Behold, the days come, saith the
LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign
and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days
Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name
whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (MT: יְהוָ֥ה׀ צִדְקֵֽנוּ;
LXX: κύριος Ιωσεδεκ. (Jer 23:5-6)
The major distinctive
characteristic of the Greek version is not its use of the term ανατολη in v. 5, but rather its rendition
of the future king’s name at the end of v. 6. The LXX reads Ιωσεδεκ. This means that the translator
probably found יוצדק in his Hebrew Vorlage where the MT has יהוה צדקנו.
The Greek name in particular resembles that of Zedekiah. The theophoric element
stands in from Io-sedek (Ιω-σεδεκ), whereas in the usually spelling
of the king’s name, Zedeki-Yah (צדק-יה) it figures at the end. According to E.
Lipiński (Études sur des texts “messianiques” de l’Ancient Testament, in
Semitica 20 [1970] 43-57, pp. 53-55), these are two different forms of
the same name, belonging to one and the same person. IF this is correct, it
means that the original oracle, such as preserved in the LXX, welcomed
Zedekiah, alias Io-sedek, as the successor to the throne of David after the
exile of Jehoiakin.
The suggestion that a king’s name
could be spelled in different ways it not to be questioned. It clearly happened
in the case of Zedekiah’s predecessor, who is called Jekon-iah or Kon-iah in
Jer 24,1 (יכנ-יהו) and 22,24 (כנ-יהו), but Jeho-iakin (יהו-יכין) in 2 Kings
24,6.8 etc. The basic difference between the two forms lies again in the
location of the theophoric element. Although further examples seem to be rare,
they are not non-existent. Eli-am, father of Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11,3 is called
Ami-el in 1 Chron 3,5. Jeho-ahaz, the youngest son and successor of Johoram in
2 Chron 21,17 and 25,23, is called Ahaz-iah in 2 Chron 22,1 and in 2 Kings
8,25-26.29; 9,27; 10,13ff.
This implies that there is no
sufficient reason to accept the suggestion of Wiebe that Io-sedek was a “phony”
name, reversing the divine element in Zedekiah from the back to the front and
thereby implying that the expected saviour king would be the reverse of
Zedekiah.
In the MT, the second form of
Zedekiah’s name has been transformed into יהוה צדקנו. This is no longer a
normal personal name. First, the suffixed pronoun of the first person plural is
unusual. Perhaps the only exception is Imma-nu-el in Isa 7,14. However, this is
a symbolic name. This suggests that also יהוה צדקנו is no longer to be
understood as a purely private personal name, but rather as a symbolic sign
carrying a message for a larger public. For further comparison, one may refer
to Shear-jashub (Isa 7,3), Maher-shalal-hashbaz (Isa 8,3), and to the names of
the children of Hosea (Hos 1). All of these are not intended to be read as
private personal names, but rather as symbolic signs.
The long form of the divine name
YHH is יהוה צדקנו points in the same direction. Nowhere else does it occur in individual
personal names. Most if not all of the names in which it is attested are
symbolic appellations of Jerusalem or of its inhabitants. Examples include Jer
3,17: “Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord (כסא יהוה)”; Ezek 48,34:
“And the name of the city henceforth shall be, the Lord is there (יהוה שׁם)”;
Isa 60,14: “They shall call you the City of the Lord (עיר יהוה), Zion if the
Holy One of Israel”; Isa 62,12, “And they shall be called the Holy people, the
Redeemed of the Lord (נאולי יהוה)”. A final example can be found in Gen 22,14: “So
Abraham called the name of the place The Lord will provide (יהוה יראה)”. The
place in question is explicitly identified with the temple mount of Jerusalem
in 2 Chron 3,1.
All of these examples confirm our
suspicion that יהוה צדקנו in the Hebrew version of Jer 23,6 is not intended as
a straightforward personal name. IT is most likely to be understood as an
appellation of Jerusalem. The editor of the text underlying the MT most likely
changed the original personal name preserved in the LXX. His model was probably
Jer 33,15, in which the promise was directly applied to Jerusalem. In doing so
he may have wished to eliminate any reference to Zedekiah. He may have belonged
to those circles that did not accept Zedekiah as the legitimate king, adhering
rather to Jehoiakin, the deported king in Babylon. It is more plausible,
however, that he wrote in a later period and was no longer directly concerned
with the tensions of the past. His concern was with the revival of Jerusalem.
Our study of the term צמח צדיק will allow us to return to this question. (Johan
Lust, “Messianism and the Greek Version of Jeremiah Jer 23,5-6 and 33,14-26,” in
Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays by J. Lust, ed. K.
Hauspie [Bibliotheca Ephemeridium Theologicarum Lovaniensium CLXXVIII; Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 2004], 43-45)
The First Stages in the
Interpretation
1. The promise of Jer 23,5-6, in
its original form, appears to refer to Zedekiah and to the immediate future,
and not to a remote messianic expectation. The introductory formula: “Behold
the days are coming” does not contradict this, since it does not necessarily
have an eschatological connotation. Indeed, the expression often refers to a
more immediate future that will bring a radical transformation (see 2 Kings
20,17; Amos 4,2 and frequently in Jeremiah).
Naming the new king Ιωσεδεκ, the LXX
of Jer 23,5-6 preserved the best traces of the early version of the oracle. It
presented the new king as a real sovereign and a legitimate heir to the Davidic
throne. This prophecy was immediately connected with the condemnation of
Joiakin in 22,24-30. He was to be considered as an outcast, an exile who would
not return. None of his seed would ever sit on the throne.
2. In a later layer of the Book of Jeremiah, Zedekiah
represents sinful Jerusalem and its inhabitants. He is definitely condemned.
The hand of the editor of his layer can be recognized in ch. 21 and 24. He, or
an epigone, may have been responsible for the version of 23,5-6 preserved in
the MT. In this version, the oracle is no longer directly applied to Zedekiah.
The name is changed, taking the shape of a symbolic name reserved for
Jerusalem. Abandoning the direct reference to the historical King Zedekiah, the
oracle allows for speculations concerning the advent of a messianic era.
3. A third version of the oracle of Jer 23,5-6 is to
be found in the MT of Jer 33,15-16, omitted in the LXX. Here the attention is
no longer drawn to an individual king, but rather to Jerusalem. It may have inspired
the editor of the MT version of Jer 23,5-6. (Ibid., 51)
