?enuine, would be after Carchemish; whether any parts ol hem stood in Baruch's roll cannot be asiHrtaineii. 'The pro- phecy on Klam is ossigne*! to the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah (41>W). (3) On the original place of chs. 4G-4l> in the hook see next section (iii). (>.) F'inally. ch. 02 Is a historical extract, identical with 2 K 24lti-2&^. with the omission of 2 K oiztw Ch. 52*** are not yet in LXX. t
iii. Hebrew anp Greek Texts.— The diflfer- enccs between the Heh. m\k\ (Jr. texts are i::roat«r in the Hook of Jer than they are in iiiiy other iiook, even JoU (I) The Gr. text is much shortci than the Heh. — according to tlio calculation of
• Unless the rcfrrenre to ths 'house of Jonathan '(38*>) might impiv thiit th' ini- rvii'W took place after his Hnt drhveranos frnni'tb. ''^«')
t On Iludde, Jahrb. /. (tmtti-Ji* Thtoi. 1S78;
Orivor, / ' ; Kurn., Oruifnoflfl, fi 67 ; files.. Hand'
kutn. 24<'ll.. N 1*;. Nl>a.h. I>^r l^'pfi. Jer. u. titif't/lnn. \s:-i\ on ch*. 2.'' 4iV-4i). Nhwally, /.AlV, lisSS ; Smeiid, A'<-.'r:"i'i»7/»-
S. 238 fT.; Illerker, J*rrmiaA'$ t^fttUem Uq^n 4« \'oUt»rtn.. ronlniren, ISM.
674
JEREMIAH
JEREMIAH
Graf by about 27<X) words, or one-ei^'htli of the book. (2) In Heb. the proiihecie8 iijfainst tlie nntinna stand at the end of the book (clis. 46-51), iu the (!r. they are inserted between 25" and 25" ;v." being wanting), and they are piven in a diirerent order from the Hebrew. Mnoli in (1) was due to the Heb. MS on which tlie translator worked, which ditl'ered materially from our pre.sent Ma.s.soretic text. Thedill'erence (2) must be spoken of with less uertninty : the i)lace given to the prophecies against tlie nations may have been suggested by the translator's interpretjition of 25", and the order in which they stand may rellect something of the political situation of the time. Hut (3) a multitude of differences have arisen through the defective work of the translator him- self, who was anything but equal to liis task. The ditl'erences between the two texts were formerly explained by the hypothesis of two recensions — a shorter one, probably from the hand of .Jeremiah himself, which circulated in Eg3'pt ; and a longer one, the work of Baruch or others, which became the basis of the JIT. But the general identity of the two t<;xt~s, and the fact that some of the latest elements of the book are found in LXX, show that such a hypothesis is both unnecessary and false. Both texts reflect the same archetype ; but this archetype underwent a gradual process of expansion, and the process is rellected at an earlier .stage (not necessarily an earlier date) in the MS or MSS at the basis of LXX, and at a more advanced stage in those at the basis of the MT.
( I ) Comparative value of the texts. — In estimating the relative value of the Heb. and Gr. texts, one must compare them, first, in those parts of the book present in both texts ; secondly, m regard to those jiarts present in Heb. but wanting in Gr. ; comparison in regard to a third class of passages, those present in Gr. but wanting in Heb., though it might be interesting, is of less importance. That is, the comparative estimate must be in re- gard both to quality and quantity. Speaking generally, the JIT is qualitatively greatly superior to the Gr. ; but, on the other hand, quantitatively the Gr. is nearer the original text. This judgment is general, admitting many exceptions,— that is, cases where the quality of the Gr. text is better, and its readings more original than the Heb., e.g. OM 4=8 HIS ,g- 2333 419 46« and many more; and also cases where, in regard to quantity, Heb. is to be preferred, the omissions in LXX being due to faults in the translator's MS, to his own oversight, or to his tendency to scamp and abridge. Every indiviilual case of difference must be examined before a judgment can be pronounced. In regard to such large passages as SS"-" 3'J'", and even many minor ones, e.g. in chs. 25. 27-29, judgment will readily be given in favour of LXX, in which they are wantinfj ; but there is a multitude of other ca.ses in which a decision is difficult. Of the four synonyms for ' destroy ' l'", LXX has only three ; and again in 18', where three of the synonyms occur, LXX has only two. The exclamation, ' temple of the Lord ' 7*, stands in Heb. thrice, in L.XX twice ; so ' O earth ' 22-9, opiy twice in LXX. The words ' of hosts ' in the divine name are said to be wanting 56 times (2"' 6' etc. ), the parenthetical ' saith the Lord ' 64 times, and in ' Jeremiah the prophet' the titXe prophet is usually absent. Now, when it is considered that LXX shows an un- doubted tendency to abridgment, while the ideal of later Heb. style was fulness and roundness of phraseology, the two considerations puzzle the judgment and hold it in suspense. The title the ' prophet is probably in many cases a Heb. addition, the want of the synonym a Gr. abbreviation. It would not be just to charge the LXX translator
with arbitrary omis.sion on a large scale. There are over 3lJ passages which are repeated in the book (some twice), and LXX contains all the repetitions with the exception of 7, and the.se 7, it 18 siife to say, were not in the translator's M.S. (For list of repeated ]).a.s.sa"res see Driver, p. 276 f. ; Kuen. § 58" ; and for those wanting in LXX, Kuen. § 58").