Do not fear them: Reconsidering the objective of the Epistle of Jeremiah

Introduction

The Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) is a pseudepigraphic composition commonly dated between the late fourth and the late second centuries B.C.E. ¹ The composition is structured by an introduction (the superscription and vv. 1–6) that is followed by a series of ten strophes (vv. 7–14, 15–22, 23–28, 29–39, 40–44, 45–51, 52–56a, 56b–64, 65–68, 69–72). ² The introduction describes the composition as a letter composed by the prophet Jeremiah on behalf of God to the Israelites who are about to be taken into exile in Babylon. The ten stanzas that follow are of unequal length and all but the last ends with a variant of one of two refrains, which I will discuss in due course. ³ The final strophe concludes not with one of the two refrains but with a “better than” statement that is at least implicitly prohibitive against idolatry: “better, therefore, is a righteous person who has no idols” (v. 72a).

Scholars have correspondingly and rightly recognized that the ultimate objective of the work’s author was to prevent the author’s Jewish audience from worshipping foreign idols. ⁴ In his 1977 commentary, Carey A. Moore described the letter as “a homily, a tirade, or harangue against idols and idolatry” which was designed “to prevent Jews from worshipping false gods” and based on well-known texts from the Hebrew Bible regarding idolatry, including Jeremiah 10 and especially v. 11: “Thus shall you say to them: The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.” ⁵ Similarly, in studies from 2000 to 2010, ⁶ James VanderKam described the letter as “A relentless critique of idols, of those who worship them, and of the priests who minister before them,” ⁷ and George J. Brooke described the letter as “an anti-idolatry polemic,” again likening it to Jer 10:11. ⁸ More recently, Steven Fraade described the letter as “a homily admonishing its audience against the worship or veneration of idols,” ⁹ Sean Adams concluded that the purpose of the letter was “to dissuade Jews from worshipping false gods,” ¹⁰ and Marie-Theres Wacker has written that “Its one and only subject is the futility of venerating images as gods, idolatry in the genuine sense of the word.” ¹¹ Such descriptions of the composition are justified to the extent that both the introduction and the strophes warn against and mock foreign gods that are made of wood, silver, and gold (vv. 3, 8–10, 29, 50, 54, 69–70) and characterize these gods as false gods (v. 58). Moreover, the letter concludes with an implicitly prohibitive “better than” statement against idolatry: “better, therefore, is a righteous person who has no idols” (v. 72a). Thus, there is widespread and justifiable agreement that the purpose of the composition was to prevent the worship of foreign idols, in correspondence with the composition’s final verse.

I contend, however, that this characterization of the composition’s purpose overlooks its focus on assuaging Jewish fears of idols. In this study, I demonstrate how the epistle’s opening address in the introduction (vv. 1–6), repetitive refrains at the end of each strophe, and the satire laced throughout the strophes all work together to assuage the fear of idols, which the author conceptualized as a precursor to idol worship. In other words, without denying that the author ultimately aimed to prevent the worship of foreign idols, I argue that the author targeted not idols directly but rather the fear of idols that would lead one to the worship of idols. To make my argument, I first discuss the letter’s opening address, then its repetitive refrains, and finally the satirical strophes.

Fear of idols in the opening address

The author’s aim to assuage Jewish fears of foreign idols is first evident in the letter’s opening address (vv. 1–6). There, the speaker, God, foretells a scenario in which the Israelites will temporarily find themselves in Babylon (vv. 1–2) where they will see (ὁράω) two things: gods made of silver, gold, and wood that cause fear (φόβον) among the nations (v. 3) and the nations worshipping (προσκυέω) those gods (v. 5a). The ordering of these two seen things in the address suggests that there is a causal relationship between fear and worship: the gods cause fear among the nations, leading the nations to worship the gods. ¹² Accordingly, in v. 3 the gods are the grammatical subject that act on the nations, causing fear among the nations, and in v. 5 the nations are the grammatical subject that act on the gods, worshipping them. Given the envisioned scenario, the speaker gives two corresponding commands to the Israelites: in v. 4, beware, lest they become like the nations and fear (φόβος) of the gods seizes them, and, in v. 5, to say in their minds, “You it is necessary to worship (προσκυέω), O Lord.” ¹³ Notably, the motifs of “fear” and “worship” again appear, presumably implying that the Israelites’ fear of the gods would lead them to worship the gods, as occurred with the nations. ¹⁴ However, the author significantly altered the formulations regarding the Israelites. In v. 4, “fear” itself becomes the grammatical subject that acts on the Israelites, thereby removing the gods’ agency in causing fear. But “fear,” of course, refers to the Israelites’ fear, not something external to the Israelites. In this manner, the author attributed agency and potential culpability to the Israelites alone: the Israelites will allow their fear of the gods to lead them to worship the gods.

Fittingly, the prescriptions in the opening address aim to stem the Israelites’ fear. In v. 4, “Beware . . . lest fear takes you,” cautions the Israelites against indulging their fear. In v. 5b, “Say in your mind, ‘You it is necessary to worship, O Lord,’” prescribes a self-address by which the Israelites would remind themselves about what they know ought to be done lest they be carried away by their fear. ¹⁵ Notably, neither command directly prohibits idolatry. Rather, the commands aim to check the Israelites’ fear, which might lead the Israelites to worship the gods. So too, the rationale given in v. 6 for the prescriptions in vv. 4–5 pertains to fear: “For my angel is with you and he is seeking out your souls.” This verse might indicate that God’s angel will be with the Israelites to look after them (cf. Josh 1:9; Ps 142:4 MT). ¹⁶ If so, then the verse provides a rationale for why the Israelites should not let fear overwhelm them (v. 4b). Alternatively, the verse might indicate that God’s angel will punish idolatry (cf. Ps. 43:21–22). ¹⁷ If so, then the verse evokes the fear of Israel’s God to counter their potential fear of foreign gods. Either way and perhaps together, ¹⁸ the rationale or rationales given in v. 6 targets the Israelites’ fear.

Overall, then, the letter’s opening address targets not idolatry per se, but rather the fear of foreign gods and idols. The evident concern is that the Israelites will allow their fear of the gods to lead them to worship the gods. Correspondingly, the address’s prescriptions and their rationale aim to stem the Israelites’ fear.

Fear of idols in the refrains

The refrains at the end of the ten strophes hammer home the message that foreign idols are not gods and therefore need not be feared. The author structured each of the ten strophes so that the refrains in the strophes’ final lines function as conclusions based on the preceding propositions in the strophes. Each strophe begins with a series of propositions that disparage gods made of wood, silver, and gold, as well as those who worship them and minister among them. Disparagement, however, is not the author’s end game. The significance of the propositions is made clear by the concluding refrains. Each refrain employs either the adverb ὅθεν (from which) (vv. 14, 22) or the conjunction οὖν (therefore) (vv. 28, 39, 44, 51, 56, 64, 68) to signal that the propositions in the strophe function as the basis for the conclusion drawn in the refrain. ¹⁹ In this way, each strophe is structured to present evidence that leads to the conclusion in the refrain.

As noted, all but the last of the ten strophes end with a variant of one of two refrains. I refer to these as refrains A and B. Refrain A contains a conclusion about the nature of idols and a corresponding prohibition. For example, v. 14 concludes, “from which they are known not to be gods (γνώριμοί εἰσιν οὐκ ὄντες θεοί), so do not fear them” (cf. 22, 28, 64, 68). Refrain B implicitly draws the same conclusion about the nature of idols in the form of a rhetorical question that contains one of two adjectives, νομιστέον (be considered) or γνωστέον (be known), but lacks the prohibition. For example, v. 39 concludes, “why, therefore, are they considered (νομιστέον) to be or called as gods?” (cf. 44, 51, 56a). The final strophe contains lines that are reminiscent of but distinct from refrain A. The clause “from the purple and the linen rotting upon them you will know that they are not gods” (γνώσεσθε ὅτι οὔκ εἰσιν θεοί) (v. 71a) overlaps lexically with the conclusion about the nature of idols drawn in refrain A. Unlike that refrain, however, these lexemes in the final strophe occur in the penultimate verse. ²⁰ As noted, the strophe ends with an implicitly prohibitive “better than” statement: “better, therefore, is a righteous person who has no idols” (v. 72a). Like the standard pattern of refrain A, then, the final strophe draws the conclusion that the idols are not gods (v. 71a) and issues a prohibition (v. 72a). If the final strophe is understood to contain a variant of refrain A—perhaps for poetic effect at the poem’s conclusion ²¹ —then the refrains have a chiastic ordering in the letter: three occurrences of refrain A, followed by four occurrences of refrain B, followed by three occurrences of refrain A. ²²

Now, if the refrains constitute the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence provided in each strophe, it might appear on the surface that the strophes lead to two distinct conclusions. Refrain A would draw the double conclusion that idols are not gods and therefore ought not to be feared, while refrain B would only draw the conclusion that idols are not gods, but lack any prescriptive conclusion about not fearing idols. On the basis of these distinct refrains, then, some might contend that only the strophes ending in refrain A are part of the author’s aim to stem Jewish fears of idols, while the strophes that end with refrain B are part of a distinct authorial objective to disparage idols as non-deities. If this is the case, then scholars who have argued that the author aimed to disparage idols would have rightly described one of the author’s objectives and overlooked the second objective pertaining to the fear of idols. My argument, however, is that the author’s objective is not twofold, but focused on stemming the fear of idols. How then can we explain the strophes concluding with two distinct refrains?

I contend that the conclusion regarding the nature of idols in refrains A and B along with the prohibition regarding the fear of idols in refrain A function as two sides of the same coin in the author’s effort to stem Jewish fears of idols. The conclusion regarding the nature of idols in refrains A and B—that idols are not gods—explicitly defines the nature of the idols. But this definition also implicitly determines the range of what might contingently be said about or done with the idols. ²³ Such explicit and implicit functions of definitions can be seen in everyday speech. For example, imagine a group of people sitting and talking around a table with a bowl of fruit in the middle. Suddenly, one person grabs for an apple from the bowl and the host quickly interjects by saying, “That’s fake.” Now, explicitly, the host has defined the nature of the reached-for object as a fake apple. Implicitly, though, the host has also delimited the range of what might contingently be said about or done with the object. In this context, it is reasonable to suppose that the host was also implying “Don’t eat that.” If, perhaps, the host’s comment is abstracted from its context and all we know is that the host said, “That’s fake,” we might think that the host was solely interested in commenting on the nature of the object without further implication. ²⁴ In context, however, the host’s implication is clear. The one who reached for the apple might perhaps withdraw their hand, or perhaps play up the new scenario by grabbing the fake apple and pretending to take a huge bite.

Likewise, I contend that the conclusion regarding the nature of idols in refrains A and B—that idols are not gods—explicitly defines the nature of the idols and also implicitly determines the range of what might contingently be said about or done with the idols. If the idols are indeed gods, then it would be appropriate to speak about and act toward the idols with all the reverence, awe, and fear befitting a divine being. But if the idols are not gods, then it would be unfitting to speak about and act toward the idols with all the reverence, awe, and fear befitting a divine being. ²⁵ In the context of the wider letter with its opening address targeting the fear of foreign idols and the explicit and repeated prohibitions in the occurrences of refrain A not to fear the idols, it is reasonable to suppose that the conclusion regarding the nature of idols in refrain B implies that the idols ought not to be feared. Only if the conclusion in refrain B is abstracted from its literary context might we think that the author is solely interested in commenting on the nature of idols without further prescriptive implication. In other words, even though only refrain A contains the prohibition not to fear idols, the definition of the nature of idols in both refrains A and B implies that the idols are not the types of things that need to be feared. ²⁶ Thus, both refrains A and B function as two sides of the same coin in the author’s effort to stem Jewish fears of idols.

Altogether, then, as readers or listeners work through the ten strophes, they are repeatedly led to the conclusion that foreign idols are not gods and therefore need not be feared. ²⁷ In this way, the refrains address the concern raised in the opening address regarding Jewish fears of foreign gods, and, like the opening address, aim to stem such fears. ²⁸

Fear of idols and the satirical poem

Thus far, I have argued that the Epistle of Jeremiah’s opening address and refrains at the end of each strophe evidence that the author composed the work to stem Jewish fears of foreign idols. This thesis, I contend, dovetails with the often-noted satirical nature of the letter. ²⁹

The propositions in the strophes are laced with the type of humor, irony, exaggeration, and ridicule that is commonplace in satire. ³⁰ The idols are depicted as covered in dust and blackened from smoke in the temple, and so they need regular cleaning (vv. 12, 20). The idols are depicted as wielding dagger and axe but being incapable of defending themselves from robbers or enemies, or fleeing as even wild animals are able to do (vv. 14, 47, 54–55, 67). Even the priests who minister before the idols plunder them without reprisal (vv. 27, 32–33, 57). The author ridicules idols as less useful than household utensils, or a door, or even a pillar (v. 58; cf. v. 69). The author repeatedly notes that the idols made of wood are destined to rot and be consumed by creepy crawlers (vv. 19, 71). In the meantime, while they still stand, the author describes them as perches for bats, birds, and cats (vv. 21, 70). Such images, replete with humor, irony, exaggeration, and ridicule, amuse the reader and listener. Amusement, however, is not the author’s ultimate objective.

Rather, such amusing images in the strophes are the evidence that lead to and emotionally prepare the readers and listeners for the conclusions in the refrains. The refrains draw the conclusions that foreign idols are not gods and therefore need not be feared. Fear, however, as an emotion, cannot be as easily directed as an action. For example, one can tell a child, “Don’t eat the cookie,” and there is a reasonable chance the child will not eat the cookie. But if one tries to tell a child who is afraid of monsters under their bed, “Don’t be afraid of them” (cf. Ep Jer 14, 22, 28, 64, 68) as they tuck them in and turn out the light, that alone likely will not assuage the child’s fear and the whimpering child will cry out, perhaps even before the adult leaves the room. Humor, however, can be one antidote to fear, which is why there are children’s stories that humorously play up the monster-under-the-bed motif to help children overcome their fears. ³¹ Likewise, social satire thrived in the midst of uncertainty and fears during the COVID 19 pandemic. ³² So, too, there is evidence that ancient Israelite and Jewish authors employed humor and satire to combat and resist social and emotional conflict and trauma, especially in relation to dominant foreign powers (for example, Judges 3–4; Bel and the Dragon; Esther; Judith; 3 Maccabees). ³³ Similarly, I contend that the author of the Epistle of Jeremiah employed humor, mockery, and exaggeration in the strophes to satirize idols and thereby prime the reader and listener for the concluding prohibitions in the refrains against fearing idols.

Conclusion

While I agree with the majority scholarly view that the author of the Epistle of Jeremiah ultimately aimed to prevent the author’s Jewish audience from worshipping foreign idols, I have argued that this thesis overlooks the author’s more immediate and sustained objective of assuaging Jewish fears of foreign idols. The author’s aim to assuage Jewish fears of foreign idols is first evident in the letter’s opening address (vv. 1–6) and the author structured the ten strophes with their concluding refrains to repeatedly reinforce that foreign idols are not gods and therefore need not be feared. This thesis dovetails well with the often-noted satirical nature of the propositions in the strophes to the extent that the propositions amuse and therefore are fitting support for the strophes’ refrains, which aim to direct the reader’s or listener’s emotions, specifically their fear of idols. If I am correct, then the Epistle of Jeremiah is less like Jer 10:11, pertaining to the ultimate demise of idols, as some contend, and more like the commentary on idols in Jer 10:5a: “They are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they must be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not fear them.” ³⁴