Major Prophets

Major Prophets Brian J. Meldrum, Christopher T. Begg, Fred W. Guyette, William J. Urbrock, and Richard A. Taylor ________ 1316. Prophetic Validation and the Nonregnal Dates in the Superscriptions to Jeremiah and Amos Ian M. A. MacGillivray, "Prophetic Validation and the Nonregnal Dates in the Superscriptions to Jeremiah and Amos, " JBL 142 (2, 2023) 289–304. In the superscriptions to the biblical prophetic books, dates are usually expressed in terms of the reigns of kings. In the headings to Amos and Jeremiah, however, the standard regnal chronology is augmented by a "nonregnal date" that does not directly refer to a monarch. Amos's prophecies are set "two years before the earthquake" (Amos 1: 1), while Jeremiah's career ends with "the exiling of Jerusalem in the fifth month" (Jer 1: 3). M. 's article examines both of these nonregnal dates and concludes that they serve similar rhetorical purposes in their respective books. Each reference anticipates central themes of divine judgment that are developed across the rest of the book, while also corroborating an important prediction that reinforces the authority of the titular prophet. The nonregnal dates thus help to show how the social processes of "prophetic validation" continued to operate in the literary production of prophetic books. The uniqueness of these dates among the Latter Prophets may be related to the unusually detailed accounts of prophetic conflict found in Amos and, especially, Jeremiah. Adapted from published abstract—B. J. M. 1317. The Postexilic Prophet Theory in Leviticus 26 and the Postexilic Supplements to Deuteronomy 28–31 Eckart Otto, "Die nachexilische Prophetentheorie im Abschluss der Sinai-Offenbarung in Lv 26 und im Abschluss des Pentateuchs in der nachexilischen Fortschreibungen des Deuteronomiums in Dtn 28–31, " Kritische Schriftgelehrsamkeit, 151–62 see #1494. According to the "postexilic prophet theory" of which O. speaks in his title Moses is the supreme and unsurpassable prophet of Israel's tradition (see Deut 34: 10) ; through him Yhwh communicated his revelation for Israel in a definitive way, such that the whole subsequent succession of prophets and their words ultimately function only to further interpret and apply the Mosaic revelation in new circumstances—a theory that runs counter to the claims made for and by prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel as cited in the books of the Latter Prophets. This theory finds expression particularly in the two segments of the Pentateuch cited in O. 's title, both of which serve to conclude major components of the Pentateuch, i. e. , Leviticus 26, which closes out the Pentateuch's account of the Sinai revelation, and the postexilic supplementations in Deuteronomy 28–31, which bring to conclusion both the Book of Deuteronomy as an explication of the Sinai-revelation and the Pentateuch as a whole. The above passages feature multiple cross-references to each other which serve to reinforce their shared compositional functions. They likewise evidence recurring utilizations of the formulations of the Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (see, e. g. , the reminiscences of Ezekiel 34 and 37 in Leviticus 26), which they adapt and implicitly "correct" in order to bring them into line with the above-cited theory of prophecy. —C. T. B. 1318. The Rhetoric of the City in Isaiah 1 and Assyrian Imperial Practices Samuel L. Boyd, "Topoi and Toponyms: The Rhetoric of the City in Isa 1 and Assyrian Imperial Practices, " ZAW 135 (2, 2023) 211–29. The influence of Assyrian ideology on First Isaiah has received extensive treatment over the past few decades. Here, I present another possible such datum to explain a rhetorical argument that unfolds in Isa 1: 21–28 via the addition of a later supplement in vv. 29–31, namely the shift from Jerusalem being labeled a "faithful city" to an "unfaithful city. " In light of the political grounding of the passage, the historical backdrop of the intermittent Assyrian practice of changing the toponyms of subjugated cities becomes more transparently important for unlocking the meaning and significance of the above passage. Adapted from published abstract—C. T. B. 1319. Resilience via Literary and Ideological Reframing in Isaiah 2. 2–4 (5) Brent Nessler, "'Restructuring the Symbolic Universe': Resilience through Literary and Ideological. . .