[30] The omissions of the Septuagint are not always intelligent. The repetition of the "all" here intensifies the idea of the _totality_ of the ruin of the northern kingdom. The two clauses balance each other: _all your brethren--all the seed of Ephraim_. The objection that Edom was also a "brother" of Israel (Deut. xxiii. 8; Amos i. 11) shews a want of rhetorical sense.
In vii. 4 the Septuagint tastelessly omits the third "The Temple of Iahvah!" upon which the rhetorical effect largely depends: cf. chap. xxii. 29; Isa. vi. 3.
[31] NOTE ON vii. 25.--The word answering to "daily" in the Heb. simply means "day," and ought to be omitted, as an accidental repetition either from the previous line, or of the last two letters of the preceding word "prophets." Cf. ver. 13, where a similar phrase, "rising early and speaking," occurs in a similar context, but without "daily."
[32] _Wa'etten lahem_ can only mean "and I gave (in prophetic idiom 'and I will give') unto them," and this, of course, requires an object. "I will give them to those who shall pass over them" is the rendering proposed by several scholars. But _lahem_ does not mean "to those," and the thought does not harmonize with what precedes, and this use of עבר is doubtful, and the verb "to give" absolutely requires an object. The Vulgate rendering is really more in accordance with Hebrew syntax, as the masc. suffix of the verb might be used in less accurate writing. Targum: "because I gave them My law from Sinai, and they transgressed against it;" Peshito: "and I gave unto them, and they transgressed them." So also the Syro-Hexaplar of Milan (participle: "were transgressing") between asterisks.
[33] It seems to take the עלּי each time as עלּיהון־עלּי and to read איתי מלעיגים for מבליגיתי: thus getting "Scoffers! I will bring upon them sorrow; upon them my heart is faint."
[34] The irregular _Hiphil_ form of the verb--cf. 1 Sam. xiv. 22; Job xix. 4--may be justified by Job xxviii. 8; we are not, therefore, bound to render the Masoretic text: _and they make their tongue bend their lying bow_. Probably, however, _Qal_ is right, the _Hiphil_ being due to a misunderstanding, like that of the Targum, "And they taught their tongue words of lying."
[35] Ewald prefers the reading of the LXX., which divides the words differently. If we suppose their version correct, they must have read: "They have trained their tongue to speak falsehood, to distort. They are weary of returning. Oppression in oppression, deceit in deceit! They refuse to know Me, saith Iahvah." But I do not think this an improvement on the present Masoretic text.
[36] If Jeremiah wrote Ps. lv., as Hitzig supposes, he may be alluding to the treachery of a particular friend; cf. Ps. lv. 13, 14.
[37] _Shahadhta lisânaka `alaina._ In this case, we should follow the Heb. margin or _Q'rê_.
[38] _Speak thou, Thus saith Iahweh_, is undoubtedly a spurious addition, and does not appear in the LXX. Jeremiah never says _Koh ne'um Iahvah_, and never uses the imperative _dabber_!