ARTICLES

T H E FALSEHOOD O F IDOLATRY:
A N I N T E R P R E T A T I O N O F J E R X. 1-16

1
N a recent number of the J m l P. R. Ackroyd argued that Jer.
x. 1-16 displays a 'coherence and order' (perhaps reflecting an actual
liturgical usage), which may be seen in a pattern of contrasts between
'Israel's own and true G d and the worthleas idols whom she repudiates'.
He notes the inconclusiveness of arguments to the contrary based on the
shorter version of the pericope found in the LXX and the similarity of
its content to the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah. He also indicates
that an explanation of the similarity of this passage to the idol polemic of
Deutero-Isaiah may be explained in the relation of both to older cultic
traditions. He then concludes with the comment that the precise answer
.
to the question of authorship does not matter so much '. . a s the recog-
nition that this passage certainly belongs within that same religious
tradition as is so richly expressed in both prophets and psalmists'.'
In this paper I shall pursue a similar line of interpretation, attempting
(a)to show the natureof the 'critical consensus' which has operated in the
interpretation of this passage and to indicate some reasons for suspecting
its validity; and (b) to suggest an alternative to this consensus, based on
a brief examination of selected portions of the 'Jeremiah tradition'.'

A. The Critical Consensus

The assertion that Jer. x. 1-16 is secondary is an old and time-
honoured one, and has given rise to a critical consensus which in its
main outlines is quite stable.' A selection of major commentators of
J.T.S., N.s., xiv (1963), pp. 385-90. Though I would want to qualify
Ackroyd'a translation in certain respects, it may be taken as a convenient basis
for the following discussion.
By the term 'Jeremiah tradition' I simply mean that body of material which
may be thought to have ariaen in the circle of Jeremiah's followers on the basis
of the master's life and teaching. This does not necessarily include everything
in our p e n t book of Jeremiah (ch. lii, for example, may have to be excluded),
nor ia it in principle absolutely certain that elements of the tradition a m to be
found only in that book (B. Duhrn, Dar Buch Jcrmda (K.H.A.T., Tubingen,
, ix-x, points out that from time to time portions of what are now
I ~ I ) pp.
other books have been reckoned as belonging to Jeremiah).
' Cf. K. H. Graf, Der Prophrt Jeremia (Leipzig, 1862). W. Rudolph,Jcrmria
(H.A.T., TLibingen, 1958), comments that 'with justice' this passage is denied
to Jeremiah by nearly all modem critics.
IJorvnal of Theological Studies, NS..VoL XVI, Pt. I , April 19651
m.1 B
2 T H O M A S W. O V E R H O L T
this century (apart from A. Weiser) shows striking agreement a s to the
extent of the 'original' passage :
B. Duhrn I-3a, sb, 10, 12-16.
F. Giesebrechtl 1-5, 10, 12-16.
P. Volz3 3-5, 10, 12-16.
W. Rudolph ~ - 4 a ,9, 4b-5, 8, 10, 12-16.
Several arguments for denying the authenticity of this passage have
been advanced:
(I) The LXX version is shorter and displays a slightly different order
(I-5a, 9, gb, 11-16),3 and it is obvious that this short text has been
influential in the reconstruction of the paasage outlined in the pre-
ceding paragraph. Now the fact that the Hebrew and Greek texts
of the passage are so different would seem to confront an interpreter
with a choice between three general attitudes towards the textualtradi-
tion. First, he could prefer the Hebrew text, and base his interpretation
upon ir. Second, he could prefer the Greek, and base his interpreta-
tion upon it. If he takes this second option, he will discover a definite
structural pattern in which descriptions of the idols and their makers
(w. 2-ga, 9, gb, and 14-15) are set in contrast to alternating descrip-
tions or hymns in praise of Yahweh (w. 12-13 and 16). It is clear that
the commentators cited above have chosen neither of these options,
but operate in yet a third way, i.e. they make use of both the M T and the
LXX in the construction of yet a third text, which is identical with
neither. When Giesebrecht says, for example, that the LXX 'to some
extent offers the better text',' he is stating a methodological assumption
which in practice usually means that the interpreter may prefer the
LXX whenever it seems to him to be the better reading. A glance at
Duhm's commentary provides a striking illustration of this procedure.
I t is my contention that either of the fimt two approaches would be leas
arbitrary, and thus better, than the h . 5
(2) The similarity between the idol polemic of Jer. x and those
of Deutero-Isaiah and the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah has led
Das Buch Jamria (H.K.A.T.,Gtittingen, 1907).
' D a Prophet Ja& (K.A.T.,Leipzig, 1922).
There are also a number of smaller inconsistencies between the LXX and
M T within thuae verses which the two have in common. ' Op. cit., p. 63.
Such an inconsistent use of the Greek is especially inappropriate in a book
such a s Jeremiah, where there ia such a marked divergence between the LXX
and MT in both arrangementand content. With specific reference to Jer. x. 1-16
it would seem that any use of the LXX to 'correct' the MT should be asuspended
until publication of the newly discovered Qumran fragments of a Hebrew manu-
script containing Jer. ix. 225. 18which belongs to the same textual tradition as
the LXX Cf. F. M . Cross, The A d Library of Qunwun (Garden City, New
Yo& 1958). P. 139.
 THE FALSEHOOD O F IDOLATRY 3
commentators to assume an exilic or post-exilic dating. Says Volz:
'The author, a follower of Deutero-Isaiah, writes in splendid words on
the theme of Yahweh and the idols." Deuter+Isaiah's idol polemic
has sometimes been viewed as a satire which is based on a superficial
view of the foreign religious forms encountered by Israel. The speaker
is no longer in the depths of temptation, and his polemic therefore does
not square with the earnestness of the pra~tice.~ In opposition to this
view J. Guillet has argued that when the polemical passages are read in
context they perform the function of establishing a contrast between
Yahweh and the idols, which serves to enhance the description of
Yahweh the Creator in relation to Israel and his servant. 'Sterility
of the idols, fecundity of God's action; this theme animates the whole
debate between ~ a h w e hand the false gods.'3 I will argue below that
the heightening of this contrast between-the living God A d the ineffec-
tive go&, whbare represented by the idols, is & the function of the
idol polernic in Jer. x.
There is thus a real similarity of both content
and function between the polemics of Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah,
and the question is whether this is new with them, arising in the exilic
period and showing close affinities with later literature, orahether they
were drawing on older traditions already present within Israel.4 ~ e -
garding this question, two observations maj be made:
' The &ties in vocabulary between Jer. x. 1-16 and the idol polemic of
Deutero-Isaiah are, indeed, striking: 'lie', god, idol; craftanan, smith, making
h; gold, silver, w d , nails; cannot move, carried, placed (cf. ha. xl. 19f.;
xli. 7, 29; xlii. 17; xliv. 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20; xlvi. 6f.).
a e.g. G. von Rad, Old Tcrtammt %logy (trans. D. M. G. Stalker, London,
1962), i, pp. 116 f.
' 'Le polCmique contre les idoles et le Serviteur de Yahve', Analccta Biblica, x
(1959), pp. 294-300. Guillet calls attention to a number of words and themes
w h c h nerve to connect the idol polemice with passages in their immediate con-
texta which deal with Yahweh's creative action, e.g. the word 'witness' in Isa.
xliv. 8, 9 and the thematic verb 'to form' 0121) in xliv. I f., 9 f., 12, 21.
* T h e emphaeia on the glyptic aspect of the phenomenon of idolatry is
doubtleas one factor in assigning Jer. x. 1-16 to the exilic period or later. From
Deutero-Isaiah and the Babylonian chronistic documents we know that the Jews
in captivity would have had the opportunity to see or otherwise know about
idols richly d d and on parade. The question is, would similar opportunities
have presented themselves to the resident8 of pre-exilic Judah? Two con-
verging lines of evidence seem to make poasible an affirmative answer: ( a ) from
the O.T. i t d f we know of cultic processions, often specifically aaid to centre on
the ark of Yahweh (cf. Ps. cxxxii. 6-10; 2 Sam. vi. 12-15; I Kingnviii. 1-10;
Pan. lrviii. 25 ff., lxxxix. 16, cxviii. 19 f.): and (b) during this same period Judah
was open to A ~ y r i a ncultural influences, and that there would have been ample
opportunity to know about processions of cultic images seems virtually certain.
See, for example, D. J. Wiseman's reconstruction of the cuneiform hiatorid
documents in D. W. Tho-, Documents from Old Tatament Times (London,
19581, P P 55, 66, 79.
4 T H O M A S W. O V E R H O L T
( a ) On the one hand, we note that practically every specific statement
about idols made in Jer. x. 1-16 recurs in the late Epistle of Jeremiah,
some of them many times (e.g. the assertions that the idols are made from
wood and plated with precious metal). T h e arguments against idolatry
here fall into two general categories: idols are made by craftsmen; they
have no independent power to effect things (most often this is put in
tenns of their inability to protect even their own persons, v. IS; their
lack of control over individual lives and political events is also stressed,
m. 34-38). Sometimes points of conflict with Yahwism are noted in
terms of specific cultic practices (holiness, w. 29; cult prostitution,
a. 43). But the theme of contrast, though implicit throughout, has
moved decidedly into the background. Only one positive statement
(apart from the introductory verses which designate the exile as his
punishment) about God appears (w. 60-63, picturing him as the con-
troller of the f o r m of nature), and even here God and the idols are not
set over against one another as contestants for the control of nature. I t is
rather said that the idols are not even as powerful as the elements which
God commands. The tight stnrcture rmd mgument of Jer. x . 1-16 are
missing. Here, it would seem, we are approaching a stage in Israel's re-
ligious history when idolatry is in danger of being misunderstood, and
there is a tendency to identify the idol itself with the god it represents.
(b) There are, on the other hand, places within the older traditions
of Israel where we may observe this contrast and conflict between
Yahweh and the idols. I will mention only two. In the prophecy of
Isaiah of Jerusalem the idols are recognized as the work of men's
hands (ii. 8), images of silver and gold which will be destroyed on
Yahweh's 'day' (ii. 18, zo; Duhrn recognized the presence of such pas-
sages, but interpreted this motif of settling the score with the gods on
some last day as a beloved thought of the later Jews, who introduced it
into many prophetic passages). A similar contrast may be noted in such
Psalms as xcvii. f+ and xcvi. 4 f., the latter of which reads: .
For great is Yahweh, and greatly to be praised;
he is to be feared above all gods.
For all the gods of the peoples are nothings;'
but Yahweh made the heavens.
Such a passage indicates that it would not be amiss to look for the
antecedents of Jeremiah's conflict pattern in the dynamics of the cult
at the annual New Year Festival. Since the main purpose of this paper
is to show how this matter of conflict with the gods is a persistent theme
' On the function of thia word in setting up the contraat between the creator
God and the created gods d.G. W. AhlstrBm, Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite
Religion (Lurid, 1963), pp. 46 ff.
 T H E FALSEHOOD O F IDOLATRY 5
in the Jeremiah tradition itself, I must be content simply to suggest thh
comexion.
(3) The rather surprising shift from Hebrew to Aramaic in v. I I has
commonly been taken as an indication of lateness and careless trans-
mission. The verse breaks into the context of m. 10, 12-16, and
Duhm remarks: 'That the Aramaic marginal note of o. I I could have
been directly taken up into the text is an obvious proof of the uncritical-
ness of copyists and redact~rs.'~The usual interpretation of the verse
holds it to be a kind of protective or cursing formula, which would
render the signs of the heavens harmless, and in his mind's eye Duhm
sees Jews murmuring it as they walked alone at night under the twink-
ling of Mars or Saturn, or when they saw a comet. T o this Volz adds
the possibility that it waa a popular slogan used by Jews in religious
disputea with the heathen. A. W e i s d detects a liturgical character in
the verse, though he also sees it as interrupting the context. In the light
of these interpretations of o. I I two remarks may be made. First, it in
not absolutely certain that it does in fact interrupt the context. The
sequence of verses is not completely without order: v. 10 introduces in
general terms a hymn in praise of Yahweh (it is only said that the earth-
shaking power of this living God has a certain ill effect upon the nations),
o. 11 introduces as objects of curse the gods who did not create heaven
and earth, and w. 12-13 then take up again the hymn to Yahweh, now
explicitly talking about his action as Creator. Second, the presence of
the Aramaic language itself does not necessarily presuppose a date later
than the prophet Jeremiah. During the time of the Assyrian Empire
(c. I 15- B.c.), Aramaic came into wider and wider use as a language
of diplomacy and commerce,3 and 2 Kings xviii. 26 shows that around
the year 701 it was known at least in the official circles at J e r ~ s a l e m . ~
(4) Perhaps the most fundamental reason for denying the authen-
ticity of thie passage can be stated as follows: Jer. x. 1-16 cannot be the
ipsissima verba of the prophet Jeremiah because its very tone is not
suitable to his message, but is characteristic of an exilic age in which the
people addressed are living in the midst of a heathen environment. The
tone is on the one hand too 'mild' (Giesebrecht), and on the other too
'theological-apologetic' (Volz). Jeremiah's usual words of censure,
directed against a people already given over to idolatry, here become a
warning, directed at those who are in danger of being dazzled by the
Op. cit., p. 101.
' Das Buch da Propheten 3cmia4(A.T.D.,Gtittingen, 1960).
' A. Jeffery, art. 'Aramaic' in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nash-
ville, 1962).
It has eametimes been argued on the basis of vocabulary that this verse is
late. On this see H. H. Rowley, in Thomas, op. cit.. p. 256.
6 T H O M A S W. O V E R H O L T
splendour of heathen idolatry. S. R. Driver flatly asserts: 'The situa-
tion is that of the exiles in Babylonia."
It cannot be denied that this is a weighty argument. The parallels
of our passage with the idol polemic of Deutero-Isaiah have already
been noted, and it is virtually certain that the latter received their
present shape during the Babylonian exile. I t would thus seem rash to
deny the possibility that Jer. x. 1-16 also received its final shape during
this exile.= But it must be insisted that it is not a foregone conclusion
that suchapolemiccould have arisen a l y in the exile. There are numer-
ous indications that the problem of idolatry was a live one within the
Israelite cultus itself, and, as has been seen above, there are also indica-
tions that the idol polernic had its roots in the older traditions of Israel.'
A few words should be said about a major commentator who does not
stand within this consensus. Though denying the passage as it stands to
Jeremiah, Weiser argues the possibility that actual words of the prophet
lie at the base of the 'parmetic' portion of the passage (i.e. wu. 1-5, 8, 9).
At just this point there is a si@cant dzerence in Weiser's approach
as contrasted with those reviewed above, for instead of concentrating
on exilic or post-exilic Judaism he searches Israel's past for clues to the
An Introabction to the Literature of the Old Tutament (New York, 1957),
P 254.
a This is especially true in the light of more recent emphasis on the role of
oral tradition in the shaping of the present prophetic boob. The aasurnption
here is that it was only under exceptional circumstances that the prophets them-
selves wrote down portions of their message, and that therefore the major
burden for the preservation and transmiaaion of that message fell upon the
membera of the prophet's circle of disciples. This has certain implications
regarding the problem of authorship. In essence, it becomes Iesa a problem,
for the primary concern is no longer the iprirrima w b a of the prophet but
the structure and content of certain complexes of tradition. See, for example,
J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Irracl (Oxford, 1962), pp. 159-65.
' Ultimately, the validity of the argument presented in this paper rests on
the ability to demonstrate the probability of certain sets of hintorical circum-
stances: (a) some analogical basis for remarke about the glyptic nature of idols
(cf. tha observations made in note 4, p. 3) ; (b) the presence in Judah in Jeremiah's
time and even before of a real threat to Yahwism through 'foreign' religious
practices involving the functions of nature, the use of images, &c. In sub-
stantiation of the latter point I would cite examples of evidence from the follow-
ing sources. (I) From the historical books: I S a m vii. 3 f.; I Kinga xvi. 32 f.
(Ahab erects in Samaria a Baal temple and an asherah, and even the reactionary
Jehu does not destroy the latter, 2 Kings xiii. 6); 2 Kings xvi (Ahaz and Tiglath-
pileeer's altar); 2 Kings xvi. 3 and xi. 6 (child aacriiice, cf. Jer. vii. 31); 2 Kinga
xviii. 1-8 and xxiii. 47.0. (2) From prophetic books: Hosea ii. 1-15, iv. I I-I&
viii. 4-6, xiii.4. f. (cf. xiii. 2 with I Kinga xix. 18); Amon ii. 7 f., iv.4-12; Jeremiah
(indications of c o d c t between the cultua of Yahweh and that of other g d a in
addition to those to be treated below) iii. 9, v. 7, vii. 9, 16-18, 31, viii. 19 f.,
xviii. 13-17, xix. 5, 13, xxii. 9, xxv. 1-7, div. 19. (3) From archaeology. See, for
example, the summary of some of the evidence in AhlstrBm, op. c i t , pp. 51 ff.
 T H E FALSEHOOD OF I D O L A T R Y 7
interpretation of the passage. The polernic against idolatry was cer-
tainly a part of Israel's older traditions (he cites Exod. w.3; Josh.
xxiv. 14, q ) , and there is no reason why the prophet could not have
occasionally taken up this theme. The similarities in language to
Deutero-Isaiah have their origin in a 'common oral cult tradition'
rather than literary dependence. Though Weiser himself resorts to a
somewhat problematic rearrangement of the passage,' his interpretation
is to be valued because of the new orientation towards the passage which
it represents.
In summary, on the basis of such arguments as those outlined above
Jer. x. 1-16 has commonly been denied to the prophet and interpreted
in terms of a presumed exilic or post-exilic situation. For those holding
this position the Hebrew text of the passage as it stands appears to be
chaotic. Duhm described it as a 'frightful confusion' of warnings
against the signs of heaven, ridicule of images, and glorification of
Yahweh, and Giesebrecht noted that its repetitious contents give the
impression of loose rubble. Volz states the matter simply: 'The text of
1-16 is no longer everywhere in 0rder.Q Thus in their interpretation
they set out to construct a third and more original text. Yet it should be
noted that even the 'confusion' of the passage was not sufficient to hide
what I take to be the central aspect of its structure and message, namely
the explicit contrast between Yahweh and the ineffective go&.'
I have already given several indications of my own position regarding
the interpretation of this passage. In what follows I will attempt to
work this out by showing, first of all, that the present form of the Hebrew
text can be viewed as a unit coherent in both structure and content, and,
secondly, that the particular contrast which it presents has its roots in
some of the oldest portions of the Jeremiah tradition.

B. An Alternative Position
Structure and content
We may &st of a l l note the person of address in this passage. Verses
1-5, a 2 per. pl. address to the 'house of Israel', are a warning against
foreign religious customs, especially the veneration of idols. The 2 per.
pl. extends through the heading and the initial two injunctions, is
broken by a 3 per. narrative describing idols and their manufacture
(m. 3-5a), and is resumed in v. 5b with the exhortation not to fear such
' His arrangement is: I-+a, 9,4b-5,8/11/6f., IO,IZ-16.Thehat,orparanetic,
part of the passage is baaed on a cultic renunciation of foreign gods delivered by
the prophet, which waa later combined with a h y m n to Yahweh and a 'liturgical
instruction' in Aramaic (v. I I). ' O p . cit., p. 122.
' See Volz'a opening comments' on w. 14-16, ibid., p. 124.
8 T H O M A S W. OVERHOLT
powerless human productions. The passage then proceeds as follows:
6-7 2 sg. praise addressed to Yahweh
gS 3 pl. speech about idols
10, 12 f. 3 sg. speech about Yahweh
14-15 3 per. speech about idols and their makers
16 3 sg. speech about Yahweh
Aa to formal structure, it will be noticed that the passage divides
naturally into six parts in which the subject alternates between the idols
and Yahweh. After the opening exhortation and the narrative which
justifies it, the alternation is between hymn-like praises addressed to
or spoken about Yahweh and narratives about the idols. This over-all
structure thus conforms to the main thrust or technique of the whole
pasaage, i.e. the contrast between the living God and powerless idols.
If we approach the passage from the point of view of its content, we
note that it consists of three pairs of contrasts: (I) In the narrative of the
first section (w.3-5a) we are introduced for the first time to the 'image',
which is characterized as follows :
(a) as something which is passive in origk (the dominant preposition
here is be)
wood cut from the forest by man
wood w e d by man
beautified with precious metals by man
fastened in position by
(b) as something which is passive in its present existence (o. ga is a
comparison beginning with 'like')
they do not speak
they must be carried
they can do neither evil nor good
In contrast to this passiveness w . 6-7 assert the greatnm of Yahweh
over the nations. It is fitting for trim to be feared (in explicit contrast to
a. 5)l (2) Verses &g hold the believers in idols to be stupid because of
the powerlessness of their images, and because these are the product of
human craftsmanship. Verses 10, 12 f. contrast with these created
images the 'living God', who creates and sustains the world. (3) Verses
14-15 speak of the corning destruction of foolish men and the false idols
.
which they have made, to which v. 16 contrasts ('. . not like these
.. .') the Creator God and Israel, who stands close to him in the special
relationship of election.
What are the terms in which Yahweh is described? He is great, the
king of the nations for all time. He is the living God,who wields power
on the earth, which he also establishes and sustains. He is the God of
 THE FALSEHOOD OF IDOLATRY 9
his people Israel. The language of creation, rather than that of HtiLr-
guchichte, predominates, though the latter makes its presence felt in
v. 16. What, then, isthe functionofthis largely non-historical language 7
Presumably, it serves the purpose of contrasting the nature deities,
whose symbols the idols are, with Yahweh, who usurped their powers.
This possibility will be investigated in what follows.

Sources in the tradition

The question to be dealt with here is whether there are other por-
tions of the Jeremiah tradition which demonstrate a concern similar
to that expressed in x. 1-16. The attempt will be made to answer this
question in the afKrmative, by taking note of some passages within the
book of Jeremiah where a similar contrast between Yahweh and the
idols appears.
(I) Jn.ii. 8-13, 26-28. In this passage we have a comparison of
Yahweh with the 'no gods', a designation which seems to have included
the god Baal (v. 8). The 'no gods' are here clearly national gods, as is
the case also in 2 Kings xix. 18, where it is said that Semacherib was able
to destroy other nations and their gods because they were 'no gods',
made by man of wood and stone. These words were put on the lips of
Hezekiah by a Hebrew writer, and so we must guard against accepting
at face value the implication that tbe national gods were only wood and
stone. The thing to note is the contrast drawn between the effective
power of the 'no gods', who could not save their own nations, and
Yahweh, whom Hezekiah feels certain will be able to deliver his. This
is roughly the same as the contrast expressed in Jer. ii. I I, 13 between
'no gods', who are broken cisterns which can hold no water, and Yahweh,
the fountain of 'living waters' (recall the 'living God' of x. 10). ii. 26-28
is the same kind of indictment of the political ineffectiveness of the gods
of 'wood and stone'. The issue here is a live one: the people worship
these gods and expect active aasistance from them. Again, the fact that
'living' and 'water' are chosen as points of contrast may indicate the
nature of the cultus associated with these 'no gods'. We note that
Hosea calls the calf of Samaria a 'no god' (viii. 6), and that in Deut.
d. 21 (as in Jer. xvi. 19 f.) the phraae 'no god' is parallel to 'vanity'.
T o swear by such 'no gods' would be to forsake Yahweh (v. 7).
In v. X I it is said that Yahweh's people have changed his glory for
that which 'does not profit'. This phrase is often used to describe the
result of turning aside from Yahweh to inferior things: 'emptiness'
( I Sam. xii. ZI), idols (Isa. xliv. 9 f.; Hab. ii. 18), false prophecy (Jer.
xxiii. 22), or riches (Prov. xi. 4). When something 'does not profit',
this means that it is powerless to deliver (I Sam. xii. 21 ; Prov. xi. 4),
10 T H O M A S W. O V E R H O L T
or that it will be 'put to shame' (Isa. mar. 1-5, political aid; xliv. 9 f.).
In Jeremiah things which do not profit include Baal (ii. 8), 'no gods'
(ii. 11, xvi. 19), and 'words of the lie' (vii. 8).
xvi. 19 f. is interesting in its contrast of Yahweh with the gods of the
nations:
0 Yahweh, my strength and my fortress,
my refuge in the day of adversity,
unto you the nations will come from the end of the earth
and say:
'Surely our fathers inherited a lie,
a vain thing, and there is no profit in it;
can a man make for himself gods,
and they are no gods ?'
Here the contrast is in terms of the power of Yahweh over qainst the
hand-made gods, and the creation theme is not mentioned.
Chapter ii is commonly attributed to the prophet Jeremiah himself.
Rudolph comments: 'The situations which chapter ii presupposes are
still pre-Deuteronomic, so that with justice one finds here the oldest
proclamation of the prophet. That nothing from Jehoiakirn's time is
under discussion follows from ii. 18, where Assyria still exists as a state."
(2) Jer. iii. 1-5. The matter of the extent of this pericope is open to
debate, though Rudolph comments that today most exegetes rightly
take m. 19 f. (often through iv. 4) tGbe the real continuation of m. 1-5.
The similarity in content with chapter ii is noted, and the passage as a
whole is often assigned to the early days of Jeremiah's ministry (so, for
example, Rudolph and Lofthousez). The major theme is the return of
a wayward people to their God, and Volz especially calls attention to
the recurring use of the term 'return'.
In m. 1-5 we are confronted with a kind of legal proceeding in which
v. I states the case to be argued. Verses 2 f. then bring the evidence
to substantiate the general charge of harlotry. The defendant is an
unnamed 2 fern. sg., but since similar charges (in the same person and
number) were made in the preceding chapter (ii. 20, 23-25, 33-35) we
are probably on safe grounds if we identify her with Judah or Jerusalem
(d.ii. 2), conceived of as Yahweh's wife. For our purposes it is v . ja
which is most interesting. Apparently, the lack of rain is God's punish-
ment for Judah's unfaithfulness (so Rudolph, who translates '. . . so
that the rain was denied. . .'; R.S.V., 'Therefore the showers have been
.
withheld . .'). Yahweh is thus understood to be the controller of
Op. cit., p. I I . Rudolph gives chapter ii the title 'The oldat prodamation
of Jeremiah'.
3 t l d and the New Couenunt (London, 1925)~pp. 40 f.
 T H E FALSEHOOD OF IDOLATRY II

natural prmews. Later on we are given another indication of the

activities of the faithless wife:
Surely the hills are a lie,
the tumult of the mountains;
Surely in Yahweh our God
is the salvation of Israel. (u. 23)
The context is that of a 'liturgy of repentance.' (Weiser), and the verse
amounts to a confession by the people of their past sin and a reasser-
tion of their faith in Yahweh. The sin in question is without doubt
their participation in cultic practices which (at least from the prophet's
point of view) are non-Yahwistic, as can be seen from their taking place
on the 'hi1ld.I In direct contrast to the falsehood of such practices is
placed the 'salvation' which Yahweh alone can bring to his people. I t
need only be noted about this term 'salvation' that it is not an abstract
concept. Rather, the imagery which it calls up is largely from the mili-
tary sphere, and it is in fact often best translated as 'victory' or 'deliver-
ance' (cf. Judges xv. 18; I Sam. xi. 9; 2 Sam. xix. 3).
(3) Jer. v. 20-25. I n these verses idols or gods are not specifically men-
tioned, it only being said that the people have been rebellious and have
turned aside (a. 23). Here again we find the explicit designation of
Yahweh a s Creator and Sustainer of the world: he sets the bounds for
the seas and is the giver of rain and harvest. And just because he does
these things it is fitting that he should be 'feared' (v. 22; cf. x. gb, 7).
Although Rudolph sees these verses as an intrusion into a context the
major theme of which is the threat of distress'of war, he does not deny
that they came from Jeremiah himself.
(4) As a final example we may note Jer. xiu. 22 :
Are there among the false gods of the nations
those who send rain.
and will the heavens give showers ?
Are you not the one, 0 Yahweh our God?
And we hope in you,
for you do all these things.
This verse stands at the end of a communal lament (cf. Rudolph,
Weiser) spoken during a time of drought (v. I), and again the contrast
between Yahweh and the other gods is striking. There are none among
the 'false gods of the nations' (6.x. 8) who can send rain, and therefore
the hope of the people must rest in Yahweh.
In the light of what has been said to this point the conclusion seems
defensible that Jer. x. 1-16 stands firmly within the Jeremiah tradition.
I Cf. Hos. iv. 11-14; Jer. ii. 20; I Kings xiv. 22-24; 2 Kings xvii. 10.
12 T H O M A S W. O V E R H O L T
Its dominant theme, the contrast between Yahweh the Creator and the
ineffectiveness of other gods, has been seen to mirror not the concerns
of a later age, but those of the 'prophet himaelf'.' The clue to the inter-
pretation of Jer. x. 1-16 is to be found primarily in the message of the
Jeremiah tradition itself, and not in a supposed later historical situa-
tion.
Conclusion
In summary, then, an examination of the idol polemic in Jer. x.
1-16 has revealed a definite structure, the function of which is to press
home the contrast between Yahweh and the gods whose symbols the
idols are. I t was also seen that this theme is a recurring one in the
Jeremiah tradition. In the light of this contrast the question to be asked
is: What is the nature of these idols and cultic practices which makes
them (from the point of view of the prophet) a 'lie' (iii. 23, x. 14, xvi. ~ g ) ?
Basically, it would seem that the answer lies in their ineffectiveness. It
is noteworthy that Yahweh is compared with them in terms of their own
special function, and not by playing off his historical action against
their being bound to nature (as if this in itself made them inferior).
In the broader sense it may well be true that Yahweh is a God of history,
yet in tenns of this one concrete aspect of Jeremiah's polemic he is
the Creator and Ruler of nature. By comparison with the power of this
Creator-God, thegods of the nations are 'vain', powerless even to accom-
plish those functions for which they are specialists. The cultus con-
nected with such gods is therefore also ineffective. Only in Yahweh is
the 'salvation' of Israel to be found (iii. 23).
THOMAS W. OVERHOLT
It is certainly true that this pasaage elabratea one facet of the polemic
against the go& (i.e. the description of their manufacture) in a way which gocn
beyond anything else in the Jeremiah tradition, but this fact in itself has no
necessary implication either for or against its 'genuineneaa'. Reference to the
manufacture of the idoh or gods is itself a definite part of the tradition; cf.
Jer. i. 16, ii. 28, xvi. 20.