The meaning of the second half of the verse is
notoriously difficult; the difficulties are partly syntactic and partly a
matter of interpretation of the connotations of the words used. The Versions
are no help. G renders “In vain has a
false pen come to be [ἐγενήθη]
for the scribes,” V “Indeed the lying
pen of the scribes has worked falsehood,” S
“Truly a lying reed is made useful to the scribe for falsehood,” and T “In vain has the scribe made a pen of
falsehood to do forgery [זוף
pa‘el].” That is, given the last three words of the verse (עֵט שֶׁקֶר סֹפְרִים), G
and S have taken “pen of falsehood”
as the subject and “scribes” as a kind of indirect object, while T has taken “scribes” as subject and
“pen of falsehood” as object, and V
has taken the three words as a triple construct chain functioning as subject.
The interpretation of the words as a triple construct chain was accepted by Qimḥi,
but he treated לַשֶּׁקֶר
(here “into a lie”) more carefully than did V:
“The pen of the scribes has been to no purpose.” Calvin either paraphrases or
reassesses the syntax: “Surely, behold in vain hath the writer prepared his
pen, in vain are the scribes!” All commentators in the modern period
(Michaelis, Naegelsbach, Duhm, Cornill, Giesebrecht, Condamin, Rudolph, Bright)
have assumed a triple construct chain; the verb עָשָׂה is either declared to be used absolutely,
with “law of Yahweh” understood as the unexpressed object (Michaelis,
Naegelsbach, Giesebrecht, Volz, Condamin), or else the verb is reconceived as עָשָׂהּ “made it [feminine object, that is, ‘the
law’]” (Duhm and Cornill suggest this possibility, and Rudolph accepts it).
These syntactic assumptions assume further that the “law of Yahweh” (תּוֹרַת יהוה) referred to in the second colon and
presumably assumed in the last two cola is the written content of the scroll
that came to light in Josiah’s time, doubtless some form of the Book of
Deuteronomy. Indeed Cornill was convinced this verse is the sole evidence of
Jrm’s attitude toward the Deuteronomic reform. More recently, scholars have
backed away from this sole identification and have seen the verse as Jrm’s
polemic against any written torah (Rudolph, Hyatt, Bright): these scholars
believe that the contrast is between the (written) torah of Yahweh and the
(prophetic) word of Yahweh (v 9*). This whole set of questions needs
reexamination, however.
There is no warrant for the assumption that there is a
contrast between the torah of Yahweh and the word of Yahweh. In 6:19* “my
torah” and “my words” are in parallelism, and the verb “reject” (מאס) appears there, as in v 9* here; similarly
in Isa 1:10* the parallelism is between “the torah of Yahweh” and “the word of
our God.” The word tôrâ (תּוֹרָה) in Jrm’s poetry has a positive
connotation (not only in 6:19*, but 2:8* as well; and see further Structure on
the relation between vv 8* and 9*). The contrast here is between the “law of
Yahweh” and the “lie of the scribes” (שֶׁקֶר סֹפְרִים): both these phrases are two-unit
construct chains, content plus source in both instances. Just as the subject in
the second colon is “the law of Yahweh,” so I propose that in the third colon
“the lie of the scribes” is the subject of the verb (עָשָׂה). In 9:2* I understand “the lie” (שֶׁקֶר) as the bow which shoots the tongue out as
if it were an arrow: indeed in 9:7* the tongue is referred to as an arrow. Jrm
evidently understands “the lie” as a quasi personification in that passage, and
the same usage, it seems, is present here. This leaves “the pen” (עֵט) free to be object of the verb (just as
Calvin understood it). (It may be remarked that when the word order
verb-object-subject occurs, the morphemes usually make the identification of
subject and object clear, e.g., Hab 3:3bα*;
Ps 34:22a*; but not always—see Job 11:19b*.)
The “pen” (עֵט) was doubtless made from a reed.
Who were the “scribes” (סֹפְרִים)? The term was applied in this period to
court officials who were record-keepers, whether of legal documents (32:12–15*)
or of finance (2 Kgs 22:3*). There were undoubtedly scribal schools connected
with the court,30 and there is now indication that Jrm’s scribe
Baruch had been a royal scribe before becoming attached to Jrm. Now whatever be
the group addressed by Jrm (see below), it is clear that the scribes were a
group to which the terms “wise” and “wisdom” could cling. Given the likely
setting of the present passage at the time of a recitation of the Deuteronomic
law (see Setting), the references here to “scribes” and “pen” doubtless refer
in some way to that recitation. The scribes referred to here would then be priestly
scribes, but one must not assume any separation between priestly scribes and
royal ones (compare 36:10* and 12*): it was under royal patronage that the
scroll of the law which had come to light in Josiah’s time has been copied and
then expounded.
And one must not assume (with Cornill and others) that
this verse sets forth Jrm’s attitude toward the Deuteronomic reform: if the
setting proposed in the present study is correct, the onset of that reform was
a full generation past. And it is certainly not the case that Jrm is saying,
“The written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6*). It is not
that writing laws is bad; writing is often a good thing—after all, Jrm dictates
to Baruch. What is bad is the lying spirit of the scribes that motivates their
work: they manage to produce written results that are a crystalization of
“falsehood” (שֶׁקֶר).
These scribes then are not much different from the priests referred to in
2:8*—those who deal with torah do not know Yahweh.
Who then is the audience addressed in the first half of
the verse? Who is the “we” who claims wisdom? Verses 8* and 9* clearly raise a
complicated set of issues: whether a specific class of “wise men” is addressed,
whether the class of “scribes” is addressed, and what relation the law of
Deuteronomy has to either or both. Scholars have offered a variety of
solutions, but they are essentially three. (1) The audience is the class of
“the wise” such as is referred to in 18:18*. (2) The audience is the
“scribes,” or the priests, or both. (3) The audience is the people in general.
If one assumes a unity between vv 4–7* and vv 8–13* (see
Structure), then the implications of vv 4–7* are relevant for the question of
the present verse. In v 5* the reference is to “Jerusalem,” and in v 7* to “my
people”; the impression left by vv 4–7* is that it was by the optimism of the
false prophets that the people had been led into complacency (see Form, and
also Interpretation on v 4*). Certainly many optimistic prophets were attached
to the temple (26:7*; 28:1*; compare 29:24–32*), and their words would have
reinforced the conviction of priestly circles that loyal adherence to the law
of Deuteronomy would guarantee their protection by Yahweh. If the setting
proposed here is correct, namely the feast of booths celebrated in September or
October 601, then it is relevant to recall the treatment which Jrm’s first
scroll received in December 601: it was inspected by one scribe after another.
It was first read in the temple, in the chamber of a scribal family (36:10*),
then a member of that family sent word to the palace, to the chamber of the
scribe there, and the palace scribe was present as well as the son of the
temple scribe (36:12*); and after its reading and after news of it was sent to
the king, it was stored in the chamber of the palace scribe (36:20–21*). One
pictures Jrm’s scroll—in his perception the only way to rediscover
Moses—becoming the pawn of bureaucrats: this in spite of the fact that several
scribes urged the king (unsuccessfully) not to burn it (36:25*). It would seem,
then, that the audience in this verse is what Jrm in 5:5* calls “the leaders,”
those whose perception shapes that of the whole people. Their mood, as
Deuteronomy is recited, is one of confidence; the thought if not the words of
Deut 4:6* is their conviction: “Keep [the statutes and ordinances] and do them;
for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the
peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great
nation is a wise and understanding people.’”
“To the contrary,” Jrm hears Yahweh say (for אָכֵן as a particle of contradiction see the
discussion in 3:23*—note that the expression לַשֶּׁקֶר is prominent in that verse as well). Jrm’s
first scroll was a fresh attempt (with a scribe!) to publish instruction from
Yahweh which would suffer a better fate than the scroll which had been read to
Josiah: the fate of engendering a complacent spirit, indeed a lying spirit.
(William Lee Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the
Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25 [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical
Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986], 281-83)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
