prophets were intending

25. This distinction in function helps to eliminate some of the inappropriate comparisons or associations between the sign-acts and other nonverbal behavior. One such is Lang's (1981a: 278; 1981b: 86-87; 1983a: 81-82, 88; 1986: 301) likening of the sign-acts to Luther's burning of the papal bull, Kruschev's pounding his shoe on the table in the United Nations' meeting, and sit-ins. All of those actions are interactive and informative in that their intentional purpose was to gain attention and inform of the actors' stances and emotional dispositions with respect to the spectators or society. But the actions were not communicative in the sense of being encoded with a specifiable message-content, in simile-form, like the prophetic actions were. So although Lang's observations (cf. also 1978: 167-70) are helpful in distancing the sign-acts from a magical background, they do not go far enough in

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

385

to communicate messages through their nonverbal actions (communicative function). Also, on the intentional level, the actions functioned rhetorically to gain and maintain the audiences' attention and to convince the audiences of the message-content (interactive function). But at the same time, the behaviors also unintentionally revealed the performers' social status as prophets and fulfilled the role expectations placed upon them by society (informative function). 3. Coding of the Prophetic Sign-Acts In previous studies of the prophetic actions, the distinctions in the types of coding ('intrinsic', 'iconic/representational', and 'arbitrary/ figurative') have not been made. Thus the appellation 'symbolic actions' has ended up subsuming a vast array of nonverbal activities whose functions, encodings and manners of performance were of significantly diverse natures. Since many of the prophetic sign-acts were iconic/representational, whereas only the arbitrary/figurative coding is technically 'symbolic', the generic term 'sign', which incorporates all the types of coding, is a more correct designation of the prophetic nonverbal actions (for definitions, see Chapter 1 §4.3). The term 'sign' more appropriately corresponds both to definitions in modern communication theory, as well as to the biblical terms nitf and nsiQ which are used in the descriptions of the acts of Ezekiel (Ezek. 4.3; 12.6, 11; 24.24, 27). 3.1 The Sign-Acts and Intrinsic Coding Since the prophetic behaviors did not stand for the acts themselves but depicted other events or emotional states which were external to the prophets' personal activities or emotions, the actions cannot be categorized as being intrinsically coded, but rather iconically/representationally or arbitrarily / figuratively coded.

clarifying the functions or the coding of the prophetic sign-acts as nonverbal behavior. Also the distinction in functions, coupled with the use of the term 'sign-acts', avoids the restrictive nature of the appellation 'acts of power' (cf. Overholt 1982; 1986; 1989: 86-96; Long 1977) which only labels the actions in terms of their sociological function of defining status and power (their informative function), but overlooks the more primary purpose as communication devices designed to convey messages (their communicative function) and to persuade the audiences of those messages (their interactive function).

386

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

3.2 Sign-Acts and Iconic Coding: 'Representational' Many of the prophetic sign-acts were depicted in a representational manner corresponding behaviors of the people or national events. Jer. 16.2: Jer. 16.5: Jer. 16.8: Jer. 32.7-8:

Ezek. 4.1-2: Ezek. 4.9-10:

Ezek. 4.11: Ezek. 4.12: Ezek. 5.2, 4:

Ezek. 12.3-6:

Ezek. 12.5: Ezek. 3.26: Ezek. 24.27; 33.22:

being without a wife resembled what the situation would be like after many family members had died (16.3-4a). not attending funerals reflected how in the future there would be no mourning for the dead (16.6-7). not attending joyous celebrations depicted the corning lack of festive occasions in the land (16.9). the single occurrence of buying the field represented what would take place in the future on a large scale (32.15). the model of the city and siege weapons resembled in miniature the actual siege of a city. the eating of mixed grains in rationed portions was an accurate representation of the scarcity of any one kind of food and of the limited quantity of the accumulated food supply available during a siege (4.16). the drinking of the rationed water depicted the situation of a limited water supply during a siege (4.16). the eating of unclean bread showed how the exiles would eat unclean food (4.13). the burning and striking with the sword representationally depicted the conflagration and slaughter of the city and its inhabitants (5.12). the preparing of the baggage and the carrying it out on the shoulder through the hole in the wall resembled what exiles looked like in their leaving (12.11) through the breached city wall. the digging through the wall replicated the Babylonians' breaching the city. Ezekiel's speechlessness showed how the people should be nonspeaking in the dialogue with God. the release from the speechless condition showed how the people would, at some point in the future, be able to enter into dialogue with God.

When the prophets assumed the role of the Judahite people in their representational depictions (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8; 32.7-8; Ezek. 3.26; 4.9-12;

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

387

12.3-6; 12.18; 24.27; 21.11; 21.17; 24.16-17), they used a form of synecdochic representation. The prophet, as a singular member of the community, presented a singular example of what would or should be actually replicated on a broader scale by the community members. The two actions which depicted settings were miniature representations of the actual place at which the prophesied events would occur: Jer. 43.9:

the stones placed in the pavement served as marker stones to designate the place where the Babylonian king's throne would be set. Ezek. 21.24: the crossroads with the signpost showed what the location looked like where the Babylonian king would make the choice about going to Jerusalem.

In several cases, Ezekiel used nonverbal behavior to express emotional dispositions of either the people or of God. In doing so, he employed socially accepted and culturally conventional means of externalizing the accompanying inward emotions. Since these behaviors are 'emblems' (conventionally defined signs), the distinction must be made between the conventional level of meaning and the idiosyncratic usage by the prophet. The conventional meaning is based on an arbitrary coding between the externally manifested act and its referent of an internal emotive state (e.g. clapping = indignation; trembling = fear). In many cases, the connection is based on the nonverbal behavior being an 'affect display' (see Chapter 1 §4.4.1 and Chapter 3 §4.1.3), that is, the correlative external result of the inward emotion (e.g. fear results in trembling; groaning results from grief). But the prophet used these conventionally, arbitrarily encoded behaviors in a representationally encoded manner as part of the idiosyncratic message-event in which those emblems showed certain emotional reactions of God, in an anthropomorphized or anthropopathized manner, or of the people. In employing the behaviors, the focus was not that there would or should be merely a manifestation of the depicted outward emotive behaviors, but rather that there would or should be the correlated emotion. Therefore these nonverbal behaviors are termed 'representational' in keeping with the prophet's manner of encoding them for his communicative purposes while at the same time not denying the conventional and arbitrary (figurative) nature of the nonverbal behaviors in relationship to the emotional dispositions they displayed:

388

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Ezek. 4.3, 7:

setting the face toward the model city represented God's disposition toward Jerusalem during the siege. Ezek. 4.7: baring the arm—either a conventional nonverbal behavior or conventional metaphorical expression for preparedness for battle—depicted God's readiness for war. Ezek. 6.11: clapping the hands and stamping the feet—conventional gestures of indignation—represented God's attitude toward the people's wickedness. Ezek. 12.18: trembling—conventional nonverbal expressions of fear —showed how the people would react during the time of the siege (12.19). Ezek. 21.11: groaning—conventional nonverbal expression of grief —represented how the people should receive the news of judgment (21.12). Ezek. 21.17: crying out, wailing, and striking the thigh—conventional paralanguage and gesture of grief—depicted how the people should react to the coming judgment. Ezek. 21.19: clapping the hands—a gesture of indignation—depicted God's feelings toward the people (21.22). Ezek. 24.16-17: not mourning—abstention from conventional gestures of sorrow—portrayed how the people should refrain from grieving over Jerusalem's fall (24.22). 3.3 Sign-Acts and Arbitrary Coding: 'Figurative' Although some of the prophetic acts depicting the people were iconic, others were arbitrarily/figuratively coded (symbolic): Jer. 13.1: Jer. 13.4-6: Jer. 19.10: Jer. 27.1: Jer. 35.2: Jer. 51.63: Ezek. 4.3:

the wearing of the waist-sash to show the people's closeness in the relationship to God (13.11). the spoiling of the waist-sash to show the people's coming uselessness (13.10). shattering the jar to depict the destruction of Jerusalem (19.11). the wearing of the yoke to communicate submission to Babylon (27.5-7, 12). using the faithfulness of the Rechabites as a contrast to the Judahites' unfaithfulness to God (35.14). the sinking of the stone-tied scroll in the river to depict the destruction of Babylon (51.64). using the iron griddle to indicate the divine disposition.

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

389

Ezek. 4.4, 6: the lying on the sides to depict the people 'bearing their iniquity'. Ezek. 4.12: the baking of the bread on dung to depict general uncleanness (4.13). Ezek. 5.1: the shaving of his head to show the depopulation of the city. Ezek. 5.1: the use of a balance to indicate the dividing of the people in judgment (5.12). Ezek. 5.2,4: using the hair to stand for the people (5.12). Ezek. 5.2: the scattering of the hair to the wind to depict the exile (5.12). Ezek. 5.2, 4: the burning with fire to show death by pestilence and disease and general judgment (5.12). Ezek. 5.3: binding a few hairs in the edge of the garment to show the preservation of a remnant. Ezek. 12.6: covering the eyes to express not seeing the land again. Ezek. 24.16: comparing the death of his wife to the destruction of the Temple (24.21). Ezek. 37.17: placing the two pieces of wood together to symbolize the reunification of Israel and Judah (37.21-22). The correspondences of the acts to the referents were not based on the acts representationally replicating the events or emotions in miniature, but concretely presented the messages in metaphorical or figurative manners. The prophets based the correlation between the nonverbal actions and the metaphorical concepts or expressions on accepted hermeneutical principles, such as 'word' or 'idea' association, or synecdoche.26 26. Although the sign-acts are qualitatively different from both 'symbolic visions' and communicatively unintentional actions performed by others (see Chapter 3 §1), the same hermeneutical principles were applied in making the link between the 'referent' and the 'sign'. For example, in interpreting Jeremiah's 'symbolic visions' (cf. Niditch 1980: 31), the principles employed involve word association in Jer. 1.12 and idea association in Jer. 1.13-14 and 24.1-10. For actions not performed by the prophet, but interpreted by the prophet, such involved idea association in 1 Sam. 15.27-28 and Jer. 18.1-10. The difference in the employment of interpretive principles between these non-communicator engendered events and the communicator-enacted sign-acts is not at the level of the type of principle, but rather at the level of how it sequentially functioned with respect to the event. In the non-communicator engendered events the hermeneutical principles were applied to interpret

390

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Some of the images were based on 'word association'.27 Jeremiah's use of Perat as the locale for the burial of the waist-sash (Jer. 13.4-7) was based on the similarity of the place name to 'Euphrates'. Ezekiel's use of two pieces of wood to show the reunification of the two kingdoms (Ezek. 37.17) was based on the word for 'staff (CQ2J) also meaning 'tribe', with 'wood' being a synonymous term for 'staff. In other cases, the sign-referent link was based on 'idea association'28 in that the artifacts' or actions' qualities or contexts of usage provided the association between the signs and their meanings. Frequently the nonverbal actions associated with the artifacts visually accentuated the qualities or aspects upon which the idea associations were based. Jeremiah used the waist-sash to represent the people because of the closeness of the article of clothing to its wearer (Jer. 13.11). The shattering of ajar and thereby its irreparable condition (Jer. 19.10) fostered the image of complete destruction which was applicable to the city's destruction. The sinking of the scroll in water and its lack of ever rising again evoked the image of complete annihilation which was applicable to a country's obliteration from its position as a world power (Jer. 51.63). The iron quality of the griddle (Ezek. 4.3) reminds of an iron disposition. Ezekiel's lying on his sides (Ezek. 4,6) 'to bear their iniquity' may have derived from the idea association of iniquity being a burden which must be borne, and that when one lies on one's side, one 'bears' one's own weight. The dividing of the hair by weighing (Ezek. 5.1) evokes the image of being weighed in the balances of justice. A land completely deprived of all its inhabitants is similar to being shorn of all hair (Ezek. 5.1). The destructiveness and heat of fire was used for death by famine and pestilence which are often accompanied by burning fever (Ezek. 5.2). The scattering to the wind (Ezek. 5.2) was a fitting image for the scattering in all directions into exile. The inability to see when the eyes are covered (Ezek. 12.6) corresponded to the the event subsequent to its occurrence. Whereas, for the communicator-enacted events, it can be assumed that the principles also governed how the subsequent nonverbal behavior would be performed. 27. Niditch (1980: 31) defines 'word association' as interpreting the sign by looking for the 'object's sound-alike or for a term which rhymes with it' or 'an alternate meaning of the term for the symbolic object'. 28. Niditch (1980: 31) defines 'idea association' as the manner of interpretation in which 'The meaning of the object(s) or action(s)... is drawn from some intrinsic aspect of them.'

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

391

inability to see the land again because of exile. Ezekiel's wife (Ezek. 24,16) was used figuratively for the Temple because of the attitude of love and devotion elicited by both. Some of the nonverbal figures can be interpreted on the basis of synecdoche: the 'dung' (Ezek. 4.12) as one particularly unclean thing became the figure for all uncleanness in a foreign land; the 'hair' (Ezek. 5.1-4) as one part of a person, became the figure for all the people; the Rechabites' covenantal faithfulness to their particular covenant (Jer. 35.2) became a figure for faithfulness to the more important covenant with God. Due to the similarity of expressions either in other biblical literature or in nonbiblical texts, it is highly probable that some of the nonverbal activities were the concretizations of figurative verbal expressions which were already part of the common parlance. If so, then the association between sign and referent, but not the specific situational application, was already prevalent prior to the prophets' enactments. Thus the prophets merely appropriated the conventional understanding for their idiosyncratic purposes. This might be the case for the concepts of 'the land shaven bald' (Ezek. 5.1; cf. Isa. 7.20) meaning complete destruction; 'bound in the garment' (Ezek. 5.3) meaning protection; 'the eyes covered' (Ezek. 12.6) meaning the irreversibility of the exile; 'like a shattered pot' (Jer. 19.10) meaning destruction; 'being under the yoke' (Jer. 27) meaning submission to an authority. Within conventional usage, these concepts and expressions may have only been verbal without any corresponding conventional nonverbal behaviors. The novelty of the sign-actions would have been that the prophets chose to idiosyncratically transform what were figurative, verbal metaphors into unique nonverbal, dramatic performances. 3.4 Sign-Acts and Figurative-Representational Coding in Combination In many cases the total message communicated was accomplished through the combination of figuratively and representationally coded actions, and some individual actions are ambiguous as to whether they were representational, figurative, or a combination of both. Such a combination of types of coding is more characteristic of Ezekiel than of Jeremiah. For example, in the complex of Ezek. chs. 4-5 there is a combining of both types of encoded nonverbal behaviors, with the representational model city under siege (4.1-2) combined with the figurative iron griddle (4.3) plus the representational setting of the face to show the

392

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

divine disposition (4.3, 7). But the city under siege is amplified through the figurative lying on the left side (4.4) and the representational eating of the rationed food and water (4.10-11). The results of the siege were depicted through the shaving of the head (5.1). That action may have been figurative drawing on the metaphorical language of Isa. 7.20 of the land being shaved bald, or representational of the exiles who, upon their deportation, would have actually had their heads shaven upon deportation. Or the action may have incorporated both the figurative and the representational concepts. Also, in that sequence of sign-acts, the fate of the people was depicted through the representational actions of burning and of cutting with the sword along with the figurative action of scattering to the wind. These were all done with the hair, which was a figuratively coded artifact standing for the people (5.2). While the fire representationally depicted the architectural destruction of the city by fire, it also was a figure for famine and plague. The exilic experience of eating unclean food was representationally acted out in Ezekiel's eating (4.12), but combined with the figurative use of dung to indicate uncleanness in a foreign land (Ezek. 4.12). In Ezek. 12.1-16, the representational action of going in exile, was augmented with the figurative covering of the eyes (12.6). Although not an event performed by the prophet, the catalyst for the representational actions of Ezekiel's not mourning (Ezek. 24.16-17) was his wife's death which figuratively stood for the destruction of the Temple and, at the same time, representationally for the death of the people's family members (24.21). 4. Sign-Acts as Types of Nonverbal Communication As defined in Chapter 1 §4.4, there are three classification types of nonverbal communication which have a direct bearing on the analysis of the prophetic sign-acts: body motions (kinesics), artifacts and paralanguage. Whereas those three can be used independently of each other in communication events, Jeremiah and Ezekiel also frequently combined specific body motions with specific artifacts so that the message was based on the interrelatedness of the two. (1) bodily motion illustrators: Ezek. 4.4-6 lying on his sides Ezek. 6.11 clapping his hands, stomping his feet Ezek. 21.17 striking his thigh Ezek. 21.19 clapping his hands

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

393

(2) Artifacts + bodily motion illustrators:29 Jer. 13.1,4,6 wearing, hiding, retrieving his waist-sash Jer. 16.2 refraining from marriage Jer. 16.5 refraining from attending funerals Jer. 16.8 refraining from attending banquets Jer. 19.10 shattering the j ar Jer. 27-28 wearing the yoke Jer. 32.7-14 buying the field Jer. 51.63 sinking the scroll Ezek. 4.1-2 orchestrating the model siege Ezek. 4.3 placing the iron griddle and setting his face Ezek. 4.7 setting his face and baring his arm toward the model siege Ezek. 4.9-11 eating the rationed food Ezek. 4.12 baking bread on dung Ezek. 5.1 shaving his head with a sword Ezek. 5.1 dividing his hair with a balance Ezek. 5.2 burning, striking the hair with a sword, and scattering the hair Ezek. 5.3 binding some hair in his garment Ezek. 5.4 burning his hair Ezek. 12.3-6 preparing his baggage, digging through the wall, carrying out the baggage, covering his face Ezek. 12.18 eating and drinking food and water with trembling Ezek. 24.16-17 not performing the mourning customs for his wife Ezek. 37.16-17 joining the two pieces of wood (3) Artifacts: Although actions were performed in conjunction with these artifacts, the body movements had no significance as part of the message-content, but were carried out merely to create the artifactual setting. 29. Several of the commanded actions in relationship to the artifacts were preparatory for the communication events. Thus the actions themselves were not part of the message-content: e.g. buying the waist-sash (Jer. 13.1) and the jar (Jer. 19.1); making the yoke (Jer. 27.2); acquiring the stones (Jer. 43.9); tying the rock to the scroll (Jer. 51.63); acquiring and inscribing the brick (Ezek. 4.1); acquiring the iron griddle (Ezek. 4.3), the various grains (Ezek. 4.9) and the sword (Ezek. 5.1); acquiring and writing on the pieces of wood (Ezek. 37.16).

394

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts Jer. 35.2 Jer. 43.9 Ezek. 21.24

(4) Paralanguage: Ezek. 6.11 Ezek. 21.11 Ezek. 21.17 Ezek. 21.20 Ezek. 3.26-27 Ezek. 24.27; 33.22

the Rechabites being given wine stones being placed in the pavement the crossroads and signpost being constructed and erected saying 'Ah!' groaning crying out and wailing saying 'Ah!' refraining from speaking resuming to speak

4.1 Sign-Acts as Body Motions The majority of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts involved either gestures or movements of the body as part of the communicated messages or bodily motions in conjunction with the use of an artifact. The subcategories of emblems, illustrators, affect displays, and regulators are used to distinguish the kinds of body movements (see Chapter 1 §4.4.1). 4.1.1 Sign-Acts as Emblems.30 Emblems are '[tjhose nonverbal acts which have a specific verbal translation which is known by most members of the communication group' (Knapp 1978: 202). Emblems, which are usually arbitrarily coded, are recognizable and uniformly interpreted because of their stylized form and because they most often originate through culturally specific learning. The function of an emblem is to substitute for words or, when co-occurring with words, to emphasize by redundancy. The majority of the two prophets' sign-acts were not stereotyped movements with socially accepted and standardized meanings. The only 'bodily movements' which were emblems and had conventional meanings were Ezekiel's actions of setting the face (Ezek. 4.3, 7), clapping (6.11; 21.19), stomping the foot (6.11), trembling (12.18), striking the thigh (21.17), and, possibly, baring his arm (4.7). Also conventional were Ezekiel's paralinguistic expressions of 'Ah' in 6.11 and 21.20, the groaning in 21.11, and the wailing in 21.17. Only when attempting to

30. On 'emblems', see Brembeck and Howell 1976: 284-85; Ekman and Friesen 1969: 63-68; 1972: 357-58; Knapp 1978: 13-15, 202-207.

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

395

convey an emotional disposition, did the prophet resort to conventionally understood nonverbal behaviors. But even those emblematic expressions of emotion were utilized idiosyncratically in larger message contexts in which the emblems and their meanings illustrated whatEzekiel was communicating about God's disposition toward the people or how the people would or should emotively respond respectively to the execution of the divine judgment and to the announcement of its coming. Thus they are more appropriately categorized as 'illustrators', specifically 'emblematic movements' which are 'emblems used to illustrate verbal statements' (Knapp 1978: 15). The distinction between emblems and illustrators highlights the distinction between ritualistic or conventional actions and idiosyncratic nonverbal behavior as previously discussed, precluding ascertaining the meanings of the idiosyncratic actions of prophets being determined through comparative studies with emblematic nonverbal ritualistic actions (see Chapter 1 §5.2.4). 4.1.2 Sign-Acts as Illustrators.31 Illustrators are 'nonverbal acts which are directly tied to, or accompany, speech—serving to illustrate what is being said verbally' (Knapp 1978: 15). Illustrator movements may function in several ways, two of which are as pictographs which 'draw a picture of the referent' and kinetographs which 'depict a bodily action' (Knapp 1978: 15; cf. Ekman and Friesen 1972: 360).32 Those two subcategories incorporate the majority of the idiosyncratic body movements of the prophetic sign-acts. Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's bodily movements and gestures nonverbally imitated or modeled the actions of the people (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8; 27.2-22; 32.7-8; Ezek. 4.4-6, 9-11, 12; 12.35, 18; 24.16-17) and the activities of God, which, at times, were historically carried out by the human invader (Jer. 19.10; 13.1-2, 4-5; 51.63; Ezek. 4.1-3, 7; 5.1-4; 37.17).

31. On 'illustrators', see Brembeck and Howell 1976: 284-85; Ekman and Friesen 1969: 68-70; 1972: 358-61; Knapp 1978: 15-18, 203, 208-10. 32. Other kinds of illustrators are batons which are movements that emphasize a word, ideographs which trace a path of thought, deictic movements which are gestures that point to objects, spatial movements which indicate spatial relationships, and emblematic movements.

396

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

4.1.3 Sign-Acts and Affect Displays.33 Affect displays are those acts which display emotional (affective) states. These 'occur in response to affect and... are the behavioral consequence of the affect' (Ekman and Friesen 1969: 71). The distinctive feature of affect displays is that they occur as a result of the emotion and, since they most often occur unintentionally, the awareness of having performed them is posterior to the outward display and thus they are not intentionally communicative. That difference between affect displays and illustrators becomes significant for classifying Ezekiel's actions. If the hypothesis is followed that Ezekiel's actions arose out of a psychological or physiological illness or ecstatic state and were only after-the-performance interpreted as having a communicative message for the audience, then Ezekiel's body movements of lying on his sides (4.4-8), clapping the hands (6.11; 21.19), stamping the feet (6.11), trembling (12.18), striking the thigh (21.17), refraining from customary displays of mourning (24.17), and similarly the paralinguistic behaviors of groaning (21.11), crying out and wailing (21.17), being speechless (3.26), would have been the nonverbal result of some psychological, physiological or ecstatic condition. As such they would have to be classified as affect displays. But, as argued in this study (see Chapter 3 §1), since the actions were intentionally performed and the correlated personal emotional conditions were not the catalysts for their manifestation, then they must be classified as illustrators. 4.1.4 Sign-Acts and Regulators.34 Regulators are those nonverbal acts which maintain and regulate the back-and-forth flow of speaking and listening between two or more people. 'Most regulators ... carry no message content in themselves, but convey information necessary to the pacing of the conversation' (Ekman and Friesen 1969: 82). Regulators are therefore primarily interactive and informative, but not communicative. Helpful for this study is the distinction between an act merely as a regulator and as an illustrator: for example, a clap of the hands performed merely to gain the attention of the audience is different from clapping as an illustrator. The former is only interactive in that it was 33. On 'affect displays', see Brembeck and Howell 1976: 287-90; Ekman and Friesen 1969: 70-81; Knapp 1978: 16. 34. On 'regulators', see Brembeck and Howell 1976: 286-87; Ekman and Friesen 1969: 82-84; Knapp 1978: 16-17.

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

397

performed to signal the beginning of the speaker's address to which the audience needs to pay attention; but such is not communicative of having a contentual significance for the ensuing verbal message. In Ezek. 6.11 and 21.19 when Ezekiel clapped, he did so as an illustrator in order to communicate a message-content and not merely to regulate the flow of conversation. Although the prophetic actions functioned rhetorically to gain and keep the audiences' attention, they are clearly distinguishable from communication regulators which are employed solely for the sake of drawing attention.35 4.2 Sign-Acts' Use of Artifacts In many of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts, artifacts were used as part of the communication technique. Many of them were common everyday items: a linen waist-sash (Jer. 13.1-7), an earthenware jar (Jer. 19.2, 10), a field and legal deeds (Jer. 32.7-14), wine (Jer. 35.2-11), stones (Jer. 43.9; 51.63), a scroll (Jer. 51.63), a brick (Ezek. 4.1), an iron cooking griddle (Ezek. 4.3), bread (Ezek. 4.9-10, 12; 12.18), water (Ezek. 4.11; 12.18), dung (Ezek. 4.12, 15), hair (Ezek. 5.1-3), weighing balance (Ezek. 5.1), sword (Ezek. 5.1), prophet's garment (Ezek. 5.3), fire (Ezek. 5.2, 4), baggage (Ezek. 12.3-7), house wall (Ezek. 12.5, 7), a signpost (Ezek. 21.14), his turban and shoes (Ezek. 24; 17), pieces of wood (Ezek. 37.16-17). On one occasion, when depicting the model siege, Ezekiel used what might have been comparable to toy figurines (Ezek. 4.2). Also, people were used to aid nonverbally in the communication of the messages: the Rechabites (Jer. 35.2-11), and the prophet's wife (Ezek. 24.16).36 The artifacts were used in several ways to communicate the messages. In some of the sign-acts, the artifacts signified the people while the corresponding action indicated what had or would happen to the people: the linen girdle worn and spoiled (Jer. 13.1-11); the earthenware vessel shattered (Jer. 19.10-13); the scroll, tied to the stone, sunk in the Euphrates (Jer. 51.59-64); the inscribed brick under siege by the 35. Cf. Ekman and Friesen (1969: 82): 'the fact that a nonverbal behavior can influence another person does not mean that regulation is the sole, or even the primary intent of the behavior... We reserve the label REGULATORS for those behaviors which... seem only to regulate.' 36. By referring to people as 'artifacts', no negative connotation is implied. Rather they are classified as 'artifacts' only because they are entities distinct from the prophets' persons and bodily movements.

398

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

model siege works (Ezek. 4.1-2); the shaven hair being burned, scattered, struck with the sword, some placed in the edge of his garment (Ezek. 5.2-4); the two sticks placed together (Ezek. 37.15-28). In those cases the roles in which the prophets performed were either, specifically, that of God or the human enemy, or, more generically, that of being facilitators of the activities. In other cases the prophet portrayed the role of the people and used the artifacts to show what would happen to the people or what the people should do: the yoke being worn (Jer. 27); the field being legally purchased (Jer. 32.6-15); the food and water eaten in rationed portions (Ezek. 4.9-11, 16-17); the unclean food being eaten (Ezek. 4.12-13); the baggage carried out through the perforated wall (Ezek. 12.1-16); food eaten in trembling (Ezek. 12.17-20). In two cases the prophets refrained from using artifacts in the normal and socially expected and accepted manner: Jeremiah refrained from taking a wife and from attending banquets and funerals (Jer. 16.1-9) and Ezekiel refrained from donning or removing the artifacts which signified mourning (Ezek. 24.15-24).37 In all of the above usages, the artifacts were props which helped the prophets convey their messages, but the totality of the message-contents were not in the artifacts themselves. Rather bodily motions (illustrators) accompanied the objects so that the messages were conveyed through the coordination of the two.38 For instance, it was the shattering of the jar (Jer. 19.10), not just the jar, which was significant. Likewise the actions of wearing and spoiling the waist-sash (Jer. 13.1-11), wearing the yoke (Jer. 27.2), shaving and measuring the hair (Ezek. 5.1-3), eating the multigrain bread and drinking water in rationed portions (Ezek. 4.9-10) were equally as important in conveying the messagecontent as were the artifacts employed. In the use of artifacts, at times not only the action conjoined with the artifact was significant with respect to the message's meaning, but also 37. Although the social occasions of banquets and funerals, and the mourning rites were not strictly 'objects', but rather events, they can still be classified as 'artifacts' since they were items which were external to the prophet. 38. The failure to take note of this coordination led Fohrer (1968), in his attempts to find connections with magical actions, inappropriately to make comparisons only on the basis of the artifacts employed. For instance, he gives examples of 'stones' (1968: 48) or 'hair' (1968: 53-54) used in magical contexts irrespective of the accompanying actions associated with the objects.

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

399

some inherent quality of the artifact was interpreted as part of the message-content. At times that quality was emphasized through the conjoined action. Jeremiah's abstention from taking a wife (Jer. 16.2), besides representationally depicting the future condition of no grooms or bridegrooms (v. 9), also communicated the quality of celibacy which was comparable to the solitariness of the orphaned and widowed (v. 3). The quality of the Rechabites' faithfulness to the covenantal obligations (Jer. 35.6-9, 14, 16) was brought to the forefront by the offer of wine (vv. 2, 5) to form the basis for a contrast with the other Judahites' covenantal unfaithfulness. The message of the iron griddle (Ezek. 4.3) included both the positioning of the griddle in relationship to the model siege, as well as the inherent quality of its ironness which expressed God's emotional disposition toward the people. In Ezek. 4.9, the quality of the mixture of grains emphasized the scarcity of such during the siege (v. 17) in conjunction with the representational action of those under siege accumulating such grains in a single jar. In Ezek. 4.12, 15, the inherent quality of the dung's uncleanness aided the representational action depicting those in exile baking and eating their bread in a state of uncleanness (v. 13). Since Ezekiel's wife was the desire of his eyes (Ezek. 24.16), she therefore became a fitting figure for the Temple as well as a fitting representation of those family members left behind (v. 21). With all of these artifacts, portions of the messages were communicated through qualities already existing in the artifacts prior to any action being performed with the objects. At times, the conjoined action which was imposed upon the artifact drastically altered the initial quality of the artifact so that the message content focused on the resulting contrastive conditions. In Jer. 13.7, 10 the spoiled, worthless state of the linen waist-sash contrasted with its initial unspoiled condition. The earthenware jar's broken and irreparable condition (Jer. 19.11) contrasted with its initial unbrokenness. In those cases, not only the actions on the artifacts bore message significance, but also the conditions of the artifacts both prior and subsequent to the prophetic actions. In two other places the artifacts were used merely as props to create settings visually and tactilely: the stones placed in the pavement (Jer. 43.9) and the marked-out crossroads (Ezek. 21.24). In those cases the meaning-content of the messages was not contingent on any inherent quality of the artifacts, nor on any bodily movements associated with

400

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

the artifacts, but rather was present in the verbal proclamations which spoke of what would happen at the locales designated by the artifacts. 4.3 Sign-Acts as Paralanguage In reference to the sign-acts, Ezekiel's saying 'Ah!' (Ezek. 6.11; 21.20), his groaning (21.11), his crying out (21.17), and his wailing (21.17), fit into the category of 'vocal characterizers' (see the definition in Chapter 1 §4.4.3). Although not fitting as readily into the category of paralinguistic nonverbal behavior, Ezekiel's speechlessness (3.26-27; 24.27; 33.22), because it involved a refraining from verbalization and therefore from all the accompanying voice qualities and vocalizations, can be broadly classified as paralanguage. 5. Coordination of the Verbal and Nonverbal Elements Within a communication event, the verbal and nonverbal elements of the message are coordinated both temporally and functionally. 5.1 Temporal Coordination In relationship to the temporal sequence of the nonverbal and verbal behaviors, the nonverbal may anticipatorily precede, coincide with, or follow the verbal behavior (cf. Ekman and Friesen 1969: 53). With respect to the temporal coordination of the nonverbal prophetic signacts, they either preceded or coincided with the verbalized prophetic speech. There are no cases in which the prophetic actions followed the verbal pronouncements. 5.1.1 Nonverbal Preceded Verbal. In many cases the prophetic nonverbal behaviors preceded the verbal pronouncement and, thereby, signified that the nonverbal elements contained by themselves the core of the messages which were being communicated. The temporal sequence indicated that the verbal stood in a complementary relationship to the nonverbal behavior. The nonverbal preceding the verbal is clearly identifiable in those situations where there were audience responses requesting the meanings of the nonverbal behaviors. The audiences' responses imply that the nonverbal communications were carried out without accompanying verbal pronouncements: Ezekiel's going out through the wall and carrying the exilic baggage (12.1-7) was not

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

401

verbally commented upon until the following morning (12.8); apparently Ezekiel's paralinguistic groaning (21.11) was not verbally explained until the people asked what it meant (21.12); Ezekiel's refraining from mourning when his wife died (24.15-18) was not verbally commented upon until the people inquired about it (24.19); Ezekiel's joining of the two pieces of wood together into one (37.15-16) was not verbally clarified until the people asked about its meaning (37.18). When the report of the nonverbal communication was followed by a command to explicate it verbally, the assumption can be made that the nonverbal preceded the verbal: Jeremiah's activity of buying, wearing, hiding and retrieving the waist-sash occurred over a period of time (Jer. 13.1, 3, 6), and apparently only at the end of the sequence did Jeremiah provide a complete verbal explanation (13.8); after Jeremiah offered wine to the Rechabites in the Temple (Jer. 35.4-5) the command was given to indict the Judahites (35.12-13). Similarly, all of the legal transactions involved in purchasing the field (Jer. 32.9-12) preceded Jeremiah's verbalizing of why he had performed such an incongruous act (32.13-15). In the cases cited above in which the nonverbal preceded the verbal, it would appear that the nonverbal activity was fully completed prior to any verbal pronouncement. 5.1.2 Nonverbal Initially Preceded, but then Coexisted with the Verbal. In other actions the nonverbal behavior initially preceded the verbal pronouncement, but because the nonverbal activity extended over a longer period of time, the verbal and nonverbal became concurrent events. Since the celibacy and not attending feasts or funerals (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8) was a continuous mode of living, the ongoing nature of the behaviors must have frequently caused Jeremiah to reverbalize the reasons for and the meaning of his lifestyle. Likewise, Jeremiah's wearing the yoke (Jer. 27-28) must have been performed for a length of time, such that his continued appearance in public with the yoke on his neck may have elicited repeated verbalizations as to why he wore it. The complex of actions in Ezekiel 4-5 can also be understood as the actions initially preceding any verbalized comments, but then being concurrent with the verbal explanation. This is indicated in 4.7 that after the model siege and the iron griddle were set up (4.1-3), the prophet was to prophesy verbally. Since the model siege continued through the period of lying on the left side, the prophet both nonverbally carried on

402

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

the actions while verbally prophesying. But as to the exact temporal nonverbal-verbal sequence with respect to specific actions in the complex, the text gives no other indications. 5.1.3 Temporal Sequence Difficult to Determine. In other cases, it is more difficult to determine from the literary accounts the exact temporal sequences of the nonverbal and verbal elements. The difficulties are due to such factors as the paratactical nature of Hebrew grammar. For instance, if the conjunctive in Ezek. 12.19 is interpreted as sequential, then the nonverbal display of trembling and quivering (12.17-18) preceded the verbal interpretation. But if it is taken as lacking temporal force, the actions may have been performed simultaneously with the verbalization. The same difficulty arises with Ezek. 6.1112 as to whether the prophet clapped and stomped his foot and then spoke, or if he spoke while performing the actions. Likewise, the nonverbal-verbal sequence of the two actions of Jeremiah (the breaking of the jar in 19.10 and the sinking of the scroll in 51.63), which were brief, one-time actions, is contingent upon whether the conjunctive before the command to speak (19.11; 51.64) bears a temporal sense. Another difficulty in ascertaining the temporal coordination is the determining how much of the immediate literary context was part of the message-unit or whether the literary unit records the entirety of the prophetic activities on the given occasion. For instance, if Ezek. 6.11 which speaks of Ezekiel clapping and stomping was temporally associated with the verbalized prophecy of 6.1-10, then the nonverbal activities were part of a more extended oracle and coincided with that verbal proclamation. But if 6.11 begins a discrete unit, the nonverbal actions may have been the beginning of the prophetic proclamation. As now literarily recounted in Ezek. 21.13-22, the crying out, wailing, striking the thigh (21.17), and clapping the hands (21.19) were all performed concurrently with the verbal proclamation about the sword. But the unity of the section may be the product of literary activity rather than a chronologically unified prophetic proclamation (see Chapter 2 §1.14). In Jeremiah 19, if vv. 3-9 are part of the communication event along with the shattering of the jar and its verbal interpretation (vv. 1013), then the nonverbal action was concurrent with a broader verbal proclamation. But vv. 3-9 have been questioned as to their chronological coordination with the other verses (see Chapter 2 §1.4).

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

403

Regardless of whether the nonverbal actions temporally preceded or began concurrently with the verbalizations, from the standpoint of message importance, they can be considered of primary or equal importance to the verbal contents. 5.2 Functional Coordination In situations where the verbal is the primary form of communication, the nonverbal behavior most often accompanies the verbal for the purposes of repeating, substituting for, complementing, or accenting it (cf. Knapp 1978: 21-24).39 In most of the prophetic sign-acts, because of the primacy of the nonverbal actions in containing the message-content and often in the temporal sequence, it is more appropriate to speak of the verbal either repeating or complementing the nonverbal.40 Since the prophetic sign-acts were ambiguous with respect to meaning, their very nature necessitated coordination with explanatory verbal statements (see Chapter 4 §2.2). Although in and of themselves, the nonverbal behaviors communicated the contents of the messages, it was only the accompanying verbal pronouncements which adequately clarified specifics of the nonverbal behaviors and elaborated upon the actions through giving additional details so that the implications of the messages were unambiguously apparent to the audiences. 5.2.1 Verbal Interpreted the Sign-Acts. The verbal often repeated and accentuated the nonverbal sign-acts in the sense of interpreting and clarifying the actions in terms of what they meant for the audience: cf. Jer. 13.9, 11; 16.4,6-7; 19.11; 32.15, 43-44; 51.64; Ezek. 4.5, 6, 13,16; 5.5, 12; 12.11-12; 12.19; 21.12; 21.22; 24.22-23; 37.19. 39. The nonverbal communication can also contradict and regulate the verbal, but these two aspects are not applicable to our study of the prophetic sign-acts. 40. Fohrer (1968), although acknowledging that some of the sign-acts illustrated, emphasized or dramatized the prophetic word (91), argues against such being their primary function on the basis that: (1) not all of the sign-acts were accompanied by verbalized interpretations, and (2) since the accompanying words explained the actions, it means that the verbal was secondary to the nonverbal. He therefore concludes that the primary aim must be sought in the guaranteeing of the event depicted (92-93). But his arguments rest on the assumption that for the nonverbal behavior to be truly rhetorical and communicative it must stand in a secondary position of either accenting or repeating the verbal message. Such an assumption overlooks the dynamic interaction and multiplicity of purposes of verbal and nonverbal elements within a communication event.

404

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

5.2.2 Verbal Complemented the Sign-Acts. Although frequently the actions were explicitly interpreted as to their meanings, there are other cases in which, at least literarily, no explanations of the actions were given (cf. the iron griddle and setting the face of Ezek. 4.3; the act of shaving in Ezek. 5.1; the clapping and stamping of the feet in Ezek. 6.11; the crying out and striking the thigh in Ezek. 21.17). In those cases, the verbal and nonverbal aspects of the messages stood in complementary relationship with each other. In a majority of the sign-act communication events, the verbal portions of the messages complemented the nonverbal actions by amplifying upon the coming events through giving additional information which was not portrayed in the nonverbal activities. In the pre-586 BCE sign-acts of judgment, the verbal elaborations upon the actions often contributed additional specific details about the destruction. For example, Jeremiah's celibacy depicting the childless, widowed and orphaned state of the people is verbally attributed to death by disease, famine and sword (16.4, 9). The complementing verbal messages also intensified what had been portrayed nonverbally: for example, the action of Ezek. 4.9-11 merely stressed the scarcity of food, but the verbal pronouncement of 5.10 spoke of cannibalism because of the lack of food; Jeremiah's not attending funerals (16.5) was expanded by the verbal statement that the human carcasses would not be buried, but would become food for birds and beasts (16.4, 6). Similar amplifications of nondepicted details of the coming judgment can be found in Jer. 19.6-9, 13; 32.28-29; Ezek. 4.16, 17; 5.8, 14-17; 6.12, 14; 12.13-15; 12.19-20; 21.17, 20; 24.21. In respect to the messages of advice or of a hopeful future, the verbal similarly complemented the nonverbal behavior by expressing more fully the ramifications of the actions. Thus Jeremiah's wearing the yoke (ch. 27), while advising what the people should do, did not reflect the benefits of, nor the consequences of not, staying under the Babylonian yoke. Those aspects were verbally communicated: if they wore the yoke, God would allow them to remain in their lands (27.11) and they would live (27.12), but if they did not submit, they would be punished (27.8, 13). When Ezekiel (37.15-28) proclaimed a new future for the nation, the nonverbal act of joining the two pieces of wood (vv. 16-17) only depicted the reunification of the kingdoms. But the verbal (vv. 2128) complemented the act by speaking of a gathering of the people out of exile, the people's purification, restoration to the land, a Davidic

3. Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication

405

king, and God's presence with his people. Similarly Jeremiah's purchase of the field (32.6-12) only portrayed the fact that the people would once again have ownership of the land, while the subsequent verbal message spoke of God's activities of regathering and covenant renewal (32.37-41). Frequently the verbal complemented and augmented the nonverbal actions by giving the reasons for the depicted actions. The reasons, when referring to acts of judgment, were often indictments against the people for their sins: Jer. 13.10; 16.10-12; 19.4-5; 32.29-35; Ezek. 5.67,9, 11; 6.13; 12.19. 5.2.3 Nonverbal Complemented the Verbal. The three cases in which the nonverbal can be said to have complemented the verbal are Ezek. 21.23-29 (marking the fork in the road to which the Babylonian king would come), Jeremiah 35 (offering wine to the Rechabites) and Jer. 43.8-13 (putting stones in the pavement over which the Babylonian king would set his throne). It was the verbal proclamation, rather than the nonverbal behaviors, which carried the main points of the messages. But the nonverbal activities were necessary preparations for the verbalized oracles, and therefore complemented the verbal. Ezek. 21.23-29 and Jer. 43.9 established visual settings in order to enhance the verbal messages which spoke of what would happen at those locations. The purpose of presenting wine to the Rechabites (Jer. 35.2-5) was to create a concrete example of covenant fidelity which was then used as the basis for the verbal indictment of the people (32.13-17) and for the statement of the coming judgment (32.17). 5.2.4 Nonverbal Substituted for the Verbal. The only case in which a sign-act can be said to have substituted for verbal pronouncement, in the sense of not being accompanied by any verbal statement, was Ezekiel's speechlessness. No interpretation is extant in the literary text. This may indicate, but cannot be known with certainty, that the action was not verbally explained to the people. 6. Conclusions: Sign-Acts as Nonverbal Communication This chapter, by analyzing Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts according to nonverbal communication theory, has sought to define, with greater clarity, the communicative aspects of the sign-acts. As nonverbal

406

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

communication, the sign-acts can be classified as intentional behaviors (§1) whose primary functions were that of communicating messages (§2.2) and interactively seeking audience responses (§2.3). But at the same time they were unintentionally informative of the prophets' roles and relationships to their audiences (§2.1). Delineated according to the manner of coded meaning (§3), the prophets idiosyncratically encoded the individual actions and artifacts on the continuum between iconic/ representational (§3.2), and arbitrary/figurative (§3.3), but not intrinsic (§3.1). Defined according to type (§4), the sign-acts were either paralanguage (§4.3) or body movements (§4.1). The latter were 'illustrators' (§4.1.2) most often performed in conjunction with other objects ('artifacts') (§4.2).

Chapter 4 THE RHETORIC OF JEREMIAH'S AND EZEKIEL'S SIGN-ACTS

The sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel were intended to communicate persuasively specifiable messages through both the nonverbal and coordinated verbal channels. The messages were elicited by the controversy over theological presuppositions between the two prophets and the people. The mutual exclusivity in positions meant that the prophets had to dissuade as well as persuade.1 So in their suasive efforts, Jeremiah and Ezekiel denied the validity of the audiences' beliefs so as to dissuade them of such and also affirmed their own world-views so as to persuade the audiences of such. Although the specific rhetorical strategies have been dealt with in the discussions of the individual passages (Chapter 2), an overview will be given which will provide a synthesis of the sign-acts' rhetorical functions, as well as show comparisons and contrasts in Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's employment of the nonverbal communications. The main elements in the persuasive process, as defined in Chapter 1 §5.3, will serve as the structural framework for the discussion: (1) rhetorical situation; (2) rhetorical strategies, subdivided into the four constituent parts necessary for persuasion: attention, comprehension, acceptance, and remembrance; and (3) audience response. 1. Rhetorical Situation Because an exigence involves both conditions (the constituting elements) and a felt interest (the desire to change the conditions), there are

1. On the dissuasive function in attempting to change attitudes and convictions, see Black 1978: 161-64: 'Argumentation serves not only to persuade people sometimes to accept convictions, but also to dissuade them from other convictions; that is, argument makes some ideas unacceptable' (161). Cf. also Brembeck and

408

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

four types of speaker-audience exigence situations that can occur (Bitzer 1980: 28-30): (1) the speaker and audience share the same interest and view the conditions in the same way; (2) the speaker and audience agree on the conditions but the degree of interest differs; (3) the speaker and audience share the same interest, but disagree about the conditions; (4) the speaker and audience disagree both in interest and about the conditions. The last case was the situation of Ezekiel and Jeremiah in relationship to their audiences: the people did not view their own theological beliefs or their interpretations of the historical circumstances as erroneous whereas the two prophets (the rhetors) viewed the conditions (the people's beliefs) as urgently needing modification, and the people had no desire to change their views while the prophets expressed a high degree of interest in having the people change. Because the disagreement was on both the level of condition (the view of the people's theology) and the level of desire to alter the condition, the prophets' rhetorical efforts had to address the issues on both levels. Thus the prophets had to present their views of the condition as well as increase the people's interest or desire to alter their opinions. With respect to the first level, since the conditions were beliefs, and therefore abstract, a key way for the prophets to bring the people's views under indictment and provide contrasting alternatives was to portray nonverbally concrete examples. 1.1 Pre-586 BCE Rhetorical Situation In response to the pre-586 BCE exigence of the people's sense of security because of God's covenant bond with them, the sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel concretely focused on three points: (1) the coming destruction and removal from the land; (2) the motivational dispositions which were evoking the destruction; and (3) the proper response, depicted either through example or by contrast, which the people should have, based on covenantal obligations. (1) In portraying the coming fate of the city the prophets' sign-acts centered on two of the tenets of the popular theology: the land and Jerusalem. The sign-acts presented a catastrophic future through their portrayals of the destruction of the city and its inhabitants, and an exilic removal from the land. Howell 1976: 145: 'The speaker must first demonstrate rhetorically that the receiver's attitude toward the attitude object is incorrect or inadequate.'

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

409

Ezekiel (21.24) representationally depicted the locale at which the Babylonian king would decide to march first against Jerusalem. He representationally depicted the siege of Jerusalem (4.1-2) and its ramifications of eating siege rations (4.9-11) and eating the food with trembling (12.18). Although the historical events which those actions depicted could have been assimilated into the popular theology as being punitive but not culminating in total destruction, it was the siege's end result on which the two prophets wanted the people's attention focused. So the fate of the city was depicted graphically in the figurative actions of the shattering of the jar (Jer. 19.10) and the shaving of the hair (Ezek. 5.1), and representationally through Jeremiah's lack of familial ties and social amenities (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8) and Ezekiel's burning and striking the figurative artifact of his hair (Ezek. 5.2). The removal from the land which would occur immediately after the city's destruction was figuratively portrayed in the waist-sash's burial in Perat (Jer. 13.4), and the scattering of the hair (Ezek. 5.2), and representationally portrayed in Ezekiel's leaving while carrying the exile bag (Ezek. 12.3-5) and his eating the exilic food (Ezek. 4.12-15). Those sign-acts which depicted coming historical events specifically challenged the popular theology by depicting that which was totally contradictory to the anticipated and hoped-for future reality which the people had logically deduced from their theological presuppositions that the city of Jerusalem and its Temple were inviolable and that the possession of the land was permanent. Through the nonverbal channel, the prophets presented a radically different set of events as being the realities which were certain to come in spite of the popular theology which claimed such would not or could never happen. (2) The sign-acts not only depicted that which would happen, but also the divine disposition which was the motive for the destruction: Ezek. 4.3, 7, through the iron griddle, setting the face, and the bared arm; Ezek. 6.11, clapping the hands, stomping the feet, and 'Ah!'; Ezek. 21.19, clapping the hands. It is noteworthy that only by Ezekiel are such displays of divine disposition given. Such portrayals contrasted to the popular theology's perspective that God was favorably disposed toward the people and would therefore intervene on their behalf to deliver them. (3) The prophets' sign-acts also focused on the part the people played in the current events. Two of Jeremiah's actions, through contrast, were indictments of the people's breach of the covenant relationship with

410

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

God. In the sign-act with the waist-sash, the implicit contrast was made between the clean, worn waist-sash (Jer. 13.1), which demonstrated the people's closeness to God, and its final state after removal. Jeremiah indicted the people's behavior through the nonverbal contrast of the Rechabites' behavior (Jer. 35.2). Also through modeling, both Jeremiah and Ezekiel displayed to the people the proper type of behaviors they were to be assuming in the midst of the current situations: Jer. 27.2, wearing the yoke to advocate continued submission to Babylon; Ezek. 3.26, speechlessness to show that dialogue with God was no longer to be continued; Ezek. 21.11, 17 groaning, crying out and wailing, striking the thigh to show that there should be an attitude of mourning prior to the destruction. Such indictments and examples of proper behavioral responses emphasized the people's culpability for the coming fate that the people were not acting as the prophets advised. 1.2 Pre-586 BCE Rhetorical Situation in Transition The three actions of Jer. 32.7-15 (buying the field), Ezek. 24.16-17 (abstaining from mourning), and Ezek. 24.25-27; 33.21-22 (the release from speechlessness) occurred prior to or at the point of the destruction and were transitional in that they served not only to prepare the people for the destruction, but demonstrated to the people how to respond after such occurred. Those three actions also centered around the basic tenets of the popular theology, but reinterpreted them. Ezek. 24.16-17 focused on the city's destruction and provided a positive example of what the people's attitudinal response should be. Jer. 32.7-15 focused on the land, and displayed a renewed connection with the land once the destruction was culminated. Ezek. 24.27 and 33.22, the release from speechlessness, focused on the people's covenant relationship with God and representationally portrayed the renewed communication. 1.3 Post-586 BCE Rhetorical Situations The post-586 BCE exigence of lack of hope among the exiles in Babylonia was countered by the action of Ezek. 37.16-17. That figurative action focused on the political reunification of the people, which had implications with respect to the theological beliefs about the Davidic dynasty, restoration to the land, and a renewed covenantal relationship with God. The post-586 BCE exigence of a false sense of security among the refugees in Egypt was countered by the declaration of judgment extend-

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

411

ing even into the foreign country to which the Judahite survivors had fled (Jer. 43.9). 1.4 Summary So, in the midst of the people's expectations of deliverance, the prophets nonverbally exemplified: (1) the results of an improper stance, by means of portraying the historical consequences of what would happen if the people persisted in their improper beliefs and misconceptions (Jer. 13.1-11; 16.1-9; 19.1-13; Ezek. 4.1-2, 9-15; 5.1-4; 12.1-16; 12.17-20; cf. also Jer. 43.8-13 and Ezek. 21.23-29 which depicted not the events, but the locational settings of future historical circumstances which foreboded calamity for the Judahites); (2) the divine disposition toward the people because of their beliefs and behavior (Ezek. 4.3, 7; 6.11; 21.19); and (3) the proper behaviors, stemming from what the prophets considered the correct theological position, by means of depicting how the people shouldbe acting (Jer. 27; 35; Ezek. 3.26; 21.11-12; 21.17). In the midst of the people's hopelessness, the two prophets concretely portrayed: (4) the historical consequences when seen from the proper theological perspective, thus portraying what God would do in spite of the people's present unbelief (Jer. 32; Ezek. 37.15-23); and (5) the proper behaviors as to how the people should respond to the new post586 BCE situation (Ezek. 24.15-24; 24.25-27). In countering the people's misdirected theological beliefs, the prophets provided consequential (nos. 1 and 4) and motivational examples (no. 2) which served an admonitory function so that the people would abandon their perspective and behaviors. In presenting the behaviors attached to the proper theological stance (nos. 3 and 5), the prophets provided examples which served an advisory function of the kinds of behaviors that the people would hopefully adopt. In both cases, the prophets confronted the people with concrete illustrations of consequences and behaviors in their attempts to make the people change the constituent elements of the exigence which was the people's theological beliefs. 2. Rhetorical Strategies 2.1 Attention Audience attention has to be gained on several levels: initially, attention must be focused on the communication event itself, but then attention

412

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

must be directed onto the message-content, and finally, attention must be maintained throughout the communication event. Audiences have selective, voluntary attention which is usually occupied and captured by what interests them; what corresponds to their felt needs and motives; what is proximate in time, space and relevance; what is important; what agrees with their established belief and value systems, goals and purposes, and cultural patterns (cf. White 1980a: 10).2 Thus, excellent attention-attracting strategies are needed for the rhetor to gain and maintain an audience's attention for a message which contains a point of view the audience is not interested in or is opposed to.3 Involuntary attention is stimulated through contrast with the antecedent conditions.4 Such a contrast can occur in the degree of intensity in impact on the senses, of extensity in size or amount, of impressiveness because of duration (repetition), of novelty, or of movement.5 By their nature, the sign-acts should have attracted attention to themselves.6 The majority of the nonverbal behaviors were very vivid and concrete in intensity of visual portrayal7 or in their auditory impact (e.g. clapping the hands, the paralinguistic groanings). Almost all of the bodily movements incorporated extensive activity. Many of the actions incorporated repetition to ensure perception by changing audiences over an extended period. All of the nonverbal behaviors and actions had a degree of sensational incongruity which was an attention-focusing quality. The kinds of the actions' incongruities included the bizarre (those which were totally atypical behaviors), the dramatic (those which had lesser degrees 2. On selective attention, see also Bauer 1973: 143-44; Brembeck and Howell 1976: 153; Miller 1980: 20; Minnick 1968: 60-61; Oliver 1957: 123-24; Schramm 1973: 120-24. 3. See McGuire (1973: 240) who acknowledges that there is a selective-avoidance tendency, but also the 'opposite tendency to seek out surprising and discrepant information'. 4. Cf. Schramm (1973: 121) that attention is based on 'contrast with its background', thus, diverted 'to a sudden contrast or change in our environment'. 5. Cf. Brembeck and Howell 1976: 272-73; Oliver 1957: 122-23, 127-29; Minnick 1968: 59-64. 6. On the attention-attracting nature of the sign-acts see Amsler 1985: 61-64. 7. Cf. Minnick (1968: 61): 'Intensity is achieved when a speaker's material reflects concrete sensory impressions rather than abstractions.' On concreteness as an attention-attracting device, see also Oliver 1957: 125.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

413

of unusualness but incorporated dramatic flair), and the socially unexpectable. Toward the bizarre or atypical end of the continuum can be placed Ezekiel's 'childish' behavior of 'playing' with the model siege (Ezek. 4.1-3); his lying on his sides for extended periods of time (Ezek. 4.4-6); his shaving himself bald, and then burning some of the hair with fire, scattering some to the wind, and slashing at some with a sword (Ezek. 5.1-4); his digging a hole in the wall of his house and then going out through it in the evening (Ezek. 12.3); his making two roads with a signpost (Ezek. 21.24); his joining of two sticks together (Ezek. 37.1617); Jeremiah's deliberate shattering of the jar (Jer. 19.10); his wearing a yoke (Jer. 27.2); his burying stones in the courtyard (Jer. 43.9); his having the rock-tied scroll cast into the river (Jer. 51.63). Other actions involved more common occurrences but had a dramatic element such as Jeremiah's offering wine to the Rechabites (Jer. 35.119); Ezekiel's eating rationed food (Ezek. 4.9-10); his clapping his hands (Ezek. 21.19) and stomping his feet (Ezek. 6.11); his groaning (Ezek. 21.11); his crying out and striking his thigh (Ezek. 21.17); his release from speechlessness (Ezek. 24.25-27; 33.21-22). Even when the two prophets performed actions which were part of ordinary human events and transactions, other aspects of the actions were attention getting, making the total actions atypical. The normal activity of eating performed by Ezekiel became a sensationally incongruous action when combined with the manner of cooking, in that the food was baked over dung (Ezek. 4.12-15), and a dramatic action when done with trembling (Ezek. 12.18). Jeremiah's action of wearing a waist-sash (13.1) was initially nothing unusual, but the subsequent action with the new waist-sash (13.4) certainly was unusual. There is nothing atypical about buying a field, except that the timing of Jeremiah's action (Jer. 32.7-15) made it a seemingly absurd transaction. Other actions were not bizarre in nature, but rather were contrary to social expectations and norms: Ezekiel's lack of mourning at his wife's death (Ezek. 24.16-17); his refraining from normal conversation with the people (Ezek. 3.26); Jeremiah's abstention from marriage, feasts and mourning meals (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8). The message of those actions resided not in what the prophets did, but in what they refrained from doing as they abstained from the normal, socially acceptable behavior. The sign-acts were significantly different, in some aspects, from normal activities to have been sufficiently disruptive and intriguing so as to elicit attention. The sign-acts functioned not only to draw the audience's

414

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

attention to the nonverbal activity, but also to focus on the messagecontents conveyed by them. Such a focus of the audiences' attention on the message-contents was partially achieved through the actions themselves communicating the messages and not being merely disjointed attention-attracting devices. Focus on the messages also occurred through the ambiguous nature of many of the actions which forced the audiences to concentrate on what the actions meant (see below). That the sign-actions initially attracted audience attention to what the prophets were doing is clear from the questions posed to Ezekiel in direct response to his nonverbal behaviors: 12.9; 21.12; 24.19; 37.18. The questions which requested further clarification also reflect that the attention of the audiences was not focused solely on the actions but rather on the message-contents of the actions (e.g. Ezek. 37.18) and the audiences' attention had been aroused to the point of desiring further clarification. 2.2 Comprehension and Ambiguity For an audience to be persuaded, it must understand the rhetor's message. But studies also show that when the addressed issues are of a high level of involvement, the recipients will internally generate counterarguments either prior to8 or during the presentation9 if they anticipate or experience the message being contrary to their own attitudes. The reason for this reaction is that the higher the issue involvement, the stronger the anchor to one's personal attitudes, which results in more resistance to persuasion (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 107-108). The issues involved in the sign-acts were certainly of high relevance to the audiences. On the cognitive level they involved the audiences' basic theological presuppositions by which they were interpreting their 8. On anticipatory polarization, see Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 227-28: 'the forewarning of an impending discrepant communication on a highly involving topic elicits anticipatory counterargumentation, attitude polarization, and then resistance to the subsequent persuasive message' (228). Cf. also 257: 'when people expect to receive a message on an issue that has high personal relevance, attitudes become more extreme' prior to the reception of the message. Cf. also Perloff and Brook 1980: 77-78. 9. Cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 228-29: 'forewarning an audience of the speaker's persuasive intent on an involving issue would elicit counterargumentation during the persuasive message and thereby produce resistance. When an issue is very involving, people are motivated to defend their attitudes from attack.' Cf. also 232-33; and Perloff and Brook 1980: 78.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

415

current life experiences. On an emotional level, they dealt with things to which the audiences had strong emotional ties, such as their homes, their city, their own lives, their homeland, the lives of their families and friends, their personal futures. In order to avoid initial rejection or the production of counter-arguments, ambiguity can camouflage the contrariness of the message. A degree of initial ambiguity does not totally befuddle an audience, but leaves it thinking, desiring to know if it has rightly discerned the meaning of the action. The ambiguity in meaning helps to delay the comprehension so that the recipients are not initially aware that the message is disagreeing with their viewpoint. Thus, by delaying the understanding, the ambiguity produces receptivity to a message which otherwise would not be readily received and which would produce counter-arguments by the audience.10 There is an ambiguity which results from the inherent nature of nonverbal behavior since the nonverbal is incapable of fully expressing all syntactical constructions. Thus it is difficult through nonverbal elements alone to transmit adequately a message which will be fully decoded according to its encoded message. Therefore, for comprehension of the message, multichannel communication is necessary in which the nonverbal is accompanied by a verbal message (see Chapter 4 §2.3.2.1.2). But there is also ambiguity which is deliberately incorporated by the rhetor. In the case of the prophets' actions, both types of ambiguity were factors resulting in both inherent and intentional obfuscation of meaning until the accompanying verbal interpretations clarified the transmitted messages. So, although the prophets' nonverbal actions bore the messages in themselves, the messages' meanings or applications could not be completely comprehended by the audiences without the explanatory and complementary verbal content. That the prophetic actions were intentionally ambiguous is evident from the audiences' responses in the cases in which the nonverbal communication was initially performed without any concurrent verbal proclamation (see Chapter 3 §5.1.1). The audiences' questions (Ezek. 12.9; 21.12; 24.29; 37.18) reflect that the communicative meanings of the actions were not readily apparent to the audiences. It can therefore be assumed that the ambiguities coupled with the delays in explaining the 10. Cf. Minnick (1968: 116): 'Some degree of ambiguity or lack of sharp definition of concept seems to prompt a shift in the receiver's attitude toward that of the communicator.'

416

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

meanings of the actions were intentionally designed to arouse the audiences' interest in the messages, to evoke participation in the communication events, and to forestall negative reactions to the messages. The ambiguity of the sign-acts operated on both the level of discernment of what the actions were depicting and on the level of the specificity of the actions' meanings. In many cases, the former correlated with the nonconventional figurative behaviors and the latter with the representational actions. The representational actions could be clearly discerned as to what was being depicted, but they did not transmit vital aspects of the interpretation which would have allowed the audience fully to understand the import or the application of the messages. In Ezek. 4.1-2, it was clear that Ezekiel was representing the siege of a city, yet ambiguity remained as to what city, Jerusalem or Babylon, was under siege. In Ezek. 12.3-6, Ezekiel clearly prepared for a journey and left his domicile, but the nonverbal elements did not clarify whether the activity portrayed the immediate audience's already completed journey into exile, their return to Judah from exile, or a future exile for the Jerusalemites (cf. the audience question in 12.9). When Ezekiel groaned (Ezek. 21.11), the audience did not understand what circumstances elicited that paralinguistic expression and therefore questioned the prophet about it (21.12). When Jeremiah purchased the field (Jer. 32.712), the audience must have wondered why he was doing such at an inappropriate time and probably did not initially perceive that the action had any communicative meaning for them. Similarly, the lifestyle behaviors of Jeremiah's abstention from marriage and from attending feasts and mourning occasions (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8) did not communicate their significance as to whether they were indictments or protests against those institutions and social activities or whether they had no communicative meanings for the audience but were only informative of Jeremiah's social reclusiveness. Likewise Ezekiel's speechlessness (Ezek. 3.26), on the nonverbal level, did not communicate whether it was a social withdrawal for personal reasons or whether it was an indictment against the people's speaking. Ezekiel's lack of mourning for his wife (Ezek. 24.16-17) did not initially indicate whether it resulted from a lack of personal concern, or a depth of concern so great that no emotion could be expressed, or what the specific audience application was (cf. the audience question in 24.19). There was ambiguity with the two actions which represented the setting (Ezek. 21.24-25, the making of the two roads; Jer. 43.9, the marking

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

417

of the place with the buried stones). The nonverbal settings did not indicate what would occur at those places, and the audiences may have initially speculated that Ezekiel was marking the road for them to return from exile to Judah, and that Jeremiah was placing the stones to mark the divinely chosen place for the Judahites to reside. The figurative actions which were based on common expressions, such as Jeremiah's wearing the yoke (Jer. 27.1), would have made the general meanings of the actions discernible to the audiences (e.g. wearing the yoke meant submission), but yet there would still have been uncertainties as to what the specific messages were. For example, did Jeremiah intend to communicate that Babylon would come under another nation's yoke and thereby grant the Judahites the opportunity to be independent? Was 'wearing' the yoke the total message, or would Jeremiah throw off or break the yoke thereby to signify the Judahite action? The ambiguity of the specifics allowed the audiences the possibility of initially misreading into the actions viewpoints which were favorable to, or at least noncondemnatory of, their own: the model siege (Ezek. 4.1-2) may have been portraying the siege of Babylon; Ezekiel may have been portraying their return from exile (Ezek. 12.3-6; 21.24-25); Jeremiah might have been going to use the yoke to promote the position of rebellion (Jer. 27.1); Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's behaviors of abstention could have been dismissed as only reflecting their personal idiosyncrasies with respect to social behaviors (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8; Ezek. 3.26; 24.16-17). The nonconventional figurative sign-acts were ambiguous not only as to specific application but as to meaning. The purpose of Jeremiah's employment of the waist-sash (Jer. 13.1) and his offer of wine to the Rechabites (Jer. 35.2) required further clarification before the audience could determine the actions' significances. The meanings of Ezekiel's actions of lying on his sides (4.4, 6) and joining together two sticks (Ezek. 37.16-17; cf. audience question in v. 18) were not readily discernible through the actions themselves. The figurative artifact of the iron griddle in Ezek. 4.3 did not, by itself, clarify whether it was a wall of defense for the city, the enemy's determination, God's disposition, or some other relevant item. Although the interpretations of those figurative actions followed customary patterns of hermeneutics (see Chapter 3 §3.3), the precise principle of interpretation which should be applied in each specific case in order to gain the prophet's meaning was not

418

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

discernible from the action itself. Thus the audiences were left, without any degree of certainty, to speculate about the meanings until the prophets clarified such through the verbal pronouncements. Because the ambiguous nonverbal behaviors preceded the clarifying verbal interpretations, the audiences could have been initially drawn into the communication events without the anticipation that the messages would be contrary to their positions, thus negating the need to produce counterarguments. The ambiguity thus helped to create the psychological framework which could nullify the audiences' lack of receptiveness to the messages and their unwillingness to believe in God's impending actions. 2.3 Acceptance The rhetor will employ both speaker (source) and message strategies in attempting to get the audience to accept as valid the perspective being presented. 2.3.1 Source Strategies. Source strategies are those factors which revolve around the audience's perception of the rhetor. 2.3.1.1 Communicator Credibility. When messages are radically different from the recipient's initial attitude, as were Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's, the source's credibility as perceived by the audience is important in inducing attitude change. For example, a source of high credibility is more immediately persuasive than a low-credibility source (cf. Minnick 1968: 170; Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 63-64, 236-37). This means that the prophets' credibility was a factor in the rhetorical process, although credibility alone does not ensure that the audience will be favorably persuaded. The credibility of a speaker can hinge on a number of factors including the communicator's social role, professional occupation, and position of authority.11 For Jeremiah and Ezekiel, those factors played a part in establishing the ethos which contributed to the rhetorical impact their actions had upon their respective audiences. The social role of the communicator has a rhetorical effect because the position in which the people perceive the communicator either enhances or diminishes the rhetor's credibility. Since the performance of sign-acts was in accord with the socially recognized role performance I I . Cf. Hovland et at. 1953: 22-23; McGuire 1973: 230; Mehrabian 1972: 82.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

419

of a prophet, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's communication via such acts became socially legitimating activities which confirmed the audiences' expectations of the two as prophets. The audiences' acknowledgment that the two functioned in the role of prophets and therefore had the right and were expected to proclaim prophetic messages12 certainly was a factor related to the perception of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's credibility. Although the prophets' status as divine spokespersons should have made the audiences attribute greater credibility to their messages than to those of someone who was not a prophet, there is another factor which affects the influence of the rhetor's credibility on the suasive process: when an issue is personally relevant to the audience, that is, one of high issue involvement, foreknowledge of the source's persuasive intent reduces the message's effectiveness (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 65). The people's expectations of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's motives and message-contents would have been more firmly developed over the extended periods of the prophets' ministries due to previous audience exposure to each prophet's repertoire. Because of the consistent content and, at times, the persistently haranguing nature of the prophets' messages, the audiences' tolerance level must have been reduced as they anticipated the prophets' suasive attempts on issues which were contrary to the audiences' viewpoints. This reduced impact of the prophets' messages is evidenced in the failure to ascribe current validity to Ezekiel's messages (Ezek. 12.21-25, 26-28; 33.30-33) and in the ignoring of the solicited prophetic advice given by Jeremiah (Jer. 38.14-23; 42.1-43.7). To counteract this negative reaction created by the anticipatory expectation, the prophetic acts were made initially ambiguous so as to raise the possibility that the prophets were about to give favorable messages. That the audience considered a change in the prophet's message a possibility is evidenced from Jeremiah's ministry in which he had continually proclaimed the destruction of the city (thus his expected message), 12. That Jeremiah and Ezekiel were acknowledged as prophets is evidenced in the occasions when the people sought prophetic messages from the two: e.g. Jer. 21.1-2; 37.3, 7, 17; 38.14; 42.1-4; Ezek. 8.1; 14.1; 20.1; 33.30-33. In the Ezekiel passages, the people's posture of 'sitting before Ezekiel' reflects an acknowledgement of Ezekiel's prophetic authority (cf. 2 Kgs 4.38; 6.32; see Carley 1975: 43-45; Zirnmerli 1965: 517-18; 1969: 133-34; 1979: 43). On posture reflecting attitudes and status, and thus having a rhetorical effect, see Knapp 1978: 220-29.

420

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

yet Zedekiah still continued to consult him (Jer. 37.3-10, 17-21; 38.1423) as a prophetic advisor. On one occasion it is explicitly noted that Zedekiah considered that maybe Jeremiah's message had changed (Jer. 21.1-2). So although the repertoire of messages established in the audiences' minds a high degree of certainty in expectation of messagecontent, the audiences still must have had sufficient doubt about the message-content previous to each proclamation. In situations where the issue is one of high involvement for the audience, the message-content and message strategies become more important than other factors such as the source credibility. Petty and Cacioppo (1981: 237) summarize the effects of high involvement messages: The more involving the issue is... the more difficult it will be to find any effects of source credibility... [T]he message content becomes a more important determinant of persuasion. Although the effects of source credibility will be minimal for an issue of high-involvement... more thinking will occur in response to a source of high credibility than of low credibility, and this thinking will be guided primarily by the quality of the arguments presented in the communication... This means that for issues of high involvement... highly credible speakers will be more persuasive than speakers of low credibility primarily for appeals with strong arguments. For appeals with weak arguments or no arguments, the credibility effect should be attenuated or reversed...13

Since the issues involved were of such high personal import for the addressees, the social acknowledgment of Jeremiah and Ezekiel as prophets, and their credibility as speakers of the divine messages, were persuasively significant only as those factors was coupled with strong rhetorical content and arguments. Thus the audiences would not have accepted Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's messages solely on the basis of the two's character or recognized authority as prophets. Rather the audiences' reactions to the messages were probably also based on the types of message appeals. 2.3.1.2 Communicator power. A communicator's power 'refers to the extent to which the source can administer rewards or punishments' (Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 68). To be a 'powerful communicator' the 13. Cf. also Petty and Cacioppo (1981: 259): 'Under high-consequences conditions ... strong arguments produced significantly more attitude change than weak ones; the expertise of the source had no significant influence.' Cf. also Perloff and Brook 1980: 73.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

421

recipients must believe that the source can administer rewards or punishments, that the source will administer such according to their compliance or noncompliance, and that the source will find out whether or not they do comply. When these factors are met, then the communicator will produce and maintain the greatest effect (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 68). Thus generally, the greater the power or authority the audience ascribes to the rhetor, the greater the persuasive impact the rhetor has on that audience. In the case of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, their recognized authority resided in acceptance of their claims as prophets. Both the audiences and the prophets understood that the power to carry through on the threats or promises resided not in the prophets themselves nor in their actions, but was attributable to the divine source of the messages. By declaring that the sign-acts were divine communications, the prophets were using an argument from authority.14 In the literary accounts, all of the sign-acts are presented as divine injunctives enjoined on the two prophets. Such is often explicit in the introductory statements: ^N (HIIT) "IDS'"! in Jer. 13.6; Ezek. 3.22; 4.15, 16; mm 1D« HD in Jer. 13.1; 16.5; 19.1; 27.2; Ezek. 6.11; '*?« mm 131 'm in Jer. 13.3, 8; 16.1; 32.6; 43.8; Ezek. 12.1; 12.8; 12.17; 21.13; 21.23; 24.15; 37.15. Frequently the accompanying verbal proclamations include some kind of divine formula, e.g. 'Thus says Yahweh' (mrr in« rD: Jer. 13.9; 16.3, 5, 9; 19.3, 11; 27.4; 32.14, 15; 35.13, 17, 18, 19; 43.10; Ezek. 5.5, 7, 8; 12.10; 12.19; 21.14; 24.21), or 'declaration of Yahweh' (mrr11 Dl?]: Jer. 13.11; 16.5; 19.6, 12; 27.8, 11, 15; 35.13; Ezek. 5.11; 21.12). Since the prophets were viewed as only messengers, and thus the prophets' power was acknowledged as being derived from the sender of the message, the question was ever present as to whether the message being delivered was from God—a powerful communicator—or selfgenerated by the prophet.15 If the audience deemed a message to stem

14. On prophets' and Jeremiah's use of the argument from authority (also termed 'assertive mode' of discourse), see Lundbom 1991. 15. The perspective of Ezekiel and Jeremiah in their diatribes against other prophets whom they considered 'false' was that self-generated prophecies were ineffectual because the messages did not proceed from God who alone had the authority to execute that which he declared through his prophets: Yahweh had not sent or spoken to them: Jer. 14.14-15; 23.16, 21, 32; 29.9, 31, 33; Ezek. 13.6-7; 22.28; they had not stood in Yahweh's council: Jer. 23.18, 22; they prophesied from their

422

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

from the latter, then the audience could discredit the message since without divine authority, the prophet had much less authority to bring about any threatened punishment and to hold the people accountable for lack of adherence to the proffered prophetic advice.16 If, therefore, the prophetic actions were not considered to be divinely commanded, the prophets' rhetorical strategy of communicator power would have been severely diminished.17 The audience response of Hananiah in Jeremiah 28 focuses on that very issue of which of the two prophets was backed by the divine fiat, and therefore which proclamation became the authoritative message for the people to follow. If the audiences viewed Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's actions as divine messages, then the perception of the prophets' power should have been enhanced because of the recognition that the divine source of their messages had the ability to bring about the pronounced maledictions or promises. 2.3.1.3 Communicator Similarity. The roles assumed by the rhetor influence the persuasion process: the more similarity the audience perceives between the rhetor and themselves, the more persuasive the rhetor will be.18 With respect to the positions being advocated, that of the two own imaginations, dreams, or the deception of their own hearts: Jer. 14.14; 23.16, 26-28, 32; Ezek. 13.2-3, 17; they stole words from one another: Jer. 23.30. 16. Even those labeled 'false prophets' were undoubtedly, at times, perceived by the people as having some 'power' because of the psychological, moral and, at times, social, control which they were able to exercise over the people (cf. Jer. 5.31). 17. In Jer. 43.1-7 the people discredited the prophetic advice by attributing it not to a divine source, but accounting it a lie incited by Baruch. Thus, because they did not view the words as coming from a source which was capable of carrying through on the accompanying threat, they remained unconvinced by the message and felt no obligation to heed it nor any threat if they dismissed it without further consideration. 18. Cf. Bettinghaus (1968: 116): 'A communicator may have significant influence on persuasion when he is seen as similar to the receiver... [WJhenever the source is seen as extremely different from the receiver, the influence of the source on the outcome of the persuasive situation will diminish and other factors will become decisive. Similarity between source and receiver can take place on any dimension... Similarity must, of course, be defined in terms of the receiver. It is the similarity between the source and the receiver that is perceived by the receiver which is responsible for the effect of the source, not the similarity between source and receiver as it might be defined by the source.'

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

423

prophets was not similar to that of their audiences. But within some of the nonverbal actions, similarity was created through the 'acting' roles assumed by the prophets. Four 'acting' roles were assumed in the non-verbal behaviors by the prophets: that of (1) their fellow people, (2) God, (3) the human enemy, and (4) communication facilitator (Jer. 35.2; 43.9; Ezek. 21.24). (1) The prophets functioned in the role of the people in those actions which actively portrayed their fellow-Judahites as the subject of the nonverbal behavior. In those cases, when the prophets assumed the role of the people, they did so as: (a) an illustrative depiction of how the people had been or were acting in the past and present (Ezek. 4.4-5, lying on his left side to show figuratively the people's culpability for sin); (b) a predictive depiction of how they would act or feel in the future (Jer. 16.2, not taking a wife; Jer. 16.5, not attending funerals; Jer. 16.8, not attending feasts; Jer. 32.7-8, buying the field; Ezek. 4.6, lying on his right side; Ezek. 4.9-10, eating rationed food; Ezek. 4.11, drinking rationed water; Ezek. 4.12, eating unclean food; Ezek. 12.3-6, going out with exilic baggage; Ezek. 12.6, covering the eyes; Ezek. 12.18, eating with trembling); or (c) an exemplary exhortation of how they should act in the present and/or future (Jer. 27.2, wearing the yoke; Ezek. 3.26-27, being speechless; Ezek. 21.11, groaning; Ezek. 21.17, wailing, striking the thigh; Ezek. 24.16-17, not mourning; Ezek. 24.2527, resuming of normal speech). In all of those cases in which the role of the people was assumed by the prophets, a bond of identity with the people was created which should have aided in the persuasion process. (2) The prophets also functioned in the role of God, both when God was the subject of the nonverbal behavior and when the actions focused on the people signified by the acted upon artifacts. In the former, the nonverbal communication depicted how God was acting or feeling in the present toward the people (cf. Ezek. 6.11-12, clapping, stamping the foot), or would act and feel in the future when bringing destruction (cf. Ezek. 4.3, setting the face against the iron griddle; Ezek. 4.7, baring his arm; Ezek. 21.19, clapping the hands). In many cases, the people were presented as passive recipients with the actions depicting what would happen to either (a) the people of Judah (Jer. 13.1-2, 4-5, wearing and spoiling the waist-sash; Jer. 19.10, shattering the jar; Ezek. 4.1-2, the model siege of the city; Ezek. 5.1, shaving the hair; Ezek. 5.2, burning, cutting, scattering the hair; Ezek.

424

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

5.3, binding the hair in the garment; Ezek. 37.17, joining the sticks) or (b) the Babylonians (Jer. 51.63, sinking the scroll). The employed artifacts stood for the people, and the artifacts were acted upon by the prophets who functioned in the roles of God or the enemy. In those actions which involved destructive judgment (Jer. 13.4-5; 19.10; 51.63; Ezek. 4.1-2; 5.1, 2), the distinction between whether the prophets were acting as God or the enemy was blurred because even though it was the enemy who would perform the action in the realm of historical reality, both prophets held that it was essentially God who was doing it through those human agents. When depicting the messages of hope or assurance (Jer. 13.1-2; Ezek. 5.3; 37.17) the prophets clearly assumed the role of God as preserver or restorer. (3) The only nonverbal behavior in which either prophet acted as the human enemy without any blurred distinction with the divine agent was Ezekiel's digging through the wall of his house (Ezek. 12.5). In those cases of assuming the divine or enemy's role, the prophets took a dichotomous stance with respect to role similarity to the people. When depicting the divine disfavor and the judgment on the people, the stance was adversarial, and when depicting an aspect of divine preservation and restoration of the people, it was favorable. Such an assumed role was an argument from authority rather than from communicator similarity. 2.3.1.4 Communicator Involvement. The actions performed by the prophets can be placed on a continuum between mimic and participatory. In the former, the prophets themselves artificially created the situations: e.g. Jer. 13.1-11; 19.1-13; 27-28; 35; 43.8-13; 51.59-64a; Ezek. 4.1-3; 4.4-8; 5.1.4; 6.11; 12.1-16; 21.11; 21.17; 21.19; 21.24; 37.16-17. In the participatory sign-acts, the behaviors were interposed upon the lives of the prophets and involved real-life situations which were molded by the prophets to convey messages: Jer. 16.1-9; 32; Ezek. 3.26; 24.26; 33.22; 4.9-11; 4.12-15; 12.18; 24.16-17. The distinction between mimic and participatory is over the basic material, respectively artificially created or real-life situations, through which messages were conveyed in the nonverbal communication events. This distinction does not mean that the former were not 'engrossed acting'19 for the prophet.20 19. Petersen (1981: 20-25, 30-33; cf. also Sarbin and Allen 1968: 492-96) delineates a continuum, from the least to greatest, of the level of involvement when

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

425

On several occasions, the prophets performed actions which were antithetical to their personal interests or natural inclinations. When Ezekiel was commanded not to mourn when his wife died (Ezek. 24.1524), such was certainly not his natural emotional response or inclination. The bizarre and antagonistic nature of some of the actions must have opened the prophets to ridicule. Some of the actions imposed actual humiliation on the prophets, such as Ezekiel having to shave his head (Ezek. 5.1) and eat food baked on dung (Ezek. 4.12, 15). Both of those involved committing actions which were apparently prohibited to someone of the priestly class. Some of the actions involved actual physical hardship, such as Ezekiel eating the siege rations and lying on his sides (Ezek. 4.4-11).

performing a functional role: noninvolvement, casual role enactment, ritual acting, engrossed acting, classical hypnotic role taking, histrionic neurosis, ecstasy, and bewitchment. 'Engrossed acting' is that in which 'the ego is fully integrated in the role performance'(Petersen 1981: 31): 'The actor throws him- or herself into the role and yet maintains his or her identity. He or she must maintain that identity in order to work effectively in the role. When one observes a person enacting this role, one may normally observe both motoric and affective components of involvement... [T]he self is fully involved in the activity. However, the self is fully conscious of the constraints of the situation' (23). 20. The only exceptions where the performances of the nonverbal actions might possibly be classified as 'ritual acting', in which the actor performs without feeling the correlative emotions, are the three (Jer. 35; 43.9; Ezek. 21.24) in which the prophets were not portraying personalized roles but functioned as communication facilitators. This conclusion about the sign-acts being 'engrossed acting' is contrary to Petersen's (1981: 30-31), that some of Ezekiel's actions, such as 4.1-3, are 'ritual acting' because they 'required a relatively low level of organismic involvement. No one watching Ezekiel undertaking this sign act would perceive significant involvement of the prophet's self in the action' (31). But even the action of Ezek. 4.1-3 incorporated a high level of emotional involvement for Ezekiel because he was depicting the destruction of his own friends and relatives back in Jerusalem. In not acknowledging some of the sign-acts as 'engrossed acting', Petersen has confused the level of difficulty of the outward dramatic form with the level of emotional involvement of the role actor and thus assumes that a simple action must mean low involvement. But there is no reason to view the prophetic role in verbal expressions, which Petersen classifies as 'engrossed acting' (1981: 31), as different from the nonverbal actions. Since acting on the levels of histrionic neurosis, ecstasy, or bewitchment is involuntary activity, such is excluded for Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's role performances as argued in Chapter 3 § 1.1.

426

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Other actions involved deep emotional attachments, such as those which anticipated the city's siege and destruction (Jer. 16.1-9; 19.10; Ezek. 4.1-2; 4.9-11; 5.1-2; 12.18) because the depicted judgments involved the prophets' friends and relatives who resided in Jerusalem. Also, in those pre-586 BCE threat actions, the prophets had to function in the role of messengers of indictment and destruction against the communities of which they were members and in which they held a vested interest. The actions which may have involved the greatest depth of involvement for the prophets were those actions which involved an extended lifestyle behavior which isolated them socially because of the contrariness to social expectations and interaction: Ezekiel's lack of engaging in normal conversation (Ezek. 3.26), and Jeremiah's not taking a wife and not attending the social gatherings of funerals or feasts (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8). When Ezekiel or Jeremiah functioned in a sign-act in the 'acting' role of the people, the depth of their involvement, to the point of personal suffering, has frequently been termed a form of 'vicarious suffering', in the sense of suffering 'along with' rather than being vicarious in the sense of 'instead of. 21 A better, and less theologically connotative, description is 'empathy'. Effective role enactment involves the skills of empathy and identification (cf. Petersen 1981: 90; Sarbin and Allen 1968: 515-16). The former is defined as 'the ability to put oneself in the other's place in more than just a cognitive or predictive sense' (Sarbin and Allen 1968: 516). When functioning as the people, the prophets empathized to the point of suffering, and when functioning in the divine role, they empathized to the point of feeling the depicted divine emotion. The greater the degree to which the rhetor is involved in the performance of the communication event enhances the persuasive impact upon the audience by emphasizing the importance of the message and the depth of commitment on the part of the rhetor to the message. The message cannot be passed off lightly when it is obvious to the audience that the rhetor, because of his or her conviction with respect to the viewpoint being expressed, is investing a great deal of personal energy and self into the rhetorical effort. Thus, the depth of Jeremiah's and

21. Cf. Adler 1990-91: 22; Eichrodt 1970: 33; Matheney 1965: 312-14; 1968: 266-67; von Rad 1962: 242 (contradicting 201).

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

427

Ezekiel's involvement in the transmission of their sign-acts should have increased the suasive effect the messages had on the audiences. An audience generally expects a rhetor to argue for the position which will favor the rhetor's interests. If the rhetor does advocate such a position, then the audience may accept the message if the position is deemed to be veridical. But the audience may also reject the position by discounting it as arising out of the rhetor's biased information or the deliberate concealment of relevant information in order to further the rhetor's own vested interests (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 179-80). An example of the audience rejecting a message which they felt was expressed only out of the speaker's vested interests is the case of Jer. 43.17. The people accused Jeremiah of lying in his message so as to further the cause advocated by Baruch. But when the communicator 'disconfirms the recipients' premessage expectations by advocating a position that is contrary to his own best interests, then... the recipients have few if any explanations for the communicator's behavior except that external reality is as he describes... One consequence of this attribution is that the recipients become particularly susceptible to the communicator's persuasive appeal' (Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 180). This principle applies to the acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (e.g. Jer. 16.2, 5, 8; Ezek. 3.26; 4.12; 5.1; 24.16-17) in which they assumed 'acting' roles and espoused messages which were contrary to their own personal interests (cf. Berquist 1989: 134-35; Swidler 1981: 185). Although such actions as wearing the yoke (Jer. 27.2) to advise submission to Babylon might have been dismissed by the audience as arising out of Jeremiah's pro-Babylonian political stance, certainly his, and Ezekiel's, demonstrations of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. 16.1-9; 19.10; Ezek. 4.1-2, 9-11; 5.1-2; 12.18), could not be interpreted as within the realm of the two prophets' personal wishes or desires. Such actions' contrariness to the prophets' own interests should have added credence to the view that the actions which they were performing were not products of their own desires, thus adding verification to their contention that they performed the actions only in conformance to the divine imperative. As the audience perceived the dichotomy between the messages and the prophets' personal interests, they should have ascribed more authority to the prophets' messages, and felt more inclined to accept them as the appropriate view to take.

428

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

2.3.2 Message Strategies 2.3.2.1 Style. Style involves the nature of the communication which contributes to the rhetorical impact of the arguments. For the sign-actions, the elements of style which will be investigated are their dramatic qualities, their use of multichannel communication, their employment of figurative and representational forms, their presentation as indirect and direct address, and their external similarities to magical rituals. 2.3.2.1.1 Dramatic Quality. Sensory communications which are vivid and highly dramatic can have a profound persuasive effect. 'Since it is true that sensory data impress our minds with a profound sense of reality and automatically inspire belief (unless reasons to the contrary appear), it is evident that an effective means of persuasion consists of [the communicator reproducing either/or] (1) a series of sensory events, the content of which supports a general principle or concept, (2) a single event, so dramatic and vivid that it impresses an audience with the reality of a general principle or concept' (Minnick 1968: 195; cf. also 194-98). Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-actions appealed uniquely to the physical senses through their dramatic qualities which consisted of their incongruities, concreteness and specificity in presentations, and their vividness and graphicness. The type of nonverbal communication employed by the two prophets had a distinctive dramatic quality which cannot be produced through the verbal medium. The verbal medium can only produce dramatic thought images, and it can do so only as the auditors actively appropriate and then recreate the message on the mental plane. In contrast to that form of communicating images, with nonverbal behavior the rhetor creates the image on the physical level which is appropriated by the audience, not only on the cognitive level, but via the physical senses. In the prophetic sign-acts, frequently the main sense of appropriation was that of sight. But some of the sign-acts also included hearing (e.g. the paralinguistic utterances, groans and wails, Ezek. 6.11; 21.11, 17, 20; the possible noises produced by the trembling while eating, Ezek. 12.17-20; the sound of the clapping of hands and stomping of feet, Ezek. 6.11; 21.19; the sound of the thigh being struck, Ezek. 21.17; the silence of Ezekiel's speechlessness, Ezek. 3.26; the sound of his speaking when the speechlessness was removed, Ezek. 24.27; 33.22; the noise of the jar shattering, Jer. 19.10; the sound of

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

429

water splashing as the rock-tied scroll was thrown in, Jer. 51.63), and occasionally even the olfactory sense (e.g. the smell of cooking on dung, Ezek. 4.12; the smell of hair burning in the fire, Ezek. 5.2,4). As noted above (Chapter 4 §1), the addressing of the exigence meant addressing both the conditions (i.e. the theological content issues) as well as attempting to increase the audiences' desire to change those theological viewpoints. The dramatic quality of the sign-acts was able to work persuasively on both levels. Through their dramatic concreteness, the sign-acts were able to address the contentual conditions of the exigences. The way in which the dramatic quality functioned on the level of attempting to increase the audiences' desire to change can be illustrated through analyzing the event- and setting-depicting sign-acts (Jer. 13.1-11; 16.1-13; 19.1-13; 32; 43.8-13; Ezek. 4-5; 12.1-16, 17-20; 21.23-29; 37.15-23) according to the factors which influence the degree of desire to change.22 (1) High probability generates higher interest: 'An exigence will generate a degree of interest in proportion to the probability of the factual component... A factual condition thought improbable or unbelievable ordinarily does not solicit interest sufficient to motivate a pragmatic response' (Bitzer 1980: 32). Since the audiences did not believe that the destruction or the restoration, as depicted by Ezekiel and Jeremiah, would occur (a low probability), they lacked any desire to change their theological positions (low interest).23 To counteract this low level of interest, the prophets nonverbally presented concrete and graphic depictions of the locale at which the Babylonians would decide to march against Jerusalem (Ezek. 21.23-29), of the siege (Ezek. 4.1-2), of the conditions during the siege (Ezek. 4.9-11; 12.17-20), of the destruction (Jer. 19.10; Ezek. 5.1-2), of the conditions during the destruction (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8), of the people being taken into exile (Ezek. 5.2; 12.3-7; Jer. 13.4-5), of the conditions in exile (Ezek. 4.12, 15), and of the Egyptian locale at which the Babylonians would continue the judgment into the dispersion (Jer. 43.9). 22. These factors are taken from Bitzer 1980: 32-33. His sixth factor, that greater incentives heighten interest, is dealt with separately below under §2.3.2.4. 23. Such a low desire to change is expressed in the reactions to other of the prophets' oracles (e.g. Jer. 38.17-26; 42.1-43.4; Ezek. 12.26-28; 33.30-33), and also in repeated variations of the statement 'Yahweh has repeatedly spoken, or sent prophets, but the people have not listened' (Jer. 7.13, 25-26; 11.7-8; 25.3-4; 26.5; 29.13; 32.33; 35.14-15).

430

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

They also presented dramatic portrayals to illustrate the restoration to the land (Jer. 32.6-14) and political reunification (Ezek. 37.15-17). For the greatest rhetorical impact, the prophets nonverbally presented those events as actually occurring. The depictions of those events were not presented as expressions of probability that the events might happen, but rather as statements of authoritative certainty that the events would happen if the present course of circumstances was not altered. The sensory mode of the depictions, which creates a sense of reality and believableness, coupled with the presentation of the messages as divinely given, should have contributed to the people attributing a greater probability to such events happening, thus generating a higher level of desire to align with that perspective. (2) Vivid apprehension increases interest: 'Generally interest will increase insofar as the factual condition is known directly and sensibly, or through vivid representation' (Bitzer 1980: 32). The prophets' representational and figurative displays of the destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent exile, as well as the restoration, were very vivid in appealing to the cognitive as well as physical senses. The vividness in depicting the events, which the audiences did not believe would happen, should have served to heighten the people's desire to alter their theological stance to conform to that of the prophets. The vividness came not only in the nonverbal behaviors, but also in the accompanying verbal messages, which amplified what had been depicted. For example, the verbally communicated message of cannibalism (Ezek. 5.10) contained a shocking quality which went far beyond the nonverbal representation of eating meager rations during the siege (Ezek. 4.9-10). And the verbal descriptions of the extensity of the destruction (Jer. 16.3-4, 6-7, 9) added to the already graphic nonverbal displays. (3) Close proximity increases interest: 'An exigence near in time and place generates more interest than a distant one. People are more interested in exigences which are near their own places than in distant places, and more interested in those which are imminent than those occurring ten years past or in the distant future' (Bitzer 1980: 32). By the sign-actions' present depictions of future events, the events should have seemed temporally closer to the people. Thus a greater sense of audience urgency to respond to the coming events should have been created. As evaluated rhetorically, the depiction of future events is not to be understood as a magical or efficacious bringing the future into

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

431

the present but rather as an illustrative depiction of the future in the present. For those in exile, who were physically distant from Jerusalem, Ezekiel's portrayals must have created a vividness which helped to nullify a sense of being physically separated from what was happening in the homeland. (4) Greater magnitude increases interest: 'The degree of interest depends in part upon the magnitude of the factual condition or some aspect of it... An exigence involving an action or event extraordinarily large will be more affecting than one involving an action or event of common proportions. An exigence will generate more interest if its likely consequences are numerous and of great significance, less interest if consequences are few and insignificant' (Bitzer 1980: 32). The judgment depicted in the prophetic sign-acts was always cataclysmic and comprehensive. The waist-sash was ruined in its entirety and beyond repair (Jer. 13.7); the jar was completely shattered beyond repair (Jer. 19.10-11); the shaven hair (= inhabitants of Jerusalem) was completely delegated to destruction and judgment with even the very small preserved remnant suffering the judgment of exile (E/ek. 5.1-4). (5) High personal involvement results in high interest: 'An exigence that involves speaker or audience personally will generate more interest than one in which they are not directly involved' (Bitzer 1980: 32). The issues involved in the sign-acts were already of high personal involvement to the audiences because the messages revolved around the basic tenets of the people's theological belief system. But those nonverbal portrayals, in which the prophets assumed the role of the people, gave that involvement greater prominence by graphically depicting what would happen personally to the audiences: Jeremiah's lifestyle (Jer. 16.1-9) showed that destruction would be so extensive that his audience would also all be alone, deprived of giving or receiving comfort in their mourning and devoid of any occasion for joy; Ezekiel's use of his wife's death (Ezek. 24.15-24) served as a reminder to the exiles that when Jerusalem fell, they would also experience the loss of their families still residing in the city; Ezekiel's eating of unclean food (Ezek. 4.12-15) reminded his audience that, by virtue of their exilic situation, they were daily doing the same at mealtime. For Jeremiah's audience, all the depictions of destruction concerned their own lives and welfare. For Ezekiel's audience, the events depicted in his sign-acts affected their families and friends still living in Jerusalem and, for themselves

432

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

personally, their complete and irreparable separation from the Temple and the land. It was precisely this bizarre, dramatic and incongruous type of communication which was needed to confront the people on the level of contentual conditions and thereby convince the people of the falsity of their way of thinking, and on the level of desire to change and thereby convince of the necessity to adopt the viewpoint presented by the prophets.24 2.3.2.1.2 Multichannel Communication. The sign-acts' communication events consisted of the coordination of both nonverbal and verbal elements. Thus both the auditory and visual channels were employed in the communication process. Studies show that, generally, the combined audio-visual channels are more beneficial in transmitting the basic data in the persuasion and learning processes than either of the channels alone.25 This is especially true in certain situations (cf. Bettinghaus 1968: 171): (1) When the visual displays are unfamiliar to the spectators, then the auditory description helps in identification. The idiosyncratic and ambiguous nature of many of the prophetic sign-acts virtually necessitated the verbal interpretation and clarification for the audience to understand properly and adequately the nonverbal 24. See Fox's (1980: 9) comment on the rhetoric of Ezek. 37.1-14: 'Strange, shocking, and bizarre images... are needed when one seeks to break down old frameworks of perception and to create new ones. They offer a way of transmitting the rhetor's fundamental perceptions of reality even when these perceptions are not amenable to rational exposition. Such images may attack our normal system of expectations in order to replace it with a new one.' Also Brueggemann's (1983: 135) comment on the task of Jeremiah: 'Jeremiah's call is to shatter old worlds (bring them to an end) and loform and evoke new worlds (cause them to be). The shattering and forming of worlds is... done as a poet "redescribes" the world, reconfigures public perception, and causes people to reexperience their experience... To do that requires that speech must... shock sensitivity, call attention to what is not noticed, break the routine, cause people to redescribe things that have long since seemed settled... Such speech functions to discredit and illegitimate the old, conventional modes of perception... Such imaginative speech evokes new sensitivities... to respond to social possibilities which the old and administrative language has declared unthinkable, unreasonable, and impossible.' 25. For studies dealing with the suasive factors of multiple versus single channel communication, see Bettinghaus 1968: 169-71; Cropper 1963; Hartman 1961; Hsia 1968; Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 85-87.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

433

behaviors. Hartman (1961: 256) makes a theoretical statement which is applicable to the prophetic sign-acts with respect to the need for verbal and nonverbal coordination: 'a pictorial message is pregnant with meaning but this meaning is often ambiguous and subject to personal interpretation. The use of words ... to structure this ambiguity and fixate attention is essential. The picture needs the word as often as the word needs the picture.' (2) When the communicator wishes the audience to focus on a particular portion of the visual presentation, then the auditory channel focuses attention. In the performance of the sign-acts there were portions of the activities which were noncommunicative or only peripheral to the main message (e.g. the retrieval of the waist-sash, Jer. 13.6-7; the legal technicalities of the purchase of the field and Jeremiah's functioning as 'redeemer', Jer. 32.6-14; the particulars of the Rechabites' refusal to drink wine, Jer. 35.1-11; the manner of sinking the scroll, Jer. 51.63). It was only the auditory messages which helped to focus audience attention on those aspects of the nonverbal displays which were central to the messages' purposes. (3) Multiple channels are helpful in gaining attention for the message. Clearly the nonverbal portions of the prophetic messages were attention arousing and maintaining (see Chapter 4 §2.1). (4) When complex materials are being presented, then multiple channel communication helps comprehension. The complexity of some of Ezekiel's actions has been noted (e.g. Ezek. 4-5; 12.1-16). For those actions, the multichannel communication should have helped the audience to be able to separate out and comprehend the meanings of the individual constituent parts. In all of the four cited situation types, a sequential use of the channels is deemed to be of greatest value (cf. Bettinghaus 1968: 171). Such was the case in the majority of the prophetic sign-acts that the verbal interpretation or direct reference to the nonverbal behavior followed the nonverbal portion of the communication event. The best coordination of nonverbal and verbal elements in a multichannel presentation is when the two channels do not distract from the message content by interfering and competing with each other for attention or comprehension.26 The sign-acts achieved minimal channel inter26. Cf. Hartman 1961: 241, 247-50, 255-56; Hsia 1968: 246; Schramm 1973: 123-24.

434

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

ference by the nonverbal actions bearing specifiable message-contents which the verbal messages either repeated through interpretation or supplemented with additional material (see Chapter 3 §5.2). 2.3.2.1.3 Figurative and Representational Coding. A distinction in style of presentation between the two prophets occurs in the type of coding, whether figurative or representational. Jeremiah had a propensity to use figurative coding27 while Ezekiel employed both and combined the two within the same complexes of actions (see Chapter 3 §3.4). The differences in style between figurative and representational results in differences in rhetorical impact. Frequently in the figurative actions, a single and simple artifact was able to stand symbolically for a whole group (Jer. 13.1, 4-6, the waistsash; 19.10, the jar; 51.63, the stone-tied scroll; Ezek. 5.1-4, the hair; 37.17, two pieces of wood), or a generalized, abstract concept (Jer. 35.2, Rechabites' behavior = covenantal faithfulness; 27.1, yoke = authority). Then, when combined with simple or singular, but dramatic, actions (Jer. 13.1, wearing; 13.4-6, ruining through burying; 19.10, shattering; 27.1, wearing; 35.2, providing wine to drink; 51.63, sinking; Ezek. 5.1, shaving and weighing; 5.2, scattering, burning, slashing; 5.3, binding; 37.17, binding together), the artifact-action coordinations were able to communicate the total messages. Although the figurative sign-acts were very dramatic and vivid in form, because neither the artifact nor the action were sensorial likenesses to their referents, they were more vague in communicating specific details than were the representational actions. As noted above, the figurative sign-acts served well for the purpose of creating intentional ambiguity because of the distance between the artifact-action combinations and their referents which made the precise meaning harder for the audience to discern (see Chapter 4 §2.2). On the other hand, the representational actions incorporated more detail and specificity as well as complexity of actions (e.g. Ezek. 4.1-2, the model siege; 4.9-11, eating mixed grains and drinking in specific quantities at specified times; 12.3-6, preparing baggage, digging through the wall, carrying the baggage on the shoulder). The contrast with respect to detail and specificity between the figurative and representational styles can be noted in the 27. The only representational actions performed by Jeremiah were his lifestyle commitments (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8), purchasing the field (Jer. 32.7-8), and creating the locational setting in Egypt (Jer. 43.9).

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

435

differences between the figurative depiction of the destruction of Jerusalem as performed by Jeremiah (19.10, shatters an earthenware jar) and the more realistic representations of the horrors and hardships of the siege and destruction in Ezekiel 4-5 (4.1-2, the model siege; 4.9-11, the eating and drinking of rationed siege foods; 5.2, 4, the architectural burning of the city by fire and slaughter of the inhabitants by the sword). Likewise the figurative depiction of exile and its effects in Jer. 13.4-6 (the buried and ruined waist-sash) lacks the details of the representational depiction by Ezekiel (12.3-6, his packing his bag and leaving his home). The more generalized figurative presentation of the future reunification by Ezek. (37.17, binding the two sticks together) lacks the specificity of Jeremiah's representational purchase of the field (Jer. 32.6-15). Both style types were dramatic in their presentations, but functioned differently on the rhetorical level. The representational actions and artifacts would have been most effective due to the degree of their details, since frequently greater effectiveness results from closer replication of the referent.28 But the figurative actions should have had the rhetorical effect of producing more cognitive activity. Because of their ambiguity, more audience thought was needed to ascertain their meanings and applications. The sign-acts' simile-form of the relationship between nonverbal action/artifact and referenced meaning places them in the same type-category with metaphors and parables. So Folk's (1983: 57273) comments on metaphors and parables are applicable to the figurative sign-acts and their observers: Both [metaphors and parables] can evoke a disclosure of reality. But they do these things only by virtue of the reader's imaginative engagement with and entrance into the metaphor/parable's 'world.' Both require, and invite, the participation of the audience in order to realize their fecundity as meaning-spawning devices... [TJhe parable/metaphor requires the reader to exercise the imagination in an effort to forge some sort of

28. Cf. Minnick (1968: 195-96): 'the effectiveness of a communication as a learning experience will depend, in part, on the degree to which the words mediate a close replica of the events to which they refer'. Minnick notes that the media with the highest fidelity in replication, such as motion pictures, photographs, performed plays, and drawings (all of which are the modern equivalents to the prophetic sign-acts), are therefore usually the most effective. Cf. Gropper (1963: 90): 'nonrealistically portrayed events may be less reinforcing in either the confirmation or motivational sense than real events or realistic productions of them'.

436

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts equivalence or connection between two seemingly dissimilar images or ideas that it has starkly juxtaposed.

Thus the figurative sign-actions probably had the effect of drawing the audiences more into the communication events as cognitive participants, rather than allowing the audiences to be detached spectators as more realistic replications would permit. The rhetorical principle is also operative that '[v]ague threats sometimes stimulate people to project their own exaggerated fantasies onto the environment, using their imagination to fill in with horrible details' (Hovland et al. 1953: 72). Thus the figurative prophetic sign-acts, in contrast to the representative actions, required the audience to use more imaginative insight to fill in the unexpressed details. Jeremiah's predominant pre-586 BCE use of figurative depictions of destruction may have resulted from his living in the locale in which the devastation would occur. Thus he allowed his audience imaginatively to fill in all the details of horror which they would have to experience personally. In contrast, Ezekiel was depicting a coming destruction to those who would only peripherally experience it because of their exilic existence. Thus, to avoid his audience's dismissal of his doom messages as not personally affecting them and thus not thinking seriously about such circumstances, besides figurative actions, Ezekiel used representational depictions which graphically filled in many of the details to make the conditions more real to his audience. 2.3.2.1.4 Indirect and Direct Address. Another distinctive contrast in style between Jeremiah and Ezekiel is in the former's almost exclusive use of direct address (the only exceptions are Jer. 27.2-11; 43.8-13, and 51.59-64a), while Ezekiel employed both direct and indirect address. Holdcroft (1976: 148-49) defines 'indirect communication' as an intentional communication act in which, 'assuming that the sentence uttered is used literally, there is a difference between something which the speaker intends to convey and what he means by his words, which, in turn, involves a difference between something he intends to convey and what he says or states'. Thus, in indirect address, 'a speaker's intention is to convey more than he says' (1976: 150). The manner in which indirect communication transmits the message to the immediate audience involves a relatively small group of speech-acts (cf. Holdcroft 1976): hinting, suggesting, insinuating (the covert intention to convey that which is disreputable or improper), and implying.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

437

A number of Ezekiel's and some of Jeremiah's sign-acts are 'indirect communication' in that at the surface and literal level of what was said and done, the messages were not addressed to the audiences which saw or heard them, but addressed to non-present audiences. Yet the intent of the sign-acts was to communicate messages to the audiences which were present. Thus there was a discrepancy, in the form of presentation, between who was explicitly addressed (nonpresent audiences) and what was said (messages about what would happen to the nonpresent audiences), and the intent of the prophets for the spectators of the sign-acts to apply the messages and their ramifications to their own situations and belief systems. The two prophets intended not merely to transmit information about what would happen to the nonpresent addressees, but rather, through the depictions of the events, persuade the immediate audiences to change their perspectives about their own circumstances and fates.29 Ezekiel's and Jeremiah's communicative use of indirect address fits into the category of 'implying' in which 'the speaker is committed unreservedly to the truth of what he implies' (unlike 'suggesting') and in which premises or background knowledge are not explicitly stated but the speaker assumes the audience possesses such in order to draw the proper implication from that which is stated (unlike 'hinting').30

29. Frequently occurring examples of 'indirect address' are the prophetic oracles against foreign nations. It is fallacious to assume that the prophets actually traveled to or resided in the nations which they thus addressed (contra Brownlee 1986). Rather those speeches were addressed to the foreign nations for the rhetorical impact on and implied messages for the immediate Judahite and Israelite audiences. The 'indirect address' was used for its rhetorical impact on the hearing audience, and not because the word's 'power' could effect that which was spoken against the distant audience regardless of the locale of the speaker (contra Howie 1950: 15). Nor does the 'indirect' style mean that the speeches are 'fictitious speeches' (contra Lindblom [1962: 153-54] who classifies as such all the oracles against the nations, all addresses to animals, land, and peoples not really present), i.e. having the form of speeches but not really delivered in their present form but communicated in another way. Although Lindblom is not explicit as to what other ways the speeches were communicated, it is implied that they were either given in a 'direct' style, then editorially altered into the 'indirect' form, or were produced in written form and never orally delivered. 30. On the distinctions between 'implying', 'suggesting' and 'hinting', see Holdcroft 1976: 153.

438

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

The style of Ezekiel's 'indirect address' was such that the depicted messages were directly applicable to the distant audience of Jerusalemites.31 Thus he presented in his nonverbal actions the fate of judgment which the city of Jerusalem and its inhabitants would suffer in the future (Ezek. 4.1-2; 5.1-2). He assumed the role of the Jerusalemites when he depicted their suffering from famine (4.9-11), their fright (12.17-20), and their exit into exile (12.3-7). His proximate audience of exiles would not be participants in those events, but would only empathizingly hear about those events when they actually occurred. But the 'indirectly' addressed sign-acts were performed for the real audience of exiles rather than for the ostensible audience of Jerusalemites, and carried implied messages for the former. The examples of Jeremiah's nonverbal indirect address are of the same type. In Jer. 51.59-64a, the scroll's contents and the communicative meaning of the sinking were directly addressed and applicable to Babylon, and in 43.8-13 the whole speech focused on what would happen to the Egyptians. But it cannot be assumed that either the Babylonians or the Egyptians were the auditors of the respective messages. Rather the doom oracles and the accompanying nonverbal actions were performed for their rhetorical impacts on the real audiences of Judahite exiles and refugees. In Jer. 27.2-11, Jeremiah initially directed the message of the yoke, not to the Judahites, but to the foreign ambassadors. To make sure the implied message was understood by the Judahites, he shifted to direct address and explicitly applied the message to them (Jer. 27.12-22). Although the prophets' indirect addresses had clear implications for the immediate audiences, the applications were not always explicitly stated. In the complex of actions in Ezekiel 4-5, the nonverbal behaviors did move from indirect (e.g. the siege and destruction depictions of 4.1-5, 7-11; 5.1-2a) to direct address (e.g. the exilic depictions of 5.2b4; 4.6, 12, 14-15), and in Jeremiah 27, the verbal interpretation was 31. Besides oracles to foreign nations, a number of examples of 'verbal indirect address' are found in Ezekiel in which messages are addressed to the mountains or land of Israel (6.2-3; 7.2; 21.7; 36.1), to the birds and beasts (39.17), and to Jerusalem (16.2-3; 21.7). Ezekiel's style of 'indirect address' has been used as an argument for the locale of Ezekiel's prophesying being Jerusalem, rather than the exile. But such arguments overlook the rhetorical strategies and impact involved in 'indirect address' and therefore cannot be used to substantiate a non-exilic setting for Ezekiel's ministry.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

439

subsequently addressed to the Judahites. But in the indirect addresses of Ezek. 12.1-16; 12.17-20; 21.23-29, and Jer. 43.8-13; 51.59-64a, the implications were not stated. So the direct applications of the messages for the receiving audiences were left up to the audiences to discern. The rhetorical force of such 'indirect' addresses was that the audiences had to enter into the communication events and cognitively ascertain what Ezekiel and Jeremiah implied by their actions. When an audience is forced to draw its own conclusions, the audience frequently tends to be more persuaded of the position.32 The difficulty with allowing the audience to draw the proper implications is that there is no certainty they will come to the conclusion intended by the communicator (cf. Petty and Caccioppo 1981: 76). So direct address with the specific application to the hearing audience does have the advantage of making certain the audience clearly and correctly understands the speaker's intent.33 Ezekiel's use of indirect address was rhetorically appropriate in the exilic setting because of the deep emotional tie which the exiles still had with Jerusalem and because of his audience's concern for the fate of Jerusalem which was directly linked with their theological presuppositions about their continued existence in exile. The messages of Ezekiel's sign-acts formulated as 'indirect' address implied that the audience's beliefs both about Jerusalem's inviolability and their own exilic existence were wrong: through the presentations of the Jerusalem's destruction as a divinely decreed reality, the audience's stance that such could not happen was countered, thus implying that they were tenaciously holding to a mistaken theological tenet, and through the portrayals of the city's siege and destruction, with its survivors going into exile, the implication was that Ezekiel's audience certainly had no basis for hoping in an imminent return to Judah. Since in his sign-acts of indirect address, Ezekiel presented the exiles with implications which were totally contrary to that which they were hoping, the form of 32. McGuire (1973: 234-35) notes that explicitly drawing the conclusion should aid in the 'comprehension' step of the suasive process, but 'leaving the conclusion unstated but so obvious that it can be drawn by the receiver himself should augment yielding [i.e. acceptance]; that is, by giving the receiver the opportunity for active participation, he comes to regard the conclusion as his own rather than something externally imposed by the source'. 33. Cf. Hovland et al. (1953: 100-105, 272-73) and McGuire (1973: 235) who cite studies which show that explicitly drawing the conclusion is more effective than leaving it for the audience to draw.

440

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

indirect address may have helped to counteract initial negative reaction by focusing on Jerusalem and thus directing the audience's attention away from that which seemed directly relevant to themselves. Although emotionally and presuppositionally linked with what happened in Jerusalem, the exiles would not suffer the fate graphically depicted by Ezekiel. Thus, when watching Ezekiel's presentations, the exiles may initially have felt relieved and even smug because of the lack of direct application. Only after thinking about the events, or when Ezekiel moved from an 'indirect' style to a 'direct' style as in chs. 4-5 of explicitly portraying the exilic situation, could the audience sense the direct and dire consequences for themselves. But the initial distancing of the events from themselves should have drawn them into the suasive process because of the initial lack of awareness of the direct implications. A similar rhetorical strategy can be assumed for Jeremiah 27 and 43.8-13, in which the initial and explicit applications were focused, respectively, on the neighboring foreign nations and Egypt, and not on the Judahites. In 27.2-11, through indirect address, Jeremiah prepared the Judahite audience for the advice of continued submission, that is, a message to which they were not currently receptive. In 43.8-13, he prepared the Judahite refugees, who were feeling quite secure in Egypt, for thinking of their own fate as dependent and commensurate with that of the Egyptians. 2.3.2.1.5 Similarity of External Form to Magical Ritual. It is maintained throughout this study that the origin of the sign-acts is not to be sought in the Sitz im Leben of magical ritual but in rhetorical communication. This does not preclude that the prophets may have played on the people's praxis, which had syncretized pagan and magical rituals, by performing actions which were externally similar to magical actions known, or even practiced, by the audiences: for example, the similarity of the shattering of the jar (Jer. 19.10) to execration rituals, the sinking of the scroll (Jer. 51.63) to the sinking of curse tablets, and Ezekiel's activities with his hair (Ezek. 5.1-4) to sympathetic hair magic. But any external similarity does not mean diachronic development from or identical metaphysical content to the magical ritual. Rather the external similarities may have been part of the rhetorical ploy just as some of the Israelite prophets in their verbal oracles punned and revamped mythological and pagan motifs to express the supremacy of Yahweh.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

441

Magical actions which were threats were always employed against one's enemies, not against one's own self, yet Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's actions which depicted destruction were directed against Jerusalem (the only exceptions being the sinking of the scroll in Jer. 51.59-64a and the primary focus on Egypt in Jer. 43.8-13). The execration rituals employed the breaking of an earthenware artifact as a curse against the breaker's enemies, but Jeremiah broke the jar (Jer. 19.10) as a threat against Jerusalem. When the destruction of hair was used in a magically sympathetic manner, it was never directed against one's self as Ezekiel's figurative use of hair was directed against his own people (Ezek. 5.1-4). The external similarities may have been employed to create certain audience expectations with respect to the import and applications of the messages. The audiences may have anticipated that the actions would be directed against their enemies and favorably toward themselves just as magical rituals were. If such expectations were present, the audiences' anticipatory counterarguments against the prophetic viewpoints may have been reduced, making the spectators more receptive to hearing the messages. Then when the prophetic actions were interpreted as judgment messages against Judah, the total disavowal of the audiences' expectations should have had a more dramatic suasive impact. 2.3.2.2. Types of Arguments. There are many different types of rhetorical arguments which can be used in the suasion process. Three types figured predominantly in the prophetic sign-acts: emotional appeals, threat appeals, and modeling. 2.3.2.2.1. Emotional Appeals. One type of argumentative appeal is the emotional appeal which attempts to alter the audience's opinion through evoking an emotional response,34 and is thereby contrasted to logical appeals which seek to alter opinion through the rational processes. The majority of the nonverbal sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, through creating vivid sensory impacts, employed emotion-arousing stimuli which should have enabled the audiences to feel the depicted

34. On the function of emotional appeals in the persuasive process, see Black 1978: 114-24, 138-46; Brembeck and Howell 1976: 291-92; Minnick 1968: 238-48; Oliver 1957: 248-73.

442

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

events and emotions.35 The sign-acts therefore fit into the type of discourse labeled by Black (1978) as 'exhortative discourse' which is defined as 'that type of discourse in which the stirring of an audience's emotions is a primary persuasive force ... and is extensively rather than incidentally used... [E]xhortation finds its end in radical conversion... The exhorter strives to convey an entirely different way of viewing the world and of reacting, in thought and in feeling, to it' (142). Emotional appeals are central to 'exhortative discourse' in that 'the evocation of an emotional response in the audience induces belief in the situation to which the emotion is appropriate... Emotion can be said to produce the belief (138). The sign-acts which illustrated future circumstances (Jer. 13.4-9; 16.1-9; 19.1-13; 32.6-15; 43.8-13; 51.59-64a; Ezek. 4.1-3, 6-5.4; 12.116; 12.17-20; 21.23-29; 37.15-23) did not consist of rational arguments presented and formulated in logical ways,36 rather the depicted events were presented in a didactic manner of what would, rather than what might or should, happen.37 The intended effect was to have the audiences empathetically participate in the events in order to instill in them the conviction that this was the way it would be. When only depicting how the people should respond to the historical circumstances (Jer. 27.2-7, 12, 17; Ezek. 21.11-12; 21.13-18; 24.15-24; 3.26; 24.27; 33.22), the graphic nonverbal displays sought to produce the emotive attitudes which would serve as the catalysts for the sought after proper responses. The sign-acts expressed both the predictions and exhortations through concrete visual images which have greater persuasive impact than do abstractions.38 Black (1978: 143) comments that 'when, at the begin35. Cf. Minnick (1968: 244) who identifies the commonest tactic of emotion excitation as being the use of vividness 'to depict actual emotion-producing situations' (italics original). 36. The only sign-act which was predominately structured around a logical appeal was the contrast created through the Rechabites' behavior in Jer. 35. 37. Cf. Black (1978: 143-44): 'Since radical conversion, which is the end of exhortation, implies the acceptance of a belief as absolutely true, the exhorter commonly bases his appeal on what he claims to be realities. Where the theoretician may conclude that there ought to be a revolution, or war, or last judgment, or reform, the exhorter, clad in the mantle of prophecy, proclaims that there will be. The exhorter aims... at a belief that the world is a certain way.' 38. On concreteness as a persuasive factor, see also Minnick 1968: 198-99; Oliver 1957: 125.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

443

ning of a suasive process, one's conversion still hangs in the balance, abstractions do not have the power to move one to a new conviction. Some degree of emotional excitation is required in the initial stage, and the language of emotionality is concrete description.' As an example of such he notes: 'We would unhesitatingly acknowledge our disapproval of hunger and starvation, but this disapproval would be of a concept merely. We must apprehend specific cases of starvation, either directly, imaginatively, or through the medium of descriptive language, before we experience a strong affective response.' This concrete demonstration is precisely what Ezekiel did in 4.9-11 when he nonverbally presented the straits of the siege situation. By its very nature, nonverbal communication tends to be more intensely emotion-producing than does verbal communication.39 Since the intensity of emotion increases correspondingly to the degree of reality achieved by the rhetor's reconstruction of the events (cf. Minnick 1968: 244), the dramatic vividness and bizarreness of especially the representational prophetic sign-acts, which bore a greater degree of correspondence to the reality depicted than mere verbal presentations,40 were certainly capable of evoking deeper emotive responses from the people than those which words could have. The nonverbal actions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel followed an essential criterion for being emotionally arousing: an emotional appeal must present 'cues to which the individual has previously learned to react emotionally. If a state of affairs is depicted that happens to be meaningless to the audience, in the sense that they have never previously experienced it or heard about it, the anticipations evoked by the rehearsal of the communicator's sentences will fail to arouse emotional tension' (Hovland et al 1953: 66).41

39. Cf. Columbia Law Review (1971: 118): Nonverbal communication 'is more intensely emotional than the spoken or written word or the traditional cool art forms'. 40. Further on the rhetorical impact of the vividness and dramatic quality of the sign-acts, see Chapter 4 §2.3.2.1.1. 41. Cf. also Minnick 1968: 196: 'Comparison [with other experiences] stimulates the audience to recollect sensations of a nature similar to those being related in the communication. The audience transfers the clarity and intensity of the recollected sensations to the ideas expressed by the advocate; the result is a sharper, more vivid impression.'

444

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

The actions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel clearly had emotive links to previous events or situations in the audiences' realms of experience. Most of the nonverbal actions which were outward displays of emotions (Ezek. 4.3, 7, setting his face; 4.7, baring the arm; 6.11, clapping the hands, stomping the feet, saying 'Ah!'; 21.11, groaning; 21.17, crying out, wailing, striking the thigh; 21.20, saying 'Ah!'; 21.19, clapping the hands) were conventional modes of expression for the corresponding emotions. Thus the people who observed the actions were fully aware of the intended emotions. The prophet's modeling of the outward manifestations of the emotions should have helped elicit in the audience the corresponding emotive responses.42 The actions which displayed events also had strong emotional links with the audiences because of the high issue involvement over the subjects depicted. The topics of Jerusalem's destruction and the exile were personally relevant to each of the spectators. But the emotional link also existed because of the audiences' past or current participation in similar experiences. Both Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's audiences had personally experienced some suffering in the 597 BCE Babylonian siege of Jerusalem which ended in the exile of the latter's audience. Thus, when Ezekiel depicted the siege of a city by using the brick and model siege weapons (4.1-2), by eating the meager food supplies (4.9-11), and by trembling when eating (12.18), the people, because they had been through something similar, could empathize with the implications of such a siege. Ezekiel's audience had gone through the tragedy of being forced out of their homeland, marched hundreds of miles into a foreign land, and separated from family and loved ones. The depiction of going into exile in Ezek. 12.3-6 would have brought back memories of what they themselves had personally experienced. If the shaving of captives' heads was practiced, Ezekiel's action (5.1) could have reminded them of their similar humiliation when they were deported. Ezekiel's eating of unclean food to depict the exilic food (4.12) was something which his audience was doing each day of their exilic existence. The death of Ezekiel's wife (24.15-24) was an emotional experience in itself, and was a circumstance with which many could empathize because of the universality of death. But for the exiles, Ezekiel's loss of his wife may 42. Cf. Minnick's (1968: 247-48) discussion of the emotion-arousing technique of the communicator displaying the emotion: 'Since spectators tend to feel themselves in the same state of mind as others around them, one of the surest ways for a speaker to excite the emotions is to display emotion himself (248).

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

445

have evoked the deeper remembrances of their loss of family members either through death during the Babylonian incursions around 597 BCE or through separation due to the splitting up of families by the exile. So Ezekiel's depictions clearly played on the emotions of the audience through depicting events which were already emotionally laden situations because of the audience's prior similar experiences. Similarly Jeremiah's actions would have triggered emotional responses. The issues of the destruction (Jer. 19.10) and its consequences (solitude, Jer. 16.2, 5, 8; and exile, Jer. 13.4), and of current submission to the Babylonians (Jer. 27.2) all had personal ramifications for his hearers. Because of the importance of familial and social ties in that culture, the antisocial nature of Jeremiah's not carrying on the family lineage and not participating in joyous or sorrowful family occasions (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8) must have evoked an emotional reaction, especially by the prophet's other family members. The emotive reactions to the messages and manners of proclamation of the sign-actions probably included horror, distress, anger, quizzicality and disbelief; while the feelings of empathy, dependent on the content of the messages, ranged from fear, sorrow, sadness and despair, to hope. Through the nonverbal displays of the destruction and distressing consequences of the siege of Jerusalem, the two prophets made the audiences perceive, not only that which they hoped would not happen, but also that which constituted the very worst fears of what possibly could happen. Fear or terror is produced in an audience when the rhetor alleges 'that impersonal events (disease, drought, famine, etc.) have deprived or are about to deprive [the audience] of the satisfaction of an urgent want and that [the audience's] capacity to cope with the situation is in doubt' (Minnick 1968: 243). Likewise when the rhetor alleges 'that a person, nation, institution, or other intelligent source has deprived [the audience] or intends to deprive [it], deliberately and maliciously, of the satisfaction of an urgent want, or has committed, or intends to commit, a violation of [the audience's] values will tend to produce anger and hate' (Minnick 1968: 243). And when such a situation is alleged by the rhetor, in conjunction with the recognition that the audience is powerless to prevent such a situation, then fear is produced in addition to the anger (cf. Minnick 1968: 243). These are precisely the emotions which must have been evoked as Jeremiah and Ezekiel displayed the Babylonian intent against the city (Ezek. 21.23-

446

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

29; 4.1-2), and then, for rhetorical purposes, presented the horrors of the siege (Ezek. 4.9-11; 12.18), the destruction and devastation (Jer. 19.10; Ezek. 5.1-2), and the exile of the survivors (Ezek. 12.3-6) as established facts without explicitly indicating that their audiences could have any effect on those future events. Through his use of indirect address in depicting to his exilic audience the conditions and happenings in Jerusalem (Ezek. 4.1-3, 9-11; 5.1-2; 12.1-16, 17-20), Ezekiel also sought to evoke sympathy for those involved in the depicted actions. Sympathy and pity are evoked when the rhetor alleges that distressing situations exist, however, 'they apply not to [the immediate audience] but to other persons'. Such is especially the case 'when the fate of the other persons or creatures is made vivid by propinquity or is of concern ... for some other reason' (Minnick 1968: 244). When the two prophets depicted the consequences of the siege, they focused the audiences' attention upon the loss of loved ones (Jer. 16.19) or upon the conditions suffered by the besieged humans (Ezek. 4.911; 12.17-20; 12.1-16). With such a focus, grief and sorrow must have been evoked in the audiences. Grief, along with anger, is produced when the rhetor alleges 'that a person or thing instrumental to the satisfaction of [the audience's] needs has been destroyed' with malicious intent (Minnick 1968: 243-44). As the exiles viewed Ezekiel's depictions, their thoughts must have been directed toward the suffering which their family members in Jerusalem would endure at the hands of the Babylonians, and such must have produced an empathic sorrow. Jeremiah's audience had its attention focused on that which they would actually endure, so that their emotive response of grief stemmed from a recognition of their own personal suffering which would occur in the future. Through the sign-acts, both audiences were made aware of the deprivation of family members who would die during the siege and destruction, thus evoking the sorrow of personal loss. Although in Jeremiah, the contrast between the faithful Rechabites and the unfaithful Judahites was based on logical arguments, part of the purpose was also to evoke shame and remorse within the audience as they perceived the validity of the contrastive argument being made. Rhetors can evoke shame and remorse when they allege that the audience has 'deliberately violated [its] own values' (Minnick 1968: 243). Covenant fidelity was a value held by the audience, but one which Jeremiah alleged the Jerusalemites had violated. The purpose behind

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

447

the indictment was not only to highlight the basis for the judgment but to produce within the audience a feeling of shame which would motivate behavioral change toward greater covenant fidelity. In the actions which depicted new and different relationships after the destruction was over (Jer. 32; Ezek. 24.25-27; 33.21-22; 37.15-23), the evoked emotion was that of hope. The pleasurable emotion of hope is produced by rhetors when they allege 'that an urgent need will ultimately be gratified' (Minnick 1968: 243). The sign-acts which sought to elicit hope focused on the needs and desires of the people: restoration to the land (Jer. 32); a renewed covenant and dialogic relationship with God (Ezek. 24.25-27; 33.21-22); reunification of the people (Ezek. 37.15-23). The sign-acts depicted the future realization of those hopes. So emotional appeals were a key argumentative appeal employed within the two prophets' sign-acts in the attempts to convince the people to reorient their convictions, rather than allowing the people to maintain their previous suppositions and perceptions of the situation. 2.3.2.2.2 Threat appeals. Threat appeals' are defined as 'those contents of a persuasive communication which allude to or describe unfavorable consequences that are alleged to result from failure to adopt and adhere to the communicator's conclusions' (Hovland et al. 1953: 60). As a type of emotional appeal, the 'threat appeal' seeks to elicit an audience response of fear.43 Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel used the 'threat appeal' when portraying impending judgment and punishment of the destruction of Jerusalem or the exile (Jer. 13.4-10; 16.1-9; 19.1-13; 43.8-13; Ezek. 4-5; 12.1-16; 12.17-20; 21.23-29).44 There are a number of variables which increase the persuasive effectiveness of 'threat appeals'.45 The greater and more intense the depiction of the threat or the dangers consequent on noncompliance, the greater will be the recipient's aroused emotion which increases the possibility of acceptance of the rhetor's position. Hovland et al. (1953: 72) 43. The term 'threat appeal' as used here also incorporates what some classify as 'fear appeal'. 44. On 'fear appeals' as part of Old Testament prophets' oral rhetoric, see Gitay 1996: 222-23. 45. On the various variables (e.g. source credibility, amount of threat) which affect threat appeals (fear appeals), see Brembeck and Howell 1976: 113-17, 122; Burgoon and Bettinghaus 1980: 150-51; Hovland et al. 1953: 66-77, 270-71; McGuire 1973: 224, 234; Minnick 1968: 240-42.

448

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

comment that '[t]he more vividly a communication describes the unpleasant aspects of a potential threat and emphasizes its seriousness, the higher the level of emotional tension evoked'. As discussed above, the sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel portrayed in very graphic and vivid manners both the dire circumstances which were about to fall upon both the peoples in Jerusalem and in exile, and the divine emotions which motivated such punishment. Thus the manner of presentation provided the catalyst for the audiences' emotive responses of fear with respect to the impending judgment.46 Some studies indicate that 'high levels of fear appeal increase in effectiveness as the topic becomes increasingly important to the receiver' (Burgoon and Bettinghaus 1980: 150). As previously discussed, the issues addressed by the two prophets were of high emotional interest and relevance to the targeted audiences. The congruence between the level of topic importance and the intensity of the threat arousals should have made the prophetic sign-acts powerful rhetorical tools. The 'threat appeal' is most effective when explicit reassurance, that is, a means of escaping the threatened danger, is given to alleviate the emotional tension.47 But in the performances of the 'threatening' signacts, neither Ezekiel nor Jeremiah gave any resounding notes of reassurance to alleviate the tensions produced. The exilic experience, which was portrayed (Ezek. 4.6, 12-13; 5.2b-4; Jer. 13.4-10; 43.8-13), cannot be considered a hopeful alternative by which the audience could avoid the threat because the exile was depicted as a continuation of the judgment (Jer. 13.7, 10, the waist-sash becomes useless; Ezek. 4.12-13, it is a land of uncleanness) or a place in which the judgment continued to be exercised (Jer. 43.8-13; Ezek. 5.4). Any relief from exile was presented as not applicable to the current generation (Ezek. 4.6, 40 years' duration; cf. Jer. 25.12 and 29.10, 70 years' duration). The only note of

46. See also Hovland et al. (1953: 72): 'intense emotional reactions are especially likely to be elicited by symbol stimuli which evoke anticipatory responses (perceptual images and symbolic responses) that closely resemble those evoked by real life situations of actual threat'. 47. Cf. Hovland et al. (1953: 62), that when emotional tension is aroused 'by depicting potential dangers or deprivations, the most effective reassurances are likely to be statements which elicit anticipations of escaping from or averting the threat'. Cf. also Brembeck and Howell 1976: 114-15, 122; Hovland et al. 1953: 77, 270.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

449

hope expressed in the 'threatening' sign-acts was Ezekiel's act of binding some of the hairs (the survivors) in the edge of his garment (5.3). But the continued note of the punishment's extension into exile obviated this as a viable alternative for the majority of the people to avoid the judgment. Ezekiel presented only the fact that a select few would be preserved by God, but he did not give the spectators any directive as to what they might do to ensure their being part of that preserved group. Only when the actual judgment on Judah was about to culminate did the prophets' nonverbal displays shift from 'threat appeals' to messages of hope (Jer. 32.6-15; Ezek. 24.25-27; 33.21-22; 37.15-23). The 'threats' were nonverbally presented as events which would occur without indication that the prophecies could be averted. Not even in the accompanying verbal messages were there given any reassurances for alleviation of the threats. But the lack of statements of reassurance need not necessarily mean that the depicted events were inevitable, but rather that for rhetorical purposes, they were presented as such. If the prophecies were viewed as being conditional, then the depicted actions would only take place as a consequence of the people's continuation in their beliefs, in their course of international relationships, and in their way of living. Thus an unexpressed aspect of the sign-acts' messages was that if the people changed their behaviors and covenant relationship with God, the consequences would take on different forms.48 The conditional nature may be an undepicted and unstated assumption behind the 'threat' sign-acts, and thus the proper response of repentance being one of the intended rhetorical goals. Rather than explicitly calling the people to repentance, that implication of the messages was left unexpressed so that people, through their own cognitive efforts, would arrive at that conclusion as the proper means of alleviating the 'threat'. In that case, the implied conclusion was that the people should change in their covenantal relationship with God so as to avoid the threats. As noted above, if an audience draws the conclusion from the material presented by the speaker, rather than the conclusion being explicitly delineated by the speaker, then the audience will be more persuaded behaviorally to follow through on that conclusion (see Chapter 4 §2.3.2.1.4).

48. In Jer. 27, which is 'advice' not 'threat', the contrasting consequences of following (continuance in the land; life) and of rejecting (destruction by famine, pestilence and sword; exile; death) the nonverbally depicted advice to wear the yoke were verbally expressed.

450

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

2.3.2.2.3 Modeling. Modeling refers to one person performing a behavior so as to induce the imitative behavior in the observer.49 This was the type of appeal employed when the prophets assumed the role of the people to demonstrate, in an exhortatory or advisory (not predictive) manner, the appropriate behavior for the audiences to emulate. Thus Jeremiah advised the attitude of submission to the Babylonians through the figurative behavior of wearing the yoke (Jer. 27). Ezekiel provided representational models of the dispositions the people should have prior to Jerusalem's destruction (Ezek. 3.26-27, speechlessness; 21.11, groaning; 21.17, wailing, striking the thigh), the attitude at the time of Jerusalem's fall (Ezek. 24.16-17, not mourning), and he modeled the behavior which would be appropriate in the future (Ezek. 24.25-27, resumption of speaking). Modeling was used, not just when the prophets assumed the role of the people, but both prophets presented other personages as appropriate models. When Jeremiah used the Rechabites' behavior as a contrast to the Judahites' (Jer. 35), he presented the former as a model of covenant fidelity. Ezekiel reflected the divine emotions (Ezek. 6.11; 21.19) which were to be emulated by the people. Thus he presented God as the model.50 The prophets' use of the argument by modeling was linked both to the emotional appeal and to the models' credibility. Through modeling the appropriate emotion or attitude, the prophets sought to instill in the spectators that emotion or attitude. The 'caught' emotion would then serve as a catalyst for the continued behavioral response by the people. But also to be an effective model, the person or group must have an acknowledged prestige so as to be followed (cf. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969: 363). In the communication events when Jeremiah and Ezekiel themselves modeled the proper behavior, they functioned as prophetic messengers. The audiences' recognition of that social status should have enhanced the prophets' credibility as models. Although the Rechabites may not have been considered desirable models because of their socially unique behavior, Jeremiah sought to establish their credibility as models by focusing exclusively on the motive of

49. On modeling as an argumentative appeal, see Perelman and OlbrechtsTyteca 1969: 362-66. 50. On using the 'perfect Being' as an argumentative model, see Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969: 368-71.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

451

fidelity which lay behind their specific behaviors. Since covenant fidelity was undoubtedly a respected virtue, the Rechabites were demonstrated to be a credible model of, at least, that specific principle by virtue of their faithful adherence to the regulations imposed by their forefather. Within that culture, God's credibility as a proper model would not have been seriously questioned.51 Thus the suasive impact should have been enhanced when Ezekiel assumed the divine role and presented God as the model. 2.3.2.2.4 Summary of Argument Types. People are likely to develop and alter their attitudes based upon three motivational contexts (cf. Minnick 1968: 117-19). They are motivated to change in order to: (1) rationally structure their view of the world; (2) adapt to that which is socially acceptable; and (3) fulfil their ego-defensive needs. The various types of motivations require different types of rhetorical arguments to produce the desired results of attitudinal change. The first is effectively addressed by logical and rational arguments while the second and third require, respectively, appeals to consensual support and to the emotions. The majority of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts did not function on the first motivational level (the rational) in their attempts to restructure the people's ideological presuppositions. Rather the sign-acts sought to motivate attitudinal change through the other two avenues. Through the prophets' modeling, they appealed to the motivation to adapt to that which was acceptable behavior as defined by the prophets. This ran contrary to the general consensus that the people's current behaviors and attitudes were already acceptable and needed no modification. So the modeling argument faced the additional difficulty of establishing the models as the valid and proper ones (the issue of credibility) to be followed. The threat appeals and the messages of hope appealed on the emotional level to the audiences' ego-defensive needs. Both the messages of threat and of hope spoke to the people's desires for preservation as individuals and as a community. The messages of threat, by depicting the events of the impending judgment, appealed to that motivation in a negatively challenging manner, while the messages

51. The credibility of God as model would not have been questioned by the prophets' audiences, but questions undoubtedly arose as to whether the prophets were accurately depicting the emotions and attitudes of God, and therefore whether the prophets were appropriately modeling God.

452

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

of hope, by depicting a future in which the consequences of the judgment would be reversed, did so in a positively reinforcing manner. 2.3.2.3 Structure. In this section will be discussed the rhetorical implications of the structural aspects of the nonverbal communication of a single act or complex of actions, and the sequential organization of the combined verbal and nonverbal channels. 2.3.2.3.1 Single Act and Complex of Actions. A stylistic difference is evidenced between Jeremiah and Ezekiel in that the former employed more single actions, or single actions in sequence, while the latter, more complexes of actions in which more than one action occurred simultaneously. Jeremiah frequently performed a single action in conjunction with a single artifact to communicate figuratively the message-content (Jer. 19.1-13, shattering the jar; ch. 27, wearing the yoke; ch. 35, the Rechabites' refusal to drink the offered wine; 51.59-64, sinking the scroll). To representationally mark the locale to which the king of Babylon would come (43.9-10), Jeremiah performed the single action of burying the stones (43.8-13). A temporal sequence of single actions was used in conjunction with the waist-sash (Jer. 13.1-11) to figuratively depict Israel's and Judah's past closeness to God (vv. 2, 11) and Judah's future ruination (vv. 4, 9). When Jeremiah acquired the property from his cousin (ch. 32), he performed various specific actions (e.g. weighing out the money, signing and sealing the deed, calling in witnesses, storing the deed) which pertained to the requirements of the legal transaction, but yet it was the actions' totality of buying the field, and not the particulars, which constituted the communicative message (v. 15). Therefore, the actions of ch. 32 can be classified as a single action with respect to the message. The only true complex of actions performed by Jeremiah was the lifestyle behaviors which occurred concurrently (Jer. 16.1-9) to representationally depict the future conditions in Judah. Yet even those actions only came to the forefront of attention on singular occasions when his absence from the respective social events would have been noticed. This contrasts with Ezekiel who combined several actions in concurrent performance. The only singular type actions performed by Ezekiel were his representational depictions of trembling while eating and drinking (12.17-20) and groaning (21.11-12), and the figurative action of joining the two sticks into one (37.15-23). Although his lack of

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

453

mourning when his wife died (24.15-24) centered around the totality of the specific actions which constituted proper mourning procedure (like the land purchase in Jer. 32), when he interpreted the behavior (vv. 2224), he emphasized the people's replication of the specific behaviors (unlike the general application of Jer. 32.15). At times Ezekiel used more than one communicative action to convey one main idea, such as the concurrent clapping of the hands, stamping of the feet, and uttering of'Ah!' (6.11-12). Three complexes of actions, which also incorporated greater complexity in manner of communication, clearly illustrate the distinctiveness of Ezekiel's structure in the sign-acts: chs. 4-5; 12.1-6; 21.13-22. Each of these sign-acts contained a plethora of nonverbal actions which occurred sequentially as well as concurrently. The greater complexity is reflected by both figurative and representational actions combined in concurrent occurrence such as the figurative iron griddle in combination with the representational model siege (Ezek. 4.1-3), the figurative lying on the side performed with the representational portrayals of eating (Ezek. 4.4-17), the figurative use of the hair in conjunction with the representational features of burning and smiting (Ezek. 5.1-4), and the representational action of carrying out the baggage along with the figurative covering of the eyes (Ezek. 12.6). The complexity is also manifested in the shift in roles which occurred in the midst of the actions. At times he assumed more than one role while performing concurrent actions: while lying on his side and eating, Ezekiel performed in the role of the people, yet while looking at the iron griddle and besieged model city, he performed in the divine role (Ezek. 4.4-8); while shaving his head he assumed both the role of the people, by being the one shaved, and also the divine role, by doing the shaving (Ezek. 5.1). The role shift also occurred in the sequential performances: in the activities with the baggage, Ezekiel performed as the Jerusalemites going into exile, but when digging through the wall, as the Babylonian besiegers (Ezek. 12.1-16); when crying out and wailing (Ezek. 21.17), he displayed the emotions the people should have, but when clapping (Ezek. 21.19, 22), the divine emotive behavior. Because of the multiplicity of examples of sign-act conglomerates which have a high degree of complexity, such a stylistic feature can be assumed to have been a constituent aspect of Ezekiel's nonverbal performances, and not merely the product of editorial additions to the literary accounts.

454

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Clearly the single actions were easier for an audience to comprehend because of the staticity both in type of coding (figurative or representational) and in role performance. With many of the single actions, the ease of comprehension was countered by their being figurative actions which had higher degrees of ambiguity as to meaning and application (see Chapter 4 §2.2). The complexes of actions required far more thought for the audience to discern the proper meanings, especially when the codings and role performances fluctuated. Although the actions' complexities may have hindered comprehension, by demanding greater audience cognitive activity and attention, such a style may have aided in maintaining attention52 and gaining acceptance. The conglomerates which had a high degree of complexity (Ezek. 4-5; 12.1-16) were generally representational in nature, and such made the understanding easier since the basic meaning of the individual actions could be more clearly discerned. 2.3.2.3.2 Nonverbal Elements Preceded Verbal. Frequently the nonverbal actions preceded the accompanying verbal communication (Jer. 32; 35; Ezek. 12.1-16; 21.11-12; 24.15-23; 37.15-23; the initial performance of the actions in Jer. 16.1-9; 27; Ezek. 4.1-3; see Chapter 3 §5.1.). In those cases, the full import of the meanings, and frequently the applications, came at the end of the communication events via the verbal proclamations. The coordination of the nonverbal and verbal therefore had a building effect: the nonverbal attracted the audience's attention, conveyed the message in an ambiguous manner, caused the audience to think about the action as they attempted to ascertain its meaning, then through the verbal channel, full comprehension was given. Although from the standpoint of comprehension and direct audience application, the nonverbal preceding the verbal formed a climactic sequence as it moved from ambiguity to full comprehension, when viewed from the standpoint of attention and retention, a different perspective arises. Because of the highly dramatic and emotion-arousing nature of the nonverbal behaviors, the performance of the nonverbal at the beginning probably evoked a greater empathetic emotive response than a verbal-nonverbal sequence would have. As the communication 52. Cf. Garner (1980: 69) that complexity tends to ensure more attentiveness from an audience.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

455

events began, the audiences were confronted with incongruous, highly intense, and frequently inexplicable nonverbal actions which allowed for cognitive and emotional involvement. Thus from the standpoint of attention and retention, the nonverbal preceding the verbal formed an anticlimax sequence in that the emotional engagement at the beginning during the nonverbal was greater than during the verbal explanation at the end. Studies show that both forms of sequence, climax and anticlimax, are about equal in the amount of persuasive impact. The climax has a slight advantage over the anticlimax, but both have a greater effect over the climax occurring in the middle, known as the 'pyramidal order'.53 2.3.2.4 Incentives. The promise of reward or punishment plays a decisive role in whether an audience is persuaded to accept the position being espoused by the rhetor. The greater the incentive, the greater is the produced degree of desire to alter one's previous position.54 In the portrayals of impending judgment (the 'threat appeals'), Jeremiah and Ezekiel vividly depicted the harsh rigors of siege life (Ezek. 4.9-11; 12.17-20), the certainty of death or dispersion (Ezek. 5.2), the resulting loneliness (Jer. 16.1-13), and the undesirableness of exilic life (Ezek. 4.12). In the pre-586 BCE situation, Ezekiel also depicted the divine dispositions behind the acts of judgment as those of antagonistic determination (Ezek. 4.3, 7: the iron griddle and setting the face) and anger (Ezek. 6.11; 21.19: clapping the hands, stomping the feet). In those cases, the incentive to generate change was that punishment would occur if no modification in belief or behavior was made. In the messages of hope (Jer. 32; Ezek. 24.25-27; 37.15-28), the incentive was that of reward—personal possession of land, renewal of the covenantal dialogue with God, and reunification of the people. Those issues focused on the people's longings and desires, and promised an eventual fulfilment of them. 53. Cf. Bettinghaus 1968: 152-53. For other studies of the persuasive effect of climactic or anticlimactic order, see Hovland et al. 1953: 113-16; McGuire 1973: 236-37; Minnick 1968: 261-63; Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 77-79. 54. One of the six factors cited by Bitzer (1980: 32-33) which influences the desire to change is that greater incentives heighten that interest: The urgency of a particular exigence depends on the intrinsic quality of the specific interest involved; pain and fear, for example, are normally more powerful than curiosity and selfesteem.' Cf. also Miller 1980: 12-13.

456

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Both of the incentive-types of punishment and reward employed by the two prophets should have been very powerful motivators in influencing the audiences. In the sign-acts which depicted judgment, the punishment-incentive was enhanced as a motivating factor in the suasive process by the judgment being presented as utterly extensive, extreme, and frightening in its effects, in that the destruction would be total, and the number of deaths enormous. In the sign-acts which depicted restoration, the reward-incentive was enhanced by the circumstances in which the presentations were given. The messages occurred in the contexts of the people's separation from their homeland, and of the disintegration of the social, political and religious institutions. 2.4 Retention In order for an audience, which is unpersuaded by the specific communication event, to be subsequently convinced, and for a persuaded audience to remain so, the speaker must employ elements which will assist the audience in remembering and mentally recreating the message at subsequent times. 2.4.1 Dramatic Quality. Since increased retention corresponds to the degree of vividness of the material (cf. Hovland et al. 1953: 246-47), the dramatic nature of the sign-acts was one factor which would have enabled them to be remembered for quite some time. The sign-acts were contrary to the normal manner of doing things or incorporated some aspect which was totally incongruous (see Chapter 4 §§2.1 and 2.3.2.1.1), so they were obviously quite noticeable and memorable. Not only the incongruous quality, but also the visual quality of the sign-acts would have aided in audience retention, since visual stimuli are remembered longer than verbal stimuli (cf. Gropper 1963: 86-88; Hartman 1961: 238, 241). 2.4.2 Repetition. Repetition of a message is conducive to its being remembered and therefore having a long-term persuasive effect on an audience.55 Many of the sign-acts were repetitiously performed over

55. Cf. Petty and Cacioppo (1981: 79): 'repetition should enhance the total attention to, comprehension of, and retention of a message'. On the persuasive import of repetition, see also Hovland et al. 1953: 247; McGuire 1973: 235; Perloff and Brook 1980: 74; Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 239-40, 248, 265.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

457

extended periods of time: Jeremiah's celibacy (Jer. 16.2) and refrainment from attending feasts and funerals (16.5, 8) were long-term commitments during the years prior to the city's destruction; Jeremiah wore the yoke (Jer. 27.2) until Hananiah broke it (28.1-11); Ezekiel's speechlessness (3.26) continued for several years; the complex of actions of Ezekiel chs. 4-5 continued for over a year; Ezekiel's trembling while eating (12.17-20) was undoubtedly a repeated, rather than a single, occurrence; when his wife died, Ezekiel refrained from the normal mourning customs (Ezek. 24.15-24) which extended for at least a week and possibly longer. Repetition had the effect of constantly placing the actions before the audiences so that the spectators were continually confronted with the messages and had to think repeatedly about the messages and their implications.56 But there is also the danger that too much repetition will have the opposite effect of producing tedium or even a negative reaction to a message.57 These counterproductive results cannot be ruled out in the cases of such long-term behaviors as Jeremiah's lifestyle of celibacy and lack of involvement at certain social occasions (Jer. 16.2, 5, 8), Ezekiel's monotonous display of the siege and exile (Ezek. 4), and his speechlessness (Ezek. 3.26). Even though repetition of a message reaches an asymptote of positive suasive effect for a particular audience, 'repetition may well be efficacious up to a high level when one has a changing audience' (McGuire 1973: 235) since it exposes successive recipients to the message. This seems to have been the case of Jeremiah's wearing the yoke (Jer. 27) as it was used to address several audiences: the foreign ambassadors, Zedekiah, the people of Jerusalem. Similarly it can be assumed that one of the purposes of the repetitious extended enactments of other of the prophetic sign-acts was the practical function of giving the nonverbal communication wider audience exposure. 2.4.3 Use of Everyday Objects and Situations. In emotion-arousing appeals, the intention is that the content cues, which in the case of the 56. Cf. Petty and Cacioppo (1981: 265): The more a message is repeated... the greater the opportunity the person has to think about the message content.' Cf. also Perloff and Brook 1980: 74. 57. Cf. Petty and Cacioppo (1981: 239): 'at the highest level of repetition, counterargumentation increased, and the production of favorable thoughts decreased'. Cf. also Hovland et al. 1953: 247; Perloff and Brook 1980: 74.

458

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

prophetic sign-acts were the nonverbal artifacts and actions, will lead to emotional reactions. More specifically, a threat appeal strengthens this connection between the rhetor's content cue and the audience's resultant emotional response because such an appeal explicitly presents, in an emotion-arousing manner, the potential unfavorable consequences of what will happen if the audience does not correlate their view with that of the rhetor (cf. Hovland et al. 1953: 65). Once this sequence of the cue producing an emotional reaction has been established, even after the initial content cue is no longer present, subsequent reminders of the content cue can trigger the same emotional response. Thus in the cases in which the prophets employed everyday objects, situations and emotional displays, even after the prophets' performances had ceased, those things, although found in different and noncommunicative contexts, could still elicit similar emotional responses causing the people to remember and rethink the prophetic actions (cf. Clerc 1985: 117-19). (1) Everyday objects: When Jeremiah used a waist-sash (Jer. 13.111), he utilized a common article of clothing worn daily by the men. The very act of wearing such by the audience had the potential of being a reminder of the meaning which Jeremiah attached to the wearing and the subsequent destruction of that article of clothing. When Jeremiah shattered the jar (Jer. 19.1-13), he used a common household utensil. Whenever ajar was intentionally or unintentionally broken by the spectators, they could have been reminded of Jeremiah's action which showed the city's destruction. Jeremiah's employment of the yoke (Jer. 27.2) involved a very common agricultural object which was probably seen and employed frequently by some members of his audience. Thus every observed yoke became a potential, tangible reminder of Jeremiah's message to continue submission to Babylon. To depict the reunification of the people, Ezekiel used two pieces of wood (Ezek. 37.15-23), reminiscent of the staves commonly used by the people. Their own staves were potential cues which could remind the spectators of Ezekiel's message. (2) Common circumstances: Jeremiah's not taking a wife and not attending feasts or funerals (Jer. 16.1-9) focused on common and frequent social customs and obligations. Thus every marriage or death became a potential reminder of Jeremiah's unusual behaviors regarding those circumstances. Similarly Ezekiel used the occasion of his wife's death to demonstrate to the people their proper response to Jerusalem's destruction (Ezek. 24.15-24). Every other death within the exilic

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

459

community prior to Jerusalem's destruction could have served as an emotionally laden reminder of Ezekiel's manipulation of the mourning customs to communicate about the people's behavior. To portray the message of hope, Jeremiah purchased a field (Jer. 32), thus employing a common legal practice. Any subsequent legal transfer of ownership of a piece of land should have been a catalyst for the audience to rethink Jeremiah's incongruous, but hopeful, message. Ezekiel used the daily occurrence of eating and drinking (Ezek. 4.9-17; 12.17-20). So meals had the potential of becoming, for the exilic audience, reminders of the siege and exile conditions portrayed by Ezekiel. Ezekiel, in his speechlessness (Ezek. 3.26), linked the message to the people's normal conversational activity and specifically to the people's attempts to enter into dialogue with God. Even Ezekiel's acts of lying on his sides (Ezek. 4.4-6) had its counterpart in the daily activity of the people. The audience's normal activity of reclining became an avenue for them to remember Ezekiel's message of their bearing the culpability for and consequences of the divine punishment. (3) Conventional displays of emotion: In displaying to the people the divine dispositions or the emotional responses which they should be having, Ezekiel employed conventional external manifestations of emotions which were employed by the people themselves on various occasions. Thus, whenever the people subsequently displayed, or saw displayed, anger through clapping their hands and stomping their feet (Ezek. 6.11-12; 21.19) or hostile intent by setting their faces and baring their arms (Ezek. 4.3, 7), those actions could have become reminders of what Ezekiel presented as divine dispositions. When they expressed sorrow through the paralinguistic behaviors of groaning and wailing (Ezek. 21.11-12; 21.17) or the bodily action of striking the thigh (Ezek. 21.17), they were displaying the identical attitudes which Ezekiel exhorted them to have in light of the impending judgment. 2.4.4 Residual Reminders. The sign-acts of the two prophets were not only anchored in the people's memories through everyday objects and circumstances, but also through 'residual reminders'. 'Residual reminders' were the sensory nonverbal items which resulted directly from the original actions but persisted after the communication events had been fully completed. Their presence during the ensuing periods would have continued to evoke similar emotional responses and to refocus the audiences' attention on the previous actions.

460

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Although the injunction to shave his head (Ezek. 5.1-2) would have only taken a short time, it would have taken several weeks for the prophet's hair to once again grow back. Thus during that time there was a continual, visual reminder of the previously performed action. After having dug through his house wall (Ezek. 12.1-16), even though the action was quickly completed, until the wall was repaired, the hole was still visible and thus formed a residual reminder. Even after the hole had been repaired, the repair work may have been noticeable. Due to the nature of the road marker employed, it is possible that after he proclaimed the message of the Babylonian king choosing to go first to Jerusalem (Ezek. 21.23-29), Ezekiel left the roads and the marker in place. So for a time those evidences of the sign-act would have been noticeable by whoever passed that locale, and therefore could have brought Ezekiel's message back into the conscious awareness of the observer. After having joined the two engraved sticks together (Ezek. 37.15-23), Ezekiel continued to carry them with him. Although the action of binding the two pieces of wood together was not recreated, the continued, and readily observable, presence of the unified wood functioned as a residual reminder of the communicated message of hope. Not only inanimate objects, but also people were employed in the sign-acts, and their subsequent presence constituted residual reminders. Jeremiah drew attention to the Rechabites' faithfulness (Jer. 35.1-15). Thus whenever the Rechabites were seen around Jerusalem, the audience would have been stimulated to think about Jeremiah's indictment against the Judahites for their lack of fidelity to God. The specific locales at which the actions were performed also served as residual reminders. Thus the locale of the Potsherd Gate in Jerusalem where Jeremiah shattered the jar (Jer. 19.2), along with the pottery shards strewn throughout the area, were residual reminders of Jeremiah's figurative pronouncement of the city's destruction. Although the stones which Jeremiah buried in the pavement (Jer. 43.9) and the scroll which was sunk in the Euphrates (Jer. 51.63) were not visible, the prophecies' focus on the locales made the places residual reminders, respectively, of the coming Babylonian invasion and of Babylon's demise. Through the residual reminders, the rhetorical effects of the acts extended beyond the initial emotional impacts and aided in the retention of the messages.

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

461

3. Audience Response 3.1 Kinds of Audience Response In all of the accounts of the sign-acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, only five contain any reference to an audience response. Four of these are the audiences' questions to Ezekiel after the nonverbal behaviors but prior to any verbal interpretations: Ezek. 12.9, 'What are you doing?'; Ezek. 21.12, 'Why do you groan?'; Ezek. 24.19, 'Will you not tell us what these things [mean] for us since you are doing [them]?'; Ezek. 37.18, 'Will you not declare to us what you mean by these?' These responses indicate that the audiences' attention was aroused and focused on the meanings of the actions; the audiences did not ascertain the communicative meaning of the actions; the audiences' interest in the messages was sufficiently aroused that they actively sought further clarifications. Thus, the audiences had a high level of curiosity about Ezekiel's messages, and also initially a fair degree of openness to receiving the messages. But none of those responses indicates whether the audiences were actually persuaded, nor do the accounts give any audience reaction which arose subsequent to Ezekiel's verbal interpretations of the nonverbal actions. The only such audience response is Hananiah's to Jeremiah's wearing the yoke (Jer. 28.1-4, 10-11). In that case, Jeremiah's action did not persuade the portion of the audience represented by Hananiah. Rather Jeremiah's action produced a strong negative reaction which further entrenched the audience in its pre-message opinions of an impending end to the exile and of independence from Babylon (28.3-4, 11). The other accounts of audience responses to other verbal messages of Jeremiah and Ezekiel indicate similar responses: (1) the prophecies were dismissed as currently irrelevant (Jer. 17.15; Ezek. 12.21-25, 2628); (2) the prophecies were unheeded and dismissed as incorrect advice (Jer. 43.1-7; 18.18; Ezek. 21.5; 33.30-33; cf. also Ezek. 2.3-7; 3.7; 12.2); (3) the prophecies produced strong negative reactions directed against both the messages and the prophets (Jer. 11.18-19, 21; 12.6; 15.15, 20; 18.18, 20-23; 20.1-2; 26.10-11, 16; 29.24-28; 32.2-5; 36.26; 38.1-6, 14-15; cf. also Jer. 1.19; Ezek. 2.6). The whole thrust of the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel is that the two prophets' pre-586 BCE messages were not heeded, and such is evidenced by the fact that the historical reality of the destruction was not averted and more people were not spared from it.

462

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Since an audience is not merely a passive recipient of a communicated message but an active interactant in the persuasion process, even the best rhetorical strategies may not achieve their desired goals. This is more frequently the case when the issues are those of high audience involvement, as were those addressed by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 3.2 Reasons for the Audience Response Utilizing the theories of cognitive dissonance and psychological reactance,58 several factors will be presented as viable possibilities as to why Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's audiences were motivated to negative, unpersuaded responses to the sign-acts. Dissonance is defined as 'the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions' which are 'any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one's behavior' (Festinger 1957: 3). When dissonance is aroused, then the person will respond in one of three ways (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 138; Festinger 1957: 5-6, 18-24, 264-65): (1) the person will adopt the message-position by altering the behavior or attitude against which the message argues; (2) the person will reject the message-position by counterarguing and continue the behavior or attitude; (3) the person will minimize the disparate aspects of the rhetor's position by asserting that continued behavior outweighs the threats of the message. The latter two response are even more the case when the audience is confronted with a very emotionally arousing threat. In the case of 'threat appeals', the receiver is often motivated to reestablish the behavior or attitude which is so threatened, ignore the message, or justify his or her pre-message position by discrediting either the message-content (it is false or improbable)59 or the source. In the latter instance, the reaction against the source will frequently take the form of cognitive, emotional or physical aggression against the speaker.60 Thus there is the 58. On these theories, see Bettinghaus 1968: 66-75; Brembeck and Howell 1976: 132-39; Festinger 1957; Minnick 1968: 114-15; Petty and Cacioppo 1981: 137-60. On the application of the theory of cognitive dissonance specifically to prophetic messages, see Carroll 1979, 1980. 59. Cf. McGuire 1973: 234: 'high levels of fear arousal might make the hearer so anxious that his comprehension of the recommendations would be interfered with or he would repress the whole topic'. Cf. also Hovland et al. 1953: 88, 271. 60. Cf. Hovlandet al.(1953: 79): 'When exposed to an anxiety-arousing communication, communicatees will occasionally react to the unpleasant ("punishing")

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

463

tendency for an audience to react negatively to extremely intense messages, which are those which express certainty rather than probability and indicate extremity (cf. Bettinghaus 1968: 139-41; Burgoon and Bettinghaus 1980: 151-53), as were the 'threat appeals' employed in Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts (see Chapter 4 §2.3.2.2.2). Rather than persuading persons to alter their attitudes or behaviors, such messages unintentionally cause the persons to reinforce their pre-message positions.61 The pre-586 BCE sign-acts which focused on the destruction or Babylonian submission must have produced dissonance internally within each of the spectators who held views contrary to Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's since the two prophets challenged the audiences' personal choices and presuppositions and implied that such were responsible for the impending fall of Jerusalem and continued existence in exile. The prophets' positions were so diametrically opposite to the audiences' that the people could not merely incorporate the former into their own ideology without first abandoning their held theological presuppositions. The manner of alleviating the dissonance by arguing against the message and persisting in the pre-message attitude and belief (dissonance response no. 2) was apparently one of the common responses to the two prophets' sign-acts as is clearly evidenced by Hananiah's reaction (Jer. 28.1-11). Countering not only the message-content, but attacking the experience by becoming aggressive toward the communicator. If the communicator is perceived as being responsible for producing painful feelings, aggression is likely to take the form of rejecting his statements.' Cf. also Bauer 1973: 150; Brembeck and Howell 1976: 153; Hovland et al 1953: 86-88; Minnick 1968: 114, 169-70, 240; White 1980a: 11. 61. Cf. Hovland et al. (1953: 78): 'when a communication produces a high degree of emotional tension, the audience may distort the meaning of what is being said or engage in overt escape activities which interfere with acceptance of the communicator's recommendations. Unintended effects of this kind can be regarded as spontaneous defensive reactions which are motivated by unreduced emotional tension... Consequently, beliefs and opinions other than the ones advocated in the communication may be reinforced and the communicator may fail to produce the desired effect. A strong threat appeal which is intended to motivate the audience to take account of a realistic possibility of danger could have the unintended effect of motivating the audience to adopt "magical", "wishful", or other types of reassuring beliefs that are antithetical to the communicator's purpose.' Cf. also Brembeck and Howell 1976: 151-52; Hovland et al. 1953: 88-89.

464

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

speaker is evidenced in the threats of physical violence placed on Jeremiah's life in response to other prophecies which he gave (e.g. Jer. 11.21; 20.2; 26.10-11, 16; 29.24-28; 32.2-5; 36.26; 38.1-6). Those types of responses against the messages and against the prophets can be fully understood as emotion-reducing actions on the part of the audiences rather than attempts to thwart any inherent 'efficacious power' in the prophetic messages. In threat appeals, if the emotional tension is not adequately reduced through reassurances, there is the tendency of an audience, as noted in dissonance response no. 3 above, to find a way to reduce the tension and this often occurs through minimizing the threat (cf. Hovland et al. 1953: 67, 77-78, 88-89; Minnick 1968: 240). The threat is usually minimized through perceiving it as temporarily remote, discounting it as unimportant ('even if it happens, it won't be so bad'), or as inapplicable to oneself (cf. Hovland et al. 1953: 67). This form of minimizing is seen in the audience responses to other prophecies of Ezekiel that his messages, although considered valid, were not considered directly applicable to the current situation (Ezek. 12.21-25, 26-28; cf. also Jer. 17.15). Part of the audiences' reactions to Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts may have resulted from the condition that the prophets did not give any explicit reassurances to alleviate the fear aroused by the threat appeals (see Chapter 4 §2.3.2.2.2). Also, if the audience perceives the reassurance as not being substantial enough, the audience's emotional tension may not be reduced (cf. Hovland et al, 1953: 77-78), thus diminishing the effectiveness of the persuasive intent. The prophets did not give any substantial reassurance of survival for those living in Jerusalem. Even the references to exile were diminished as tension-eliminating factors since the prophets' presentations focused on the exile as being part of the judgment, on the result that only a few would survive to go into exile, and on the reality that other forms of punishment would continue into the exile. The exile was also never presented as a circumstance out of which the immediate exiles would escape, for any return to Judah would only occur after the current generation was deceased. Without any explicit statements (e.g. calls to repentance) as to how the threats might be averted, the people were allowed to draw their own conclusions and applications from the depicted actions. It is possible that the people did not draw the implications intended by the prophets that the threats would be reduced by changing their attitudes

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

465

and behaviors to accord with what the prophets said (dissonance response no. 1). 3.3 Audience Response and Rhetorical Success From the standpoint of results, the sign-acts of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, as well as their other verbal proclamations, did not succeed in the intent of immediately persuading the majority of the audience members to alter their belief systems or behaviors. In communicating messages with which the people vehemently disagreed, even the best of the prophets' rhetorical strategies were apparently incapable of altering the people's preconceived mindsets. The lack of audience persuasion can be accounted for as being due, not to the prophets' lack of suasive intent or techniques, but to the resilience of the people's beliefs. It must be noted that rhetoric is defined from the rhetor's intent to persuade, not by audience response: 'Persuasive in this sense refers to intent, not necessarily to accomplishment... Whether a given discourse actually exerts an influence has no bearing on whether it is rhetorical' (Black 1978: 15).62 According to the rhetorical situation model, successful rhetoric is not measured by the results of whether the audience altered its position, but rather by the appropriateness of the message in addressing the exigences of the situation.63 A 'fitting response' is defined by Bitzer (1980: 36-37) as having two aspects: (1) it 'fits' in the sense of being a corrective to the rhetorical situation's exigence, or (2) it 'fits' because the rhetorical situation enables it to be well received.64 He goes on to state that '[r]hetorical situations invite responses which fit in both ways, but of the two, the "corrective" is essential' (1980: 37). Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts were not 'fitting responses' in the second sense of being well received because the immediate audiences did not bring their beliefs into conformity with those of the two prophets. But the prophets' messages, communicated via the sign-acts, were appropriate in the sense that they presented correctives to the exigences of the people's theological presuppositions. Presumably, if the pre-586 BCE audiences had altered their beliefs and behaviors to be in concurrence with those expressed by the two prophets and had 62. Cf. also Bettinghaus 1968: 13; Minnick 1968: 19; Oliver 1957: 8; Scott 1980: 39-40. 63. Cf. Bitzer 1968: 10-11; 1980: 36-37; Brinton 1981: 238; White 1980a: 1617. 64. Bitzer is here following Burke (1931), who he quotes.

466

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

heeded the prophet's warnings and advice, then the outworkings of the historical situation would have been different in that the city would not have been utterly destroyed at that time. In this sense, the prophets' 'fitting responses' are not evaluated according to the specific success of the suasive strategies employed in the sign-acts, but rather by the appropriateness of the rhetorical intent of the nonverbal communication. Bitzer (1980: 37) also points out '[cjritics often see the fit between situation and response only in retrospect'. Such seems to be the case with Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Although the pre-586 BCE 'false' prophets, such as Hananiah, undoubtedly convinced more people to believe their messages of peace and hope, it was Jeremiah and Ezekiel who were vindicated as having accurately evaluated and rhetorically addressed the exigences of their contemporary situations. As evidenced by the preservation and transmission of both prophets' messages, it was only the subsequent community which, in retrospect, adequately evaluated the fitness of the messages to the actual happenings. The subsequent generations' acceptance of the two prophets' messages was certainly determined not by the amount of approval which the prophets received from their immediate audiences, but by the appropriateness of the prophetic messages to the addressed historical conditions. Such an evaluation of the appropriateness of the messages by the believing community was not based on the specific rhetorical techniques and strategies employed by the prophets, but rather on the basis of the theology in the messages. But the theological content of the prophets' sign-acts was part of the rhetoric, especially since the exigences, against which the sign-acts were directed, were theological in nature. The following generations were convinced that Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's perspectives provided fitting responses which made the tragedy of Jerusalem's destruction an avoidable situation, provided appropriate theological explanations for the tragedy, and provided bases for hope for the Babylonian exiles. 4. Conclusion This study has focused on Jeremiah and Ezekiel as communicators and rhetors in their use of the sign-acts. Their intent in employing the nonverbal channel did not stem from any inherently 'efficacious' nature of the actions, but from the ability of the nonverbal behaviors to communicate graphically specifiable message-contents. Since the intent of the prophetic messages was also suasive (interactive), the sign-acts served

4. The Rhetoric of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

467

the two prophets effectively as rhetorical vehicles in addressing the perceived exigences of the people's theological presuppositions. The sign-acts were adaptable to be used to transmit messages not only of judgment, but also of hope. The sign-acts therefore proved to be an acceptable means of addressing the exigences, not only prior to, but also subsequent to, the fall of Jerusalem when the circumstances and exigences were altered by the execution of the divine judgment on Judah. Also in response to different exigences which constituted other rhetorical situations, other biblical prophets also employed sign-acts to present their messages (e.g. Isa. 20.1-6; 1 Kgs 11.29-31; Hos. 1.2-9; 3.1-5). They too undoubtedly did so for communicative and rhetorical purposes. It is hoped that this analysis of Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's sign-acts according to models of nonverbal communication and rhetoric has contributed to a better understanding of both, generally, the processes involved in the transmission of prophetic messages and, specifically, of Jeremiah and Ezekiel as suasive communicators.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramski, Shula 1985 '(7, T'D 'PKpTlT) noun ^ ^nK DTO DI p]«n', BetMikra 88: 15. Ackerman, Susan 1989 'AMarzeah in Ezekiel 8:7-13?', #77? 82: 267-81. Ackroyd, Peter R. 1987 'The Temple Vessels: A Continuity Theme', in idem, Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM Press): 46-60. Ackroyd, P.R., J. Bergman and W. von Soden 1986 'T yad;...\ in TDOT, V: 393-426. Adler, Joshua 1990-91 The Symbolic Acts of Ezekiel (Chapts. 3-5)', Jewish Bible Quarterly 19: 120-22. Alfrink, B. 1948 'Prefect en symbolische Handeling', Studia Catholica 23: 42-48. Allen, Leslie C. 1989 The Rejected Sceptre in Ezekiel XXI 15b, 18a', VT 39: 67-71. 1990 Ezekiel 20-48 (WBC, 20; Dallas: Word Books). 1994 Ezekiel 1-19 (WBC, 19; Dallas: Word Books). Alonso Schb'kel, L. 1988 A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Subsidia Biblica, 11; trans. A. Graffy and L. Alonso Schokel; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico). Althann, R. 1988 'btre'Sttm Jer 26:1, 27:1, 28:1, 49:34', JNSL 14: 1-7. Amiran, Ruth 1970 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press). Amsler, Samuel 1980 'Les prophetes et la communication par les actes', in R. Albertz, H.-P. Miiller, H. Wolff and W. Zimmerli (eds.), Werden und Wirken des Allen Testaments (Festschrift Claus Westermann; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag): 194-201. 1985 Les actes des prophetes (Essais Bibliques, 9; Geneva: Labor et Fides). Anderson, B.W. 1962 'Signs and Wonders', in IDE, IV: 348-51. Applegate, John 1997 ' "Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace": Redactional Integration of Prophecy of Peace into the Judgement of Jeremiah', in Curtis and Romer 1997:51-90.

Bibliography

469

Aull, James S., Sr 1971 'Obey my Voice: A Form-Critical Study of Selected Prose Speeches from the Book of Jeremiah' (PhD Dissertation; Duke University). Aune, David E. 1983 Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Austin, J.L. 1970 'Performative Utterances', in J. Urmson and G. Warnock (eds.), Philosophical Papers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn): 233-52. 1975 How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn). Avigad, Nahman 1978a 'Baruch the Scribe and Jerahmeel the King's Son', IEJ28: 52-56. 1978b 'inn] p imto b2J "\nmiV, Eretz Israel 14: 86-87. 1979 'Jerahmeel and Baruch: King's Son and Scribe', BA 42: 114-18. 1986 Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Avigad, N., and J.C. Greenfield 1982 'A Bronzephiale with a Phoenician Dedicatory Inscription', IEJ 32: 11828. Baentsch, B. 1908 Tathologische Ziige in Israels Prophetentum', ZWT 50: 52-81. Bailey, Randall C. 1991 'Prophetic Use of Omen Motifs: A Preliminary Study', in K. Younger, Jr, W. Hallo and B. Batto (eds.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies, 11; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press): 195-215. Baillet, M., J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux 1962 Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumran Textes (DJD, 3; Oxford: Clarendon Press). Balla, D. Emil 1943 'Jeremia 13 1-11', in C. Schroder (ed.), In Deo Omnia Unum (Festschrift Friedrich Heiler; Munich: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag): 83-110. Barnes, W. Emery 1938 'Two Trees Become One: Ezek. xxxvii 16-17', JTS 39: 391-93. Barr, James 1961 The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Bars tad, Hans M. 1984 The Religious Polemics of Amos: Studies in the Preaching of Am 2,7B-8; 4,1-3; 5,1-27; 6,4-7; 8,14 (VTSup, 34; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Bauer, Johannes B. 1957 'Hes. xxiv 17', VT7: 91-92. Bauer, Raymond A. 1973 The Audience', in de Sola Pool et al. 1973: 141-52. Baumann, Arnulf ll 1977 ?3« 'dbhal; ...', in TDOT, I: 44-48. 1978 T1OT damah II; ...', in TDOT, III: 260-65.

470

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Baumann, D. Eberhard 1953 'Der linnene Schurz Jer 13 1-11', ZAW65: 77-81. Becking, Bob 1989 ' "I will break his yoke from off your neck": Remarks on Jeremiah xxx 4IV, OTS 25: 63-16. Benjamin, Don C. 1994 'A Response to McNutt: "The Kenites, the Midianites, and the Rechabites as Marginal Mediators in Ancient Israelite Tradition" ', Semeia 67: 13345. Benjamin, James 1976 'Performatives as a Rhetorical Construct', Philosophy and Rhetoric 9: 8495. Ben-Mordecai, C.A. 1941 The Iniquity of the Sanctuary: A Study of the Hebrew Term ]U?', JBL 60: 311-14. Benzinger, Immanuel, and Emil G. Hirsch 1904 'Hair.—Biblical Data', in The Jewish Encyclopedia, IV (New York: Funk & Wagnalls): 157-58. Berquist, J.L. 1989 'Prophetic Legitimation in Jeremiah', VT 39: 129-39. Berridge, John M. 1970 Prophet, People, and the Word of Yahweh: An Examination of Form and Content in the Proclamation of the Prophet Jeremiah (Basel Studies of Theology, 4; Zurich: EVZ-Verlag). Bertholet, Alfred 1897 Das Buch Hesekiel (KHAT, 12; Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). Bettinghaus, Erwin P. 1968 Persuasive Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston). Bewer, Julius A. 1936 'DasDatuminHes3321',Z4W54: 114-15. 1951 'Beitrage zur Exegese des Buches Ezechiel', ZAW 63: 193-201. 1953 'Textual and Exegetical Notes on the Book of Ezekiel', JBL 72: 158-68. Beyse, K.-M. 1986 '^Q mdSal', in ThWAT, V: 69-73. Birch, W.F. 1880 'Hiding Places in Canaan. I. Jeremiah's Girdle and Farah', Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 235-36. Bitzer, Lloyd F. 1968 'The Rhetorical Situation', Philosophy and Rhetoric 1: 1-14. 1980 'Functional Communication: A Situational Perspective', in White 1980b: 21-38. Black, Edwin 1978 Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press). 1980 The Mutability of Rhetoric', in White 1980b: 71-85.

Bibliography

471

Blank, Sheldon H. 1974 'The Prophet as Paradigm', in J. Crenshaw and J. Willis (eds.), Essays in Old Testament Ethics (Festschrift J. Philip Hyatt; New York: Ktav): 11330. Blau, Josua 1956 'tiber homonyme und angeblich homonyme Wurzeln', VT 6: 242-48. Block, Daniel I. 1997 The Book ofEzekiel Chapters 1-24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 1998 The Book ofEzekiel Chapters 25-48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Boadt, Lawrence 1986 'Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel's Oracles of Judgment', in Lust 1986: 182-200. Bodi, Daniel 1987 'Terminological and Thematic Comparisons between the Book of Ezekiel and Akkadian Literature with Special Reference to the Poem of Erra' (PhD Dissertation; Union Theological Seminary). 1991 The Book ofEzekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO, 104; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Boecker, Hans J. 1964 Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament (WMANT, 14; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Boehmer, Julius 1909 'Jeremia und der "Euphrat"', TSK 82: 448-58. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice 1995 'Les documents places dans une jarre: Texte court et texte long de Jr 32 (LXX 39)', in G. Dorival and O. Munnich (eds.), KATATOYE O' selon les septante (Festschrift Marguerite Harl; Paris: Cerf): 53-77. Bogaert, P.-M. (ed.) 1981 Le livre de Jeremie (BETL, 54; Leuven: Leuven University Press). Bondt, A. de 1950 'De Linnen Gordel uit Jer. 13:1-11', Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 50: 17-39. Borchardt, Frank L. 1990 Doomsday Speculation as a Strategy of Persuasion: A Study of Apocalypticism as Rhetoric (Studies in Comparative Religion, 4; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press). Borchardt, Ludwig 1929 'Bilder des "Zerbrechens der Kriige" ', Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 64: 12-16. Borger, Riekele 1956 Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Konigs von Assyria (AfO, 9; Graz: Selbstverlage des Herausgebers). Born, Adrianus van den 1935 De symbolische handelingen der oud-testamentische profeten(UtrechtNijmegen: N.V. Dekker & Van de Vegt). 1946 'Zu den symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten', Schweizerische Kirchen-Zeitung 114: 339-41, 351-53.

472

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts 1947

Profetie metterdaad: Een studie over de symbolische handelingen der profeten (Bijbelsche Monographieen; Roermond-Maaseik: J.J. Romen & Zonen). Bosmajian, H. (ed.) 1971 The Rhetoric of Nonverbal Communication: Readings (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman). Bosman, H.L. 1983 'The Rechabites and "Sippenethos" in Jer 35', Theologia Evangelica 16: 83-86. Botha, J. Eugene 1996 'Exploring Gesture and Nonverbal Communication in the Bible and the Ancient World: Some Initial Observations', Neot 30: 1-19. Botterweck, G.J. 1978 'rf?a gillach; ...', in TDOT, III: 5-20. Bourdillon, M.F.C. 1977 'Oracles and Politics in Ancient Israel', Man 12: 124-40. Bourguet, Daniel 1987a Des metaphores de Jeremie (EBib, NS 9; Paris: J. Gabalda). 1987b 'La metaphore de la ceinture', ETR 62: 165-84. Bourquin, Dominique 1979 To Talk of Mime...', in Rolfe 1979c: 3-5. Bowker, J.W. 1964 'Prophetic Action and Sacramental Form', SE 3: 129-37. Bratsiotis, N.P. 1977 '2TK 'ish; HCSK 'ishshah', in TDOT, I: 222-35. Brembeck, Winston L., and William S. Howell 1976 Persuasion: A Means of Social Influence (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2nd edn). Bright, John 1965 Jeremiah (AB, 21; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). 1972 A History of Israel(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn). 1976 Covenant and Promise: The Prophetic Understanding of the Future in Pre-Exilic Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press). Brinton, Alan 1981 'Situation in the Theory of Rhetoric', Philosophy and Rhetoric 14: 23448. Bron, Bernhard 1981 'Zur Psychopathologie und Verkiindigung des Propheten Ezechiel: Zum Phanomen der prophetischen Ekstase', Schweizer Archiv fur Neurologic, Neurochirurgie und Psychiatric 128: 21-31. Brongers, H.A. 1981 'Some Remarks on the Biblical Particle h"lo", OTS 31: 177-89. Bronner, Leah 1971 'The Rechabites: A Sect in Biblical Times', in I. Eybers, F. Fensham, C. Labuschagne, W. van Wyk and A. van Zyl (eds.), De fructu oris sui (Festschrift Adrianus van Selms; Pretoria Oriental Series, 9; Leiden: EJ. Brill): 6-16.

Bibliography

473

Broome, Edwin C., Jr 1946 'Ezekiel's Abnormal Personality', JBL 65: 277-92. Brownlee, William H. 1978 'Ezekiel's Parable of the Watchman and the Editing of Ezekiel', VT 28: 392-408. 1983 ' "Son of Man Set your Face," Ezekiel the Refugee Prophet', HUCA 54: 83-110. 1986 Ezekiel 1-19 (WBC, 28; Waco, TX: Word Books). Brueggemann, Walter 1977 The Land (Overtures to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 1978 The Prophetic Imagination (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 1983 'The Book of Jeremiah: Portrait of the Prophet', Int 37: 130-45. 1986 Hopeful Imagination: Prophetic Voices in Exile (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 1988 To Pluck Up, to Tear Down: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 125 (International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 1991 To Build, to Plant: A Commentary on Jeremiah 26-52 (International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing). 1996 'A "Characteristic" Reflection on What Comes Next (Jeremiah 32.1644)', in S. Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms (Festschrift Gene Tucker; JSOTSup, 229; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 16-32. Bruneau, Thomas J. 1973 'Communicative Silences: Forms and Functions', Journal of Communication 23: 17-46. Bryan, David B. 1973 'Texts Relating to the Marzeah: A Study of an Ancient Semitic Institution' (PhD Dissertation; Johns Hopkins University). Budde, C. 1878 'Ueber die Capitel 50 und 51 des Buches Jeremia', Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie 23: 428-70, 529-62. Budge, Ernest A.W. 1933 The Alexander Book in Ethiopia (London: Oxford University Press). Burgoon, Michael and Erwin P. Bettinghaus 1980 'Persuasive Message Strategies', in Roloff and Miller 1980: 141-69. Burke, Kenneth 1931 Counter-Statement (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Buttenwieser, Moses 1930 'The Date and Character of Ezekiel's Prophecies', HUCA 7: 1-18. Buzy, D. 1923 Les symboles de I'Ancien Testament (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre). Carley, Keith W. 1975 Ezekiel among the Prophets: A Study of Ezekiel's Place in Prophetic Tradition (SET, 2nd Series, 31; Naperville, IL: Allenson). Carroll, Robert P. 1976 'A Non-Cogent Argument in Jeremiah's Oracles against the Prophets', ST 30:43-51. 1979 When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament (New York: Seabury).

474

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts 1980 1981 1986 1991

'Prophecy and Dissonance: A Theoretical Approach to the Prophetic Tradition', ZAW 92: 108-19. From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Crossroad). Jeremiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press). Textual Strategies and Ideology in the Second Temple Period', in P. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies. I. Persian Period (JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 108-24.

Cassem, Ned H. 1973 'Ezekiel's Psychotic Personality: Reservations on the Use of the Couch for Biblical Personalities', in R. Clifford and G. MacRae (eds.), The Word in the World (Festschrift Frederick L. Moriarty; Cambridge, MA: Weston College Press): 59-70. Chang, Peter M. 1984 'Jeremiah's Hope in Action: An Exposition of Jeremiah 32:1-15', East Asia Journal of Theology 2: 244-50. Clark, Douglas R. 1984 'The Citations in the Book of Ezekiel: An Investigation into Method, Audience, and Message' (PhD Dissertation; Vanderbilt University). Clements, Ronald E. 1988 Jeremiah (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox Press). Clerc, Danielle 1985 'Des actes pour parler', in R. Blanche! et al., Jeremie: Un prophete en temps de crise (Essais Bibliques, 10; Geneva: Labor et Fides): 107-47. Columbia Law Review 1971 'Symbolic Conduct', in Bosmajian 1971: 118-41. Cooke, G.A. 1936 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; repr.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1970). Cooper, Lamar E., Sr 1994 Ezekiel (The New American Commentary, 17; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman). Cooper, Wendy 1971 Hair (Sex, Society, Symbolism) (London: Aldus Books). Cornill, Carl H. 1886 Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). 1905 Das Buch Jeremia (Leipzig: Chr. Herm. Tauchnitz). Cowley, A. 1923 Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Craigie, Peter, Page Kelly and Joel Drinkard, Jr 1991 Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC, 26; Waco, TX: Word Books). Crenshaw, James L. 1971 Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Criado, Rafael 1948 'Tienen alguna eficacia real las acciones simbolicas de los Profetas?', EstBibl: 167-217.

Bibliography

475

Cronkhite, Gary, and Jo R. Liska 1980 'The Judgment of Communicant Acceptability', in Roloff and Miller 1980: 101-39. Cross, Frank M. 1963 'The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri', BA 26: 110-20. Cummings, J.T. 1979 'The House of the Sons of the Prophets and the Tents of the Rechabites', in E. Livingstone (ed.), Studio Biblica 1978.1. Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes (JSOTSup, 11; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 119-26. Curtis, A., and T. Romer (eds.) 1997 The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception (BETL, 128: Leuven: Leuven University Press). Dahood, Mitchell Textual Problems in Isaia', CBQ 22: 400-409. 1960 1964 'Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography II', Bib 45: 393-412. 1971 'Additional Notes on the MRZH Text', in L. Fisher (ed.), The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets (AnOr, 48; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico): 51-54. Danell, G.A. 1946 Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament (Uppsala: Appelbergs Boktryckeri-A.-B.). Davidson, A.B. 1893 The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Davies, Philip R. 1996 'The Audiences of Prophetic Scrolls: Some Suggestions', in S. Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (JSOTSup, 229; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 48-62. Davies, W.D. 1974 The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California Press). Davis, Ellen F. 1989a Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel's Prophecy (Bible and Literature Series, 21; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). 'Swallowing Hard: Reflections on Ezekiel's Dumbness', in J.C. Exum 1989b (ed.), Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press): 217-37. Deist, F.E. 1971 'The Punishment of the Disobedient Zedekiah', JNSL 1: 71-72. Delitzsch, Friedrich 1885 'Assyriologische Notizen zum Alten Testament. IV. Das Schwertlied Ezech. 21, 13-22', Zeitschriftfur Keilschriftforschung 2: 385-98. Dhorme, Edouard 1963 L'emploi metaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hebreu et en akkadien (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner). Diepold, Peter 1972 Israels Land (BWANT, 15; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer).

476 Douglas, Mary 1966

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (repr.; London: ARK, 1984). Driver, Godfrey R. 'Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel', Bib 19: 60-69, 175-87. 1938 'Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems', Bib 35: 145-59, 299-312. 1954 'Abbreviations in the Massoretic Text', Textus 1: 112-31. 1960 'Once Again Abbreviations', Textus 4: 76-94. 1964 'The Number of the Beast', in S. Wagner (ed.), Bibel und Qumran 1966 (Berlin: Evangelische Haupt- Bibelgesellschaft): 75-81. 'Reviews: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. By 1971 James B. Pritchard...', JTS 22: 548-52. Driver, S.R. The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons). 1907 Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel 1912 (Winona Lake, IN: Alpha, 2nd edn, 1984). Duhm, D.B. 1901 Das Buch Jeremia (KHAT, 11; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). Durand, Jean-Marie 1988 Archives epistolaires de Man I/I(ARM, 26; Paris: Recherche sur les Civilisations). Dybdahl, Jon L. 1981 'Israelite Village Land Tenure: Settlement to Exile' (PhD Dissertation; Fuller Theological Seminary). Dyer, Charles H. 1994 'Waistbands, Water, and the Word of God: Where Did Jeremiah Bury his Girdle?', in C. Dyer and R. Zuck (eds.), Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands (Festschrift Donald Campbell; Grand Rapids, Baker Book House): 62-81. Ebeling, Erich 1949 'Beschworungen gegen den Feind und den bosen Blick aus dem Zweistromlande'.ArOr 17: 172-211. Eichrodt, Walther 1970 Ezekiel (trans. C. Quin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press). Eissfeldt, Otto 1962 'Voraussage-Empfang, Offenbarungs-Gewissheit und Gebetskraft-Erfahrung bei Jeremia', NovT5: 77-81. 1966 'Etymologische und archaologische Erklarung alttestamentlicher Worter', OrAnt 5: 165-76. 1973a 'Kultvereine in Ugarit', in R. Sellheim and F. Maass (eds.), Kleine Schriften, V (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]): 118-26. 1973b 'nriQ und KFinQ "Kultmahlgenossenschaft" im spatjudischen Schrifttum', in R. Sellheim and F. Maass (eds.), Kleine Schriften, V (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]): 136-42. Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesen 1969 'The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding', Semiotica 1: 49-98. 1972 'Hand Movements', Jou mal of Communication 22: 353-74.

Bibliography

477

Ellison, Henry L. 1968 The Prophecy of Jeremiah: XXX Jeremiah's Symbolism', EvQ 40: 3440. Ewald, Georg Heintrich Augst von 1878 Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament, III (trans. J. Frederick Smith; Theological Translation Fund Library, 18; London: Williams & Norgate). Falk, Zeev W. 1959 'Gestures Expressing Affirmation', JSS 4: 268-69. Farbridge, Maurice H. 1923 Studies in Biblical and Semitic Symbolism (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner; New York: E.P. Dutton). Feldman, Emanuel 1977 Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology (Library of Jewish Law and Ethics; New York: Yeshiva University Press & Ktav). Fensham, F. Charles 1963 'Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and KudurruInscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah', ZAW 75: 155-75. Festinger, Leon 1957 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (repr.; Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968). Firth, Raymond 1973 Symbols: Public and Private (London: George Allen & Unwin). Fischer, Leopold 1910 'Die Urkunden in Jer 32 11-14 nach den Ausgrabungen und dem Talmud', ZAW 30: 136-42. Fishbane, Michael A. 1971 'Studies in Biblical Magic: Origins, Uses and Transformations of Terminology and Literary Form' (PhD Dissertation; Brandeis University). Fisher, L.R. 1963 'The Temple Quarter', JSS 8: 34-41. Fohrer, Georg 1951 'Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel', ZAW 63: 33-53. 1952a 'Die Gattung der Berichte iiber symbolische Handlungen der Propheten', ZAW64: 101-20. 1952b Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann). 1955 Ezechiel (HAT, 13; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). 1961 'Remarks on Modern Interpretation of the Prophets', JBL 80: 309-19. 1967 'Prophetic und Magie', in idem, Studien zur altestamentlichen Prophetic (BZAW, 99; Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 242-64. 1968 Die symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 2nd edn). Fox, Michael V. 1973 'Jeremiah 2:2 and the "Desert Ideal" ', CBQ 35: 441-50. 1974 The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly 'ot Etiologies', RB 81: 557-96.

478

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts 1980

The Rhetoric of Ezekiel's Vision of the Valley of the Bones', HUCA 51: 1-15. Fox, W. Sherwood 1912 'Submerged Tabellae Defixionum', AJP 33: 301-10. 1913/14 'Old Testament Parallels to Tabellae Deftxionum', AJSL 30: 111-24. Eraser, Elouise R. 1974 'Symbolic Acts of the Prophets', Studia Biblica et Theologica 4: 45-53. Freedman, D.N., B.E. Willoughby and H.-J. Fabry 1986 'Rfc] (nasff)\...', in ThWAT,V: 626-43. Freedy, Kenneth S. 1970 The Glosses in Ezekiel I-XXIV, VT 20: 129-52. Freedy, K.S., and D.B. Redford 1970 The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources', JAOS 90: 462-85. Frick, Frank S. 1971 The Rechabites Reconsidered', JBL 90: 279-87. Friedman, Richard E. 1979-80 The MRZH Tablet from Ugarit', Maarav 2: 187-206. Frymer, Tikva S. 1977 The Nungal-Hymn and the Ekur-Prison', Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 20: 78-89. Fuente, Olegario Garcia de la 1955 'El contrato de Jeremias (32,6-15): Comparacion con los documentos del Antiguo Oriente', in XV semana biblica espanola (20-25 Sept. 1954): En torno al problema de la escatologia individual del Antiguo Testamento otros estudios (Madrid: Institute Francisco Suarez): 187-212. Fuhs, Hans F. 1984 Ezechiel 1-24 (Die Neue Echter Bibel; Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag). 1986 'Ez 24—Uberlegungen zu Tradition und Redaktion des Ezechielbuches', in Lust 1986: 266-82. Galeotti, Gary A. 1978 'An Interpretive Study of Jeremiah 32: The Purchase of a Field by Jeremiah as a Prophetic Symbolic Act of Hope' (ThD Dissertation; Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary). Galloway, W.B. 1861 Ezekiel's Sign, Metrically Paraphrased and Interpreted, from his Fourth and Fifth Chapters, with Notes: And Elucidations from the Sculptured Slabs of Nineveh (London: Rivingtons). Gamberoni, Johann 1996 ' "...Jonadab, unser Vater, hat uns geboten..."', in K. Backhaus and F. Untergassmair (eds.), Schrift und Tradition (Festschrift Josef Ernst; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schb'ningh): 19-31. Garfinkel, Stephen 1989 'Another Model for Ezekiel's Abnormalities', Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 19: 39-50. Garner, Donald W. 'Forms of Communication in the Book of Ezekiel' (PhD Dissertation; 1980 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary).

Bibliography Garscha, Jorg 1974

479

Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von 139 (Europaihche Hochschulschriften, 23; Bern: Herbert & Peter Lang). Gevaryahu, H.M.I. 1970 'K~lpan •VTa onSDI nnslO ^ rmun tnir, BetMikra 43: 368-74. 1975 'Biblical Colophons: A Source for the "Biography" of Authors, Texts and Books', in A. Alonso Schokel et al., Congress Volume: Edinburgh, 1974 (VTSup, 28; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 42-59. Gilbert, Jim B. 1985 'A Reevaluation of Magic in Israel and the Ancient Near East in Light of Contemporary Anthropological Studies' (PhD Dissertation; Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary). Gitay, Yehoshua 1996 The Realm of Prophetic Rhetoric', in S. Porter and T. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference (JSOTSup, 131; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 218-29. Godbey, Allen H. 1923 'The Hebrew MaSal\AJSL 39: 89-108. Goldenberg, Robert 1982 The Problem of False Prophecy: Talmudic Interpretations of Jeremiah 28 and 1 Kings 22', in R. Polzin and E. Rothman (eds.), The Biblical Mosaic: Changing Perspectives (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Chico, CA: Scholars Press): 87-103. Goldman, M.D. 1952 'Was Jeremiah Married?', AusBR 2: 42-47. Goldman, Yohanan 1992 Prophetic et royaute au retour de I'exil: Les origines litteraires de la forme massoretique du livre de Jeremie (OBO, 118; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gb'ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). 1997 'Juda et son roi au milieu des nations la derniere redaction du livre de Jeremie', in Curtis and Romer 1997: 151-82. Gordis, Robert 1943 'A Note on Yad\ JBL 62: 341-44. Gordon, Robert P. 1995 'Where Have All the Prophets Gone? The "Disappearing" Israelite Prophet against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy', Bulletin for Biblical Research 5: 67-86. Gorg, Manfred 1982 'Ezechiels unreine Speise', BN 19: 22-23. Gosse, Bernard 1986 'La malediction centre Babylone de Jeremie 51,59-64 et les redactions du livre de Jeremie', ZAW98: 383-99. Gottwald, Norman K. 1981 'Problems and Promises in the Comparative Analysis of Religious Phenomena', Semeia 21: 103-12. Greenberg, Moshe 1958 'On Ezekiel's Dumbness', JBL 77: 101-105. 1983 Ezekiel 1-20 (AB, 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).

480

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts 1991

'Nebuchadnezzar at the Parting of the Ways: Ezek. 21.26-27', in M. Cogan and I. Eph'al (eds.), Ah, Assyria... Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 33; Jerusalem: Magnes Press): 267-71. 1997 Ezekiel 21-37 (AB, 22a; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Greenfield, Jonas C. 1973 'Un rite religieux arameen et ses paralleles', RB 80: 46-52. 1974 'The Marzeah as a Social Institution', Acta Antiqua 22: 451-55. Greengus, Samuel 1969 'A Textbook Case of Adultery in Ancient Mesopotamia', HUCA 40: 3344. Greenwood, David C. 1976 'On the Jewish Hope for a Restored Northern Kingdom', ZAW 88: 37685. Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt 1906 The Hibeh Papyri, I (London: Egypt Exploration Fund—Graeco-Roman Branch). Grinsell, L.V. 1961 The Breaking of Objects as a Funerary Rite', Folk-Lore 72: 475-91. Groenman, A.W. 1942a Het karakter van de symbolische handelingen der oud-testamentische profeten (Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon). 1942b 'De symbolische handelingen der oud-testamentische profeten', Nieuw theologisch Tijdschrift 31: 101-14. Gronkowski, Witold 1937 'De Natura Ezechielis "Vinculorum" (Ez. 3,16a. 22-27)', Collectanea Theologica 18: 375-412. Gropper, George L. 1963 'Why Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words?', AV Communication Review 11.4: 75-95. Gruber, Mayer I. 1980 Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (Studia Pohl, 12; 2 vols.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press). Guillaume, Alfred 1938 Prophecy and Divination among the Hebrews and Other Semites (London: Hodder & Stoughton). Guthrie, Harvey H., Jr 1962 'Ezekiel 21', 7AW74: 268-81. Habel, Norman 1992 The Suffering Land: Ideology in Jeremiah', Lutheran Theological Journal 26: 14-26. Hackett, Jo Ann 1980 The Balaam Text from Deir 'Alia (HSM, 31; Chico, CA: Scholars Press). Haeussermann, Friedrich 1932 Wortempfang und Symbol in der alttestamentlichen Prophetic (BZAW, 58; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann). Hallevy, Raphel 1958 'Man of God', JNES 17: 237-44.

Bibliography

481

Hallpike, Christopher R. 1987 'Hair', in M. Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion, IV (New York: Macmillan): 154-57. Halperin, David 1993 Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press). Halpern, Baruch 1979-80 'A Landlord-Tenant Dispute at Ugarit?', Maarav 2: 121-40. Hals, Ronald M. 1989 Ezekiel (FOIL, 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Hammershaimb, E. 1957 'Some Observations on the Aramaic Elephantine Papyri', VT 7: 17-34. Hancher, Michael 1988 'Performative Utterance, the Word of God, and the Death of the Author', Semeia 41:21-40. Hanson, Howard E. 1972 'Num. XVI 30 and the Meaning of bara", VT 22: 353-59. Hardmeier, Christof 1993 'Probleme der Textsyntax, der Redeeinbettung und der Abschnittgliederung in Jer 32', in H. Irsigler (ed.), Syntax und Text (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament, 40; St Ottilien: EOS Verlag Erzabtei): 49-79. 1995 'Jeremia 32,2-15* als Eroffnung der Erzahlung von der Gefangenschaft und Befreiung Jeremias in Jer 34,7; 37,3-40,6*', in Walter Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die 'deuteronomistische Bewegung' (BBB, 98; Weinheim: Beltz Athenaum): 187-214. Harford, John Battersby 1935 Studies in the Book of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Harrison, Randall P., and Mark L. Knapp 1972 'Toward an Understanding of Nonverbal Communication Systems', Journal of Communication 22: 339-52. Harrison, Roland K. 1973 Jeremiah and Lamentations (TOTC; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press). Hartman, Frank R. 1961 'Single and Multiple Channel Communication: A Review of Research and a Proposed Model', AV Communication Review 9.6: 235-62. Hauck, Friedrich 1967 '7KxpapoA,r|', in TDNT,V: 744-61. Haulotte, Edgar 1966 Symbolique du vetement selon la Bible (Etudes Publiees sous la Direction de la Faculte de Theologie S.J. de Lyon-Fourviere, 65; Paris: Aubier). Haupt, Paul 1909 'Some Assyrian Etymologies', AJSL 26: 1-26. 1926 'Etymological and Critical Notes. 6. Ezekiel's Song of the Sword', AJP 47:315-18. Hawkes, Terence 1977 Structuralism and Semiotics (Berkeley: University of California Press).

482

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Helfmeyer, F.J. 1977 '!7)N "dth\ in TDOT, I: 167-88. 1980 'tfTlT z'rda", in TDOT, IV: 131-40. Hempel, Johannes 1931 'Chronik',ZW 49: 150-60. 1933 'Mitteilung. 5. Eine Vermutung zu Hes 24 15ff.', ZAW 51: 312-13. Herbert, A.S. 1954 The "Parable" (MaSal) in the Old Testament', SJT1: 180-96. Herntrich, Volkmar 1933 Ezechielprobleme (BZAW, 61; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann). Herrmann, Johannes 1908 Ezechielstudien (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). Heschel, Abraham J. 1962 The Prophets (2 vols.; vol. 1, 1969 repr.; vol. 2, 1975 repr.; New York: Harper & Row). Hester, David C. 1982 'Authority Claims and Social Legitimation in the Book of Jeremiah' (PhD Dissertation; Duke University). Heyns, Dalene 1994 'History and Narrative in Jeremiah 32', Old Testament Essays 7: 261-76. Killers, Delbert R. 1964 Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr, 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). 1965 'A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News', ZAW 77: 86-90. 1990 'Rite: Ceremonies of Law and Treaty in the Ancient Near East', in E. Firmage, B. Weiss and J. Welch (eds.), Religion and Law: BiblicalJudaic and Islamic Perspectives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 35164. Hines, Herbert W. 1923 The Prophet as Mystic', AJSL 40: 37-71. Hoffmann, Georg 1882 'Lexikalisches. III. ja^D }^\ ZAW 2: 53-72. Holdcroft, David 1976 'Forms of Indirect Communication: An Outline', Philosophy and Rhetoric 9: 147-61. Holladay, William L. 1966 The Recovery of Poetic Passages of Jeremiah', JBL 85: 401-35. 1974 Jeremiah: Spokesman out of Time (New York: Pilgrim Press). 1981 'A Coherent Chronology of Jeremiah's Early Career', in Bogaert 1981: 58-73. 1983 The Years of Jeremiah's Preaching', Int 37: 146-59. 1986 Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1-25 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 1989 Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26-52 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

Bibliography

483

Holscher, Gustav 1924 Hesekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch (Eine literarkritische Untersuchung) (BZAW, 39; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann). Holstein, Jay 1977 'The Case of "'IS hd'elohim" Reconsidered: Philological Analysis versus Historical Reconstruction', HUCA 48: 69-81. Honeyman, A.M. 1939 The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament', PEQ: 76-90. Hossfeld, Frank L., and Ivo Meyer 1973 Prophet gegen Prophet. Eine Analyse der alttestamentlichen Texte zum Thema: Wahre und falsche Propheten (Biblische Beitrage, 9; Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk). Hovland, Carl I., Irving L. Janis and Harold H. Kelley 1953 Communication and Persuasion (Psychological Studies of Opinion Change) (New Haven: Yale University Press). Howie, Carl Gordon 1950 The Date and Composition of Ezekiel (SBLMS, 4; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature). Hsia, Hower J. 1968 'On Channel Effectiveness', AV Communication Review 16.3: 245-67. Hubmann, Franz D. 1991 'Jeremia 13,1-11: Zweimal Euphrat retour, oder wie "man" einen Propheten fertigmacht', in F. Reiterer (ed.), Ein Gott eine Offenbarung: Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualitdt (Festschrift Notker Fiiglister; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag): 103-25. Huey, F.B., Jr 1993 Jeremiah, Lamentations (The New American Commentary, 16; Nashville, TN: Broadman Press). Huffmon, Herbert B. 1997 'The Expansion of Prophecy in the Mari Archives: New Texts, New Readings, New Information', in Y. Gitay (ed.), Prophecy and Prophets: The Diversity of Contemporary Issues in Scholarship(SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press): 7-22. Hutton, Rodney R. 1995 'Magic or Street-Theater? The Power of the Prophetic Word', ZAW 107: 247-60. Hyatt, J. Philip 1951 'The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah', Vanderbilt Studies in the Humanities 1: 71-95. 1966 The Beginning of Jeremiah's Prophecy', ZAW18: 204-14. Illman, Karl-Johan 1979 Old Testament Formulas about Death (Abo: Abo Akademi). Iwry, Samuel 1961 'New Evidence for Belomancy in Ancient Palestine and Phoenicia', JAOS 81: 27-34. Janzen, J. Gerald 1973 Studies in the Text of Jeremiah(HSM, 6; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

484

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Janzen, Waldemar 1981 'Withholding the Word', in B. Halpern and J. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 97-114. Jaspers, Karl 1951 'Der Prophet Ezechiel: Eine pathographische Studie', in idem, Rechenschaft undAusblick (Munich: R. Piper): 95-106. Jensen, J. Vernon 1973 'Communicative Functions of Silence', ETC.: A Review of General Semantics 30: 249-57. Jepsen, Alfred 1972 'Review of G. Fohrer's Die symbolischen Handlungen der Propheteri1, TLZ91: 188-90. Johnson, Aubrey R. 1955 '^tOD', in M. Noth and D. Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (VTSup, 3; Leiden: EJ. Brill): 162-69. Jones, Douglas Rawlinson 1992 Jeremiah (New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Keck, Brian E. 1990 'Ezekiel 37, Sticks, and Babylonian Writing Boards: A Critical Reappraisal', Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 23: 126-38. Keel, Othmar 1978 The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (trans. T. Hallett; New York: Seabury). Keil, C.F. 1976 'The Prophecies of Ezekiel' (2 vols.), in idem, Commentary on the Old Testament, IX (trans. J. Martin; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 1977 'The Prophecies of Jeremiah' (2 vols.), in idem, Commentary on the Old Testament, VIII (vol. 1, trans. D. Patrick; vol. 2, trans. J. Kennedy; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Keller, Carl A. 1946 Das Wort OTH als 'Offenbarungszeichen Gottes': Eine philologisch-theologische Begriffsuntersuchung zum Alten Testament (Basel: Buchdruckerei E. Honen). Kelso, James L. 1948 The Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament (BASORSup, 5-6; New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research). Kennedy, George A. 1984 New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press). Kennedy, James M. 1991 'Hebrew pithonpeh in the Book of Ezekiel', VT41: 233-35. Keown, Gerald L., Pamela J. Scalise and Thomas G. Smothers 1995 Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC, 27; Dallas: Word Books). Kessler, Martin 1965 'A Prophetic Biography: A Form-Critical Study of Jeremiah, Chapters 26-29, 32-45' (PhD Dissertation; Brandeis University). 1966 'Form-Critical Suggestions on Jer 36', CBQ 28: 389-401.

Bibliography

485

1969 'The Significance of Jer 36', ZAW 81: 381-83. Keukens, Karlheinz H. 1983 'Die rekabitischen Haussklaven in Jeremia 35', BZ 27: 228-35. Kilmer, Anne D. 1974 'Symbolic Gestures in Akkadian Contracts from Alalakh and Ugarit', JAOS94: 177-83. King, Philip J. 1988a Amos, Hosea, Micah: An Archaeological Commentary(Philadelphia: Westminster Press). 1988b 'The Marzeah Amos Denounces', BARev 14.4: 34-44. 1993 Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion (Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press). Kitchen, Kenneth A. 1983 Tahpanhes', in E. Blaiklock and R.K. Harrison (eds.), The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan): 434. Klein, Ralph W. 1988 Ezekiel: The Prophet and his Message (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament; Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press). Klostermann, A. 1877 'Ezechiel: Bin Beitrag zu besserer Wiirdigung seiner Person und seiner Schrift', 7^50:391-439. Knapp, Mark L. 1978 Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 2nd edn). Knights, Chris H. 1992 'The Rechabites of Jeremiah 35: Forerunners of the Essenes?', JSP 10: 81-87. 1993a 'Kenites = Rechabites? 1 Chronicles II 55 Reconsidered', VT43: 10-18. 1993b 'The Nabataeans and the Rechabites', JSS 38: 227-33. 1995 The Structure of Jeremiah 35', ExpTim 106.5: 142-44. 1996a 'Who Were the Rechabites?', ExpTim 107.5: 137-40. 1996b ' "Standing before me for ever" Jeremiah 35.19', ExpTim 108.2: 40-42. Koch, Klaus 1982 The Prophets. II. The Babylonian and Persian Periods (trans. M. Kohl; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Koenen, Ludwig 1968 'Die Prophezeiungen des "Topfers" ', ZPE 2: 178-209. 1970 'The Prophecies of a Potter: A Prophecy of World Renewal Becomes an Apocalypse', in D. Samuel (ed.), Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology (American Studies in Papyrology, 7; Toronto: A.M. Hakkert): 249-54. Koffmahn, Elisabeth 1968 Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wtiste Juda (STDJ, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill). Komlosh, Yehuda 1973 'Tltm] rrm~a ^Kptrr nOQY,inZer Li-Gevurot: The Zalman Shazar Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: 'Kiryat-Sepher'): 279-83.

486

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Konig, E. 1892 1904

'Zur Deutung der symbolischen Handlungen des Propheten Hesekiel', NKZ 4: 650-59. 'Symbol, Symbolical Actions', in James Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Volume (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons): 169-76.

Kooij, A. van der 1994 'Jeremiah 27.5-15: How Do MT and LXX Relate to Each Other?', JNSL 20: 59-78. Kooy, V.H. 1962 'Symbol, Symbolism', in IDE, IV: 472-76. Kopf, L. 1958 'Arabische Etymologien und Parallelen zum Bibelworterbuch', VT 8: 161-215. Kraeling, Emil G. 1953 The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine (New Haven: Yale University Press). Krout, Maurice 1971 'Symbolism', in Bosmajian 1971: 15-33. Kruger, Paul A. 1989 'On Non-Verbal Communication in the Baal Epic', Journal for Semitics 1:54-69. Kruger, Thomas 1989 Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Kuhl, Curt 1952 'Die "Wiederaufnahme"—ein literarkritisches Prinzip?', ZAW64: 1-11. Kunkel, Wolfgang 1936 'Zur grako-agyptischen Doppelurkunde', in G. Castiglia (ed.), Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono, I (Palermo: Arti Grafiche): 415-33. Kurian, Joseph 1980 'A Message of Hope: The Life of Jeremiah the Prophet', Bible Bhashyam 6: 233-48. Kutsch, Ernst 1985 Die chronologischen Daten des Ezechielbuches (OBO, 62; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Lambert, W.G. 1963 'Celibacy in the World's Oldest Proverbs', BASOR 169: 63-64. Lang, Bernhard 1978 Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: Die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk). 1981a 'Prophetic, prophetische Zeichenhandlung und Politik in Israel', TQ 161: 275-80. 1981b Ezechiel: Der Prophet und das Buch (Ertrage der Forschung, 153; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). 1983a Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History and Sociology(The Social World of Biblical Antiquity, 1; Sheffield: Almond Press).

Bibliography 1983b

487

'Bin babylonisches Motiv in Israels Schopfungsmythologie (Jer 27,5-6)', BZ 27: 236-37. 1985 'Anthropology as a New Model for Biblical Studies', in B. Lang (ed.), Introduction to Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament(Issues in Religion and Theology, 8; Philadelphia: Fortress Press): 1-20. 1986 'Street Theater, Raising the Dead, and the Zoroastrian Connection in Ezekiel's Prophecy', in Lust 1986: 297-316. Lawhead, Alvin S. 1985-86 'The Strange Behavior of Jeremiah', Emphasis 9.2: 14-15. Layton, Scott 1986 'Biblical Hebrew "To Set the Face," in Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic', UF 17: 169-81. Lehmann, M.R. 1963 'Studies in the Murabba 'at and Nahal Hever Documents', RevQ4.\3: 5381. Levenson, Jon D. 1976 'On the Promise to the Rechabites', CBQ 38: 508-14. Levin, Christoph 1994 'Die Entstehung der Rechabiter', in I. Kottsieper, J. van Oorschot, D. Romheld and H. Wahl (eds.), 'Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Gottern?': Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels (Festschrift Otto Kaiser; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 301-17. Levine, Baruch A. 1993 'Silence, Sound, and the Phenomenology of Mourning in Biblical Israel', Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 22: 89-106. Lewis, Theodore J. 1989 Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM, 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press). L'Heureux, Conrad 1974 The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim', HTR 67: 265-74. Liedke, G. 1978 TD'jkh hi. feststellen, was recht ist', in THAT, I (3rd edn): 730-32. Lindblom, J. 1962 Prophecy in Ancient Israel (repr.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967). Lipinski, E. 1970 ' "Se battre la cuisse" ', VT20: 495. Lods, Adolphe 1927 'Le role des idees magiques dans la mentalite Israelite', in D. Simpson (ed.), Old Testament Essays (London: Charles Griffin): 55-76. 'Revue des livres. D. Buzy: Les symboles de I'Ancien Testament...; 1929 H. Wheeler Robinson: Prophetic Symbolism...', Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses 9: 170-75. Les prophetes d'Israel et les debuts du Judaisms (L'Evolution de 1950 I'humanite synthese collective, 28; Paris: Albin Michel). Long, Burke O. 1971 'Two Question and Answer Schemata in the Prophets', JBL 90: 129-39. 1977 'Prophetic Authority as Social Reality', in G. Coats and B. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority (Philadelphia: Fortress Press): 3-20.

488

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

1981a 'Social Dimensions of Prophetic Conflict', Semeia 21: 31-53. 1981b 'Perils General and Particular', Semeia 21: 125-28. Loretz, Oswald 'Ugaritisch-biblisch mrzh "Kultmahl, Kultverein" in Jer 16,5 und Am 1982 6,7', in L. Ruppert, P. Weimar and E. Zenger (eds.), Kunder des Wortes: Beitrage zur Theologie der Propheten (Festschrift Josef Schreiner; Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag): 87-93. 1993 'Marzihu im ugaritischen und biblischen Ahnenkult: Zu Ps 23; 133; Am 6,1-7 und Jer 16,5.8', in M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica—Ugaritica—Biblica (Festschrift Kurt Bergerhof; AOAT, 232; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag): 93144. Luckenbill, Daniel D. 1924 The Annals of Sennacherib (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 2; Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Lundbom, Jack R. 'Baruch, Seraiah, and Expanded Colophons in the Book of Jeremiah', 1986 /SOT 36: 89-114. 'Jeremiah and the Break-Away from Authority Preaching', SEA 56: 7-28. 1991 1993 The Early Career of the Prophet Jeremiah (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press). Luria, B. 1987 'D-n^H 2TK rotih\ Bet Mikra 109: 112-13. Lust, Johan ' "Gathering and Return" in Jeremiah and Ezekiel', in Bogaert 1981: 1191981a 42. 'Ezekiel 36-40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript', CBQ 43: 517-33. 1981b Lust, J. (ed.) 1986 Ezekiel and his Book (BETL, 74; Leuven: Leuven University Press). Lys, Daniel 'Jeremie 28 et le probleme du faux prophete ou la circulation du sens 1979 dans le diagnostic prophetique', Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses 59: 453-82. Maarsingh, B. 1986 'Das Schwertlied in Ez 21,13-22 und das Erra-Gedicht', in Lust 1986: 350-58. MacCulloch, J.A. 1955 'Hand', in James Hastings (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, VI (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons): 492-99. Malamat, Abraham 1991 'New Light from Mari (ARM XXVI) on Biblical Prophecy (III-IV)', in D. Garrone and F. Israel (eds.), Storia e tradizioni di Israele(Festschrift J. Alberto Soggin; Brescia: Paideia): 185-90. 1997 '^NpTlT -ISO niKirui 'IKOn ITffinn nrmV, in M. Cogan, B. Eichler and J. Tigay (eds.), Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor ofMoshe Greenberg (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 71*-76*.

Bibliography Malul, Meir 1988

489

Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism (AOAT, 221; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Manahan, Ronald E. 1980a 'An Interpretive Survey: Audience Reaction Quotations in Jeremiah', GTJ2: 163-83. 1980b 'A Theology of Pseudoprophets: A Study in Jeremiah', GTJ 1: 77-96. March, W. Eugene 1974 'Prophecy', in J. Hayes (ed.), Old Testament Form Criticism (San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press): 141-77. Margalit, Baruch 1979-80 'The Ugaritic Feast of the Drunken Gods: Another Look at RS 24.258 (KTU l.ll4)',Maarav2: 65-120. Martens, Elmer 1972 'Motivations for the Promise of Israel's Restoration to the Land in Jeremiah and Ezekiel' (PhD Dissertation; Claremont Graduate School). 1987 'Narrative Parallelism and Message in Jeremiah 34-38', in C. Evans and W. Stinespring (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Festschrift William H. Brownlee; SBL Homage Series, 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press): 33-49. Martin-Achard, Robert 1970 'Quelques remarques sur la reunification du peuple de Dieu d'apres Ezechiel 37,15ss', in H. Stoebe (ed.), Wort-Gebot-Glaube: Beitrdge zur Theologie des Alien Testaments (Festschrift Walter Eichrodt; ATANT, 59; Zurich: Zwingli Verlag): 67-76. 1977 'Hanania centre Jeremie: Quelques remarques sur Jeremie 28', Bulletin du centre protestant d'etudes 29: 51-57. Matheney, Matthew P., Jr 1965 'The Relationship of Ancient Near Eastern Sympathetic Magic to the Symbolic Acts of the Hebrew Prophets' (PhD Dissertation; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). 1968 'Interpretation of Hebrew Prophetic Symbolic Act', Encounter 29: 25667. Matthews, Victor H., and Don C. Benjamin 1993 Social World of Ancient Israel 1250-587 BCE (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). May, Herbert G. 1945 The Chronology of Jeremiah's Oracles', JNES 4: 217-27. Mayer, G. 1990 'HD1 ykh\ ...', in TDOT, VI: 64-71. Mazurel, J.W. 1993 'Het woord j"P in Ezechiel 37:16-20', Amsterdamse cahiers voor exegese en bijbelse theologie 12: 116-21. McComiskey, Thomas E. 1980 '*03 (baray, in TWOT, I: 127-28. McCullough, W.S. 1962 'Sign in the OT', in IDB, IV: 345-46.

490

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

McCurley, Foster R., Jr 1968 'A Semantic Study of Anatomical Terms in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Biblical Hebrew' (PhD Dissertation; Dropsie College). McDaniel, Thomas F. 1968 'Philological Studies in Lamentations. I', Bib 49: 27-53. McGuire, William J. 1973 'Persuasion, Resistance, and Attitude Change', in de Sola Pool et al. 1973: 216-52. McKane, William 1986 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, I (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). 1988 'Jeremiah and the Rechabites', ZAW Sup, 100: 106-23. 1989 'Jeremiah 27,5-8, especially "Nebuchadnezzar, my servant" ', in V. Fritz, K.-F. Pohlmann and H.-C. Schmitt (eds.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch (Festschrift Otto Kaiser; BZAW, 185; Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 98-110. 1995 'Jeremiah's Instructions to Seraiah (Jeremiah 51:59-64)', in D. Wright, D. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature (Festschrift Jacob Milgrom; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 697-706. 1996 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, II (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). McKeating, H. 1961 The Prophet Jesus—II', ExpTim 73: 50-53. McNutt, Paula M. 1994 The Kenites, the Midianites, and the Rechabites as Marginal Mediators in Ancient Israelite Tradition', Semeia 67: 109-32. Mehrabian, Albert 1972 'Implicit Rhetoric', in idem, Nonverbal Communication (Chicago: Aldine Atherton): 54-83. Mercer, Samuel A.B. 1952 The Pyramid Texts in Translation and Commentary (4 vols.; New York: Longmans, Green). Meservy, Keith H. 1977 'Ezekiel's "Sticks" ', Ensign 7: 22-27. 1987 'Ezekiel's Sticks and the Gathering of Israel', Ensign 17: 4-13. Meyer, Rudolf 1979 'Gegensinn und Mehrdeutigkeit in der althebraischen Wort- und Begriffsbildung', UF\ 1:601 -12. Migsch, Herbert 1981 Gottes Wort uber das Ende Jerusalems. Eine litera-, stil- und gattungskritische Untersuchung des Berichtes Jeremia 34,1-7; 32,2-5; 37,3-38,28 (Osterreichische Biblische Studien, 2; Klosterneuburg: Osterreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk). 1996 Jeremias Ackerkauf: eine Untersuchung von Jeremia 32 (Osterreichische Biblische Studien, 15; Frankfurt: Peter Lang). 1997 'Die vorbildlichen Rechabiter: Zur Redestruktur von Jeremia xxxv', VT 47: 316-28.

Bibliography

491

Milgrom, Jacob 1970 Studies in Levitical Terminology, I: The Encroacher and the Levite. The Term 'Aboda (University of California Publications, Near Eastern Studies, 14; Berkeley: University of California Press). Miller, Gerald R. 1980 'On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions', in Roloff and Miller 1980: 11-28. Miller, Patrick D., Jr 1971 'The MRZHText', in L. Fisher (ed.),The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets (AnOr, 48; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico): 37-48. Minnick, Wayne C. 1968 The Art of Persuasion (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2nd edn). Minns, Ellis H. 1915 'Parchments of the Parthian Period from Avroman in Kurdistan', JHS 35: 22-65. Mitchell, Christopher W. 1987 The Meaning of BRK 'To Bless' in the Old Testament (SBLDS, 95; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Moret, A. 1946 'Le rite de briser les vases rouges au temple de Louxor', REg 3: 167. Morgenstern, Julian 1973 Rites of Birth, Marriage, Death and Kindred Occasions among the Semites (New York: Ktav). Mottu, Henri 1976 'Jeremiah vs. Hananiah: Ideology and Truth in Old Testament Prophecy', in N. Gottwald and A. Wire (eds.), The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics (A Radical Religion Reader; Berkeley: Community for Religious Research and Education): 58-67. Munn, Nancy D. 1973 'Symbolism in a Ritual Context: Aspects of Symbolic Action', in J. Honigmann (ed.), Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology (Chicago: Rand McNally College): 579-612. Newbold, Robert T. 1982 'Pictorial Preaching in the Bible', Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center^: 127-40. Nicholson, Ernest W. 1970 Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Niditch, Susan 1980 The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (HSM, 30; Chico, CA: Scholars Press). Nolan, Michael J. 1975 The Relationship between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication', in G. Hanneman and W. McEwen (eds.), Communication and Behavior (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley): 98-119. Nuys, Kelvin van 1953 'Evaluating the Pathological in Prophetic Experience (Particularly in Ezekiel)', JBR 21: 244-51.

492

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Odell, Margaret S. 1998 'You Are What You Eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll', JBL 117: 229-48. Oesch, Josef M. 1995 'Zur Makrostruktur und Textintentionalitat von Jer 32', in W. Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die 'deuteronomistische Bewegung' (BBB, 98; Weinheim: Beltz Athenaum): 215-76. Oliver, Robert T. 1957 The Psychology of Persuasive Speech (New York: David McKay, 2nd edn, 1962). Oort, H. 1889 'Ezechiel XIX; XXI: 18, 19 v., 24 v.', Theologisch Tijdschrift 23: 504-14. Oppenheim, A. Leo 1941 'Idiomatic Accadian (Lexicographical Researches)', JAOS 61: 251-71. 1955 ' "Siege-Documents" from Nippur', Iraq 17: 69-89. Osswald, Eva 1962 Falsche Prophetic im Alien Testament (Sammlung gemeinverstandlicher Vortrage und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 237; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). Overholt, Thomas W. 1967 'Jeremiah 27-29: The Question of False Prophecy', JAAR 35: 241-47. 1970 The Threat of Falsehood: A Study in the Theology of the Book of Jeremiah (SET, 2nd Series, 16; Naperville, IL: Allenson). 1971 'Some Reflections on the Date of Jeremiah's Call', CBQ 33: 165-84. 1972 'Remarks on the Continuity of the Jeremiah Tradition', JBL 91: 457-62. 1977 'Jeremiah and the Nature of the Prophetic Process', in A. Merrill and T. Overholt (eds.), Scripture in History and Theology (Festschrift J. Coert Rylaarsdam; PTMS, 17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press): 129-50. 1981a 'Prophecy: The Problem of Cross-Cultural Comparison', Semeia 21: 5578. 1981b 'Model, Meaning, and Necessity', Semeia 21: 129-32. 1982 'Seeing is Believing: The Social Setting of Prophetic Acts of Power', JSOT23: 3-31. 1986 Prophecy in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Sourcebook for Biblical Researchers (SBLSBS, 17; Atlanta: Scholars Press). 1989 Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Parrot, Andre 1955 Samarie: Capitale du Royaume d'Israel (Cahiers d'Archeologie Biblique, 7; Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle). Parunak, Henry van Dyke 1978 'Structural Studies in Ezekiel' (PhD Dissertation; Harvard University). Paterson, Robert M. 1984 'Reinterpretation in the Book of Jeremiah', JSOT28: 37-46. Paul, Shalom M. 1971 'Prophets and Prophecy', in Encyclopaedia Judaica, XIII (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House): 1150-75.

Bibliography

493

Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969 The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press). Perloff, Richard M., and Timothy C. Brook 1980 '...."And Thinking Makes It So": Cognitive Responses to Persuasion', in Roloff and Miller 1980: 67-99. Perrin, Bernard 1963 'Trois textes bibliques sur les techniques d'acquisition immobiliere (Genese XXIII; Ruth IV; Jeremie XXXII.8-15)', Revue historique de droit franqais et etranger (4th Series) 41: 5-19, 177-95, 387-417. Petersen, David L. 1981 The Roles of Israel's Prophets (JSOTSup, 17; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Petrie, W.M. Flinders 1925 A History of Egypt. III. From the XlXth to the XXXth Dynasties (London: Methuen, 2nd edn). 1980 Ancient Egypt and Ancient Israel (repr.; Chicago: Ares). Petrie, W.M. Flinders, A.S. Murray and F. Griffith 1888 Nebesheh (AM) and Defenneh (Tahpanhes). Fourth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund (London: Triibner). Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo 1981 Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and ContemporaryApproaches (Dubuque, IA: Brown). Pilch, John J. 1981a 'Jeremiah and Symbolism: A Social Science Approach', TBT 19: 105-11. 1981b 'Biblical Leprosy and Body Symbolism', BTB 11: 108-13. Planas, Francisco 1955 'El pan del profeta (Ez. 4, 9-17 y 12, 17-20)', Cultura Biblica 132-33: 153-57. Polk, Timothy 1983 'Paradigms, Parables, and MeSdlim: On Reading the MaSal in Scripture', CBQ 45: 564-83. Pope, Marvin H. 1972 'A Divine Banquet at Ugarit', in J. Efird (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays (Festschrift William Franklin Stinespring; Durham, NC: Duke University Press): 170-203. 1977a 'Notes on the Rephaim Texts from Ugarit', in M. de Jong Ellis (ed.), Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein (Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 19; Hamden, CT: Archon Books): 163-82. 1977b Song of Songs (AB, 7C; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). 1981 The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit', in G. Young (ed.), Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 15979. Porten, Bezalel 1968 Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley: University of California Press). Posener, Georges 1940 Princes et pays d'Asie et de Nubie: Textes hieratiques sur des figurines

494

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

1958 Prinsloo, W.S. 1981

d'envoutement du Moyen Empire (Brussels: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth). 'Les empreintes magiques de Gizeh et les morts dangereux', Mitteilungen des Deutsches Institutfiir dgyptische Altertumskunde in Kairo 16: 252-70. The Theology of Jeremiah 27:1-11', Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap Suid-Afrika24: 67-83.

Quell, Gottfried 1952 Wahre undfalsche Propheten: Versuch einer Interpretation(BFCT, 46; Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann). 1961 'Das Phanomen des Wunders im Alten Testament', in A. Kuschke (ed.), Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beitrdge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Festschrift Wilhelm Rudolph; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]): 253-300. Rabinowitz, Isaac 1954 'A Reconsideration of "Damascus" and "390 Years" in the "Damascus" ("Zadokite") Fragments', JBL 73: 11-35. 1972 ' "Word" and Literature in Ancient Israel', New Literary History 4: 11939. Rabinowitz, Jacob J. 1956 Jewish Law, its Influence on the Development of Legal Institutions (New York: Cloch). Rad, Gerhard von 1962 The Message of the Prophets (trans. D. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1965). Raitt, Thomas M. 1974 'Jeremiah's Deliverance Message to Judah', in J. Jackson and M. Kessler (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism (Festschrift James Muilenburg; PTMS, 1; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press): 166-85. 1977 A Theology of Exile: Judgment / Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Ramlot 1972 'Prophetisme', in H. Gazelles and A. Feuillet (eds.), Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, VIII (Paris: Letouzey & Ane): 811-1222. Regnier, A. 1923 'Le realisme dans les symboles des prophetes', RB 32: 383-408. Reiner, Erica 1958 Surpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations (AfO, 11; Graz). Rengstorf, Karl H. 1971 'OT|ueiov...', in TDNT, VII: 200-269. 1972 'tepa<;', in TDNT, VIII: 113-26. Reventlow, Henning Graf 1959 'Die Volker als Jahwes Zeugen bei Ezechiel', ZAW71: 33-43. 1962 Wdchter uber Israel: Ezechiel und seine Tradition (BZAW, 82; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann). Ringgren, Helmer 1977 '^3 ga'al;. . .', in TDOT, II: 350-55.

Bibliography

495

Robinson, Henry W. 1927 'Prophetic Symbolism', in D. Simpson (ed.), Old Testament Essays (London: Charles Griffin): 1-17. 1942 'Hebrew Sacrifice and Prophetic Symbolism', JTS43: 129-39. 1946 Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (repr.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960). Robinson, Theodore H. 1923 Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons). Roehrs, Walter R. 1958 The Dumb Prophet', CTM 29: 176-86. Rogerson, J.W. 1978 Anthropology and the Old Testament (Atlanta: John Knox Press). Rolfe, Bari 1979a 'Meem, Mime, and Pantomime', in Rolfe 1979c: 6-8. 1979b 'I. Mime in Greece and Rome', in Rolfe 1979c: 10-13. Rolfe, B. (ed.) 1979c Mimes on Miming: Writings on the Art of Mime (Los Angeles: Panjandrum Books). Roloff, M., and G. Miller (eds.) 1980 Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research (Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research, 8; Beverly Hills, CA: Sage). Rosen, George 1968 Madness in Society (Chapters in the Historical Sociology of Mental Illness) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Rost, Leonhard 1937 Israel bei den Propheten (BWANT, 4.19; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer). Rost, Paul 1904 'Miscellen', OLZ 7: 390-93, 479-83. Roulet, Philippe, and Bernard Bonvin 1985 'Vrais et faux prophetes: Altercation entre Jeremie et Hananya (Jereme 27 et 28)', in R. Blanchet et al., Jeremie: Un prophete en temps de crise (Essais Bibliques, 10; Geneva: Labor et Fides): 149-56. Rowley, H.H. 1963 The Meaning of Sacrifice in the Old Testament', in idem, From Moses to Qumran: Studies in the Old Testament (New York: Association Press): 67-107. Rubensohn, O. 1907 Elephantine-Papyri(Agyptische Urkunden aus den kgl. Museen in Berlin; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung). Rubinger, Naphtali J. 1977 'Jeremiah's Epistle to the Exiles and The Field in Anathoth', Judaism 26: 84-91. Rudolph, Wilhelm 1958 Jeremia (HAT, 12; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). Sanders, James A. 1977 'Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy', in G. Coats and B. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority (Philadelphia: Fortress Press): 21-41.

496

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Sarbin, Theodore R., and Vernon L. Allen 1968 'Role Theory', in G. Linzey and E. Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, I (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2nd edn): 488-567. Sarna, Nahum M. 1978 The Abortive Insurrection in Zedekiah's Day (Jer. 27-29)', Eretz Israel 14: 89*-96*. Sayre, Farrand 1938 Diogenes of Sinope: A Study of Greek Cynicism (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press). Schick, George V. 1913 The Stems dum and damdm in Hebrew', JBL 32: 219-43. Schmidt, Hans 1921 'Das Datum der Ereignisse von Jer 27 und 28', ZAW 39: 138-44. Schmidt, Kenneth W. 1982 'Prophetic Delegation: A Form-Critical Inquiry', Bib 63: 206-18. Schoors, A. 1981 The Particle 'D', OTS 31: 240-76. Schramm, Wilbur 1973 'Channels and Audiences', in de Sola Pool et al. 1973: 116-40. Schreiner, Josef 1981 Jeremia 1-25,14 (Die Neue Echter Bibel; Wurtzburg: Echter Verlag). 1984 Jeremia II 25,15-52,34 (Die Neue Echter Bibel; Wurtzburg: Echter Verlag). 1987 Tempeltheologie im Streit der Propheten zu Jer 27 und 28', 5Z 31: 1-14. Schubart, Wilhelm 1913 'Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus', Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung undverwandte Gebiete 5: 35-131. Schwartz, Baruch 1995 The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature', in D. Wright, D. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature (Festschrift Jacob Milgrom; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 3-21. Scott, Robert 1980 'Intentionality in the Rhetorical Process', in E. White 1980b: 39-60. Scott-Kilvert, Ian 1960 The Rise and Fall of Athens: Nine Greek Lives by Plutarch (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books). Scult, Allen M. 1975 The Rhetoric of the Pentateuch: An Analysis of the Argument for the Hebrew Concept of God' (PhD Dissertation; University of WisconsinMadison). 1979 'Rhetoric and Magic: A Comparison of Two Types of Religious Action', in R. Brown, Jr and M. Steinmann, Jr (eds.), Rhetoric 78 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Center for Advanced Studies in Language, Style, and Literary Theory): 320-38. Seebass, H. 1970 'Jeremias Konflikt mit Chananja: Bemerkungen zu Jer 27 und 28', ZAW 82: 449-52.

Bibliography

497

Seeligmann, I.L. 1967 'Zur Terminologie fiir das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des biblischen Hebraisch', in J. Barr et al., Hebrdische Wortforschung (Festschrift Walter Baumgartner; VTSup, 16; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 251-78. Seidl, Theodor 1977a Texte und Einheiten in Jeremia 27-29: Literaturwissenschaftliche Studie 1. Teil (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament, 2; St Ottilien: EOS Verlag). 1977b 'Datierung und Wortereignis: Beobachtungen zum Horizont von Jer 27,1', BZ 21: 23-44, 184-99. 1978 Formen und Formeln in Jeremia 27-29: Literaturwissenschaftliche Studie 2. Teil (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament, 5; St Ottilien: EOS Verlag). 1979 'Die Wortereignisformel in Jeremia: Beobachtungen zu den Formen der Redeerb'ffnung in Jeremia, im Anschluss an Jer 27,1.2', BZ 23: 20-47. Shanks, Hershel 1987 'Jeremiah's Scribe and Confidant Speaks from a Hoard of Clay Bullae', BARev 13.5: 58-65. Sheppard, Gerald T. 1988 'True and False Prophecy within Scripture', in G. Tucker, D. Petersen and R. Wilson (eds.), Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation (Festschrift Brevard Childs; Philadelphia: Fortress Press): 262-82. Sherlock, Charles 1983 'Ezekiel's Dumbness', ExpTim 94: 296-98. Sikes, E.E., and Louis H. Gray 1955 'Hair and Nails', in James Hastings (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, VI (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons): 474-77. Sittl, Carl 1890 Die Gebdrden der Griechen und Romer (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner). Skorupski, John 1976 Symbol and Theory: A Philosophical Study of Theories of Religion in Social Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Sloan,Ian B. 1992 'Ezekiel and the Covenant of Friendship', BTB 22.4: 149-54. Smit, E.J. 1971 'The Concepts of Obliteration in Ezek. 5:1-4', JNSL 1: 46-50. Soggin, J. Alberto 1975 'Child Sacrifice and Cult of the Dead in the Old Testament', in idem, Old Testament and Oriental Studies (BibOr, 29; Rome: Biblical Institute Press): 84-87. Sola Pool, I. de, F. Frey, W. Schramm, N. Maccoby and E. Parker (eds.) 1973 Handbook of Communication (Chicago: Rand McNally College). Southwood, Charles H. 1979 'The Spoiling of Jeremiah's Girdle (Jer. xiii 1-11)', VT29: 231-37. Stacey, W.D. 1990 Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament (London: Epworth Press). Stade, Bernhard 1885 'Miscellen. 8. Jer. 32, 11-14',ZW5: 175-78.

498

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Stahlin, Gustav 1965a '9pr|vecfl, Gpfivoq', in TDNT, III: 148-55. 1965b 'KoneTOq...', in TDNT, III: 830-60. Starke, Frank 1979 'Halmasuit im Anitta-Text und die hethitische Ideologic von Ktinigtum', Z4 69: 47-120. Steinmann, Jean 1953 Leprophete Ezechiel et les debuts de I'exil (LD, 13; Paris: Cerf). Stolz, F. 1979 'KB?] ns' aufheben, tragen', in THAT, II (2nd edn): 109-17. Stroete, G. A. Te 1977 'Ezekiel 24:15-27: The Meaning of a Symbolic Act', Bijdragen Tijdschrift voor Filosofie en Theologie 38: 163-77. Strong, S. Arthur 1894 'On Some Oracles to Esarhaddon and Asurbanipal', Beitrdge zur Assyriologie 2: 627-45. Stulman, Louis 1986 The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research (SBLDS, 83; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Swidler, Arlene 1981 'Prophets and Symbolic Acts Today', TBT 19: 182-87. Tadmor, Hayim 1956 'Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah', JNES 15: 226-30. 1958 The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study', JCS 12: 22-40. Talmon, Shemaryahu 1984 'Yad Wasem: An Idiomatic Phrase in Biblical Literature and its Variations', Hebrew Studies 25: 8-17. Tambiah, S.J. 1973 'Form and Meaning of Magical Acts: A Point of View', in R. Horton and R. Finnegan (eds.), Modes of Thought: Essays on Thinking in Western and Non-Western Societies (London: Faber & Faber): 199-229. Taylor, John B. 1969 Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press). Teixidor, M. Javier 1981 'Le thiase de Belastor et de Beelshamen d'apres une inscription recemment decouverte a Palmyre', Comptes rendus de I'Academic des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 306-14. Tellenbach, Hubertus 1987 'Ezechiel: Wetterleuchten einer "Schizophrenic" (Jaspers) order prophetische Erfahrung des Ganz-Anderen', Daseinsanalyse 4: 227-36. Terrien, Samuel 1996 'Ezekiel's Dance of the Sword and Prophetic Theonomy', in R. Weis and D. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community (Festschrift James A. Sanders; JSOTSup, 225; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 119-32.

Bibliography

499

Thiel, Winfried 1973 Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25 (WMANT, 41; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). 1981 Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion von Jeremia 26-45 (WMANT, 52; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Thiering, B.E. 1969 The Qumran Interpretation of Ezekiel 4, 5-6', AJBA 1.2: 30-34. Thiselton, Anthony C. 1974 The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings', JTS 25: 283-99. Thompson, J.A. 1980 The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Thompson, R. Campbell 1908 Semitic Magic: Its Origins and Development(Luzac's Oriental Religions Series, 3; London: Luzac). Torrey, Charles C. 1970 'Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy', in idem, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy and Critical Articles (The Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav): xxxvii-119. Tournay, R.J. 1983 'Le poeme de L'Epee, Ezechiel 21:13-22 et ses relectures', in A. Rofe and Y. Zakovitch (eds.), IsacLeo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World. III. Non-Hebrew Section (Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein's Publishing House): 249-62. Tov, Emanuel 'Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27 1979 (34)', ZAW91: 73-93. 1981 'Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah', in Bogaert 1981: 145-67. 1985 The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of its Textual History', in J. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press): 211-37. 1992 Three Fragments of Jeremiah from Qumran Cave 4', RevQ 60: 531-41. Trapp, Thomas 1992 'Jeremiah: The Other Sides of the Story', in F. Criisemann et al. (eds.), Was ist der Mensch...? Beitrage zur Anthropologie des Alien Testament (Festschrift Hans Walter Wolff; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag): 228-42. Trau, H., N. Rubin and S. Vargon 1988 'Symbolic Significance of Hair in the Biblical Narrative and in the Law', Koroth 9 (Special Issue): 173-79. Tromp, Nicholas J. The Paradox of Ezekiel's Prophetic Mission: Towards a Semiotic Ap1986 proach of Ezekiel 3,22-27', in Lust 1986: 201-13. Turner, Victor 'Forms of Symbolic Action: Introduction', in R. Spencer (ed.), Forms of 1969 Symbolic Action (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press and American Ethnological Society): 3-25.

500

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Uehlinger, Christoph 1987 ' "Zeichne eine Stadt ... und belagere sie!" Bild und Wort in einer Zeichenhandlung Ezechiels gegen Jerusalem (Ez 4f)', in M. Kiichler and C. Uehlinger (eds.), Jerusalem: Texte—Bilder—Steine(NTOA, 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 111-200. Uffenheimer, Benjamin 1978 Tibia ^D ~p 7W53 ,m« p ,nn»l [Ezekiel 12.1-16]', in Y. Avishur and J. Blau (eds.), Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East (Festschrift Samuel E. Loewenstamm; Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein's Publishing House): 45-54. 1988 'Prophecy, Ecstasy, and Sympathy', in J. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986 (VTSup, 40; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 257-69. Unterman, Jeremiah 1987 From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah's Thought in Transition (JSOTSup, 54; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Vaux, Roland de 1965 Ancient Israel (2 vols.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 2nd edn). Viberg, Ake 1992 Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (ConBOT, 34; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell). Vogt, Ernst 1959 'Textumdeutungen im Buch Ezechiel', in J. Coppens, A. Descamps and E. Massaux (eds.), Sacra Pagina, I (BETL, 12-13; Gembloux: Duculot): 471-94. 1981 Untersuchungen zum Buch Ezechiel (AnBib, 95; Rome: Biblical Institute Press). Vorwahl, Heinrich 1932 Die Gebdrdensprache im Alten Testament (Berlin: Dr Emil Ebering). Wacholder, Ben Zion 1986 'The "Sealed" Torah versus the "Revealed" Torah: An Exegesis of Damascus Covenant V, 1-6 and Jeremiah 32, 10-14', RevQ 12.47: 351-68. Wagner, S. 1997 TEIO mdpet\ in TDOT, VIII: 174-81. Wang, Martin Chen-Chang 1973 'Jeremiah's Message of Hope in Prophetic Symbolic Action: The "Deed of Purchase" in Jer. 32', South East Asia Journal of Theology 14.2: 13-20. Wanke, Gunther 1971 Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift (BZAW, 122; Berlin: W. de Gruyter). 1989 'Jeremias Ackerkauf: Heil im Gericht?', in V. Fritz, K.-F. Pohlmann and H.-C. Schmitt (eds.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch (Festschrift Otto Kaiser; BZAW, 185; Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 265-76. Watson, Wilfred G.E. 1982 'Splitting Hairs in Israel and Babylon', IBS 4: 193-97. Weitz, Shirley (ed.) 1974 Nonverbal Communication: Readings with Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press).

Bibliography

501

Wendland, Paul 1916 'Symbolische Handlungen als Ersatz oder Begleitung der Rede', Neue Jahrbucher fur das Klassische Altertum 37: 233-45. Werner, Wolfgang 1988 Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes (BZAW, 173; Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Westbrooke, Raymond 1971 'Redemption of Land', Israel Law Review 6: 367-75. 1991 Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup, 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Westhuizen, J.P. van der 1986 'A Proposed Possible Solution to KTU 1.14 II 7 Based on Babylonian and Biblical Evidence', UF 17: 357-70. Wevers, John H. 1969 Ezekiel (New Century Bible Commentary; repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982). White, Eugene E. 1980a 'Rhetoric as Historical Configuration', in White 1980b: 7-20. 1980b Rhetoric in Transition: Studies in the Nature and Uses of Rhetoric (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press). Wiener, Morton, Shannon Devoe, Stuart Rubinow and Jesse Geller 1972 'Nonverbal Behavior and Nonverbal Communication', Psychological Review!9: 185-214. Wifall, Walter 1974 'David—Prototype of Israel's Future?', BTB 4: 94-107. Wiklander, Bertil 1984 Prophecy as Literature: A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to Isaiah 2-4 (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup). Wilson, Robert R. 1972 'An Interpretation of Ezekiel's Dumbness', VT22: 91-104. 1979 'Prophecy and Ecstasy: A Reexamination', JBL 98: 321-37. 1980 Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 1984a 'Prophecy in Crisis: The Call of Ezekiel', Int 38: 117-30. 1984b Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Wiseman, DJ. 1956 Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: Trustees of the British Museum). Woodard, Craig M. 1983 'The Form of the Symbolic Acts of the Old Testament' (ThM Thesis; Western Conservative Baptist Seminary). Woude, A.S. van der 1979 'D'B panim Angesicht', in THAT, II (2nd edn): 432-60. Wuellner, Wilhelm 1987 'Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?', CBQ 49: 448-63. Yadin, Yigael 1962 'Expedition D—The Cave of the Letters', IEJ 12: 227-57.

502

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts 1963

Zandee, Jan 1977

The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (2 vols.; trans. M. Pearlman; New York: McGraw-Hill).

Death as an Enemy According to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions (New York: Arno Press, 2nd edn). Zimmerli, Walther 1958 'Israel im Buche Ezechiel', VT8: 75-90. 1965 'The Special Form- and Traditio-Historical Character of Ezekiel's Prophecy', VT 15: 515-27. 1969 The Message of the Prophet Ezekiel', Int 23: 131-57. 1974 'Das verhiillte Gesicht des Propheten Ezechiel', in idem, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetic: Gesammelte Aufsatze Band II (Theologische Biicherei Altes Testament, 51; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag): 135-47. 1979 Ezekiel 1 (trans. R. Clements; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 1980 'Das Phanomen der "Fortschreibung" im Buche Ezechiel', in J. Emerton (ed.), Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer (BZAW, 150; Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 174-91. 1982a 'Visionary Experience in Jeremiah', in R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. Knibb (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 95-118. 1982b I Am Yahweh (trans. D. Stotf, Atlanta: John Knox Press). 1983 Ezekiel 2 (trans. J. Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Zlotnick, Dov 1966 The Tractate 'Mourning' (Semahot) (Regulations Relating to Death, Burial, and Mourning) (Yale Judaica, 17; New Haven: Yale University Press). Zobel, Hans-Jiirgen 1978 "in hoy", in TDOT, III: 359-64. Zwickel, Wolfgang 1991 'motah = "Jochhaken" ', BN57: 37-40.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES

BIBLE

Old Testament Genesis 1.14 2.14 6.11 6.12 9.12 9.13 9.17 11.1 11.3 13.9 14.15 15.2 15.3 15.17 15.18 17.11 19.2 19.3 19.9 21.8 21.25 23.2 23.11 23.16 23.18 24.49 25.20 26.3 26.12-14 27.40 29.22 31.21 31.37 31.42

29 106 110 110 29 29 29 365 353 216 216 125 125 265 106 29 126 126 126 96 172 330 26 26 26 216 86 126 126 144 96 16 172 172

35.4 37.34 38.15 40.19 40.20 42.24 44.2-17 45.25 48.12-19 49.9-10 49.10 50.10 Exodus 2.12

2.23 3.12 4.8 4.9 4.11 4.13 4.17 4.21 4.30 7.9 8.20 10.1-2 11.9 11.10 12.13 14.22 14.29 15.5 15.14-16 15.14

105, 356 330, 349 273 93 96 26 129 283 217 296, 297 297 330, 349

105, 353, 356 290 29 28-30 28 178 143 29 28 26 28,29 110 29 28 28 29 216 216 159 290 284

19.6 20.25 21.6 22.30 24.10 25.31-34 28.4 28.5-6 28.8 28.15 28.38 28.39-40 28.39 28.42 29.9 29.22 31.13 31.17 32.20 33.4 33.22 37.17-20 39.2-3 39.5 39.8 39.27-29 39.28 39.29

103 233 59 249 353 129 103 103 103 103 219, 220 103 103 103 103 217 29 29 240 300 190 129 103 103 103 103 103 103

Leviticus 5.1 5.2 5.17 6.3 6.28 7.18

219 249 219 103 120 219, 249

504

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Leviticus (cont.) 7.24 249 217 7.32-33 8.7 103 103 8.13 217 8.23-26 217 9.27 331 10.6 219 10.17 249 11.8 249 11.11 249 11.24-25 249 11.27-28 121 11.32-35 120, 121 11.33 249 11.35-38 249 11.40 331 13.45 103 13.47 103 13.48 13.52 103 103 13.59 14.8 235 217 14.15-18 217 14.26-28 264 14.37 264 14.39 15.12 120, 121 16.4 103 16.21-22 220 16.22 219 103 16.23 16.32 103 210 17.10 17.15 249 19.7 249 19.8 219 172 19.17 225 19.19 92 19.27-28 19.27 243 20.3 210 210 20.5 210 20.6 20.17 219 20.19 219 92, 243 21.5 249 22.8

22.10-11 22.16 25.24-34 25.47-54 25.48-49 26.13

26.17 26.19 26.25-26 26.26 26.33 26.36-37 26.38-39 26.39 Numbers 2.2 2.17 4.10 4.12 4.24 5.31 6.1-21 10.33 13.23 14.11 14.22 14.28-35 14.34 15.31 15.37-39 16.9 17.3 17.16 17.25 18.1 18.18 18.23 19.2 20.17 20.29 22.26 22.28 24.1-2 24.10

25.8

126 219 317 326 318 142, 144, 152 210 338 225 225 238, 239 238 254 108

29 308 141 141 268 219 235 155 141 29,30 29 247 219 219 241 132 29 364 29 219, 220 217 219, 220 141, 144 217 349 217 180 16 255, 256, 298, 302 329

25.9 25.18 25.19 25.31 30.16 35.4

329 329 329 329 219 264

Deuteronomy 1.7 2.25 2.27 3.11 4.10 4.34 5.32 6.22 7.19 9.21 10.8 11.3 11.24 13.2 13.3 14.1 14.8 14.21 15.17 17.11 17.20 18.5 20.19 21.3 21.12 21.13 22.9-11 22.11 22.12 22.14 22.17 23.12-14 23.13 25.9 26.8 28.14 28.26 28.46 28.48 28.65

106 284, 290 217 331 132 28 217 28 28 240 132 29 106 28 28 92, 243 249 249 59 217 217 132 203 141, 144 235 349 225 103 241 220 220 249 308 26 28 217 93 28 144 284

Index of References 29.21-27 32.41 33.1 33.11 34.8 34.11

83 244 128 290 349 28,29

Joshua 1.4 1.7 2.6 2.15 4.6 5.1 5.2-3 7.6 7.7 7.21-22 7.21 7.22 10.24 14.6 17.7 17.15 17.18 18.23 19.27 22.19 22.24 23.6 24.17

106 217 353, 356 264 29 290 233 330 328 105, 356 353 353 59 128 216 308 308 107 216 248 284 217 29

Judges 3.15 3.17 3.18 3.26 5.4 6.17 9.24 13.6 13.8 14.12 14.17 14.18 15.13-14 16.11-12

155 155 155 190 282 29 220 128 128 96 96 115 223 223

16.19 16.29

236 216

Ruth 4.1-12

317

1 Samuel 2.27 4.12 4.17 6.7 6.12 7.12 9.5 9.6-10 10.2 10.5-6 11.1-7 11.7 14.9-10 14.15 14.19 15 15.12 15.27-28

17.43-46 18.27-28 19.23-24 20.20-22 20.35-39 22.15 23.14 23.19 23.24 25.1 25.29 25.36 28.3 30.7-8 31.13

128 330 329 141, 144 217 314 284 128 284 371 61 61 29 283 190 379 308 336, 376, 378, 379, 381,389 93 381 371 62 62 220 310 216 216 330 240 96 330 310 91, 349

2 Samuel

1.2 1.12 2.19

330 91,298,330 217

505 2.21 3.31 3.35 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.9 7 7.1-17 7.10 7.14 8.2 8.3 8.6 10.4-5 10.4 11.26 12.14 12.15-23 12.16-17 12.20-21 12.20 12.22 12.23 12.25 12.31 13.19 13.31 14.2 14.14 14.19 15.30 16.6 17.9 17.28 18.7 18.18 19.1 19.5 20.15 22.8 23.5 24.5 24.21 24.25

217 298, 330 91 290 125 125 125 125 296 82 284 172 155, 239 106 155 234 236 330 342 300, 342 342 91 330, 342, 343 342, 343 343 143 352, 353 299, 330 330 330, 349 117 217 273,331 216 329 115 329 308,314 284 273 203 282, 283 82 216 329 329

506 I Kings 1.2 2.4 2.15 2.19 2.25 6.5 6.6 8.11 8.12-21 8.22 8.25 8.56 9.5 9.8-9 10.8 11.29-31 12.4 12.8 12.9 12.10 12.11 12.14 12.22 13 13.3 13.5 13.29 13.30 14.11 14.13 14.18 16.4 17.1 17.17-24 18.15 19.6 19.11 19.12 19.13 19.17 19.19-21 20.6 20.28 20.30 20.35 21.24 22

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts 132 132 210 217 143 264 264 132 81 132 132 155 132 83 132 14, 467 144 132 144 144 144 144 128 128 29 29 330 330 93 330 330 93 132 128 132 248 283 283 273 125 14 338 128 81 128 93 19, 143

22.1-28 22.11 22.19 22.42 2 Kings 1.9-16 1.18 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.12 2.15 3.9 3.14 4-8 4.10 4.32-35 4.38-41 4.38 5.16 6.4-7 6.17 6.32 7.8 8.17 9.10 9.36-37 10.15-24 10.15 10.23 10.25 11.11 11.12 12.10 13.14-19 13.14-17 13.14 13.18 17.3 17.4 18.17-19.37 19.2 19.4 19.27 19.28 19.29 19.32

143 14,46 216 86

128 102, 104 128 128 128 125 128 203 132 128 264 378 378 419 132 378 125 419 356 86 93 93 125, 126 59, 125 125 81 216 255, 256 129 42 62 125 303 155 155 232 115 172 283 283 29 203, 207

20.8 20.9 20.12 22.2 22.16-20 23.4 23.13 23.15-20 23.29 24.1-2 24.7 24.10-16 24.10-11

28 28 157 217 87 129 216 128 106 125

106

24.10 25.1 25.2-3 25.2 25.3 25.4-7 25.4-5 25.4 25.6-7 25.7 25.8-10 25.8-9 25.10 25.18-19 25.18

232 125, 229, 231 203 203 189 203 225 270 239 270, 271 270 239, 242 271 238 272 239 129

/ Chronicles 2.55 5.9 7.22 10.12 12.17 15.5 15.15 16.21 17.9 18.2 18.3 18.6 19.4-5 20.3 21.17 21.22 22.8

125 106 349 349 172 142 141 172 284 155 106, 308 155 234 353 329 329 155

Index of References 22.9 23.14

155 128

2 Chronicles

6.16 7.18 10.4 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.14 11.2 17.5 17.11 18.10 18.18 20.25 21.14 25.7-9 26.8 29.11 29.25 30.8 30.16 32.9-22 32.24 32.31 34.2 35.3 35.20 35.25 36.6-7 36.14 36.19

132 132 144 144 144 144 144 128 155 155 14,46 216 268 329 128 155 132 128 59 128 232 28 28 217 268 106 330 125 115 238,271, 338

Ezra

3.2 5.17 7.9 7.20 10.19

128 352 106 352 59

Nehemiah

2.13 3.13-14 3.14 3.25

115 115 125 316

8.4 9.10 12.7 12.31 12.39

216 28 115 115 316

Esther

2.18 4.1 4.3 6.12 7.8 9.22 Job 1.4 1.20 2.11 3.1 3.17 3.24 3.26 5.17 7.19 9.6 9.7 9.24 9.33 11.5 12.6 12.18 13.3 13.6 13.10 13.15 14.1 15.3 16.21 18.10 19.5 19.25 22.4 23.4 23.9 27.23

29.10 29.16

96 290, 300 298, 300 273,331 95, 273 95

96 92, 236, 330 90 180 283 285 284 172 190 283 115 274 172 180 283 102 172 172 172 172 284 172 172 353, 356 172 326 172 172 216 255, 256, 298 179 126

507 29.21 30.12 31.33 32.12 32.20 33.2 36.8 36.13 39.5 39.10 39.24 40.2 40.13 40.16 41.21 42.11 Psalms 2.3 2.9 4.5 6.2 9.16 149.8 18.8 22.16 30.2 30.12 31.5 31.18 35.7 35.8 35.13-14 38.9 38.14 38.15 38.17 38.19 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.10

42.4 44.12 46

332 217 353 172 180 180 175 175 144 223 283 172 105, 353 290 282, 283 90

144, 175, 223 115, 119, 123 283 172 356 141 283 179 172 330 356 332 356 356 300 344 173, 178-80 172, 179 179 284 179 173, 179 179 173, 179, 180 285 239 81

508

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

Psalms (cont.) 47.2 255, 256 81 48 338 48.3 290 48.6-7 172 50.8 50.21 172 60.4 283 64.6 356 68.6 126 69.21 90 71.7 28 74.9 29 81 76 77.17 283 77.19 283 78.2 180 78.43 28,29 78.63-64 241 81 78.68-69 82 78.70-72 79.2-3 93 80.6 285 83.11 93 86.17 28,29 82 89 90.1 128 96.6 338 98.8 255, 256 99.1 283 105.2 28 105.14 172 105.16 225 105.18 141 105.27 29 106.27 239 329 106.29-30 107.14 144 44 107.20 109.2 180 110.1 59 144, 145 116.16 119.154 326 119.158 258 129.4 175, 223 81 132.13-15 82 132.17-18 134.1 132

135.2 135.9 137.6 137.21 140.6 141.5 142.4 147.18 149.8

132 28 179 258 356 172 356 44 141

Proverbs 3.12 3.16 4.27 5.11 6.1 9.7 9.8 11.15 12.25 17.6 17.18 19.12 19.24 20.2 21.2 22.26 23.11 24.25 25.12 26.15 26.23 28.15 28.23 29.2 29.9 30.6 30.21 31.8 31.9 31.13 31.26

172 217 217 344 255 172 172 255 284 338 255 344 353 344 237 255 326 172 172 353 115 344 172 290 283 172 283 178, 180 180 103 180

Ecclesiastes 2.7 7.2 7.4 9.7

125 95 95 285

10.2 12.5 12.6 Isaiah 2.2-4 2.4 2.10

3.1 5.18 5.25 5.27 5.29 6.2 6.10 7.3 7.18 7.20

8.1-4 8.1 8.5-8 8.6-8 8.14 8.18 9.3 9.4 9.6-7 9.19 10.5 10.27 11.3-4 11.3 11.4 11.5 12.1-16 13.13 14.3 14.9 14.16 14.25 14.28-32 14.31 14.32 15.2-4 15.2-3

217 330 119

81 172, 173 105, 353, 356 225 223 93, 283 102 344 273 174 14 111 233, 236, 343, 391, 392 14 14,331 111 111 269 28,29 144 283 82 216 296 144, 152 173 172 172 102 343 282, 283 284 283 282, 283 144, 152 300 299 81 299 299

Index of References 15.2 15.3 17.12-14 18.6 19.20 20 20.1-6 20.2-4 20.3 21.3-4 22.12-13 22.12

22.13 22.21 23.1 23.2 23.6 23.11 24.7 24.11-12 24.18 26.20 28.7 28.13 28.21 28.22 29.5-8 29.6 29.10 29.21 30.13-14 30.14 30.21 31.4-5 31.8 31.9 32.10 32.11 33.7 34.5-8 35.6 37.4 37.28 37.29 37.30 37.33

236 330 81 93 29 102 14, 467 21 28, 383 290,291 299 92, 236, 298-300, 330 299 126 333 332, 333 333 283, 284 290 275 282 177 125 269 283 144 81 283 274 172, 176 120 115 217 81 244 237 284 284 290 244 178, 191 172 283 283 29 203, 207

54.3 55.11 55.12 55.13 56.5 56.10 57.11 58.6 58.7 58.9 59.2 60.7 60.13 60.14 60.15 62.5 62.8 64.1 65.3 65.4 65.14 66.16

174 308 237 274 141 330 144 237 209 237 90 59 144, 145 299 211,229 173, 179, 180 216 44 255, 256 29 308,314 178 284 142, 144 90 142, 144 207 81,338 81 81 338 338 217 284 283 249 299 244

Jeremiah 1.2 1.3-4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.9

85,86 87 86 87 88 86, 328 18

43.8 43.19 44.16 44.18 45.14 47.5 47.6 47.14 50.7 50.11 51.9 51.23 52.2 52.5 52.10 53.7

509 1.10 1.11-12 1.11 1.12 1.13-14 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.18-19 1.19 2.2 2.9-13 2.10 2.11 2.16 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.23 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 3.1-20 3.1-3 3.1 3.2 3.6-11 3.6-9 3.6 3.7 3.12 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.10 4.14 4.23-26 4.24 4.30 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.7-8 5.10

18 107 33 389 389 33 354 33 209 50, 461 17,33 134 18,84 131 351 110 172 86, 144, 152 115 110 163 131, 134 86 346 86 94 18,84 214 86 85 94 17,33 18,84,336 18,84,434 110 18,84,298300, 330 328 328 33 282 86 18,84 429 429 17, 144 86 18,84, 110

510

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Jeremiah (cont.) 82 5.12-13 82 5.12 44 5.14 33,83 5.19 33 5.20 422 5.31 18,84 6.1 6.2 16 308 6.3 110 6.5 203 6.8 322 6.12 82 6.14 18,84 6.16 300, 330 6.26 301 6.27-30 110 6.28 81,115,220 7 118 7.1-15 33 7.2 54 7.4-6 330 7.8 132 7.10 18,84 7.12 429 7.13 54 7.16-19 283 7.18 283 7.19 11,429 7.25-26 7.27 33 33 7.28 18, 84, 92, 7.29 236 7.30-34 118 93 7.33 94,96 7.34 93 8.2 134 8.4-7 33 8.4 8.7 131 134 8.8-12 82 8.11 18,84 8.14 283 8.16 283 8.19 300 9.6

9.8 9.11-15 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.21 10.10 10.17

10.22 11.3 11.4-5 11.6 11.7-8 11.12 11.13 11.15 11.17 11.18-19 11.19 11.21 12.1-2 12.6 12.7-8 12.10 13 13.1-11

13.1-7 13.1-2

13.1

328 83 366 238 18,84,330 93 283 18,84,203, 263 282, 283 33 94 33 429 86 328 86 283 50,461

110 50,461,464 383

13.2 13.3-10 13.3-8 13.3-5 13.3-4 13.3

13.4-10 13.4-9 13.4-7 13.4-6 13.4-5

13.4

13.5

13.6-7

50, 461

86 110,383 22, 106, 138 14,21,24, 27, 69, 99, 108, 110, 111,138, 254, 359, 375, 378, 397, 398, 411,424, 429, 452, 458 100, 101, 383, 397 51, 100, 10 108, 395, 423, 424 75, 101-104, 353,371, 388, 393, 401,410, 417,421, 434

13.6 13.7

13.8-11 13.8-10 13.8-9 13.8 13.9-10 13.9

13.10-11 13,10

13.11

24, 383, 452 100 100 100, 101 105 75,101,371, 401,421 447, 448 442 390 388, 434, 435

108, 395 423, 424 429 107, 356 393, 409, 445, 452 24, 101, 107 353, 356 100, 101, 107, 108, 433 75, 101, 393 401,421 24, 101, 105, 107,110, 431,448 100, 101 100 100 75,101,371, 401,421 101, 108 109 101, 109 110,118, 161,383, 403,421, 452 100,110

100, 101, 110-12,388, 405, 448 100-103, 108, 109 111, 118 383, 388

Index of References

13.12-14 13.12 13.14 13.16 13.17 13.20 14.3 14.4 14.13 14.14-15 14.14 14.15 14.16 14.34 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.6 15.12 15.15-21 15.15 15.17 15.19 15.20 16-25 16.1-19 16.1-13 16.1-9

16.1 16.2-9 16.2-4 16.2

390, 403, 421,452 109 33 109, 110 275 16 18,84 273 273 82, 328 421 73, 422 82 93 331 132 110 90 110 207 98 50, 461 31,98,330 132 50, 461 326 424 429, 455 14,24,31, 55, 79, 82, 84, 87, 89, 98, 138, 398, 411,426, 427,431, 442, 446, 447, 452, 454, 458 75,98,371, 413,421 98 375 82-84, 89, 95, 383, 386, 393, 395, 399,401, 409, 416, 417,423,

16.3-6 16.3-4

16.3 16.4-6 16.4 16.5-9 16.5-7 16.5

16.6-7

16.6 16.7 16.8-9 16.8

16.9

16.10-13 16.10-12 16.10 16.11

426, 427, 429, 434, 445, 457 82 83,92,383, 386, 430 83,399,421 83 83, 93, 94, 403 89 83, 84, 95 82-84, 8895, 383, 386, 393, 395, 401,409, 413,416, 417,421, 423, 426, 427, 429, 434, 445, 457 83, 84, 91, 92, 94, 340, 383, 386, 403, 430 83, 90, 9294, 236 90-93,331 84 82-84, 89, 94, 95, 383, 386, 393, 395,401, 409,413, 416,417, 423, 427, 429, 434, 445, 457 83, 94-96, 383, 386, 399,421, 430 82, 83, 89, 97 405 82 89

511 16.13 16.16 16.18 17.8 17.15 18 18.1-10

18.4 18.7 18.8 18.9 18.10 18.13-17 18.13 18.14-15 18.16 18.18 18.20-23 18.20 18.22 19 19.1-20.6 19.1-13

19.1-3 19.1-2 19.1

19.2-9 19.2 19.3-9

19.3 19.4-13

89 111 89 284 48,461,464 19, 336, 378 379 376, 378, 381,389 110 54 54 54 54 134 18,84 131 89 50, 461 50, 461 132 356 121, 122, 138,402 115 14, 24, 53, 55, 115, 117, 118, 122, 138, 254, 359,411, 424, 429, 442, 447, 458 452 118 24, 26, 75, 104, 107, 115, 117, 118, 121, 393,421 117, 118 115, 118, 397, 460 118, 121-23, 402 117, 118, 123,421 115

512

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

Jeremiah (cont.) 19.4-5 118,121, 405 19.6-9 118,404 19.6 115,119, 421 19.7 93,117-19, 121 19.8 116,118 19.9 118 19.10-13 397,402 19.10-11 431 19.10 24,26,116, 118,119, 383,388, 390,391, 393,395, 397,398, 402,409, 413,423, 424,426-29, 434,435, 440,441, 445,446 19.11-13 117,118 19.11-12 383 19.11 100,109, 110,115, 118,119, 121, 161, 383,388, 402,403, 421 19.12 118,119, 421 19.13 118,119, 121,404 19.14-20.6 115 19.27-28 424 19.94 126 20.1-6 50 20.1-2 50,380,381, 461 20.2 464 20.7 50 20.10 50 21 48 21.1-10 54

21.1-2 21.1 21.2 21.5 21.7 21.9-10 21.10 21.13 22.8-9 22.10-12 22.10 22.19 22.24 22.28 22.30 23.9 23.12 23.16 23.17 23.18 23.21 23.22 23.26-28 23.29 23.30 23.32 24 24.1-10 24.1 24.3 24.6-7 24.6 24.10-14 25.1 25.2 25.3-7 25.3-4 25.6 25.7 25.8-14 25.10 25.12-14 25.12 25.13 25.14 25.15-29 25.15-16 25.15

76, 419, 420 129 54 211,328 16 210 16 82 83 274 18, 84, 90 93 217 120, 122 18, 84, 97 290, 291 275 73,421,422 82 73,421 73,421 73,421 73, 422 44 422 73,421,422 164 389

33 33 164 210 164 139 16 11 429 283 283 114 94,96 164 163, 448 18,85 18 18, 19, 127 18 18

25.16 25.17 25.18-26 25.26 25.27 25.31 25.33 25.34 26 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.5 26.10-11 26.11 26.13 26.16 26.17-19 27-29

27-28

27

27.1-28.17 27.1-11 27.1

27.2-22 27.2-11 27.2-7 27.2-3 27.2

18 18,25 18 18 18 244 93 299 50,54,81, 118,220 54, 137, 138 33 54 429 50,461,464 50 54 50,461,464 50 139, 164, 228, 229, 247, 296 14, 136, 137, 139, 140, 152, 155, 164, 165, 393, 401 52, 64, 72, 74, 136, 144, 150, 155, 168,391, 398, 404, 411,438, 440, 449, 450, 452, 457 24 147 137, 138, 388,417, 434 254, 395 436, 438, 440 442 137 46, 69, 75, 140, 142,

Index of References

27.3-11 27.3 27.4-22 27.4-15 27.4-7 27.4 27.5-22 27.5-15 27.5-7 27.5-6 27.6 27.7 27.8

27.9-10 27.9 27.10 27.11

27.12-22 27.12-15 27.12

27.13 27.14-15 27.14 27.15 27.16-22 27.16 27.17 27.20 27.21-23 27.22 28

371,383, 393, 398, 410,413, 421,423, 427, 445, 457, 458 141 137, 142, 143, 148 147 140 164 142, 421 142 147 74, 388 147 146 383 140, 141, 144, 147, 366, 404, 421 140, 149 140 147 140-42, 144, 147, 404, 421 149, 438 141 24, 137, 140-42, 144, 147, 383, 388, 404, 442 147, 149, 404 140 140 147 152 82, 140, 151 442 137 140 163 19, 46, 77,

28.1-11 28.1-4

28.1

28.2-4 28.2 28.3-4

28.3 28.4 28.5-9 28.5 28.9-10 28.10-11

28.10 28.11

28.12-16 28.12 28.13-14 28.13 28.14-17 28.14 28.16-22 28.17-28 28.17 28.21 28.59-64 29

29.1-23 29.1 29.2

136, 139, 29.5-9 142, 144, 29.5 29.6 150, 151, 29.7-9 153 457, 463 29.8-10 29.9 147, 150, 29.10 461 24, 26, 136 29.11 29.13 137, 138, 29.18 139 29.24-28 150, 154 46, 140, 144 29.25-28 82, 137, 140, 29.25 461 29.26-27 151, 152, 29.26 154, 156 29.28 140, 144, 29.29 152 29.31 151 29.33 26 30.1-2 30.2 143 49, 137, 146, 30.5-6 30.6-7 150, 461 46, 69, 140- 30.6 43, 383 30.8 26,46, 110, 30.11 140, 144, 31.11 146, 147, 31.15-20 154, 156, 31.19 383,461 31.21 151 32 24, 140-43 16, 17 17, 33, 46, 140-42 143 17, 140, 144 150 143 32.1-44 143 32.1-5 32.1 16 154 19, 130, 139, 32.2-5 164, 168, 247 32.2 140 32.3-5 157 32.5 16 32.6-44

513 82 360 97 140 151 421 163,448 165 429 242 461,464 168 129 50 50 360 157, 158 421 73,421 19 34 290 134 18,33,84 144, 152 164 326 344, 345 298, 330 309,312 19,72, 130, 314-16,320, 325, 326, 328, 377, 379, 380, 411,424, 429, 447, 452-55, 459 14,24,315 315 75, 139,315, 371 50,316,461, 464 315,316 315,325 328 315

514

Jeremiah's andEzekiel's Sign-Acts

Jeremiah (cont.) 75,315,398, 32.6-15 435, 442, 449 32.6-14 320, 321, 430, 433 32.6-12 405 32.6-8 376 32.6-7 377 75,315,371, 32.6 376, 421 410,413 32.7-15 32.7-14 393, 397 32.7-12 416 32.7-8 386, 395, 423, 434 32.7 24,75,317, 377, 383 32.8-16 24 24 32.8-15 316,317, 32.8 376, 377 32.9-12 401 319,321 32.9 32.10 319,320 32.11 319 32.12-14 315 32.12 24, 26, 154, 316,320, 323 32.13-17 405 32.13-15 401 32.14-15 328 32.14 320, 321, 421 32.15 320, 321, 377, 383, 386, 403 421,452, 453 32.16-44 315,327, 328 32.16-25 315,325-27, 377 32.17-25 325 326 32.17-23 327, 405 32.17 32.20 28,29

32.21 32.22-24 32.24-25 32.25 32.26-44 32.28-29 32.28 32.29-35 32.29 32.30 32.32 32.33 32.35-37 32.36-37 32.37-42 32.37-41 32.42-44 32.42 32.43-44 32.43 32.44 33.1 33.9 33.11 33.17 33.18 34-35 34.1-7 34.1-2 34.2 34.8-22 34.8-11 34.8 34.10 34.12-16 34.12 34.14 34.16 34.17-20 34.17 34.20 34.21-22 35

28 453 327 24,75,321, 377 315,326, 327 35.1-19 404 327 35.1-15 405 35.1-11 283 35.1-2 283 35.1 283 429 35.2-13 327 35.2-11 328 35.2-5 326 35.2 405 327 321,328 403 321 35.3-11 321,326 35.3-5 316 35.3 284 35.4-5 94,96 35.4 132 132 35.5 131, 132, 136 35.6-11 316 35.6-9 54 35.6 17,33 35.8 131, 132, 35.10 317 35.11 131 35.12-19 131 35.12-17 132 35.12-16 132 35.12-13 131 132 35.13-17 132 35.13-16 132 35.13 132 93 35.14-16 132 35.14-15 15, 19, 52, 67, 125, 126, 35.14

131, 132, 135, 380, 405,411, 424, 425, 442, 452, 454 14, 24, 124 131,413 460 433 130 75, 124, 13 371 131 397 405 16, 33, 12628,388,391, 394, 399, 410,417, 423, 434 130 24, 128 126, 127 401 125, 128, 129, 132 125-27, 129 130, 399 127, 130 399 126 126, 132 126, 132 127 131 131 132 127, 131, 401 133 130, 132 33, 131-34 421 133 131, 134, 135, 429 126, 131,

Index of References

35.15 35.16

35.17 35.18-19 35.18

35.19

36 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4-6 36.4 36.6 36.7 36.8 36.9-19 36.9 36.10 36.13 36.14 36.15 36.21 36.22-24 36.23 36.26 36.28 36.29 36.30 36.32 37.3-10 37.3 37.6-7 37.7 37.8 37.9 37.11-13 37.11-12 37.12 37.13-16 37.13

132, 134, 388, 399 11, 132 126, 131, 132, 134, 399 132-34,421 131-34 126, 127, 132, 133, 421 125, 126, 132, 133, 421 19 54, 139 19, 34, 85 54 158 19, 158 158 54 158 158 139 129, 158 158 158 158 158 49 158 50,461,464 19,34 110 93 19 420 76, 129, 419 317 419 318 82,317 379,381 316,317 316,318 316 318

37.15-16 37.16-25 37.17-21 37.17 37.19 37.21-38.28 37.21 37.25 37.28 38.1-6 38.2 38.4 38.6 38.13 38.14-23 38.14-18 38.14-15 38.14 38.17-26 38.17-23 38.19 38.28 39.1-44 39.1 39.2

39.3 39.4-7 39.4 39.6-7 39.8 39.11-12 39.12 39.14 39.15 39.16 40.1 40.4 41.5 41.7-18 42-44 42-43 42.1^3.7 42.1^3.4 42.1-19 42.1-4

380 317 420 48,76,419 82,311 380 225,316 317 311 50,461,464 16 50 316,380 316 419, 420 48 50, 461 76,419 429 48, 54, 55 284 316 315 139 139, 189, 271, 272 354 270 270 270 238,271, 272 106 210 316 316 17,33 141 141,210 92, 235, 236, 330 351 242 239 48,359,419 429 124 419

515 42.1-3 42.7-22 42.7 42.11 42.13-22 42.14 42.15-19 42.15 42.16 42.17 42.22 43 43.1-7 43.8-13

43.8 43.9-10 43.9

43.10-13 43.10

43.11-13 43.12-13 43.12 44.1-4 44.1 44.3 44.8 44.11-14 44.11 44.12 44.24-30 44.24-29

76 351 139 351,361 242,351 351 360 16 284, 286 16 360 354 351,422, 427, 461 14, 24, 163, 242,351, 405,411, 424, 429, 436, 438-42, 447, 448, 452 75,351,371, 421 452 24,26,310, 351-54, 387, 393, 394, 397, 399, 405,411, 413,416, 423, 425, 434, 460 358, 360 354, 356, 357, 360, 421 358 361 361 351 351 283 283 242, 360 16,210 16 351 360

516

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

Jeremiah (cont.) 242 44.27 30 44.29 139 45.1 18 46-51 351 46.1 106, 139 46.2 106 46.6 111 46.7 106 46.10 358 46.13-24 262, 358 46.13 358 46.14 262, 343 46.19 299 47.1 47.2 111,299 282, 283 47.3 299 47.4 236 47.5 299 47.6 120 48.12 110 48.18 299 48.20 111 48.29 299 48.31 236 48.37 120 48.38 269 48.43-44 298, 300, 49.3 330 110 49.9 283 49.21 284 49.23 49.32 239 138 49.34 239 49.36 157 50-51 164 50.1-51.59 156-58, 164 50.1-51.58 158 50.3 351 50.8-13 50.15 59 50.24 159, 269 284, 326 50.34 244 50.35-37 50.43 290, 291 50.46 283

51.11 51.25-26 51.25 51.26 51.29 51.39 51.52 51.59-64

51.59-61 51.59

51.60 51.61-63 51.61

51.62

51.63

51.64

52.4 52.5-6 52.5 52.6 52.7-11 52.7

110 52.12-14 159 52.14 110 52.24 158 283 Lamentations 95 1.4 333 1.8 14, 19, 24, 1.10 27,31,42, 1.11 72, 75, 154, 156-58, 164, 1.14 165, 168, 1.19 424, 436, 2.1 438, 439, 2.4 441,442, 2.9 452 2.10 158 155, 156, 2.12 158 2.15 106, 156, 158, 168 2.19 158 3.27 156, 158, 3.28 162, 163, 3.58 166 4.3-5 156, 158, 4.4 162, 166, 4.12 167 65, 106, 156,5.6 5.9-10 159, 383, 5.14-15 388, 390, 393, 395, 397, 402, Ezekiel 1-33 413, 424, 1-24 429, 433, 434, 440, 1.1-3.15 1.1 460 1.2 154, 156, 157, 159-62, 1.3 1.4 383, 388, 402, 403 1.10 1.15 203 1.24 189 1.27 203 2.2 225 2.3-7 270 270, 271

271 272 129

290 290, 292 338 225, 290, 338 144 225 338 338 186 330, 332, 333 225 255, 256, 298, 302, 338 225 144 330, 332 326 225 90, 179 81 59, 225 225 96

175 342 32 32, 266 79, 222, 266 32 32 217,218 32 32 32 32 48, 176, 280 461

Index of References 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8-3.3 2.8 3.2 3.7-9 3.7 3.8-9 3.8 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16-5.17 3.16 3.17-21 3.18 3.19 3.21 3.22^.17 3.22-27

3.22-24 3.22-23 3.22 3.24-27 3.24-26 3.24-25 3.24 3.25-27 3.25-26 3.25

3.26-27

204 187 50, 175, 461 187 15, 32, 176 32 25, 180 176 48, 187,461 175, 181, 209 16 187, 266 32, 282, 283 282, 283 32 266 195 228 11,55 55,219 219 169 373 14, 32, 169, 185 189 182 32, 75, 190, 421 25, 182 171, 174, 176 177 32, 175, 176, 180,205 181, 183 184 169, 175, 176, 181, 182, 189, 224, 280, 375,380 52,75,169, 175, 182, 384, 394, 400, 423, 450

3.26

3.27

4-33 4-24 4-5

4 4.1-5.17 4.1-5.4

4.1-5

4.1-4 4.1-3

32, 64, 169, 172, 176, 178, 180, 4.1-2 181, 186, 189, 191, 226, 373, 386, 396, 410,411, 413,416, 424, 426-28, 442, 457, 459 175, 178, 180, 181, 183-85, 187, 190 4.1 183 184, 188, 259 14, 22, 31, 4.2-3 32, 184, 195, 4.2 197, 198, 202, 210, 213, 222, 4.3-14 226, 228, 4.3-7 242, 245, 4.3 247, 252, 272,391, 401,429, 433, 435, 438, 440, 447, 453, 454, 457 291,457 199,213 28, 182, 195, 198, 199, 205, 226 202, 238, 247, 252, 253, 285, 438 4.4-5.3 201 4.4-17 25,55,198, 4.4-11 201, 221, 4.4-8 244, 285, 395,401, 413,424,

517 425, 442, 446, 453 196,201, 202, 204, 206, 208, 228, 229, 386,391, 393, 398, 409,411, 416,417, 423, 424, 426, 427, 429, 434, 435, 438, 444, 446 203, 204, 206, 237, 308, 383, 393, 397 384 203, 204, 206, 208, 227, 397 218 224 16, 25, 27, 28,31, 186, 196, 198, 199,201203, 206, 208, 209, 213,218, 227, 229, 237, 240, 384, 385, 388, 390-94, 397, 399, 404, 409, 411,417-23, 444, 455, 459 375, 380 453 425 21,25,31, 196, 373, 396, 424, 453

518

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

4.9-11 Ezekiel (cont.) 198,213, 4.4-6 392, 395, 413,459 51, 201, 202, 4.4-5 211-13,216, 221, 227, 229, 423 198,212, 4.4 216-22, 247, 383, 389, 392, 417 198, 200, 4.5 201,212, 4.9-10 383, 403 442 4.6-5.4 114, 197, 4.6 198, 2004.9 202, 212, 213,216-19, 221, 247, 253,383, 4.10-11 389, 390, 403,417, 4.10 423, 438, 448 4.11 238, 252, 4.7-11 285, 438 201,253 4.12-15 4.7-8 16,55, 1984.7 203, 206, 208-10,218, 221,226, 4.12-13 227,229, 4.12 232, 244, 247, 384, 392-95,401, 409,411, 423, 444, 455, 459 202 4.8-11 175, 1984.8 200, 203, 212, 223, 224, 388 25,199,459 4.13-14 4.9-17 411 4.13 4.9-15 378, 386 4.9-12

55, 199-201, 221, 224, 229, 248, 284, 285, 287,383, 4.14-15 393, 395, 398, 404, 409,424, 4.14 426,427, 4.15 434, 435, 438, 443, 444, 446, 455 4.16-17 224, 248, 386, 397, 398,413, 423,430 4.16 196, 200, 212, 224, 225, 393, 399 196, 224, 4.17 392 201,224, 5 225 5.1-4 201,202, 218, 386, 397, 423 52, 196, 247, 253, 409, 413, 424, 431 398, 448 25,26,31, 174, 197, 5.1-3 199-202, 5.1-2 205, 225, 247-49, 253, 383, 386, 389, 391-93, 395, 397, 399, 423, 425, 427, 438, 444, 455 5.1 254 197, 199202, 213,

247, 249, 250, 383, 386, 389, 399, 403 200,201, 247, 253, 438 22, 249 75, 248, 249 397, 399, 421,425, 429 199-202, 225, 227, 284, 285, 395, 398 75, 285, 286 291, 364, 383, 386, 403, 404, 421 219, 399, 404 220 25,31, 199 201, 222, 232, 233, 243, 246, 253, 391, 395,411, 413,424, 431,434, 440,441, 453 397, 398 55, 196, 197 199, 202, 210,233, 239, 240, 244, 252, 253, 343, 426, 427, 429, 438, 446, 460 202, 220, 233, 235, 237, 330, 384, 389-93,

Index of References

5.2-4

5.2

5.3-4

5.3

5.4

5.5-17 5.5-11 5.5-10 5.5-9 5.5

5.6-11 5.6-9 5.6-7

397, 404, 409, 423-25, 427, 434, 444, 453 199, 247, 398,438, 448 52, 197, 199-203, 210, 233, 237, 238, 241, 242, 245-47, 383, 386, 389, 390, 392, 393, 397, 409, 423, 424, 429, 434, 435, 455 196, 202, 239, 240, 253, 384 197, 240, 241,246, 389,391, 393, 397, 424, 434 197, 210, 213,241, 242, 245, 246, 252, 386, 389, 393, 397, 435, 448 197, 198, 201, 226 204, 230 227 201, 202, 226 203, 204, 226, 229, 383, 403, 421 221 227 405

5.7 5.8-9 5.8 5.9 5.10-11 5.10

5.11

5.12-18 5.12-17

5.12

5.13 5.14-17 5.14-15 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.21 6 6.1-10 6.1-7 6.2-3 6.2 6.3-10 6.3-7 6.3 6.8-10 6.8 6.9 6.11-12

6.11

421 204 204, 404, 421 405 201,226 197, 201, 202, 225, 227, 233, 239, 404, 430 201, 202, 208, 220, 227, 236, 405, 421 426 201, 202, 233 233, 237-39, 383, 386, 389, 403 303 404 235 235 235 225, 364 233 174 197 402 252 226, 438 16,33 254 197 184, 187, 233, 244 189, 197, 240 233 257 14, 15, 25, 233, 258, 302, 342, 402, 423, 453, 459 31,33,60,

519

6.12-14 6.12 6.13-14 6.13

6.14 6.18 6.26 7 7.2 7.3 7.8 7.10-11 7.13 7.14-18 7.15 7.16-17 7.16 7.17 7.18 7.20-24 7.22 8-11 8 8.1

8.2 8.3 8.5 8.6 8.8 8.10 8.11 8.12

75, 184,215, 256-59, 302, 384, 388, 392, 394, 396, 397, 400, 402, 404, 409, 411,413, 421,424, 428, 444, 450, 455 252 303, 404 258 197, 296, 405 404 258 330 291 438 28 303 364 219 235 233 197 173, 239 290, 291 92, 236, 286 330 252 209 32, 220, 222 32, 214 32, 76, 180 214, 222, 419 32 32 25 214,215 25 25,214,215 214,215 188,214, 215

520

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Ezekiel (cont.) 214,215, 8.17 283 252, 258 9 9.4 290, 291, 12.3-5 333, 342 12.3-4 32 9.8 188,213-15, 12.3 9.9 218 217 10.3 10.15 222 222 10.20 12.4-6 11.1 32 12.4 188 11.3 32 11.4-13 226 11.4-5 12.5-12 233, 244 11.8 12.5-7 11.10 233 12.5-6 11.13 226 12.5 11.14 173 188 11.15 197 11.16 32, 266 11.24 32, 184, 266 11.25 274, 291 12 12.6 12.1-16 14, 25, 33, 55, 174, 197, 261-63, 286, 392, 398, 411,424, 433, 439, 442, 446, 12.7 447, 453, 454, 460 12.1-14 271 12.8-16 384, 400 12.1-7 12.8-14 12.1-6 383, 429, 12.8-11 453 75, 371, 377, 12.8 12.1 421 274 12.2-3 48, 174, 187, 12.9-20 12.2 12.9-10 262, 279, 12.9 280, 461 12.3-7 25, 263, 276, 397, 429, 438 33, 261, 276, 12.10-16 12.3-6

12.10-11 386, 387, 12.10 393,416, 417,423, 434, 435, 12.11-12 444, 446 395, 409 12.11 261 26, 174, 261, 262, 267, 269, 277, 12.12-16 279, 280, 12.12-14 375,413 261, 267 26, 174, 262, 12.12 265, 267, 12.13-15 279 12.13-14 265 12.13 267, 268 264, 270 26, 174, 262, 12.14-16 12.14 264, 266, 268, 271, 272, 279, 12.15 386, 397, 424 25, 26, 28, 12.16 174, 185, 215, 262, 264-70, 272- 12.17-20 74, 279, 384, 385, 389-92, 423, 453 25,26,26168, 271-73, 279, 397 261,266 376, 377 33 75,276,371, 12.17-18 12.17 397,401, 12.18-20 421 252 12.18-19 184 12.18 27, 180, 215, 276, 279, 280, 414-16, 461 276

339 25, 77, 215, 267, 268, 421 267, 268, 403 25, 28, 185, 266, 268, 272, 277, 383-86 267 267, 268, 270 262, 264, 265, 268-74 404 269 269, 270, 274, 278 197 233, 238, 239, 244, 269 30, 239, 384 395 30, 233, 240 241, 342, 384 14, 25, 55, 281,285, 286,291, 375, 380, 398,411, 428, 429, 438, 439, 442, 446, 447, 452, 455, 459 402 75,371,421 284 285, 286 23,31,282, 283, 383, 387, 388, 393, 394, 396, 397, 409,413,

Index of References

12.19-20

12.19

12.20 12.21-28 12.21-25 12.22-23 12.22 12.23 12.26-28

12.27 12.28 13.1 13.2-3 13.2 13.4 13.6-9 13.6-7 13.6 13.7 13.10 13.15 13.17-18 13.17 13.18 13.19 14.1-11 14.1-4 14.1 14.3-11 14.4 14.6 14.7-8 14.8

14.10

423, 424, 14.11-12 427, 444, 14.12-20 446 14.13 14.17 284, 286, 287, 404 14.21-23 215, 282, 14.21 288, 383, 388, 402, 14.22-23 403, 405, 14.22 421 15.1 15.2 30, 384 15.3 176, 280, 292 15.4-7 419,461, 15.6 464 15.7 17 16 48, 188, 280 16.2-3 184 16.3 16.4 419, 429, 461,464 16.5 188, 280 16.6 33, 184 16.9 413 16.26 73, 422 16.35 33, 184, 188, 16.38-41 226 16.40 16.42 413 16.43 73 421 16.44-58 16.44 188 16.46 188, 399 188, 399 16.49 303 16.56 226 16.63 17 16, 73, 422 184 17.2 73 17.3 188, 190 17.9 180 17.12 76, 174, 184, 17.16 17.17 214,419 187 17.18 17.20-21 33, 184 30, 33, 184 17.20 17 17.21 17.24 16, 28, 30, 18.2 31,210 18.17 219

173 241 225 233, 244 240, 241 233, 244, 252 342 189, 197 173 296, 363 296, 363 242 296, 363 16, 210, 242 346 438 184 330, 404 330, 404 404 404 283 187 252 233 283 283 214 17 217 111,218 111 187, 193 397 17,33 184 184 33, 184 269 203 59 269 269 233, 269 296, 363 17, 188 219

521 18.18 18.19 18.20 18.21-32 18.23 18.25 18.29 19.1 19.2 19.8-9 19.11 19.12 19.14 20.1-3 20.1

20.3 20.4 20.8 20.12 20.20 20.21 20.23 20.27 20.28 20.32 20.37 20.39 20.43 20.44 21.1-10 21.2-4 21.2-3 21.2 21.3-4 21.3

21.5 21.6-12 21.6-7 21.7-10 21.7-8 21.7

219 188,219 219 55 257 187, 188 188 33 184 269 296, 363, 364, 399 364 296, 363, 364 188, 190 76, 174, 180 184,214, 419 33, 184 173 303 28-30 28-30, 400 303 239 33 283, 296 188, 296 363 187 257, 258 110 291 291 226 16 242 184, 187, 291, 296, 297, 363 17, 188, 280 292, 461 289 289 291 226 16,33,438

522

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

21.17 Ezekiel (cont.) 233, 244 21.8-25 21.8-17 293 294 21.8-10 233, 296 21.8-9 184 21.8 14 21.11-29 21.11-12 25, 34, 289, 300, 342, 375,411, 442, 452, 454, 459 25, 26, 52, 21.11 64, 174, 258, 289, 333, 383,387, 21.18-24 388,394, 21.18 396, 400, 401,410, 21.19-22 413,416, 21.19 423, 424, 428, 444, 450 21.12 25, 27, 77, 180, 184, 280, 290-93, 333, 383, 388,401, 403,414-16, 421,461 21.13-22 17, 25, 293, 342, 402, 453 21.20 21.13-21 291 294, 442 21.13-18 21.13-14 293 75, 294, 371, 21.21 21.13 421 295 21.22 21.14-16 21.14 184, 226, 294, 397, 421 295-301, 21.23-29 21.15 305, 306, 363 297 21.16 21.17-22 15,31 21.23

17, 64, 216, 21.24-25 258, 293-95, 21.24 298, 300, 302, 304306, 330, 384, 387, 388, 392, 21.25 394, 396, 400, 402, 21.26-29 21.26-27 404, 410, 411,413, 21.26 423, 424, 21.27 428, 444, 450, 453, 459 307 21.28 296, 300, 306, 363 21.29 304 21.30-32 17, 34, 255, 21.30 256, 293-95, 21.31 298,30121.32 21.33 305, 307, 383, 388, 392, 394, 21.34 21.37 396, 397, 22.2 402, 409, 22.3 411,413, 423, 424, 22.13 428, 444, 22.15 450, 453, 455, 459 22.18 22.19-22 256, 302, 384, 394, 22.24 404, 428, 22.28 444 22.30-31 217,218, 23 304 255, 293-95, 23.10 301, SOS23.15 SOS, 383, 23.25 23.47 403, 453 25, 307, 405, 411,429, 23.49 24 439, 442, 445, 447, 24.1-2 24.1 460 75,371,421

31,307,310, 416,417 55, 99, 307 387, 394, 399, 409, 413, 423-25 213, 309, 311 310 143,310 310,314 180,203, 204, 217, 310,311, 314 218,291, 311 218, 300 307 216,219 300 297 33, 184,226, 233 219 242 173 184 255, 256 302 239 330 242 184 73, 188,421 187 213,214, 346 233 102 233 233, 308, 309 219 397 19, 347 182, 183 347

Index of References 24.3-14 24.3-5 24.3 24.6 24.7-14 24.10-11 24.10 24.15-26 24.15-24

24.15-18 24.15 24.16-17

24.16

24.17

24.18-24 24.18

24.19-20 24.19

17-19, 202 17 17,33, 184 17 17 17 296 380 15, 25, 34, 64, 72, 89, 92, 194,291, 293, 314, 329, 347, 362, 375, 398,411, 425,431, 442, 444, 453, 457, 458 401 75,347,371, 421 34, 52, 329, 333,341, 345, 346, 383, 387, 388, 392, 393, 410, 413,416, 417, 423, 424, 427, 450 329, 330, 337, 338, 344, 345, 389,391, 397, 399 91, 258, 273, 330-32, 334, 341, 344, 396 329 25, 183, 184, 329, 345-47, 350 184 25, 27, 77, 180, 280,

24.20-24 24.20 24.21-24 24.21

24.22-24 24.22-23 24.22

24.23

24.24

24.25-29 24.25-27

24.25

24.26 24.27

345, 346, 350,401, 414,416, 461 34 184, 347, 348 339 34, 100, 184, 216,233, 337-39, 389, 392, 399, 404, 421 339, 345 339,341, 383, 403 91,273,331, 332, 339, 348, 349, 383, 388 219, 254, 331,343, 344 25, 28, 30, 185, 339, 344, 348, 349, 383-85 183 14, 25, 169, 182-84, 188, 189,314, 344, 362, 384, 410, 411,413, 447, 449, 450, 455 173, 188, 268, 338

523

24.29 25.2-3 25.2 25.3

25.6

25.8 25.12 25.13 25.14 26-29 26.1-6 26.1 26.2 26.4 26.6 26.8 26.9 26.10 26.11 26.12 26.13 26.15 26.16 26.18 27 27.2 27.3 27.11 27.17 27.28 27.30-31 27.30 27.31 28.1-10 173, 188, 28.2 424 28.7 25, 28, 30, 28.11-19 75, 173, 175, 28.12 177, 178, 28.18 181, 185, 28.21-22 28.21 186, 188, 28.22 190, 191, 384-87, 394, 28.23

400, 410, 428, 442 415 226 16,33 184,214, 215, 256, 257, 266 61,81,25557, 302 215 215 233, 244 215 55 55 183 256, 257 264 233 203, 233 233, 264 283 233 296 96 283, 333 221 188 55 33 184 264 213-15 283 290, 299 330 236, 330 268 33, 184 233 268 33, 184 218, 242 226 16 184 233, 244

524

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Ezekiel (cont.) 29.1-6 268 183 29.1 226 29.2-3 29.2 16,33 184 29.3 364 29.6 29.7 290 233 29.8 29.12 239 29.16 218 29.17-20 191 29.21 191 30.2 33, 184,226, 300 30.4-6 233 30.6 338 242 30.8 188 30.9 233 30.11 30.13-19 358 30.14 242 242 30.16 30.17 233 30.18 142, 144, 338,351, 358 30.20-26 183,268 30.20 183 30.21-22 233 30.23 239 30.24-25 233, 244 30.26 239 31.1-18 183, 268 183 31.1 31.2 33, 184 31.4-5 363 296 31.4 31.5 296 31.8-9 363 185,296 31.8 31.9 296 31.14 296, 363 296 31.15 31.16 282, 296, 363 233 31.17-18 31.18-20 363

31.18 32^5 32.1-10 32.2 32.3 32.7-8 32.9-10 32.10-12 32.10 32.18 32.20-32 32.27 33.1-9 33.2-3 33.2 33.6 33.8 33.10

33.11 33.12-19 33.12 33.13 33.14 33.21-26 33.21-22

33.21

33.22

33.25 33.26-27 33.27 33.30-33

296 33.30-32 55 33.30-31 268 33.30 33.31 33, 184 33.32 269 275 33.33 188 34-48 34.2 233 244 34.5 300 34.23-24 34.27 233 219 11 35.2-3 233 35.2 25,33 35.5 219, 233 35.8 185,219 36.1-3 33, 108, 254, 36.1 341, 350, 36.2 362 36.6 36.30 33, 257 55 36.31 33 36.33 36.37 55 55 37 183 37.1-14 14, 25, 169, 177, 182, 184, 188, 37.1 189,314, 37.4 384, 410, 37.7 413,447, 449 37.9 37.10 182, 183, 189, 266, 37.11 280 32, 75, 178, 37.12 180, 183, 37.15-28 184, 189-91, 386, 394, 400, 410, 424, 428, 37.15-23 442 33 233 242 37.15-17 176,419, 37.15-16 429, 461

48, 184, 187 76, 174 264 48 76, 292 186 175 33, 226 330 343 142, 144, 296 226 16,33 219, 233 233 226 33, 438 256, 257 226 296 218,258 218 191 213 32, 178, 362 368, 369, 432 32 226 25, 32, 226 282, 365 226 25, 32, 226 341, 350, 362 32, 226 15,25,47, 214-16, 296 362, 398, 404, 455 411,429, 442, 447, 449, 452, 458, 460 430 401

Index of References 37.15 37.16-20 37.16-19 37.16-18 37.16-17

37.16 37.17-20 37.17

37.18

37.19-20 37.19 37.20-28 37.20-22 37.20

37.21-28 37.21-22 37.21 37.22 37.24-25 38.2-3 38.2 38.4 38.8 38.11 38.14 38.17-23 38.19 38.20 38.21

75, 362, 371,39.1 421 39.3 363 39.6 367 39.9 367 39.10 39.17 366, 367, 383, 393, 39.23 397, 404, 410,413, 39.28 417, 424 40^8 214, 296, 40.1 362-64, 393 40.2-5 40.2 93 296, 364-67, 40.4 389, 390, 41.16 395, 424, 41.22 434, 435 41.25 25, 27, 77, 42.7-22 280, 296, 44.10 366-68,401, 44.12 414,415, 44.17-18 417,461 44.20 44.31 367 45.8 296, 363, 365-68, 403 47.1 47.2 367 47.7 367 25, 26, 174, 47.12 296, 365, 47.13 47.21 367 47.22 364, 367, 404 47.23 48.1 389 214, 363 48.7 214, 363, 48.8 383 48.19 48.22 343, 366 226 48.23 16, 33, 55 48.29 48.31 233 233 264 48.38 226 55 Daniel 1.1-2 283 1.8 282 5.27 233

33, 226 217,218 242 364 296 438 209, 219, 233, 266 266 32, 178 32, 266 81 32 32 296 296 296 55 219 219 103 243 249 363 217 217 296 296 296, 363 296, 363 296, 363 363 363 213 213 296, 363 213 363 296, 363 213, 296, 363 330

125 248 237

525 10.15 10.16 11.18

179 179, 180 16

Hosea 1-3 1.2-9 2.7 2.11 3.1-5 6.5 7.12 7.14 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.16 10.6 10.10 11.4 12.15

346 14 103 103 14, 467 44 269 299 248 91,331 338 338 155 175 144, 223 283

Joel 1.5 1.13 2.1 2.2 2.10 2.12 2.13 3.3 3.4 4.5 4.16

299 299, 330 284 275 283 298 330 29 275 338 283

Amos

1.1 2.11-12 4.2-3 5.10 5.16 5.18 5.19 5.20 6.7 7.17 8.8

283 135 273 172, 176 330 275 264 275 88,89 248 283

526

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts 3.19

Amos (cont.) 8.10

92, 96, 236,

8.11-12 9.1 9.4

330 186 283 210

Jonah 4.2

190

Micah 1.8 1.11 1.16

92, 236

3.7 4.3

331

7.17

284

Nahum 1.5 1.8 1.13 2.2

2.8 3.2 3.7 3.10 3.14

302 Habakkuk 1.12 2.1 2.11 2.18 3.2 3.7 3.16

172, 173

283 275

173 203 264 178 283 284 284, 290,

291

299, 300, 330,331

330

255, 256,

Zephaniah 1.14 1.15 2.12

290 275 244

Haggai 2.6 2.7 2.21

283 283 283

144, 152

290

282, 283

Zechariah 4.3 4.11 6.9-15

216 216 14

90 141 352

8.3 9.3

81 203

298

12.10 12.12 13.4 14.5 14.12 14.15

330 330 112 283 329 329

Malachi 2.13

333

Apocrypha Tobit 1.10-12 4.17

248 91

Judith 8.4-6 16.24

349 349

Ecclesiasticus 22.12 349 1 Maccabees 5.40-41 29 9.50 107 New Testament Acts 21.11 56 21.12-13 56

OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES Pseudepigrapha Jubilees 23.7 349 Qumran 1QH 5.31 5.37 7.1 7.12 8.36-37 10.7 12.32

lQPsa 27. 11 Talmud Git. 69a

179 175 179 179 179 180 179, 180

128

120

Ket.

8b

8.15 14.14

331 331 94 94 95 91

Midrash Gen. R. 100.6 67.6

255 63

6.1 8.2 8.7

91

M. Qat.

27b 28b

Mishnah Sem. 5.12

255 255

527

Index of References Philo Gig. 34

65

Josephus

War 4.511-12

Plutarch De Garrulitate 511C 68

Florus 2.6

Lives, Agesilaus 30 234

322

107

Classical Authors Aelian Varia Historia 3.26 376 Aristotle Politics 1284 1311

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 4.56 63

63 63

Herodotus Persian Wars 1.125-27 1.165 2.121 2.172 3.32 4.131-34 5.92 9.82

Lives, Lysander 22 376 68 65 234 67 66 64 63 67

Dio Chrysostom Discourses 9.10-13 66 9.22 66

Homer Iliad 15.113-14 16.124-25

298 298

Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.48 376 2.75 66 6.102 372 6.22 376 6.23 372 6.26 66 6.32 66, 372 6.33 372 6.34 372 6.41 18, 65 6.49 66 9.10-13 66

Livy 11.6-7 26

322 322

Early History of Rome 1.54 63 Maimonides Guide to the Perplexed 2.46 20, 22 Ovid Fasti 2.703-10

63

Lives, Pericles 36 349 Lives, Sertorius 16 68 Moralia 190

376

Moralia, Apophthegmata Laconica 225 68 Moralia, Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata 174F 68 Progress in Virtue 5 376 Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 2.51-52 93

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Abramski, S. 332,335 Ackerman, S. 89,309 Ackroyd, P. 152, 255, 256, 301, 304 Adler.J. 426 Alfrink, B. 20 Allen, L.C. 173, 177, 186, 189, 200, 207, 219, 221, 237, 238, 241, 248, 249, 255, 261, 265, 272, 274, 287, 291, 297, 301, 302, 308, 312, 331, 334, 338, 340, 365, 367 Allen, V.L. 382, 383, 424, 426 Alonso Schokel, L. 12 Althann, R. 138 Amiran, R. 116 Amsler, S. 12, 20, 37, 41, 110, 111, 128, 135,412 Anderson, B.W. 29 Applegate, J. 327, 328 Aull, J.S. Sr 127,327 Aune, D.E. 41 Austin, J.L. 45,378 Avigad, N. 88,220,319,320 Baentsch, B. 373 Bailey, R.C. 28 Baillet,M. 352,353 Balla, D.E. 101, 106, 111, 164, 316 Barnes, W.E. 364 Barr,J. 45 Barstad, H.M. 83, 84, 88, 89, 106, 108, 111,116,125 Bauer, J.B. 332-34,341,343 Bauer, R.A. 77,412,463 Baumann, A. 108, 114, 332, 333 Baumann, D.E. 21,90, 110 Becking, B. 144 Ben-Mordecai, C.A. 219

Benjamin, D.C. 12, 125 Benjamin, J. 45 Benzinger, I. 236 Bergman,!. 301,309 Berquist, J.L. 98, 382, 427 Berridge, J.M. 121 Bertholet, A. 175, 177, 182, 185, 203, 212, 216, 220, 223-25, 239, 248, 254, 275, 297, 302, 331, 334, 338, 340, 343, 346, 366, 375 Bettinghaus, E.P. 422, 432, 447, 448, 455,462,463, 465 Bewer, J.A. 182, 183, 297, 301, 334 Beyse, K.-M. 17 Birch, W.F. 107 Bitzer, L.F. 71-73, 80, 323, 408, 429-31, 455, 465, 466 Black, E. 70,71,407,441,442,465 Blank, S.H. 28 Blau,J. 333 Block, D.I. 171, 172, 201, 205, 207, 219, 221, 224, 238, 241, 242, 255, 268, 271, 274, 280, 285, 287, 291, 295, 297, 300-302, 308, 310, 332, 341, 362,364 Boadt, L. 81 Bodi, D. 298,302 Boecker.HJ. 172 Boehmer,J. 104 Bogaert, P.-M. 319 Bondt, A. de 109 Bonvin,B. 137, 142, 150-52 Borchardt, F.L. 57 Borchardt, L. 120 Borger, R. 64 Born, A. van den 20, 42, 48, 59, 62, 85, 86, 88, 94, 121, 162, 164, 261, 264,

Index of Authors 273, 275, 291, 309, 329, 338, 339, 342, 353, 354, 358, 365, 366, 371, 375 Bosman, H.L. 125 Botha, J.E. 298 Botterweck, GJ. 235, 236 Bourdillon, M.F.C. 382 Bourguet, D. 41, 101, 108, 109, 119, 121 Bourquin, D. 12 Bowker, J.W. 41 Bratsiotis, N.P. 128 Brembeck, W.L. 39, 75, 76, 394-96, 407, 412,441,447,448,462,463 Bright,!. 80, 81, 88, 111, 127, 128, 140, 164, 351, 353 Brinton, A. 73,465 Bron, B. 207,340,373 Brongers, H.A. 280,350 Bronner, L. 126, 128 Brook, T.C. 414, 420, 456, 457 Broome, E.G. Jr 20, 177, 235, 373 Brownlee, W.H. 16, 178, 181, 182, 186, 196, 202, 205, 207, 212, 219, 221, 223, 225, 226, 233, 239-41, 254, 257, 261, 271, 273, 276, 281, 285, 287, 375, 437 Brueggemann, W. 81, 82, 88, 101, 108, 132,315,357,432 Bruneau, T.J. 192, 193 Bryan, D.B. 88 Budde, C. 154, 156, 158, 162, 164 Budge, E.A.W. 205 Burgoon, M. 447,448,463 Burke, K. 465 B uttenwieser, M. 184 Buzy, D. 20, 51, 105, 111, 125, 138, 157, 164, 175, 186, 196, 207, 208, 212, 216, 218,223-25, 237, 239, 248, 250, 264, 267, 273, 275, 308, 309, 331, 332, 342, 346, 354, 356, 358 Cacioppo, J.T. 44, 50, 74-76, 80, 153, 232, 414, 418, 420, 421, 427, 432, 455-57, 462 Carley, K.W. 382,419 Carroll, R.P. 20, 45, 48, 49, 80, 83, 84, 88,92,99, 111, 121, 127, 128, 136-

529

38, 140, 147, 151, 153, 161, 166, 316, 323, 325, 326, 351, 353, 354, 462 Cassem, N.H. 373 Chang, P.M. 316,325 Clark, D.R. 13,27,81,191,251,280, 331, 340, 343, 350, 365, 366, 369 Clements, R.E. 105 Clerc, D. 41, 94, 103, 108, 120, 121, 327, 458 Cooke, G.A. 20, 21, 182, 189, 191, 196, 200, 204, 205, 207, 210, 212, 215, 216, 219, 222-24, 233, 235, 23739, 241, 248, 250, 254, 256, 257, 265, 266, 271, 273, 279, 289, 290, 294, 295, 302, 308, 331, 332, 338, 340, 346, 347, 365, 367 Cooper, L.E. Sr 175, 212, 250, 279, 298, 301, 304, 341, 346, 354 Cooper, W. 234,235 Cornill, C.H. 21, 92, 99, 108, 110, 119, 125, 126, 138, 158, 162, 175, 200, 212, 216, 220, 238, 297, 302, 316, 318, 334, 347, 351-53, 355, 358, 365, 366 Cowley,A. 138,352 Craigie,P. 115,117 Crenshaw, J.L. 80,82 Criado,R. 20,42 Cronkhite, G. 39 Cross, P.M. 138 Cummings, J.T. 125, 132

Dahood, M. 88,333 Danell, G.A. 213,215 Davidson, A.B. 19-21,207,208,212, 216, 223, 230, 236, 239, 242, 297, 300, 301, 306, 332, 340 Davies, P.R. 22 Davies, W.D. 81 Davis, E.F. 20,22, 171 Deist, F.E. 270 Delitzsch, F. 296, 297, 300, 302 Devoe, S. 382 Dhorme, E. 16, 338 Diepold, P. 82 Douglas, M. 44 Drinkard, J. Jr 115, 117

530

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Driver, G.R. 138, 139, 204, 212, 219, 236, 264, 302, 335, 353, 364-66 Driver, S.R. 21, 89, 115, 164, 316, 352, 353 Duhm, D.B. 21, 104, 111, 115, 124, 127, 128, 137, 138, 142, 151, 158, 161, 162, 165, 166,316,353 Durand, J.-M. 62 Dybdahl,J.L. 320 Dyer, C.H. 105, 107, 111 Ebeling.E. 119, 120 Eichrodt, W. 181, 182, 189, 196, 199, 200, 207, 220, 223-26, 239, 254, 264, 265, 271, 273, 281, 285, 302, 308,311,331,334,340,346,365, 373,375,426 Eissfeldt,O. 88,89,316 Ekman, P. 35-37, 40, 394-97 Ewald, G.H. von 86, 117, 356 Fabry,H.-J. 219 Falk,Z. 255 Farbridge, M.H. 19, 22, 85, 120, 236 Feldman, E. 332 Fensham, F.C. 94,96 Festinger, L. 80,462 Firth, R. 37,38,234,235 Fischer, L. 319 Fishbane, M.A. 41, 119-22, 162, 383 Fisher, L.R. 81 Fohrer, G. 13, 15, 17, 20, 25, 26, 30, 4143,45,47,49,51,58,60, 103, 111, 120, 121, 131, 138, 142, 147, 158, 161, 162, 182, 183, 186, 189, 196, 199, 200, 205, 207, 212, 220-22, 224, 235, 238, 239, 248, 249, 254, 266, 275, 283, 286, 287, 289, 290, 301, 302, 311, 329, 331, 334, 338, 340, 343, 352, 358, 364, 365, 371, 373,383,398, 403 Fox, M.V. 7, 30, 51, 126, 362, 368, 369, 432 Fox, W.S. 41, 159, 160, 162, 166, 205 Fraser, E.R. 20, 41, 49, 50 Freedman, D.N. 219 Freedy, K.S. 155, 189, 200, 217, 224, 266, 334

Frick, F.S. 125 Friedman, R.E. 88 Friesen, W. 35-37, 40, 394-97 Frymer,T.S. 269,273 Fuente, O.G. de la 319 Fuhs, H.F. 177, 182, 200, 208, 219, 220, 223, 224, 226, 235, 239, 241, 254, 273, 281, 286, 292, 294, 302, 335, 339-41 Galeotti, G.A. 316,325,327 Galloway, W.B. 219,247 Gamberoni, J. 126 Garfinkel, S. 171, 175, 373 Garner, D.W. 15, 186, 207, 249, 340, 454 Garscha, J. 20, 182, 189, 196, 265, 272, 286,294,339 Geller,J. 382 Gevaryahu, H.M.I. 157,315 Gilbert, J.B. 120, 121, 161,223 Gitay.Y. 56,447 Godbey, A.H. 17, 41, 155, 160, 161, 290 Goldenberg, R. 151 Goldman, M.D. 86 Goldman, Y. 136 Gordis, R. 363 Gordon, R.P. 62,382 Gorg, M. 249 Gosse, B. 165 Gottwald, N.K. 74, 153 Gray,L.H. 235 Greenberg, M. 161, 170, 176, 182, 185, 186, 189, 191, 200, 207, 209, 212, 215-19, 223, 233, 237, 238, 24042, 248, 250, 254, 256, 261-64, 266, 268, 271, 272, 274, 275, 279, 280-84, 287, 290, 301, 308, 312, 329, 331, 332, 343, 346, 350, 364, 365 Greenfield, J.C. 88 Greengus, S. 235 Grenfell, B.P. 319 Griffith, F. 351,354 Grinsell, L.V. 120 Gronkowski, W. 171, 191 Gropper, G.L. 432, 435, 456

Index of Authors Gruber, M.I. 16, 58, 59, 88-90, 145, 221, 236, 255, 298, 330, 331 Guillaume, A. 41,43,371 Guthrie, H.H. Jr 289, 304, 311 Habel, N. 82 Hackett,J.A. 27 Haeussermann, F. 20 Hallevy,R. 128 Hallpike, C.R. 235 Halperin, D. 177, 188, 223, 235, 254, 261, 335, 349, 373, 375 Halpern, B. 88 Hals, R.M. 15,41, 182, 220, 222, 254, 261,289,302,312,331,336,341 Hammershaimb, E. 319,320 Hancher, M. 45 Hanson, H.E. 309 Hardmeier, C. 321,327 Harford,J.B. 213,215,291 Harrison, R.K. 117, 125, 128 Harrison, R.P. 35, 39, 89 Hartman, F.R. 432,433,456 Hauck, F. 17 Haulotte, E. 103 Haupt, P. 297,300,333 Hawkes, T. 37, 38 Helfmeyer, F.J. 30,31,210 HempeU. 319,332,339 Herbert, A.S. 17 Herntrich, V. 188, 189, 223, 285, 291, 294, 339, 366 Herrmann, J. 21, 169, 171, 189, 224, 373 Heschel, A.J. 145, 371 Hester, D.C. 146, 151, 153, 382 Heyns.D. 327 Killers, D.R. 58, 94, 96, 269, 290, 378 Hines, H.W. 20, 26 Hirsch.E.H. 236 Hoffmann, G. 352-54,357 Holdcroft, D. 436, 437 Holladay, W.L. 85, 90, 94, 95, 102, 107, 111,115,117,125,127,138,141, 142, 154, 157, 164, 166, 263, 316, 317,351,353,354 Holscher, G. 20, 170, 173, 182, 185, 189, 239, 240, 273, 275, 285, 286,

531

289,294,310,329,331,334,336, 367,375 Holstein,J. 128 Honeyman, A.M. 116, 129 Hossfeld, F.L. 137,142,150-52 Hovland, C.I. 74, 76, 418, 439, 443,447, 448, 455-58, 462-64 Howell, W. 39, 75, 76, 394-96, 408, 412, 441,447,448,462,463 Howie, C.G. 20, 26, 177, 205, 373, 437 Hsia, H.J. 432,433 Hubmann, F.D. 100,101,119 Huey, F.B. Jr 18, 49, 103, 128, 142, 164, 317 Huffmon,H.B. 62 Hunt, A.S. 319 Hutton, R.R. 45,47,378 Hyatt, J.P. 85,88 Illman, K.-J. 340 Iwry, S. 207 Jam's, I.L. 74,76,418,439,443,447, 448, 455-58, 462-64 Jansen, J.G. 107, 119, 136, 352, 354 Janzen,W. 186 Jaspers, K. 177,373,375 Jensen, J.V. 192 Johnson, A.R. 17 Jones, D.R. 85, 87, 106, 107, 111, 125, 126, 128, 137, 351 Keck, B.E. 364 Keel, O. 119, 120,205,262 Keil, C.F. 20, 89, 103, 104, 106, 110, 115, 125, 126, 138, 143, 185, 207, 212, 216, 218, 222, 224, 236, 241, 242, 248, 255, 256, 263, 271, 273, 280, 287, 291, 295, 296, 300, 301, 308, 327, 334, 340, 343-53, 356, 357, 364 Keller, C.A. 29,30,41,58,418,462 Kelley, H.H. 74, 76, 439, 443, 447, 448, 455-58,463, 464 Kelly, P. 115, 117 Kelso.J.L. 115, 116,129,204,353,355 Kennedy, G.A. 70

532

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel 's Sign-Acts

Kennedy, J.M. 187 Keown, G.L. 128, 143, 146, 157 Kessler, M. 19, 49, 55, 128, 147, 315, 351 Keukens, K.H. 125, 132 Kilmer, A.D. 235 King,P.J. 88,91,116, 141,319 Kitchen, K.A. 351 Klein, R.W. 20, 94, 170, 171, 191, 207, 219, 273, 290, 342 Klostermann, A. 177,373 Knapp, M.L. 35-37, 39, 40, 192, 394-96, 419 Knights, C.H. 125, 127, 131, 132 Koch, K. 219 Koenen, L. 120 Koffmahn, E. 319 Komlosh,Y. 171, 182 Konig, E. 19-23, 26, 38, 58, 186, 221, 235, 281,373 Kooij, A. van der 136 Kooy, V.H. 41 Kopf,L. 338 Kraeling, E.G. 319,320,352 Krout,M. 59 Kruger, P.A. 16 Kruger.T. 207,219,221,231,248 Kuhl,C. 83 Kunkel, W. 319 Kurian, J. 85 Kutsch, E. 138, 189 Lambert, W.G. 97 Lang, B. 12, 42, 44, 59, 64, 65, 74, 88, 147, 162, 177, 178, 189, 200, 207, 223, 264, 273, 308, 378, 382, 384 Lawhead, A.S. 41 Layton, S. 16,209,210 Lehmann, M.R. 319 Levenson, J.D. 132 Levin, C. 124, 127, 333 Levine,B.A. 331,332,334,336,342, 343 Lewis, T.J. 88,89,91,94 L'Heureux, C. 88 Liedke, G. 172 Lindblom, J. 21, 41, 44-47, 160, 162, 182,235,371,437

Lipinski, E. 298 Liska,J. 39 Lods, A. 43, 45, 50, 121, 161, 162, 207, 223,356,371,375 Long, B.O. 12, 13, 74, 151-53, 378, 382, 385 Loretz, O. 88,89,91 Luckenbill, D.D. 145 Lundbom, J.R. 85, 87, 108, 115, 151, 154, 157, 160,315,421 Luria, B. 125 Lust,J. 327 Lys, D. 151 Maarsingh, B. 302 MacCulloch, W.S. 303 Malamat, A. 310,366 Malul,M. 16,24,59,241,378 Manahan, R.E. 81, 151 March, W.E. 13,41 Margalit, B. 88,89 Martens, E. 131,327 Martin-Achard, R. 137, 142, 150-52, 365 Matheney, M.P. Jr 13, 17, 20, 25, 41, 47, 120, 121, 177, 182, 223, 225, 298, 371,383,426 Matthews, V.H. 12,42,58 May,H.G. 85, 115, 125, 138, 139 Mayer, G. 172 Mazurel, J.W. 364 McComiskey, T.E. 309 McCullough, W.S. 31 McCurley, F.R. Jr 16, 235, 236 McDaniel, T.F. 333 McGuire, WJ. 74,76,412,418,439, 447,456, 462 McKane, W. 20, 21, 84, 88, 104, 111, 116,127, 132, 136, 155,158, 161, 164, 316, 354, 356, 359 McKeating, H. 49 McNutt, P.M. 125 Mehrabian, A. 418 Mercer, S.A.B. 120 Meservy, K.H. 364 Meyer, I. 137, 142, 150-52 Meyer, R. 89 Migsch, H. 124, 127, 316, 321, 327 Milgrom, J. 219

Index of Authors Milik,J.T. 352,353 Millard, A. 320 Miller, G.R. 412,455 Miller, P.O. Jr 88 Minnick, W.C. 412, 415, 418, 428, 435, 441-47,451,455,462-65 Minns, E.H. 319 Mitchell, C.W. 45 Moret, A. 120 Morgenstern, J. 234-36 Mottu, H. 74, 151, 153 Munn.N.D. 44,59 Murray, A.S. 351,354 Nicholson, E.W. 49, 83, 127, 137, 142 Niditch, S. 389, 390 Nolan, M.J. 19,35,37 Nuys, K. van 177,373 Odell, M.S. 28, 171, 176, 195, 226 Oesch,J.M. 327 Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 450 Oliver, R.T. 243, 412, 442, 465 Oort,H. 302,303 Oppenheim, A.L. 16, 318, 319 Osswald, E. 151 Overholt, T.W. 12, 77, 81, 85, 140, 151, 378, 382,385 Parrot, A. 270 Parunak, H. van D. 199, 257, 258, 285, 295, 297, 302 Paterson, R.M. 49, 160-62 Paul, S.M. 41 Perelman, C. 450 Perloff, R.M. 414,420,456,457 Perrin, B. 68,316 Petersen. D.L. 371, 382, 424, 425 Petrie, W.M.F. 351-53, 355, 356 Petty, R.E. 44, 50, 74-76, 80, 153, 232, 414, 418, 420, 421, 427, 432, 45557,462 Pilch, J.J. 20,41 Pines, S. 22 Planas,F. 219,221,225,250 Polk,T. 17 Pope, M.H. 88,89,94 Porten,B. 88,319,320,351,352

533

Posener, G. 119, 120 Prinsloo, W.S. 138, 147 Quell, G. 29,30, 151 Rabinowitz, I. 44, 46, 219 Rabinowitz, J. 319 Rad, G. von 41,426 Raitt,T.M. 56,328 Ramlot, L. 20,42,371 Rawlinson, G. 67 Redford, D.B. 155, 189 Regnier, A. 375 Reiner, E. 162 Rengstorf, K.H. 28-30 Reventlow, H.G. 26,239 Ringgren, H. 326 Robinson, H.W. 20,21,41,45,58,60, 375 Robinson, T.H. 371 Roehrs, W.R. 181, 183, 186 Rogerson, J.W. 44 Rolfe, B. 12 Rosen, G. 41,50, 121,235 Rost, L. 213,215 Rost, P. 302 Roulet, P. 137, 142, 150-52 Rowley, H.H. 58 Rubensohn, O. 319 Rubin, N. 235 Rubinow, S. 382

Rudolph, W. 21,88, 108, 110, 112, 119, 121,125-27, 159, 161, 162, 165, 316,321,351,353,354,358 Sanders, J.A. 151 Sarbin, T.R. 382, 383, 424, 426 Sarna,N.M. 138, 139 Sayre,F. 23,65,66,372 Scalise, P.J. 128, 143, 146, 157 Schick,G.V. 332,333 Schmidt, H. 137 Schmidt, K.W. 13, 19, 26 Schoors, A. 350 Schramm,W. 77,412,433 Schreiner, J. 105, 141, 151, 152, 351, 358 Schubart, W. 319 Schwartz, B. 219

534

Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts

Scott, R. 35,465 Scott-Kilvert, I. 349 Scult,A.M. 70,73 Seebass, H. 151 Seeligmann, I.L. 172 Seidl, T. 137, 138, 144, 145 Shanks, H. 316,319 Sheppard, G.T. 151 Sherlock, C. 224 Sikes,E.E. 235 Sittl, C. 255,298 Skorupski, J. 38 Sloan, I.E. 344 Smit, E.J. 240 Smothers, T.G. 128, 143, 146, 157 Soden,W. von 301,309 Soggin.J.A. 115 Southwood, C.H. Ill Stacey, W.D. 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 27, 38, 42,47,49,51,60,88, 129, 158, 160, 164, 165, 177, 186, 196, 205, 223, 238, 239, 254, 273, 281, 286, 290, 299, 316, 341, 356, 357, 367, 373,375,378 Stade, B. 327 Stahlin, G. 255 Starke, F. 65 Steinmann, J. 375 Stolz,F. 219 Stroete, G.A. Te 171, 182, 189, 341 Strong, S.A. 145 Stulman, L. 83, 136 Swidler,A. 20,59,371,427 Tadmor, H. 138 Talmon,S. 308,309 Taylor, J.B. 13, 175, 185, 191, 204, 207, 212, 216, 219, 223, 226, 235, 239, 241, 250, 254, 256, 271, 273, 279, 291, 296, 302, 309, 340, 347, 365 Teixidor, M.J. 88,95 Terrien, S. 297, 298, 301, 302 Thiel, W. I l l , 124, 128, 142, 162, 327 Thiering, B.E. 219 Thiselton, A.C. 45 Thompson, J.A. 83, 90, 92, 94, 103, 108, 111, 112, 115, 117, 121, 125,127, 128,316,317,351,353,354,356

Thompson, R.C. 120, 205, 235 Torrey, C.C. 184 Tournay, R.J. 297 Tov,E. 136,352 Trapp, T. 81 Trau, H. 235 Tromp, N.J. 170, 173, 185, 186 Uehlinger, C. 196, 200, 205-208, 235, 237-39, 248, 249 Uffenheimer, B. 264, 267, 273-75, 277, 371 Unterman, J. 327 Vargon, S. 235 Vaux, R. de 85, 126, 352, 353 Viberg, A. 16, 24, 59, 298, 378 Vogt,E. 182,183,189,191,216,217, 219, 222-24 Vorwahl, H. 20, 41, 222, 223, 236, 241, 301 Wacholder, B.Z. 319 Wagner, S. 29 Wang, M.C.-C. 318,325,327 Wanke, G. 115, 119, 137, 138, 142, 150, 152, 156, 158,161,320 Warner, R. 93 Watson, W.G.E. 235,237 Weitz, S. 374 Wendland, P. 21 Werner, W. 327 Westbrooke, R. 317,326 Westhuizen, J.P. van der 332, 343 Wevers, J.H. 20, 21, 51, 171, 177, 18183, 189, 196, 200, 203, 207, 212, 216, 217, 219, 220, 223-25, 235, 236, 238-40, 256, 266, 271, 273, 279, 289, 294, 295, 299-302, 308, 332, 334, 338, 340, 343, 367 White, E.E. 463,465 Wiener, M. 382 Wifall,W. 343 Wiklander,B. 71 Willougby, B.E. 219 Wilson, R.R. 20, 21, 23, 74, 83, 151, 153, 170-72, 175, 182, 371, 382 Wiseman, D.J. 140

Index of Authors Woodard, C.M. 13,20,25,41,121,371 Woude, A.S. van der K 16 Wuellner, W. 41 Yadin,Y. 205,262,319 Zandee, J. 331 Zimmerli, W. 15, 30, 41, 177, 182, 183, 189, 191, 196, 199, 200, 205, 207,

535

212, 213, 215-17, 219, 220, 22325, 233, 235,237-39, 248, 250, 251,256,261,264-67,271-73, 275, 281, 287, 289, 292, 294, 302, 308-11,331,335,338,340,343, 347,362,364,367,375,419 Zlotnick, D. 95,331 Zobel,H.-J. 256 Zwickel, W. 141

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 50 51 52 53 54 55 86 87

88 89 90 91 92 93

George W. Coats (ed.), Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature Michael D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs Thomas H. McAlpine, Sleep, Divine and Human, in the Old Testament David Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible, II E.R. Follis (ed.), Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult James D. Martin & PhilipR. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane George C. Heider, The Cult ofMolek: A Reassessment Steven J.L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms A.R. Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama Sven Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis Martin Noth, The Chronicler's History Paul M. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel Craig C. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical and Theological Study R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study Jeremiah Unterman, From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah's Thought in Transition Thomas L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. I. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1—23 Alviero Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose David J.A. Clines, Stephen E. Fowl & Stanley E. Porter (eds.), The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield Rodney K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis Rolf Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel Frank H. Gorman Jr, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology Yehuda T. Radday & Athalya Brenner (eds.), On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible William T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

David J.A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament Rick Dale Moore, God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories Laurence A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis Paul R. House, The Unity of the Twelve K. Lawson Younger Jr, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing R.N. Whybray, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs Philip R. Davies & Richard T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History P.R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler in his Age Michael D. Goulder, The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the Psalter, II Bryant G. Wood, The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages Paul R. Raabe, Psalm Structures: A Study of Psalms with Refrains Pietro Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World Christiana van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law Paula M. McNutt, The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism and Tradition in Ancient Society David W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach Niels Peter Lemche, The Canaanites and their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites J. Glen Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: The Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job Raymond Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law Dan Cohn-Sherbok (ed.), A Traditional Quest: Essays in Honour of Louis Jacobs Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings David M. Gunn (ed.), Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars, 1906-1923 (trans. D.E. Orton) Philip R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies. I. Persian Period Raymond Jacques Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem David J.A. Clines & Tamara C. Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal's Story: An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation

120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146

R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah Diana Vikander Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah Loveday Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead Baruch Halpern & Deborah W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel Gary A. Anderson & Saul M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel John W. Rogerson, W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography Diana Vikander Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past Thomas P. McCreesh, Biblical Sound and Sense: Poetic Sound Patterns in Proverbs 10-29 Zdravco Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic Mike Butterworth, Structure and the Book ofZechariah Lynn Holden, Forms of Deformity Mark Daniel Carroll R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspective Roger Syren, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives Gordon Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua Gordon F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 Paul Morris & Deborah Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden Henning Graf Reventlow & Yair Hoffman (eds.), Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson James W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative Walter Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law Gregory C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East Frederick H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation J. Cheryl Exum & David J.A. Clines (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible Philip R. Davies & David J.A. Clines (eds.), Among the Prophets: Language, Imagery and Structure in the Prophetic Writings Charles S. Shaw, The Speeches of Micah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis Gosta W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (ed. D. Edelman, with a contribution by G.O. Rollefson)

147 148 149

150 151 152 153 154

155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162

163 164 166 167 168 169 170 111 172

Tony W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East Philip R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll & Philip R. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 18 Joel Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community (trans. Daniel L. Smith Christopher) A. Graeme Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson Donald K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane (eds.), Min 'ah le-Na 'um: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday Jeffrey A. Fager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge John W. Kleinig, The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles Gordon R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers J. Clinton McCann (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter William Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History George W. Coats, The Moses Tradition Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives Lyle Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context Raymond F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story Wilfred G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman and Benjamin Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature Volkmar Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology

173

M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown and Jeffrey K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes 174 Joe M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach 175 Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies. II. Temple and Community in the Persian Period 176 Gershon Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls 111 David Allan Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew 178 Martin Ravndal Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in the I-Psalms 179 J.G. McConville and J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy 180 Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets 181 Bernard M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development 182 Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth 183 John Day (ed.), Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Second and Third Series) by William Robertson Smith 184 John C. Reeves and John Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday 185 Seth Daniel Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology 186 Linda Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther 187 Charles V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity 188 Robert H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah 189 William Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment 190 Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom 191 Magne Szeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament 192 Henning Graf Reventlow and William Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914 193 Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration 194 Else Kragelund Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the Book of Hosea 195 Jon Davies, Graham Harvey and Wilfred G.E. Watson (eds.),Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer 196 Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible

197

William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period 198 T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison 199 J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the Commentators 200 Mark Daniel Carroll R., David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Roger son 201 John W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith 202 Nanette Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible 203 Jill M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs 204 Philip R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway? 205 David J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible 206 M0gens Muller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint 207 John W. Rogerson, Margaret Davies and Mark Daniel Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium 208 Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 209 Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash 210 Jacques Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry 211 Brian E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles 212 Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in Literary-Theoretical Perspective 213 Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context 214 Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah 215 J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women 216 Judith E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink 217 Jerome F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter 218 Gregory Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy 219 Gerald Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea 220 Raymond F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah 221 Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' Til R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book 223 Scott B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job

224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 248 249

Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis John F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara Weston W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative Tilde Singer, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History James W. Watts and Paul House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah ReExamined Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (with contributions by Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith) Eugene E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel K.L. Noll, The Faces of David Henning Graf Reventlow, Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Aspects of Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete Lester L. Grabbe, Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written? Gillian M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith and his Heritage Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah William Paul Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action

250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 261 262 264

266 269 270 271 212 273 274 275 276 277

Josette Elayi and Jean Sapin (eds.), Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene Flemming A.J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Vol. 1: 1 Chronicles 1-2 Chronicles 9: Israel's Place among the Nations William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Vol. 2: 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt and Atonement Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative Roland Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric translated by Luc Racaut Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150): Studies in the Psalter, IV Allen Rosengren Petersen, The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit? Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics, and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.17-7.29) Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium David J.A. Clines and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar Wonsuk Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah James Richard Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb and Sharon Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context William Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs

278 279 280 282 283 284 288 290 291 292 293

Lester L. Grabbe (ed), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings Eric S. Christiansen, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes Joan E. Cook, Hannah's Desire, God's Design: Hannah in the Books of Samuel and in the First Century Kelvin G. Friebel, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication M. Patrick Graham, Steve MacKenzie and Rick R. Marrs (eds.), Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T. Willis Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967-1998 Volume 1 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967-1998 Volume 2