Analysis Of Conversation Between Yahweh And The Word Laken

The structural configuring of this text is extremely difficult. Stulman uses the framework of Carroll to suggest that vv11-12 are “God’s words of rebuke”, which is reinforced in vv13-14 as Yahweh’s “discordant” response (Stulman 150). Jones suggests that this is not correct, since v11 is reminiscent of the “familiar Hebrew idiomatic oath formula” (Jones 221) where Jeremiah replies to the curse with an oath. Floyd also disagrees with vv11-14 to be interpreted as God’s response, since the use of the word “laken”, which means “therefore”, shows congruence from the preceding unit (Floyd 411). Lundbom supports the intimacy of conversation between Yahweh and the prophet, but places God’s response in vv19-21 in response of vv15-18, where Jeremiah starts in joyful remembrance, but settles in a place of bitterness, God responds in anger and then in a tone of assurance (Lundbom …show more content…
These renderings present a series of varying interpretations; which Stulman describes as a porous compound of boundless problems. While an explicit conversation between Yahweh and the prophet determines this passage to be a private lament, a recognition of a probable misunderstanding opens the question of the modality as a public or private complaint. There are other factors that change the modality of the text, which are found in vv13-14 in its relation with 17:3-4 as they are identical. Longman recognizes that while vv. 13-14 sound as if it is a reflection of the people of Judah, he believes that it only reflects the prophet, since there is no change in pronoun usage, nor a new antecedent (Longman 125). In opposition of this view is Floyd, who suggests that the complaint is public precisely because it is used elsewhere, which shows the “liturgical formulation from a communal complaint ritual” as it exists for all of Judah (Floyd