Encyclopaedia Biblica/Jerahmeel-Jerimoth

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


1 (KpnT, 'God pities' [ loves 1 or is friendly ; cp Ass. rdmu and Dill in Nab. and Palm, inscr. ], 28, 53 ; cp perh. Dn~lDN, Assur pities (?), CIS 2, no. 43 A ; i[f]pa/uMr)\ [BAL], also -eij\, -f/j.frj\ [BA], -e|tt. [A], -e M a. [L]).

i. The name of a clan, located in the Negeb of Judah, which had friendly relations with David during his residence at Ziklag (i S. 27 10 8029, Jerahmeelite, Sxarirn, ifcr/j.eya., iapa.T)\ [B], HTpa/j.-r)\fi, ifpafj.r)\ei [A], aepuwv, icrpatj\ [L]).

1. History.[edit]

Jerahmeel and Caleb are genealogically spoken of as brothers (i Ch. 2942), a relation which probably began at an early date and continued until both were finally reckoned to Israel as part of the tribe of Judah (i Ch. 2). 3 We must not, however, infer from the wording of i S. 27 10-12 that already in David s time the clans formed part of Saul s kingdom. 4

To supplement the scanty references to Jerahmeel in the MT (but see below, 4) it would be reasonable to assume that the clan shared throughout the course of its existence the same fortunes as CALEB : viz. , that in post-exilic times it was pushed to the N. of Judah by the advancing Edomites (cp CALEB, 4), that previous to its occupation of the Negeb it had come from the distant S. of Palestine (ib. 2), and that together with Caleb it had joined in the wanderings from Kadesh (in the N. Arabian Musri) to Hebron (see EXODUS i. , 4 /~.\ HEBRON, i; KADESH i. , 3). A critical inspec tion of the Jerahmeelite genealogical lists may perhaps be found to lend interesting support to these assump tions (which also receive independent confirmation from the inquiries summed up in NEGEB, 2).

2. Genealogies.[edit]

Turning to the genealogies in i Ch. 2 we find that the names in general betray an affinity with South Palestine).

The older divisions of the tribe (? . 25) are Ram (of whose offshoots Jamin is elsewhere the name of a Simeonite clan whilst Eker reminds us of Ekron), Bunah (? B (3ai/aia, see Ki. SBOT), 6 Oren (cp Edomite ARAN), and OZEM (Davidic).<> The mention of another wife (z . 26) might suggest that the clan, like Caleb, moved to a new seat (see ATAKAH), in which case Atarah's son Onam (ft.) might remind us of the Benjamite BEN-ONI [y.v.]. Onam, moreover, has Edomite associations, and, looking more closely at the names of the sons, we observe; (a) Shammai (v. 28), also a Calebite division (v. 45) ; (i) Abishur and Abihail (v. 29), names with distinctly S. Arabian affinities ; (c) Zaza (j . 33), perhaps the same as the Simeonite ZIZA ; and finally (d) Ism (v. 31), with Simeonite and Judeean affinities.

The genealogy includes Molid and Jether (vv. 29 32). One is tempted to connect these with the two place- names, MOLADAH and JATTIK, and to locate the Jerah- meelites in the district of Attir and Tell el-Milk, to the NW. and S. of Arad respectively. This seems to be supported by Shishak's list (EGYPT, 63), where yu-ra-hu-ma-[el~{] (no. 112) follows almost immediately upon ha-k-ru-ma a-ru-d-d ru-bi-t (nos. 107-110) the districts (see FIELD) of Great Arad. l (For other indications of the seats of this clan, see NEGEB, 2.)

1 For the late Jewish legends connected with this name see Chronicles of Jerahmeel (ed. Gaster, 1900).

2 In view of the analogy between Jerahmeel and the tribal names Ishmael, Israel, etc. (some of which may be geographical), it is unnecessary to treat Jerahmeel as a compound of nT and *?K with the addition of Q as in ABIMAEL), nor could we find support for this in the name JARHA (for which in i Ch. 234 suggests the form Jarhel ), since, in common with JEROHAM, it is probably nothing more than a popular abbreviation. Sayce (who cites Jerahmeel as preserving a trace of mimmation ) points out that Yarhamu (Jeroham) has been found in contract- tablets dated in the reign of Samsu-iluna, and supposes the name to be the origin of Ovid s Orchamus (PSJ3A 21 23 [1900]).

3 Cp Meyer, Entst. ndff.

4 Cp CALEIS, 2. Probably i S. 2V 9 n do not belong to the original narrative (the tenses are frequentative). The passage refers to one expedition (not to David s custom), and the sequel is related in i S. 30.

5 The name reminds us of BENAIAH (i) of KABZEEL (yy.v.), one of David s officers.

6 EV s Ahijah should be his brothers) ; see AHIJAH, 6.

3. Musrite origin?[edit]

For the earlier history of Jerahmeel the unique genealogy of JARHA [q.v.] in i Ch. 2 is highly suggestive. The fragment ( vv. 34-41 ) gives the descendants of Yarha 'the Musrite servant' ( I 3 ? 1 ? 1$%) and the daughter of Sheshan to the thirteenth generation. Jarha (as also the lad in i S. 30 13) was most probably a native of the near-lying country of Musri (see MIZRAIM, 26), and the obscure name Sheshan reminds us both of the Hebronite Sheshai and of the Egyptian designation fasu (strictly nor) bedouin, with which SHESHAI [y.v.], has been connected. 3

It is worth noticing that vv. 34-41 are independent of the preceding verses, and that the introduction of Sheshan in v. 31b is probably secondary (contrast the details with v. 34a). It is not certain therefore that he was a Jerah meelite. The name of the Musrite servant, on the other hand, seems to be an eponym of the clan Jerahmeel itself. Possibly the genealogy is to be interpreted to mean that Jerahmeel moved N. from Musri and settled in the vicinity of Hebron (compare Sheshan with Sheshai).

It has been suggested elsewhere that the oldest features of Korah s revolt (Nu. 16) belong to the tradition of a journey from the Musrite Kadesh to Judah (see EXODUS i. , 6). 4 Now Korah, even in the earlier strands of P, is not a Levite ; it is possible that he was originally a Calebite (cp KORAH i. 2). It is tempting, therefore, to associate Peleth the father of On (or Onan [<S AF ], cp Onam above) with the same name in the genealogy of Jerahmeel (i Ch. 2:33), 5 and to regard the clan as participating in the revolt. (The significance of the clan-name Peleth and the traces of the northward migration or extension of the Jerahmeelites are con sidered elsewhere. See NEGEB, 2.)

Among other features of interest in the genealogy of Jarha 6 are the two names Nathan and Zabad (v. 36) who, it has sometimes been suggested, are no other than the prophet and officer (see Z A BUD, i) of the days of David and Solomon. When we consider the influence of the far S. of Palestine upon the worship of Yahwe this view cannot be pronounced altogether arbitrary. If, as has been indicated elsewhere (see GENEALOGIES, 7 [ v -])> there is evidence to show that the names of Yah we s Levites are largely derived from the far S. , surely Nathan (although not a Levite) may well have been of Jerahmeelite or even Musrite origin. 7

Another well-known figure may perhaps have had a similar origin. Marquart (Fund. 12) has already observed that Samuel's genealogy in i S. 1 i is two-fold, and that he is traced back to Jerahmeel (see JEROHAM, i), and Tahath (Tohu, etc.) respectively. We might conjecture, therefore, that Samuel was a Jerahmeelite, but at a later date was represented as an Ephraimite (see TAHATH). But as an alternative suggestion it is no less possible that the Jerahmeelite notices should belong (as a marginal note) to the name of Eli who is introduced suddenly without word or comment in v 3. This view, moreover, perhaps gains in probability when we notice (t) the un-Hebraic character of the names of Eli's descendants, which find their analogy only in Egyptian (see PHINEHAS) or South Arabian (cp ELI, HOHHNI), and (2) the presence of a tradition (a late one, it is true, see SAMUEL ii., S 4) which would seem to connect Eli's house with Moses 1 in Egypt, or perhaps, originally, in Musri (i S. 2 27). 2

1 WMM At. . Eur. 168. Is no. in, Ne-ba-ta, the Jerah meelite Nadab (i Ch. 2 28)?

2 On the list cp Gray (HPN 234^) : the character of the thirteen names presents nothing inconsistent with the genealogy being genuine.

{ Cp the Hebronite and Geshurite TAI.MAI. May we further

identify the Jerahmeelite name Ahban (see AHBAN) with the Hebronite Ahiman (pnNi !"!)?

4 The tradition is provisionally called Calebite ; the clan Caleb seems to have overshadowed all other petty S. Juda^in populations (cp CALEB, 3). A better designation would prob ably be Levitical ; cp the relation between the Levites (see GENEALOGIES, 7 [esp. v.]) and the S. of Judah. See also KADESH i., 3.

5 See further AJSL 1C 177 n.

6 See ELISHAMA, 3, 4, SHALLUM, 3, SIRAMAI, and note that Helez (v. 39) is elsewhere the name of a warrior from the South Judsean Beth-pelet (but see PALTITE).

7 Not the prophet only ; perhaps also his king (but see JUDAH). One observes how persistently tradition sends David to the S. of Judah, to wander in the wilderness of Paran, i S. _ ."> i (on the text see H. P. Smith), or to fight against the inhabitants of the land bordering on Mizraim (Musri), il>. 278; see the present writer s note in AJSL, I.e.

4. Additional References.[edit]

If the suggestions made in this and certain other articles with regard to suspected corruptions of text in MT and in LXX are accepted, the Jerahmeelites were a much more important tribe, or perhaps collection of tribes, than we have imagined. Under all sorts of disguises, it has been suspected, the name meets us again and again, both in narratives and in genealogies. Some of the clans or tribes of Jerahmeel evidently suffered the fate described in i S. 15, i Ch. 441 43 ; others were absorbed by Judah or even by more northern Israelite tribes. The following is a list, probably incomplete, of OT names which may have been corrupted from Jerahmeel.

(a) Addar and Hakkarka, Josh. 15 3. Note that Hezron, Addar, and Hakkarka are mentioned together ; Hakkarka is a dittographed Jerahmeel. In Gen. 46 12 and parallels Hezron, son of Perez, is a brother of Hamul (cp /). This is geographically important. See HAZAR-ADDAR. KARKAA, NEGEB.

(b) Amalek. The name is unintelligible ; the centre of the Amalekites must have been close to the Jerahmeelites. To admit the identity of Amalek and Jerahmeel is in accordance with many similar necessary identifications, and throws a bright light on many passages. Of course, it was only a section of the Amalekites that Saul overcame, and only with a section that David fought. See (//), and on mount of the Amalekites (Judg. 12 15), see PIRATHON.

(c) Gen. 16 14 BEER-LAHAI-ROI (between Kadesh and Bered) should be Beer-jerahme'eli i.e., 'Well of the Jerahmeelites'. The name Jerahmeel is derived from 7N Dnv ; 'she called the name of Yahwe El-rahamim; for she had said, Will God indeed have compassion' ? (zr. 13, DrTT D H^N DJH)- Cp ISAAC.

(J) Job 32 2, SN^ID. like Ram (cp s), is a fragment of Sucm - See JOB, BOOK OF, 9.

(e) Probably Joash (i K. 22 26) as well as Jerahmeel (Jer. 36 26, see 3 below) was of Jerahmeelite extraction. Jerahmeel ben-hammelech is surely absurd ; ben-hammelech itself comes from ben-jerahmeel.

(f) The Carmel of Josh. 1555, also called hak-Karmel (i S. 15 12, etc.), is no doubt from Jerahmeel. Was the Carmel of i S. 15 12 really the place now called el-Kurinut? This is not perhaps necessary (see SAUL, 4 ad init. n.). In i S. 15s read cities () of Jerahmeel ; and cp 30 29 (for text cp CARMEL, 2, col. 706, n. 2).

(g) 2 Ch. 267. See GUR-BAAL.

(h) i Ch. 440, important geographically (see NEGEB)and historically. HAM (ff.v. i., end) is quite impossible.

(i) Hamul b. Judah (Gen. 46 12, etc.). Cp (a) and see HAMUL, MAHOL.

(j) Jamlech, a Simeonite (i Ch. 4 34).

(k) i Ch. 2 34^C See JARHA, and cp above.

(l) 1 Ch. 4 16, 2Ch.29 12. Note that Jehaleleel ? was the father of Ziph ; he is co-ordinated with Caleb,

(m) i S. 1 i. See TEROHAM, i, and cp above, 3.

(n) Josh. 15 56, i Ch. 244, see JOKDEAM, JORKEAM.

(o) 2 K. 14 7 ; see (u).

(p) Kemuel, Gen. 22 21. Read Uz his first-born, and Ahibuz, and Jerahmeel, and Abiram, and note that Ahibuz (see Am, i) and Michael (i Ch. 5 i3_/7) are brought into connection respec tively with Salecah (miswritten Milcafi in Gen. 22 21), and with Gilead in Bashan in i Ch. 5 11-16. See ZELOPHEHAD.

(q) i K. 4 31 [5 ii]. See MAHOL.

(r) Michael, i Ch. 5 i 3 / See (p).

(s) Ram (see if) was brother of Jerahmeel (i Ch. 2 9) ; on Job 32 2, see Jon, BOOK OF, g, and note that Buz and Aram (- Ram-- Jerahmeel) are brothers (Gen. 22 21).

(t) Raham, i Ch. 2 44. Cp (u).

(u) Rekem, i Ch. 2 ^/. In this connection note that the Targumic name for KADESH (DpT or nN J cpl) must be a corruption of Jerahmeel, and that Dip 33 in Judg- 6 3 33 7 12 8 10 (?), also in i K. 15 10 and Job 1 3 should most probably be c ( T1 33. **> SxOlTV J3, sons of Jerahmeel.

(w)Salt, city and valley of ( /rand gi- /laitniiela K), Josh. 1562 ; 2 K. 147. Kittel well points out the improbability that Joktheel in the nSo.T "3 is Petra. It is Jerahmeel in the valley of Jerahmeel. See SALT, CITY OF.

(x) On the singular corruptions in the two similar passages, Nu. 21 i Judg. 1 16 see NEGEIS, 2.

(y) Last of all we mention a hypothesis which in the light of (c) is so probable that it deserves more space than we can give to it. Ab-raham is not a dialectic form of Abram or ABIRAM [7. r 1 . ], nor yet = the beloved father (Harkavy), but comes from DrP3N 'the Father loves' or 'has pity' (cp Ass. ramu, to love ). Perhaps there was a second legend to account for the name of the Jerahmeelite Well(see c) by connecting it with the name Abraham.


2. A Merarite Levite (i Ch. 24 29, see 23 21); see i above, and cp GENEALOGIES i., 7 [v.].

3. b. Hammelech (RV the king s son ; see HAMMELECH, and cp above, 4 e), who was ordered by Jehoiakim to imprison Jeremiah and Baruch (Jer. 36 [(S 43] 26; itpc/xiarjA IN]). See above, 4 (e). s. A. C. , 1-3 ; T. K. C. , 4.

1 See also ICHABOD.

2 Yahwe s appearance to Moses, and the separation of the Levites here referred to, were probably located at Kadesh ; cp KADESH i., 3 ; LEVITES.


depexoy [ B * A ]). 1 Esd. 5:22; RV JERECHU. See JERICHO.


i. i Ch. 1 2 EV, etc. ; see JARED. 2. (T ; for etymology, cp Ar. wird" n , a. troop of people, or cattle, coming to a watering-place ; taped [BAL]), one of the sons of EZER (q. v. , ii. i) by his wife the Jewess, 1 called the father of Gedor, i Ch. 4i8 (in v. 4 Penuel bears the same title).

Many springs in Palestine now bear the name of werdeh (Conder, PE1< Q, 78, p. 22), which is understood by the peasantry in the sense suggested above for this Jered. Cp Koran lllsg, We will drive the sinners to hell as herds going to water. T. K. C.


(V?"!*, 52 ; abbrev. from JEREMIAH), of the b'ne Hashum, a layman in the list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i. , 5 end), Ezra lOsst ( iep&M6l [N], -M [B], iepe/v\[e]l [AL]). The name appears among the sons of Bani in i Esd. 9 34 (JEREMIAS, ie/>e/uas [BAL]). @ L , however, gives the name again in v. 33.


(IrVD V, and in nos. 4, 5, 6, and 8, !TftT, on the meaning see below, i ; NAMES, 35, 41, 52, 84, and cp JEREMIEL; lepe/wCell&tc] 1 [BAL]).

i. The prophet called, in AV, also Jeremias (Ecclus. 496 Mt. 1614) and Jeremy (Mt. 2i? 27g). MT has livpv. but in Jer. 27 1 28s./ 29i in the title of the book, and in Dan. 9:2 Ezra 1:1 y. n ^. In Ecclus 496 it is still written "£%"(

1. Name and meaning.[edit]

As to its meaning, Wellhausen (TBS) connected it with j^/noi! 'to found', cp Jeruel ; so too Ball. More probably, however, we should explain it in i"lOT, 'Yahwe hurls' (so Seb. Schmidt); cp rnrr, i Ch. 98, rns - , 1 Ch. 8:25. The understood object may be variously supplied.

According to 1:1 Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah and belonged to a priestly family dwelling at Anathoth. Many since Clement of Alexandria and Jerome have maintained the identity of his father with the Hilkiah of 2 K. 22 -23, but on no sufficient grounds. Whether the editor thought of Jeremiah's father as the high priest, may be doubtful ; probably he drew his statement from the biographical work (see next article, 17). According to chap. 32 Jeremiah had an uncle named Shallum and a cousin named Hanamel ; from 16:1 it is to be inferred that Jeremiah was never married.

1 The transliteration Irjpefii as [B* once, A often, Sc.n thrice] should also be noted. The Latin versions give Hieremias, leremias.

2. Life.[edit]

The primary sources of information respecting the prophet are his own oracles. The biographical sketches in the book that bears his name come from a work written a long time after his death. There is no testimony outside of the book of Jeremiah that has any independent value. The earliest references to him (2 Ch. 3525 3620/ Ecclus. 49?) come from the second century B.C. Even after criticism has done its full work, however, it remains possible with some degree of certainty to trace the general course of his career.

Jeremiah was born, it would seem, at ANATHOTH [q.v. ]; perhaps about 650, for we know that he first came forward in 625. At what time of life a man might enter the priesthood in the days before D and P, is not known. The event which gave him a prophetic impulse may have been a Scytho-Chaldean invasion of Syria in the first year of Nabopolassar (4 3^). Probably the impulse was accelerated by a vision, though the story in chap. 1 reflects not only his own later experiences, but also the estimate of his work in a subsequent age, based on oracles not proceeding from him. It is probable that the reform movement five years later en listed his efforts (Duhm, Cheyne) and that he proclaimed the new law in Anathoth (11 iff.), though it is not likely that he knew how it originated or was equally interested in all its injunctions. Whether there was a local cult at Anathoth causing opposition on the part of his towns men and such persecution as to call forth from him fierce imprecations (11:21-23) must be left in doubt. He probably took up his abode at Jerusalem after 620.

Before the end of Josiah's reign Jeremiah seems to have recognised the futility of a reform carried out by the strong arm of the state (23). Hence he watched the rising Chaldean power, not as Habakkuk in the hope of deliverance from Assyrian supremacy, but as an instrument in Yahwe s hand to bring Judah to repent ance or to ruin. The relative weakness of Egypt he perceived now as in the days of Zedekiah, just as Isaiah had seen that of Damascus as against Assyria. This explains the absence of any encouraging oracle before the battle of Megiddo and any lamentation after that event, a lack felt in later times and made good by ascribing to him an anonymous lament over Josiah (2 Ch. 36:25). The fall of Nineveh in 606 and Nebuchad rezzar s march upon Syria in 605 may have led Jeremiah to utter some such definite prophecy as is mentioned in 36:29, predicting the conquest of Judea by the king of Babylon. Concerning the story found in that chapter, cp the next article ( 17). Possibly at a time when the defeat of Necho s arms had driven the people with renewed zeal to the Yahwe-cult in the temple, Jeremiah appeared with the oracle reported in 1 ff. and 26. It may have been in the years when Nebuchadrezzar was unable to follow up his victory and bring Judah to sub jection that Jehoiakim was guilty of undertaking great building enterprises without paying the labourers engaged (22:13+. ; on the text see JEHOIAKIM). Jeremiah probably concealed himself during this reign, and there seems to be no evidence that he suffered any persecution. Even though his predictions concerning Jehoiakim failed, and the king apparently died in peace and was joined to his fathers, Jeremiah still looked for a Chaldean army and threatened Jehoiachin and his mother with exile (2224-27 29 : 28 is a gloss). The idea that at this time Jeremiah undertook two journeys to the Euphrates (V&iff.) cannot be seriously entertained (see EUPHRATES ii. ). The word indeed denotes the Euphrates (cp Gen. 214), not Ephratha, or Para; but the account is probably a dramatization of a mere simile, and not historical in any sense.

At some time in the reign of Zedekiah, when the condition of affairs before the deportation of 597, for which the exiled nobility had once been held responsible, had sufficiently receded from view to appear good in comparison with present conditions, Jeremiah seems to have had a vision of two baskets of figs in front of the temple, and explained that Zedekiah and his princes and subjects were like bad figs, while Jehoiachin and the exiles were like good figs (24). A later writer, who is even familiar with an Egyptian golah (CAPTIVITY) (v. 8), has apparently carried the comparison beyond the point intended. Chap. 28, which probably contains a historical nucleus, is more likely to show the real attitude of the prophet at this time. HANANIAH (q.v. ) prophesies that Jehoiachin and the exiles shall return with the sacred vessels in two years. Jeremiah would be glad to have Jehoiachin back ; but he does not believe in a return. It is not merely the short term set by Hananiah that he objects to. He recognises as a mark of the true prophets of the past that they only announced coming judgment, and he takes his place with them. Hence he makes absolutely no suggestion of a future return of exiles, but affirms uncompromisingly the inevitable subjection of all lands to Nebuchadrezzar. Whether he actually threatened Hananiah with death within a year, may perhaps be questioned. The doctrine of the infallibility of prophecy sufficiently ex plains the account of Hananiah s death. The alleged epistles of Jeremiah to Babylonian Jews (in chap. 29) cannot be used as historical material, nor the story of his sending bands and yokes to various nations in chap. 27. But 23:9-10 shows that the conspiracy in which Zedekiah became involved led Jeremiah into sharp conflicts with prophets whose convictions were different from his own. In 587, when Nebuchadrezzar temporarily raised the siege of Jerusalem, Zedekiah sent a request to Jeremiah to consult Yahwe as to the prospect, and received pressing advice to surrender (21:1-10, 37:3-10). At this time Jeremiah s indignation was aroused by the reduction to slavery of freedmen solemnly emancipated at the approach of Nebuchadrezzar (34). It was only natural, after his advice just mentioned, that he should be arrested when he attempted to withdraw to Anathoth, probably with the intention of securing for himself a piece of property there (37u-i6). This land he may actually have had an opportunity of purchasing later (32). What became of the prophet when the city was taken is not known, since the special concern for his welfare on the part of Nebuchadrezzar and Nabuzaradan probably is as apocryphal as the general s pious address, 39n^ 402-6. But a political prisoner is likely to have fared better than a rebel.

Concerning the end of the prophet s life there are many legends.

According to 2 Macc. 2:4+. Jeremiah carried away in safety the tabernacle, the ark, and the altar of incense, and concealed them in a hollow cave in the mountain where Moses died in Moab. It is possible that this legend found its supplement in a story of the prophet s translation in so appropriate a spot. This would account for his appearance in splendour to Judas the Maccabee (2 Macc. 15:12+), his living with translated heroes like Enoch and Elijah (Sixtus Sinensis as quoted by Neumann), his expected return as a precursor of the Messiah (Mt. 16:13-14, Jn. 1:21, 7:40) or in the last time as one of the two witnesses of Rev. 11:3 (Victorious ad loc.). Another legend, which still found a place in an appendix to the book of Jeremiah, brought him with the whole remnant of Judah to Daphnae, there to prophesy the utter destruction of the Egyptian golah, 42-44.1 When this addi tion was made to the Book of Jeremiah, the story of his being stoned to death at Daphnse (Jerome, Tert., Epiphanius) by his own people or by the Egyptians had apparently not developed. Of still later origin are other stories : Jeremiah s prediction of a saviour before whom the Egyptian idols would fall to the ground (leading to the worship of the virgin and the child : Chron. pasck. in Fabricius), the burial of the prophet iv TOTTO) TTJS oiioj<rea>s <J><xpau) (which seems to denote a pyramid) because he saved the Egyptians from crocodiles and snakes (Epiphanius, de vitis prophetarum), the visit of Alexander to the tomb of the prophet who had predicted his victories over the nations and the removal of the ashes to Alexandria (Ckron. pasck.), and the influence on Greek philosophers visiting Egypt of the esoteric wisdom he had taught there (Ambrosius, Augustine, Genebrard). According to a legend preserved in Seder dlam raMa, 26:77, Jeremiah was carried to Babylon with Baruch by Nebuchadrezzar after his conquest of Egypt, while Rashi seems to imply only that Jeremiah and Baruch returned to Palestine (ad Jer. 44:14). Whether in this mass of late legends there is anywhere a grain of historic fact, cannot readily be ascertained.

1 Many scholars consider this story as a work of Baruch and accord to it historical value. But see next article, 6, 7, 8.

3. Message.[edit]

The prophetic utterances of Jeremiah derive their character from his conviction that he was inspired by Yahwe and from his conception of Yahwe s nature, purposes and demands. Like Amos and Isaiah, he seems to have been impelled to prophesy by a series of visions. In a trance he hears Yahwe s voice bidding him speak as a prophet, and feels Yahwe s hand touching his lips consecrating them to the proclamation of Yahwe s oracles. On two subsequent occasions, when in the same condition, he saw a rod of an almond tree and a seething cauldron coming from the N. The former vision he interpretated as an assur ance that Yahwe would watch over (-iptr ; see ALMOND) his word, consequently as a pledge that the oracles would be fulfilled ; the latter he understood as signifying that nations from the N. would invade Palestine. These ecstatic experiences were doubtless preceded by eager observation of the signs of the times and stifled impulses to speak. Jeremiah had in waking hours seen the movements in history of that mysterious hand which in the vision brought the cauldron from the N. and dedi cated him as a prophet. A sitnilar experience may have come in Zedekiah s reign when, hearing the murmurs of the approaching storm, and reflecting upon the de generacy of the present generation, he had his vision of the figs (24). That Yahwe had actually revealed himself to him, he never seems to have questioned ; nor that the v. ord of judgment he announced was actually Yahwe s word. The events justified his faith. Whether the Scythian invasion passed so harmlessly by the territory over which Josiah reigned as is generally supposed, cannot, with our scanty information, be determined. There is no intimation of a disenchantment like that of Ezekiel in regard to Tyre. The capture of Jerusalem in 597 and the deportation of Jehoiachin must have been understood by Jeremiah as a vindication of Yahwe s word.

Another source of assurance was the character of the oracles he felt divinely impelled to utter. He was impressed by their similarity to the oracles of true prophets in the past. Like them he prophesied, not smooth things, but coming judgment. Like theirs, his oracles were immediate, spontaneous utterances. He contrasted them with the oracles also delivered in the name of Yahwe by the prophets opposed to him, and was struck by the difference in tone, the cheerful tenor, the failure to go to the root of the evil, the lack of originality (23:9+). He noticed their use of popular phrases, and accused them of stealing oracles one from another (v. 30), while his own communion with Yahwe brought him ever fresh supplies of thought and speech, and prevented him from copying even the words of the earlier prophets that had come down to him. He watched their easy acceptance of the pleasures of life, while his own moral earnestness and sense of impending catastrophe enjoined upon him absolute celibacy and bade him keep aloof even from the ordinary expressions of sympathy, and he accused them of immoral conduct. His spiritual isolation in such an environment became to him an evidence of the genuineness of his experience. If he was right, his opponents were wrong ; if he was inspired, they put forth false claims, proclaiming in the name of Yahwe oracles that they had themselves thought out. He even forbade the use of the word oracle, Nira (23:36; see PROPHECY). While all prophethood, even that of Jeremiah s less radical colleagues, must ultimately rest on a sense of personal communion with a divine being, this sense seems to have been specially keen in his case. The snatches of poetry, elegies, psalms, dialogues, frequently adduced to show that in this respect Jeremiah anticipated the type of piety that meets us in the Psalter, may indeed be later additions to the book ; but the individualistic character of his religious life is abundantly evident.

4. Conception of Yahwe.[edit]

This prophetic consciousness is influenced by, and in turn reacts upon, his conception of Yahwe. Yahwe is Israel's god. He is Israel's father to whom the nation owes its existence, and therefore its allegiance. Like Hosea, Jeremiah also conceives of Israel as Yahwe's wife. But while Yahwe has remained faithful, the nation has broken its marriage vows. By its adultery with strangers i.e., its worship of the gods of other nations it has forfeited its rights. Unlike HOSEA, Jeremiah deems it impossible that the adulterous wife should be taken back again (3:1+). The noble vine has become a degenerate plant (221). This abandon ment of Yahwe is all the more amazing, as other nations remain faithful to their gods (2:11 : D n^N N 1 ? mm [2:11a] has the appearance of a later gloss), though these are but broken cisterns as compared with a fountain of living waters (2:13). However numerous these gods may be, they can give no aid in times of trouble (2:28). They are as impotent as their sacred symbols, the aleras and the massebas, to which the worshippers address such endearing terms as my father and my begetter (2:27). Whether Jeremiah actually identified the gods of the nations with stocks and stones, may be doubted. But it is possible that his words paved the way for the positive and distinct utterances of 2 Isaiah (cp IDOLATRY).

Yahwe determines what shall befall his people. He has absolute power over its destiny (18:6). He sends the northern hordes into Palestine ; he subdues the nations to Nebuchadrezzar. Yahwe is not a numen limited to the neighbourhood of his shrine, but a god who can betake himself to distant places, whether in heaven or on earth, so that no man can escape from him (23:23-24). He is just in all his dealings with the nations, treating them according to their merits (18:7)

Yahwe s purposes are in harmony with his nature. He reveals them to his servants. What is Yahwe about to do ? is the question that bids the prophet s eyes pierce the darkness of the future, and makes him a soothsayer. Jeremiah s predictions were not based on shrewd political observations, but on his impressions, present with him, whether he was waking or sleeping, of what such a god as he conceived Yahwe to be would necessarily have in mind to do, when historical circum stances showed that he was ready to act. That it was Yahwe s purpose to put Judah, as well as the surround ing nations, into the hand of the growing Chaldean power, was the burden of Jeremiah s message during a period of almost forty years. But the ulterior divine motive was to him the moral reformation of the people.

Only through foreign oppression could that rebellious disposition (^7 niTl!?, 7:24) which showed itself in idolatry and unrighteousness be overcome. This oppression must last until the reformation has taken place. Hence Jeremiah indulges in no vain speculations as to the length of the Chaldean suzerainty ; hence he is abso lutely convinced of the impossibility of resistance and exhorts Zedekiah and his people to willing submission ; hence he lays down as a criterion of true prophethood the preaching of judgment to come with its tendency to lead men away from their evil doings (28:8, 28:22). Beyond this he seems to have had no eschatology. If the nation should repent, Yahwe would also change his treatment of the people (18:7+). But there being as yet no evidence of repentance, the Chaldean yoke must continue and should be quietly carried rather than aggravated by rebellion. Those who by the preaching of repentance worked for the reformation of character, proved themselves in the midst of their labours to belong to the true prophetic order (288). Like his predecessors, Jeremiah believed in the power of Yahwe s judgments to touch the springs of action and lead to a change of conduct. In this he differed widely from the great writer, who might be designated a Second Jeremiah (Jer. 30-31. ), who believed that the grace of Yahwe, shown in the restoration of national independence and prosperity, could alone accomplish that thorough re formation which foreign oppression and prophetic preaching had failed to effect.

Yahwe's supreme demand is purity within, a circum cision of ear and heart, a removal of the carnal dis position preventing Yahwe s voice from being heard and his will from being understood and accepted (44:14, 6:10). The outward forms of the cult have not been ordained by Yahwe. I spake not unto your fathers nor com manded them when I brought them up from the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices (7:22). This is the prophet s declaration of independence. The law promulgated in 620 commanded in Yahwe's name numerous burnt-offerings and sacrifices. However favourably Jeremiah may have been impressed at the outset by the moral tone of the Deuteronomic law, its denunciation of idolatry, and possibly also its tendency to render the sacrifices of animals a less prominent feature of life, he did not believe that Yahwe had ordered such offerings ; and when he observed the carnal confidence in the possession of this law, he had no hesitation in openly denouncing it as a fraud and a forgery 1 (88). Thus the emancipation of religion from the state and the cult, prepared by the earlier prophets, was most fully carried out by Jeremiah.

5. Jeremiah's character.[edit]

The estimate of Jeremiah's character must necessarily depend on the student's critical position. Renan's harsh judgment of him as a fanatic filled with hatred of the human race is based solely on the spurious oracles against the foreign nations. Jeremiah's real attitude was one of kindly concern for the welfare of these nations and desire for their moral reformation through the pressure of the Chaldean yoke. The charges made by some writers against the prophet of cowardice and untruthfulness, vanity and vindictiveness, are largely founded on the narratives of a story-book whose accuracy is too unquestioningly recognised. Our information is too scanty to allow us to assert that he cannot have hurled intemperate curses at his opponents, particularly such prophets as Hananiah ; but neither can we confidently affirm that he did. As to the contention of Maurice Vernes that a prophet who gave to his people the counsel of surrender is a historically impossible character, it arises from his failure to recognise the highest type of patriotism, and to take due account of the religious genius who sub ordinates all considerations of state to the absolute demands of the divinity. On the other hand, the con ception of Jeremiah as the prophet of the new covenant, the foreteller of the restoration of the monarchy and the return of the exiles after seventy years, is based on oracles wrongly and inconsistently ascribed to him. The representation of him as the weeping prophet is derived from the late book of Lamentations and the similar elegies interspersed by editors among his oracles. The salient features of Jeremiah s character are his sternness and his veracity, his loyalty and his courage, his sadness and his tenderness. A hush falls on the festive assembly, the crowded mart, the king s court when this solemn figure appears. Above the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bride groom and the voice of the bride, his strident notes of warning and denunciation rise and bring presentiments of coming ill. Never a word of hope ; ever the stern rebuke and the call to repentance ! But this sternness is born of earnest thought and of unflinching regard for truth. If his hand seeks to rend the veil of the future, it is not to satisfy vain curiosity, but to ascertain the truth that he may proclaim it, bitter though it be, for the ultimate good of the people. As the ambassador of Yahwe, he has no fear of earth s mighty ones, whether kings, or princes, or prophets, or priests. Nor is he concerned whether his preaching may weaken the hands of the men of war." His physical courage may not always be equal to his spiritual intrepidity. His sensitive nature may shrink from actual suffering, and he may at times seek his safety in flight. But when the word of Yahwe comes, he consults not with flesh and blood, but proclaims his message regardless of con sequences. With no family life as a haven of rest for his storm-tossed spirit, his lot is sad. Yet his very words of resignation betray tenderness of heart. Whatever its end may have been, his life was a long and noble martyrdom.

6. Literature.[edit]

See especially Duhm, Die Theologie tier Prophetcn ( 75), Vernes, Du Prttendu Polytlicisme des Hebretix, 91 ; Smend, Lehrbuch d. Alttest. Rel.-gcsch, ( 93 ; 2nd ed. 99) : the Histories of Israel particularly by Stade, Renan, and Wellhausen, and the following monographs : Cheyne, Jeremiah, His Life and Times ( 88) ; Marti, Der Prophet Jeremia von Anatot ( 89) ; Lazarus, Der Prophet Jeremias ( 94); Ricard, Profeten Jcremias ( 96) ; v. Bulmerincq, Das Zukunftslrild dcs Proph. Jeremia, 1894 ; Vernes in La Grande Cyclopedic. Cp also JEREMIAH ii., and PKOPHECY. N s

2. Of Libnah, father of Hamital (2 K. 2831 lepf^iou [KA1.]. 24 18, upe|U.ioii [BL], iripffjuov [A], Jer. 52 i tepf/ouou [BNAQ]).

3. Father of Jaazaniah the Rechabite (Jer. 35 [<S 42)3, lept^LV [RNQ], icpejuiou [A]).

4. A Manassite (i Ch. 624 ; iepjj.eia [B]).

5. 6, 7. Three of David s warriors, the last two being Gadites (i Ch. 124, t<W i[f]ia? [B], icpf/ourjas [N*], r>. 10, lep/oua [N], v. 13, tep/Aia [K], lepajxaov [LI). See DAVID, n (a iii.).

6. A priestly signatory to the covenant (see KZRA i., 7 ; Neh. 102[ 3 ], PM1[BA], < [L]; 12i, i*pAi[]ia [KKA], tupe^os [LI, 34, tep/uias [L]); apparently he gaw his name to a priestly- class (cp Neh. 12 12, upma [AL]).

1 Cp Wellh. Pro!. 428, n. i ; Giesehrecht dissents.


  • Title and place in Canon, 1-2.
  • Contents and divisions, 3-5.
  • Earlier collections, 6.
  • Superscriptions, 7
  • Works of Jeremiah and Baruch, 8-9
  • Later writers, 10.
  • Criticism of chaps. 40-51, 11-14
  • Criticism of chaps. 30-32, 15.
  • Later additions, 16-19.
  • Dates, 20
  • Text and versions, 21
  • Bibliography, 22.

1. Title.[edit]

In most MSS and printed editions of MT this book is called rPKn\

At the time of the Chronicler (c. 200 B.C.) this form of the name seems to have been more common than the earlier in DT (Neh. 10 3 [2] 12 34 i Ch.524 12 410 n SlS only , i Ch. 12 13 in Sv), although Ben-Sira still wrote irt DT) Ecclus. 496. Our oldest MSS of LXX and the versions based on it give as the title a transliteration that may represent either form (lepe/itia? ; so also Coptic). Melito (Eus. HE 4 26) and Origen refer to the book as lepe/uias, ec TU> lepe/ixia, Ep. ad Afr. 226). Jerome uses the same title (Pro!, gal. in 2 Reg.), and ;vSV > s the designation in Baba bathra. i4/>.

2. Position in Canon.[edit]

The book seems once to have occupied the first place among the prophetae posteriores. A baraitha in Baba bathra (14b 15a) gives the following order of these prophets : Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Minor Prophets ; and the Talmudic tract explains that Isaiah was placed after Jeremiah and Ezekiel because Kings ends in desolation, Jeremiah is all desolation, Ezekiel begins with desolation and ends with consolation, and Isaiah is all consolation. This Talmudic arrangement was followed by many copyists (20 cited by Kenn. , 8 by De Rossi, 6 by Ginsb. ), and also by a MS of the Masorah in the Palatinate Library, cp Buxtorf, Tiberias, 286. The oldest testimony for the order, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Minor Prophets, is Jerome (I.e.). In 380 A.D. , he still adhered to the arrangement found in his copy of the LXX viz., Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (Ep. ad Paulinam}. To this order Codex Alexandrinus, Cyril (Cat. 4331) and Gregory Naz. (Op. 298) bear witness. That it was determined by chronological considerations is manifest, whilst the insertion of Daniel shows its in dependence of the Babylonian or Palestinian tradition preserved in the Talmud.

No conclusions can be drawn from the MSS as to the original order in LXX. Peshitta (Poc. Bodl. Lee) 1 presents the succes sion : Isaiah, Minor Prophets, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel ; and the Ethiopic version has Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. Origen s arrangement (Is., Jer., Dan., Ez.) places Daniel before Ezekiel, and Melito s (Is., Jer., Min. Pr., Dan., Ez.) indicates another position for Minor Prophets omitted by Origen.

1 [There are of course exceptions in other MSS. The famous Cod. Ambrosianus, for example, gives this order : Isaiah. Jeremiah (with Lam., Ep. Jer., and F.pp. of Baruch), Ezekiel, Minor Prophets, Daniel (with Bel and Dragon)].

3. Contents.[edit]

There is evidence that the book at one time contained some elements now found elsewhere or lost.

As Josephus does not mention separately Lamentations in c. Ap. 1 8, he probably knew it only as a part of Jeremiah. The same is presumably true of Melito. Origen distinctly states that he regarded Lamentations and the Epistle (Baruch 1-5 and 6?) as belonging to Jeremiah (I.e.}. Later patristic writers, like Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom, Hilary, and Ambrose, regularly include Lamentations, Baruch and Epistle in Jeremiah (cp Hody, De bibl., 646^!). In the Ethiopia Bible the book comprises also the Paralipomena Jeremiae (Dillmann, Chrest. Aeth. 1-15; Ceriani, Monumenta, Ig-iS) and the frag ment containing the passage quoted in Mt. 27 9. These works, having attached themselves to Jeremiah somewhat after the fashion of the additions to Daniel and Esther, were gradually provided with separate headings and severed from the volume.

The same is possibly the case in the seven following instances : -

(1) In 2 Ch. 35:25 an elegy on the death of Josiah is ascribed to Jeremiah. It seems to have had a place at one time among the threnodies of Lamentations (nirpn ^y ; read with LXX nrp and with S 1 nama mn). See LAMENTATIONS, and cp Schmidt, Introd. to Jer.

(2) In 2 Ch. 8622^ and Ezra 1:1-3, Is. 44:28 is distinctly quoted as a word of Jeremiah. The most natural explanation is that Is. 40 ff., being anonymous, and revealing a marked kinship to Jer. 30-33, found a temporary home in our volume before it was finally attached to Isaiah, where it may have been already established by 180 B.C. (cp Ecclus. 4824/. ).

(3) In 2 Macc. 2:1+, certain statements are made on the authority of a work entitled Jeremiah, the Prophet. Two views are possible, (a) V. 2 may be simply reminiscent of Jer. 10:9, and vv. 4+. may originally have been a haggadic annotation to Jer. 3:16, intended to explain and to soften the effect of that passage, but afterwards removed from the text ; or (b) the author may have had before him the biographical work probably known by the same title. That he designates his source as scripture (ypa^), would be natural on either hypothesis. It is less likely that the Paralipomena Jeremise, though essentially of Jewish origin, already existed when 2 Macc, was written.

(4) Mt. 27:9 is quoted from Jeremiah the Prophet, the term being the same as that used in Mt. 2:17. This passage is not found in our present text. Did the author of Mt. read it in his copy of Jeremiah, or in an Apocryphon Jeremias? (Cp JUDAS ISCARIOT, 8.)

(5) Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 72, charges the Jews with having erased from Jer. a passage probably of Christian origin.

(6) Whether Eph. 5:14 found its way into the apocryphon from the margin of Jeremiah, or belonged to the Apocalypse of Elijah, cannot yet be determined.

(7) Lactantius (48) found in his text the words beatus qui erat antequam nasceretur in Jer. 1:5. How old this gloss was is unknown. In regard to Justin's accusation against the Jews that they had erased Jer. 11:19, it is altogether probable that there was a basis of fact for the statement. Certain MSS known to Justin lacked the passage. But this may have been due in part to its (possible) absence in a copy older than that used by LXX, and only in part to its clumsy yet uncomfortable apologetic use by Christians. Its occurrence in all extant MSS simply shows that it finally maintained itself.

On the other hand, MT contains many elements that have been added even after the book assumed substantially its present form (see below).

1 [For the MSS which seem to present the Lucianic recension of Jeremiah, see below, 21.]

4. Division.[edit]

It has been maintained that Josephus (Ant. x 5:1, 79) divided the book into two volumes, either Jeremiah and Lamentations (Venema, Meulenbelt) or Jer. 1-24 and 25-52 (Eichhorn, Bertholdt).

Ordinarily the words 'who was the first that wrote and left behind him in writing two books concerning these things' (6j Trpwros irepi TOVTUV 5i>o /3i /3\ov? ypd\j/as KaT^Xurev) are understood as referring to Ezekiel. But Ez. 1-39 and 40-48 cannot be meant (Stephen Huet, Bertholet), as 40-48 contains no prophecy of the exile. Rather is it probable that those passages quoted from Ezekiel by Clement, Tertullian, and others (cp Fabricius, Cod. Pseudepig. 1117^) had at the time of our glossator been severed from the canonical Ezekiel and constituted an independent volume. That the words quoted are a later gloss, seems probable ; fij is lacking in many MSS, and Josephus himself could scarcely have considered Ezekiel as earlier than Jeremiah.

The following are the chief schemes that have been proposed for dividing the book :

  • OEcolampadius : (1) 1-31, (2) 32-39, (3) 40-52.
  • Heidegger : (1) 1-36, (2) 37-44, (3) 45, (4) 46-51, (5) 52.
  • H. Alting, Hottinger, Venema, Rosenmiiller, De Wette, Payne Smith, Streane : (1) 1-39, (2) 40-45, (3) 46-51, (4) 52.
  • Alpinus : (1) 1-20, (2) 21-39, (3) 40-42.
  • J. Alting: (1) 1, (2) 2-51, (3) 52.
  • Eichhorn : (1) 1-24, (2) 25-51, app. 52.
  • Bertholdt : (1) 1-24, (2) 46-51, (3) 25-45, app. 52.
  • Stahelin, with (1) and (2) united, also Havernick, Keil : (1) 1-10, (2) 11-24, (3) 25-29, (4) 30-33, (5) 34-39, (6) 40-45, (7) 46-51, app. 52.
  • Movers : (1) 1-20, 26, 46-49, (2) 30-31, 33, (3) 50-51, (4) 23, 22, 24, (5) 21, 34, 37, 32, 38-44, (6) 27-29.
  • Schmieder : (1) 1-12, (2) 13-25, (3) 26-33, (4) 34-39, (5) 40-45, (6) 46-51, (7) 52.
  • Neumann : (1) 1, (2) 2-17, (3) 18-19, (4) 20-45, (5) 46-51, (6) 52.
  • Ewald : (1) 1, (2) 2-24, (3) 46-49, 25, app. 26-29, (4) 30-33, app. 34-35, (5) 36, 45, app. 50-51, and 52.
  • Hitzig : (i) 1-12:6, (2) 25, (3) 20, (4) 35, (5) 36, (6) 45, (7) 46-49 and (8) 12:8-24, (9) 27-29, (10) 30-33, (11) 50-51, (12) 52.
  • Scholz: (i) 1-10, (2) 11-20, (3) 21-24, (4) 25:1-14, 46-51, (5) 25:15-33, (6) 34-44, app. 45 and 52.
  • Delitzsch : (i) 1-6, (2) 7-12, (3) 13-20, (4) 21-25, (5) 26-29, (6) 30-33, (7) 34-38, (8) 39-45, (9) 46-51, app. 52.

The marked differences between the various attempts clearly indicate the futility of proving a logical, any more than a chronological arrangement, either in MT or in <. Nevertheless, they have been of value in leading the way to a better understanding of the com position of the book.

It is evident that a chronological arrangement was once intended, as the order in 1-20, the headings and the general sequence of sections, especially in , suggest. It is equally clear that, with no regard to the chronology, philippics against the reigning princes have been gathered in 21-24, attacks upon rival prophets in 26-29, promises of restoration in 30-33, and prophecies concerning the other nations in 46-51. Later accretions to collections previously arranged chronologically or according to the subject matter, as well as insertion or addition of later collections, have undoubtedly contributed to the present disorder. This is probably the element of truth in Grafs supplementary hypothesis according to which the book is not a collection, but rather a larger whole arising out of an originally complete work through addition and expansion. But the fruitless endeavours to find a rational order have resulted in calling renewed attention to the headings with their time-indications, and to the groups of chapters that inevitably point to independent collections earlier than the book in its present form.

5. Value of the superscriptions.[edit]

Of the superscriptions, which recur throughout the book, the most frequent is 'the word that came to Jeremiah from Yahwe' (6s ~pP5ror m p l TO~TWP ado plphour ypdqasKCZTCX~TE) with or without an added 'saying' (7:1, 11:1, 18:1, 21:1, 30:1, 32:1, 34:18, 35:1, 40:1). In all these instances the title may have come from the same hand, although it is also possible that a heading used in an earlier book was imitated. That this was actually done at a late date, and with a small degree of intelligence, is shown by 40:1, which very inappropriately heads a narrative, not a prophecy. Of the same general type are the headings 25:1, 26:1, 27:1. Yet they bear marks of a different and later origin, such as the use of al (hy) for V/ (*?n) in 25:1, the absence of 'to Jeremiah' (wDH*W) in 26:1 reminding us of 50:1 in its earliest form, and rvDV for VTDT in 27:1. In 50:1 @ read 'the word of Yahwe which he spoke concerning Babylon' (^33 *?y -m itpN m,T "im), the prophecy evidently being anonymous at first. It subsequently assumed the form 'the word that Yahwe spake concerning Babylon, by Jeremiah' (*?N nirp im ityx lain in DV V3 ^33), to which concerning the land of the Chaldeans was added as a gloss. In the somewhat abbreviated form which Yahwe spoke by Jeremiah (liTDY V3 mrrvmrx) this meets us again in 46:13 (<S). A later editor, however, changed this into the word that Jeremiah the prophet spoke, in harmony with the then prevailing view of Jeremiah as the prophet KO.T t$;o-)(T)v- The same heading is found in 45:1, both in MT and @. The name of the people referred to was deemed sufficient in the case of certain anonymous prophecies against foreign nations, or the term ma ssa (xbo) was used as in the Book of Isaiah. When grouped together, the mention of Nebuchadrezzar in one of them would naturally suggest Jeremiah as the author of all ; but a general superscription to this effect was thought enough and of Egypt (onsD 1 ?) 46:2, concerning the Philistines (o-nc Sij ?) 47:1 (<5), of the children of Ammon (poy :3?) 49:1, of Edom (onxV) 49:7, of Damascus (ptrai 1 ?) 49:23, of Kedar (vtp 1 ?) 49:28, concerning Elam (D?^*?) 49:34 remained, the xtra, if once there, disappearing in deference to the prophet s views on this subject, 28:33+:

The most remarkable title in the book is ^x nin VJ1 n mt?X in OV- I occurs 14:1, 46:1, 47:1, 49:34 and probably 1:2 as the original heading. In 14:1 m~l!J3 (pronounce nns3 [cp Pesh., Targ., Mich. Supfil. 209], aj3poxi, siccitas), is an Aramaism, and the chapter is not an oracle ; in 46:1 x 33 has been added ; in 47:1 CTntJ ?B 7X s unnatural following in DV 7X, as is also Q7 y 7X in 49:34. But more suspicious still is the phrase itself. There is no parallel for it in Hebrew. Ezek. 1225 is corrupt (cp Cornill), and Am. 5:1, also quoted by Ewald, is quite regular. When the Greek version was made, 14:1 read JN mn 131 n l in DV 46:1 was still lacking, 47:1 read c > nc/ 7S7> 49:34 read Q Un Sy in DV X33 IB X, he last words of 25 13 having been cut loose from the nonten regcns and made a title of this prophecy. This was subsequently altered into in DV Sx m,V "131 n n ~\y> N, given as a superscription to 46:1 and 47:1, and substituted for the phrase used in 14:1. It was also employed as a title by the collector of the first book.

Chap. 1:2 probably read Q j in DV ^X m,V T3T n n I& N 137D7 n:t? mt^y pWa mi.v T,?D pox }3 in B X - The words in DV SN may have been abbreviated "?x as well as simply 7X, and the former misread v^x- The reign was suggested by 36, the year was probably taken from the biographical work. A more elaborate heading would in course of time be de manded, giving information concerning the prophet. It read niruya ne X D :n3n JD i.vp7n [3 LVOV W n n nrx mn 131 ? D 33 |IN3- Cp (5. The omission of vn can scarcely with Giesebrecht be regarded as an infallible sign of pre-exilic author ship. It is evident that the book while it had only this heading could not have contained any oracle considered by the editor to be later than the thirteenth year of Josiah. The addition of collections bearing later dates led to the penning of v. 3. Even then there was nothing in the book that was regarded as later than the fall of Jerusalem.

The time indications are numerous, but are of uncertain value.

They are found in 1 2 (i3th Jos.), 36 (Jos.), 14:1 (the drought), 21:1 (Zed.), 24 i (after Jeconiah), 25:1 ( 4 th Jeh.), 26:1 (beg. Jeh.), 27:1 (beg. Jeh.), 28:1 ( 4 th Zed.), 29:1 (after Jec.), 32:1 (loth Zed.), 34:1 (Zed.), 34:8 (Zed.), 35:1 (Jeh.), 36:1 (Jeh.), 37:1 (Zed.), 37:11 (Zed.), 38:1 (Zed.), 39:1-2 (9th and 11th Zed.), 40:1 (after Jer. s release by Nabuzaradan), 41:1 (7th month), 42:7 (after 10 days), 45:1 ( 4 th Jeh.), 46:2 (4th Jeh.), 47:1 (defeat of Gaza by Pharaoh), 49:34 (beg. Zed.), 51:59 ( 4 th Zed.).

The text is not always certain.

In 27:1 has no superscription. One editor, living later than (5, assigned the prophecy to Jehoiakim s reign. So MT. He could not have done this if in the very first sentence he had read unto king Zedekiah (ivpis I JD ?N) ; 27:36 is therefore probably a later gloss. Another editor, noticing Zedekiah in v. 12, wrote his name in the heading. So Pesh. , Ambrosianus, Ar. , Oxon. , Kenn. 224,

Some statements are too vague to be of much value. We do not know the date of the particular drought mentioned in 14:1, nor when Pharaoh smote Gaza (47 1). Some are demonstrably wrong, ascribing to certain occasions in the life of Jeremiah oracles not proceeding from him. Thus 25:1, 46:2, 47:1, 49:34, 51 59 are manifestly nothing but conjectures of late editors. Others are drawn from popular story books, and cannot be ac- corded more probability than the stories themselves, as 40:1, 44:1, 45:1, probably also 32:1 and 35:1.

The entire book 1-20 is evidently assigned by 1:1-2. to the reign of Josiah. This was clearly a mistake. The editor of 26 is probably right in assigning the speech of which 7+. gives a more extended report to the time of Jehoiakim. Editors who in some instances found niches in the life of Jeremiah for prophecies written centuries later than his time, as easily as the same service was performed by hymn collectors for David, may occasionally have displayed an admirable critical instinct ; but their opinions can have no binding force.

Various introductory formulas are used which often mark off smaller independent oracles. Of these the most important are and the word of Yahwe came unto Jeremiah (i,vav "?x mn n3T m), and and the word of Yahwe came unto me ( >( 7x rri.v T3i ,TT).

The former is peculiar to 25-44 (29, 30, 32:26, 33:1, 33:19, 33:23, 35:12, 37:6). The latter is peculiar to 1-24 (1:4, 11, 13:2:1, 13:8, 14:11, 15:1, 16:1, 18:5, 24:4). Here again the text is frequently uncertain. In 14 NX read = v?X> and in DV 7X may have been the original, though abbreviated. In 2:1 has only KOU curey. In 16:1 & probably read jx IB" .I^X frl.V IDX I- I" 244 Arm. read n-po? lepffj.ia.ir. In 35:12 read ^n, n-pos f-e (in 32:6 this was the reading in Q m S-), while MT has in DV *?X> ar >d likewise 36:1. This proves beyond doubt that in DV was often abbreviated or simply . This being the case, there is no unmistak able indication anywhere whether ^u or in DV ^x was originally written. However, phrases like 9x mn 1CN H3, 13:1, 17:19, and jXTHi 24 t, show that the first person was sometimes used. From the use of the first person no conclusion can of course be drawn as to the Jeremianic origin of a given oracle. Any prophet might use the same formula.

6. Earlier collections.[edit]

Nevertheless if these superscriptions, as the work of editors living at different periods subsequent to the time of Jeremiah based on conjecture or doubtful tradition, neither indicate unity of composition or redaction, nor possess any intrinsic authority, they have considerable value as aids in recovering earlier collections, and in exhibiting the successive stages of redaction.

Chap. 1 3 furnishes positive evidence that the book at one time contained no prophecy indicated as having been spoken by Jeremiah after the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah. Consequently, 40-44, 52 at any rate formed no part of the collection. There is ground for supposing that the three booklets, 25 & 46-51, 27-29 and 30-33, had as yet no place in the centre of this volume. Chap. 1:2 supplies equally convincing proof that the book once contained no section indicated as being later than the thirteenth year of Josiah. This title excludes 21-24 and 26:34-39; but it may have served as sufficient heading for 1-20 since no later king or date is mentioned in these chapters. No collector or copyist may have been familiar with the other version of 7+ in 26 and the date there given, or have noticed that 11 points to a time later than the discovery of the Law in the eighteenth year of Josiah, or observed that in 19-20 the relations between Jeremiah and the rulers are more strained than in 7+.

By the aid of the superscriptions the following collections may be recovered, (1) 1-20; (2) 21-24; (3) 25, 46-51 ; (4) 26-29 ; (5) 30-33 ; (6) 34-39 ; (7) 40-44. Whilst 13 clearly shows that 40-44 once circulated separately, and the character of the narrative confirms this observation, the same cannot be affirmed concerning 34-39. In the work whence these chapters were taken 34 & 37-39 on the one hand, and (26) 35-36 (45) on the other, would seem to have belonged together (Cornill). Not only by sub-headings and solemn introductory formulas, but even more by the editorial custom of prefacing an oracle with appropriate words, or of adding at the end words mostly of a consolatory nature, it is to a certain extent possible to discover the smaller collections used in making these books.

i. Chaps. 1-20. In Bk. 1 the two oracles, 1 & 4-10:11-19 ( a ): evidently form an independent section ; 2:1-3:5 (b) is shown by the introduction and the heading 36 to be a separate discourse ; the title, the non-Jeremianic preface, 36-42, and the new superscription 7:1 indicate that 3:6-6:30 (c) once formed a booklet; 7-10 (d) by its title and its long appendix, 9:22-10:25, is similarly marked off; 11-12 (e) is likewise distinguished by heading and appendix, 11:18-12:17 ; 13 (f) is clearly an independent fragment, 15-17 and 20-27 being probably later additions; 14-17 (g) is shown to be a collection by title, by prefaced non-Jeremiahic passages, 14:2-6, 14:7-9, and by numerous interpolations and the appendix, 17:19-27 ; 18-20 (h) is separated from what precedes by a special title, and from what follows by the appended curse in imitation of Job 3:2+. and the heading of 21.

Among these groups c and d make the strongest impression of being direct reports of oracles. A characteristic especially of g, but also of a, e,f, and h, is the use of the first person. Listening disciples may have written down from memory what the prophet related in this form. The ease, however, with which a figure of speech is transformed into a narrative of actual occurrence in 13, and the manifest later colouring in 1:10 and 1:18, warn against assuming greater accuracy in these sections on account of the form. The editor of Book i found these pericopes without any indication of date except in 36. It is difficult to suppose that the first book was compiled before the third century. The editor of g may indeed have been a contemporary of Nehemiah (385-373 B.C.), and the prophet s biography used to some extent in e, f, g, and It may have been written in the Persian period ; but the Book of Job almost certainly belongs to the time of Ptolemaic sovereignty over Palestine, and the language of the title, 1:2, points to a comparatively late date.

2. Chaps. 21-24. In Bk. 2 chaps. 22-23:8 (a) form a collection of oracles against the reigning princes, dis tinguished by introduction, contents, and consolatory non-jeremianic additions, 23:1-4, 23:5-6, 23:7-8 ; 23:9-40 (b) is separated by its heading ; 24 (c) is of a totally different character reminding us of 1 and 13. Stade has shown convincingly (ZA 7 1 IF 12 277^) that 21:1-10 is an ex cerpt from a passage in the biography from which another excerpt, necessary to supplement it, was made in 37:4-10, and also that 21:11-14 is editorial work. Phrases drawn from 48:8 suggest that 21:11-14 may have been written late in the second century. But there is nothing to prevent 21:1-10 from having been prefaced and the collection made already in the previous century.

3. Chaps. 25:46-51. That the prophecies against foreign nations in Bk. 3 once circulated as a separ ate collection is evident from the different places they occupy in MT and LXX. While in LXX these oracles occupy a central position in the volume, like the similar prophecies in Isaiah and Ezekiel, they are in MT relegated to the end. Their place in more exactly is between 25:1-13 and 15-38 of the Hebrew text. The most natural way of accounting for this is by assuming that 25:1-13 once formed the introduction to a smaller collection of oracles against nations likely to be affected by the northern invasion, that the additional introduction, vv. 15-38, was demanded by the accession of oracles against other nations, that @ s copy still lacked this expansion, and that it was subsequently done into Greek, and on account of its length appended rather than inserted in the margin. This would explain how the corpus could be removed in MT and yet leave the entire chap. 25 behind in its old place, and also how 25:15-38, which naturally should precede the corpus, is found after it in (55. On this hypothesis the similarity between the order in MT and that of the list, 25:19-26, likewise finds its explanation. The additional names are probably later insertions, or possibly represent oracles removed to other collections, or lost. How extensive the first col lection may have been is not easily determined. The prophecies against Elam and Babylon are certainly to be eliminated, and probably also those concerning Moab, Ammon, Damascus, and Kedar. It is possible, however, that in addition to Egypt, Philistia, and Edom, Tyre and Sidon had a place in that collection. If so, the first booklet may have been produced in the third century. But such late prophecies as those against Babylon and Moab cannot well have been written before the second half of the second century ; and the apoca lyptic language of the editor who wrote 25:15-38 points to the same epoch for the final redaction of Bk. 3. See also below, n.

4. Chaps. 26-29. In Bk. 4 it is evident that 27-29 once circulated as a separate collection. This is shown by the abbreviated form of names like ,TDV, rrpnx, rrjjn, mi3\ the spelling nswonj for ixN-naiaa. the addition of N 33n, and the many glosses later than made by the same editor. As a copyist of the entire volume would not be likely to select these chapters as a special field for exhibiting all his peculiarities, it is most natural to suppose that ( translated an earlier text of 27-29 than that incorporated in MT, that in LXXs text 27:1 was contiguous with the end of the prophecy against Elam, 49:39 (Movers, Hitzig), and that 26 subsequently found its way into in the train of 25:15-38. The character of 27 accounts for its being joined to the prophecies against foreign nations in Bk. 3. A later scribe prob ably copied from the biographical work chap. 26 as an introduction to show the wickedness of the pseudo- prophets and the divine protection enjoyed by Jeremiah, and justify his denunciation. It is reasonably certain that this book cannot have received its present form until the second half of the second century.

5. Chaps. 30-33. Bk. 5 consists of (a) 30-31. (b) 32:1-15, (c) 32:16-44, (d) 33:1-13, (e) 33:14-26. Only a once circulated as a separate book ; b may have been drawn from the biography ; c is apparently an interpolation in situ ; d was probably written by the editor of Bk. 5, who may have lived in the latter part of the second century ; and e is an appendix later than LXX.

6. Chaps. 34-39. With the comforting outlook into the future presented by Bk. 5 the volume once closed. But the same increased interest in the prophet s life that caused the addition of chaps. 36-39 to the Book of Isaiah also led to the appending of biographical material to Jeremiah. Bk. 6 never had any separate existence. Its present disorder is best explained by the different stories having been drawn directly from the biography. It is probable that this story-book followed a certain chronological order. The seeming neglect of this in Chronicles and Daniel cannot be alleged against the supposition. The Chronicler knows well the order of Jewish kings, and that of the Persian monarchs was probably better known to him than has been supposed, while the composition of Daniel may explain the lack of chronological arrangement in that book (cp Barton, JBLYlfo}. It is not unlikely that in the biography 26, 35-36, and possibly 45, were followed by 34, 21:1-2, 37:4-10, 2l:3-10, 37:11-38:28a, 39:1-3, 39:14-18, though some other sections must have intervened. From 39:2 the general editor of 1-39 obtained his last date, 13. The interpolation, 39:4-13, is later than (5 ; but the incorpora tion of the chapters enumerated in the volume may have followed soon upon that of Bk. 5.

7. Chaps. 40-44. Bk. 7 was not known to the editor who wrote 1:3. This raises the serious question whether Bk. 7 or any section of it formed a part of the bio graphical work. After the awkward introduction, 40:1-6, an account follows, 40:7-41:18, which can scarcely have been drawn from that source.

Not only does Jeremiah play no r6le in the stirring events here narrated (it is Johanan who appears as Gedaliah s adviser), but neither he nor Baruch is mentioned among those who escaped the massacre. This strange silence concerning the prophet renders it probable that 40:7-41:18 is a Midrash to the book of Kings, brought over to prepare the way for 42+. One is tempted to suppose that this section has taken the place of an oracle to Nabuzaradan by Jeremiah. It is difficult to imagine that an editor should have deliberately introduced a narrative in which no oracle of Jeremiah occurs, and, in fact, the prophet does not figure at all in 'the word which came to Jeremiah from Yahwe'.

In 42-44 the failure to carry the story down to the prophet s death is noticeable. It has been supposed that the veil was drawn over his tragic end by a desire not to publish the nation s shame. But there is no trace of such delicacy elsewhere in the volume. The murder of Uriah (26:23) and other prophets is freely recorded, and the tendency of this particular book to present the prophet as faithful even to the end and the people as apostates capable of any wickedness is very marked. Besides, it is far from certain that Jeremiah met with a violent death, or, if so, at the hands of his countrymen (see JEREMIAH, the Prophet, 2). It is more likely that when this book was made it was not yet known what had become of the prophet. The biographical work naturally grew in the same way as our volume. When Bk. 6 was added to chaps. 1-33 this biography apparently lost sight of the prophet at the fall of Jeru salem. A much later hand probably led him with all the remnant of the people, not without violence, into Egypt to prophesy against that kingdom and to predict the utter extinction of the Egyptian diaspora. From Nehemiah s memoirs we learn that in his time (385-373 B.C. ) the Jews in Palestine were still regarded as people that had been left in the province when the exiles were carried away (cp EZRA-NEHEMIAH). The idea, dia metrically opposed to this, that no Judaeans were left behind in the land, does not appear until the Chronicler, who, however, knows nothing yet of a rem nant escaping to Egypt (2 Ch. 36:20). The exuberant genealogical interest would naturally lead the Egyptian Jews to trace their pedigrees back to the exile, and the difficulty of accomplishing this feat may readily have suggested as an explanation a prophetic oracle sealing the doom of the entire remnant. In course of time the prophet would inevitably receive the martyr s crown. But whether an account of this yet found a place in the biography is doubtful. The counter-currents of interest connecting him with the Babylonian diaspora, where he would have ended his life in peace, or with Judaea, may have prevented tradition from becoming fixed on this point. Nabuzaradan s speech reminds one of utterances of pagan rulers in Daniel. The historic substitute may have been introduced at the end of the second century by the editor who appended 52.

As chap. 45 presents Baruch in a different role from that imputed to him in 43s, it is possible that this para graph was taken from an earlier section of the biography and put at the end of the volume to show Jeremiah's prophetic insight and generosity, even as 39:15-18 was appended to Bk. 6.

In regard to the biography itself, it is not improbable that it bore the title Jeremiah the Prophet and that it long had a separate existence. If it was actually used by the authors of 2 Macc, and Mt., it may even have been translated into Greek. The disappearance of such a work involves no difficulty. Nor is it impossible that the original was still in existence in the days of Jerome. Until the Hebrew book shown to him shall have been found, there will be nothing to force the conclusion that it was a recent forgery or to prevent the assumption that it was the old biography from which so many abstracts had been made, though naturally not untouched by many hands that would have dealt more scrupulously with a canonical book.

Ch. 52 seems to have been drawn from 2 K. 25 - a very late appendix to K. - Verses 28-30, not found in K., were added later than LXX, but probably from a good old source, as they contradict the conception current at the time of the translation. When that time was cannot be accurately determined. The preface to Ecclus. only shows that in 132 B.C. prophetic writings had been translated, but does not indicate the extent and character of these writings. The year 114 in the epilogue to the Greek Esther is so far from fixing the lower limit of LXX that it cannot even be relied upon for determining the date of the translation of that particular book (cp Jacob, ZATW, 1890, p. 274^). Nor is it likely that all parts were translated at the same time.

There appears to be nothing, however, to prevent the view that the volume had substantially assumed its present form in the reign of Alexander Jannoeus (102- 76 B.C.).

7. Superscriptions.[edit]

According to the baraitha preserved in Baba bathra 14b, Jeremiah was the author of the book. The superscriptions in all parts of the volume (except 52) would naturally lead to this conclusion. This was no doubt the generally accepted view in the time of the Tannaim (Mishnic doctors). Whilst there is only one direct quotation in NT bearing on this point viz. Mt. 2:18 (the other, 27:9, being prob ably from the biography) this shows that 30+ was regarded as a Jeremianic production, and other NT authors, notably those of Hebrews and Revelation, are likely to have regarded Jeremiah as the author on the strength of the headings. Strictly speaking, these titles, with a single exception, do not affirm that Jeremiah was the writer of the respective sections. They only state that these oracles came to Jeremiah, and it is implied that they were uttered by him, but not necessarily that he wrote them.

In 25:13 the editor's meaning is perhaps doubtful ; in 29:1 the editor possibly meant to intimate that Jeremiah wrote the letter as well as sent it ; in 30:2 the editor distinctly represents Yahwe as ordering the prophet to write, leaving the inference that he did so. It is significant that in all three cases the contents of the books render it extremely difficult to believe that they have come, either directly or indirectly, from the hand of Jeremiah. As in 36:4 the divine command given to Jeremiah (36:2) to write in a book is carried out by dictation to Baruch, the writer of 30:2 may have thought of the same method.

Only in 51:60 is it distinctly stated that Jeremiah wrote the words against Babylon; but 50:1-51:58 is clearly un-Jeremianic. Even through the mists of tradition the fact can be discerned that there never were any Jeremianic autographs. This prophet was not a holy penman, but a preacher of righteousness (cp ISAIAH i. ).

8. Jeremianic oracles.[edit]

But if Jeremiah was not himself a writer, he may be the real author of many an oracle preserved in this book. That would be eminently true, could it be proved that some of them were actually dictated by him. But even though a closer examination should render it probable that we possess only free reproductions of discourses that lived in the memory of disciples, that would still put within our reach sentiments, thoughts, and forms of expression of which he was the author. If these should be seen to reflect historic circumstances unknown in later times, religious ideas out of harmony with those prevailing after the exile, and a unique personality not to be explained as a fictitious character, that would tend to enhance their trustworthiness. It would not be strange, in view of methods in vogue elsewhere, if such genuine sayings should be found chiefly in Bks. i and 2, if Bks. 3 and 5 should prove to be altogether un-Jeremianic, and if the biographical sec tions, with all their long speeches, should furnish but scanty material.

Since Spinoza it has generally been assumed, on the basis of the narrative in 36, that the roll which Baruch wrote at the dictation of Jeremiah in the fifth year of Jehoiakim (603 B.C.) has been preserved in some parts of our present volume. Spinoza regarded the I sections, i.e. , chiefly 1-20 and the prophecies against foreign nations, 46-51, as giving the contents of the roll. This view has met with wide approval. Even Stacle thinks it the first duty of criticism to restore from the book this original roll. He, indeed, rejects 46-51 with its introduction 25, removes all genuine sayings that are later than 603, and eliminates the many un-Jeremi anic interpolations. But the remainder represents to him the famous roll. We have no guarantee, how ever, that the remnant ever had a place on Baruch's scroll. In fact, there are considerations that militate seriously against this supposition. The words directly quoted from the roll (36:29) are not to be found in these sections ; there are no prophecies against foreign nations among them, as is demanded by v. 2 ; the prophecies selected do not make any such clear allusion to the Chaldaeans as would scare the king or vex him, and they certainly do not make the impression of being either all the words that Yahwe had spoken to him in twenty years or an intelligently arranged summary for a special purpose. The difficulty of the assumption has been felt by Gratz 1 (1874) and Cheyne (art. Jeremiah, in EBW, 81 ; Comm. 85), who have there fore thought of chap. 25 (of course when purified from the most obvious interpolations) as the roll. But since chap. 25 is the introduction to chaps. 46-51, and all these chapters are almost certainly not Jeremianic in any sense, the attempt to find Baruch s roll must be given up. As Dahler suggested, the book had clearly a special purpose. Whether it was subsequently lost, or any part of it drifted into our volume, is not a matter of serious moment. Concerning no portion of our present work is it affirmed, or even intimated, that it was dictated to Baruch. The use of the first person, if original, may be a reminiscence of the actual language of the prophet, or a literary device.

It is safe to assume that among those who listened to the prophet there were no reporters taking down his words, pen in hand. Chap. 36 gives us valuable evidence of what was deemed sufficient accuracy in such matters. All the words spoken by Yahwe through his prophet in twenty years are put to writing under a sudden impulse, and this picture of past prophecy is a year later, under fresh provocation, retouched with many like words. This is no doubt the story of much reporting. Freely from memory, speeches were written down that they might not be forgotten, still preserving, in spite of many like words added, somewhat of the original flavour.

It is this breath of a mighty spirit, felt particularly in the earlier parts of the volume, that forbids the theory of Havet and Vernes according to which our book is wholly pseudcpigraphical and Jeremiah a fictitious character.

1 [ It is an old and generally prevalent error that Jeremiah caused to be written dnwn an entire collection of prophetic discourses, and that Jehoiakim destroyed this. . . It is to be shown here that Jehoiakim only burned that roll in which was contained the prophecy of the calamity threatening Judah (and the neighbouring peoples) from the Babylonion invasion (see 36:29). . . . Chaps. 36 and 25 belong together as much as chaps. 1 and 20. Gratz, Das Datum der Schlacht bei Kharkemisch u. der Beginn der chald. Herrschaft jib. Juda, Tl/fi^K/23 289^ The so-called error still holds its ground in commentaries and introductions.]

9. Baruch's part.[edit]

It is natural to ascribe such knowledge as we possess of Jeremiah's words and life to the pen of Baruch The book itself suggests his importance.

According to chap. 36 Baruch was the writer of the book pro duced in 604 ; he was the prophet s representative reading this book ; he was as much in danger as Jeremiah and had as powerful friends among the princes ; according to 43:3 he was accused by the Jews of unduly influencing the prophet ; according to 45:5 he was censured by Jeremiah himself for having cherished lofty plans contrary to the prophet s ideas. Such a man might write, not only at the dictation of the prophet, but also in his name, and furnish much information concerning his life, by virtue of intimate acquaintance. The idea of a close partnership involv ing independent work on Baruch s part is seen unmistakably in the addition of Bar. 1-5 to Jer. without a separate title and in the appending of the Epistle of Jeremy to Bar. ; and in Baruch s biographical activity in Paralipomena Jer. To Theodoret Baruch seems to have been more than a mere amanuensis.

When, in modern times, differences of style began to be observed, the frequent changes from the first to the third person were ascribed to Baruch ; his hand was dis covered in the later oracles ; the biographical sections were assigned to him as author. The theory of two recensions had a tendency to increase his labours as an editor ; he was charged with the care of the second improved edition as well as with the editio princeps.

Even after the abandonment of the two -recensions theory, the idea that large portions of our book have come from the pen of Baruch is still cherished by eminent scholars. But there is not the slightest evidence that any part of the volume was ever written by him. It does not contain a single line that even claims to have been penned by him ; and the many works that purport to come from him are too palpably spurious to be used as touchstones. It remains a bare possibility that, at one time or another, Baruch wrote down abstracts of oracles delivered by Jeremiah. Among these there may have been reports of utterances made before 604 B.C. as well as after that date. But it is not likely that such memoranda were used in preparing the book read to Jehoiakim. The late origin of many sections claimed for Baruch, and the manifest lack of order among the genuine fragments of Jeremianic oracles, seem to pre clude the supposition that he was in any sense the editor of the book. 1

Note on Jer. 36:18. The sense of Nip in this passage (read ? proclaim?) is uncertain. In v. 14 xnp has clearly the sense of read, as frequently elsewhere, cp Ex. 24:7, Dt. 17:19. The use of earlier collections is not in itself improbable, as Dahler has shown. But the natural impression of the text certainly is that the prophet reproduces from memory and dictates to his scribe all the words that Yahwe has spoken to him. We are not justified in minimising either the assumed extent of the Megillah or the miraculous power ascribed to the prophet. We may question the historic accuracy of the narrative.

10. Writers: collectors.[edit]

The book appears to be the product of writers unknown to us by name. They may be divided into the following classes : (a) collectors, reporters, and collectors of oracles, (b) prophets, (c) historians, (d) poets, (e) editors and annotators.

(a) When sayings of the prophet were first put into writing we do not know. Tradition found it un necessary to ascend higher than the year 604 B. c. ; a lapse of twenty-two years was not regarded as too long for correct reproduction. It is probable, however, that the discourses referring to the Chaldeo-Scythian invasion were drawn from reports made at an earlier date. To such reports may be assigned 4:3-10, 4:12-18, 4:28-31, 5:1-17, 5:19 6:1-30 and possibly 11:2-6, 11:9-12 (in 9 Sx probably abbrevi ation of 1.TDY *}, or late, HP 229). Similar memoranda in Jehoiakim s reign may have contained 2:2-13, 2:20-37, 3:1-5 and 7:3-31, 8:1-9, 8:14-17, 9:1-21. In the little book, 14-17, the genuine Jeremianic fragments 14:10-16, 15:1-4, 16:2-13 may have been written from memory in the prophet s lifetime by some friendly listener who pre served Jeremiah s use of the first person. The essence of 1 may have come down in the same manner, while 13 is likely to be a late transformation of a parable into a narrative. 18:1-17, 19:1-2, 19:10-11, may still be accounted for in this way, and possibly also the indictments of the kings, 22, and the prophets, 23:9+ and the nucleus of 24.

Many words, no doubt, were gathered from the lips of the people, by makers of collections during the Chaldean period. But as such sayings pass from man to man, they grow. In course of time the collectors would naturally find it difficult to determine whether an oracle was genuine or not. The color Jeremianus produced by unconscious or conscious imitation would readily deceive even where a definite ascription did not silence every doubt. On the other hand, the collections would furnish material for the enrichment of the stories concerning the prophet s life.

1 For a criticism of Giesebrecht s view on the book written by Baruch at Jeremiah's dictation, according to Jer. 36, see Introd. to the Book of Jeremiah, by the present writer.

11. Prophetic writers: chaps. 46-51.[edit]

(b) In addition to the writers who have given us more or less correct reports of the oracles of Jeremiah, the book introduces us to a number of original prophetic authors living in later times. Chief among these are the writers whose productions fill Bks. 3 and 5.

Eichhorn appears to have been the first to perceive clearly the un-Jeremianic character of 46-51.

Already in 1777 (Kcfer(oriui,\ng) he declared that he who finds in the prophecies against foreign nations the language of Jeremiah must either have no acquaintance with Jeremiah s style or no capacity for distinguishing different modes of expression. His theory then was that the works of earlier prophets had been used by Jeremiah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a somewhat similar procedure to that often ascribed to Isaiah in the case of chap. 15-16. In his KinUitung(*) ( 24), Eichhorn s assumed that the chapters were of later origin and not edited by Jeremiah. As regards 50-51, of whose spurious character Eichhorn was most fully persuaded, practical una nimity has been reached.

The attempt of Movers, Hitzig, Schrader, Stahelin to find a Jeremianic nucleus enlarged in the exile was effec tively disposed of by Budde in his excellent monograph.

Graf and Orelli still defended the authenticity, largely on the ground of numerous Jeremianic expressions. To explain these it is not necessary to think, with Budde, of pseudonymity, which apparently is precluded by the fact that the prophecy was not originally assigned to Jeremiah (cp LXX) ; extensive use of writings ascribed to Jeremiah and a very small measure of originality suffice. Unmistakable dependence on Ezekiel, Is. 13, 40-55, 34-35, an attitude of satisfaction with Israel and of fierce hatred of Babylon, and an utter lack of sympathy with Jeremiah s point of view and of intelligent appreciation of the very phrases borrowed from him, have convinced critics of widely different schools that these chapters are not the work of Jeremiah. Eichhorn s doubts concerning 46-49 led Blau (ZD.WG 1865) to seek a later occasion in Israel s history for these chapters. A story in Mas udi of the Benu Hadir caused Eichhorn to assign the authorship to Berachia b. Zerubbabel. Many acute observations were made ; but the legend is too late to be used for historical purposes.

12. Schwally's criticism.[edit]

It is, however, the merit of Schwally to have been the first to examine with critical thoroughness these prophecies (chaps. 46-51).

Schwally pointed out the close relation of 48 to Is. 15-16, and 24, and of 49:7+ to Obadiah, the dependence on parts of Jer. that are probably secondary, the absence of the call to repentance so characteristic of pre-exilic prophecy, and the character of Yahwe as a god of vengeance pouring his fury upon the heathen. He also directed attention to the probable identification of Elam with Persia, and he indicated the true character of 25 as an introduction to the book of oracles. His apparent contention that a pre-exilic prophet must have preached repentance and cannot have conceived of Yahwe as a god taking vengeance on the heathen nations for their treatment of Israel is not quite convincing. Habakkuk l and Nahum show much of this vin dictive spirit, and other prophets may have excelled them. Yet so far as Jeremiah is concerned the contrast is very marked, and the oracles certainly breathe a spirit most familiar to us from extant writings of post-exilic times.

13. Bleecker's.[edit]

Bleecker has undertaken to do for chaps. 46-51 what Movers and Hitzig did for 50-51.

He eliminates the most objectionable features, partly on the basis of LXX, partly by conjecture, attempts to show the necessity of assuming a Jeremianic authorship in order to justify the references to Jeremiah as a prophet called to denounce judgment on many nations, minimises the objections drawn by Schwally from the theology of the oracles, and seeks to picture a suitable his torical background in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Even Bleecker, however, is forced to surrender the prophecy against Elam (49:34-39), is extremely doubtful about the oracle against Kedar (49:28+), is obliged to cut so deeply into the prophecy against Moab (48) as to leave but a few verses, removes from the prophecy against Edom (49:7-22) the embarrassing verse 49 12 in which the destruction of Jerusalem is clearly mentioned, and then bases an argument for Jeremianic authorship on the absence of any reference to this event.

Yet even after the most radical excision these oracles remain in irreconcilable conflict with the views and sentiments that the earlier sections of the book allow us to ascribe to Jeremiah.

In 2:10-11 Jeremiah looks beyond the boundaries of Judah but only to point out the loyalty of other nations to their gods, in contrast with the faithlessness of Yahwe s people. If in 18:7-10 he has in mind any other people and kingdom than Judah, he holds out repentance and restitution. That is the sentiment of the universally acknowledged later additions, 46:26, 48, 47, 49:6-39 (wanting in LXX, except 49:39), not of the pro phecies themselves. That chap. 1 has been retouched in view of the later contents of the volume, and that 27, drawn from the biographical work, is unhistorical, seems extremely probable. Yet even 1:5 and 10 do not necessarily suggest any specific oracles against nations beyond the terrible announcement in 4:3+ the subjugation of people after people by the Chaldean power; and even 27 is tinged with sympathy and concern for the nations lest they be led astray by their prophets from the path of safety. AH references to Nebuchadrezzar and his time are editorial, since neither 46:26 (wanting in ) nor 49:30 is original and there is nothing in the text to sustain these editorial conjectures.

1 On the historical situation in Habakkuk see HABAKKUK, and cp N. Schmidt, New World, 98, p. 585.

14. Giesebrecht's.[edit]

Whilst rightly insisting upon the necessity of examining each oracle by itself, though unnecessarily justifying this by a reference to 36:2, in which he has an excessive confidence, Giesebrecht appreciates morefully than Bleecker the force of Schwally's arguments.

Giesebrecht perceives the impossibility of ascribing the oracles against Egypt (46:3-12 and 46:13-26) to Jeremiah, and correctly indicates the source of that perplexing confusion, which leaves it uncertain whether a past or a future defeat is depicted, in the dependence on literary models. If he still clings to a possible, though indefinable, Jeremianic nucleus it is because of the know ledge on the part of the editor of a battlefield of Carchemish not known to Berossus. Rather should the lack of confirmation render this piece of editorial wisdom suspicious. Giesebrecht also recognises the dependence of 48 on Is. 15-16. and its post-exilic character, and the secondary character of all the prophecies in 49 except that against Edom. Here a failure to perceive that all parts of Obadiah are post-exilic leads him to assume a genuine nucleus.

The only oracle which Giesebrecht would decidedly claim for Jeremiah is that against the Philistines (47). With Hitzig, Kuenen, and others he sees the impos sibility of saving the heading, but finds a good historical background for the oracle in the time of Jehoiakim. It is difficult, however, to conceive of Jeremiah selecting Philistia, either in 604, or in 625 (which might also be considered), as the object of Yahwe s fury, without indicating any sin committed, and with such terrible emphasis. Close examination only tends to confirm the view of Schwally, also maintained by Stade, Well- hausen, Smend, Duhm, and Budde. As for the two introductions, Cornill sees a weighty argument in favour of the authenticity of 26:15-29 in the fact that the cup of the fury of Yahwe suddenly becomes a popular expression after Jeremiah's time, as in Ezek. 28:32 Lam. 4:21, Is. 51:17, Hab. 2:16, Ps. 75:9 [8], and therefore must have been coined by Jeremiah. But these passages written in different periods do not prove a sudden popularity of the phrase, nor is it apparent why Jeremiah rather than Ezekiel should have given it this form. On the contrary, it is probable that the editor who wrote 25 15 had before him 49:12, and the thought there suggested of Israel's drinking out of Yahwe's cup of anger, expressed in Ezek. 23:32, is likely to be earlier, if it originated at all with a prophet.

15. Chaps. 30-31, 32[edit]

In the book of consolation, chaps. 30-31, Movers, De Wette, and Hitzig noticed the close affinity to Is. 40+. R. Williams regarded these chaps, as a song of encouragement by some Baruch or later Isaiah far on in the exile. Stade recognized the pseudonymity. It was Smend, however, who first clearly set forth the internal evidence against the Jeremianic authorship of both chaps. He recognised that the author lived after the exile and also after the disenchantment that had followed the rebuild ing of the temple. As the author missed a prophecy of Judah s return, he assumed that there had already been a return of exiles. But the return under Cyrus is scarcely historical.

This would give added weight to Giesebrecht's objection that a promise to Israel alone would not be likely in a late writer, and a certain plausibility to his view that 31:2-6, 31:15-20 formed a genuine nucleus afterwards enlarged by 30, were it not that the terms Jacob and Israel seem to have acquired a wider sense since 2 Isaiah, on whom the writer so clearly depends, and that the unity of the book, rightly emphasised by Graf, cannot well be questioned. The hope of political independence pervades the book. This is also expressed in 31:22 (where gives the only satisfactory sense), which should probably be emended thus : DnaJ 133D .13p3 pN3 Win nirV Nia. J ^3 (- <rom;pi<?) being a later gloss (preserved in LXX) to njpj f TN3 1 the sign con sists in this, that men shall walk about in a land freed from foreign rulers. This likewise removes every objection to 31:35-40 ; the enlargement of the capital and the extension of the kingdom by the return of exiles are the signs that Yahwe has forgiven his people, and the love thus shown will be more effective than the preaching of prophetic teachers in bringing about a willing obedience to the law. The author of the Songs of Zion, added in Palestine to 2 Isaiah, still has confidence in the missionary activity of the Yahwe-disciples ; this writer despairs of all human teaching and expects reform to come as a consequence of Yahwe s deed of deliverance.

In chap. 32, not only 17-23, but the whole section 16-44 is clearly a late production, the author occasionally falling out of his role, as in 37-42 ; 6-15 may have been taken from the biography. Chap. 33:14-26, not yet found by (5, is quite generally rejected. But neither is 33:1-13 likely to be genuine. The dependence on 2 Is. in v. 2, the extraordinary exhortation in v. 3, the juxta position of the captivity of Judah and of Israel (v. 7), the feeling of the heathen concerning restored Jerusalem (v. 9), the actual desolation of the city (v. 10), the late psalm-fragment and the praise offering (v. u), and the dependence on 17:26 and 31:24 in vv. 12 and 13, are sufficiently convincing.

The speeches in Bks. 4, 6, and 7 must be considered in connection with the biography (see 17).

1 For ,-rjp in the sense of purchase the freedom of, ransom, deliver, cp Ex. 15:16, Dt. 28:68, Is. 11:11, Ps. 74:2, Neh. 58.

16. Insertions in 1-20, 21-24.[edit]

In Bks. 1 and 2 there are, in addition to poetical and liturgical compositions and brief annotations, a series of more important insertions of late origin. 2:14-19 breaks the natural connection, presupposes evil treatment of the Jews by the people of Thebes and Daphnse, breathes the spirit of 2 Isaiah s concern about the servant of Yahwe, and rebukes immigration to Egypt and Syria. That 36-42 is out of place is generally seen. Stade doubts the genuineness of 3:17-18. Giese- brecht rejects 3:14-18; Cornill 3:17-18, 4:1-2 ; Kraetz- schmar, 3:14-4:2. The whole section is doubtful. The looseness of construction may be explained by literary dependence on Ezek. 16, Jer. 31, and other passages. An invitation to Israel to return, even in the form of vv. 12 f., either in 625 when the Scytho-Chaldean invasion was imminent, or after the futility of Josiah s reform had become apparent (cp v. 10) and the Chaldeans again threatened the land, is difficult to understand. It is not likely that two minds independently conceived the idea of Israel s justification through Judah s greater sinfulness. The author sees both Judah and Israel coming back together to Zion (v. 18), and uses the term house of Israel in a manner to suggest the whole Yahwe- worshipping people (vv. 19 f. ). 9:24-25, though brief, is important as snowing the sentiments of later scribes. It probably read originally Behold days come, when I will punish all who are circumcised in their foreskin (i.e., have the sign in their body though they fail to unite with Israel as proselytes) viz. Egyptians, Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites and all the dwellers in the desert who poll their hair, a kindred custom.

10:1-16 is almost universally rejected. (B5 presents the pericope in an earlier form than MT. But even (55 has the late Aramaic addition, v. n (itself the work of two hands), and other expansions. Language and thought preclude Jeremianic origin. 12:14-17, like the elegy preceding it, is evidently un-Jeremianic. The neighbouring nations have settled in Israel s land ; they will be plucked up ; but they will be accepted as proselytes, if they learn to swear by Yahwe. The affinity with Is. 56:9-12, 57:1-13 is marked. 16:14-18 is clearly a later prophecy presupposing the exile and promising a return, dependent in its phraseology some what on 2 Isaiah. For o:iy ( 'their iniquity' ) read D3i>*D ( 'their dwelling' ) in v. 17, a copyist having mis understood the tenor of the verse. 237 f. is later than 16:14-15 Stade and many others rightly regard 17:19-27 as a work of a later prophet. The concern here expressed for sabbath - keeping and sacrifices, making prosperity dependent upon such exercises, is contrary to Jeremiah s spirit (cp 7) and belongs to another age. Geiger (Urschrift, 83) in 1857 ex pressed his conviction that 23:5-8 was written in the Hasmonean period. Giesebrecht (Beitr. z. Jesaiakritik, 40), though maintaining the Jeremianic authorship, finely indicated that even vv. 1-3 presuppose the exile. The entire pericope, 23:1-8, is in all probability a product of a later age.

17. Historians.[edit]

(c) Contemplation of a prophet s words naturally be gets an interest in the historic occasions that gave rise to his utterances and the circumstances of his life. Stories concern ing the remarkable epoch when Jeremiah lived and his own strange career no doubt passed from mouth to mouth for a long time before an attempt was made to fix them in writing. Adversity, repentance, reflec tion on Israel s sufferings such as the Servant-of- Yahwe songs reveal, would tend to bring out of obscurity and disgrace the figure of the prophet who foresaw the ruin of the state, but also to shape this figure according to the ideal. Words would suggest situations, situations words. Finally the demand for a connected biography would arise. This work would follow the prophet s career so far as the material at hand permitted. As the interest increased, the desire for more complete know ledge would grow and find its gratification. It is possible that the biography in its latest form contained some story of the prophet s death, though contradictory accounts, or other reasons, determined the final editors of the canonical book not to introduce it.

There are in our present volume historical sections that cannot have come from the biography. Already Grotius recognised that 52 is an appendix drawn from 2 K. 25, with the exception of vv. 28-30. That is now universally conceded. It has not yet been observed, but appears equally certain, that 40:7-41:18 must have been taken from another source than the biography (cp 6). The lifelikeness of this story is much praised, and it is generally used as an authentic account by modern historians. Literary critics are still apt to be deceived by vividness of description, local colour, names and dates, and charmed into forgetfulness of the most glaring inconsistencies and historical impossibilities. Such inconsistencies and impossibilities are not wanting in this story. A confused memory of the first Chaldean governor and of an abortive attempt by a side branch of the Davidic family to overthrow the new government, and local legends clustering about the cistern of Asa and the pool of Gibeon, may lie at its foundation ; but in its present form it cannot well be earlier than the second century.

A. B. Davidson has recognised that the passage 42:7-22, on account of its rather debased style and its other peculiarities, is probably a free construction from the historian's hand. But 43:1-7 presupposes this free construction ; 42:1-6 is its necessary introduction ; the same depraved style and other peculiarities of reproductive prophecy characterise 44, which further betrays its late origin by its assumption of a complete depopulation of Judaea and the existence of Jewish communities in all parts of Egypt. 43:8-13 seems to have come from the pen of a man who regarded Nebuchadrezzar as Yahwe's servant in punishing the Egyptians for their idolatry, and may have had some knowledge of his expedition against Egypt in 568. Rowland Williams, with keen insight, hinted at a later date for the moralis ing view of the conqueror as Yahwe's servant. The address of Nabuzaradan, 40:2+, in which he speaks as if he were a disciple of Jeremiah, is, of course, a late production. The Egyptian sojourn of Jeremiah is sub ject to grave doubts (cp JEREMIAH i. , 2). Whether Bk. 7 was in part drawn from late additions to the biography, or was altogether a free construction, the editor who wrote 13 knew nothing about Jeremiah's subsequent fate save that he survived the fall of the city.

The stories preserved in Bks. 1-6, and in all prob ability taken from the biography, reveal the workman ship of many writers, and vary greatly in the degree of credibility attaching to them. Bks. 3 and 5 have each one such story. Ewald suggested and Giesebrecht has convincingly shown that 51:59-64 (cp SERAIAH) is a piece of haggadic fiction.

The historicity of 32:1-15 (cp HANAMEL) has been questioned by Pierson, who finds it improbable that a prisoner should be surrounded by people, have a secretary, and be able to make purchases. Stade, Cornill, and Giesebrecht rightly reject 1-5. In behalf of 6-15 Giesebrecht urges certain points which apparently preclude a later writer. He suggests that the story was told by Jeremiah after the fall of the city. There may be a nucleus of fact in the story. But if Jeremiah meant by this tale to keep his people quiet in the land under Chaldean sovereignty, rather than that they should emigrate, he would not have inti mated (vv. 14-15) that after a long time they would again have a chance of buying houses and fields. The miraculously bestowed fore-knowledge of Hanamel s coming, the outlook into a future beyond the long exile, the consequent purely symbolic character of the act, the amazement, common in apocalyptic literature, at the wonderful plan of future deliverance, and the vagueness of the narrative, only in part due to textual corruption, seem to indicate a later origin.

In Bk. i, 13:1-14 may be an excerpt from the bio graphy. The twofold journey to the Euphrates is clearly unhistorical. A saying like that of vv. 12-14 has been dramatised. The editor of the book may also have drawn from the same source the genuine parts of 18 and 19 and the possibly authentic story 20:1-6.

In Bk. 2, 21:1-10 is from the biography (cp above).

The introductory chapter, 26, to Bk. 4 contains a briefer report of the speech given, 7+, and an apparently trust worthy account of the consequences. In the booklet 27-29, the story of the bands and yokes (27), and that of the correspondence with Babylonia (29), are scarcely historical ; while the narrative of the encounter between Jeremiah and Hananiah sounds plausible, though it may have been retouched. That Hananiah was scared to death is less probable than that 28:17 was added to round off the story.

In Bk. 6 there is no valid reason to question the substantial accuracy of 34. Chap. 35, on the other hand, is subject to grave doubts. That Jeremiah should have praised for their loyalty the RECHABITES (g.v. ) whose very presence in Jerusalem constituted the severest infringement of the commandment enjoined upon them by their ancestor, is quite incredible, apart from the questionable method used to test their fidelity to one of the ancestral injunctions, and the scene of this trial. A justification was probably found in this story for the elevation into some position in the lower clerus (mb icy) of those who had abandoned the nomadic life they were solemnly commanded to lead. Against the historical trustworthiness of chap. 36 Pierson adduced twenty-one arguments. Their summary rejection by Kuenen may have been influenced by a reluctance to surrender a narrative generally regarded as furnishing a trustworthy clue to the composition of the book. If this is seen to be illusive, it may more readily be admitted that, whilst some of these arguments are of little weight, taken as a whole they are not without a certain cumulative force. It is evidently the author s meaning that all the prophecies of Jeremiah, during a period of more than twenty years, were written by Baruch, the prophet dictating them from memory. He did not reflect on the curious effect of such a collection of miscellaneous addresses on different subjects and occasions, even if a reproduction of that kind were a possibility. That Jeremiah should send his servant with so important a mission instead of going himself is all the more strange as a long time elapses between the writing and the reading of the book. It does not seem possible to refer the explanation I am restrained to political detention, since he is free to go and hide himself, nor to ceremonial uncleanness, since the command to Baruch precedes the public reading by months, nor to business, since the fast day would take precedence. But can the author really have represented his hero as held back by cowardly concern for his own safety ? The collusion of the princes with Baruch and Jeremiah contrasts with their eagerness to bring the book to the king s knowledge, and this with their neglect to take with them the corpus delicti. In v. 29 is assumed a personal interview with Jehoiakim that harmonises neither with Jeremiah s detention on the fast day nor with his subsequent concealment. A possible kernel of fact is all that can be admitted. Jeremiah s feeling con cerning the expected Egyptian relief corps, 37:1-10 (21:1-10), his intended departure from Jerusalem, and his imprisonment (37:11+), may be historical. 38 is mani festly a late legend.

The king, like Daniel s Darius, has no power to prevent the enraged nobles from slaying Jeremiah (v. 5), yet in v. 10+ he has absolute power to save the prophet. That Jeremiah agrees to tell a lie is clear ; but why it should be told and how it could satisfy the princes, is not apparent. Not only 39:4-13, still want ing in LXXs copy, but also 1-3, 14, and the oracle, 15-18, introduced as a supplement to the legend, 38:7-13, are manifestly unhistorical.

18. Poets.[edit]

(d) In Bk. 1 copyists and editors have introduced a number of poetical passages, psalm - fragments and elegies, and gnomic poems. Some of them show striking affinities to Lamentations, also ascribed to Jeremiah. It is the merit of Stade to have recognised the secondary character of many such poetic interpolations. Had his reasons been given, the correct ness of his judgment would no doubt have been more generally seen. Other passages of the same nature should probably be added.

4:19-21 breaks the textual connection, laments a destruction that has been experienced, expresses national grief (cp my tents, my tent - covers ) and shows a kinship to psalms in which the personified community speaks.

8:18-23 apparently presupposes not only the exile of the people, but also the successive disenchanted hopes for the restoration of the monarchy. Verse 186 is a quotation of Lam. 1:22 ; read, with Houbigant, my consolation is far from me ( ^yo n j Sao)- The aphorism, 9:22-23, was also found by LXX in 1 S. 2:10 as a part of Hannah's song. It was evidently a homeless fragment brought first into the song and then into the prophecy. It is in the style of the later psalms.

In 10:17-25, 19-21 and 23-25 are clearly the work of a poet who looks back upon the exile of the people, the cessation of the monarchy, and the partial occupation of the land by neighbouring nations as past facts, and desires the utter annihilation of the heathen, while pleading for gentler treatment for Judah. He speaks in the name of the community; cp my tabernacle, my tent, my chords, my sons, my destruction. Verses 17 f. and 22 may be reminiscences from Jeremianic oracles introduced by an editor.

In 11:15-17 we have a poem in six double lines in which Zion seems to be exhorted to remove by prayers and sacrifices the adversity that so long followed the destruction of the Judean king dom.

There is nothing in 12:1-6 that is suggestive of Jeremiah. The speaker is the nation disturbed by the continued disfavour of Yahwe as shown in the drought and the famine, and puzzled by the prosperity of false brethren (cp Neh. 5). If this is the condition of things in times of comparative ease, what would it be if war should arise? Such seems to be the sense of the proverb, v. 5.

The elegy, 12:7-13, is clearly non- Jeremianic. Judah, the beloved, has been put into the hands of her enemies, birds of prey have come upon her, shepherds (foreign rulers) have destroyed the vineyard.

13:15-17 is a similar lamentation re miniscent in part of late psalms. The depraved style suggests to Scholz a late date for w. 20-27. He is probably right. Verses 18-19 , also rejected by Scholz, may be genuine, though there is no necessity for thinking of a particular queen mentioned in Kings. There is nothing to remind us of Jeremiah s language, style, or thought in the exquisite elegiac strains of 14:2-6. The absence of any religious suggestion precludes a prophetic source.

14:7-9 is a psalm breathing the spirit of 2 Isaiah. The phrase 'because of thy name', the title 'hope of Israel', the rebuke to Yahwe for leaving a place where he is not a stranger but at home, and the appeal to him on the ground that his name has been called upon the people, are not in harmony with Jeremiah's language and thought.

The psalm 14:19-21 is the expression of a repentant people, re cognising the sin of their fathers that brought them to ruin, looking apparently in vain for prosperity, yet justifying their hope by Yahwe s regard for his own honour, his name, his pledge (mn ; see COVENANT), his holy city, the throne of his glory. It is clearly un-Jeremianic.

A very late glossator added v. 22, introducing the theological question whether the gods of the heathen can make rain, or the heavens perchance produce it without the activity of any god.

After the genuine fragment, 15:1-4a, continuing 14:10-16 that has the true color Jeremianus, there follows a passage 16:5-9 in which is described the comfortless condition of Zion subsequent to the fall of the city and the scattering of the exiles. Two glosses, 10 and 11-14 ( see below), are then succeeded by the poetic effusion, 15-18, in which Zion laments her seemingly incurable wound, and prays for vengeance on the enemies that will give her the joy her piety deserves. (Read with (5 reproach from those who reject thy words, TI IDI stoes nann in 15b, 16a, and 'consume them and thy word shall be', .T.TI D^DX, i6).

15 19-21 is not a song ; but it is of the same character as the sections just considered in that apparently it is the nation that is addressed. If the people will return to Palestine, Yahwe will then take them back and allow them to be his worshippers and witnesses ; foreign nations will come to Zion (as proselytes), but the Judseans shall no more go to them (into exile) ; strong enough to resist an attack from without, they shall be delivered from all foreign oppression.

16:19-20. is clearly a psalm-fragment expressing the hope of Zion that the nations will become converts to the monotheistic faith, and as proselytes make their pilgrimages to Jerusalem ; v. 21 is a later gloss expressing Yahwe s determination first to punish the heathen.

17:1-4, still wanting in LXX, is a late paraphrase of 15:4. The four passages, 17:5-8, 17:9-11, 17:12-13, 17:14-18, by their close affinity to the psalms and the proverbs, reveal their late origin. In the last of these, the nation is the speaker.

The two poetic-sections with which the first book closes, 20:7-13 and 20:14-18, are evidently from different hands. In the former, the liturgical formulas in v. 13, the quotation of Ps. 7:10 and late Jeremianic passages in v. 12, the appearance of Yahwe as a warrior helping to defeat a numerous pursu ing enemy in vv. 10 f. (read let all of us who are his allies give him up [TJ:] ), the public praise (v. 9 : read laisix), the disillusioning experience of violent oppres sion, spoliation, and ridicule in place of the glowing hopes of prosperity aroused by the oracles (vv. 7-9), re mind us of the Psalter and seem to point to the people as the speaker. It is doubted whether 20:14-18 is genuine, or whether the || passage in Job 3:2+ is the original. The latter view is certainly more probable (cp JOB, BOOK OF, 14, col. 2487 f. ).

19. Editors.[edit]

(e) Owners of MSS containing prophecies ascribed to Jeremiah, or copyists, would naturally arrange the different parts, provide them with suitable headings, and annotate them. Sometimes a suggestion in the text, or a sub-heading, would furnish the material for the superscription ; at other times information must have been drawn from sources unknown to us. Thus the general editor of Bk. 3 did not derive his knowledge concerning the first year of Nebuchadrezzar from 46:2 but from a better source.

While 46:2 puts Nebuchadrezzar s march against Syria in the fourth year of Jehoiakim i.e., 604 B.C. - 25:1 makes the fourth year of Jehoiakim = the first year of Nebuchadrezzar. But according to Berossus (Jos. Ant. x. 11:1 ; c. Ap. 1:19) the encounter with Necho took place in the reign of Nabopolassar, consequently not later than 605, which is the last year accorded to him by Ptolemy s canon. 1 If the editor of 46-51, who wrote 25:1-13, in this case was better informed than his predecessors, it is quite likely that his statement concerning the date of the beginning of Jeremiah s career, the thirteenth year of Josiah, - i.e., the first of Nabopolassar, or 625, was also drawn from a good source. Both notices may have been taken from the biography, or from the work whence 52:28-30 came.

The following annotations to Book i may be mentioned : 4:10 (Corn.) 11a (Ewald) 23-26 (Gieseb.) 27, 5:10b, 18:20-22 (Stade, Corn.) 23-25, 26-29, 8:10-12 (om. LXX) 11:7-8 (om. LXX) 11:13-14, 11:18-23 (rejected by Stade ; 18 is a gloss to 9 ; 19 is reminiscent of Is. 53 and was still lacking in copies known to Justin [ the tree with its fruit (so Kimchi, Scholz) is the holy nation]; 21-23 may have been taken from the biography (but possibly it is a free construc tion, easily accounted for if Anathoth happened to be one of the towns destroyed by the Chaldeans); 14:17-18 an editorial gloss ending in a quotation of a lament over the fallen city ; 15:46:10 a complaint that Israel is born to be an apple of discord between contending powers, though no unrighteous money transactions justify such a fate - explained in 11-14 by Yahwe's inscrutable purpose; {1} 19:3-9 19:11b-13 (Gieseb.). There are many similar interpolations in the other books.

1 On the contradiction of dates see Kohler, Bibl. Gesch. ii. 2 468.

20. Dates.[edit]

The time when the genuine Jeremianic oracles were first uttered can, in some instances, be determined with a considerable degree of probability ; in other cases it is only possible to give an approximately correct date. As regards the later pro ductions, their place in the volume, and in the earlier collections, furnishes a not unimportant means of fixing their date ; yet it is chiefly their historical and literary character that must be the determining factor.

i. Reign of Josiah (637-608). Practically all inter preters are agreed that 43- 6 (with the exceptions noted above) was spoken by Jeremiah in the thirteenth year of Josiah probably 625 B.C. Whilst the older exegetes regarded the address as a prophecy of the Chaldean invasion, it has been customary in recent times to look upon the Scythian hordes as the enemy from the N. whose advance filled the prophet with evil forebodings. The features of the description that apparently suit the Chaldeans better are then explained as due to later retouching. It is possible, however, that the league between Nabopolassar and the king of the Umman-manda was formed already at the beginning of his reign, that a joint attack upon Syria was a part of the plan against the Assyrian empire, that Chaldean soldiers swelled the ranks of the ally and helper, and that the conquest of Babylon by Nabopolassar led Jeremiah to perceive the directing force behind these movements in the N. (cp SCYTHIANS). In the time of Sin-sar-iskun (circa 615), Habakkuk looked in the same direction, though in a different spirit, for a check to the reviving power of Assyria. 11:2-6 may be the substance of an address made in 620 when the Deutero- nomic law was promulgated (Che. ) ; and the return to ancient cults described in 11:9-12 may well have occurred in the reign of Josiah.

ii. Reign of Jehoiakim (607-597).- It is probable that 2:2-13, 2:20-37 and 3:1-5 belong to the first years of the reign of Jehoiakim (Gieseb.). That 7:3-9:21 (with some exceptions) was spoken early in this reign is now generally assumed. The expectation of another im pending northern invasion which has led some inter preters to think of the time of Josiah would be natural if Jeremiah had long watched those united efforts of Chaldeans and Umman-manda that led to the over- throw of Assyria in 606. 22:2-5, 22:10-12, 22:13-19 may belong to different parts of this reign, possibly also 18:1-17, 19:1-2, 19:10-11, 20:1-6 (?). Of the oracle read by Baruch to his friends only 36296 is known to us.

iii. The reign of Jehoiachin (597).- 22:24-27 may have been uttered in the reign of Jehoiachin. Some inter preters ascribe to this reign chap. 13, or at least 22:18-19. (Gieseb. ) ; but this is doubtful.

1 Translate : Verily, I shall root thee out (1 riC 1ty) ; verily, I shall cause the enemy to fall upon thee OnyJBn, cp Is. 536) in an evil time. The iron will be broken (jn )> the brazen citadel (nnru "ISIlp, ) ; thy wealth and treasures I will give for plunder ... I will cause thee to serve (<E>, Pesh., and also 3l37 may be a gloss to nyjsri misunderstood ; njni another gloss.

iv. The reign of Zedekiah (596-586). The substance of 24 belongs to the beginning of the reign of Zede- kiah. 16:2-13 may have been spoken before the siege ; 28:9+, and possibly the substance of 28 as well as the original similes transformed in 13:1-11, 13:12-14, may belong to the time of the revolt. Words of Jeremiah during the siege have probably been preserved in 21:1-10, (37:1-10), when the siege was raised ; in 37:11+, at the capture and imprisonment of Jeremiah ; and in 34, on the oc casion of the re-enslavement of solemnly emancipated bondmen ; possibly also in 32:14-15. Chap. 1 in its original form may also have been spoken in this reign.

v. Chaldean period (586-539). The earliest collec tions of Jeremianic prophecies were no doubt made in the Chaldean period ; and many glosses may have been added. Some of the lamentations, like 4:19-21, 10:19-21, 10:23-25, 15:5-9, may have originated in this period.

vi. Persian period (538-332). Chaps. 30-31 were probably written on the eve of Xerxes expedition against Greece. The gathering of tremendous armies from all lands for a decisive combat may well have struck terror into the hearts of Judaeans.

The very magnitude of the preparations indicated the strength of the foe, and naturally aroused the hope that out of the turmoil there might come to Jacob independence and with it prosperity to woo the exiles back. Such prosperity, however, would not be permanent unless the restored nation ordered its conduct according to Yahwe s will. The prophetic preaching to which 2 Isaiah had given the impetus had signally failed to bring about a real reformation. That could be effected only by Yahwe s pardoning grace. But the evidences of forgiveness viz., cessation of the Persian authority, restoration of the native monarchy, extension of the kingdom and growth of its capital whilst leading men to a glad obedience to the law, would un questionably imply a new arrangement of Yahwe with his people, based, as exilic historians had so strongly emphasised, not on Israel s faithfulness, but on Yahwe s unmerited yet unchanging love (cp COVENANT, 6, v.).

This work (chaps. 30 f.) falls between the prophecies collected in Is. 40-55 and those found in Is. 56-66. 33:1-13 may also belong to this period.

The oracle against Elam- Persia, 49:34-38, was prob ably written at the approach of Alexander. Only the oppressions of Ochus can account for the hatred it breathes. The prophecy against the Philistines, Tyre and Sidon, 47, probably was composed at the same time, though the editor may have thought of the con quest of Gaza (defended by Demetrius) by Ptolemy in 312. It is possible that the two oracles against Egypt originated in the same epoch. The designation of the Egyptians as the enemies of Yahwe is not unnatural in an age when law and liturgy alike caused the minds of men to dwell upon the oppression in Egypt and the wonderful deliverance, before the gentle rule of the Ptolemies had somewhat mollified their feelings. The conqueror described in 46:18 may be Alexander ; another reference may be found in 50:16 (read yrt ann, the sword of the Greek ; (5 ^.a%aipas EXXTjptK???) ; the people of the north is a suitable expression, though borrowed. Both oracles look for an Egyptian army marching into Syria to oppose the enemy, as so often in the past. 1 Literary dependence and final ascription to Jeremiah may be responsible for the confusion of tenses. The oracle against Edom, 49:7-22, later than Malachi (circa 400) and Obadiah, which it quotes, may still have belonged to this time. Edom would be in the conqueror s way.

1 The nickname given to the Egyptian king, possibly some kinglet of the Delta, may originally have been "lyisri 3!?? P x ?> VVarwhoop and Capture of the troop. A suspicion of gematria is near at hand.

It is distinctly probable that the biographical work used in the historical sections was a product of the Persian period. Even 35, though scarcely historical, may hav originated then, as the reorganisation of the clerus would raise many questions of eligibility. Whether 33 was already a part of the work is more doubtful.

To this period many interpolations may belong, such as 3:6-4:2, 9:24-25a, 16:14-18, 17:19-27, and the poetical fragments, 8:18-23, 11:15-17, 12:1-6, 12:7-13, 14:1-6, 14:7-9, 14:19-21, 20:7-13.

vii. Period of the Diadochi and the Lagidcz (332- 198 B.C.). The oracle against Ammon may have been occasioned by the advance of the Nabataeans, who in 312 were established in Idumsea and pushed their way into the trans-Jordan country. Although the prophecy against Kedar and the queen of Razor (read in 4928, with Wi. , queen, n^o; cp paffiXiffffy) apparently did not yet have a place in the corpus found by the editorial writer of 25:15+, it may owe its origin to the same spread of Nabatosan power in northern Arabia. There is nothing to forbid the assumption that 20:14-18 was added at this time.

viii. Period of the Seleucidce (198-143 B.C.). The oracle against Hamath, Arpad, and Damascus, 49:23-27, is probably directed against Seleucia, the seat of the foreign oppressor of the time (cp Zech. 9:13 and We. Kl. Proph.W 190). It is likely to be later than the reign of Antiochus III. The prophecy against Babylon, 50- 51:58, may have been written in the reign of Mithridates I. , the sixth of the Arsacidas (170-136). Having taken possession of Media and Elymais, this king attacked and finally captured Babylon (after 162). This ap proach of an enemy from the N. against what was still, in spite of Seleucia, one of the great centres of the ernpire, may have led the author, who lacks all origin ality, to draw upon the prophetic word for gruesome pictures of the impending destruction of the hated city. It is possible that the stories concerning an original Egyptian golah (CAPTIVITY) in the time of Jeremiah and his oracles regarding its future belong to this period, since the Chronicler 1 as yet knows nothing about this emigration. A passage like 2:14-19 may have been written in the beginning of the period of the Seleucidse.

ix. Period of the Hasmonaans (143-63 B.C.). It is probable that the oracle against Moab, 48, was com posed in the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104).

The author is clearly familiar with Is. 15-16, though his attitude towards Moab is different from that of the original writer of the Isaiah passage, approaching that of the editor, 16:13-14. This editor seems to have lived in the days of Alexander Jannaeus (102-76) ; so Duhm, Marti. The enemy threatening Moab in Is. 15-16:12 is apparently the Nabateeans. Cheyne and Marti still think of the Persian period ; but the kingdom seems to have been re-established in Judah, and it may therefore be best, with Duhm, to refer the poem to the Hasmonaean age.

In the time of John Hyrcanus territorial conquests smothered sympathy and revived ancient animosity. In this period the seven books received their final re daction, with many glosses and interpolations like 23:1-8, psalm -fragments in 17, the prayer 32:16+, etc. In the reign of Alexander Jannagus the passages still wanting in may have been added to the volume, though some of them may have been written earlier.

1 If Noldeke should be right in maintaining that Chronicles was not written before the middle of the second century (ZA Til- , IQOO, p. 83 jff.), this appendix to Jeremiah is probably still more recent.

21. Text.[edit]

All known Hebrew MSS of Jeremiah exhibit substantially the same text. In its essential features this text may possibly be traced back to the end of the first century A.D. The differences between the Pesh. and MT may be explained partly by the peculiarities of the translator, partly by the un mistakable fact that his work was subsequently revised by one familiar with the Greek version then in use. Origen's 6 Ei>pos seems to have been none else than the Pesh. That the Pesh. knew the Targ. is not likely. Rather is the reverse probable. In its differences from the Heb., the Targ. sometimes goes with the Pesh., sometimes with LXX where they differ. This may point to an acquaintance with either or with both. The slight differences between Jerome and the Heb. are accounted for by the influence of the Old Latin. Aquila adheres quite closely to the Heb. There are some indications that Theodotion was familiar with a Greek version more extensive than the LXX. The deviations of Symmachus where he does not depend on the LXX may be due to his own idiosyncrasies. It is possible that there was, as early as in the reign of Domitian, another Greek version reflecting substantially the same Hebrew text. See TEXT AND VERSIONS.

The author of Rev. 18:20 manifestly had in mind Jer. 51:48, a passage not found in , and imitated it. The phrase a<riAeus riav auuvtav, Rev. 16:4, is likewise an imitation of Jer. 10:7, not found in <S, and the striking expression eb? U>VTU>I> is found nowhere in OT except in that verse. The deviation from in other NT allusions to or quotations from Jeremiah points to the same conclusion. Justin, in the important passage 9:26, as well as in other places, agrees with MT against (B (en-i lovSav). His agreement with the MSS assigned 1 to the Lucianic recension is significant. Two groups of Greek MSS, one composed chiefly of 22, 23, 36, 48, 51, 231, another of xii, 88 in Holmes-Parsons, apparently have preserved much of this translation. With the former group goes Theodoret, with the latter Paul of Telia s Syriac version. The asterisks in some of the Greek MSS and in the hexaplar Syriac only indicate Origen's judgment, correct in itself, as to the limits of the earliest Greek version. Band <BN, which have much in common with xii and 88, may have been subjected to a more thorough critical process, cutting out the elements belonging to the later version. The existence of such a version already in the first century is only natural, since in Syria and Asia Minor the growing regard for the Hebrew text would inevitably lead to a translation of all it contained. But neither the Lucianic MSS, nor the Eusebian, nor yet the fragments of Theodotion, give us the exact form of the version used by the NT writers, Josephus, and Justin.

The relation of the Greek version to the Heb. has been the subject of much discussion. There are marked differences in arrangement and in contents. The book against foreign nations is found between 25:13 and 25:15 ; and the order is Elam, Egypt, Babylon, Philistia, Edom, Ammon, Kedar, Damascus, Moab. It has been estimated that the version has about 2700 words less, consequently is about an eighth shorter, than the MT.

This minus in LXX is made up in part of longer passages, such as 10:6-8, 10:10, 17:1-4, 29:14, 29:16-20, 30:10-11, 33:14-26, 39:4-13, 48:45-47, 51:45-48, 52:28-30; in part of short expressions, such as ni,T DN3 (lacking more than sixty times), ^NitS" n^K ,YI,T or miOi Tt7X ni.V, the word Jt 33n following the prophet s name and other titles and patronymics and pronouns. On the other hand, contains a smaller number of additions composed mainly of pronouns, and words like ^3, rim 1OK ro, run- There are also important differences in the division of words and in the consonantal text.

The defence of MT at all hazards by earlier Protestant scholars was demanded by dogmatic considerations. Their Roman Catholic opponents (Morin, Cappel), though superior as textual critics, were not altogether free from attaching a fictitious canonical authority to the LXX, and from charging the Hebrews with bad faith. A distinct advance in scientific method was made when the theory of two recensions appeared. It was first suggested by Michaclis and elaborated by many others from Eichhorn to Workman. It recognised that the differences are connected with the growth of the volume, and rightly perceived that the longer text represented later expansion. Its chief defect was that it assumed that the two texts were the results of deliberate planning, of critical editing and revision that they were recensions. When Movers recognised the impossibility of ascribing the longer text to Jeremiah or Baruch, as his predecessors had done, and assigned it to the age of Nehemiah, he prepared the way for a more correct appreciation. Since the admission that MT to any extent represented an expanded text would naturally have the tendency to render plausible the assumption that there were many later interpolations in the book, scholars like Spohn, Kueper, Havernick, Wichelhaus, Niigelsbach, Keil, Orelli, Schneedorfer, Trochon, Kaulen, with more or less erudition, attempted to show that (5 was a truncated text, the translator having wilfully or carelessly cut out what seemed to him superfluous or unsuitable. The omitted passages seemed to them truly Jeremianic, as it was a peculiarity of Jeremiah to repeat himself and to quote older prophets such as Isaiah, whose book was wholly written by that prophet. The growing recognition of the late origin of the Isaianic passages quoted or alluded to would have prevented this view, so evidently born of dogmatic prepossessions, from influencing scholarly opinion, had not Graf made a bitter attack upon LXX, whose work he declared to be not even worthy of being called a translation. Even Graf seems un consciously to have assumed that must have had before him a text essentially identical with our MT. Measuring him with standards of accuracy that it would be hazardous to apply to a modern translator with the words properly divided and duly pointed, he found him guilty of ignorance, superficiality, and arbi trary dealing with the text. The reaction, led by Scholz, has tended to establish the good faith of the translator.

The translator's knowledge of Hebrew is not always adequate ; his grouping of letters (written continuously) into words is some times incorrect, though not so often as has been supposed, the error being occasionally on the part of MT ; he uses different words to render the same Hebrew term, which sometimes is a merit; he translates according to the sense where the exact meaning is known ; he transliterates words known to him when they seem to him to be proper names ; he follows the fashion of selecting a Greek word of a similar sound to the Hebrew ; he sometimesoverleapsaphrasebyhomceoteleuton. But the fact that through long sections he translates word for word, sometimes even slavishly following the text where he cannot make out its sense, shows his faithfulness. That it was not his principle to leave passages that were repeated in the book untranslated when they occurred a second time is evident, since out of thirty such cases he repeated all but seven, which are clearly secondary. It follows still more manifestly from the fact that he translated passages occurring in the MT twice only in the second place.

The tendency of copyists, observable elsewhere, is naturally to round off a phrase, to add a title or patronymic, and to introduce glosses and appendices. There would be a strong presumption in favour of the view that LXXs original was less annotated than Heb. , even if the character of the passages lacking in did not positively demand for them a later date. If the ex planation given above ( 6) of the growth of the volume is correct, the place of 46-51 in < is likely to be more original, and the position of 25 i^ff. is accounted for, whilst the arrangement of the oracles, determined on different principles, may to some extent be more original in MT. 1

22. Literature.[edit]

i. Commentaries (modern) : W. Lowth, 1718; Venema, 1765; Dathe, 1779; Blayney, 1784; Dahler, 1825; Rosenmiiller, 26; Maurer, 33 ; Ewald, 40 and "68 ; Hitzig, 41 and 66 ; Umbreit, 42 ; Henderson, 41 ; Neumann, 56- 58 ; Graf, (>s ; Keil, 62 ; Nagelsbach, 63 ; R. Williams, 71; Payne Smith, 75; Le Hir, 77; Scholz, 80; Schneedorfer, 81 ; Trochon, 83; Cheyne, "3 8Si Orelli, 87; Knabenbauer, 89; Ball, 90; Giesebrecht,

  • 94_; Bennett, 95; Streane, 95; Myrberg, 96.

ii. Criticism: Introductions, etc. by Cappel, 1624; Morin, 1633 ; Hottinger, 1649 ; Spinoza, 1670 ; Simon, 1678 ; Carpzov, 1714-21; Eichhorn, 1780-83 ; Michaelis, 1787, may be mentioned here. Articles, etc., on Jeremiah by Rodiger in Ersch und Gruber s Enyclopadie ; Cheyne in EB(ty , Nagelsbach in PR EV) ; Fr. Buhl in PREW ; Graf in Schenkel, BL ; Kleinert in Riehm s Hll B; A. B. Davidson, in Hastings DB; J. D. Michaelis, Anmerkungen zu s. Uebersetzung d. NT, 1790; C. G. Hensler, Betnerkungen, 05 ; J. F. Gaab, Erklarung schiverer Stellen, 24; C. W. E. Nagelsbach, Der Prophet Jcremias n. Babylon, 50 ; A. Pierson, Israels Profeten, "77 ; K. Budde, Uber Jer. 50-51, JDT, 78; B. Stade, in ZATW, 84, 85, 92, and in GVI, 89; F. Schwally, in ZA 1 IV, 88; Smend, in AT Rel.-gesck. 238^ ; L. H. K. Bleecker, Jer. profeticen tegen de volkeren, 94 ; A. v. Bulmerincq, Das Zukunftsbild d. Propheten Jer. , 94.

iii. Especially on the text: C. B. Michaelis, Annotationes, 1720; J. D. Michaelis, Observationes, 1743; J. G. Eichhorn, in Repertorium, 1777 ; F. A. Stroth in Repertorium, 1778 ; C. F. Schnurrer, Observationes, 1793-94; A. F. G. Leiste, Observa tiones, 1794 ; C. L. Spohn, Jeremias vates, etc., I., 1795, II. (ed. F. A. G. Spohn), 1824; T. Roorda, Comnt. in aliquot Jer. loca, 24 ; A. Kueper, Jeremias librorum ss. interpres, 31 ; A. Knobel, Jeremias clialdaizans, 31 ; J. C. Movers, De utriusque recensionis vaticiniorum Jer. indole et origine, 37 ; J. Wichelhaus, De Jer. vcrsione Alexandrma, 47 ; F. Bottcher, Aehrenlese, 49, Neue Aehren/ese, 64; C. Schulz, Defer, textus heb. mas. et grieci Alex, discrepantia, 61 ; P. F. Frankl, Studien iiber die LXX u. Pescito zu Jer., 73; A. Scholz, Der Mas. Text und die LXX d. B. Jer., 75; C. Zimmer, Aramaismi Jeremiani, 80; E. Kuehl, Das Verhdltnisd. Mas. zur LXX in Jcr., "82; Gratz, Emendationes, 83; G. C. Workman, The Text of Jer., 89; H. P. Smith, The text of Jer. in Hebraica, 87, Targum to Jer., ibid., 88 ; cp also /AY,, 90; E. Coste, Die IVeissaguneen wider die fremden Vo lker, 93 ; H. Cornill, in Haupt s SBOT, 95 ; A. W. Streane, The Double Text of Jer., 96. N. S.

1 For a fuller justification of the position taken in this article, the writer may be permitted to refer to his forthcoming Introduction to the Book of Jeremiah.


An apocryphal composition, professing to have been written by Jeremiah to warn the Jews who were to be led captives to Babylonia against falling into idolatry. For this purpose the vanity of the idols of wood, silver, and gold is elaborately shown.

There is no logical arrangement ; but we meet with something like a refrain in vv. 16 [17], 23 [24], 29 [30], 65 [66], and 69 [70], which verses serve at any rate as breaks ; it may be added that another formula recurs m slightly varied forms at w. 30 [31], 40 [41], 44, 46, 51 [52], 56.

The ideas are the commonplaces of the opponents of idolatry in post-exilic times (cp Ps. 115:4-8 ; 135:15-18 ; Is. 44:9-19; Jer. 10:3-9 ; Wisd. 18:10-19, 15:13-17). It is admitted, except by some Roman Catholic commentators, that the epistle was written in Greek ; the few Hebraisms (e.g. d^o/iotu^^res d^o/ototwflTjre \y. 4], and the use of the future for the present) are nothing un common in Hellenistic Greek. The imitation of Jeremiah is not very strenuous ; the author has studied this book as most of the later writers have studied it, but in a very mechanical way. The statement in v. 2 [3] that the Babylonian exile is to last seven generations, altered in the Syriac into seventy years, contradicts Jer. 29:10. It is hardly possible to fix the date exactly, and unsafe even to say that the epistle was written before 2 Maccabees, the supposed reference to it in 2 Macc. 3:1+ being disputed.

Ball (Var. Apocr. 200) suggests that seven generations ( = 280) may seem to point to the removal of the Jews from Jerusalem to Alexandria by Ptolemy Soter (588-280 = 308).

The composition is not a mere scholastic exercise. It is, as Gifford truly says, an earnest appeal to persons actually living in the midst of heathenism, and needing to be warned and encouraged against temptations to apostacy. In this respect it is parallel to Is. 44:9-19 and the other didactic passages mentioned above. The author may, as Fritzsche supposes, have been a Jew of Alexandria (note the somewhat turgid style) ; it is no objection to this view that, like the author of Is. 44:9-19, he places his work under the aegis of a writer of earlier date and established reputation. In fact, in Jer. 29 we actually hear of a letter, traditionally asigned to Jeremiah, which is adressed to those whom king Nebuchadrezzar had carried captives from Jerusalem to Babylon.

This epistle (on the use of the term see EPISTOLARY LITERATURE) is included in the Greek canon, and is found in all Greek MSS of the OT except 70, 96, 229 [cursives]. In the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, and some editions of &, it is given as Baruch 6 ; and this is followed in Luther s Bible and in KV ; but there is no plausible justification (see BARUCH, BOOK on 1 ). In the Syro.-Hex. the Epistle follows Lamentations.


E. H. Gifford in Speaker s Apocrypha, vol. ii. ; Bissell in his Apocrypha; Fritzsche, Handbook zu den Apokr., 51 ; Reusch, Erklarung des B. Baruch, 53 ; Herzfeld, GVI, 1:316 ( 47) ; Nestle, Marginalien, 42 f. \ Rothstein, in Die Apokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen dcs A T, edited by Kautzsch, 1 226-229.




(1) (iepe/v\l&C [BAL]), i Esd. 9 3 4, see JEREMAI.

(2) Mt. 1614 CleptjiuW [Ti.WH]), RV JEREMIAH [?..].


(HIRREMIHEL [Lat.], also remihel, cp Bensly, ad loc. ; i.e. , 7NDT, El hurls, cp JEREMIAH), the archangel, 4 Esd. 436 (AV m e-RV), and hence to be kept distinct from Uriel (AV ; so VRIEL, Lat. c. ; cp also Ar 2 ), who is regularly called angel. According to Enoch 9 the four great archangels are Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, and Suriel or Raphael. See ANGEL, 4.




(iepe/v\lOY [Ti.WH]), Mt. 2 17, etc., RV JEREMIAH [q.v.]


), EV i Ch. 23 19 24 23. See JERIJAH.


( TT ; cp JERUBBAAL, and 3n, CIS 270, a bilingual, where the parallel Ass. has iriba), a name in David s army-list (i Ch. Il46f; i&piBei [B], -B&l [A], ,\piBi [N], lApeiB [L]). See RIBAI.


(irTV, uniformly in Pent., also in 2 K. 25s and [Gi.] 28.105 Jer. 39$ and [Gi., Ba.] Ezra, Neh., Ch. ; "in T in Josh, [uniformly, Gi.], also 2 K. 24 [bis] 5 15 18; IDT Josh. 1821 [Ba., not Gi.], 28. 10s [Ba.] Jer. 39s [Ba.] Jer. 528; nrTV, iK. 1634 [Gi., but Ba. finVJ; [e]ip[]ix<o, some- times with fern, art., itp.\<av, Josh. 21 36 [B] ; NT, lepetxw and icpi^u [in Lk. 19 1] Tr\v lep. ; Jos. leprous [gen. -ourros] or Ifpi\io [gen. -ous], whence Ifpi\ovvTioi , Strabo, lepifcoGs).

1. Meaning of Name.[edit]

A city, assigned to Benjamin (Josh. 18 12 21), remarkable alike from its history and its unique position,

(a) A plausible view explains the name as the fragrant Wnri); Ges. (The*.), Wetzstein (in Del. JesajaW, 703), etc., and many others have acquiesced in it. The allusion on this hypothesis will be to the fragrant balsams and rose trees of Jericho. It is evident, however, that the fragrant, however suitable as a title, can hardly have been the primeval name of such an important place.

(b) Following older commentators, Siegfr. -Stade (Lex.) and Sayce (Early Hist. 250) connect the name Jericho with nv, the moon ; it will then be a testimony to the early prevalence of moon-worship, as BETH-SHEMESH [^.f.] testifies to that of sun-worship. (Cp Jer. OS 786, luna, sive odor ejus. )

(c) There is reason, however, to suspect that the true meaning of Jericho is neither fragrant city nor moon city. We shall see presently that the original tradition which underlies Josh. 2 re lated to the conquest of a different city from that commonly called Jericho, one that bore the name of which Jericho is a corruption (presumably a popular corruption), and that the true name of both places lies concealed under the incorrectly transmitted title (EV the city of palm trees ), and is vy, city of Jerahmeel. If this be admitted as probable it would fall into line with other mutilated forms of the name Jerahmeel suggested elsewhere (see JERAHMEEL, 4) we must suppose that in primitive times a colony of Jerahmeelites settled in the rich plain of Jericho, and that, as elsewhere, the primitive name, in a shortened form, clung to the spot, even after another race had taken possession of it.

1. See Steuernagel on Dt. 843.

2. City of palm tree.[edit]

The title oncnn vy occurs in four passages, but the latest of these, 2 Ch. 28:15, may safely be neglected. In Dt. 34:3 (see JORDAN, i) it is appended to 'Jericho' in a definition of the extemt of the geographical term 'the Circle' (of Jordan). Judg. 1:16 gives a statement (see HOBAB) to the effect that the Kenites joined the men of Judah in an invasion of a southern district of Palestine ; their starting-point was Dncnn Ty. Although a reference to the historical Jericho would accord with the present context of Judg. 1:16-17. (see Moore), yet a comparison of Nu. 21 1-3 makes it very doubtful whether the original tradition did not mean rather a place to the S. of Judah. 1 It is natural to think of the Tamar of i K. 9:18 (see TAMAR), and to suppose that the full name of this place was city of palm trees, and that the title being so appropriate to Jericho (see 7), was inserted in Dt. 34s after this place-name. But is it really credible that palm trees anciently grew to the S. of Judah? Surely not (see NEGEB). We must therefore seek for some name or title which may have been corrupted into G"icnn vy, and can be reasonably supposed to have been suitable both for Jericho and for the city to the S. of Judah, of which we are in quest. There is such a name or title SKOITV vy, 'city of Jerah- meel', otherwise in all probability called ^KCrvy cnp, Kadesh of Jerahmeel (out of which ynirsnp, EV Kadesh- Barnea, probably sprang). This theory seems to throw light on the third passage in which nnDnn vy occurs, viz., Judg. 3:13, where we read that Eglon gathered to him the b'ne Amalek (i.e. , the bne Jerah meel 1 ), and went and smote Israel, and possessed him self of ononn vy (i.e. , Jericho, the city of Jerahmeel). The Amalekites (Jerahmeelites) naturally supported the Moabite king Eglon, because it roused their indignation to see an ancient settlement of their own occupied by the bne Israel.

3. Tangled traditions in Josh. 2-6.[edit]

It is remarkable that no name resembling 'Jericho' should occur in the Amarna Tablets. In the Book of Joshua we find it mentioned as a city with a wall and a gate (25:15), rich* (6:24, 7:21), and governed by its own king (2:3). It will be seen, however, that this tradition is of doubtful origin ; we may perhaps receive further light from excavations.

The story of the capture of Jericho by the Israelites is briefly this 3 (Josh. 2-6). While the Israelites were en camped at SHITTIM, on the other side of Jordan, Joshua sent two of his men to spy out the land and in the first instance Jericho. They found a lodging at Jericho in the house of one Rahab a harlot. The king, however, got news of their arrival, and sent word to Rahab to bring out her guests. But Rahab let the men down through the window, after they had guaranteed her life and that of her family, for she was aware that Jericho was doomed to fall. They fled into the mountains. 4 Pursuers sought for them for three days in the direction of the fords of the Jordan, and then gave up their search ; the two spies returned to Joshua. Thereupon the Israelites broke up their camp and moved to the Jordan. It was a bold step ; for it was the flood-time, when the Zor or wider bed of the river (see JORDAN, 4) becomes brimful, so that the water is on a level with the banks. But Joshua knew in whom he believed, and bade the Israelites pass over. In the van he placed twelve men, each carrying a stone, next came the ark, then the tribes of Israel. Yahwe performed a wonder for his people ; no sooner did they prepare to cross, than the current oi the river was stayed. The host of Israel went over, and the twelve stones were set up as an everlasting memorial at Gilgal, at the eastern limit of Jericho (irvv rnip nspa, Josh. 4:19).

The first obstacle of Joshua s further advance was the strong city of Jericho. The captain of the host of Yahwe appeared to Joshua (probably at Gilgal, 8 cp Judg. 2:1), to make known his participation in the coming attack on Jericho, and (editorial manipulation has obscured this point) to give directions as to the course of action to be adopted. 6 What form the earlier tradition gave to these directions we cannot venture to say. A later writer represents the capture thus. -Once a day for six days Israel went round the city in procession ; the van guard first ; next the priests (carrying seven trumpets of rams horns) with the ark ; then the rear-guard (cp ARK, 4). On the seventh day the procession made its round seven times, and at the seventh time the priests blew the trumpets and the people raised the battle-cry, whereupon the walls of Jericho fell down. Then the conquered city was made herem i.e., all living things were killed and the spoil either burnt or dedicated to the service of Yahwe. A curse was pronounced on the man who should rebuild Jericho (see HIEL). 'But the harlot Rahab and her family - even all that belonged to her - Joshua saved alive, so that she dwells in the midst of Israel to this day' (Josh. 6:25).

1 See JERAHMEEL, 4. Ammon should perhaps be omitted as a corrupt dittogram of Amalek.

  • O n the wedge (?) of gold, appropriated by Achan, see GOLD.

1 Critical results are assumed.

  • Conder (PEFQ, April 74, p. 38) suggests that the caves

and rocky precipices of Jebel Karantel (Quarantana) may be meant.

5 The text says irTT3> which probably means in the domain of Jericho ; cp Josh. 4 19.

  • On Josh. ffjsj^, see JOSHUA ii. )7) and cp Oxf. Hex. 2 328,

and Steuernajel ai loc.

4. Criticism of the text.[edit]

In its present form the biblical narrative is composite. Successive writers have devoted themselves to the elaboration of the details. Analytic criticism has been applied to the narrative (see JOSHUA ii. , 7) ; but its results seem to require further revision in the light of a more searching criticism of MT. Steuernagel is right in assuming the relative originality of LXX ; but we can no more follow implicitly as a canonical authority than MT. The text in all its forms must be subjected to a searching criticism. It will thus, for instance, become plain that Josh. 8:15-17, which the Oxford editors assign to P, is based on an earlier written source. We cannot, however, criticise the text of this most interesting and elaborate description of the stoppage of the waters of the Jordan without some guidance from outside.

Such guidance we receive from four sources :

  • (1) From the story of Jacob (Israel) ;
  • (2) From the story of Jerubbaal ;
  • (3) From Dt. 11:29-30, 27:2; and
  • (4) From the various evidences in early tradition that the tribe of Judah came up into its settlements through the Negeb, starting from Kadesh-Jerahmeel ( Barnea ).

i. Any one who approaches the story of Jacob with a fresh and open mind will be irresistibly led to suspect that the crossing of the Jordan by the Israelites under the Ephraimite Joshua was, in its original form, parallel to the migration of Jacob-Israel across the Jordan, which an early tradition placed at the point where it is met by the Jabbok. 1

2. The twofold geographical relation of Gideon-Jerubbaal (see GIDEON) points in the same direction ; it is not accidental that the name Zarethan occurs in Josh. 3:16 and a parallel form Zererah (both forms are corrupt) in Judg. 7:22.

3. It is appropriately remarked on Dt. 27:2 by the Oxford editors, The phraseology suggests that the stones were to be erected on the actual day of the passage of the Jordan. ... Is the distance from the Jordan to Shechem forgotten ; does the writer, looking back to a distant past " (Driver), fail to take account of the time that must have elapsed between the crossing of the river and the arrival at Ebal ; or is there a vague reminiscence in his mind of the later incident when twelve stones are taken up out of the Jordan and placed upright in the Gilgal ? Is it not rather a reminiscence, not of the later incident, but of the original tradition of the crossing of the Jordan at a more northerly point than the fords of Jericho? On Dt. 11:29-30. see especially GERIZIM.

4. If Judah started from Kadesh-Jerahmeel we may analogously assume that the Joseph tribes entered W. Palestine at a point on the Jordan nearer to their ultimate possessions than Jericho.

The considerations just stated lead to the following emendation of the text of Josh. 3:16, (it came to pass) that the water stood still ; that which came down from above stood as a heap some distance (cp Gen. 21:16) from the ford of Adamah which is opposite Beth-zur 2 (-ns-rra iM IB .N nDTjc rnsysD prnn). The ford of Adamah is to be identified with the ford of Damieh, which is at the confluence of the Jabbok and the Jordan, 16 m. in a direct line from the fords of Jericho. Beth-zur must be the name of the fortress which already stood on the summit of Karn Sartabeh, 2227 ft. above

the Jordan Valley. 1 It is probable that at the end of v. 16 the original narrative had, instead of inv 1JJ opposite Jericho," -usvra ~IH opposite Beth-zur. No one can reasonably doubt that this geographical defini tion, so inconsistent with the references to Jericho, comes from a relatively early source. In short, ac cording to the earlier tradition, the crossing of the Jordan by the Ephraimite Joshua and his followers took place near the point where Jacob is also said to have crossed the Jordan i.e. , near the ford of Damieh. Nevertheless, the transference of the scene to Jericho is not purely arbitrary. There is evidence of a confusion of two traditions, one of which referred to the conquest by the Judahites of the city of Jerahmeel (probably Kadesh-Jerahmeel), and the other to the crossing of the Jordan near Damieh by the Ephraimites. The story of the spies 2 and of RAHAB [^.v.] belongs properly to the former tradition. Rahab (am), or rather Rechab (^DT), or best of all Heber (nan), is certainly the representative of the Rechabites, or Heberites, a second name of the KENITES [^.f.], who, as we infer from Judg. 1 16, ancietitly dwelt in the city of Jerahmeel (MT city of palm trees, but see 2), though not themselves Jerahmeelites ( = Amalekites, cp i S. 15 16). These Rechabites 3 or Kenites held the position of a protected tribe, or, putting this into symbolic phraseology, Rahab- Rechab was a harlot. * Now we can really profess to understand the statement in Josh. 2 1 that Joshua s two spies found lodging in the house of a harlot. The detail was not suggested by considerations of expediency, for strangers to turn into such a house would excite the least suspicion (Steuernagel) ; it is an anticipation of the historical relation between Kain and Israel. As the narrator says, Rahab dwells in Israel unto this day (Josh. 6:25), i.e., the Kenites still dwelt among the Judahites as a protected tribe in the narrator s times.

1 This is the spot assigned to the crossing by Stade (GVI, 138), C. Niebuhr (Gesch. 1 328), Steuernagel (Deut. 167). Against Stade, however, cp GASm. HG 659-662.

2 The ,-ianxmXD of Kt. represents nD1N [nliaj-D , Ty is a corruption of -IB N; ise (for -nj) arose from the proximity of -\\s. frm is certainly a corruption of fljrn a (see ZARETAN); (Kapiafapeiv) indicates a reading jmp, which, though defended by W. E. Stevenson, PEFQ, 96, p. 82, is certainly wrong. Cp Judg. 722 (emended ; see ZARETAN). See also ADAM.

5. The phenomenon in Joshua 6:20.[edit]

It is needless to ask what suggested the story of the falling down of the walls of Jericho. As Steuernagel truly says (151), the popular imagination clothed the conviction that all Israel's successes were due to Yahwe's help in the form of history. Among the instances of this he mentions the drying up of the Jordan and the falling down of the walls of Jericho. For the first of these reputed wonders Steuernagel s explanation is hardly sufficient. The biblical writers show a certain economy in the distribution of wonders. It was necessary that the walls of Jericho should fall down. Only by supernatural means could the untrained host of Joshua capture a fortified city ; G. A. Smith goes a little too far when he says (pp. 267 f.) that the statement in Josh. 6:20 is the soberest summary of all Jericho s history. But it was not necessary that the current of the Jordan s waters should be stayed ; a ford suited Jacob, and might as well have suited Joshua. There must have been some natural phenomenon probably one which had occurred within the first narrator s knowledge which suggested the story of the waters that stood up as a heap, and Clermont- Ganneau has brought from a Paris MS an Arabic historian s account of just such a historical phenomenon as we require for our purpose.

The statement of No wairi (as reported by Lt. -Col. C. M.Watson in PEFQ, 95, pp. 253^7) is that in 66-4 A.H. (=1266 A.D.) Bibars I., then Sultan of Egypt, caused a bridge to be built across the Jordan for strategical purposes. The bridge is in the neighbourhood of Damieh, between it and Karawa, 5 and there happened in connection with it a wonderful thing, the like of which was never heard of. When the bridge was completed, part of the piers gave way, and in the night preceding the 8th Dec. 1267 the waters of the river ceased to flow. The phenomenon was investigated and it appeared that a lofty mound which overlooked the river on the west had fallen into it and dammed it up. . . . The water was held up, and had spread itself over the valley above the dam. It was arrested from midnight until the fourth hour of the day. Then the water prevailed over the dam and broke it up. For Nowairi the occurrence was extraordinary indeed, but quite a natural phenomenon. The situation described can be sufficiently made out. Damieh is well known, and on the west bank, just opposite Damieh, there is a district called Karfiwu. Formerly, however, this name was given to a town which was in the centre of a district where sugar-cane was cultivated. An examination of the ground confirms Clermont-Ganneau s view of the meaning, for a little above the ford, where the Wady Zerka joins the Jordan, are the remains of an old bridge which is probably the very bridge erected in 1266 A.D. by command of Bibars I.

The physical character of this phenomenon forcibly recalls that described in Joshua. Nowairi states that it occurred at a time when the Jordan was in full flood ; the Hebrew narrator makes a similar statement. Nowairi, it is true, dates the event the 8th December ; the Hebrew narrator specifies the time of harvest (March?); but on the essential point, as already noticed, they agree. The point where the landslip described by Nowairi took place, is one where minor landslips still occur, and a large one, such as the Arabic and the Hebrew narrators describe, might again dam up the Jordan, and let it run off into the Dead Sea, leaving the bed temporarily dry.

1 The Talmudic N3E"1D ar >d the biblical jmx have the same origin HSVP2- See ZARETHAN.

2 Cp the story of the spies in Nu. 13.

3 We postpone the question as to the right name of this tribe.

4 Ewald s suggestion (GVJ ij.fi, n. i) is most unjust to the people of Jericho, and finds no support in the narrative (see Josh. 3 9).

5 The diacritical points are wanting in the MS of Nowairi ; Clermont-Ganneau reads the name Karawa. Karawa is almost certainly the Kope ou of Jos. Ant. xiv. 84 5z; BJ\. 65 iv. Si. See Gildemeister, ZDPV 4 245 f. ( 81); Schur., Buhl, and Gratz (MGlifJ 31 14 ff. [ 82]) assent ; G. A. Smith s reasons for doubting (HG 353, n. 5) seem insufficient. The present writer would further identify this fertile spot with the Abel-meholah of the OT.

6. Later biblical references.[edit]

We have thus gained something for the traditional history of Kadesh-Jerahmeel and for that of the ford of Adamah ; but we have lost our sole authority for the early history of the city known as Jericho. Hence the first trustworthy historical notice of Jericho is in 2 S. 10:5, where Jericho appears as a city of the realm of David. We may assume, but we do not know, that it was fortified in his time. It was at any rate either fortified or refortified by HIEL (q.v. ), if we should not rather ascribe the act to Jehu, and regard it as a precaution against Aramaean invasion (1 K. 16:34; see JEHU, 3). Judaea, as Prof. G. A. Smith remarks, could never keep Jericho. As a Benjamite town it fell to Northern Israel, while Northern Israel lasted. In later times it fell to Bacchides and the Syrians ; Bacchides fortified it against Jonathan the Maccabee (1 Macc. 9:50). The cause of this will be plain later. Here we have to add that a company of prophets made Jericho their home in the days of Elijah and Elisha (2 K. 1*f. ), and that Elisha was said to have healed the water of the chief fountain of the city (v. 19 f. ; cp Jos. BJ \\. 83). The fountain meant is no doubt the Ain es-Sultan, sometimes called Elisha's Fountain. In the great post- exilic list (Ezra 2:34 Neh. 7:36) the men of Jericho are reckoned at 345 ; Jericho was also represented among Nehemiah s builders at Jerusalem (Neh. 8:2). At the fortress of Dok ( Ain ed-Duk; see Docus), near Jericho, that noble Maccabee, Simon, was murdered by his son-in-law Ptolemy (i Macc. 16:15).

See further GASm. HG 267 f. Dean Stanley s expression, the key of Palestine, applied to Jericho, is hardly accurate.

Christian tradition fixed the site of the temptation of Christ at the hill Quarantana (Jebel Karantel} to the W. of the Ain es-Sultdn ; the reputed scene of the bap tism was also near Jericho (see JORDAN, 2 [7]). The Gospels, however, have something much better to tell us. At the close of Christ s ministry, as he was leaving Jericho on his way to Jerusalem, he healed a blind man called BARTIM^US [y.v.]. It was necessary, as Farrar rightly says, to rest at Jericho before entering on the rough and rocky gorge which led up towards Jerusalem, but we cannot attach weight with him l to Macknight's suggestion that the discrepancy between Mt. and Mk. on the one hand and Lk. on the other may be met by the supposition that the scene of the occurrence lay between the two Jerichos i.e. , that according to Lk. Jesus was approaching New Jericho, while according to Mt. and Mk. he was leaving Old Jericho. A reference to Old Jericho would have been unmeaning, for it was then uninhabited, nor could Jericho at this time mean anything but the city which was given by Antony to Cleopatra and redeemed by Herod the Great. The narrative is of the highest interest. It may be taken by some to confirm the historicity of the Messianic entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, for cures of bodily evils were doubtless considered to be characteristic acts of the Messiah, and the story of Bartimaeus may suggest that the movement of which we have the climax in Mk. lli-io gathered strength in Jericho. Keim (Jesus von Naz. 852 f.) has put the case for the historicity of the Bartimaeus narrative in a very attractive way (cp BARTIMAEUS, i); on the other hand, there are difficulties in admitting the triumphal entry as a part of the most primitive tradition (see HOSANNA) which cannot but affect the historicity of the story of Bartimaeus. The narrative, however, must at any rate be very early so full is it of nature and verisimilitude, and it is by far the best attested of all the stories of the healing of the blind in the Gospels. The story of Zacchaeus is not less natural. Not a few publicans must have been needed to secure the revenues accruing from the traffic in the famous balsam, and the mur muring of the multitude at the grace shown to a sinner is easily intelligible. Still there are difficulties (see ZACCHAEUS) in the way of conceding more than an ideal truth to this delightful story, of which Lk. is the only narrator. Disciples full of the spirit of Jesus might surely be able to fill up the gaps in tradition by imagining such a scene as that of the conversion of Zacchseus. Should we have lost anything if docu mentary evidence of this almost involuntary imaginative creation could be produced ? Is the story (also only reported by Lk. ) of the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves (Lk. 10:30+) less effective or less prized because we know that it is only ideally true ?

7. Later History.[edit]

No great man, says Prof. G. A. Smith, was born in Jericho ; no heroic deed was ever done in her. 2 It is possible, indeed, that the most detested man in the history of Christianity was born there ; the name Judas Iscariotes should perhaps be Judas Ierichotes i.e., Judas of Jericho (unless indeed the title belongs primarily to his father ; see JUDAS ISCARIOT). The chief historical name closely connected with Jericho is that of Herod, who beautified the city, and retired to it to die (Jos. Ant. xvii. 6 5). The place is often mentioned in the later history. Both Pompey and Vespasian took the city and fortified it, rather perhaps as a source of supplies than as a base of operations. 3 Its natural wealth, chiefly owing to the precious balsam, made it a coveted possession. Herod s Roman allies sacked it (Jos. BJ i. 15 6), and Herod himself was glad to farm Jericho and its plain from Cleopatra, to whom Anthony had assigned them (Jos. Ant. xv. 4.2). Here as elsewhere he proved himself a great builder palaces and public buildings sprang up as by magic (Ant. xvi. 5z ; BJ\. 2149; cp HEROD). After his death Simon, a former slave of Herod, aspir ing to be king, burned and plundered the palace (Ant. xvii. 106), which, however, was magnificently rebuilt by Archelaus. Most important of all, Archelaus diverted water from a village called Neara, to irrigate the plain, in which he had just planted palm trees (Ant. xvii. 13 1). In the time of Josephus Jericho was the seat of one of the eleven toparchies or administrative districts (BJ iii. 3s). On the approach of Vespasian the inhabitants fled to the mountains ; unopposed, he erected a citadel, and placed a garrison in it (BJ\\. 82 9i). To a great extent, says Josephus, the city had been destroyed before the coming of the Romans (BJ\\. 82). But the damage must soon have been repaired. The notices of Pliny, subsequent to the Roman war, leave no doubt as to the prosperity of Jericho, caused by its fine plant ations of palm trees and balsam trees. It is also mentioned by Ptolemy and by Galen in the second century A.D. , and existed in the time of Caracalla, according to a statement of Origen preserved in Eusebius. 1 In the list of the principal cities of Judaea given by Ammianus Marcellinus (end of 4th cent. ) it is conspicuous by its absence. We may presume that some calamity had happened to it, and Reinach 2 with much probability supposes that the famous passage of Solinus (ed. Mommsen, 356) Judaeae caput fuit Hierosolyma, sed excisa est ; successit Hierichus, et haec desivit, Artaxerxis bello subacta refers to a destruction of Jericho (probably by the Romans) in connection with the invasion of Syria by Ardashir the founder of the Persian dynasty of the Sassanidae, who assumed the venerated name of Artaxerxes (cp ISAIAH ii. 13, n. 2). If so, the date of the event must be placed about 230 A.D. It is probably to this event that Jerome refers in his treatise on the Site and Names of Hebrew Places ; the phraseology points very strongly to this view. 3

1 Life of Christ, 519, n. 2; cp Plummer, St. Luke, 429 (against Macknight).

2 GASm. HG 268. 3 Ibid.

8. Christian traditions.[edit]

Jericho began to be resorted to by pilgrims in the fourth century, and the sacred sites sprang into view. The Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 A.D.) saw the the sycomore tree of Zacchaeus, and the house of Rahab immediately above Elisha's Fountain. In the time of Theodosius, however (530 A. D. ), the site of the latter had been shifted. Bishop Arculf (towards 700 A.D.) found the whole site of the city covered with cornfields and vineyards, with out any habitations, but the walls of the house of Rahab were still standing, though without a roof. Between the city and the Jordan were large groves of palm trees, interspersed with open spaces, in which were almost innumerable houses, inhabited by a diminu tive sort of men of the race of Canaan. (There are still the marks of degradation in the Bedouins of Jericho. ) Saewulf (1102 A.D. ) speaks of Jericho as the garden of Abraham ; it is in a land covered with trees and pro ducing all kinds of palms and other fruits. In the fourteenth century Sir John Maundeville speaks again of the Garden of Abraham, but places it at the foot of the Quarantana. Upon that hill Abraham dwelt a long while ; therefore it is called Abraham s Garden.

1 Eus. HE 6 16 ; an ancient Greek version of the OT, the vi. or vii. in the Hexapla, is said to have been found in Jerusalem in a cask in the time of Antoninus son of Severus ; cp Field, Hex. 1 45.

2 La deuxieme ruine de Jericho, Kohut Memorial Volume

097), 457^

3 OS 132 i. Sed et haec eo tempore quo Jerusalem oppugnabatur a Romanis propter perfidiam civium capta atque destructa est. Pro qua tertia aedificata est civitas quae usque hodie permanet, et ostenduntur utriusque urbis vestigia usque in praesentem diem.

9. Modern identifications.[edit]

The Jericho of the Bordeaux Pilgrim was at the base of the mountains ; he places the more ancient city at Elisha's Fountain. No doubt this view is correct. No other site would be at all probable. Three fine springs are found within but a small distance of one another, while the rest of the plain can show but one, and that far less considerable (Conder). The chief of these is the Ain es- Sultan a beautiful fountain of sweet, palatable water which bursts forth at the E. foot of a long tell or mound, over 1200 ft. in length from N. to S. , and about 50 ft. in height. Superimposed are four other mounds (one of them a ridge) at the edges, the NW. or highest being some 90 ft. above the fountain, but not more than 60 or 70 ft. above the ground at the W. Dr. Bliss 1 offers the opinion that the tell is a mass of dlbris caused by the ruin of several mud-brick towns over the first Jericho. For the remains of the second or Herodian city we must go to the S. bank of the Wady el- Kelt, nearly two miles W. of the modern village. Here there are abundant remains of an ancient city, and similar ruins N. of Ain es-Sultan suggest that the Herodian Jericho may have extended in this direction also, the interval between the sites being filled up with detached villas. According to Conder a the Byzantine Jericho is represented by the foundations and fragments of cornice and capital, over which the rider stumbles among the thorn-groves E. of the Ain es-Sultan. The fourth Jericho that of the Crusaders was on the site of the present village. The square tower on the SE. of Eriha (so the village is called) is such a one as the Crusaders erected along their pilgrim roads," 3 though since the fifteenth century it has been said to occupy the site of the House of Zacchaeus.

10. Situation of Jericho.[edit]

The ancient road from Jerusalem to Jericho zigzags down the bare mountain side, close to the S. bank of the Wady el Kelt - Few mountain gorges in Western lands can compare with it. It is pne of the most stupendous chasms in the ancient mountains, so narrow that one can hardly measure twenty yards across at the bottom, so deep that one can only just see the slender torrent stream which winds along amidst canes and rank rushes to the Jordan. At last the prospect widens, and we get a complete view of the vast plain of Jericho. Half a mile from the foot of the pass we perceive an ancient reservoir, now dry, perhaps the remains of a pool con structed by Herod ; for here no doubt is the site of the Herodian Jericho. Shortly afterwards we pass under a handsome aqueduct crossing the Kelt, and at this point we have our choice whether to seek out Elisha s Fountain or the squalid village of Eriha. The vegetation now becomes very luxuriant. Palm groves, balsam trees, and sugar-canes 4 have disappeared (see BALSAM, PALM TREE), though in 1874 a solitary palm tree still grew close to the tower of Eriha, and another clump in the valley N. of Kasr el-Hajla. 5 Yet the few fields of wheat and Indian corn, and the few orchards of figs and pomegranates, give some idea of what the soil would yield if properly irrigated and cultivated. Josephus s picture of Jericho (BJ\\. 83) well deserves reading. The site is on all accounts profoundly interesting, and Tell es-Sultan will no doubt one day be excavated. Meantime the Christian traveller will delight himself with the unaltered fountain of ancient Jericho 6 and will walk with interest on the S. bank of the Kelt where the feet of Jesus doubtless trod. 7 Nor will the tiring excursion to the hermit s caverns on the Mountain of the Temptation be altogether unrewarded.

On the plants and birds, and on the physical circumstances of Jericho, see JORDAN ; and on the site of Gilgal, see GILGAL. Cp also JOHN THE BAPTIST. T. K. C.

1 PEFQ, 94, p. 176^ ; cp Jericho, in Hastings DB 2 581*.

2 Tentwork, 2 7.

3 Tenfrvork, 2 7.

4 See Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, 396 f.

5 Conder, PEFQ, April 74, p. 39.

8 For a charming description see De Vogue. Syrie, Palestine. Athos(% 7 ), 156.

7 Cp Tristram, Land of Israel, 220.


(?H*T. El sees, 31), in a genealogy of ISSACHAR ( 7): i Ch. 7 2 (pemA [B], lepenA [A], lApoyHA [L]). A corruption of Jerahmeel ; see REPHAIAH.


(-inn;, n>1*. Yahwe sees, 31 ; twpias [AL]), first of the T sons of Hebron : iCh. 23ig 2423 (EV JERIAH) 2631 (ifiouS [on the form, see Ki. SBOT\, irjSeijiou, rovSeias [B], iepia, ie5iou [A], teSSi \bis\ [L]) ; see HEBRON ii., i.


(m*V and rrton* m?D"V; see NAMES, 75, and cp the place-name JARMUTH ; ApeiMtoG [B], iep[e]iM606 [AL]).

i, 2, 3. Three Benjamites, i Ch. 7 7 (niD T EV Jerimoth, itpinovB [A], iepjn. [L], v. 8 [niD T, AV Jerimoth, RV Jeremoth, avprin<o8 [B], ip^. [L]), and i Ch. 814 (EV Jeremoth, niDT, iapeijie [B], -ifiovfl [A]). For the last cp JEROHAM, 2.

4. One of David s heroes, also of Benjamin, i Ch. 12 5 (niD T, EV Jerimoth, opet/iov0[B], lapiju. [A], apt^ov? [N], ipi^wfl [L]*

5. b. Mushi, a Merarite Levite, i Ch. 2823 (niDT, EV Jeremoth, lapipuO [A]); it. 24 30 (niD T, EV Jerimoth). The name should perhaps be read DHV (a mutilated form of Jerah meel). Note the proximity of Mahli and Jerahmeel (Che.). See GENEALOGIES i., 7 [v.].

6. AsonofHeman, i Ch. 264 (niD T, EV Jerimoth, ttpeniaO [B], iepi/iov0 [A], z>. 22 (niDT, EV JEREMOTH, epetfiud [B], tepifiovS [L]). The name should perhaps be JEROHAM (cn T, cp no. 3 above).

7. A levitical overseer, 2 Ch. 8113 (niD T, EV Jerimoth, iepi/i<o0 [B]).

8. b. Azriel, of Naphtali, i Ch. 27i9(niD T, AV Jerimoth, RV Jeremoth, pet/oicu0 [B], lepi^outf [AL]).

9. Father of Mahalath, Rehoboam s wife, and son of David, 2 Ch. 11 18 (niD T, EV Jerimoth, p/uov0 [A], tiptfi. [BL]). Miswritten, according to Che., for ITHREAM (q.v.).

Among those in list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end) are mentioned three of this name :

10. One of the b ne Elam, Ezra 1026 (n lDT, EV Jeremoth, topetfiotd [B], ia.pifj.ta6 [N]), in i Esd.92? HIEREMOTH (ip/uu)0 [BA]).

11. One of the b ne Zattu, Ezra 1027 (ib. a^iav [B], ap/i. [K], ia.pij.iae [A], ip. [L]), in lEsd. 828 JARIMOTH (iap[e]ificu0 [BAL]).

12. _RV following Kt. in Ezral02g reads JEREMOTH, one of the b ne Bani ; AV, however, has and Ramoth, in accordance with the r. (niDT, <ccu it.-rHi.iav [B] . . . /u)(/wi/ [K], . . . prifiuO [A], pT)i/u. [L]); in lEsd. 830 Hieremoth (iepe/u<u0 [BA], apiji