Thus not only is this group of prophecies differently placed as a whole, but the members of the group are diITcrently arranged. In particular, Elam, which comes last but one ( or even last, if the prophecy on Babylon be excluded from the group) in the Hebrew, opens the series of prophecies in the Septuagint. Which of these arrangements has the stronger claims on our accept- ance? No one, after reading eh. xxv., would expect to find the prophecies on foreign nations separated from it by so long an interval as in the recei ve<l Hebrew text; and thus (the latter being notoriously of comparatively recent origin, and far from infallible) it would seem at first sight reasonable to follow the Septuagint. But there must be some error in the arrangement adopted by the latter. It is incredible that the passage, eh. xxv. 15-26 ( in our Bibles), is rightly placed, as in the Septuagint, at the very end of the foreign prophecies (as part of eh. xxxii.); it seems, indeed, absolutely required as the introduction of the group. The error of the Septuagint appears to have arisen out of a previous error on the part of a transcriber. When this version was made, a gloss (viz. eh. xxv. 13) destructive of the connection had already made its way into the text, and the Greek translator seems to have been led by it to the striking dislocation which we now find in his version. On this subject the reader may be referred to an important essay by Professor Budde, of Bonn, in the 'Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie,' 1879 (seep. 533). That the whole of the verse ( eh. xxv. 13) is a gloss had already been recognized by the old Dutch commentator Venema (1765), who will hardly be accused of rationalistic tendencies. 2. Variations of reading were of common occurrence in the Hebrew text employed by the Septuagint. It may be admitted (for it is self-evident) that the Greek translator was but ill prepared for his work. He not only often attaches wrong vowels to the consonants, but is sometimes so corn pletely at a loss for the meaning that he introduces Hebrew words untranslated into ~he Greek text. It would also appear that the Hebrew manuscript which he employed was badly wl'itten, and disfigured by frequent confusions of similar letters. It may further be granted that the Greek translator is sometimes guilty of deliberately tampering with the text of his manuscript (striking instances of this may be found in eh. xxv. 25 ans. xliii. 13, and less conspicuous ones in eh. ii. 18, 25, 30; iv. 6 ; viii. 6 ; xviii. 2, 22; xxii. 14, 30; xxx. 5); that he sometimes abridges where Jeremiah (as often) :repeats himself; and that either he or his transcribers have made varion~ ".lnauthorized additions to the original text ( as, for instance, eh. i. 17; ii. 28: iii. 19; v. 2; xi. 16; xiii. 20; xxii. 18; xx.vii. 3; xxx. 6). But a canclitl examination reveals the fact that both the consonants and the vocalizatil>ll of them employed in the Septuagint are sometimes better than those of the received Hebrew text. Instances of this will be fouud in eh. iv. 28; xi. 15; xvi. 7; xxiii. 33; xli. 9; xlvi. 17. True, there are interpolations in the text of the Septuagint; but such are by no means wanting in the received Hebrew text. The Septuagint is sometimes nearer to tho original simplicity than the JEREMIAH, C wiii INTRODUCTION 'l'O
Hebrew (see, for instance, eh. x.; xxvii. 7, 8 b, 16, 17, 19-22; xxviii. 1, 14, 16; I:Xix. 1, 2, 16-20, 32). 1 And if the Greek translator takes offence at some of the repetitions of his original, so in all probability ha,•e the transcribers who have, without any evil intention, modified the received Hebrew text. On the whole, it is a favourable circumstance that we have, ,·irtnally, two recensions of the text of Jeremiah. If no prophet was more unpopular during his life, none was more popular after his death. A book which is known" by heart" is much less_ likely to be transcribed correctly, e.nd much more exposed to glosses and mterpolations, than one in whom no such special interest is felt.
§ 4. EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL LITERATURE. The_ Latin Commentary of St. Jerome only extend~ to ~he thirtY:-second chapter of Jeremiah. Aben Ezra, the most talented of the rabbis, did not write on our prophet. Lu t the works of Rashi and David Kim chi are easily accessible. Modern philoloaicai exegesis begins with the Reformation. The following commentaries may be men Uoned :- Calvin,' Prrelectiones in J crcmiam,' Geneva, 1563 ; Venema, ' Commentarius ad Librum Prophetiarum Jeremire,' Leu warden, 1765; Blayney, 'Jeremiah and Lamentations a New Translation with Notes,' etc., Oxford, 1784; Dahler, 'Jerernie traduit sur 1; Tcxte Original, accompagne de Notes,' Strasbourg, 1825; Ewald, 'The Prophets of the Old Testament,' English translation, vol. iii., London, J.878; Hitzig, 'Der Prophet Jeremia' 2nd edit., Leipzig, 1866; Graf, 'Der Prophet J eremia erkliirt,' Leipzig, 1862; Naegel;.. bach, 'Jeremiah,' in Lange's Commentary, part xv.; Payne Smith, • Jeremiah,' in the 'Speaker's Commentary,' vol. v.; Konig, 'Das Deuteronomium und der Prophet Jeremia,' J3erlin, 1839; \Vichelhaus, 'De Jeremim Versione Alexandrina,' llalle, 1847. l\fovers, 'De utriusque Recensionis Vaticiniorum Jeremire Indole et Origine,' Hambura' 1837; Hengstenberg, 'The Christology of the Old Testament' (Clark's edit.). "''
§ 5. CHRONOLOGY, Any chronological arrangement of the reigns of the Jewish kings must be largely conjectural and open to criticism, and it is not perfoctly clear that the writers of the narrative books in the Old Testament, or those who edited their works, intended to give a. critically accurate chronology ade- quate for historical purposes. The most tedious problems relate to the times previous to Jeremiah. One difficulty, however, may be pointed out in the chronology of the con eluding reigns ( see Robertson Smith, ' 1'he Prophets of Israel,' p. 415). According to 2 Kings xxiii. 36, Jehoiakim reigned eleven years. This agrees with eh. xxv. 1, which makes the fourth year of Jehoiakim synchronize with the first of Nebuchadnezzar (comp. eh. n:xii. I). But, according to eh. xlvi. 2, the battle of Carchemish took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the last year of Nabo- polassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar. This would make the first year of Nebuchadnezzar synchronize with the fifth year of Jehoiakim, and we 1 Nearly e.11 the references in this paragraph are from vol. ii. of Kuenen's 'Historisch-
kritisch Ouderzoek:' Leyden, 1861-65,-6 book unsurpassed among introductions to the Old Testament for completeness, accuracy, and sobriety of judgment, and written on an entirely different plan from the author's equally able but (in the ju<lgment of orthodox theologians) biassed work on 'The Religion of Israel.' 'l'HE BOOK OF TilE PROPHET JEREMIAH.