Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Full Access The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool for Literary-Critical Analysis

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool for Literary-Critical Analysis

Full text article:

  • PDF
  • XML
Add to Favorites

image of Vetus Testamentum

AbstractThose who disagree with the accepted theory that LXX reflects an ancient Hebrew version of Jeremiah usually point to the greater coherency of MT as proof of its primacy. This study shows the lack of coherency in MT, stemming from the complexity of the text from a literary-critical perspective, and attempts to answer the question of whether LXX can be used in the literary-critical analysis of MT. At least regarding the passage under discussion (Jer 25:1-14), this question must be answered in the negative. It appears that LXX reflects an adapted and “flattened” version of the text. Without the “rough” version found in MT, a version which preserves the tensions and the seams created in the course of the literary growth of the text, it would be likewise impossible to understand the lack of coherence found in LXX.

1. FN11) J. G. Eichhorn, “Bemerkungen über den Text des Propheten Jeremias”, Repertorium für Biblische und Morgenländische Litteratur 1 (1777), pp. 141-168. This article had been continued and republished in a revised and expanded form in Eichhorn’s first edition of volume 3 of his Einleitung ins Alte Testament (Leipzig 1783); see especially pp. 157-207. See also A. Scholz, Der masorethische Text und die LXX-Übersetzung des Buches Jeremias (Regensburg 1875), pp. 3-4, and more recently F. D. Hubmann, “Bemerkungen zur älteren Diskussion um die Unterschiede zwischen MT und G im Jeremiabuch”, in Walter Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung” (BBB 98; Weinheim, 1995), pp. 263-270.
2. FN22) For overviews of scholarship that supported this view, see J. G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge, 1973), pp. 1-9; P.-M. Bogaert, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours”, RB 101 (1994), pp. 363-406; B. Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker: Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46-49 (FAT 20; Tübingen 1997), pp. 48-64; R. D. Weis, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah”, in Y. A. P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij and R. D. Weis (eds.), Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (VTSup 110; Leiden, 2006), pp. 269-293; G. Fischer, Jeremia: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt, 2007), pp. 17-53.
3. FN33) This fragment contains parts of Jer 9:22-10:21; see E. Tov, “4QJer a-e”, in E. Ulrich et al. (eds.), Qumrân Cave 4, X (DJD 15; Oxford, 1997), pp. 171-176.
4. FN44) This fragment contains parts of Jer 43:2-10; see E. Tov, (n. 3), pp. 203-205.
5. FN55) Janzen (n. 2), pp. 181-184; E. Tov, “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur la critique littéraire dans le livre de Jérémie”, RB 79 (1972), pp. 189-199; idem, “Exegetical notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27 (34)”, ZAW 91 (1979), pp. 73-93 (reprinted in E. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint [Leiden, 1999]); idem, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of its Textual History”, in J. H. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 211-237 (reprinted in Tov, Greek and Hebrew Bible); idem, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah”, in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (2nd edn., Leuven, 1997), pp. 145-167; idem, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (2nd edn., Jerusalem,1997), pp. 243-245; P.-M. Bogaert, “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les deux rédactions conservées du Livre de Jérémie”, in P.-M. Bogaert, Le Livre de Jérémie, pp. 168-173, 430-432; idem, “La liste des nations dans l’oracle de la coupe (Jr 25,16-26): Juda, les peuples voisins et les grandes puissances”, in D. Böhler, I. Himbaza, P. Hugo (eds.), L’Écrit et l’esprit: Études d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en hommage à Adrian Schenker (Fribourg/Göttingen, 2001), pp. 59-74; idem, “Les mécanismes rédactionnels en Jér 10,1-16 (LXX et TM) et la signification des supplements”, in P.-M. Bogaert, Le Livre de Jérémie, pp. 222-238, 433-434; idem, “Jérémie 17,1-4 TM: Oracle contre ou sur Juda propre au texte long, annoncé en 11,7-8.13 TM et en 15,12-14 TM”, in Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger (eds.), La double transmission du texte biblique: Études d’histoire du texte, offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker (Fribourg/Göttingen, 2005) pp. 1-14.
6. FN66) G. Fischer, Das Trostbüchlein: Text, Komposition und Theologie von Jer 30-31 (Stuttgart 1993), pp. 2-6; idem, Stand (n. 2), pp. 21-22, 24; see also W. McKane, “The History of the Text of Jeremiah 10,1-16”, in A. Caquot et al. (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215; Neukirchen, 1985), pp. 297-304; J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 21A ; New York, 1999), pp. 580-582. However, compare H.-J. Stipp, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches: Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte (Göttingen, 1994), pp. 3-4, 12-13, 92-93.
7. FN77) For example, cf. K. Schmid, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30-33 im Kontext des Buches (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1996), p. 15; A. van der Kooij, “Zum Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik: Überlegungen anhand einiger Beispiele”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995 (VTSup 66; Leiden, 1997), p. 192 n. 16.
8. FN88) Tov (n. 3), pp. 145-170.
9. FN99) Tov (n. 3), p. 151.
10. FN1010) According to A. HaCohen, 4Q70 reflects an independent version that is not directly related to previously known versions of Jeremiah. “4QJera—A Pre-Massoretic Text?” Textus 17 (1994), pp. 1-8.
11. FN1111) Tov (n. 3), pp. 152, 154.
12. FN1212) Lundbom (n. 6), p. 61; idem, Jeremiah 37-52 (AB 21C; New York, 2004) p. XIV.
13. FN1313) W. F. Albright, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII”, VT 9 (1959), 339-346.
14. FN1414) Lundbom (n. 12), Jeremiah 37-52, p. XIV.
15. FN1515) See n. 5. See also A. Schenker, “Nebukadnezzars Metamorphose vom Unterjocher zum Gottesknecht”, RB 89 (1982), pp. 498-527; idem, Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten: Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel, von der Textgeschichte zu Theologie, Synagoge und Kirche (FRLANT 212; Göttingen, 2006); L. Laberge, “Jérémie 25,1-14: Dieu et Juda ou, Jérémie et tous les peuples”, Science et Esprit 36 (1984), pp. 45-66; B. L. Stulman, “Some Theological and Lexical Differences Between the Old Greek and the MT of the Jeremiah Prose Discourses”, Hebrew Studies 25 (1984), pp. 18-23; idem, The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah with English Translation (Lanham, 1985); B. Gosse, “La malédiction contre Babylone de Jérémie 51,59-64 et les rédactions du livre de Jérémie”, ZAW 98 (1986), pp. 383-399; idem, “Jérémie 17,1-5a dans la rédaction massorétique du livre de Jérémie”, Estudios Bíblicos 53 (1995), pp. 165-180; A. R. P. Diamond, “Jeremiah’s confessions in the LXX and MT: A witness to developing canonical function?” VT 40 (1990), pp. 33-50; Y. Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil: Les origines littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie, (Freiburg-Göttingen, 1992); B. Becking, “Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation—a Textual Comparison: Notes on the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek Version of Jeremiah XXX-XXXI”, VT 44 (1994), pp. 145-169 (revised and reprinted in B. Becking, Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30-31 [OTS 51; Leiden, 2004], pp. 11-48); J. Lust, “The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah and History Writing with Jer 33 as a Test Case”, JNSL 20 (1994), pp. 31-48; A. Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer. XXV 1-14 in the Book of Jeremiah”, VT 52 (2002), pp. 459-482; eadem, “ ‘Nebuchadnezzar, my Servant’: Redaction History and Textual Development in Jer 27”, in F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne (eds.), Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (Leuven, 2005), 1-18; R. D. Wells, “Dislocations in Time and Ideology in the Reconception of Jeremiah’s Words: The Encounter with Hananiah in the Septuagint ‘Vorlage’ and the Masoretic text”, in J. Goldingay (ed.), Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen (New York, 2007), pp. 322-350; H. Engel, “Erfahrungen mit der LXX-Fassung des Jeremiabuches im Rahmen des Projektes ‘Septuaginta Deutsch,’” in H.-J. Fabry and D. Böhler (eds.), Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta; Band 3: Studien zur Theologie, Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der Griechischen Bibel (Stuttgart, 2007), pp. 80-96.
16. FN1616) E.g. Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), 92-144 et passim; idem, “Linguistic Peculiarities of the Masoretic Edition of the Book of Jeremiah”, JNSL 23 (1997), pp. 181-202; idem, Deuterojeremianische Konkordanz (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 63; St. Ottilien, 1998); idem, “Sprachliche Kennzeichen jeremianischer Autorschaft”, in H. M. Barstad and R. G. Kratz (eds.), Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (BZAW 388; Berlin, 2009), pp. 148-186.
17. FN1717) “L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique”, in J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey (eds.), Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (STDJ 73; Leiden, 2008), pp. 93-108. Despite this, Joosten admits that some of the deviations from classical biblical Hebrew toward later Hebrew are found in verses common to both MT and LXX (ibid., pp. 105, 107).
18. FN1818) Such as B. Gosse, “Trois étapes de la rédaction du livre de Jérémie”, ZAW 111 (1999), pp. 508-529.
19. FN1919) Such as W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC 19; Edinburgh, 1986), pp. l-li, lxii, lxxxi-lxxxiii; Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), pp. 137-140.
20. FN2020) See R. C. Steiner, “The Two Sons of Neriah and the Two Editions of Jeremiah in the Light of Two ‘Atbash’ Code-Words for Babylon”, VT 46 (1996), pp. 74-84; C. J. Sharp, “ ‘Take Another Scroll and Write’: A Study of the LXX and the MT of Jeremiah’s Oracles Against Egypt and Babylon”, VT 47 (1997), pp. 487-516. See also J. R. Lundbom’s opinion as it is formulated in one of the Vorarbeiten to his interpretation of Jeremiah: “Baruch, Seraiah, and Expanded Colophons in the Book of Jeremiah”, JSOT 36 (1986), pp. 89-114. The scholars T. W. Overholt (“King Nebuchadnezzar in the Jeremiah Tradition”, CBQ 30 [1968], pp. 39-48), A. van Selms (“Telescoped Discussion as a Literary Device in Jeremiah”, VT 26 [1976], pp. 99-112), and G. L. Archer, (“The Relationship Between the Septuagint Translation and the Massoretic Text in Jeremiah”, Trinity Journal N. S. 12 [1991], p. 141), have continued and refined J. G. Eichhorn’s theory mentioned in the beginning of this article.
21. FN2121) Tov (n. 5), “Literary History”, p. 216. Among the examples of genuine Jeremianic material, Tov notes the prophecy in Jer 33:14-26, which is missing from LXX, and certain particulars such as the patronymics in the name Ahab son of Qolaya and the name Zidkiyahu son of Ma’aseya (Jer 29:21), a description of ‘Ebed Melek as a eunuch (Jer 38:7) and the official title “Baruch son of Neriahu the scribe” (Jer 36:32) which is surprisingly similar to the bulla found in the archaeological dig of the city of David in 1978 (“to Berachiahu son of Neriah the scribe”); cf. N. Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 28-29; Tov (n. 5), “Literary History”, pp. 220, 222, 223; Steiner (n. 20), pp. 77-78.—G. Fischer sees this as proof that MT reflects the version of Jeremiah that is closer to the original; “Zum Text des Jeremiabuches”, Biblica, 78 (1997), pp. 313-314. Tov admits that “we do not know why this Jeremianic material had not previously entered edition I [LXX version] and why or how it was preserved” (ibid., p. 219).
22. FN2222) See e.g. E. Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” in A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers, Mississauga, Ont. 1984, pp. 57-59, 61-63 et passim (reprinted in Tov [n. 5], Greek and Hebrew Bible); B. Becking, “Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation: A Textual Comparison. Notes on the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek Version of Jeremiah XXX-XXXI”, VT 44 (1994), pp. 152-154; Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), pp. 55-56; idem, “Zur aktuellen Diskussion um das Verhältnis der Textformen des Jeremiabuches”, in M. Karrer and W. Kraus, Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (WUNT 219; Tübingen, 2008), p. 652. A. G. Shead supposes similarly (The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions [JSOTSup 347; London, 2002]).
23. FN2323) See e.g. Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), pp. 90-91; idem, “Das judäische und das babylonische Jeremiabuch”, in A. Lemaire, Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (VTS 133; Leiden 2010), p. 241.
24. FN2424) See, for example, M. J. Dahood, review of J. G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, Biblica 56 (1975), pp. 429-431; M. Margaliot, “Jeremiah X 1-16: A Re-Examination”, VT 30 (1980), pp. 295-308; S. Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis (JSOTSup 47; Sheffield, 1985); C. Levin, Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (Göttingen, 1985), pp. 69-72; C. R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah”, ZAW 101 (1989), pp. 3-27; C. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas (BZAW 187; Berlin-New York, 1990); G. L. Archer (n. 20), pp. 139-150; Schmid (n. 7), pp. 15-23; A. Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité littéraire du livre de Baruch (Ebib, nouvelle série 38; Paris, 1998); B. Renaud, “L’oracle de la nouvelle alliance: À propos des divergences entre le texte hébreu (Jr 31,31-34) et le texte grec (38,31-34)”, in J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible (BETL 144; Leuven, 1999), pp. 85-98.
25. FN2525) Fischer, Trostbüchlein (n. 6), pp. 2-6; idem, “Jer 25 und die Fremdvölkersprüche: Unterschiede zwischen hebräischem und griechischem Text”, Biblica 72 (1991), pp. 474-499; idem (n. 21), pp. 305-328; idem, Jeremia 1-25 (HTKAT; Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 2005), pp. 39-46; idem, Stand (n. 2), pp. 17-53; idem, “Die Diskussion um den Jeremiatext”, in M. Karrer and W. Kraus, Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (WUNT 219; Tübingen, 2008), pp. 630-653.
26. FN2626) A. Rofé, “Text-Criticism within the Philological-Historical Dscipline: The Problem of the Double Text of Jeremiah” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 78 (2008), pp. 5-25; see also idem, “The Arrangement of the Book of Jeremiah”, ZAW 101 (1989) pp. 390-398; idem, “The Name ‘YHWH Seba’ôt’ and the Shorter Recension of Jeremiah”, in R. Liwak and S. Wagner (eds.), Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel (FS S. Herrmann; Stuttgart, 1991), pp. 307-316; idem, “Not Exile but Annihilation for Zedekiah’s People: The Purport of Jeremiah 52 in the Septuagint”, in L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (eds.), VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Paris 1992, SBLSCS 41; Atlanta, 1995), pp. 165-170.
27. FN2727) Rofé (n. 26), pp. 24-25; see also D. L. Christensen, “In Quest of the Autograph of the Book of Jeremiah: A Study of Jeremiah 25 in Relation to Jeremiah 46-51”, JETS 33 (1990), pp. 145-153; D. J. Reimer, The Oracles Against Babylon in Jeremiah 50-51: A Horror Among the Nations (San Francisco, 1993), pp. 153-155; W. H. Schmidt, Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 1-20 (ATD 20; Göttingen, 2008), p. 41. In fact, this mediating position was the most common approach until the middle of the 20th century and was adopted by most commentaries, such as those by F. Hitzig, B. Duhm, F. Giesebrecht, P. Volz, W. Rudolph, J. Bright and J. A. Thompson.
28. FN2828) A. van der Kooij, “Jeremiah 27:5-15: How Do MT and LXX Relate to Each Other?” JNSL 20 (1994), pp. 59-78; idem (n. 7), pp. 185-202.
29. FN2929) For example, see van der Kooij, (n. 28), p. 68 ref. Jer 27, 8: “This means that the textcritical plus of MT over against LXX is not the same clause as the redactional plus of MT. The fact that LXX reflects the Hebrew text including the redactional addition, means that MT verse 8 attests the primary text.”
30. FN3030) Van der Kooij (n. 28), p. 76.
31. FN3131) For example, see W. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25 (WMANT 41; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973), pp. 264-264; C. Levin (n. 24), p. 71; A. van der Kooij (n. 28), pp. 68-72; Schmid (n. 7), pp. 19-23.
32. FN3232) J. R. Lundbom, “Haplography in the Hebrew ‘Vorlage’ of LXX Jeremiah”, Hebrew Studies 46 (2005), pp. 301-320. See also n. 14 above.
33. FN3333) J. R. Lundbom (n. 6), p. 59.
34. FN3434) Translations generally follow Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia, 1985). However, when focusing on a particular phrase or word we have used our own translation in order to maintain the literal nature of the text.
35. FN3535) D. P. Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia übersetzt und erklärt (KAT 10; 2nd edn., Leipzig, 1928), p. 252. This is contra B. Duhm’s proposal that the original base text of Jer 25:1-14 was a summary of Baruch’s scroll; B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (KHCAT 11; Tübingen, 1901), p. 200.
36. FN3636) According to S. Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Kristiania, 1914), pp. 13-14, it is clear that the author of Jer 25:1-14 based his composition on the event described in ch. 36, but the author of 25:1-14 did not possess a detailed tradition of the event and was not familiar with the text of ch. 36. A. Rofé, “Studies on the Composition of the Book of Jeremiah” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 44 (1974/5), pp. 1-29, also sees the two texts as independent compositions reflecting the same event, similar to the relationship between 21:1-7 and 37:3-10 and the relationship between 7:1-15 and 26:1-19. However, compare idem (n. 26), “Arrangement”, p. 393 n. 15: “The original text of 25,1-13 (. . .) is the Deuteronomistic rhetorical elaboration of ch. 36.” Also compare H. Birkeland, Zum hebräischen Traditionswesen: Die Komposition der prophetischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Oslo, 1938), p. 46; J. P. Hyatt, “The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah”, Vanderbilt Studies in Humanities 1 (1951), p. 85; Thiel (n. 31), p. 270.
37. FN3737) Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), pp. 104-105, 138, 141 et passim; idem, Deuterojeremianische Konkordanz (n. 16); idem (n. 23), “Das judäische und das babylonische Jeremiabuch”, pp. 239-264.
38. FN3838) As, for example, in 29:1; 45:1; 47:1.
39. FN3939) This impression is strengthened through the repetition of the words “to all the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” in v. 2, after v. 1 already mentioned the audience of the prophecy (“to all the people of Judah”). (But in contrast see Huwyler [n. 2], pp. 338-339.) The phrase עַל כָּל עַם יְהוּדָה appears nowhere else in Jeremiah; there is one appearance of the phrase אֶל כָּל עַם יְהוּדָה (26:18).
40. FN4040) Despite the similarity, this is not an example of identical copying, a familiar phenomenon in Jeremiah, both MT and LXX; see Tov (n. 5), “Literary History”, p. 219 (“Repetition of Sections”).
41. FN4141) Compare Volz (n. 35), p. 252.
42. FN4242) Similar to 35:14; also compare 11:7; 32:33.
43. FN4343) Accordingly, in v. 8 God introduces the nation’s punishment “because you did not listen to my words” (יַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם אֶת דְּבָרָי).
44. FN4444) Contrast the description of “his servants the prophets” who are sent and who function “from the day your fathers left the land of Egypt until today . . . daily and persistently” (7:25) to Jeremiah who has spoken “from the thirteenth year of Josiah . . . until today . . . and spoke persistently” (25:3).
45. FN4545) Compare Thiel (n. 31), p. 267.
46. FN4646) This original context is similar to that of ch. 25 (וְשִׁכַּנְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם לְמִן עוֹלָם וְעַד עוֹלָם).
47. FN4747) Of course, the redactor intentionally deleted the dative pronoun אֵלַי from the Vorlage of 25:4 due to his awareness of the need to consistently convert first person divine speech to the third person perspective of the prophet. This phenomenon is particularly evident in light of v. 7, where this awareness is no longer in evidence (וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם אֵלַי); see below.
48. FN4848) In accordance with Seidel’s law regarding inner-biblical quotes; see M. Seidel, Studies in Bible (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1978).
49. FN4949) Perhaps this is the reason that we find the deterrent phrase וְלֹא אָרַע לָכֶם “and I will not bring disaster upon you” (v. 6b) in parallel to לְרַע לָכֶם “to your own hurt” in the description of the committed act (v. 7b). The form אָרַע is found only one other time in the Bible, in 1 Sam 26:21. One may compare this inner-biblical exegesis to the later rabbinic legal stance that there is no punishment for any deed not expressly forbidden by a biblical text; cf. e.g. b. Sanh. 56b; y. Yoma 1:5.
50. FN5050) See Duhm (n. 35), p. 201. But in contrast, see Huwyler (n. 2), pp. 339-341; Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point” (n. 15), p. 477.
51. FN5151) As in Jer 43:10.
52. FN5252) See already Kimchi ad loc.
53. FN5353) See vv. 9, 11.
54. FN5454) The words אֲשֶׁר נִבָּא יִרְמְיָהוּ seem to belong to the frame of the prophecy and not to the divine speech itself; compare the words אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יִרְמְיָהוּ הַנָּבִיא in the introduction of v. 2.
55. FN5555) It is possible that these words appear in v. 7 as a Wiederaufnahme of the end of v. 3 in the base text.
56. FN5656) See Duhm (n. 35), p. 201, and compare Schenker (n. 15), “Nebukadnezzars Metamorphose”, pp. 498-527.
57. FN5757) J. Ziegler, Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae (Vetus Testamentum Graecum 15; Göttingen, 1957).
58. FN5858) Translated as a plural (αὐτοὺς) in LXX.
59. FN5959) “Merkwürdigerweise ist allerdings die Idee der alexandrinischen Fassung, daß YHWH bloß während der vergangenen 23 Jahre—also genau der Zeit der Wirksamkeit Jeremias—unermüdlich geredet und Propheten gesandt hatte haben sollte” (Stipp, Sondergut [n. 6], p. 113).
60. FN6060) “. . . although it should not be impossible from the viewpoint of our author” (Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point” [n. 15], p. 467).
61. FN6161) “The difficulty which is felt with the view that v. 3a is a word of Yahweh is genuine and this is a problem not capable of final elucidation” (McKane [n. 19], p. 622). However, it is difficult to be convinced by the arguments of Huwyler (n. 2), pp. 334-339, who sees this difficulty as merely imaginary.
62. FN6262) Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), pp. 113-115. Similarly, Aejmelaeus (n. 15), “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point”, p. 467.
63. FN6363) This is tentatively considered by L. Laberge (n. 15), p. 51, and is the reconstruction proposed by G. C. Workman, The Text of Jeremiah (Edinburgh, 1889), p. 330.
64. FN6464) See, for example, the similar use of the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic formula “at that time”; see J. G. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (BBB 26; Bonn, 1967), 218-225; S. E. Loewenstamm, “At that time”, in M. Weinfeld (ed.), Likkutei Tarbiz. A Biblical Studies Reader (Jerusalem, 1979), pp. 193-198. Contrast Stipp, “Linguistic Peculiarities” (n. 16), p. 192, who identifies the addition of the demonstrative pronoun to “the nations” in MT Jer 25:9.11, 28:14 as evidence of a “pre-Masoretic idiolect”.
65. FN6565) It is hard to believe that the original Hebrew text would read וְעָבְדוּ בַּגּוֹיִם. A. B. Ehrlich has called such a reconstruction “unhebräisch” (A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel [vol. 4; Leipzig, 1912], p. 308). It is difficult to be convinced by Huwyler’s suggestion that *בַּגּוֹיִם should be seen as the object of the verb וְעָבְדוּ whose subject is the Babylonians (Huwyler [n. 2], p. 341 n. 42).
66. FN6666) In light of this removal, Laberge (n. 15), p. 59 is forced to interpret the phrase “I will punish that nation” (ἐκδικήσω τὸ ἔθνος ἐκεῖνο) in LXX as denoting the punishment of Judah. It is difficult to agree with his suggestion, and even Laberge himself admits that the original intent of v. 12 was “apparently” to describe the end of Judah’s servitude; see Laberge (n. 15), p. 63.
67. FN6767) Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point” (n. 15), p. 462.
68. FN6868) Huwyler ([n. 2], p. 64 n. 98) correctly describes the following evaluation by P.-M. Bogaert (“Urtext, texte court et relecture: Jérémie XXXIII 14-26 TM et ses préparations, VTSup 43 [1991], p. 246) as “euphoric”: “Tout se passé donc, encore une fois, comme si nous possédions réellement les photographies de deux étapes distinctes et successives de l’histoire de la rédaction du livre de Jérémie. Alors que, dans d’autres cas, il faut se contenter d’une vision monoculaire du texte, l’accoutumance seule donnant l’illusion du relief, ici la perception de la profondeur du champ historique n’est pas une impression, mais le résultat d’une réelle vision stéréoscopique. Au moins depuis le milieu du IIe siècle avant J.-C., deux formes de texte étaient en circulation dont l’une était la relecture de l’autre.”

Article metrics loading...


Affiliations: 1: Hebrew University of Jerusalem Israel, Email:, URL:


Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Subscribe to Citation alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Vetus Testamentum — Recommend this title to your library

    Thank you

    Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation