Search

In the ancient world, cisterns were often a source of life for the community. However, in the book of Jeremiah, they are associated with death. In Jeremiah 38, the prophet is cast into a pit, where he is left to die of starvation. Three chapters later, Ishmael uses a cistern as a graveyard. Moreover, in both accounts, food plays an important role. Jeremiah 38 is situated within the context of a famine, where "there is no longer any bread in the city." Jeremiah is saved from the cistern so that he will "not starve to death." Conversely, the story of Jeremiah 41 unfolds in the seventh month, a time associated with harvest, when returning Jews bring "an abundance of wine and summer fruits" to Mizpah. Also not to be missed is the travesty of murdering Gedaliah and his cohorts at Gedaliah's banqueting table. This article explores how the motif of the cistern functions as a symbol of death in Jeremiah 38 and 41. It argues that despite the fulfillment of God's promise of restoration (as evidenced in the provision of food), the people still choose to embrace their own "cisterns." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a chorus of voices, the book of Jeremiah commemorates Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians as an event that generated traumatic responses. Jer 40-44 narrates the story of the Judean survivors who flee to Egypt after the murder of the Babylonian governor Gedaliah. This article uses the theory of "cultural trauma", defined by an international group of sociologists around Jeffrey C. Alexander, as a heuristic tool for analyzing Jer 40-44, especially the description of perpetrators and victims, and the conflicting interpretations of history. It aims at demonstrating why and in what way the perspective of the Babylonian golah prevails in the book of Jeremiah, which as a whole presents a master narrative about Judah's cultural trauma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers an historical and archaeological reconstruction of the person and status of Gedaliah ben Ahikam recounted at 2 Kgs 25.22-26 and Jeremiah 40-41. It builds upon Joseph Blenkinsopp's recent (2013) defence of the controversial theory, first proposed by Miller and Hayes (1986), that Gedaliah was installed at Mizpah as a Judahite client king of Nebuchadnezzar II. It suggests that elements of Joel Weinberg's (2007) more conservative reconstruction can be applied constructively to the hypothesis of Gedaliah as Judah's non-Davidide king. Future studies of Neo-Babylonian Judah must take seriously the possibility that there was, for a while, a rump Kingdom of Judah established around Mizpah in Benjamin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars are still divided over the identity of the figure Melchizedek in 11Q13. Is he an angel, or is 'Melchizedek' simply another title for Yhwh? This article argues that these two opposing views can be reconciled by seeing the figure Melchizedek as an expression of what the early rabbis called belief in 'two Powers in heaven'. The way he is portrayed in 11QMelch is comparable to Philo's concept of the divine "Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text." and the belief of the 'Magharians'. While there are clear indications in 11Q13 that Melchizedek is an intermediary, there are equally compelling arguments that he is Yhwh. The author of 11Q13 uses a collage of biblical texts to present him as a divine intermediary. The fact that a number of biblical messianic titles are conflated in the person of Melchizedek encourages seeing other Qumran descriptions of exalted figures as referring to him as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reassesses the evidence for when Solomon's Temple was destroyed. It involves a close look at the biblical account of Babylonian actions at the time of Jerusalem's fall together with relevant comparisons between the Greek and Hebrew Bibles. It also focuses on events surrounding the life of Gedaliah, including his assassination and the fast that has commemorated his name. Arguments are presented for believing that the destruction may have occurred some time after the traditional date. While these arguments do not conclusively refute the traditional date, they do call into question whether the current confidence in this date is justified. They also provide a framework for explaining the available data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]