THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
as God's advocate to bring an accusation against his people, but he gives free expression to natural sympathy, which he had suppressed until at last judgment was fully executed. Jeremiah loved his people and his rulers more than did the patriots, although a higher power had set him in opposition to them (Jer. i. IS). In this way iv. 20 must be explained, where the manner in which the king is spoken of. might be thought strange as coming from Jeremiah, while iv. 17 offers no difficulties since he may well have voiced the timid hopes of the people in the last period of their trials, although these hopes were not shared by him. On the other hand, an unsolved difficulty for all who reject Jeremiah's authorship is offered by the unconditional condemnation of the prophets of Jerusalem (ii. 9, 14, iv. 13). Jeremiah might indeed have expressed himself in this way (cf. Jer. xiii. 13, xiv. 13 sqq., xxiii. 15); but if another had composed a lament over these events he could scarcely have forgotten the prophet who had won the highest reverence from the whole people through his sufferings. It was the general opinion that only Jeremiah's personal sufferings were described in chap, hi., and this seems most probable according to verse 8 (cf. Jer. vii. 16, xi. 14, xiv. 11). Verses 37-38 would then refer to those prophecies of misfortune with which he was reproached. Smend (ZATW, 1888, pp. 62-63) and many others suppose that in chap. iii. the poet speaks in the name of the community; in that case the very beginning, " I am the man," is exceedingly harsh and without analogy in this manner. The family of Shaphan (Gedaliah) has been especially considered in this connection (Lohr, ZATW, 1894, p. 55). As there is no mention of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the temple, and as dependence upon the second Isaiah can not be proved by a few lexical similarities, the exilic origin of Lamentations seems most reasonable. Whether these songs originated in Palestine, in Egypt, or in Babylonia is indeterminable, but it seems most probable that Jeremiah had a share in their production. This does not mean that they came from his hand in their present poetical form; the artificiality of form suggests the work of a school or of a group of disciples who, collecting and completing such threnodies, wove them together into the form in which they now appear. C. von Ohelli.
Bibliography: On the life and times of Jeremiah consult: T. K. Cheyne, Jeremiah, his Life and Times, London, 1888; C. H. Cornill, Jeremia und seine Zeit, Heidelberg, 1880; K. Marti, Der Prophet Jeremia, Basel, 1889; M. Lazarus, Der Prophet Jeremia, Breslau, 1894; W. Erbt, Jeremia und seine Zeit, Gottingen, 1902; F. B. Meyer, Jeremiah, Priest and Prophet, London, 1902; J. R. Gillies, Jeremiah; the Man and his Message, ib. 1907; J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, vol. iii., New York, 1901.
Questions of criticism concerning the prophecies of Jeremiah are discussed in: G. C. Workman, The Text of Jeremiah, or a Critical Examination of the Greek and the Hebrew with the Variations in the LXX, Edinburgh, 1889; E. Kiihl, Das Verhaltniss der Massora zur Septuagint im Jeremia, Halle, 1882; E. Bruston, De I'importance du livre de Jeremie dans la critique de V A. T., Montauban, 1893; A. von Bulmerincq, Das Zukunftsbild des Propheten Jeremia, Riga, 1894; C. H. Cornill, in SBOT, 1895; idem, Die metrischen Stiicke des Buches Jeremia, Leipsic, 1902; A. W. Streane, The Double Text of Jeremiah, London, 1896.
Commentaries which cover both the prophecies and I
Lamentations are by: B. Blayney, London, 1836; E. Henderson, Andover, 1868; H. Cowles, New York, 1869; C. W. E. Nagelsbach, in Lange's Commentary, New York, 1871; R. P. Smith, in Bible Commentary, London, 1875; A. W. Streane, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1881; T. K. Cheyne and others in the Pulpit Commentary, 2 vols., London, 1885-98.
Commentaries on the Prophecies are: S. R. Driver, London, 1896; W. Lowth, London, 1718; J. G. Dahler, 2 vols., Strasburg, 1825; W. Neumann, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1856-58; C. H. Graf, ib. 1862; F. Hitzig, ib. 1866; H. Ewald, Gottingen, 1868, Eng. transl., London, 1876; C. F. Keil, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1873-74; S. Scholz, Wiirzburg, 1880; L. A. Schneedorfer, Prague, 1881; C. von Orelli, 2d ed., Munich, 1905, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1889; C. F. Ball, in Expositor's Bible, London, 1890; F. Giesebrecht, Gottingen, 1894; W. H. Bennett, London, 1895; B. Duhm, Tubingen, 1901; G. Douglas, London, 1903; A. Ramsay, ib. 1905; A. Maclaren, ib. 1906.
Commentaries on Lamentations are: W. Engelhardt, Leipsic, 1867; E. Gerlach, Berlin, 1868; C. F. Keil, Leipsic, 1872; L. A. Schneedorfer, Prague, 1876; J. M. Schonfelder, Munich, 1887; S. Oettli, Nordlingen, 1889; M. Lohr, Gottingen, 1891, 1907; P. Mayriel, Montauban, 1894; C. Budde, Freiburg, 1898; J. P. Wiles, Half-Hours ■with the Minor Prophets and Lamentations (London, 1909). Consult also: DB, ii. 569-578; EB, ii. 2366-95; JE, vii. 96-107; and the works on O.-T. Theology, on Introduction to the O. T., on Prophecy in general, and on Messianic Prophecy.
JEREMIAS II., jer"e-mai'as: Patriarch of Constantinople; b. at Anchialos (now Ahiolo, 130 m. n.w. of Constantinople) about 1530; d. at Constantinople 1595. He received no systematic education in his youth. After officiating as metropolitan of Larissa, he was patriarch of Constantinople from 1572 to 1573 or 1579, from 1580 to 1584, and again from 1586 to 1595. In his efforts to reorganize the Greek Church he reenforced the existing laws and ordinances, and reached the climax of his endeavors in the synod held at Constantinople in 1593, which assailed simony, demanded a better education of the clergy, who were also required to preach frequently, took up the question of common schools, and reinstituted the " national synod." In his foreign relations Jeremias is noteworthy as the founder of the patriarchate of Russia, during a visit to that country in 1588-89, while he vigorously maintained the independence of the Greek Church against the Jesuits sent by Gregory XIII. to the East to win it over to the Roman Catholic Church. In the same spirit he refused to accept the Gregorian calendar, which was regarded by the Greeks as heretical.
Jeremias is particularly interesting on account of his correspondence with the Lutherans of Tubingen, the letters being contained in the Acta et scripta theologorum Wirtembergensium et Patriarchae Constantinopolitani D. Hieremiae (Wittenberg, 1584). Although the replies of the patriarch were not actually written by him, but by his pronotary, Theodosios Zygomalas, and are merely compilations from such Church Fathers as Basil and Chrysostom, and modern authors like Joseph Bryennios, Nikolaos Kabasilas, and Symeon of Thessalonica, they are important for an evaluation of the modern Greek Church, since they manifest genuine Greek orthodoxy and contain its first official verdict on Lutheranism, which they definitely rejected.
The history of the affair was as follows: In 1573 Stephen Gerlach went to Constantinople as preacher to the German ambassador with letters of recommendation to the patriarch from Jakob Andrea