As proof that Jeremiah was opposed
to P, Friedman cites Jer. 3:16:
“Then it shall come to pass, when
you will multiply and be fruitful in the land in those days,” says Yahweh, “that
they will say no more, ‘The ark of the covenant of Yahweh.’ It shall not come
to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be
made anymore” (AT).
The ark is important in P and the
phrase, “Be fruitful and multiply,” appears several times in P. Here, Jeremiah
seems to be attacking the ark while reversing P’s phrase (Wrote, 148-149).
But if reversing P’s phrase means that he is attacking P, what are we to
conclude when we see Ezekiel also reversing it in 36:11, even though he agrees
with P everywhere else?
What Friedman neglects to mention
is that Jeremiah uses the phrase again, this time in the correct order:
“But I will gather the remnant of
My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to
their folds; and they shall be fruitful and multiply” (Jer. 23:3, AT).
If using the phrase in reverse
order in attacking P, then using it in the correct order and must be agreeing
with it.
Quoting a passage out of context usually
distorts the meaning of the passage. Reading Jer. 3:16 in context (Jer.
3:11-18), we find that Jeremiah is not attacking P at all. HE sees Yahweh
calling the northern kingdom of Israel to repentance and if they repent, he
will bring them back to Zion and appoint shepherds, who, like the shepherds in
Jer. 23:3, will care for them and help them to multiply and be fruitful (the
reversal being merely an exercise in poetic license). The ark, which represents
Yahweh’s throne, will no longer be needed because Jerusalem itself will become
Yahweh’s throne and even the other nations will be gathered to it and sin no
more. This bold vision is not an attack on P but rather an expansion on it. (Clayton
Howard Ford, The Logical Fallacies of the Documentary Hypothesis [2021],
77)
