Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998) 1-13   [© 1998 Institute for Biblical Research]

 

  

                 The Metonymical Curse as

         Propaganda in the Book of Jeremiah

  

                                  JEFF S. ANDERSON

              WAYLAND BAPTIST UNIVERSITY—ALASKA CAMPUS

 

             In eight prose texts in Jeremiah, the curse serves a polemical function that

            justifies the existence of one particular socioreligious community (the Baby-

            lonian exiles), while marginalizing others (the remnant in Judah, Judeans

            who fled to Egypt, and foreign nations). This curse is not used as an in-

            vocation of misfortune but has a metonymical sense which describes the

            embodiment of that misfortune. Although specific curse terminology and

            order vary, the phrase "you will be a reproach, a byword, a taunt, and a

            curse" is directed against these three rivals to the Babylonian community

            and foreshadows the heterogenous constitution of the Judean communities

            in the Exilic, Postexilic, and Second Temple Periods.

 

            Key Words: Babylonian exiles, curse, Deuteronomistic, metonymy, Jeremiah

 

 

There is power in language to constitute reality, not just describe it.

This was as true in antiquity as it is today, perhaps to a greater

extent. J. L. Austin has argued that there are some utterances, which

he calls performatives, that have a particular ability to bring about a

thing rather than merely describe it.¹ For example, if someone were

getting married and were to stand before a minister or judge and

say, "I do," he/she would not merely be describing reality but would

be engaging in it. It is, therefore, inherent within the nature of

language for performatives to go beyond the descriptive realm and

enter the constitutive realm of activity. One of the most powerful

performatives is the curse. As is well known, cursing is a widespread

phenomenon in many cultures throughout history, and the ancient

Near East is no exception. The curse is pervasive in the literature of

 

            1. John Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 1962).

2                   Bulletin for Biblical Research 8

 

ancient Israel as well, being regularly employed in texts of varied

genres and from disparate periods of Israel's history.

            Curses are used broadly in the Hebrew Bible, so it is important

that one be sensitive to their nuances. Generally speaking, curses are

employed along two different lines. First, a curse can be understood

to be a speech act, either as an invocation for harm to come upon an

individual or group or as profanely insolent language directed against

a hated enemy. Second, a curse can refer to the embodiment of that

evil or misfortune which comes as if in response to an imprecatory

speech act. In this second sense, the curse can refer to something

which is itself cursed or is the cause of great harm or misfortune.

            Curses have a wide variety of social functions in the Hebrew

Bible. There are times when a curse is uttered as a protective device

for contractual/covenantal agreements (Deut 11:26-32, 27-29). It can

be pronounced as an oath on oneself to ensure truth and reliability

(Job 31; Ps 7:4-6) or upon one's enemies to invoke evil on their behalf

(Judg 5:23; 1 Sam 17:43; 27:18). At times the curse can serve as an eti-

ological explanation for some physical or natural phenomenon (Gen

3:14, 17). It can be used for purposes of retribution and punishment

(Gen 4:11-12; 49:7; Deut 21:23) and even in legal adjudicatory mat-

ters (Num 5:19-22). Curses can also be uttered simply to protect per-

sonal or sacred property (Judg 17:2; Josh 7:26).

            One dimension of the social function of the curse is particularly

pertinent to the focus of this present study. Since a curse ordinarily

has a pronounced social function, it is often a powerful tool of ideo-

logical rhetoric.² In a significant number of cases in the Hebrew Bible,

a curse is employed as a polemical device used as propaganda to

exclude or at least marginalize a particular community, while legit-

imating the community which utters the curse. Some representative

examples of this might include the following: the curse of Cain and

the subsequent ostracizing of his line (Gen 4:11); the curse of Canaan

which reduces the descendants of Ham to be slaves forever (Gen

9:25); the curse of the Gibeonites, who, because of their deception, are

reduced to the status of slavery (Joshua 9); the curse of the Shechem-

ites by Jotham, with its later implications for the Samaritan com-

munity (Judges 9); and the marginialization of the foreign wives by

means of a curse (Nehemiah 13). Curses were also employed by the

Qumran covenantors against "the lot of Satan," presumably to ex-

clude those outside of the yahiad (1QS 1).

 

            2. See Lewis S. Ford, "The Divine Curse Understood in Terms of Persuasion,"

Semeia 24 (1982) 82; and Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York:

Scribners, 1971) 502.

          ANDERSON: The Metonymical Curse as Propaganda            3

 

            In the representative selection of cases below from the prose texts

of Jeremiah, certain marginalized communities are the object of a

curse. This curse is not always a verbal imprecation, but by the

operation of metonymy refers to the person or group suffering mis-

fortune. In the examples from Jeremiah that will be examined in this

study, curse terminology serves a polemical function which justifies

the existence of one particular socioreligious community (the Baby-

lonian exiles), while marginalizing others (the remnant in Judah,

Judean communities in Egypt, and foreign nations).

 

THE METONYMICAL CURSE IN THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH

 

            It is widely recognized that the book of Jeremiah was influenced

substantially by Deuteronomistic theology. However, the nature and

extent of that influence is strongly debated.³ It is unclear whether

Jeremiah himself was strongly influenced by Deuteronomic perspec-

tives or whether the Jeremiah tradition went through a period when

Deuteronomic ideas were fashionable or if a particular group of

Deuteronomists added layers to the Jeremianic tradition. Regard-

less, Deuteronomistic terminology, clichés, and theology are overtly

present in Jeremiah, particularly in the prose texts. In Deuteronomic

fashion, the book of Jeremiah portrays the fall of Jerusalem as a re-

sult of the fulfillment of the covenant curse (Deuteronomy 27-28). The

prophet Jeremiah shares the heritage of prophets who sought unsuc-

cessfully to warn the people of God against breaking the covenant.

            However, the curse is extended in the book of Jeremiah in a

unique way, by means of the rhetorical principle of metonymy.⁴ A

 

            3. The conflicting views of this discussion are presented in detail by Robert Car-

roll, Jeremiah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 38-50, 65-82; John Bright, Jeremiah (AB

21; New York: Doubleday, 1965) lv—lxxiii; J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT;

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 27-49; R. E. Clements, Jeremiah (Interpretation; Atlanta:

John Knox, 1988) 10-12; and William Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1989) 10-24, 53-64.

            4. For discussions on metonymy, see Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle, "The Met-

aphoric and Metonymic Poles," in Fundamentals of Language (2d ed.; New York: Mouton,

1971) 90-96. Jakobson adopts the Saussurian principle that language has a two-fold

character: selection and combination. Linguistic entities are first selected and then

combined into linguistic units of higher degrees of complexity. He argues that although

metonymy and metaphor are transformations of literal statements, they are generated

according to opposite principles. Metaphor belongs to the selection axis and metonymy

and synechdoche belong to the combination axis.

            Also see the discussions in David Lodge, The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor,

Metonymy, and the Typology of Modern Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977)

75ff.; Janet Martin Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985)

57ff.

4                        Bulletin for Biblical Research 8

 

metonym is basically a trope or figure of speech in which there is a

substitution of the name of one thing for that of another with which

it is associated. This can take place in several ways. The first is for an

adjunct to stand for a whole. For example, if it were stated, "the

White House said yesterday," we would clearly understand that the

adjunct "White House" is being substituted for the whole, the ad-

ministration of the presidency. Another way in which this substitu-

tion takes place is for a proper name to be substituted for one of its

qualities or visa versa. If someone is called a "Benedict Arnold," it is

clear that he/she is being portrayed as a traitor.

            Metonymy can also be employed when a cause is substituted for

effect or effect for cause. It is this substitution of cause for effect that

is important in understanding the curse in Jeremiah. Josef Scharbert

has argued that curse terminology in the Hebrew Bible can some-

times be used metonymically as "a noun for persons on whom the

curses pronounced come as devastating calamities."⁵ This, in effect,

is a metonymical substitution of effect for cause. If, therefore, one

wanted to curse someone else, he/she might refer to the dubious fate

of that person who had been placed in such a dreadful situation that

his/her whole existence could be considered cursed.⁶

            In selected prose texts of Jeremiah, the people of Judah and

Jerusalem are not just the recipients of the curse, but they actually

become a curse incarnate. These people are portrayed as inhabitants

of the land of the curse and have themselves become "a curse for all

the nations of the earth."⁷ This metonymic use of the curse is found

elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as well. In the ordeal of Numbers 5,

when the woman drinks the water which brings the curse, the priest

is instructed to say, ". . . the Lord make you a curse and an oath." Sim-

 

            5. Josef Sharbert, "’ālāh," TDOT 1.264-65.

            6. Herbert Schneidau (Sacred Discontent: The Bible and Western Tradition [Baton

Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1976] 248-306) contrasts the mythological

world which is dominated by metaphor with the literature of the Bible which is

dominated by metonymy. He sees biblical literature as a sort of "historicized fiction"

which is in direct conflict with the world of legend and myth. Robert Alter sums up

Schneidau's work with a brief quote, "Where myth is hypotactic metaphors, the Bible

is paratactic metonymies." He concludes that Schneidau's dichotomy between myth

and historized fiction is overstated but applauds Schneidau's affirmation of a "vigor-

ous movement of biblical writing away from the stable closure of the mythological

world and toward the indeterminacy, the shifting causal concatenations, the ambigu-

ities of a fiction made to resemble the uncertainties of life in history" (The Art of Biblical

Narrative [New York: Basic Books, 1982] 26).

            7. Johannes Pedersen points to the irony that those who were originally intended

to be a blessing to all the families of the earth are now described as being a curse

among all the nations of the earth (Der Eid bei den Semiten [Strassburg: Trübner, 1914]

73-74).

       ANDERSON: The Metonymical Curse as Propaganda                 5

 

ilarly, Isa 65:15 (the implications of which will be examined below)

states, "You shall leave my name to your chosen for a curse."

            The metonymical curse is found in nine instances in the prose

texts of Jeremiah, expressed in a formulaic string of words specified

below.⁸

            I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to

            be a reproach, a byword, a taunt, and a curse in all the places

            where I shall drive them. (24:9)

 

            So I took the cup from the Lord's hand, and made all the nations

            to whom the Lord sent me drink it: Jerusalem and the cities of

            Judah, its kings and princes, to make them a desolation and a

            waste, a hissing, and a curse as at this day. (25:17-18)

           

            Then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city

            a curse for all the nations of the earth. (26:6)

 

            I will pursue them with sword, famine, and pestilence, and I

            will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be

            a curse, a terror, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations

            where I have driven them. (29:18)

 

            You shall become an execration, a horror, a curse, and a taunt.

            You shall see this place no more. (42:18)

 

            Why do you provoke me to anger with the works of your hands,

            burning incense to other gods in the land of Egypt where you

            have come to live, that you may be cut off and become a curse

            and a taunt among all the nations of the earth. (44:8)

 

            . . . the remnant of Judah . . . from the least to the greatest, they

            shall die by the sword and by famine; and they shall become an

            execration, a horror, a curse, and a taunt. (44:12)

 

            . . . therefore, your land has become a desolation and a waste

            and a curse, without inhabitant, as it is to this day. (44:12)

 

            For I have sworn by myself, says the Lord, that Bozrah shall

            become a horror, a taunt, a waste, and a curse and all her cities

            shall be perpetual wastes. (49:13)

 

            8. Herbert Brichto (The Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible [SBLMS 13; Phila-

delphia: Society of Biblical Literature] 171, 188-89, 197-98) argues that the words

which make up these strings should not be translated individually but should be seen

as a hendiadys—thus "a byword for scorn" or "a proverb for humiliation" or a "by-

word for curse," and so forth. However, this argument has not been convincing to

major commentators and translations.

6                       Bulletin for Biblical Research 8

 

This curse formula is found in three definable units of Jeremiah: four

times in chaps. 24-29 (24:9; 25:17-18; 26:6; 29:18), a unit which be-

gins and ends with the metaphor of the rotten figs; four times in the

narratives regarding the Judeans who fled to Egypt in chaps. 42-44

(42:18; 44:8, 12, 22); and once in the Oracles against the Nations in

49:7-22 (49:13).⁹ The order and vocabulary vary, but these nine pas-

sages have a number of elements in common.¹⁰ First, they are all

from the prose sections of Jeremiah. Second, the clichéd nature of the

expressions parallels terminology in Deuteronomy and the Deuter-

onomistic history.¹¹ Third, the noun qĕlālāh is employed in every in-

stance except 29:18, where ’alah is used.¹² In two cases, both qĕlālāh

and ’ālāh occur (42:18; 44:12). Fourth, there are numerous expansions

in the larger units surrounding most of these texts, presumably in-

dicating their importance to the exilic and postexilic communities.¹³

Finally and most importantly, the object of the metonymical curse is

always one of three groups: the Jewish community in Jerusalem and

Judah, the Judeans which fled to Egypt, or a foreign nation. In other

words, the phrase refers to someone, indeed anyone, outside of the

Babylonian exiles.

            What is meant by this particular clichéd string of words? One

could assume from the juxtaposition of the synonyms "reproach,"

"taunt," "hissing," and "byword" to the word qĕlālāh that the curse in

these cases refers to an object of ridicule and scorn, something to be

made light of, which is one basic meaning of the root qll. Rather than

a curse which involves an actual utterance or imprecation, the word

 

            9. Jer 24:9 and 25:18 lie in Mowinckel's source A; 26:6; 29:1, 8; 42:18; 44:18; and

44:22 lie in Source B; and 44:8 lies in source C. The oracle against Edom is deemed a

later addition by Mowinckel. See the discussion in Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 10-24.

            10. This phrase is used without the term "curse" in several instances. Two words

or more occur in 19:8; 25:9, 11, 18; and 44:6. A single word occurs in 7:34; 22:5; and 26:6.

            There are two particularly helpful studies which examine in detail the use of

Deuteronomistic language in the book of Jeremiah: Louis Stulman, The Prose Sermons

of the Book of Jeremiah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); and Winfred Thiel, Die deuter-

onomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26-45 (WMANT 82; Neukirchen-Vluynsocioreligious

Neukirchener Verlag, 1981).

            11. With the exception of chaps. 24 and 49 which were not a part of his study,

Thiel finds Deuteronomistic influence in each of the remaining passages under dis-

cussion (Die deuteronomistische Redaktion, 3-5, 17-19, 65, 69-81). M. Weinfeld also com-

ments on these texts as "retrospective religious surveys, not necessarily reflecting the

historical reality of Jeremiah's time" (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford:

Clarendon, 1972; reprinted Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992] 30-31).

            12. In two cases (42:18; 44:12), both terms are used. Variations of the phrase em-

ploying synonyms occur in several instances. Two synonyms or more occur in 19:8; 25:9,

11, 18; and 44:6. A single synonym occurs in 7:34; 22:5; and 26:6.

            13. Texts most often cited as expansions are 24:9; 29:16-19; 44:8; and 49:12-13.

        ANDERSON: The Metonymical Curse as Propaganda               7

 

qĕlālāh metonymically refers to the material misfortune itself.¹⁴ It is

not an invocation of misfortune but the actual embodiment of that

misfortune. Thus, the object of this formula becomes an example of

calamity and a proverb of disaster. Ironically, in dialectical fashion,

this metonymical curse can then again become a derogatory speech

act uttered against someone else by referring to that individual or

group as a curse. As Isaiah referred to the inhabitants of Judah as

"you rulers of Sodom" and "people of Gomorrah" (Isa 1:9), a group

considered cursed can become an object of material misfortune.

            In the Exilic and Postexilic Periods, there were three broad Jew-

ish communities: the remnant in Judah, the community which fled to

Egypt, and the exiles in Babylon. In the Postexilic Period, there was

a great amount of conflict between the returning exiles from Babylon

and the people who had remained in Judah. Could it be that these

postexilic tensions are reflected in the curses of the Jeremiah tradi-

tion? To consider this question requires a brief examination of each of

the texts introduced above.

 

                       JEREMIAH 24-29: THE ROTTEN FIGS

 

Jeremiah 24:1-10: The Vision of the Two Figs

 

The Vision of the Two Figs in Jeremiah 24 employs the fourfold for-

mula of the curse. This text portrays the exiles of Judah who were

deported to Babylon as the "good figs," while those who remained in

Judah and those who dwelled in the land of Egypt were the "bad

figs." The clichéd phrase under study is found in v. 9 and is seen by

Niditch as an addition.¹⁵ These bad figs will be "a horror to all the

kingdoms of the earth, to be a reproach, a byword, a taunt, and a

curse [wĕliqlālāh] in all the places where I shall drive them" (24:9).

The implications of this text and its parallels in Ezekiel 11 for the

exilic and postexilic situation are far-reaching. What or who might be

the source for such a blatant condemnation of the exiles of Judah? It

is not clear whether this vision was a de novo creation of the Deuter-

onomist or if it was an earlier oracle which simply served to encour-

age the exiles. Holladay notes that the terminology in this fourfold

curse is most similar to the terminology in the Deuteronomistic his-

tory (Deut 28:37; 1 Kgs 9:7); but since its parallels in Deuteronomy 28

are almost certainly late, it is impossible to determine which text is

 

            14. Brichto, Problem of "Curse," 197-99.

            15. Susan Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (Chico, Calif.: Scholars

Press, 1980) 62.

8                      Bulletin for Biblical Research 8

 

dependent on the other.¹⁶ Niditch hints at the polemical implications

of this passage. She asks, "Does vs. 9 reflect a strain of anti–Egyptian-

Jew sentiment on the part of the orthodox Babylonian returnees?"¹⁷

Other scholars have not been quite so cautious. Nicholson states,¹⁸

 

            the composition of chapters 24-29 was motivated primarily by a spe-

            cifically theological and polemical intention, for they seek to assert the

            claims of the Babylonian diaspora to be the true remnant of Israel

            through whom alone renewal and restoration would be wrought by

            Yahweh as against those who either remained in Judah or lived in

            Egypt during the exilic period.

 

Carroll extends this even further,¹⁹

 

            The vision of 24 does not mean that all deportees in Babylon are the

            hope for the future, but only that group which can be identified with

            those who went into captivity with Jeconiah. It is an echo of seniority

            claims and differentiations made by the returning groups wishing to

            gain power in Jerusalem during its reconstruction.

 

At first glance, Carroll's statement may appear extreme, but it makes

sense in light of the texts presently under consideration. It is worth

noting that the book of Jeremiah concludes as Jehoiachin is given

favor by the king of Babylon. Although the intent of the passage

could be interpreted as ambivalent toward the Israelite monarchy, it

is certainly possible, in any respect, that the book of Jeremiah con-

cludes with a positive note of hope for the returning exiles (cf. 2 Kgs

25:27-30).²⁰

 

Jeremiah 26:1-24: The Temple Sermon

 

Jeremiah 26 is a narrative reporting the disturbance which Jeremiah's

Temple sermon provoked, leading to the demand from the priests

and prophets that Jeremiah be killed for blaspheming God and Tem-

ple. Jeremiah's sermon bears numerous parallels to the Temple ser-

mon in chap. 7, and the subsequent narrative in 26:7-19 contains

the most detailed account of a trial in the Hebrew Bible. Chapter 26

is integrally related to a larger section of material which runs from

chaps. 26-29. The primary theme of this larger unit is to distinguish

between true and false prophecy and to point out Judean rejection of

the words of Jeremiah. Chapter 26 depicts the confrontation between

 

            16. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 655.

            17. Niditch, Symbolic Vision, 62.

            18. E. W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970) 110.

            19. Carroll, Jeremiah, 483.

            20. For a discussion of opposing views to the purpose behind this passage, see

Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, 78-80.

              ANDERSON: The Metonymical Curse as Propaganda                  9

 

Jeremiah and the prophets and priests at the Temple. In chap. 27, Jer-

emiah contends with the prophets who tell Zedekiah that the exile

will be brief, and chaps. 28-29 recount the prophet's confrontations

with Hananiah and Shemaiah. It is significant to note that the unit

begins (26:6) and ends (29:18, 22) with a curse. Nicholson broadens

the unit to include chaps. 24-25, because this larger unit begins and

ends with the theme of the rotten figs. He argues the polemical in-

tent of the unit to assert the claims of the Babylonian diaspora as the

true remnant of Israel in contrast to those who remained in Judah or

lived in Egypt.²¹ The metonymical curse is present in the apodosis

of the conditional sentence in 26:6, uttered in the confines of the Tem-

ple, "Then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make the city

a curse [liqlālāh] for all the nations of the earth." Just as Shiloh was

once the place where Yahweh caused his name to dwell and was sub-

sequently destroyed, Jerusalem will likewise suffer the same fate.²²

The curse prompts rejection by the people because the curse against

Temple and city are equivalent to blasphemy. The words spark a riot

whereby the leaders demand Jeremiah's death.²³

 

Jeremiah 29:16-19: The Letter to the Exiles

 

A similar viewpoint is confirmed in the Letter to the Exiles of chap. 29.

As with much of the surrounding material in which the clichéd curse

phrase is located, this chapter is permeated by a large number of

plusses in the Masoretic Text over the LXX, which are possibly Deu-

teronomistic expansions. The section in v. 16-19, which is not in the

LXX, is almost certainly an expansion. Here, the kinspeople of the

exiles who remained in Judah are referred to as "a curse [lĕ’lāh], a

terror, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations of the earth"

(29:18). This addition is intentionally polemical. The picture presented

draws a sharp contrast between the exiles, whose future is peaceable,

and the remnant of Judah, who will be utterly driven from their land.

The image of the rotten figs in chap. 24 resumes but is used in a

different way. Here the Judean community is portrayed as vile figs

which are so bad that they cannot be eaten. One suspects that the

interests served by such strong polemics are those of the community

in Babylon. Such hatred for the Jerusalem community betrays an

 

            21. Ibid., 110.

            22. The recent study of Donald G. Schley (Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and

History [JSOTSup 63; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989] 178-82) argues that

the references to Shiloh in Jer 26:6 and 7:12-15 pertain to a destruction concurrent

with the fall of Samaria and not during the hypothetical Philistine invasion of 1050 BCE.

In either case, Shiloh became a paradigm for a cult center that had been devastated.

            23. Carroll, Jeremiah, 515-16; Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 525.

10                     Bulletin for Biblical Research 8

 

unbridled hostility for every community which might compete with

the primacy of the Babylonian community.

 

Jeremiah 42-44: The Judeans in Egypt

 

More than ten years later, after the fall of Jerusalem and the sub-

sequent murder of Gedaliah, Johanan and his forces, when worried

about the reprisals of the Babylonians, ask Jeremiah whether they

should flee to Egypt. Jeremiah warns against this, stating that those

who flee to Egypt will become "an execration [lĕ’ālāh], a horror, a

curse [wĕliqlālāh ], and a taunt" (Jer 42:18). The order of events de-

scribed in chaps. 42 and 43 is in some doubt, but a rough reconstruc-

tion of the depicted events is as follows: Jeremiah promises that only

those who remain in Judah will be spared. Johanan accuses Jeremiah

of lying and flees to Egypt anyway, along with the entire remnant

of Judah. Oddly, the text states that Johanan took to Egypt "all the

remnant of Judah who had returned to live in the land from all the

nations to which they have been driven" (43:5). Indeed, Jeremiah

himself states, "Behold this day they [cities of Judah] are a desola-

tion and no one dwells in them" (44:2). So the issue of the situation

in Judah is a moot point—at least rhetorically. The remnant might

have been spared, but the entire remnant fled to Egypt. There is lit-

erally no one left in the land. Such hyperbole is self-serving ideolog-

ical propaganda pointing to the vested interests of the Babylonian

community.

            Later, after Jeremiah is taken away by Johanan to Egypt, he sum-

mons all the Judean communities in Egypt (Jeremiah 44). Jeremiah

chides them for continuing to burn incense to other gods, again citing

the formula that they will "be cut off and become a curse [liqlālāh]

[which is omitted in the LXX] and a taunt among all the nations of

the earth" (44:8). The remnant which fled to Egypt will face a future

without hope and will become "an execration, a horror, a curse [wĕliq-

lālāh], and a taunt" (44:12). Finally, the land of Judah which they left

is depicted as "a desolation and a waste and a curse [wĕliqlālāh], with-

out inhabitant, as it is this day" (44:22). Relegating both the land in

which they live (Egypt) and the land from which they fled (Judah) to

the curse, this ideological rhetoric effectively cuts off any alternative

for both Jewish communities: the Judeans in Egypt and the inhabit-

ants of Judah.

            What are we to make of the picture presented in chaps. 42-44?

Do these texts betray the heterogenous constitution of the Judean

communities in the Exilic or Postexilic Period? How are these com-

munities to be viewed? In chaps. 42-44, the Judeans who fled to

Egypt are portrayed as pagan worshipers of foreign gods. Yahweh

          ANDERSON: The Metonymical Curse as Propaganda              11

 

states, "My name shall no more be invoked by the mouth of any man

of Judah in all the land of Egypt saying, 'As the Lord God lives'

(44:26). Nicholson comments that those who fled to Egypt are con-

demned "in language which is amongst the most bitter and vehe-

ment of the whole book."²⁴ On the other hand, the land of Judah is

portrayed as being without inhabitant. Sources indicate that this was

anything but true. Enno Janssen has argued²⁵ that Palestine contin-

ued to be a center of religious activity after the destruction of Jeru-

salem. While Noth overstates the case that the community in Babylon

was a "mere outpost," it is clear that a devout community of Yahweh

worshipers remained in Judah.²⁶ The Hebrew Bible gives witness to

a significant amount of literature which might have arisen from the

Palestinian community. In fact, Jer 41:5 presents an account of people

from Shiloh and Samaria coming to present offerings at the Temple

after its destruction. In fascinating reversal, this same metonymical

curse may have been later invoked by the Palestinian community²⁷

against the Babylonian returnees, as Isa 65:13-15 states:

 

            Therefore thus says the Lord God: "Behold my servants shall eat, but

            you shall be hungry; behold my servants shall drink, but you shall be

            thirsty; behold my servants shall rejoice, but you shall be put to shame;

            behold my servants shall sing for gladness of heart, but you shall cry

            out for pain of heart, and shall wail for anguish of spirit. You shall leave

            your name to my chosen for a curse [lišbûāhl, and the Lord God will

            slay you; but his servants he will call by a different name."

 

While such curse language may have been employed against the

Babylonian returnees at a later time, the Deuteronomic texts of Jer-

emiah are colored by ideology. The result is obvious; both Judah and

Egypt become the lands of the curse. By the simple process of elim-

ination, it is only the Babylonian community that is left to be the

exclusive possessor of hope for a future restoration of Israel.

 

            24. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, 111.

            25. Enno Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit: Ein beitrag zur Frage der Enstehung des Juden-

turns (Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1956) 17-18.

            26. See the discussion in Daniel L. Smith, The Religion of the Landless: The Social

Context of the Babylonian Exile (Bloomington: Meyer Stone, 1989) 32-33.

            27. Building on the work of Janssen and others, Paul Hanson argues that a faith-

ful community of Yahwists existed in Palestine throughout the years of the exile. The

texts which portray Palestine as empty or containing an inferior rabble of syncretizers

are either oversimplified or polemical. Hanson argues that Isaiah 65 portrays the ten-

sion between the Zadokite authorities which had power and the Palestinian commu-

nity which did not. In Isa 65:15, this Zadokite community is depicted as a curse. The

Palestinian community is given a new name and are true priests of Yahweh. The series

of contrasts in Isa 65:13-15 are representative of blessings and curses (Dawn of Apoc-

alyptic [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975] 93).

12                     Bulletin for Biblical Research 8

 

Jeremiah 25:15-38; 49:7-22: The Oracle against the Nations

 

In the Oracles against the Nations (OAN), there are two final in-

stances where the clichéd turn of phrase is used. The first of these

is 25:15-38 which in the MT is not a part of the OAN but in the LXX

is placed with the OAN. Space prohibits debating these complicated

textual problems here, but it is intriguing to consider the ideological

implications of this text's inclusion in OAN by the LXX. Astonishingly,

the rhetorical result of doing so is that Jerusalem is placed among

the foreign nations as though it were a foreign city. Verse 18 states,

"Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, its kings and its princes, to make

them a desolation and a waste, a hissing and a curse [wĕliqlālāh], as

at this day." In biting polemic, Jerusalem and its daughter cities are

seen in the same light as Babylon, Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon,

and a host of other traditional enemies of Israel. Such inflammatory

rhetoric effectively challenges the legitimacy of the Jewish commu-

nities in Jerusalem and the surrounding cities of Judah.

            The second passage in the OAN is the poetic oracle against Edom

(Jer 49:7-22), where a prose insertion states, "Bozrah shall become a

horror, a taunt, a waste, and a curse [wĕliqlālā]" (49:13). The exilic and

postexilic disdain for Edom is well attested elsewhere in the HB.²⁸ Its

capital city becomes a metonym for that which is anathema. These

two passages, when viewed together, effectively do away with any

competing group which might pose a religious threat to the primacy

of the Babylonian community. The capital of the foreign nation of

Edom and the capital of Judah are reduced to the same position as

cursed cities.

 

                                        CONCLUSION

 

This study has sought to demonstrate that, in the prose strands of the

book of Jeremiah, curse terminology is a part of a recurring polemical

phrase used, most likely by the Deuteronomist, to exclude any com-

munity outside of the exiles in Babylon and possibly even any com-

munity outside of the exiles of the first deportation. This clichéd

phrase varies in order and vocabulary and, in many cases, is viewed

as a later addition. In these texts, this curse is not an imprecation

or speech act but by the principle of metonymy is the practical evil

which comes in response to the Deuteronomic curse. One might say

 

            28. Bozrah is associated with the Edomite kings in Gen 36:33 and 1 Chr 1:44. The

only other references in the HB to Bozrah are in the Oracles against the Nations (Isa

34:6; 63:1; Jer 49:13, 22; Amos 1:12; and possibly Mic 2:12) where identification with

Edom is not as clear. See ABD 1.774.

            ANDERSON: The Metonymical Curse as Propaganda           13

 

that these texts represent the theology of Deuteronomy but with a

vengeance. Parallels in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic history

attest to this.

            The experience of the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile in

Babylon wrought numerous changes which led to a heterogenous

constitution of the Jewish people in the Exilic, Postexilic, and Second

Temple Periods.²⁹ Suspicions were raised not merely against foreign

influences but against any religious community outside of one's own.

This is well attested in the postexilic literature, as well as in the doc-

uments from Qumran and the history of the Second Temple Period.

In the book of Jeremiah, two important remnant Judean communities

and the foreign nation of Edom are anathematized in order to legit-

imize a single Judean community in Babylon. Ideology has reduced

all distinctions to the same level in order to issue a blanket condem-

nation of all of these peoples. Thus, by the simple process of elimi-

nation, the stage is set for what will become a matter of tremendous

importance for the period of the restoration. Because those who re-

mained in Judah were portrayed as being a curse, the returning ex-

iles felt justified in prohibiting this community from taking part in

the restoration.

            This polemical rhetoric is consistent with evidence elsewhere in

the Hebrew Bible where curses are used as propaganda designed to

exclude a particular community. Once a community becomes disaffil-

iated through a curse, especially if it is presumed that the deity is the

subject of this curse, the door is opened for a self-justified oppression

of that community. Thus, religious curses in particular have the abil-

ity to foster an unparalleled degree of control upon a community. The

use of curses in this way is one which has not been fully explored in

scholarship and presents an exciting opportunity for future study.

 

            29. See Shemaryahu Talmon, "The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early

Second Temple Period," King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies (Jeru-

salem: Magnes, 1986) 165-201.