It is probable that all these prophecies, except the last, belong to the 4th year of Jehoiakim, and reflect the profound impression which Nebuchadnezzar's victory at Carchemish produced upon the prophet. On the remarkable similarities between the prophecy upon Edom and that of Obadiah, see below, under Obadiah. In the case of Ammon and Elam (49, 6. 39) the prophecy closes with a promise of restoration similar to that given to Moab (48, 47): comp. 12, 15 f.

C. 50-51. A long and impassioned prophecy against Babylon, 50, 1—51, 58, followed by a short historical notice, 51, 59–64a, describing how, when Seraiah-probably the brother of Jeremiah's friend and assistant Baruch-in the 4th year of Zedekiah (B.C. 593) accompanied the king on a journey to Babylon, Jeremiah sent by his hand a scroll, containing a prophecy against the city, with instructions to read it upon his arrival there, and afterwards to sink it in the Euphrates, as a sign that Babylon would sink in like manner, and not rise again. The prophecy itself (50, 2 ff.) declares the approaching capture of Babylon, and the speedy end of the power of the Chaldæans; the time has come for the violence done by them to Israel to be requited (50, 11 f. 17-20. 33 f. 51, 5. 24. 34 f. 44. 56); a people from the north, even the Medes, are about to be "stirred up" (cf. Is. 13, 17) against them (50, 3. 9. 25. 41 ff. 51, 2. 11. 20-23 [Cyrus]); again and again the prophet with eager vehemence invites the foe to begin the fray (50, 14-16. 21. 26 f. 51, 11 f. 27 f.), while he bids the exiles escape betimes from the doomed city (50, 8. 51, 6. 45 f. 50), the future fate of which he contemplates with manifest delight (50, 2o. 13. 23 f. 35–38. 46. 51, 13 f. 25 ff. 30 ff. 33 ff. 47 ff.).

It does not seem that this prophecy (50, 1—51, 58) is Jeremiah's. The grounds for this conclusion do not consist in the announcement per se which the prophecy contains of the end of the Babylonian power-for this was certainly foreseen by Jer. (25, 12. 27, 7. 22. 29, 10)—or in the phraseology, which has much in common with Jer.'s; but in the manner in which the announcement is made, and especially in the contradiction which it evinces with the position which Jer. is known to have taken in the year to which it is assigned by 51, 59. (1) The standpoint of the prophecy is later than Zedekiah's 4th year. The destruction of the Temple is presupposed (50, 28. 51, 11. 51); the Jews are in exile, suffering for their sins (50, 4 f. 7. 17. 33. 51, 34 f. "hath made me an empty vessel"); but Jehovah is now ready to pardon and deliver them (50, 20. 34. 51, 33. 36); the hour of retribution is at hand for their foes, and they themselves are bidden prepare to leave Babylon (see the passages cited above). But in B.C. 593 it was the measure of Israel's wickedness which, in Jer.'s estimation, was not yet filled up; the Chaldæans had yet to complete against Jerusalem the work allotted to them

by Providence (c. 24, &c.); only when this has been accomplished does the prophet expect the end of the Babylonian monarchy, and the restoration of Israel (25, 12. 27, 7. 29, 10). Thus the situation postulated by the prophecy -Israel's sin forgiven, and the Chaldæans' work accomplished-had not arrived while Zedekiah was still reigning on the other hand, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, which is foremost in Jer.'s thoughts throughout the prophecies belonging to Zedekiah's reign, and which he views as necessarily preceding the restoration, is here alluded to as past. (2) The point of view is not that of Jer. either in or about the year 593. At that time, as we know from c. 27--29, Jer. was opposing earnestly the prophets who were promising that shortly Babylon would fall, and the exiles be restored; he was even (c. 29) exhorting the exiles to settle down contentedly in their new home. But the prophet who speaks in c. 50-51, so far from counselling patience, uses all the arts of language for the purpose of inspiring the exiles with the hopes of a speedy release, for doing which the "false prophets" were so severely denounced by Jer. The line of thought adopted in the prophecy is thus inconsistent with the attitude of Jer. in B.C. 593. (3) The prophecy is not a mere declaration of the end of the Chaldæan rule, such as Jer. undoubtedly made it is animated by a temper, which, if it be Jer.'s, is not adequately accounted for. The vein of strong feeling which pervades it, the manifest satisfaction with which the prophet who utters it contemplates, under every imaginable aspect, the fate which he sees imminent upon Babylon, show it to be the work of one who felt far more keenly against the Chaldæans than Jer. did, who indeed, after the capture of Jerusalem, was treated by Nebuchadnezzar with marked consideration (c. 39 &c.), and who, even when in Egypt, still regarded the Babylonian king as carrying out the purposes of Providence (43, 10 ff. 44, 30).1 There breathes in this prophecy the spirit of an Israelite, whose experiences had been far other than Jer.'s, who had smarted under the vexatious yoke of the Chaldæans (cf. Is. 47, 6 f. 52, 5), and whose thoughts were full of vengeance for the sufferings which his fellow-countrymen had endured at their hands. Other indications, not sufficient, if they stood alone, to authorise the conclusion thus reached, nevertheless support it. Jer. is not, indeed, like Isaiah, a master of literary style: but the repetitions and the unmethodical development of the subject which characterise c. 50-51 are both in excess of his usual manner. Jer. also, it is true, sometimes repeats his own words (p. 259), but not to the extent which would be the case here if he were the author of c. 50 f. (50, 30-32. 40-46. 51, 15-19).

On the whole, the most probable view of c. 50 f. is the following. The notice in 51, 59-64", that Jer. took the occasion of Seraiah's visit to Babylon to record by a symbolical act his conviction that the Chaldæan dominion would in time be brought to its end, is thoroughly credible: it is in accordance with Jer.'s

1 To suppose the prophet inspired to express emotions which (to judge from the general tenor of his book) he did not feel, would imply a very mechanical theory of inspiration.

manner on other occasions (13, 1 ff. 19, 1 ff. 27, 2 ff.); and a general declaration similar to that contained in 7. 62 is perfectly consistent with Jer.'s attitude at the time (25, 12. 29, 10). The prophecy, 50, 2-51, 58, is the work of a follower of Jeremiah, familiar with his writings, and accustomed to the use of similar phraseology, who wrote no very long time before the fall of Babylon, from the same general standpoint as Is. 13, 2-14, 23. c. 40—66. (It is not, therefore, in the judgment of the present writer, a vaticinium ex eventu.) In a later age the prophecy came to be attributed to Jeremiah, and was identified with the "scroll" sent by him to Babylon. In its original form, the notice, 51, 59 ff., contained no reference to 50, 1—51, 58, v. 60 ending at Babylon" (in the Heb. at 78 DD : notice how awkwardly, in the Hebrew, clause b is attached to clause a), but only to the words written on the scroll sunk in the Euphrates: when 50, 1-51, 58 was incorporated in the volume of Jer.'s prophecies, v. 60 was added for the purpose of identifying it with the contents of the scroll.

66

The superscriptions to the longer independent prophecies in Jer.'s book fall into one or two well-defined types, from which that in 50, 1 differs, which would agree with the conclusion that the prophecy following was not part of the original collection, but came into Jer.'s book by a different channel. The usual types are (1) "The word which came to Jer. from Jehovah (saying):” 7, I. II, 1. 18, I. 21, I. 25, I al.; (2) "That which came (of) the word of Jehovah to Jer." (p. 258, No. 27): 14, I. 46, 1. 47, I. 49, 34. The subject of a prophecy is also sometimes indicated briefly by the prep. S: 23, 9 (see RV.). 46, 2. 48, 1. 49, I. 7. 23. 28; perhaps also 21, 11.

In 51, 64 the clause "and they shall be weary," which is evidently out of place where it stands, is repeated from v. 58-either through some error, or (Budde) by the compiler, who prefixed it to the note, "Thus far are the words of Jeremiah," as an indication that he understood these "words" to extend, not to the notice in vv. 59-64a, but only to y, the last word of the preceding prophecy.

C. 52. Historical account of the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldæans, and exile of the inhabitants.

This narrative is excerpted by the compiler of the Book of Jeremiah from 2 Ki. 24, 18-25, 30-with the omission of 2 Ki. 25, 22-26 (which, being simply condensed from Jer. 40, 7-9. 41, 1-2. 17 f. 42, 1. 43, 3 ff., there was no occasion to repeat), and the addition of Jer. 52, 28-30 (though these verses, which are not in the LXX, and the chronology of which differs from that of v. 12, were perhaps not introduced till a later stage in the redaction of the book) from some other source-on account, no doubt, of its containing detailed particulars of the manner in which Jer.'s principal and most constant

prediction was fulfilled. The text of this section has, in several places, been preserved here more purely than in Kings.

The two texts of Jeremiah.1 In the Book of Jeremiah the text of the LXX differs more widely from the Hebrew than is the case in any other part of the OT., even in Sam., Kings, or Ezekiel. In the text of the LXX, as compared with the Hebrew, there are very numerous omissions, sometimes of single words, sometimes of particular clauses or passages, there are occasionally additions, there are variations of expression, there are also transpositions. The number of words in the Hebrew text not represented in the LXX has been calculated at 2700, or one-eighth of the entire book. Very many of these omissions are, however, unimportant, consisting only of such words as the title the prophet attached to the name Jeremiah, or the parenthetic Saith the Lord, &c. ; but others are more substantial, as 10, 6-8. 10. 11, 7-8 (except gb "but they did them not"). 29, 14 (except "and I will be found of you"). 16-20. 33, 14-26. 39, 4-13. 52, 28-30: sometimes, also, a chapter, though the substance is not materially altered, appears in a briefer form in the LXX (as c. 27. 28). The most considerable transposition is in the different place assigned to the prophecies on foreign nations (p. 248, note): the order of these prophecies among themselves is also changed. Different causes have been assigned in explanation of these variations. By some they have been attributed to the incompetence and arbitrariness of the LXX translators; by others they have been supposed to arise from the fact that the existing Hebrew text, and the text from which the LXX translation was made, exhibit two different recensions of Jeremiah's writings. A careful comparison of the two texts in the light of (a) Hebrew idiom, (b) intrinsic probability, shows that both these views contain elements of truth, though neither is true exclusively; the variations of the LXX are in part "recensional," ie. they are due to the fact that the Hebrew text used by the translators deviated in some particulars from that which we at present possess; but in part, also, they are due to

1 See F. C. Movers, De utriusque recens. vatic. Jeremiæ Græc. Alex. et Masor, indole et origine, 1837; Hitzig, p. xv. ff.; Graf, p. xl. ff.; A. Scholz, Der Mass. Text u. die LXX-Uebers, des Buches Jer. 1875; E. C. Work man, The Text of Jeremiah, Edinburgh, 1889, with the reviews by the present writer in the Expositor, May 1889, and by H. P. Smith in the Journ. of Bibl. Lit. 1890, p. 107 ff.; Kuenen, Onderz. § 58 (a very fair and impartial statement of the question).

the faulty manner in which the translators executed their work The claims of each text to represent the prophet's autograph have been greatly exaggerated by their respective advocates;1 on the whole, the Massoretic text deserves the preference; but it is impossible to uphold the unconditional superiority of either. To determine which readings of the LXX are more original than those of the Hebrew is often a task of no small difficulty and delicacy; and commentators and critics differ accordingly.

It is obviously impossible for the writer to enter here into details: he must content himself with the two general observations (1) that there seem certainly to be many individual cases in which the purer reading has been preserved by the LXX; (2) that it is at least probable that there are passages in which the text has been glossed, or expanded, in the Hebrew, and is expressed by the LXX in its more original form (see examples in QPB.3). Thus in c. 25 words are omitted in LXX in vv. 1. 2. 6. 7. 9. 11-13. 14 (wholly). 18. 20. 24-26. 29. 33. With respect to some of these, opinions may differ; but v. 18 "as it is this day" clearly cannot have been part of the original text of B.C. 604 (25, 1), but must have been added after the fulfilment. In c. 27-29 the omissions in LXX (or additions in the Heb., as the case may be) are, from some cause, peculiarly numerous: Kuenen, § 54, 6, here prefers the LXX almost throughout (except 34, 10-12=27, 12-15 Heb., and 36 (29), 24-32, where the translators have entirely missed the sense); on c. 27 see also W. R. Smith, OTJC. p. 113 ff.

It is remarked by Kuenen that the two texts of Jer. are not so much two recensions, as the same recension in different stages of its history. The different position of the foreign prophecies in the two texts may be accounted for by various hypotheses, which cannot here be discussed.

The process by which the Book of Jeremiah assumed its present form can only be represented by conjecture. The chronological disorder, and the dislocations (e.g. 3, 6-18; 10, 1-16), may be regarded as decisive against the opinion that the prophecies were arranged as we now have them by Jer. himself, or even by his scribe Baruch. Probably the collection was not formed before the close of the exile: the large amount of varia. tion between the LXX and the Massoretic text may be most readily explained by the supposition that in some cases Jer.'s writings were in circulation for a while as single prophecies,

1 Especially by Graf and Keil on the one side, and by Workman on the other. The last-named scholar has formed a false view of the method followed by the translators, and has made, in consequence, the great mistake of not distinguishing between deviations due only to the translators, and those having their source in the MSS. used by them; thus in his elaborate "Synopsis of Variations," the majority were never in any Hebrew MS.