John Goldingay. The Book of Jeremiah

The commentary begins with a seven page bibliography followed by a sixty-four page introduction. The introduction starts with an inadequate two page historical survey of the last few kings of Judah. The composition of the message in this book was compiled as one unified work during three horizons: Jeremiah’s first-person speeches (in the form of both narratives and poetry) after 626 BC, Jeremiah’s later dictation of his messages in 604 BC to Baruch, and a third later expansions after 587 BC. Goldingay proposes that unknown curators and storytellers (often called Deuteronomist) wrote, selected, and arranged what some inappropriately label as inauthentic words. However, as none of this is provable, Goldingay tends to avoid the implications of these claims. The purpose of this composition was to explain why Judah was abandoned by God, but the process was only partially evident and some of it is way beyond recovery—though Goldingay ingeniously found some similarities or analogies with the composition of the gospels. Goldingay placed this composition in the Babylonian rather than the Persian period, for it does not mention the Persian kings, customs, or language. He takes the book of Jeremiah to be based on facts and about a real person who was a preacher, a crusader, a persuader, and the contributions of his curators who were anthologist. When comparing different records, he found the Greek version in the LXX 10 percent shorter and that it placed the chapters on foreign nations in the middle of the book rather than at the end. Goldingay included a rather short theological summary of a few themes—Israel’s God, the nations, and the present past and future, and the way his theology was imaged—but this conglomeration of topics lacks unity and is far too short. He divided Jeremiah into two major units (chs. 1–25 consisting of eight undated units and 25–52 made up of ten nonchronological dated units), this arrangement leaves much unexplained in light of other possible organizational structures.Goldingay’s 900 pages of commentary lays out an introduction to each chapter, then the biblical text is freshly translated (with frequent detailed technical textual notes on references to LXX and MT) with a unique choice of words and slants on word meanings and an informative explanation in modern terminology for each paragraph with special attention to various metaphors (for instance, he calls the Ark of the Covenant the “pledge chest” in 3:16). This section is filled with innovative thoughts that convey the prophet’s heart, but some readers may want to ponder further a few of Goldingay’s nontraditional statements. (b) Was the object seen in 1:10 a “cane” used for walking made from the branch of an almond tree? (c) Is it adequate in 2:8 to translate those who “prophesied by Baal” with “prophesied through the Master”? (d) Is it misleading to conclude from 2:1–8 that Israel’s faith was not wrong, just twisted, by assimilating Yahweh with the Master (Baal)? (e) Was the word “shepherd” used for a reigning king or primarily for leaders in general (including prophets, cf. 23:1; 6:3:12:10)? (f) Was the sexual activity described in 2:20ff merely a metaphor for religious and political infidelity (as it is in some other places) because there is “little evidence that traditional (Canaanite) worship involved sexual rites” (p 127) or does the sexual behavior in 2:20, 24 and the sexual behavior at Baal of Peor in Num 25 demonstrate that sexual perversions were part of the Baal cult? (g) Does 2:27a contain “another quotation of something the people did not quite say” (p. 133) or did they say these things as Jeremiah claimed? (h) In light of the reference to God speaking to Jeremiah in the days of Josiah in Jer 3:6, should one find the “context for reading 3:1–4:4 as a whole in the reign of Jehoiakim” (p. 142) and does the promise in 3:16–20 presuppose the destruction of the ark in 587 BC?Although the work is very engaging and is careful to explain many of the metaphorical pictures depicting the sinfulness of the leaders and common people, plus their judgment, one sometimes wonders if the author has implied or imagined too much. For example, 4:24–26 refers to God’s plan to judge the nation/earth. To strongly affirm this, God declares that “I have spoken, I have purposed, I have not relented/change my mind” ESV, NASB. The second verb is zammōtî as “I have purposed” (NIV “I have decided”) but Goldingay pictures God saying, “I have schemed,” an idea that usually has rather negative underhanded implications. To justify this rendition, Goldingay states that “maybe it hints at the people’s accusations” (p. 187), but why would God describe his actions by using the accusations of those he will destroy? Some of Goldingay’s other translations are rather shocking (5:8a “Well-fed, sex-mad, big balled horses they were” p.192). This does not misrepresent the prophet’s accusations, but these would shock a sophisticated ancient as well as modern churchgoers; however, maybe it is a legitimate way to communicate in the street language of the day.Here and there Goldingay presents uncomfortable choices (as in the introduction to Jer 7) when he says of the first scroll Jeremiah wrote that “if Jer 2–6 more or less comprise that scroll, either the command that the scroll should contain ‘all the words I have spoken to you’ (36:2) need not be taken too literally, or Jer 7 and 26 are more like imaginative creations by the curators than historical accounts” (p. 237). Are there not any other possibilities?The commentary is long, at times quite detailed in textual notes, and from time to time it plows up some new soil, but it makes one think and would be an aid to anyone who might dare to confront the challenges Jeremiah wrote about

Art · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Contemporary Christian Leadership and Education · History · Pentecostalism and Christianity Studies