The Anti-Yahweh Label laššāw’ in Jeremiah  (Part 2)

The traditional stance is that אושׁל in Jeremiah (2:30; 4:30; 6:29; 18:15 and 46:11) denotes futility, mostly translated as “in vain.” This study, the second of a sequel, scrutinises the last two texts (Jer 18:15 and 46:11) in an effort to substantiate and modify a recent hypothesis that the term is instead a reference to the god Baal, “The Vain/Worthless One.” Jeremiah 18:15 has an interpretative tradition that acknowledges אושׁל as a referent to the (worthless) idols. The present study offers a basis for this interpretation. As Egypt (in Jer 46) can hardly be connected to Baal worship, 46:11 modifies the notion that אושׁל functions as an identifier of the god Baal per se and confirms the wisdom of ancient translators of Jer 18:15 who labelled אושׁל as unspecified deities. The traditional stance that אושׁל denotes futility, could only be refuted in 46:11 by a search for intertextual clues, alertness to connecting metaphors and accompanying gender switches. These are the very same rhetorical devices illustrated in Mary Shields’ study of Jer 3:1–4:4. The title of her work harbours the insight that אושׁל in 46:11, and by implication in all MT Jeremiah texts, serves as a dense metaphor circumscribing the prostitute-in-covenant-relationship with her (collective or individual) overlord/s (ba‘al/b e ‘alîm).


INTRODUCTION
My seminal study concluded that laššāwʼ in Jeremiah (2:30, 4:30, 6:29, 18:15 and 46:11), together with the definite forms of šeqer, bošet and hebel (in combination with different prepositions), refers to the god Baʻal, as alternative proper names of the deity, most probably intended as pejoratives. 1 At the end of that study, further investigation into related MT Jeremiah texts is suggested, 2 which is partly taken up in the present study, published in two parts. This study (part 2) is an effort to support the interpretation of the term laššawʼ in Jeremiah as "in (covenantal) relation to" or "for the sake of" The Vain One (i.e. "The Worthless/Futile One" or "The Deception/Deceptive One"), 3 as a possible reference to Ba'al, over against the traditional popular interpretation "in vain." The texts under discussion are Jer 18: 15 and 46:11. 4

B JER 18:15
Until the beginning of the 20th century, most translations maintained different forms of "in vain" 5 for the Hebrew expression, ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָּׁ‬ ‫.ל‬ However, a second line of interpretation, connecting ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָּׁ‬ ‫ל‬ to idolatry, is vaguely discernible in Targum Jonathan, "For my people have forsaken my worship: they have offered up incense for what cannot profit," 6 that is, if it is assumed that the last clause ( ‫ָּׁא‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ָּׁאָּׁ‬ ‫ֲנ‬ ‫ַה‬ ‫)ל‬ refers to idolatry or idols. The Luther translation of 1534 appears to be the first explicit example of this second line of interpretation with "Sie räuchern den problematic side." See C. Wynand Retief, "The Deity in the Definite Article," 343-344. 3 Jerry Shepherd, ‫א"‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫שָּׁ‬ Šāwʼ" in volume 4 of NIDOTTE (ed. Willem VanGemeren; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 53-54 notes that ‫שוא‬ "seems to have two interrelated senses, namely ineffectiveness and falseness, the latter probably being derived from the idea that hopes and expectations prove false when placed in persons and things that are ineffective and therefore untrustworthy… In a few places the term seems to denote ineffectiveness without necessarily implying deceit or falsehood … In most places, however, the idea of falsehood or deceit is present, and perhaps primary." The two senses of the term are expressed in the titles of the articles of respectively Friedrich V. Reiterer The Liturgical Press, 1987), 101. Vulgata: "frustra libantes"; Geneva Bible (1599) -"they... have burnt incense to vanity"; Douay-Rheims 1610 (1749) -"they sacrificed in vain"; KJV (1611) "they have burned incense to vanity"; Statenvertaling 1750 (1637): "zij roken der ijdelheid"; Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (1917) -"They offer unto vanity." Göttern" (own emphasis -CWR). Since then a number of translations have followed suit. 7 It seems obvious that these translators worked on the premise that the proposition ‫ל‬ in ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָּׁ‬ ‫ל‬ in the combination ‫ל-‬ ‫קטר‬ indicates the object of worship to which the incense offerings are offered, with the implication that ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָּׁ‬ ‫ל‬ cannot simply be describing the futility of the religious ceremony. In other words, ‫א*‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫שָּׁ‬ ‫הַ‬ is acknowledged as the object or recipient of sacrifices. The polemic rhetoric of the cultic setting is a clear indication that this object is a deity other than Yahweh; in semantic terms a vain, worthless, idol. Interpreters who connect the idol(s) to Baʻal 8 make this move apparently without realising the rhetorical implications of the grammatical definiteness of the abstract noun šāw'. 9 The definite article determining the noun is simply ignored. 10

C JER 46:11
The subject matter of verse 11, namely an attempt at healing with reference to the balm of Gilead (also 8:22, implicated in 51:8; see also Gen 37:25), is intertextually connected to passages in Jeremiah addressing the plight of  and Babylon (51:8-9). The "Virgin daughter of Egypt," ‫ם‬ ‫יִ‬ ‫רַ‬ ‫צְ‬ ‫ת-מִ‬ ‫ּבַ‬ ‫ַת‬ ‫תּול‬ ‫ּבְ‬ is ordered to "go up," ‫עלי‬ (to) Gilead to get balm. The imperative ‫עלי‬ is foregrounded as the fifth repetition of the specific verb occurring four times in verses 7-9, albeit with different nuances, but probably with the same intention. Verse 11 should therefore be interpreted as part of a poem, 11 designated by Holladay as "a mocking song (vv. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] taunting Egypt for its lack of prowess in the battle of Carchemish." 12 The command to ‫ם‬ ‫יִ‬ ‫רַ‬ ‫צְ‬ ‫ת-מִ‬ ‫ּבַ‬ ‫ַת‬ ‫תּול‬ ‫ּבְ‬ to "go up," is clearly an ironic depiction of the "rise," which is the fall, of Egypt, in line with other ironic terminology 13 connected to ‫,עלה‬ referring to Egypt: the Nile [as chaos waters?] (vv. 7-8) and its horses (v. 9). 14 Further elements of mockery could be present in the words following the command for "Virgin Daughter Egypt" to "go up" (to Gilead) for healing balm. Holladay detects this in the first word of the line ‫ְך׃‬ ָֽ ‫לָּׁ‬ ‫ין‬ ֵ֥ ‫אֵ‬ ‫ָ֖ה‬ ‫ָּׁלָּׁ‬ ‫ע‬ ‫תְ‬ ‫ות‬ ‫ֻאֹֹּ֔‬ ‫פ‬ ְ ‫ר‬ 15 ‫ֵּ֣יתי‬ ‫ּבֵ‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ‫הִ‬ ‫א‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ַשָּׁ‬ ‫,ל‬ which he (like most translations) translates as "In vain you multiply remedies, new skin none for you." The last element achieving mockery, according to Holladay, is "the emphatic 'in vain' in verse 11 as a judgment on all the efforts of Egypt." 16 Lundbom, also reading ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָּׁ‬ ‫ל‬ as "in vain," typifies the irony as "epitrope," feigned support for an action known to bring harm or to be of no avail. 17 Therefore, ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָּׁ‬ ‫ל‬ read as "in vain," apparently supports the mocking, ironic, even sarcastic, tone of the passage. The point, however, is that these viewpoints work with the presupposition, fortified by centuries of repetition, that ‫וא‬ ‫ַשָּׁ‬ ‫ל‬ signifies futility. A new, incisive look at the text is necessary in the effort to prove our proposition that the Masoretic vocalisation of ‫לשוא‬ was intentional as to the referential function of the lexeme throughout the entire text of MT Jeremiah.
Let us start with the core phrase in verse 11b: ‫א‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ַשָּׁ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ֵּ֣יתי‬ ‫ּבֵ‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ‫הִ‬ ‫ְך‬ ָֽ ‫לָּׁ‬ ‫ין‬ ֵ֥ ‫אֵ‬ ‫ָ֖ה‬ ‫ָּׁלָּׁ‬ ‫ע‬ ‫תְ‬ ‫ות‬ ‫ֻאֹֹּ֔‬ ‫פ‬ ְ ‫.ר‬ Lundbom 18 observed that the ṭaʿămê hammiqrā' of Jer 30:13 combines ‫תעלה‬ ‫,רפאות‬ which should preferably be followed in 46:11b (pace BHS) to serve as the subject of the second colon ( ‫רפאות‬ ‫תעלה‬ ‫אין‬ ‫לְך‬ = "you do not have medicines for scar-healing"). ‫רפאות‬ is accordingly not the object of ‫יתי‬ ‫ּבֵ‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ‫.הִ‬ The reading of LXX, T and modern translations, which follows the MT in 46:11, relies on a ṭaʿămê hammiqrā', which is inconsistent with its first occurrence in MT Jeremiah, and therefore questionable. Lundbom's own solution for the perceived first colon clause ‫הרביתי‬ ‫לשוא‬ is to combine the verb with the verbs in the preceding line, translating it with "in vain you keep doing it" (i.e. going up to Gilead to collect balm). This move by Lundbom is unconvincing and, in the light of this study, unnecessary. The fact is that the verb ‫]הרביתי[‬ is not standing alone, as it appears to Lundbom 19 , but does have a qualifier preceding it, namely ‫.לשוא‬ This of course is only visible when the referential value of the lexeme is recognised. ‫הרביתי‬ ‫לשוא‬ would then read, "You have multiplied (those with) covenantal ties with 'The Worthless One'..." To make meaning of this, the exegetical tools pertaining to "The Rhetorics of Intertextuality, Metaphor and Gender," as well illustrated by Mary Shields in her study on Jer 3:1-4:4, 20 can prove fruitful.
In the present study, only a few pointers should suffice. The question is: which other texts speak metaphorically in disparate terms about "the multiplication" of ties to god(s), maybe even switching gender within the metaphoric cluster? It seems that "dialogue with the tradition, both absorbing it and transforming it, even transgressing it, [as] a rhetorical strategy" 21 is also true of Jer 46:3-12 in its use of Ezek 16 and its sister passage, Ezek 23, together with the help of other informative background texts.
1. The 'multiplication of (ties with) gods' in terms of ‫רבה‬ hiphil + disparaging name of god/s (as object) is evident in Ezek 16. Jerusalem/Judah is accused three times of 'multiplying' her idolatrous prostitution in the phrase, ‫י‬ ‫ּבִ‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ‫ַתַ‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ְך‬ ‫ֻתֵ‬ ‫ְנ‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ת-תַ‬ ‫אֶ‬ -"you multiply your prostitution" (Ezek 16:25, 26, 29 2. At this point, the reference in Ezek 23:19-20 to Egypt with its oversized male organs of lust in equestrian terms 24 is intertextually related to both Ezek 16:26 and the imperatives ‫פרשים‬ ‫עלו‬ and ‫הסוסים‬ ‫עלו‬ in Jer 46:4, 9. This intertextual connection only becomes visible once it is realised that ‫ַד‬ ‫ע‬ ‫לְ‬ ‫גִ‬ ‫י‬ ‫ַלִ‬ ‫עְ‬ in verse 11, interpreted as imperative + object, "Go up to Gilead," determines the interpretation of the syntax of the preceding ‫עלה‬ imperatives. 25 This insight seems to be absent thus far, as is evident from the inconsistency of translations. 26 While a number of translations understand the substantives connected to ‫עלה‬ in verses 4 and 9 to be subjects (vocatives), the consensus is that this is not true of ‫גלעד‬ ‫עלי‬ in verse 11 and that the LXX "went astray in the syntax here, understanding 'Gilead' as a vocative parallel to the vocatives in v 9." 27 The logic of this discomfort of all other versions with the LXX, even the Vulgate, is that the (further) order to Virgin Daughter Egypt to fetch balsam, lies in its reference to the renowned balsam of Gilead (Jer 8:22, Gen 37:25). Thus, Gilead indicates the geographical target of ‫עלי‬ and cannot be the addressee (according to LXX). Furthermore, there are multiple texts where the geographical target is indicated without any prepositional indicator or directional he after (different forms of) 22 Rather than the traditional "your neighbours," ‫שכניְך‬ in a sexual-religious metaphor is "your shrine-dwellers," that is, those taking their presence in your holy space, 'tent' ‫ל‬ ‫הֶ‬ ‫.אֹּ‬ Oholibah, "My tent is in her" (Ezek 23) would be, within the frame of meaning of this text, the name given to Jerusalem from the stance of her male sexual partner, referring to her (holy!) vagina, which is (to be) inhabited (filled!) by his (holy!) lifecreating sexual organ. Whereas, Isa 6:2-3, for example, uses discreet language, maintaining the gravitas of Yahweh's holiness ["his seams ‫כנפים(‬ // ‫)שולים‬ fills the temple, and ‫כבוד‪his‬‬ fills the whole earth/land], Ezek 16 // 23 unscrupulously and pornographically describes the course sexual overtureswith its intertextual implications in Jer 46. 23 ‫בשר‬ in this context = penis. 24 The author of Jer 46 apparently reads ‫בשרם‬ ‫בשר-חמורים‬ and ‫זרמתם‬ ‫סוסים‬ ‫וזרמת‬ as poetic parallelisms, emphasising the same oversized "sexual organ of a horse/donkey." 25 A systematic study of ‫עלה‬ without prepositions to the object should confirm this notion. 26 The imperatives ‫עלו‬ is rendered (therefore conceptualised) in a variety of ways, while (1) both substantives connected to the imperative ‫עלו‬ ‫הפרשים(‬ v 4, and ‫הסוסים‬ v 9) are interpreted as subjects (vocatives), e.g. LXX, Vulgate, Afr53, KJV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, ASV, HSV 2010, Afr2020, Lundbom, Thompson; (2) the substantive in verse 4 is understood as object and in verse 9 as subject (vocative), e.g. Afr83, NIV NASV, Holladay; (3) ‫הפרשים‬ verse 4 as subject and ‫הסוסים‬ in v 9 as object (Luther 1545(Luther , 1984(Luther , 2017; (4) both substantives as objects, e.g. NBV 2004. 27 Holladay,, 321.
‫.עלה‬ 28 As noted, a study on ‫עלה‬ directly connected to its intended target-object should add additional intertexual support for Gilead as the place where "Virgin Daughter Egypt" is ordered to 'ascend to.' 3. A strategy of rereading in the light of additional texts, either from outside, and/or further on in the text, would ensure that the subject-addressees and targetobjects of verse 11 "Go up (Virgin Daughter Egypt) to Gilead" is consistently read back into verse 4-9. The horses then become the target-object to be mounted. The addressee-subjects ordered to do so, are not mentioned, which is rhetorically significant. 29 The 'red light zone' of Ezek 16/23 is reflected in the six-fold ‫עלה‬ (Jer 46:4-11) that takes the lead in sexual innuendo-in this case, through the metaphorical vehicles of horses-to-be-mounted (vv. 4a, 9) and the Nile-to-mount (vv. 7-8), against the backdrop of a battle (v. 4b), which turns out to be the prophetic day of Yahweh's judgment (v. 10).
In verses 7-8 and finally in verse 11, the picture comes out of the paint. The unidentified military personnel who were ordered to mount war-horses (vv. 4-6, 9) intertextually, the lustful Egyptian 'horses' with which Jerusalem/Judah/ Oholibah had illicit sexual intercoursefirstly manifest as Egypt, eager that "I will rise up" and "toss myself about," 30 "cover" the earth, and finally "destroy a city and its inhabitants." Aware of the pornographic allusions from Ezekiel, it takes little effort to identify all these verbs as oblique 'euphemistic' allusions to sex acted out with increasing violent movements and a notion of all-encompassing virility (fertility), ending up in an orgasm of (military) destruction of its object of lust.
After "the massive theological assertion" 31 celebrating Yahweh's eventual military victory with bloody sacrifice (v. 10), a final manifestation of Egypt is called up in the mocking song. The gender changes abruptly from Egypt as the epitome of male sexual overlord and violator to that of a sexually innocent, even ignorant, unmarried ‫ם‬ ‫יִ‬ ‫רַ‬ ‫צְ‬ ‫ת-מִ‬ ‫ּבַ‬ ‫ַת‬ ‫תּול‬ ‫ּבְ‬ "Virgin Daughter-of-Egypt." Her role, however, is much more than an agent of healing (as assumed from a first-  12 = 2 Chr 18:11. 29 In the politico-military reading of the text, they may be, by inference, the Egyptian (Thompson, Bright, Lundbom) or even the Babylonian armies (Holladay, Brueggemann). These are, however, assumptions made by association. 30 The verb ‫געש‬ is described as a "process by which humans or objects move up and down or to and froto shake; to toss about." See MARBLE ( impression reading); she is called up to enact the same role as the unidentified 'mountaineers ' (vv. 4, 9) and the Egyptian Nile-like sexual pervert (vv. 7-8). She, like them all, is to perform the act of ‫,עלה‬ to 'mount' Gilead-and take its balm. The sexually loaded deeper level of interpretation raises the expectation that ‫צרי‬ may, apart from its literal medicinal meaning, be a reference to an aphrodisiac. Indeed, it seems that Oholiba of Ezek 16 -building herself 'a height,' ‫רמה‬ ‫רמות-גלעד(‬ comes to mind!) with the implication to 'go up' and explicitly 'commit abomination' ‫תעב‬ (vv. 24-25)is here replaced by "Virgin Daughter-of-Egypt." Her presumably innocent virgin status is apparently an ironic, even sarcastic slant to the 'healing,' a likely form of satire. 32 4. Gilead and its healing balm gets a deeper metaphorical meaning strengthening the case of Egypt's involvement in 'prostitutional' idolatry once the intertexual links to a number of texts are uncovered. The following additional, side remarks all come together to label Gilead in Jer 46:11 as such. • Judges 10:8 states that the Israelites who were beyond the Jordan in the land of the Amorite(s), in Gilead ( ‫ץ‬ ‫רֶ‬ ֵ֥ ‫אֶ‬ ‫ּבְ‬ ‫י‬ ָ֖ ִ ‫ר‬ ‫ֱמֹּ‬ ‫א‬ ‫הָּׁ‬ ‫ר‬ ֵ֥ ‫ֲשֶ‬ ‫א‬ ‫ד‬ ָֽ ‫עָּׁ‬ ‫לְ‬ ‫גִ‬ ‫ּבַ‬ ) were oppressed. Irrespective of how one interprets the relative constructions in this verse, Gilead is directly connected to ‫האמרי‬ as its habitat.

•
In another side remark, in the retelling of Ahab's violent and murderous take-over of Naboth's vineyard and the subsequent curse on Ahab, • Ezekiel 16 together with chapter 23 is connected to ‫רבה‬ hiphil and ‫עלה‬ in Jer 46:11. A curious remark in Ezek 16:3 states "your father was 'the Amorite' ‫)האמרי(‬ and your mother a Hittite ‫ית(‬ ‫תִ‬ ‫,)חִ‬ repeated in verse 45 in reverse order in the plural "your (plural) mother was a Hittite ‫ית(‬ ‫תִ‬ ‫,)חִ‬ and your (plural) father 'an Amorite' ‫.)אמרי(‬ John van Seters 34 concludes that this name combination coincides with Assyrian and Babylonian texts before the first millennium BCE, does not correlate with 8th-6th century inhabitants of Palestine, and is therefore probably taken over by Israelite writers as an ideological rather than historical reference to designate, in prophetic perspective, the ancient idolatrous nations which Yahweh expelled from the land of Palestine. According to Van Seters, the terms Amorite and Hittite are used with a pejorative intention. 35 The function of these designations in Ezek 16 is, via the above-mentioned and other texts, 36 the bridge to Gilead as the ideological centre of anti-Yahweh worship by the nations, all eventually expelled or to be expelled by Yahweh. Egypt is part and parcel of these nations. Is Egypt not resolving to 'go up' (in a formidable act of fertility religion 'to cover the whole land') "like the Nile" (vv. 7-8)? With the same intention "Virgin Daughter Egypt" is apparently exhorted to 'go up' to Gilead to take 'balm' (aphrodisiac to enhance her metaphorical prostitution?) (v. 11).

Conclusion
A rich tapestry of intertextuality, metaphor and gender switch, in this study triggered and necessitated by the reading of ‫לשוא‬ as "The Worthless One," portrays Egypt's downfall at the hand of Babylon as Yahweh's judgement on those that oppose his lordship and associate themselves with *haššāw' as is the case with Israel/Judah/Jerusalem in the preceding texts (Jer 2:30; 4:30; 6:29; 18:15). While it is possible, even obvious, to connect *haššāw' to the Baal (or the Baals) of Judah's worship in the first four ‫לשוא‬ texts, the object of Egypt's worship, on pure historical grounds, makes a direct connection to the god Baal most unlikely. Jeremiah 46:11 is therefore a correction of the notion that ‫לשוא‬ is an identification marker of a specific deity and indirectly confirms the wisdom of ancient translators of Jer 18:15 who labelled ‫לשוא‬ as unspecified deities. 37 This last reference to ‫לשוא‬ in Jer (46:11) is a reminder that ‫לשוא‬ is an oblique and disparaging allusion to the object of (misplaced) worship, adoration, trust in ‫אחרים‬ ‫אלהים‬in covenantal terms ‫בעלים‬ / ‫בעל‬in opposition and total contrast to Yahweh the Trustworthy One. The interpretative keys to unlock the theological intent of ‫לשוא‬ are surprisingly the same as those used by Mary Shields in "Circumscribing the Prostitute": a keen eye for multiple intertextual references and allusions, interacting metaphors and gender switches. On a philosophical level, a comparison of the present study with that of Shields 38 nudges the insight that ‫לשוא‬ is, in essence, a dense metaphor circumscribing the prostitute-in-covenantrelationship with her (collective or individual) overlord, ba'al, emphasising the dishonourable and disparaging name she allows herself to be subjected to.