Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C.

152 Pages·1968·6.65 MB·English

by  Peter R. Ackroyd

PETER R. ACKROTD
A ydutS fo werbeH thguohT
of the Sixth Century B.C.
The Westminster Press
Philadelphia
Copyright Q MCS sserP dtL 1968
yrarbiL fo ssergnoC golataC draC .oN 68-27689
TO EVEL2’-.N
Published by The Westminster @sserP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
9876543
CONTENTS
ehT Hulsean Lectures Ig6o--1962 xi
. . .
Prefme lull
I The Exilic Age I
I. Revaluation I
z. The exilic period as a ‘creative age’ 7
3. The scope of the present study 12
4. The sources I4
II The Historical Situation in the Exik Age 17
I. The historical background I7
2. The situation in Judah 20
l
3. The situation in Babylonia . 31
III The Response to the Events 93
A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 39
I. Return to older cults 40
2. Acceptance of the religion of the conquerors 4I
3. The recognition of divine judgement 43
4. The disaster and the ‘Day of Yahweh’ 48
IV The Response to the Events (continued) 50
B. THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH 50
I. The doom of the state . 5I
2. Jeremiah and the future 55
(i) The exiles of 597 55
(ii) Submission to Babylon 56
(iii) Restoration themes 58
V The Historians and Theologians of the Exilic Age 62
A. THE DEUTERONOMIC HISTORY 62
I. The nature of the Deuteronomic presentation 62
2. The criteria of the Deuteronomic presentation 73
3. The outlook of the Deuteronomic history 78
. . .
VIII CONTENTS CONTENTS ix
VI The Historians and Theologians of the Exilic Age (ii) Allusions to the exile in the Psalms
225
(continued) (iii) Passages of lamentation 226
B. THE PRIESTLY WORK 2. Passages reflecting restoration 228
I. The Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26)
XIII The Significance of the ExiIe and Restoration 232
2. The Priestly Work
I. Developments of thought 232
VII Prophecy of the Exile and the Ideals of Restoration 103 2. The ‘idea’ of exile 237
A. THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL 103 3. The ‘idea’ of restoration 247
I. Ezekiel and the disaster 106 (i) The Temple 248
2. Ezekiel and restoration 110 (ii) The new community and the new age 251
(i) Temple III (iii) The people’s response 254
(ii) Cultus 112
Select Bibliograkhy
257
(iii) Land and people II3
List of Abbreviations
259
VIII Prophecy of the Exile and the Ideals of Restoration 118 Index of Subjects 263
(continued) Index of Authors 272
B. DEUTERO-ISAIAH 118 Index of Biblical References 277
I. The people’s present condition z 121
2. The future hope 128
IX The Restoration and its Interpretation 138
A. INTRODUCTORY: The Historical Problems of the
Restoration Period I38
X The Restoration and its Interpretation (continued) ‘53
B. HAGGAI I53
I. The Temple I55
2. The new community and the new age 162
3. The people’s response 166
XI The Restoration and its Interpretation (continued) 171
C. ZECHARIAH 1-8 171
I. The Temple *7*
2. The new community and the new age I75
3. The people’s response 200
XII Exile and Restoration : Other Aspects of the Thought
of the Period 218
I. Passages reflecting the exilic situation 219
(i) Oracles of judgement, primarily upon Babylon
as conqueror 219
-\
\
THE HULSEAN LECTURES 269I--o6gr
electors to the Hulsean Lectureship in the University of Cam-
THE
bridge honoured me by inviting me to deliver the lectures on the
tce jebhuTs‘ e g:Anoi tfao raostt snyeed Rmulptaosc lifegovoeldoeht
ni eht h tyxriustnec dna fo reicenhatcifing insi genhitdnatsrednu
BC
c im lsfiioxaed -udtJnsaop fo eh t,’ twnee Nmdanta seessTeerhuttcel
deerreewvi lneid eht tneL mreT fo 1962. A ypoc foyra neihmtilerp
txe td estaiws onpi e .dyyt rieash rr tebethivnTLie nskUerr-opewrper
no i gt fnas oir t dkoenen rbhetat oatsexawlleee ,ptrfsmoeo rceuhttcel
eht eltit fo hcihw saw yltneuqe stbauhswemos.deifidom
tI si di anlw otda hs t enelrahluetatshcl seueLHb no ‘ehmconsarb
of Christian Theology’, and ahhough the Old Testament forms a
lamr otnrap fo ,m ul la eucarcieighrotr l usosceeamhhditetmeemeoss
to be a doubt whether the electors viewed the Old Testament as
falling within the .noitinged ,ylniatreC os raf sa I ma ,erawaon
esruoc fo n aseesrluutHc esLah ndeeerbevil endi si hytrutnec nona
ten me eem drha.l utteOdp slntepauTmBi sti sri atelala hcnetihgtiro
noitnetni fo nhoJ e&H dedulcni siht .dleif ehT sesruoc fo snomresrof
h cdie hdew ihnvio rspih lliw dn atuo fho cet imneheehwhstfceosrp
lectures has in part evolved, included some which were to be on
emos‘ fo eht etrloumc isftfxiedt ro eruc ssbtorap fo eht yloH-pircS
,serut ,hcus I ,naem sa yam raeppa ot eb erom yllareneg lufesuro
necessary to be explained, and which may best admit of such a
comment or explanation without presuming to pry too far into the
dnuo fsotreprces ro lu fsweairetsym fo eh t’ythgimlA stnetmuodnE(
of
.de .J , e.gW dkirrablmCaC( r 904)) p.
the University of Cambridge, I 20).
Oldthe of claims the that proper as therefore regarded be may It
Testament to lie within the field of Christian Theology have been
nn oehi vc tyi ueibgsss nira ghufotooccer ,serutceI dn tnee aahmawit
seitniatr etcunouba eht ecalp fo eht dlO tnematseT ni ehtnaitsirhC
Church are frequently voiced, it may seem not improper that this
yduts s,idetov efdi to nylelos ot eht‘ erom tluciffid stxet roerucsbo
parts’ of the Old Testament, yet to an aspect of its thought which
I
’/-
iix
THE HULSEAN LECTURES
syaper resolc noitanimaxe dna yam osla edivorp a relluf erusaemfo
gnidnatsrednu ehtfo weN tnematseT dna eht naitsirhC .htiafrehtehW
I evah ta yna tniop demuserp ot yrp‘ oot ’raf si on tbuod tseb tfelot
eht tnemegduj fo eht ,redaer ro deedni fo rehgih.ytirohtua
London, 1967 P.R.A. PREFACE
THE tneserp yduts si eht emoctuo fo a rebmun fo sraey fognihcaet
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS dna gnikniht tuoba eht dlO ,tnematseT gnirtnec nopu ehtsnoitseuq
dna smelborp hcihw gnoleb ot eht htxis yrutnec What prompted
BC.
ehT rohtua sehsiw ot drocer si hssendetbedni ot sdneirf dnaseugaelloc eht gniknihter saw ni eht tsrif ecalp eht ytissecen fo gniydutsylesolc
ohw evah depleh yb rieh tecivda dna yb eht naol fo skoob dn;aselcitra eht lautxet dna lacitegexe smelborp fo eht koob fo ,iaggaHylpmis
ot eht ffats fo seirarbil ni suoirav ,secalp htob ni taerG niatirB dnani esuaceb siht deneppah ot eb a tes txet rof a ralucitrap puorg fo-uts
eht detinU ;setatS ot eht srebmem fo eht etaudarg ranimes ta eht ;stned dna eht noitingocer taht siht elttil citehporp ,koob os netfo
narehtuL loohcS fo ygoloehT ta ogacihC ni eht gnirps fo 1967, rofeht dismissed as hardly worthy of attention because in the study of
sulumits fo rieht ,noissucsid dna ot rehto secneidua ohw evahdraeh ycehporp ti si eht taerg stehporp fo eht hthgie dna htnevesseirutnec
strap fo siht koob ni sti reilrae .smrof nI ,ralucitrap sknaht era eudot ot mohw ew ,nr ustreffo ton ylno a rebmun fo elttalicuuicqtiefgfeixde
esoht ohw evah depyt eht ,tpircsunam dna yllaicepse ot rM .K.W ,smelborp tub osla niatrec seulc ot eht gnikniht fo eht etaidemmi post-
yelraC rof sih ecnatsissa htiw gnidaer-foorp dna.gnixedni cilixe .doirep ehT larutan leuqes saw a noitaredisnocer fo eht-moc
noinap ot ,iaggaH hairahceZ 1-8. esehT owt snoitcelloc fo,ycehporp
netfo denimaxe esuaceb fo eht ecnatropmi fo rieht noitubirtnoc oteht
understanding of the historical circumstances attending the re-
BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS gnidliub fo eht ,elpmeT era ni ytilaer tsom elbaulav sretniop oteht
theological mind of a generation whose history remains at many
ehT lacilbib segassap detouq evah neeb detalsnart tcerid morf eht
s ten risuo a1cps.sarbeove
,werbeH tub os raf sa elbissop eht gnidrow fo eht VSR. sahneeb
enO enil fo thguoht hcihw spoleved morf ,siht dna hcihw nacylno
.dewollof retpahC dna esrev noitaremune wollof eht werbeH .;txet
eb deredisnoc sa na edisa ot siht ,yduts si eht noitaulaver fo dlO
tpecxe ni eht smlasP erehw( eht noitaived si netfo fo a elgnisesrev
tnematseT ycehporp no eht elpmis noitpmussa taht rof sti lluf-rednu
)ylno eht snoitaived era deton ni.VSR
gnidnats ew tsum ekat ti sa a ,elohw dna ton nigeb sa si netfoenod
morf niatrec snoiton devired ylniam morf yrutnec-hthgieycehporp
dna ekam eseht eht airetirc rof eht tnemssessa fo retal dnayldesoppus
degenerate types 2. Nor may the very valuable consideration of
1 Cf. P. R. Ackroyd, ‘Studies in the Book of Haggai’, JJS 2 (x95x), pp. x63-76;
33s
3 (x952), pp. 1-13 ; ‘The Book of Haggai and Zechariah x-8’, 3 (Ig52), pp.
33s 7
151-6; ‘Some Interpretative Glosses in the Book of Haggai’, (x956), pp.
;
I 63-7 ‘Haggai’, ‘Zechariah’, in The .New Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed.
M. Black and H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh, x962), pp. 643-51; ‘Haggai’, HDB, rev.
ed. (x963), pp. 358-g; ‘Zechariah, Book of’, HDB, rev. ed., pp. 1053-4. Cf.
below ch. X, XI.
2 Even so excellent a work as B. Vawter, T7ze Conrcicnce of Israel (London, 1961)
Xiv PREFACE PREFACE xv
la ccii ltabenihebpm-ooarnrpethxpe s adnuorgkca bot e-hdtnatsrednu years ago was, in fact, done under his guidance.4 That he has a
gni fo lac iylcbeihbporp eb dettimrep ot tcarted morf eht rojam tniopfo wider interest in the sixth century an interest shared by his -erp
thsce iryt hec nswtelei nha m sipcfse,aoiosh hrletecpbskuisisbadlna rossec endi eh tsui greiRahC fo werb e,H engidir b.mSaC .A BC, 6,kooC
ekiln usa ti si ot eah ntre emhhot tnihoewchiphw ti yylarmepoerbp is evident from other work which he has done, as in his Michael
.d eerlabpamuolcaV sa eht rdenduiowrgk c,asbi ti tsum tonerucsbo reldiF erutcel fo yraurbeF 1960,s to which reference will be made
eht tcaf taht eht cite htpnoermpevom ni learsI si a euqinu-monehp .yltneuqe srboussseforP ecneruaL .E ,enworB esohw stseretnievah
e,un qotin on eknuee sd nnerti eze u fsiheogohthhnrcattiolfieewbM‘ degnar revo eht hcum rediw dleif fo eht evitarapm oycduts fo,noigiler
,’rehtom tub ni s t,iecnereh oscti lartne cecalp nihtiw eht dlO-atseT odsalha denrecnoc fl ehstm iis whmeehlt brfodaorol piusrcieihpttrap
ment (though it need not therefore be regarded as the solely inter- ni si hkoob Ear& Judaism ,egdirbmaC( r ',)oag a koo bhcishrwevoc
gnitse ro tnatrop mliartn e,c)erutaef dna sti ylsgunoimhrcoaneer-raf emos fo ed hnh t ucsnoilirhlhg wate fihewtpoc sfo t.enyhedtsuetrsp
influence beyond the Old Testament. Yet all too often Old Testa- approacmhy that fact the acockfei pntdalnyhc ies ainndt ereHsits
y cte nhs epa tmohnhregpeu bofhot n ismr eowtootr r eaodntulcni ila ot e dhdetorierf eftpiad y nsatmn imooprf sih dnewdoivo raplufesu
Old Testament prophets, and the later ones-especially Ezekiel, stimulus to the further gniusrup, of the questions raised by the two
Haggai and Zechariah-have been felt to be not quite respectable, c.istneohiptocrepllo cI ma dalg ereh o tegdelwonkc aym-detbedni
tn esdealcpemdaxe fo a tnemevo mw ognninilc eddna tuoba otretep ssen ot eseht ow t.sralohc s sysMendetbe donti ynam srehto lliweb
t uo ot d neoneihier trhe se wh’a prttw.oe esngyhP‘nnp(oaolrp .)9.47 erehwyreve.tnerappa
This reassessment can be treated only incidentally to the main
,emeht tub ti stinatr otpamhit ti dluohs eb ni dnim fi ylno otelbane 4 Cf. his commentaries on Ha--ggai and Zechariah in IB 6 (New York, rg56),
us to clear our minds of the feeling that a preoccupation with the pp. 1037-88.
s Cf. W. A. L. Elmslie, ‘Prophetic Influences in the Sixth Century BC’, in
later stages of prophecy must inevitably be rather dull. The com-
Essays and Studies presented lo S. A. Cook, ed. D. Winton Thomas (Cambridge
rota tosnheews momoehhct sa si hdleif si ,ton ni ,tcaf ot e bdeitipsa Oriental Series 2, London, Ig5o), pp. 15-24: on p. 15, Elmslie quotes Cook’s
havditewnoaiwpg lthie hasd t e strfiioahsrne t; u nhaiatnve is nog expression of interest from Crtre Cambridge Ancient Histo~ III (Cambridge, 1925,
‘ , . .
rg2g), p. 489. At the end of the sectionion p. 4gg Cook wrote: the sixth
hcir a dleif ot3.etavitluc
century (roughly) is the point upon which all the great problems of the Old
iaggaH fo yduts eht hcihw ta tnemom eht ta taht etanutrof saw tI Testament ultimately turn.’ Cf. also his ‘Le VI8 sitcle, moment decisif dans
and Zechariah imposed itself upon me I was able to derive a l’histoire du judaisme et dans l’holution religieuse de l’orient’, RHPhR I 8 (I g38),
1-8
pp. 32131. Elmslie’s own article contains some interesting material, but its ap-
great deal of help and inspiration from association with two Old
proach is somewhat oversimplified.
Testamesncth olawrhhspao ad r ticulianrt eretisshntae g m een eral 6 ‘The Sixth Century BC: a Creative Epoch in the History of Israel’, 3SS 6
.dleif rosseforP .D notniW Thomas, whose fields of interest are, of (1960, PP. 33-46*
,esru oycrev hcum rediw naht ,siht sah rof ynam sraey edam ehttxet 7 Cf. also his From Babylon to Bethlehem (Cambridge, 2xg5r).
.
dsnnaoisr efvo ese hstn ocoiiwtttce ehr lpaalo lorrucpectittarmarpof
,ydut sdna ym td segrlniiifadtaee drfo heahitr athxceet Zrevyotnewt
is unfortunateIy deliberately restricted to the examination of the earlier prophets.
Cf. the comments on the transformation of prophecy during the exile in A. Lods,
27~ Prophets and the Rise of Judaism (ET, London, rg37), pp. 24gf., 265, 27gf. Cf.
the comments of H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient Israel (London, rg67), p. 144.
T. C. Vriezen’s discussion of the exilic period (The Religion of Ancient Israel [ET,
London, 19671, pp. 240ff.) offers a balanced statement, but perhaps also not
sufficiently doing justice to the early restoration period.
s Cf. the comment of G. A. Smith, ne Book of the Twelve Prophets II (London,
x896-8, x928), p. 210: ‘No one can fail to be struck with the spirituality of the
teaching of Haggai and Zechariah.’
THE EXILIC AGE
I.REVALUATION
IN A P o P u L A R w o R K, Ezmyday life in Old testament Times,nodno L(
rg56), hcihw yldiviv stneserp ynam stcepsa fo eht efil hcihwsi
deyartrop nihtiw eht dlO ,tnematseT .E .W notaeH sah nesohcot
tneserp sa eno fo sih snoitartsulli a erutcip fo eht detcurtsnocerytic
fo nolybaB fo eht doirep fo razzendahcubeN (605-562 htiwsti
BC),
setag dna gnignah snedrag dna ,taruggiz dna noitpac,ot eht:erutcip
ehT‘ gnisolC enecS fo dlO tnematseT :semiT eht nolybaB fo-ubeN
’razzendahc .gif( ,4 .p .)62 A luferac noitanimaxe fo eht koobsekam
ti raelc yhw siht ralucitrap noitpac saw .nesohc toN tuohtiw-ifitsuj
,noitac notaeH sah deyartrop ni siht koob eht yadyreve efil foeht
dlO tnematseT .doirep noitamrofnI gnidrager yadyreve efilrof
earlier
eht retal doirep si hcum ,reitnacs ,dna neve erehw ew yam tcepsussti
,ecnet sniex tetflouciffid f.otnemss essushaT se’hrt,eelccniendoirvheC
tnatropmi sa ti ,si si syawla tcejbus ot eht seitluciffid fonoitaterpretni
hcihw esira morf sih gniyartrop ni eht niam sih nwo gnidnatsrednufo
a doirep ni eht erom tnatsid .tsap hcuM yraropmetnocnoitamrofni
tsum eb ,tneserp tub ti si ton ysae ot elgnatnesid .ti .L relhiiK nisih
lufthgiled yduts osla stneserp a erutcip nwardylegral
Hebrew Mad
morf reilrae ,ecnedive hguoht eh setacidni eht ecnetsisrep fosfeileb
dna ,secitcarp dna ta eno tniop sward a tiartrop fo eht laediwerbeH
sa eh saw nees ta owt etiuq tnereffid ,sdoirep yleman ni eht erugiffo
divaD dna ni eht erugif fo leinaD .pp(.).ffo3
s’notaeH book is in reality a study of ‘Everyday Life in -erP
cilixe .’learsI tuB eht eciohc fo eht noitpac ehT‘ gnisolC enecS fodlO
tnematseT ,’semiT elbacilpxe hguoht ti ,si secudorp a tsom-daelsim
gni .noisserpmi tI stseggus taht eht dlO tnematseT yllaer spots taeht
,elixE hcihw si .drusba roN seod notaeH yllaer esoppus taht tispots
1
London, I g$-ET of Der HebGkAe MemA (Tiibingen, I 953).
2 THE EXILIC AGE REVALUATION 3
.ereh tteY e hntoitp a,csi ni d e,ctrcoaff nniie rel -bssateriripsmeidnu .tnematse TtuB eh sah on thgir ot yned taht ot esoht ohw era elbanuot
sion by the statement that ‘it is a fortunate . . . circumstance that tpecca siht mialc eht dlO tnematseT yam sselehtreven eb alufgninaem
de ehet tsntaes hmes pub’fc looeedfairls Isi osl- aaethn tetsseormper dna lat itvnemuc ohdci hswehcir nhetiaf dn aegdelwonk fo doGeht
evit dn ayllac i’stnniarttrnoipmi .p( 29). dnA siht dseiwol lyobfeht erom ti si daer dna .deiduts tyolNtneuqer fennio stcepsus tahtcitamgod
noitamriffa taht tsom‘ of the new developments’ of the post-exilic closure of the mind precludes such rich appreciation, so that the
period ‘were borrowed from the great empires’ of that time. ‘This Old Testament provides mere confirmation of convictions already
cdioli irsxeaepw-t sao penmo-i i at lsdmf annrotraaoaupfetxerlerguc s s .eed nllfnie oehhdpWnoi m snietf o an okis s a-rirmrocoeefpdunsi
tion in Judaism and, despite the dictates of strict chronology, the ytilaici ff o,gnik neirhetht si a yaw-f leashuoh ni hcihw ehtssenmrif
study of it belongs less to Old Testament times than to the back- of convictions accepted and held does not preclude the realization
dnuo rfgo .e’)ht dtnh iecwbm ue iasSNt(ten ste aeimeTvenntoiatrso 4,’ dht y rtu f slkorohoti oawo teho he feuy tdrsrr erbaotthohmatLh‘t
tnematseT dlO fo seirutnec xis fi yhw ksa yam eW .stnemmoc owt ni hcih wseshetnh cfior eshet t t utndbhe ligmoOruattotnhsoteceTht
times (or perhaps four if we limit ourselves rather narrowly to the gninepee dfo sensooihttci vdnnoac rieht. ,tn eemcengirsal ntei siton
doirep 561-785 BC , ddrn aaeghetr ahpyrcopa a hdpnaargipeduseasp seriously to be supposed that the acceptance of the revelation of
ygelndeiirlsil tta)runfwuoeeoi vnraucp d eesbdsniu mossraigdkcab‘ God in Christ as final and decisive carries with it an automatic
fo eht ,’weN eht gnidecerp xis seirutnec ro ,os 0521 ot ,785 dluohston gnidna tfsoredn ueh teruta nd neasopru pfo doG ni .syttiilatot
eyblralimis 2?dedrager sihT ,si fo ,e syrlutocca xteahw emos-sirhC Such an attitude as s’notaeH to the post-exilic period is not -nu
tians believe to be the only proper view, but it is one which intro- common. It is found in the often-quoted but misleading statement
ducescsoo nstrictitnaeg n dencatmysoa kper opeOrlT de stament fo .A .B ,nosdivaD edam htiw ecnerefer ot haimereJ : ycehporP‘
3. erlOb ie sw y s sanokimaps s ima seyttit igbhsaeegiohhxirswterhC dah ydaerla thguat sti .shturt stI tsal troffe saw ot laever flesti nia
tnarelot nsia ot edulcxe eht smialc fo msiadu Josla ot edberedisnoc 5,’efil ynaM .ecnerefer reworran rehtar a sah siht yldettimda hguoht
sra ons a s?oiasett tacne eshcehthit um TctrhdsaaehgltfCiOsrreeTp of us would at least be inclined to wonder whether the claim of
no i mfott iota adal eholeth tGcvstn eii serrhithcaC utssaias soetcen Deutero-Isaiah to be perhaps the greatest of them all may not be
complete revaluation of all life and experience, including the Old hguoht-det tsiimhdta si a tnemegduj hcihw si yler uepvitcejbusdna
ton elbapac fo n.inaoliptartsnom eodT ,yas sa rosseforP .D notniW
Thomas does, that ‘He (Deutero-Isaiah) is the last of the great Old
s It is one of the dangers of the common division of the Old Testament at the
fall of Jerusalem in 587 that an artificial break is made; yet there is a certain right- tnematseT6’stehporp is again understandable, but is not this, too,
ness in the instinct which sees the profound significance of this moment in the csidtrea hw etotha t atprshmerwyteesabmnlmo uesfmo eh t?enisleoD
people’s history. It is proper, however, that a different division should also some-
greatnecsesaw siDete hu tero-Ifsnaboaiolteuiiittso nanos o dhr ,
times be made, as, for example, by A. Lods, whose volume 17re Prophets and the
Rise of Judaism (ET, London, 1987) spans the exile, and by R. H. Pfeiffer, Religion such men as Haggai and Zechariah, men of the moment as well as
in the Old lestament, ed. C. C. Forman (London, 196 I), who divides at 62 I (p. xi; nem fo thgisn iotni eht enivi d,lliw to nyler ietknieln urieht -taerg
but also p. 002 for his further comments).
neve fi.srossecederp-retaerg 3 Agaj iund gemseiunsbt j ectivbieuf,t
s Christian exegesis of the Old Testament which works from a typological
viewpoint or applies a narrow ‘prophecy-fulfilment’ pattern, inevitably limits the it is allowed to suggest the comparative decadence of post-exilic
areas of the Old Testament which can be reasonably taken into account. What does ,thguoht gniga moatd at n setsmhesglsine ruseswa nac dnifemos
not provide a ‘type’ or cannot be seen to be ‘fulfilled’ must take a subordinate it is
more substantial ground for making the statement.7 In a recent,
place or be ignored. A full Christian exegesis takes the whole Old Testament
seriously as an essential element in the context of the Christian revelation. T. C.
4
Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (ET, Oxford, rg58), shows full John Robinson ( ?1576-x625), pastor of the pilgrim fathers. The words pur-
appreciation of this variety (cf., e.g., p. 75), yet he appears at times to exclude port to be quoted from his address to the departing pilgrims. Cf. Dictionmy of
certain parts of the material as not containing ‘a revelation of the Spirit of God, National Biograbhy, Vol. 49 (London, r8g7), p. 21. [I. am indebted to Dr G. F.
but rather the revelation of the spirit of the age (Ecclesiastes) or of the spirit of Nuttall for this reference.]
the Jewish people (Esther)’ (p. 89). But all revelation is tied to a particular human 5 HDB II (x899), PP. 569-78; ‘Jeremiah the Prophet’ (see p. 576).
context, and the discerning of its nature in that context is part of the fascination of Jss6 ,)&I( .p 39.
Old Testament study. 76 Cf. H. H. Rowley, 27ze Faith of Israel (London, rg56), p. 147 : ro N‘ should we
4 THE EXILIC AGE REVALUATION 5
hguoht ni ynam stcepser ,detauqitna noitatneserp fo eht yrotsih fo a tneiciffus noitazilaer fo eht .secneuqesnoc ehT dlo semehcsllits
Old Testament religion, R. H. Pfeiffer wrote of ‘the notion that persist: prophecy, psalmody, law as a chronological scheme-even
msiaduJ stsisnoc fo eht ecnavresbo fo eht wal delaever ybhavoheJ fi redlo stnemele era ot eb dnuof nihtiw htob eht htiw-rettaleht
]cis[ ot a-sesoM noiton etiuq tnereffid morf eht noigiler thguatyb ecneuqesnoc nward taht ytilanigiro tsum syawla eil htiw eht.stehporp
eht stehporp dna yb 8.’suseJ tI si raelc taht eh sdrager eht noigilerfo tI si llits demriffa taht haimereJ dna ,haiasI-oretueD os raf morfgnisu
eht stehporp dna fo suseJ sa gnieb ,elbarapmoc dna ylrettutnereffid mlasp ,smrof tsum evah neeb srotaerc fo .meht tluC dna wal erallits
from some other notion which, in the context, can hardly imply thguoht to eb rewol slevel fo suoigiler gnikniht naht ycehporpdna
gnihtyna rehto naht eht noigiler fo eht cilixe-tsop9.ega ;yteip eht etir si detaulave sa ssel naht eht 11.drow retaL,ycehporp
tneceR sraey fo dlO tnematseT yduts evah thguorb taerg-hcirne esuaceb ti seod ton syawla mees ot wohs a tcerid nrecnoc htiw-seuq
tnem ot ruo weiv fo eht reilrae .doirep ehT noitaulaver fo eht,sudoxE snoit fo ,’ytilarom‘ si thguoht ot eb rewol naht reilrae ;ycehporpsti
eht ytilartnec fo eht sudoxE htiaf ni eht ,ethci~c~egslieH eht-aicerppa ,nrecnoc ,oot htiw citluc ,srettam hcus sa eht gnidliuber fo ehtelpmeT
noit fo stehporp dna stsimlasp ni taht ,txetnoc evah thguorb tuobaa and the reorganization of a pure worship, is evaluated as lower
retaerg esnes fo ecnerehoc ni ruo .gnikniht ehT smelborp fo eht,tluc naht eht laedi fo a noigiler tuohtiw a ,elpmeT a pihsrowtuohtiw
no hcihw os elttil tnemeerga sah neeb ,dehcaer htiw ehtytniatrecnu Ql.sutluc
tuoba citehporp pihsnoitaler ot ,ti dna eht noitisop fo eht ,gnikevah nI gnitseggus a egnahc fo ,sisahpme ew era syawla ni regnadfo
brought in another element which makes for the appreciation of gniog oot .raf ehT noitartnecnoc no eht taerg stehporp sawsyawla
01.ytiun ittunBoc htiw hcus segnahc sa eseht ereht sah ton syawlaenog ni eht tsap ni regnad fo gnikam oot taerg a tsartnoc neewteb mehtdna
eht noigiler fo rieht ,emit htiw a gnitluser feileb ni eht msinogatnafo
forget, when we are inclined to think of post-exilic Judaism as hard and legal and tehporp dna ,tseirp deifipyt ni eht gniteem fo somA dna.haizamA
unspiritual, that it was in the post-exilic days that the rich treasury of the Psalter eW nac won ees taht siht msinogatna saw ton eno fo ni-elpicnirpeht
. . .
was gathered together, and that it was employed in the worship of Judaism.
esnes taht stehporp dna stseirp tsum eb ta sreggad tub-nward sawa
It is but a distortion of the teaching of the Bible which concentrates on certain
elements of the teaching of the Prophets and ignores all else. . . ’. It may indeed rettam fo thgir sl;sisahpme ton na noisulcxe fo eht ,tluc tub athgir
be hoped that the ‘inclination’ itself may be corrected, since it is so much a sur-
vival from earlier trends of thought. Cf. also hi I%rshifi in Ancient Israel (London, 11
Cf. P. Volz, Prophetengestulten des Alten fistuments (Stuttgart, x938), p. 56, and
rg67), PP. If. ‘Die radikale Ablehnung der Kultreligion durch die alttestamentlichen Propheten’,
Cf. also the ironical statement of K. Koch, ‘Stihne und Stindenvergebung urn
z&9 14 (x937), pp. 63-85; also C. F. Whitley, The Prophetic Achievement (London,
die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit’, Ev77z 26 (x966), pp. 2 17-39,
rg63), esp. ch. IV. Cf. N. H. Snaith, TheJewish New 2’kzrFestiouZ (London, rg47),
see p. 2x8: ‘It is well known that for any self-respecting Old Testament scholar,
for the argument that Pss. g3,g6-g8 are ‘so thoroughly dependent upon Isa. 40-55
the real Old Testament comes to an end with Deutero-Isaiah, or at the latest
that if the Deutero-Isaianic elements are removed the residue is negligible’ (p.
with Ezra. Everything which comes after that is Judaism and is of no interest.’
200); and cf. also his Studies in the Psalter (London, x934), pp. 66-69. For other
It is odd, however, to find that elsewhere Koch seems to be anxious to defend
references, cf. H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient Israel (1g67), p. 2. An opposite
post-exilic thought from being regarded as A<‘Jud Waism’, as if the latter were a deroga- extreme tends to be reached in works such as those of H. Graf Reventlow, e.g. D~J
tory term. So in ‘Haggais unreines Volk’, 79 (x967), pp. 52-66, he concludes
by remarking : ‘With the prophet Haggai, everything is still thought out and Amt d ;es Propheten bei Amos (FRLANT 80, x962); Wtichter iiber Israel (BZAW 82,
1962) Liturgie und prophetisches Ich bei Jeremia (Giitersloh, 1963). For a judicious
experienced in Israelite terms; nothing, absolutely nothing at all, is specifically
statement, examining the forms and language used, cf. E. Wiirthwein, ‘Kult-
Jewish’ (p. 66). Cf. also below, ch. X.
polemik oder Kultbescheid?’ in Tkdition und Situation, ed. E. Wiirthwein and 0.
* Religion in the Old Testament (I g6 I), p. 54. Kaiser (Gottingen, I 963)) pp. I I 5-3 I.
21
9 While New Testament scholarship has moved a long way from this over- Popular assessments of the Old Testament, such as find their way into
simplification, the notion that Jesus’ teaching represents a revival of the prophetic school textbooks and remain unchanged in edition after edition, do not always
thought, overleaping the intervening centuries of ‘priestly’ ideas, is one that still correspond to the developments in more scholarly study in which a much more
persists popularly. An example of such oversimplification is cited in T. W. Manson, just assessment of the cultic aspect of religious life is to be found. Yet the older
‘Ihe Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, x g35), p. 14, and cf. also W. D. Davies in Chris- ways of thinking persist, as, for example, in T. Chary, Les pro&?tes et Ze culte ri
tian JVewsfrom Israel XVI, 3 (Sept. rg65), pp. r8f. This is not to deny the relevance partir de Z’exil (Tournai, x955), e.g. p. 276, arguing that Jeremiah had gone too far
of prophetic categories to the discussion of the person of Christ. in criticism of the cult, and describing Ezekiel as breaking with earlier prophetic
10 Cf. P. R. Ackroyd, Continuity: A Contribution to the Study of the Old Testament tradition on this matter.
Religious Erudition (Oxford, 1g62), esp. pp. 20-25. 1s Cf. A. C. Welch, Probhet and Priest in OZd Israel (London, 1936).