Mark Leuchter, «Jeremiah’s 70-Year Prophecy and the ymq bl/K##Atbash Codes», Vol. 85 (2004) 503-522
Jeremiah’s famous 70-year prophecy (Jer 25,11-12; 29,10) and
the atbash codes (Jer 25,26; 51,1.41) have been the subject of much
scholarly discussion, with no consensus as to their provenance or meaning. An
important inscription from the reign of Esarhaddon suggests that they be viewed
as inter-related rhetorical devices. The Esarhaddon inscription, written in
relation to that king’s extensive building program in Babylon, contains both a
70-year decree and the Akkadian Cuneiform parallel to the Hebrew Alphabetic
atbash codes, claiming that the god Marduk had inverted the 70-year decree,
thus allowing Esarhaddon to rebuild the city. This inscription was likely well
known to the members of the Josianic court and the elite of Judean society who
were carried off to Babylon in 597 B.C.E. This suggests that Jeremiah’s 70-Year
prophecy and the atbash codes were employed to direct the prophet’s
audience to the Esarhaddon inscription and its implications with respect to
Babylonian hegemony as a matter of divine will.
Jeremiah’s 70-Year Prophecy
and the ymq bl/˚çç Atbash Codes
1. Current scholarly positions on the 70-year prophecy
Scholars have long been divided on the nature of Jeremiah’s famous
70-year prophecy (Jer 25,11-12; 29,10) concerning what is tradi-
tionally understood to refer to the duration of the Babylonian exile.
The dominant theories concerning this prophecy have suggested that it
is a retrospective composition postdating the prophet’s own lifetime.
Here scholars are divided. Some have argued that the author was a
scribe writing in the early period of Cyrus’s rise over Babylon (539
B.C.E.) — 70 years after the death of Josiah (609) — thus creating
messianic associations with Cyrus that would take shape more directly
in the work of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 45,1) and the Chronistic literature
(2 Chr 36,20-23, esp. v. 21); similar theories apply the dating scheme
from the fall of Nineveh to the fall of Babylon, with the same
ideological implications (1). Others have suggested that the Jeremianic
passages apply the prophecy to a later period, i.e., the construction/
completion of the 2nd Temple ca. 515, roughly 70 years after the exile
of 587 (2). In this case, the prophetic corpus is brought in line with
what was fast becoming a predominantly Zadokite voice in the
liturgical consciousness of the second commonwealth, with the
intention of curbing the harshness of earlier Jeremianic passages that
muted hope for the future (3).
An alternate theory has been suggested by B. D. Sommer, who
(1) See J. BRIGHT, Jeremiah (AB; New York 1965) 209; R.K. HARRISON,
Jeremiah and Lamentations (Winona Lake 1973) 126.
(2) See A. AEJMELAEUS, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The
Function of Jer. XXV 1-14 in the Book of Jeremiahâ€, VT 52 (2002) 475-476;
W.M. MCKANE, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC;
Edinburgh 1996) II, 737-738; C.F. WHITLEY, “The seventy years desolation – a
rejoinderâ€, VT 7 (1957) 416-418; ID., “The term seventy years captivityâ€, VT 4
(1954) 60-72.
(3) For a comprehensive analysis of the Zadokite influence over 2nd Temple
society, see G. BOCCACCINI, The Roots of Rabbinic Judaism (Grand Rapids 2002)
52-81. For the 70-year reference as a later scribal softening of earlier oracles, see
E.W. NICHOLSON, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah 1-25 (Cambridge 1975) 211;
J.M. BRACKE, Jeremiah 1-29 (Philadelphia 2000) 198.
FOLLOW US