Of Bookends, Hinges, and Hooks

Westminster Theological Journal51.1 (1989) 109-131.

digitally prepared for use at Gordon College.

OF BOOKENDS, HINGES, AND HOOKS:

LITERARY CLUES TO THE ARRANGEMENT
OF JEREMIAH'S PROPHECIES

RICHARD D PATTERSON

I. Preliminary Considerations

The prophecy of Jeremiah is beset by a twofold textual problem:

(1) the nature of the textual tradition, and (2) the process of its
composition. The former problem is best highlighted by comparing
the Masoretic Text (MT) with that of the Septuagint (LXX). Thus,
on the one hand LXX lacks about one eighth of the text found in
MT, while on the other it adds about one hundred words not found
in MT. LXX also knows a different arrangement of the material in
places. For example, it puts chaps. 46-51 after 25:13, omits 25:14,
and, after the foreign nations prophecies (which, in turn, are in a
different order in LXX), it resumes the account with 25:15.' Inter-
estingly enough, both the longer MT and the shorter LXX textual
forms are attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls.2

The latter problem has several interrelated aspects, including the
authorship of the book, the history of its composition, matters of
literary genre and style, and the present arrangement of the proph-

' For further details as to the relationship of MT and LXX in Jeremiah, see F.
Geisebrecht, dos Buchjeremia (2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907) xix-
xxxiv; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969)
817-18; Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modem Study (Ann Arbor: Eisenbrauns, 1978)
137; Ernst Wiirthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1979) 52; and Louis Stulman, "Some Theological and Lexical Differences Between the
Old Greek and the MT of the Jeremiah Prose Discourses," Hebrew Studies 25 (1984)
18-23.

2 See F. M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran (Garden City: Doubleday, 1961)
186-87; cf. J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1980) 118-20.

109

110 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

ecies.3 This paper will deal with the canonical text of Jeremiah as
finalized in MT and seek to reveal the underlying principles upon
which the present arrangement of the prophecies is based.

The reason for the present arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah
has long baffled Jeremiah's interpreters. Although some have at-
tempted to see a skeletal chronological framework around which the
Jeremianic material has been arranged in accordance with similarity
of subject matter,4 current scholarly opinion tends to attribute the
book's arrangement to a process of composition of smaller units into
tradition complexes based on such suggested premises as theme and
literary style,5 literary style and theological perspective,6 theme and
occasion,7 or theme, occasion, and catchword.8

That a certain amount of editorial process took place is demanded
by the scriptural evidence as presented in Jeremiah 36. This incident
records Jehoiakim's cutting and burning of Jeremiah's original scroll
and the subsequent rewriting of Jeremiah's prophecies. Scholars are
divided as to what material constituted the original scroll and what

3 For details see John Bright, "The Book of Jeremiah, Its Structure, Its Prophecies,
and Their Significance for the Interpreter," Int 9 (1955) 259-78; W. L. Holladay,
"Prototype and Copies: A New Approach to the Poetry-Prose Problem in the Book of
Jeremiah,"JBL 79 (1960) 351-67; John Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; Garden City: Dou-
bleday, 1956) Ivi-lxxxv; Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row,
1965) 348-65; W. L. Holladay, "The Recovery of Poetic Passages in Jeremiah, "JBL
85 (1966) 401-35; M. Kessler, "Jeremiah Chapters 26-45 Reconsidered," JNES 27
(1968) 81-88; R. K. Harrison, Introduction, 809-17; W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles
(Oxford: University Press, 1970); H. Lorcher, "Das Verhaltnis der Prosareden zu den
Erzahlungen imJeremiabuch," TLZ 102 (1977) 395-96; G. R. Castellino, "Observations
on the Literary Structure of Some Passages in Jeremiah," FT 30 (1980) 398-408; J.
A. Thompson, Jeremiah, 27-50; R. M. Patterson, "Reinterpretation in the Book of
Jeremiah," JSOT 28 (1984) 37-46; and "Repentance or Judgment: The Construction
and Purpose of Jeremiah 2-6," ExpTim 96 (1985-86) 199-203. One should note as
well the several important articles in Leo G. Perdue and Brian W. Kovacs (eds.), A
Prophet to the Nations (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1984) 175-246.

4 J. Barton Payne, "The Arrangement of Jeremiah's Prophecies," Bulletin of the Evan-
gelical Theological Society (Fall 1964) 120-30; B. H. Hall, "Jeremiah," The Wesleyan BibleCommentary (ed. C. W. Carter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 3.181-82.

5 Otto Eissfeldt, Old Testament, 349-65.

6T. R. Hobbs, "Some Remarks on the Composition and Structure of the Book of
Jeremiah," in A Prophet to the Nations, 184-90.

7 G. R. Castellino, "Observations," 398-408.

8John Bright, Jeremiah,lxxiii-lxxviii; R. M. Patterson, "Reinterpretation," 37-46; and
E. W. Nicholson, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (Cambridge: University Press, 1973) 10-16.

OF BOOKENDS, HINGES, AND HOOKS 111

was subsequently penned in the new edition.9 The specific details as
to the further collecting and compilation of Jeremiah's prophecies are
developed variously by OT scholars.10

II. Literary Clues

This writer suggests that although a final decision as to the perim-
eters of the individual smaller units probably lies beyond the inter-
preter's full determination, some understanding of the parameters of
the present arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah as to its larger units
can be discerned by (1) allowing the internal compositional param-
eters of the book to speak for themselves," and (2) bringing to bear
certain compilational principles of collection indigenous to the Semiticworld.12

9J, A. Thompson (Jeremiah, 59) is correct in pointing out that "on the whole recent
opinion inclines to the view that it is impossible to reconstruct the scroll referred to
in ch. 36, although most are agreed that its material is embedded somewhere in chs.
1-25 and probably in the early chapters." See further the data in n. 46.

10 OT scholarship has been prominently affected by the pioneering efforts of B.
Duhm, Das Buck Jeremiah (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901) and especially Sigmund
Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Kristiania: Dybwad, 1914), who saw threetypes of material inherent in the Book of Jeremiah: (A) authentic prophetical oraclescomposed mostly in poetry, (B) biographical narratives which Baruch wrote in prose,and (C) autobiographical material written in prose. While many have modified or
rejected all or parts of Mowinckel's thesis, all have had to come to grips with it.

11William McKane (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah[ICC;Edinburgh:T. & T. dark, 1986] l.xlvii) rightly affirms that "the time has come ... to concentratemore on the internal relations of the constituents of the book of Jeremiah andto beless bothered about comparisons between the prose of the prose discourses of thebook of Jeremiah and the prose of other bodies of Old Testament literature.”

12 Manv biblical scholars have observed that the Bible is too often interpreted solely
in accordance with Western hermeneutical principles and theological categories and
therefore needs to be approached judiciously from the point of view of the Semite as
well if a full understanding of the text is to be gained. See, for example, the remarks
of R. Laird Harris in his preface to John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testamentfrom the Talmud and Hebraica (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) l.iii-viii. See also T.Bowman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek (New York: Norton, 1970); U. Cassuto,"The Sequence and Arrangement of the Biblical Sections," and "The Arrangement ofthe Book ofEzekiel," Biblical Oriental Studies (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973) 1.1-6 and 227-40; R. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1975). To the contrary, see the remarks ofD. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 44-45.

112 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

1.Compositional Parameters

Turning, then, to the Book of Jeremiah, one may see certain specific
bits of information relative to its scheme of arrangement.

(1) Determining the Boundaries. First are those sections with headings
that indicate the time of their composition: 3:6 is dated to the reign
ofJosiah; 24:1 and 29:1-3 to the second captivity of Jerusalem in the
days ofJehoiakim; 26:1 to “early in the reign ofJehoiakim”; 27:1,
28:1, and 49:34 to "early in the reign ofZedekiah"; 32:1 to the tenth
year ofZedekiah; 33:1 to the days of Jeremiah's imprisonment in the
Court of the Guard (cf. 37:21; 38:38); 34:1 to the time of Nebuchad-
nezzar's final siege of Jerusalem; 35:1 to the reign ofJehoiakim (608-
598 Be); 40:1 to the time of Jeremiah's release by Nebuzaradan; 44:1
to the days of Jeremiah's life in Egypt; and 59:51 to the fourth year
ofZedekiah. Four other section headings are dated to the fourth year
ofJehoiakim: 25:1; 36:2; 45:1; and 46:2.

Second are those headings that give the Lord's instructions to the
prophet relative to a message to be delivered in association with a
certain act or place: 2:1; 4:5; 7:1; 13:1; 17:19; 18:1; 21:1; and 30:2.
Third, one may note certain headings that indicate a specific subject
matter that follows: 11:2 begins a section dealing with the covenant;

14:1 begins Jeremiah's message concerning the drought; 23:9 heads
a section "concerning the prophets"; and 46-51 is introduced with
the notice that "this is the word of the lord that came to Jeremiah
the prophet concerning the nations" (46:1).

It is evident that all such data delineate the beginning of an original
or collected unit ofJeremianic material. They do not necessarily yield
a clue as to the end of that unit nor the individual segments that make
up the unit, but at least they do give information as to where the unit,
thus formed by whatever process of compilation, begins. A further
comparison and collation of these data, however, suggests that within
the larger collection the following sections of material can be found:

2:1-3:5; 3:6-4:4; 4:5-6:30; 7:1-10:25; 11:1-12:17; 13:1-27; 14:1-
17:18; 17:19-27; 18:1-23; 19:1-20:18; 21:1-14; 22:1-23:8; 23:9-40;

24:1-10; 25:1-38; 26:1-24; 27:1-22; 28:1-17; 29:1-32; 30:1-31:40;

32:1-44; 33:1-26; 34:1-7; 34:8-22; 35:1-19; 36:1-32; 37:1-39:18;

40:1-43:13; 44:1-30; 45:1-5; 46:1-51:58; 51:59-64. To these may
be safely added Jeremiah's call (chap. 1) and the historical appendix(chap. 52).

OF BOOKENDS, HINGES, ANDHOOKS 113

As for the order of these portions, since they are manifestly out of
strict chronological sequence, other bases of organization and com-
pilation need to be considered.13 It seems highly unlikely that purely
literary or stylistic considerations alone can suffice either. For although
the book does show evidence of some basic groupings, nevertheless
the material is not arranged consistently in accordance with such
conventions.14 Nor can theme/subject matter be the sole determining
factor, for similar themes and items of subject matter (e.g. national
sin, divine discipline, and judgment) cut across all portions of the
book.15 Therefore, some combination of principles must lie behind
the book's compilation and final arrangement.16

This writer would like to suggest that matters of literary style, theme,
and subject matter, as well as the headings themselves, have all played
a part in the end product. Feinberg's caution is well taken: "It is too
much, however, to conclude that the book is a hopeless maze. A book
may be arranged topically rather than chronologically. Indeed, its
order may be a combination of both. The difficulty of determining
which method prevails calls for close research."17

(2) Describing the Boundaries. An examination of the literary material
as to its subject matter suggests that the sections discerned above on
the basis of their headings were carefully woven into large units. The
key to the final arrangement of Jeremiah's prophecies lies in the nature
of his call (chap. 1). His was a summons to be a prophet (1) to the

13 For example, although Mowinckel's type A falls largely within the early chapters
of Jeremiah and his type B is clustered largely in chaps. 26-29 and 34-45, neither
case is that completely established. Moreover, type C is scattered almost randomly
throughout the book. Thus, R. K. Harrison (Introduction, 815) is doubtless correct in
observing. "Despite the prolonged history of criticism of Jeremiah, it is evident that
scholars are far from being in agreement as to the nature of the process by which the
prophecy acquired its extant form. . . . One thing is sure, namely, that the history of
its composition and growth is not to be explained entirely on a purely literary basis."

14 R. K. Harrison (Jeremiah and Lamentations [Tyndale; Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1973] 32) remarks, "While it is true that the prophecy in its final form constitutesananthology of the utterances of Jeremiah, it is clear that the latter occur in a quiteirregular manner without following any particular chronological pattern, and it is
difficult at times to see why some oracles should occur in their present place."

15 See further the discussion of T. R. Hobbs, "Some Remarks on theComposition
and Structure of the Book of Jeremiah" (Prophet to the .Nations, 184-90).

16John Bright (Jeremiah, Ixxiv) appears to be close to the truth in affirming, "The
basis upon which such groupings were made seems for the most part to have been
that of common theme, common occasion, or even catchword."

17Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 11.

114 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

nations of this world and to his people in the midst of those nations
(1:4-12), and (2) to his own nation in particular (1:13-19). In accor-
dance with this twofold call and commission, the prophecy ofJeremiah
may be arranged broadly in two units that are inversely related to the
order of his call: chaps. 2-24 deal with Jeremiah and his nation; chaps.
25-51 focus on his message to his nation in the Babylonian crisis and
conclude with a section containing oracles against the foreign nations.
Each of the units begins with an introductory portion stating the theme
of the larger unit,18 proceeds with prophecies that develop that theme,
and closes with a portion detailing the giving of a sign (see Table 1).

Thus, the theme of the first unit (chaps. 2-24) is set forth clearly
in 2:1-3:5 as the divine punishment of Jeremiah's faithless nation.
The following sections detail the coming and causes of that judgment
(3:6-23:40), and the sign of the figs closes the unit. Chap. 25 initiates
the second larger unit (chaps. 25-51) by giving its theme as God's
pronouncement against Judah and all the nations of this world. That
theme is developed in 26:1-51:58 in three large sections of tradition
complexes that deal with (1) Jeremiah's controversial experiences in
the ongoing Babylonian crisis (chaps. 26-35), (2) Jeremiah's expe-
riences during the siege and fall of Jerusalem and the aftermath of
the war (chaps. 37-44), and (3) concludes with a collection of proph-
ecies containing God's program for the nations of Jeremiah's day.
The unit is, again, closed by a sign: the sign of the sunken scroll
(51:59-64). It is interesting to note that just as the first major unit
(chaps. 2-24) is closed by a sign, so each of the three sections of the
second major unit is closed by a sign: the sign of the Rechabites (35:1-
19), the sign of the Babylonian invasion of Egypt (44:29-30), and the
previously mentioned sign of the sunken scroll (51:59-64).

18 A further comparison between the two major units of Jeremiah's prophecies can
be seen in that each introductory section sets forth the theme for that unit and is
followed by the prophet's plea for the people's repentance. Thus, the following schema

emerges:

chaps. 2-24 chaps. 25-51

Theme2:1-3:525:1-38

Prelminary Plea3:6-4:426:1-6

Development4:5-23:4026:7-51:58

Concluding Sign24:1-2051:59-64

116 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

2. Compilational Principles

The correctness of this thematic and literary overview of the com-
pleted arrangement of Jeremiah's prophecies is reinforced by an ex-
amination of the individual sections both as to subject matter and
compositional principles.

(1) Examining the Principles. Several techniques of composition known
to the Semitic world can be seen to be operative in Jeremiah, such
as the use of bookending, hinging, and hooking. It is not at all un-
common in the Scriptures to have certain enclosing details function
as bookends to the intervening literary material. The device is well
known, particularly in poetry, where similar language or sentiment is
often employed on either side of a stanza to form an inclusio of
material, often in a chiastic (or inverted) format.19

Chapters, sections, or verses may also have a hinging effect. Thus,
Parunak explains,

The hinge is a transitional unit of text, independent to some degree from
the larger units on either side, which has affinities with each of them and
does not add significant information to that presented by its neighbors.

19 Among the many examples of literary bookending in the Scriptures, note Ezekiel's
dumbness that encloses the prophecies of chaps. 3-24 and serves as an introduction
to chaps. 33-39. His commissioning as a watchman to Israel (chaps. 3; 33) serves a
similar process. One may also compare Nah 2:1 (Heb. 2:2) with 3:18 where the figure
of scattering bookends the description of the doom of Nineveh. Note also the book-
ending effect of the heading (v 1) and colophon (v 32) in Genesis 10 and the narrative
sections in Leviticus where chaps. 8-10 and 16 bookend the laws ofuncleanness (chaps.
11-15). See further the remarks of Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT;

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 161-62, and R. D. Patterson, "The Song of Deborah"
{Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg [eds.John S. Feinberg andPaul D. Feinberg; Chicago: Moody, 1981] 142). For the principle of poetic chiasm, seeRobert L. Alden, "Chiastic Psalms: A Study in the Mechanics of Semitic Poetry in
Psalms 1-50," JETS 17 (1974) 11-28. Note that Robert Althann {A Philological Analysis
of Jeremiah 4-6 in the Light of Northwest Semitic [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1983] 310)considers chaps. 4-6 to be a "somewhat loosely integrated unit" and finds several
bookending devices in 4:1-4 and 6:29-30. Although Althann makes a good case, the
heading at 4:5 (see p. 3) and the seemingly obvious hooks in 4:4 and 4:5 (see p. 11),
as well as the thematic harmony of 4:1-4 with 3:6-25, all of which deal with God's
pleading with his people, appear to this writer to favor the more usual association of

4:1-4 with what precedes rather than that which follows. See further the suggestion
of W. L. Holladay given in n. 45 below.

OF BOOKENDS, HINGES, AND HOOKS 117

The two larger units are joined together, not directly, but because each is
joined to the hinge.20

A third compositional technique is also extremely common in the
OT. Known as a "link" (Parunak),21 "catchword" (Bright),22 "stitch-
word" (McKane),23 it could also be called a "hook."24 Cassuto ob-
serves,

The principles governing the organization of a large quantity of materialaccording to Eastern methods are not those underlying the meticulouslysystematic or precisely chronological order that is normal accordingtoEuropean notions.

One … method, which may appear … strange ... to the European
mind, but which was obvious to a man of the ancient Orient, who esteemed it as an aid to memorization, was that of arranging the sections on the basis of the association of ideas or words.25

By this method a given catchword or idea frequently forms a common
hook or link with a corresponding word or idea in an adjoining section.
Although Parunak draws a technical distinction between a key word
(transitional material that occurs throughout given juxtaposed units)
and a link (transitional features, such as particular words, that occur
at the end of one unit and the beginning of the following unit), this
paper shall not make such a distinction. Thus, hooks shall be described
as those grammatical or lexical features that apparently have occa-
sioned the juxtaposing of two contiguous sections. However, Parunak
will be followed as a model in distinguishing the following hooking
patterns: