Reading Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Light of Deuteronomy 29:21-30:10 and of Inqolobane Yesizwe: Some Remarks on Prophecy and the Torah1

This article examines the prophetic themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship found in Jer 31:31-34 in a South African context. Set against some of the Dtr themes found in Deut 29:21-30:10 and the DtrN texts in the Book of Jeremiah, Jer 31:31-34 re-iterates prophetic themes which attained an authoritative status in the post-exilic period. The essay therefore argues that whilst the Dtr scribes imposed the normativity of the Torah on the Book of Jeremiah, Jer 31:31-34 articulates the importance of prophecy. Based on an African worldview, the article probes the relevance of the prophetic themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship found in the biblical texts in the South African context. Inqolobane Yesizwe (A Garner of the Nation), which consists of a collection of Zulu wise sayings, proverbs, traditions and histories, provides the context for the African worldview. The essay argues that the text of Jer 31:31-34 would enjoy a possible reception among the Zulu people in South Africa if read in tandem with Inqolobane Yesizwe.


INTRODUCTION
There is consensus among OT scholars that the Book of Jeremiah underwent a process of Deuteronomistic (Dtr) redaction which is confirmed by the number of cross-references between the book and the Dtr History. It is purported that the emphasis that the Dtr scribes placed on the importance and normativity of law in the Persian period relegated prophecy to an insignificant status. 2 That the word ‫ה‬ ָ ‫תּוֹר‬ "Torah" appears 12 times in the Book of Jeremiah (Jer 2:8;6:19;8:8;9:13;16:11;18:18;26:4;31:33;32:11;44:10;44:23) suggests that the Dtr scribes tried to uphold the importance of the Torah. Said differently, the Dtr edition of the Book of Jeremiah elevated the Torah. Given Römer's thesis that the Book of Jeremiah exhibits a Dtr influence, one wonders whether the entire book contains Dtr themes. Thus, a cardinal question to pose is: does the Book of Jeremiah contain prophetic themes that contradict those found in Dtr texts? If that is the case, as I am inclined to believe, one may argue that although the Dtr scribes elevated the Torah in the Persian period, some texts in the Book of Jeremiah contain prophetic themes which stand in discontinuity with the Dtr themes. To illustrate the preceding hypothesis, the text of Jer 31:31-34 will be examined alongside Deut 29:21-30:10 and other Dtr texts found in the Book of Jeremiah with a specific interest in the prophetic themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship. The point that these themes are also found in the South African context renders Jer 31:31-34 a relevant text among the Zulu people.
Worthy of note is the trend of employing indigenous proverbs to interpret ancient texts among some South African biblical scholars. Using her bosadi approach to the ancient biblical text, Masenya (Ngwan'a Mphahlele) demonstrates how Sotho proverbs could be utilised to interpret biblical proverbs. 3 Similarly, Mtshiselwa argues that indigenous presuppositions, ideologies and worldviews that are embedded in Xhosa narratives, idioms and proverbs could be employed as a point of reference in interpreting ancient texts. 4 In the light of such African interpretive approaches to Scriptures, as well as based on Spangenberg's idea of incorporating new paradigms of reading ancient texts into the historical-critical method, 5 this paper employs the African worldview that is embedded in the Inqolobane Yesizwe as a point of reference in interpreting the text of Jeremiah. Thus, the relevance to the South African context of prophetic themes such as inclusion and equality, which are found in 2 Thomas Römer, "Deuteronomistic History," EBR: 650. the Jer 31:31-34 will be probed. The Inqolobane Yesizwe (A Garner of the Nation), which consists of a collection of Zulu wise sayings, proverbs, traditions and histories, serves as the context for the African worldview. The hypothesis of this article states that the prophetic themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship found in Jer 31:31-34 would enjoy a positive reception among the Zulu of South Africa.

B COMPOSITION AND REDACTION OF THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH
Whilst it is widely accepted that the Book of Jeremiah underwent a Dtr redaction, the prophetic themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship found in Jer 31:31-34 seem to be in contrast with the Dtr themes contained in Deut 29:21-30:10 and some of the Dtr texts cited in the Book of Jeremiah. That is, some texts in the Book of Jeremiah contradict the themes of the Dtr redactor. Before outlining the contradictions, a discussion on the composition and redaction of the Book of Jeremiah is in order. My interest here lies in illustrating the influence of the Dtr scribes in the production of the Book of Jeremiah.

The Influence of Deuteronomistic Scribes
For Römer, "There is no doubt that of the three Major Prophets, Jeremiah is the most 'Deuteronomistic' book." 6 Stackert agrees that the book of Jeremiah exhibits both theological and literary ties to Dtr texts. 7 As will be shown below, Dtr scribes set the agenda for the Book of Jeremiah, as Dtr themes appear to be dominant in the book. The point that the Book of Jeremiah was composed and edited in the Persian period by the scribes belonging to the Dtr circle accounts for the noticeable ties between the Dtr text and Jeremiah. Also, the evident number of cross-references and parallels between the Book of Jeremiah and some texts in the Dtr History supports the view that the Book of Jeremiah was redacted by the Dtr scribes. 8 It is therefore necessary to identify the Dtr layers in the Book of Jeremiah. In an attempt to distinguish the Dtr layers, Römer shows that: 6 Thomas Römer, "The Redaction of Three Great Prophets as a Reaction to the Crisis of Babylonian Exile," ITS 50 (2013): 259.
The so-called "model of Gottingen" (where Smend taught) is therefore characterized by the distinction of three Dtr layers: DtrH (the "historian," responsible for the first edition of DtrH, who writes during the exile), DtrP (a prophetic Deuteronomist, only found in Samuel-Kings) and DtrN (a nomistic Dtr, who at the end of the exilic or the beginning of the Persian period insists on the importance of the law). 9 By implication, any material edited by the DtrN scribes in the post-exilic period would stress the importance of the Torah above certain literary genres, in particular, prophecy. In such a case, prophecy therefore would be placed at the margins, while the Torah is elevated. Schmid explains how the normativity of the Torah developed, which could shed light on how the Torah was elevated in the history of ancient Israel at the expense of prophecy. He notes that because "there was no central law within the Persian Empire (539-331 BCE)," people had to live according to their own laws and rules. 10 Since the formation of the Torah was probably rooted in Persian imperialism, the Judeans chose to live according to the Torah. The Torah therefore gained its normative status. Schmid further reasons that: The "Torah" as the basic document of ancient Judaism clearly functions as a normative text per se, demanding personal submission and obedience (see e.g. Deut 30:1-14) … Its authority is not backed by the king but is inherent to it as a normative text claiming divine. 11 The normativity of the Torah inspired its dominance and perhaps to some extent its superiority. From an ideological point of view, the law (cf. Deut 30:1-14) became more significant than prophecy especially in respect of the prophetic themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship found in Jer 31:31-34. The emphasis on the Torah in the Book of Deuteronomy and in some texts of the Dtr History was thus imported to the Book of Jeremiah. This may be demonstrated by teasing out cross-references between the books under consideration. 9 Römer, "Deuteronomistic," 650.

Cross-References between the Books of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy and the Dtr History
The number of cross-references between the Book of Jeremiah and the Dtr History supports the view that the book underwent a process of Deuteronomistic (Dtr) editing. 12 One may further argue that such cross-references confirm both the influence of the DtrN scribes and the elevation of the Torah in the Book of Jeremiah. Limited by the scope of this paper, this article focuses on the textual relations between 2 Kgs 22-23 and Jer 36 as well as between Deut 18 (34) and Jer 1.
First, the link between 2 Kgs 22-23 and Jer 36 elicits two related ideasthe end of prophecy during the Persian period and the rise of the written text in its stead. 13 These ideas resonate with the possibility that the Torah was elevated whilst prophecy was set at the margins. Furthermore, an intertextual reading of 2 Kgs 22-23 and Jer 36 suggests that a prophet could no longer operate without the book. Said differently, the prophetic word was no longer autonomous, but dependent on the Torah, 14 which means that the prophetic themes in the Book of Jeremiah are presented alongside the law as having their origin in DtrN themes. If Jer 36 is indeed the story of the replacement of the prophet by the scribe, the idea of the end of prophecy during the Persian period and the rise of the Torah in its place would make sense. However, as will be shown below, the idea of the end of prophecy and the rise of the Torah does not correspond with some redacted layers of the Book of Jeremiah.
Römer argues that the prophets and their books can most fittingly be viewed as sequel to the Torah, as 2 Kgs 22 and Jer 36 suggest. 15 That is, prophecy is of secondary importance to the Torah. As will be explained later, I am skeptical about agreeing completely with Römer's argument because there are instances in the Book of Jeremiah where prophecy seems to counter the Torah. Nonetheless, Jer 36 portrays a Jeremiah who is neither a visionary (as in 1:4-9; 24) nor a messenger of divine oracles. Instead, he is presented as the prototype of a "senior scribe" who "dictates to another scribe the words to be written on a scroll." 16 In fact, any word uttered by Jeremiah in this instance would become "the production, property and power of the scribe." 17 Furthermore, 2 Kgs 22-23 12 Römer, "Formation," 168; Römer, "Deuteronomistic," 652. 13 Römer, "Formation," 178. 14 Römer, "Formation," 177. 15 Thomas Römer, "From Prophet to Scribe: Jeremiah, Huldah and the Invention of the Book," in Writing the Bible: Scribes, Scribalism and Script, ed. Philip R. Davies and Thomas Römer (Durham: Acumen Publishing, 2013), 95. 16 Römer, "From Prophet to Scribe," 89-90. 17 Robert P. Carroll, "Manuscripts Don't Burn -Inscribing the Prophetic Tradition: Reflections on Jeremiah 36," in Dort Ziehen Schiffe Dahin: Collected Communica-reveals that the Book of the Law, that is, the Torah, became a substitute for the Temple, and 2 Kgs 23 is more explicit in that it shows that Josiah replaced the statues and cultic objects after reading the Book. This textual evidence suggests that the Book replaced the sanctuary. A critical question to pose is: Did the Torah replace prophecy? Interestingly, unlike in 2 Kgs 22-23, in Jer 36, the socalled Book replaced the prophet. Instead of presenting a prophet with a prophetic voice, namely, with divine exhortation to the community, in v. 2, the DtrN scribes presents YHWH's instruction: "Take a scroll of a book and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations…" (Jer 36:2). 18 Regarding the parallels between Jer 26:2-3 and Jer 36:2-3, it is clear that the scroll took the place of the prophetic voice. 19 In this instance, the Torah became more important than prophecy. Jeremiah 36 suggests that, "Jeremiah cannot reach the king except through the scribe and the book, and when Jehoiakim, unlike Josiah, burns the book, a new edition is produced, with the help of Baruch." 20 Having been replaced by scribe and Book, Jeremiah now vanishes from his book. 21 The point that the prophet could not reach the figure of authority except through the scribe shows the extent of the influence of the DtrN scribes during the redaction of the Book of Jeremiah. The rise of the DtrN scribes accorded the Torah its status of normativity.
The relation of Moses to Jeremiah also supports the view that the themes of the DtrN scribes are discernable in the Book of Jeremiah. Most commentators agree that there is a parallel between Moses and Jeremiah particularly with reference to Deut 18 (34) Peter Lang, 1996), 40; Römer, "Formation," 178. 18 Römer, "From Prophet to Scribe," 90. 19 Römer, "From Prophet to Scribe," 91. 20 Römer argues that, in this instance, the conclusion of ch. 36 no doubt reflects the editing of the prophetic scroll in its various stages. Römer, "From Prophet to Scribe," 91. 21 Römer, "From Prophet to Scribe," 91. consensus on the nature of that parallel. The depiction of Moses as the prophet above all prophets (cf. Deut 34:10) forms part of the so-called "Torah conscious" motifs. 23 However, Otto claims that Jer 1, for instance, is set against Deut 34 because it shows that Jeremiah was a prophet like Moses. 24 Although there are resemblances between Moses and Jeremiah in that both may be classified as "true prophets," there is however no compelling reason to equate Jeremiah with Moses. 25 With respect to the resemblances, like Moses, Jeremiah fits the DtrN characteristics of a "true prophet." Jeremiah's oracles of judgement are also fulfilled (cf. Deut 18:20; Jer 1:16). 26 Additionally, Deut 18:15-20 shows that a "true prophet" is a preacher of the Torah. This criterion is equally noticeable in The reason is most likely to be found in the need to break apart the chain of prophetic succession starting with Moses. Whereas Deut 18:15 envisions such a succession between Moses as archprophet and his successors, Deut 34:10 wants to separate Moses from all other prophets. The reason for this separation between "Moses" and the "prophets" is most easily found in the formation of Torah: Moses has to be separated from the prophets as soon as the Torah is seen as superior to the Prophets (i.e. the prophetic books Joshua -Malachi as section of the canon referred to as "Prophets"). 27 The reference to the Torah partly explains the view that Moses was incomparable to other prophets, including Jeremiah. If the Torah was to gain any dominance, the person who is most related to it, namely, Moses would be placed justifiably above other prophets. Stackert also supports the view that Moses was above all other prophets because the Mosaic prophecy is distinct: "According to Num 12, God communicates with other prophets through visions and dreams, but he speaks directly -face to face -with Moses." 28 The argument confirms the legitimisation of Moses. If Moses, the so-called lawgiver, "was the last Israelite prophet, after which the law he mediated became normative," it would seem that the elevation and subsequent legitimization of Moses was in fact the legitimisation of the Torah. 29 Given that that Moses received the law from God, the Torah is legitimised in the Pentateuch and given an authoritative status. If the Dtr edition of Jeremiah placed more emphasis on the Torah and less on prophecy, then, it is worth noting that Jer 31:31-34 is set against Deut 29:21-30:10 and some of the Dtr texts in the Book of Jeremiah. As Fischer has noted, the Book of Jeremiah is dependent on the Book of Deuteronomy. 30 However, against Fischer and Römer's observation, Christian claims that, "the manner in which Jeremiah texts differ and distance themselves from parallel texts in Deuteronomy suggests a debate between law and prophecy occurring in 28 Stackert, "Mosaic Prophecy," 50. 29  Interestingly, Jer 31:31-34 suggests that, "the Pentateuchal theory of a transcription of the Torah by Moses in Exodus 24:4 and Deut 31:9 32 was refuted by the prophetic theory of a divine transcription of the Torah on the people's hearts." 33 Jeremiah 31:33 says, ‫ה‬ ‫נָּ‬ ‫בֶ‬ ֲ ‫תּ‬ ‫כְ‬ ‫אֶ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫בָּ‬ ‫ל-לִ‬ ‫עַ‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫בָּ‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ‫קִ‬ ‫בְּ‬ ‫י‬ ִ ‫ת‬ ָ ‫ת-תּוֹר‬ ‫אֶ‬ ‫י‬ ִ ‫תּ‬ ַ ‫ת‬ ‫נָ‬ "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." The perfect qal verb ‫י‬ ִ ‫תּ‬ ַ ‫ת‬ ‫נָ‬ "I will put" which is presented in the first person singular clearly confirms that in this instance, it was YHWH who gave the people the Torah. Otto's view that Jer 31:31-34 formed a counter-position to the transcription of the Torah by Moses found in the book of Deuteronomy is therefore decisive. Furthermore, the negative particle, ‫ֹא‬ ‫ל‬ "no or not" which is presented alongside the plural piel impf. verb ‫דוּ‬ ‫מְּ‬ ‫לַ‬ ‫יְ‬ "teach" in Jer 31:34, contradicts the teaching of the Torah. Such a teaching would be invalid and unnecessary, as the Torah would be internalised by all the people. Thus, Otto's view that "the Pentateuchal ideas of teaching and learning the Mosaic Torah (Deut 6:6-7, 20-25; 11:18-21; 31:12-13) were refuted" in Jer 31:34 makes sense. 34 Since Deut 30:10 also exhibits such ideas, it is reasonable to argue that Jer 31:31-34 is set against Deut 29:21-30:10. The covenantal relationship between YHWH and the people refutes the idea of a "Deity/Moses-people" relationship which according to Otto denotes the elevation of a human being to the level of a deity. 40 The Dtr authors elevated Moses to the level of a deity (Deut 7:4-11; 11:13-15), 41 That elevation is also noticeable in Deut 30:1-2: When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today.
Of importance is the clause, ‫יָך‬ ‫נֶ‬ ‫פָ‬ ‫לְ‬ ‫י‬ ִ ‫תּ‬ ַ ‫ת‬ ‫נָ‬ ‫ר‬ ֶ ‫שׁ‬ ‫אֲ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫לָ‬ ‫לָ‬ ‫קְּ‬ ‫הַ‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫כָ‬ ָ ‫ר‬ ‫בְּ‬ ‫הַ‬ "these blessings and curses I have set before you." The qal pf. 1st per. sg. verb ‫י‬ ִ ‫תּ‬ ַ ‫ת‬ ‫נָ‬ "I have set" suggests that Moses was addressing the people because in the same verse, he referred to ‫יָך‬ ‫ֹלהֶ‬ ‫אֱ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫הוָ‬ ‫יְ‬ "YHWH Elohim." The point in this text is that Moses was the giver of blessings and curses. YHWH no longer assumed that role, Moses did. In addition, Moses is presented as the one who issued commands (Deut 30:2). Logically, it is assumed that the people would obey the person who issued the command. However, the second person form used in the verb ָ ‫תּ‬ ‫עְ‬ ‫מַ‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬ ‫וְ‬ "and obey" shows that the statement is uttered by someone else other than ‫יָך‬ ‫ֹלהֶ‬ ‫אֱ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫הוָ‬ ‫יְ‬ "YHWH Elohim." A deity is the one who should be obeyed. Elsewhere, it is implied that Yahweh issued the command, ‫ת-‬ ‫אֶ‬ ָ ‫תּ‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ‫מַ‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫וָ‬ ‫צְ‬ ‫מִּ‬ ‫הַ‬ "you shall keep my commandment" (Deut 7:11). Moses is therefore elevated to the level of a deity who typically issues commands for people to obey. However, and most importantly, the "Deity/Moses-people" relationship is not assumed in Jer 31:31-34. The point that YHWH would place the covenant inside people's hearts relegates Moses from the level of a deity. The nature of the covenantal relationship between YHWH and the people in Jer 31:31-34 shows that Moses is not featured.
The shift from ‫ישׁ‬ ‫אִ‬ "each man" to ‫ם‬ ‫י-כוּלָּ‬ ‫כִּ‬ "because they will all" in Jer 31:34 is also noteworthy. The tone of inclusion in the statement "because they will all know me" contrasts with that of exclusion which is observed in "the segregationist ideology of parts of the Babylonian Golah." 42 Deuteronomy 29:21 denotes a theme of exclusion. The hiphil pf. verb in ‫ילוֹ‬ ִ ‫דּ‬ ‫בְ‬ ‫הִ‬ ‫וְ‬ "and he will separate him" 43 implies the theme of exclusion or segregation in the preceding text. However, Deut 30:5a presupposes that the Jews in the Babylonian exile would return to possess the land of their ancestors. Also, v. 5b promised the Judean returnees economic prosperity whilst the people who remained in the land were excluded from the possession of the land and the subsequent prosperity. Unlike, Jer 37-43, Jer 31:31-34 portrays a Jeremiah who supports the people who remain in the land. 44 The theme of inclusion is therefore set as a counter-theme to that of exclusion which is evident in Deut 29:21-30:10 as well as in the Dtr texts in the Book of Jeremiah such as Jer 29.
The expression ‫ם‬ ‫דוֹלָ‬ ‫ד-גְּ‬ ‫עַ‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫נָּ‬ ‫טַ‬ ‫קְ‬ ‫מִ‬ ‫לְ‬ ‫י‬ ִ ‫אוֹת‬ "from the least of them to the greatest" in Jer 31:34 suggests that people were being treated equally. The new covenantal community envisioned in Jer 31:31-34 upholds the theme of equality which refutes the notion of discrimination that is based on social class.
The idea of equality may be read in contrast to the Dtr notion of inequality contained in the books of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. For instance, an allusion to being uprooted from the land due to YHWH's anger in Deut 29:28 presupposes unequal possession of the economic resources between the élite returnees from exile and the Judeans who remained in the land. The returnees had money and the support of the Persian leadership. 45 In light of the reference to the possession of land (Deut 30:5), Knight's compelling argument that in the postexilic period the large portions of agricultural land which produced wealth were owned by the rich and powerful élites is also noteworthy. 46 Based on the observation by both Meyer and Knight that the élite returnees from exile were wealthy, it is reasonable to argue that Deut 29:21-30:10 also exhibits traces of inequality which highlights the gap between the poor and the rich. Jeremiah 31:34 thus espouses the idea of equality which in turn shows resistance to and disapproval of inequality.
Against the argument that what we have in the Book of Jeremiah is the elevation of the Torah, it may be argued that the prophetic themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship were equally important especially in the post-exilic period. The point that Jer 31:31-34 is an integral part of the "book of consolation" (Trostbüchlein), namely Jer 30-31, accords the themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship an authoritative status. 47 It would be interesting to examine whether these themes have any relevance in the South African context. One also wonders whether Jer 31:31-34 could be more appealing in such a context compared to Deut 29:21-30:10 and some DtrN texts in the Book of Jeremiah and more importantly in the light of Inqolobane Yesizwe.

D JEREMIAH 31:31-34 IN LIGHT OF INQOLOBANE YESIZWE -ANY RELEVANCE TO ZULU PEOPLE?
Based on an African worldview, the relevance of the themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship found in the biblical text to the South African context is probed in what follows. proverbs, traditions and histories, provides the context for the African worldview.
On the themes of forgiveness and restoration, a Zulu expression, ukukhumelana umlotha, "the sharing of ash," comes to mind. For Mchunu, this expression explains the ritual of cleansing and the reconciliation of two groups or persons. 48 In Zulu, it is noted, certain proverbs seek to inculcate forgiveness and the restoration of relationships between people. Ntsimane explains that ukukhumelana umlotha is not only a Zulu saying but also one of the conflictresolution tools that are used to reconcile people. 49 The themes of forgiveness and restoration in Jer 31:31-34, which contrast with the prophecy of doom in the book of Deuteronomy and in the Dtr texts in Jeremiah, resonate with the tenor of forgiveness and reconciliation underlying the proverbial concept of ukukhumelana umlotha. Thus, the Zulu people would identify more readily with Jer 31:31-34 than Deut 29:21-30:10. In the light of the proverbial concept, a call for forgiveness and restoration of relationships would be appealing in the South Africa context, particularly among many Zulus.
If Jer 31:31-34 is read as a rebuttal of the tendency to elevate a human being (e.g. Moses) to the level of a deity, a fitting Zulu proverb that echoes a similar criticism on the elevation of a human being would be Ufaka inyongo nesinya, which is explained as, Uzama ukuzenza mkhulu kunento ayiyo ngempele, "You are attempting to elevate yourself above your level." 50 A similar saying, Uthwala ishoba, has the connotation, Uyaziphakamisa, ubukela phansi abanye, "You elevate yourself to the point of looking down on other people." 51 The challenge with one's self-elevation is that it belittles others. Thus, in a context of hierarchical relationships, the proverb, Inkosi yinkosi ngabantu "A chief is a chief through his subjects" is used to denounce ingratitude and the act of belittling other people which often manifests in people with power. 52 In view of the Zulu proverbs that are against the elevation of a person to a superior level or position, the contrary view of not elevating a human being to the level of a deity in Jer 31:31-34 would be compelling to Zulu people.
The Zulu saying, ukhetha iphela emasini, "selecting a cockroach in the fermented milk," implies ukubadlulula, "segregation or separation." 53 The saying opposes the exclusion of members of the community, and it shows a striking resemblance to the theme of inclusion which is set against exclusion in Deut 29:21-30:10 as well as in the Dtr texts in Jeremiah. For his part, Wink argues that ubuntu, a concept that is derived from the proverb, Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, "A person is a person through other persons," emphasises a sense of togetherness, interdependence and community. 54 Clearly, in the idea of ubuntu, the separation of others is rejected in favor of inclusivity. Mbaya notes that ubuntu is about interconnectedness and interdependence. 55 Since, inclusivity and communality are upheld in the concept of ubuntu, that is, specifically, in the Zulu sayings, the theme of inclusion in Jer 31:31-34, which is set against exclusion in Deut 29:21 would appeal to the Zulu people. Interestingly, the concept of Ubuntu is in line with Spangenberg's idea of relations among people. He says, "I have compassion (suffer with others), therefore I am." 56 For him the idea of being is characterised by being with other people. Interconnectedness with other people therefore defines a person's being and identity. The concept of Ubuntu as well as Spangenberg's idea of "being" is related to Saayman's concept of "being human together." Saayman interestingly develops the theme of "being human together" based on the maxim, Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, "A person is a person through other persons." The theme is opposed to inequality in the South African context, namely, economic, racial, and political inequalities. 57 Given the tenor of equality underlying the saying, Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, the contrasting idea of inequality in Jer 31:34 would make sense among the Zulu people. However, it may also be noted that a number of Zulu proverbs, equally perpetuate inequality. The proverb, Ikhanda elixegaxegayo lofulela abafazi, which is explained as, Umthetho wendoda emzini wayo kufanele wenziwe, uthotshelwe "The law of the man in his house must be obeyed" is a fitting example. 58 This proverb perpetuates gender inequality in the household. Thus, one would agree with Masenya (Ngwan'a Mphahlele) that endorsing ubuntu entails a critic of forms of female oppression and implicitly supporting the liberation of women. 59

E CONCLUSION
That the Book of Jeremiah underwent a Dtr redaction process is conclusive. Although the Dtr scribes imposed the normativity of the Torah on the Book of Jeremiah, Jer 31:31-34 elevates prophecy. The composer of Jer 31:31-34 stresses the prophetic themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship which counter the Dtr themes of exclusion, inequality and "Deity/Mosespeople" relationship found in the Book of Deuteronomy. The argument that prophecy was of secondary importance to the Torah in the postexilic period may thus be demystified. The prophetic themes under consideration also received an authoritative status just as the Torah enjoyed normative status. The prophetic themes of inclusion, equality and covenantal relationship found in Jer 31:31-34 became critical restorative themes in the post-exilic period.
On a methodological level, this essay employed an African worldview that is pictured in a collection of Zulu wise sayings, proverbs, traditions and histories, named Inqolobane Yesizwe, as a point of reference for interpreting aspects of the ancient biblical text in the South African context. Read in the light of Inqolobane Yesizwe, the themes of forgiveness and restoration in Jer 31:31-34 which refute the prophecy of doom in the book of Deuteronomy and in the Dtr texts in Jeremiah are significant. Also, it is shown that the argument against the elevation of a human being to the level of a deity in Jer 31:31-34 would be compelling to the Zulu people. The theme of inclusion which contrasts markedly with exclusion in Deut 29:21-30:10 as well as in the Dtr texts in Jeremiah makes sense from the Zulu point of view. Additionally, Zulu people would appreciate the disproval of inequality in Jer 31:34.