Chapter IX: Part 9

In the earliest Oracles of Jeremiah nations are the human units in religion, Israel as a whole the object of the Divine affection and providence. To his age worship was the business of the nation: public reverence for symbols and institutions, and rites in which the individual’s share was largely performed for him by official representatives. The prophets, and Jeremiah himself at first, dealt with the people as a moral unity from the earliest times to their own. The Lord had loved and sought, redeemed and tended them as a nation. As a nation they fell away from Him and now they were wholly false to Him. When Jeremiah first urges them to return, it is of a public and general repentance that he speaks, as Deuteronomy had done; and when his urgency fails it is their political disappearance which he pronounces for doom.

But when the rotten surface of the national life thus broke under the Prophet he fell upon the deeper levels of the individual heart, and not only found the native sinfulness of this to be the explanation of the public and social corruption but discovered also soil for the seed-bed of new truths and new hopes. Among these there is none more potent than that of the immediate relation of the individual to God. Jeremiah never lost hope of the ultimate restoration of Israel. Nevertheless the individual aspects of religion increase in his prophesying, and though it is impossible to trace their growth with any accuracy because of the want of dates to many of his Oracles, we may be certain that as he watched under Josiah the failure of the national movements for reform, inspired by Deuteronomy, and under Jehoiakim and Ṣedekiah the gradual breaking up of the nation, and still more as his own personal relations with the Deity grew closer, Jeremiah thought and spoke less of the nation and more of the individual as the object of the Divine call and purposes.

One has travelled by night through a wooded country, by night and on into the dawn. How solid and indivisible the dark masses appear and how difficult to realise as composed of innumerable single growths, each with its own roots, each by itself soaring towards heaven. But as the dawn comes up one begins to see all this. The mass breaks; first the larger, more lonely trees stand out and soon every one of the common crowd is apparent in its separate strength and beauty.

It seems to me as I travel through the Book of Jeremiah that here also is a breaking of dawn—but they are men whom it reveals. There is a stir of this even in the earliest Oracles; for the form of address to the nation which has begun with the singular _Thou_ changes gradually to _You_, and not _Israel_ but _ye men of Israel_ are called to turn to their God.(799) As the Prophet’s indictments proceed his burden ceases to be the national harlotry. He arraigns separate classes or groups,(800) and then, in increasing numbers, individuals: brother deceiving brother and friend friend; adulterers each after the wife of his neighbour; the official bully Pashhur, Jehoiakim the atrocious and petty in contrast to his sire the simple and just Josiah, the helpless and ridiculous Ṣedekiah, the bustling and self-confident Hananiah(801)—with the fit word and in sharp irony Jeremiah etches them separately, in the same vividness as the typical figures of the harlot watching for her prey like the Arab robber in the desert, the fowler crouching to fling his net, the shepherds failing to keep their scattered flocks, the prophets who _fling about their tongues and rede a rede of the Lord_.(802) Jeremiah has answered the call to him to search for the _man_, the men beneath the nation.(803)

Then there are his readings of the heart of man into which he more deeply thought than any other prophet of Israel: his revelation of the working of God in the soul of man, its Searcher, its only Guide and Strength; his stress upon individual responsibility and guilt, and on the one glory of man being his knowledge of God and the duty of every man to know God for himself and not through others; and his song of the beauty of the personal life rooted in faith, evergreen and yielding its fruit even in seasons of drought. Such passages increase in the Oracles of Jeremiah. Not ceasing to be the patriot, the civic conscience of his people, he busies himself more with the hearts, the habits, the sins and the duties towards God of its individuals. Like Christ he takes the deaf apart from the multitude and talks to him of himself.

O Lord, Who triest the righteous,
Who seest the reins and the heart.(804)

False above all is the heart,
Sick to despair,
Who is to know it?
I, the Lord, searching the heart
And trying the reins,
To give to each man as his ways,
As the fruit of his doings.(805)

Can any man hide him in secret
And I not see him?(806)

In those days they shall say no more: The fathers have eaten sour
grapes and the teeth of the children are set on edge. But every
one shall die for his own iniquity, every man that eateth sour
grapes his teeth shall be set on edge.(807)

Speak to all Judah all the words I have charged thee....
Peradventure they will hearken and turn _every man from his evil
way_.(808)

He that would boast in this let him boast,
Insight and knowledge of Me.(809)

Lord, I know—not to man is his way,
Not man’s to walk or settle his steps.(810)

Blessed the man that trusts in the Lord
And the Lord is his trust!
He like a tree shall be planted by water,
That stretches its roots to the stream;
Unafraid at the coming of heat,
His leaf shall be green;
_Sans_ care in the season of drought
He fails not in yielding his fruit.(811)

The individual soul rooted in faith and drawing life from the Fountain of Living Water, independent of all disaster to the nation and famine on earth—could not be more beautifully drawn.

Now all this advance by Jeremiah from the idea of the nation as the human unit in religion—Deuteronomy’s ideal and at first his own—to the individual as the direct object of the Divine Grace and Discipline was promoted, we have seen, by the dire happenings of the time, the unworthy conduct of the people, their abandonment by God, the ruin of the State and of the national worship—which cut off individuals from all political and religious associations, leaving to each (in Jeremiah’s repeated phrase) only _his life_, or _his soul, for a prey_.(812) But all these could have furthered the advance but little unless Jeremiah had felt by bitter experience his own soul searched and re-searched by God—

But Thou, Lord, hast known me,
Thou seest and triest my heart towards Thee—(813)

unless through doubt and struggle he himself had won into the confidence of an immediate and intimate knowledge of God. At his call he had learned how a man could be God’s before he was his mother’s or his nation’s—God’s own and to the end answerable only to Him. He had proved his solitary conscience under persecution. He had known how personal convictions can overbear the traditions of the past and the habits of one’s own generation—how God can hold a single man alone to His Will against his nation and all its powers, and vindicate him at last to their faces. In all this lay much of the vicarious service which Jeremiah achieved for his own generation; what he had won for himself was possible for each of them. And sure it is that the personal piety which henceforth flourished in Israel as it had never flourished before, weaving its delicate tendrils about the ruins of the state, the city and the altar, and (as the Psalms show) blooming behind the shelter of the Law like a garden of lilies within a fence of thorns, sprang from seeds in Jeremiah’s heart, and was watered by his tears and the sweat of his spiritual agonies.

* * * * *

We are now come to a confluence of the streams we have been tracing—the prophecy of the New Covenant. This occupies no incongruous place, following hard as it does upon that of the eating of sour grapes—individual inspiration upon individual responsibility. But we cannot off-hand accept it as Jeremiah’s own; the critical questions which have been with us from the beginning embarrass us still.

The collection of Oracles to which that of the New Covenant belongs, Chs. XXX, XXXI, was not made till long after Jeremiah’s time; it includes, as we have seen, several of exilic or post-exilic origin.(814) But so do other chapters of the Book, in which nevertheless genuine prophecies of Jeremiah are recognised by virtually all modern critics. The context therefore offers no prejudice against the authenticity of the prophecy of the New Covenant, XXXI. 31-34. But the form and the substance of this have raised doubts, so honest and reluctant as to deserve our consideration. Duhm starts his usual objection that the passage is in prose and a style characteristic of the late expanders of the Book. We may let that go, as we have done before, as by itself inconclusive;(815) the prophecy may not have come directly from Jeremiah’s mouth but through the memory of a reporter of the Prophet, Baruch or another. More deserving of consideration is the criticism which Duhm, with great unwillingness, makes of the terms and substance of the prophecy. He objects to the term _covenant_: a _covenant_ is a legal contract and could hardly have been chosen for the frame of his ideal by so pronounced an anti-legalist as Jeremiah. The passage “promises a new Covenant—not a new Torah but only a more inward assimilation of the Torah by the people, and emphasises the good results which this will have for them but betrays no demand for a higher kind of religion. If one does not let himself be dazzled by the phrases _new covenant_ and _write it on the heart_ then the passage tells us of the relation of the individual no more than Deuteronomy has already regarded as possible, XXX. 11 ff., and desirable, VI. 6-8: namely, that every man should be at home in the Law and honestly follow it.” He continues: “it is impossible for me to hold any longer to the Jeremian origin of the passage. I find in it only the effusion of one learned in the Scriptures who regards as the highest ideal, that every one of the Jewish people should know the Law by heart.”

But in his resolve “not to let himself be dazzled” has not Duhm gone to the opposite extreme and seriously under-read the whole spirit of the passage—besides showing as usual undue apprehensiveness of the presence in the text of a legalist at work?(816) The choice of the term _covenant_ for the frame of his ideal was not unnatural to Jeremiah nor irrelevant to his experience and teaching. Formally the term may mean a legal contract; but it is open to a prophet or a poet to use any metaphor for his ideals and transform its mere letter by the spirit he puts into it; and after all _covenant_ is only a metaphor for a relation which was beyond the compass of any figure to express. Yet it was a term classical in Israel and most intelligible to the generation whom Jeremiah was addressing. Its associations, especially as he had recalled them,(817) had been those not of the Law but of Love. It was not a contract or bargain but an approach by God to His people, an offer of His Grace, a statement of His Will and accompanied by manifestations of His Power to redeem them. One might as well charge Jesus with legalism in adopting a term sanctioned by God Himself, and so historical, sacred and endeared to the national memory. Nor need Torah, or Law, be taken as Duhm takes it in its sense of the legal codes of Israel, but in its wider meaning of the Divine _instruction_ or _revelation_. Further the epithet _New_ applied to Covenant was most relevant to the Prophet’s and his people’s recent sense of the failure of the ancient covenant, as restated and enforced in Deuteronomy. In spite of the excitement caused by the discovery of the Book in which it was written, and the recital of its words throughout the land, the Old Covenant had failed to capture the heart of the people or to secure from them more than the formal and superstitious observance of the letter of its Torah. Was it not a natural antithesis to predict that His Torah would be set by God _in their inward parts and written on their hearts_? How else (will Duhm tell us?) than by such phrases could the Prophet have described an inward and purely spiritual process? To say as Duhm does that the phrases only mean that common men would learn the Law of God “by heart” (auswendig), is, whoever their author may have been, to travesty his meaning. Finally, all the phrasing of the New Covenant is in harmony with the rest of the Prophet’s teaching. He had spoken of God’s will to give His people a new heart to know Him;(818) he had taught religion as the individual’s direct knowledge of God;(819) he had won this himself from God directly without help from his parentage, his fellow-prophets or priests or any others; he had most bitterly known also how weak the word of one man is to teach his countrymen this knowledge and that it can only come by the inward operation of God Himself upon their spirits; and he had made as clear as ever prophet did that God’s pardon for sin was the first, the necessary preliminary to His other gifts. Nor is the fact that the New Covenant is to be a national one alien to his teaching: Jeremiah never lost hope of his nation’s survival and restoration.

Thus the passage on the New Covenant brings together all the strands of Jeremiah’s experience and doctrine and hopes, shaken free from the political debris of the times, into one fair web under a pattern familiar and dear to the people. The weaving, it is true, is none of the deftest, but whether this is due to the aged Jeremiah’s failing fingers or to the awkwardness of a disciple, the stuff and its dyes are all his own.

Lo, days are coming—Rede of the Lord—when I will make with the
House of Israel and with the House of Judah a New Covenant, not
like the Covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that
I took them by their hand to bring them forth from the land of
Egypt, which My Covenant they brake and I rejected them(820)—Rede
of the Lord. But this is My(821) Covenant which I will make with
the sons(822) of Israel after those days—Rede of the Lord—I will
set My Law in their inward part and on their heart will I write
it, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour and every man
his brother saying, Know thou(823) the Lord! For they shall all
know Me from the least even to the greatest;(824) for I will
forgive their guilt and their sin will I remember no more.

This is, as has been said, a prophecy of Christianity which has hardly its equal in the Old Testament.(825) It is the Covenant which Jesus Christ the Son of God accepted for Himself and all men and sealed with His own blood.

And yet not even in this prophecy of Jeremiah, in which the individual soul is made to feel that God created it not for its family nor its state nor its church but only for Himself, is there any breath of a promise for it after death. The Prophet’s eyes are still sealed to that future. The soul must be content that her strength and peace and hope are with God.

Appendix I.

MEDES AND SCYTHIANS (PP. 73, 110).

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to give a correct account of the national and racial movements which, along with the moral conditions in Judah, called forth Jeremiah’s Oracles of judgment in the years immediately following his call in 627-626 B.C. But the following facts are well founded. In or about 625 the Medes were defeated in an attack upon Assyria and their king Phraortes was killed, but at the same time Asshurbanipal died, and his weaker successor was compelled to recognize the virtual independence of Nabopolassar, the Chaldean in Babylon. Cyaxares (624-585), the son of Phraortes, soon after his succession to his father—say between 624 and 620—led a second Median assault upon Assyria and besieged Nineveh, but had to retire because of the onset from the north of the Scythians, the Ashguzai of the Assyrian monuments, probably the Ashkenaz or Ashkunza (?) of the Old Testament. And then it was not for some years that Cyaxares felt himself strong enough by his alliance with Nabopolassar for a third Median invasion of Assyria which culminated in the capture and destruction of Nineveh.

The Assyrians appear to have been in touch with the Ashguzai for over a century and for a shorter time probably in alliance with them; which alliance was the cause of the Scythian advance to the relief of Nineveh from its siege by the Medes _circa_ 724-720 (see Winckler _Die Keilinschriften v. das alte Testament_, 3rd ed., pp. 100 ff.). About the same time must be dated the Scythian advance through Western Asia to the borders of Egypt, which Herodotus (I. 103-104, IV. 1) reports. Professor N. Schmidt (_Enc. Bibl._, art. “Scythians”) supposes that this advance was due to the same Scythian-Assyrian alliance, in order to preserve the Assyrian territories from the arms of Psamtik of Egypt, who had since 639 been besieging Ashdod; and he holds that this hypothesis explains the absence of any record of violence by the Scythians on their southern campaign, except at Ashkelon. This precarious hypothesis apart, we have the facts that no Biblical chronicler records any invasion of Judah and Benjamin by the Scythians, and yet that the early Oracles of Jeremiah, generally attributed to the alarms which the advance of such barbarian hordes would excite in Judah, do closely fit the Scythians (with a few exceptions that may be due to the prophet’s adaptation in 604 of his earlier Oracles to the new _enemy_ out of the north, the Chaldeans).

There, are, however, modern writers who claim that the Oracles in question were originally composed not in view of the Scythian, but of the Chaldean invasion of Palestine. So George Douglas (_The Book of Jeremiah_, London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1903), who, while assigning Jeremiah’s call to 627, relegates the two visions and all the Oracles in the first part of the book to the years following Jehoiakim’s accession to the Jewish throne in 608; cp. Winckler, _Geschichte Israels_, I. pp. 112 f. and F. Wilke (_Alttestamentliche studien R. Kittel zum 60 Geburtstag dargebracht_, 1913), quoted by John Skinner, _Prophecy and Religion_, pp. 42 f. n. 2. This would be an easy solution but for the insuperable objections to it that the Oracles in question far more closely fit the Scythian, than the Chaldean, invasion; and that Jer. I. 2, as distinctly covers prophecies of Jeremiah in the days of Josiah as v. 3 does his prophesying under Jehoiakim.

POSTSCRIPT.

The date of Nineveh’s fall has hitherto been accepted as 607-606 B.C. But in July of this year (1923) Mr. C. J. Gadd described to the British Academy a Babylonian tablet, which dates the fall in the fourteenth year of Nabopolassar’s reign in Babylon. This year was 612 B.C., if it be right to reckon the reign from 626-25 B.C.; but as remarked above, p. 175, Nabopolassar became in that year officially not king but only viceroy. Dependent as I was on a newspaper summary of Mr. Gadd’s lecture I could therefore do no more than offer for the fall of Nineveh the alternative dates, 612 and 606; see above p. 175 and compare p. 162.

Appendix II.

NECOH’S CAMPAIGN (PP. 162, 163).

In addition to the accounts in the Books of Kings and Chronicles of Pharaoh Nĕcoh’s advance into Asia in pursuance of his claim for a share of the crumbling Assyrian Empire there are two independent records: (1) Jeremiah XLVII. 1—_and Pharaoh smote Gaza_—a headline (with other particulars) wrongly prefixed by the Hebrew text, but not by the Greek, to an Oracle upon an invasion of Philistia not from the south but from the north (see above, pp. 13, 61); (2) by Herodotus, II. 159, who says that “Nĕcoh (Nekôs) making war by land on the Syrians defeated them at Magdolos and after the battle took Kadŭtis, a great city of Syria.” Magdolos is probably Megiddo, unless it stands for Megdel, which, as well as Rumman (= Hadad-rimmon, the scene of the mourning for Josiah, Zech. XII. 11) lies near Megiddo. If, as is usually held, Kadŭtis be Gaza, Herodotus has reversed the proper order of Nĕcoh’s two actions; but Kadŭtis also suggests _hak-Kôdēsh_, _the holy_, an epithet of Jerusalem (_Jerusalem_, I. 270) which would suit Herodotus’ order, for it was after Megiddo that Nĕcoh became master of Jerusalem and Judah. The suggestion, though worth mentioning, is doubtful; the epithet is late, exilic and post-exilic; and Herodotus’ phrase _took Kadŭtis_ is hardly equivalent to _became paramount_ there as Nĕcoh became paramount in Jerusalem.

INDEX OF TEXTS.

Genesis—
xlix. 27; 69

Exodus—
xxi. 1-6; 235

Leviticus—
vi. 5; 152
xix. 27; 206
xxvi. 34 f.; 8

Numbers—
xxx. 2, 12; 313

Deuteronomy—
iv. 19; 136, 195
xvii. 3; 195
xviii. 6; 135
xxxii. 13; 222

Judges—
i. 16; 193
iv. 17; 194
v. 4; 222
24; 194
xi. 36; 313

I. Samuel—
x. 2; 302
xv. 6; 193
22; 156

I. Kings—
ii. 26 f.; 67

II. Kings—
x. 15, 23; 193
xxii. 12 ff.; 174
20; 259
xxiii. 5, 13; 195
8 ff.; 135
10; 196
28-30; 163
31; 66, 232
xxiv. 1-16; 176
6; 259
8, 15; 213
17; 232
18; 66
xxv. 7; 270
18; 246
21; 236

I. Chronicles—
ii. 55; 193

II. Chronicles—
xxxv. 20; 162
xxxvi. 21-23; 8

Ezra—
i. 1 f.; 8

Nehemiah—
xiii; 20
15-22; 221

Psalms—
v. 9; 122
xv; 232
xxiii; 9
xxvi-xxviii; 9
l. 13, 14; 158
li. 16, 17; 158

Isaiah—
vi; 351
x. 28-32; 70
xv. f.; 20
xl. ff.; 8, 20
xliv. 28; 8
lii, liii; 7
lvi. 2-7; 221
lviii; 20
13 f.; 221
lx. 5; 302

Jeremiah—
i.; 9, 28, 30, 42, 50, *78-88*
1-3; 9
5; 67
6; 82, 318
9 f.; 355
10; 14, 83, 319
11 f.; 351, 365
12 f.; 355
13-15; 62
17 f.; 14, 333
ii, iii; 355, 357
ii-xxv; 10
ii. 1-37; *91-98*
1-3; 44
2; 104
5; 106, 356, 362
5-8; 49
8; 355
9; 356 f.
11-13; 346, 356
13; 364
14 f.; 39, 40, 362
14-17; 47
17; 14, 105
18; 81
19; 12, 14, 360
21 f.; 107, 346
23 f.; 68
25; 346, 360
26; 18
28; 76
29; 12
30; 360
31; 47, 106, 346, 355, 362
32 ff.; 45
35; 346, 357, 363
37; 358
iii; 18
1-25; *98-103*
1-6; 52, 358
2; 77, 370
3; 358, 365
5; 40
6-18; 18
6 ff.; 358
20; 358
21-25; 361
22; 107
25; 107
iv. 1-4; *103*
3 f.; 43, 70, *108*, 346, 361
5-8; *112*
6; 355
8; 358
9 f.; *113*, 332
11-22; *114*, *115*
11-14; 60, 68, 69
15-18; 60, 72
18; 360
23-28; 61, *116*
28; 358
29-31; 45 f., *117*, *118*
v. 1-9; *119*, *120*, 134
1-6; 48, 357, 369
1; 370
3; 360
4; 12
6; 69
7-9; 357, 358, 369
10-14; *120*, *121*
13; 18
14; 84
15-17; *122*, 355
18 f.; *122*, *123*
20-31; *123-125*, 357
22; 365
24; 365
26; 370
29; 358
31; 343, 346, 360
vi. 1-8; *125-127*
9-15; *127-129*
11; 319, 330, 358
13-15; 200
15; 359
16-21; *129*, *130*
22-26; *130*, *131*
26; 359
27-29; *132-134*, 352
27-30; 360
vii-x; 17
vii. 1-15; *147-151*, 346
1-28; 18
3 ff.; 346, 357
12-15; 72
14; 367
15; 359
16-20; *195*
16; 358
19; 360
21-23; *155-159*, 346, 367
28 ff.; 50
30 ff.; 165, *195*
viii.; 50
1-3; *196*
4-12; 196, *198-200*
5; 13
7; 69
8 f.; *153*, *154*, 155, 369
10-12; 13, 261, 359, 360
13; *200*
14-ix. 1; 63 f., *200-202*
16; 12
19; 356
21; 12
22; 69
ix.; 50
1; *202*
2-9; *202-204*
2 f.; *341*, *342*
3, 7; 230
4 f.; 369
9; 358
10-12; 204
11; 359
13-16; 204, 208
15; 359
17 ff.; 58, 205
20-22; 58, *205*, *206*, 241
22 f.; 49
23-26; 18, *206*, *207*
24; 357, 371
x. 1-16; 18, 20, 207, 352
6-8; 13
11; 18
17 f.; *207*
19-22; *207-209*, 241, 370
23 f.; 49, *209*, 372
25; *209*, *210*
xi.; 30, 42
1-5; 18
1-8; 28, *143-145*, 155, 377
6-8; 13, 17, 18
13; 76
14; 358, 360
15, 16; *151-153*, 210, 346
18 ff.; 28
18-23; *323* f.
20; 330, 371
21; 146
22 f.; 329
xii. 1-6, 28; *339*, *340*, 351
1-2; *160*, *161*, 356
3; 14, 329, 373
5; 332
7-9; 362
7-13; *210-212*
8; 385
9; 230
11; 230, 362
xiii. 1-17; 28
1-11; *183-185*
1; 356
12-14; 55, 185, 358
15, 16; *59*
17; *212*
18, 19; *213*
20-27; *213-215*
22; 360
23; 108, 346
24; 359
25; 361
xiv; 50
1 ff.; *56** f.*
8 f.; 57, *348*, 364
11-16; *50** f.*, 360
12; 346
17-18; 51, *215*
19-22; *216*, *217*
21; 348
22; 356, 365
xv. 1-9; 52, 358
1-4; *217*
5-9; *217*, *218*
7 f.; 359
10; 319
10-21; *324-326*
13, 14; 13
15; 330
18 f.; 332, 347
xvi. 2-9; *326*, *327*
5-9; *219*
10-13; 219, 327
12; 346
14, 15; 18, 219
16-18; 219
19, 20; 220, 356
xvii. 1-4; 13, *220*, 346
5 ff.; *53** f.*, 353
7 f.; 372
9, 10; *108*, *109*, 371
13; 364
14-18; *328*
16; 237
18; 329
19-27; 20
xviii; 82
xviii. 1-12; 28, *185-190*, 355, 360
1; 356
7-10; 84
13-17; *221*, *222*
11 f.; 361
15; 356
17; 359
18-23; *328** f.*
20 f.; 332
xix; *191*
xix-xx. 6; 223
1; 356
xx. 1-6; *191*, *192*
2; 321
3 f.; 369
7; 82, 318, 353
7-18; 223
7-12; *330*, *331*
8; 318
9; 319
11; 353
12; 371
14-18; *331*, *332*
xxi. 1-10; 223, 267, *268*
7; 358
9; 229, *277-280*
11, 12; 223
13, 14; 223
xxii-xxiii. 8; 16
xxii. 1-5; 223
6 f.; *223*, *224*
8 f.; 224
10; *164*
11 f.; 223
13-17; *166*, *167*, 223, 369
15 f.; 75, 357
18 f.; *167*, *168*, 259, 321
20-30; *224-226*
25 f.; 355
26; 213
xxiii. 1-8; 20
7, 8; 18, 219
9-32; *253-258*
9-40; 16
14, 17, 22; 261
14-17; 361
15; 359
19, 20; 18, 358
21; 265
23 f.; 366, 371
27; 260
28; 264
31; 265, 370
32; 259
xxiv; 28
1; 356
1-9; *238-241*, 309
7; 378
8 ff.; 355
9 f.; 359
xxv; 22
1-11, 13; *179-181*
9; 355
12-14; 20, 181
13-15; 14, *181*, 358
15-38; *182*
26; 20
xxvi; 10, 147, *168-174*
1-9; 18
2; 165, 371
6; 72
13; 357
14, 15; 264
xxvii-xxxv; 10
xxvii, xxviii; 247
xxvii; 234, *248-250*
1; 13
2; 356
5, 6; 355
7; 13
9; 361
12-14; 13
17-22; 13
18; 264
xxviii; 10, 28
2-17; *251-253*
6; 264
xxviii. 11; 264
15; 361, 369
17; 322
xxix; 40
1-23; *241-245*
4-13; 367
14; 13
15; *245*
16-20; 13
21-23; *245*, 261
24-32; *246-247*, 322
29; 237
xxx-xxxiii; 286
xxx, xxxi; 293, 374 f.
xxx. 2; 293
5-9; *294**, **295*
10, 11; 13, 295
12-15; *295*
15; 13
16-17; *296*
22; 13
23, 24; 18, 358
xxxi; 30, 42, 286
1-6; *297-300*
6; 141
7-14; 20
7-9; *300**, **301*
10-14; *301**, **302*
15; 47, 70
15-17; *303**, **304*
18-22; *304**, **305*
20; 363
23-28; *305**, **306*
29, 30; 307, *371*
31-34; 307, *375-380*
35 f.; 365
xxxii; 10, 28, 286
1-5; *286*, 355
6-15; 285, 356
6-25; *287-289*
12; 12
16-25; 237
26-44; *289*
30; 356
xxxiii; *289-291*
1; 290
4-13; 290
14-26; 13, 289
xxxiv. 1-7; 267, *268-270*
2; 355
8-22; 235, *273-275*
22; 355
xxxv; *193**, **194*
2; 356
xxxvi-xlv; 10
xxxvi; 17, *22** ff.*, 26, *178**, **179*
2; 82, 356
9; 165
28; 356
32; 89, 110
xxxvii. 3-10; 267, *270**, **271*
5, 7; 234
11; 234
11-21; *275**, **276*
17-21; *284*
xxxviii. 1-3; *276-280*
2; 229, 277
4-6; *280**, **281*
7-13; *281*
14-28; *282-285*
19 ff.; 321
22; 369
28; 285, 291
xxxix. 3, 14; *291*, 292
4-13; 13, 291
7; 270
14; 174
15-18; *281**, **282*
18; 229
xl-xliv; 17, 18
xl. 1-6; *291**, **292*
5, 6; 174
xli, xlii; *307-309*
xliii. 1-7; *310*
8-13; *310*
xliv. 1-14; *311**, **312*
15-28; *312-316*
30; 234
xlv; 17, *226-229*
5; 27, 322
xlvi-li; 10, 14, 20, 181
xlvi. 26; 13
27 f.; 13
xlvii. 1; 13, 384
2, 3; *61*
xlviii. 40-47; 13, 20
xlix. 7-22; 20
34-39; 20
l. 1-58; 20
li. 59; 234
60; 20
lii; 10, 20
28-30; 13

Lamentations; 31, 318

Ezekiel—
i; 351
viii; 234
xi. 15; 234
xvi. 59; 232
xvii. 11-21; 232
xix. 14; 233
xxiii. 22; 213
xxix. 3; 234

Daniel; 292

Hosea—
vi. 1-4; 217

Joel—
ii. 1; 112

Amos—
iii. 2; 260
6; 112
v. 25; 158
ix. 2 ff.; 366

Obadiah; 20

Micah—
vi. 6-8; 75, 158

Zephaniah—
iii. 4; 258

Habakkuk—
iii. 7; 72

Matthew—
xviii. 23 f.; 189
xxvii. 7; 185

Luke—
i. 76; 79
vii. 39 ff.; 189
xiii. 6 ff.; 189
xix; 189

1 Corinthians—
i. 17; 157

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS.

Ahikam, 157, 174, 291.

Amos, 3, 22, 112, 158, 260.

Anathoth, 66, 67, 287, etc.

Apocrypha, the, 8.

“Arabian Nights,” 36.

Ark, the, 101.

Assyria, 66, 77, 175.

Atonement, 7.

Baalîm, 76, etc.

Babylonian idolatry, 234.

Ball, C. J., his “The Prophecies of Jeremiah,” 9, 93, 184, 203, 210.

Baruch, 4, 8, 23, 26, 82, 178, 227.

Budde, Professor, 38.

Calvin, 278, 283, 315.

Carchemish, battle of, 175.

Chaldeans, the, 110, 121, 122, etc.

Cornill, 7, 38, 82, 166, 184, 190, 222, 268, 269, 276, 287, 298, 299, 301,
312, 329, 375, etc.

Corvée, the, 166.

Covenant, the new, 374 ff.

Dalman: “Palästinischer Diwan,” 36.

Davidson, Dr. A. B., 3, 5, 15, 26, 139, 186, 268, 354.

Deuteronomy, Book of, 135;
its cardinal doctrines, 136;
alleged connection of Jeremiah with its composition, 139.

Dirge on the drought, 56.

Douglas, G., 15, 145, 382.

Driver: “The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah,” 111, 133, 147, 181, 239, 296,
312.

Duhm, Professor, 8, 15, 37, 38, 40, 82, 83, 91, 98, 115, 166, 194, 222,
227, 243, 244, 257, 268, 269, 276, 287, 295, 300, 312, 329,
375, etc.

Ebed-Melech, 281.

Edghill, 159.

Egypt, 77, 105, 234, 310.

Ephraim, 72, 297, 299, 304.

Erbt, 38, 48, 133, 190, 227, 256, 268, 314.

Euphrates, 184.

Ewald, 184, 222, 268.

Farah, Wady, 184.

Freedom, the Divine, 186, 237.

Future Life, no hope of, 138, 240, 334, 340, 380.

Gedaliah, 276, 291, 292;
assassination, 307.

Gidroth-Chimham, 308.

Giesebrecht, 38, 48, 147, 155, 181, 227, 257, 268, 287, 312, 380.

Gilead, 68, 69, 201, 224.

Gillies, Rev. J. R., 111, 146, 147, 181, 190, 222, 268, 287, 294, 312,
324, 375.

God, man, and the new covenant, 350.

Grotius, 7.

Hananiah, 251.

Hebrew poetry, 33.

Heine, 36, 40.

Herder, 34.

Herodotus, 73, 206, 382.

Hilḳiah, 66.

Hinnom, 185, 191, 195 (Topheth).

Hosea, 4, 44, etc.

Hugo, Victor, 167, 230.

Isaiah, 4, 85, 266, 279, 319, 351.

Ishmael (the fanatic), 307.

Jeconiah (Konyahu), 224.

Jehoahaz, 164.

Jehoiachin, 176 (_see_ Jeconiah).

Jehoiakim, 144, 165, 195.

Jeremiah, personality, 4;
biography, 26;
as poet, 31;
as prose writer, 40;
his youth and his call, 66;
range of his mission, 79;
prophet to the nations, 79;
carrier of the Word of the Lord, 83;
charge in visions, 84;
in the reign of Josiah, 89;
his Oracles, 89;
alleged pessimism, 108;
Oracles on the Scythians, 110;
settlement in Jerusalem, 134;
alleged connection with the composition of Deuteronomy, 139;
attitude to its ethics and to the written law, and to sacrifices, 143;
difficulties as to “the Covenant,” 144;
conspiracy against, 146;
address rebuking the people, 147;
contrasts to the teaching of Deuteronomy, 153;
enmity of the priests, 168;
prediction of the ruin of the Temple, 168;
the Rolls, 178;
address prophesying judgment upon Judah, 179;
parables, 183;
arrest, 191;
Oracles on the Edge of Doom, 195;
hopeful prophecies, 236;
vision of the good and bad figs, 238;
Letter to the Exiles, 241;
treatment of the ’prophets’ in Jerusalem, 245;
removal and restoration of the sacred vessels, 250;
controversy with other prophets, 258;
his prophesying vindicated by history, 259;
arrested and flogged, 275;
controversy as to suggested surrender, 276;
charged with treason and cast into cistern, 280;
rescue by Ebed-melech, 281;
appeal by the King, 282;
“The Book of Hope,” 286;
what befel Jeremiah when the city was taken, 291;
carried off in chains to Ramah and there released, 292;
prophecies of the physical restoration of Israel and Judah, 302;
carried off to Egypt, 310;
Oracle concerning the Jews in Egypt, 311;
the story of his soul, 317;
“the Weeping Prophet,” 318;
voice of pain and protest, 318;
his irony and scorn, 321;
fluid and quick temper, 332;
poet’s heart for the beauties of nature and domestic life, 334;
no hope of another life, 334;
faith in his predestination, 335;
sacrifice of self, 341;
foreshadowing the sufferings of Christ for men, 349;
revelations of God subjective, 352;
a God of deeds, 354;
Jeremiah’s monotheism, 356;
brooding on the wrath of the Lord, 358;
the love of God, 361;
the Divine power in nature, 365;
man and the new covenant, 367;
readings of the heart of man, 370;
the individual as the direct object of the Divine grace and discipline,
372;
the prophecy of the new covenant, 374.

Jeremiah (Book of), 9;
questions of authorship, 19;
the Rolls, 23;
Exilic and Post-Exilic additions, 29;
poetical passages, 31;
critical text, 156;
evidence for revelation by argument, 161.

Jerusalem, 113, 125;
invested by Nebuchadrezzar, 234;
Temple and Palace burned, 235;
Jeremiah’s activity and sufferings during the siege, 267;
his pronouncements of surrender, 267.

Job, Book of, 49.

Johanan-ben-Kareah, 308.

Josiah, 75, 162, etc.

Knox, John, 266, 272.

König, 145.

“Kurzer Hand-Commentar,” 38.

Lees, Dr. John: “The German Lyric,” 33, 42.

Love, the Divine, 106, 348, 356, etc.

Lowth, Bishop: “De Sacra Poesi Hebræorum,” 33.

Magor-Missabib, 192.

Man and the new covenant, 367.

Marti, 155, 184.

McCurdy, 111.

McFadyen, J. E., 184, 222.

Megiddo, battle of, 163.

Metrical Questions, vii, 32-53 and _passim_.

Mispah, 292, 308.

Misraim (Egypt), 94, etc.

Nabopolassar, 175.

Nebuchadrezzar, 110, 126, 175, 292, etc.

Nebusaradan, 235, 291, 292.

Nĕcoh, 163, 175, 384.

Nineveh, Fall of, 162, 163, 175, 383.

Nineveh, 175.

Noph (Memphis), 94, 311.

Omnipresence, the Divine, 256, 366.

Oracles on the Edge of Doom, 60, 195.

Parable of the Potter, 82, 185.

Parables, 183.

Pashhur, 191.

Pathros, 311.

Patience, the Divine, 187-189, 217, 237.

Peake, Prof., 146, 147, 184, 222, 268, 273, 274, 279, 287, 293, 312, 375.

Predestination, 78, 186, 335.

Prophets. Personality of the, 3; _see also_ 245-266.

Qînah (metre), 37, 39, 44, 244, 283, 295, 297, etc.

Queen, or Host, of Heaven, 195, 234, 313, 314.

Ramah, 70, 292, 297, 303.

Rechabites, the, 193.

Renan, 308.

Rothstein, 222, 294, 312.

Sacrifice, 130, 152, 155-159, 299, 341.

Saintsbury, George: “History of English Prosody,” 36.

Schmidt, Professor, 24, 25, 111, 382.

Schweich Lectures, 34.

Scythians, the, 73, 82, 110, 381.

Ṣedekiah, 232, and _passim_ to 282.

Shakespeare, 36, 47.

Shiloh, 72, 149, 170.

Skinner, Rev. John, D.D.: his “Prophecy and Religion, Studies in the Life
of Jeremiah,” 7, 103, 111, 129, 133, 145, 146, 166, 169, 181,
190, 222, 227, 237, 268, 279, 284, 292, 307, 375, 383.

Slavery, 235;
proposed emancipation, 273.

Smith, H. P., 147.

Smith, W. Robertson, 15, 159.

Snouck Hurgronje: “Mekka,” 37.

Stade, B., 267.

Tahpanhes (Daphne), 94, 310, 311.

Tchekov, 198.

Thackeray, St. John: his “The Septuagint and Jewish Worship,” 14.

Thomson, Rev. W. R., 111, 140, 146, 268.

Torah, the, 153, etc.

Urijahu, 173.

Wady Farah, 184.

Wellhausen, 5, 146.

Winckler: “A.T. Untersuchungen,” 142, 176, 382, 383.

FOOTNOTES

1 A. B. Davidson.

2 A. B. Davidson. “Without Jeremiah,” says Wellhausen, “the Psalms
could not have been composed.”

3 Cp. e.g. Jer. xi. 19, with Is. liii. 7; and see Grotius, “Annotata
ad Vetus Testamentum,” on Is. lii-liii; Cornill, “Das Buch Jeremia
erklärt,” pp. 11-12; John Skinner, “Prophecy and Religion,” p. 351.

4 II. Chron. xxxvi. 21 (with a reference to Lev. xxvi. 34, 35) and 22,
23, the latter repeated in Ezra i. 1-2. Duhm, indeed, but on
insufficient grounds, thinks the former citation, because of its
reference to Leviticus, cannot be from our Book of Jeremiah but is
from a Midrash unknown to us; yet the chronicler’s was the very
spirit to associate a Levitical provision with Jer. xxix. 10; cp.
xxv. 9-12. The other quotation Duhm refers to some part of Is. xl.
ff. (xliv. 28?) as though this had at one time been attributed to
Jeremiah.

5 In the Apocrypha proper, (1) “Baruch” to which is attached (2) “The
Epistle of Jeremy” warning the Jews of Babylon in general and
conventional terms against idolatry. Apocalyptic writings, (3)
“Apocalypse of Baruch,” (4) (5) and (6) three other “Apocalypses of
Baruch,” (7) “The Rest of the Words of Baruch,” or “Paralipomena
Jeremiæ,” (8) “Prophecy of Jeremiah.” For particulars of these see
“Encyclopædia Biblica,” arts. “Apocalyptic Literature” (R. H.
Charles), and “Apocrypha” (M. R. James).

6 Following Hitzig, C. J. Ball (“The Prophecies of Jeremiah” in “The
Expositor’s Bible,” 1890, pp. 10 ff.) refers Pss. xxiii, xxvi-xxviii
to Jeremiah, and it is possible that in particular the personal
experiences in Ps. xxvii are reflections of those of the prophet.
But such experiences were so common in the history of the prophets
and saints of Israel as to render the reference precarious.

7 It has been calculated that the Greek has 2700 words fewer than the
Hebrew, i.e. about 120 verses or from four to five average chapters.

8 E.g. ii. 19, 29; iii. 1; v. 4_a_; viii. 16, 21; xxxii. 12, etc.

_ 9 nĕ’um Yahweh: utterance_ or _oracle_ of _Jehovah_.

10 E.g. the words _at his mouth_, xxxvi. 17; xxxviii. 16.

11 E.g. _Jerusalem_ in viii. 5, and in xxxvi. 22 _the ninth month_.

12 E.g. ii. 1-2; xxv. 1_b_; xxvii. 1; xlvii. 1; l. 1.

13 E.g. viii. 10_ab_-12; x. 6-8; xi. 7, 8; xvii. 1-4 (perhaps omitted
by the Greek, because partly given already in xv. 13, 14); xxv. 18
_and a curse as at this day_; xxvii. 1, 7, 12_b_, 13, 14_a_, 17,
18_b_, clauses in 19, 20, the whole of 21, and 22_b_; xxix. 14,
16-20; xxx. 10, 11 (= xlvi. 27 f.), 15_a_, 22; xxxiii. 14-26; xxxix.
4-13; xvi. 26; xlvii. 1 (except _to the Philistines_); xlviii.
45-47; lii. 28-30.

14 E.g. i. 10, 17, 18; ii. 17, 19; vii. 28_b_; xii. 3; xiv. 4, etc.

15 Verse 14 is not found in the Greek.

16 In his Schweich Lectures on “The Septuagint and Jewish Worship” (for
the British Academy, 1921) Mr. St. John Thackeray presents clear
evidence from the different vocabularies in the Greek Version that
this Version was the work of two translators, the division between
whom is at Ch. xxix. verse 7. The dividing line cuts across the
Greek arrangement of the chapters, which sets the Oracles on Foreign
Nations in the centre of the Book. This shows that it was not the
translators who placed them there, but that the translators found
the arrangement in the Hebrew MS. from which they translated.
Further, he thinks that the division of the Book into two parts was
not made by the translators, but already existed in their Hebrew
exemplar. For this the Hebrew text gives two evidences: (1) the
titles of the Oracles, (2) the colophons appended to two of them.
The titles are some long, some short. In the Hebrew order the
Oracles with long titles are mixed up with those with short, but in
the Greek order the six with long titles come together first and are
followed by the five with short. There are two colophons—one to the
Moab Oracle, the other to the Babylon Oracle; but the Moab Oracle
stands last in the Greek order and the Babylon Oracle last in the
Hebrew order.

From all this two conclusions are drawn: (1) when the titles were
inserted the chapters were arranged as in the Greek, which,
therefore, was the original arrangement; (2) they afford Hebrew
evidence for a break or interruption in the middle of the
Oracles—the longer titles cease about the end of Part I of the Greek
Version, which therefore follows a division of the Book into two
parts that already existed in the Hebrew original from which it was
made. The Hebrew editor who amplified the titles had apparently only
Part I before him.

17 E.g. Graf (“Der Prophet J. erklärt,” 1862), George Douglas (“The
Book of Jeremiah,” 1903) for the Hebrew; and Workman (“The Text of
Jeremiah,” 1888) for the Greek. For a judicial comparison of the two
editions, resulting much in favour of the Greek, see W. R. Smith,
“The O.T. in the Jewish Church,” Lectures IV and V.

18 “The Hebrew is qualitatively superior to the Greek, but
quantitatively the Greek is nearer the original. This judgment is
general, admitting many exceptions, and each passage has to be
considered by itself.”—A. B. Davidson. Cp. Duhm, “Das Buch Jer.,” p.
xxii.

19 Oracles on the King, xxii. 1-xxiii. 8 and on the Prophets, xxiii.
9-40.

20 The Oracles under Jehoiakim, chs. vii-x, before those on the
enforcement of Deuteronomy under Josiah xi. 6-8.

21 The Oracle for Baruch, dated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 604
B.C., is not given till ch. xlv, a long way off from ch. xxxvi to
which it belongs by date and subject, and only after chs. xl-xliv,
the story of Jeremiah’s life after the fall of Jerusalem.

22 So far as it is common to the Hebrew and the Greek.

_ 23 The end of_ is wanting in the Greek.

24 Chs. xl-xliv. And between them the title and its supplement ignore
the Oracles which Jeremiah uttered under Josiah after the thirteenth
year of the King, perhaps iii. 6-18, and certainly xi. 1-5, 6-8.

25 Ch. lii.

26 E.g. iii. 6-18; ix. 23-26 with x. 1-16; xxi. 11-12 with (probably)
13-14.

27 E.g. ii. 26; v. 13; x. 11, the last written in Aramaic.

28 Cp. xxiii. 7, 8 with xvi. 14, 15, and xxx. 23, 24 with xxiii. 19,
20.

29 x. 1-16; xvii. 19-27 (on the Sabbath—unlike Jeremiah, who did not
lay stress on single laws but very like post-exilic teaching, e.g.
Neh. xiii and Is. lviii), possibly xxiii. 1-8; xxv. 12-14 (the
obviously late _as at this day_ in verse 18 and verse 26_b_ are
omitted by the Greek).

30 Parts of xxx and xxxi, especially xxxi. 7-14, the spirit of which is
so much that of the Eve of the Return from Exile and the style so
akin to that of the Great Prophet of that Eve that some take it as
dependent on his prophecies.

31 xlvi-li, especially on Moab, xlviii. 40-47, which is based on the
earlier prophecy, Is. xv-xvi; on Edom, xlix. 7-22, based on Obadiah;
Elam, xlix. 34-39; and the long prophecy on Babylon, l. 1-58, which
reflects like Is. xl. ff. the historical situation just before the
Medes overthrew Babylon, and expresses an attitude towards the
latter very different from Jeremiah’s own fifty years earlier. The
compiler, or an editor of the Book, has (li. 60) erred in
attributing this long prophecy to Jeremiah. In all these there may
be genuine nuclei.

32 Ch. lii.

33 So Greek, Hebrew has _Israel_.

34 N. Schmidt in the “Encyclopædia Biblica.”

35 Professor Schmidt, in the article already quoted, takes this to mean
only that Jeremiah “retouched under fresh provocation” the contents
of the first Roll. This interpretation would imply that _words_
means nouns, verbs, adjectives and so forth, whereas _words_ can
only carry the same sense as it carries in the rest of the Book,
viz. _whole_ Oracles or Discourses. Note the phrase _words like
them_, viz. like _the words_ or Oracles on the first Roll.

36 Cp. A. B. Davidson, “Jeremiah,” in Hastings, “B.D.,” ii. 522.

37 Schmidt, _op. cit._

38 xlv. 5.

39 Chs. i., xi., 1-8, 18-xii. 6; xiii. 1-17; xviii. 1-12.

40 Chs. xxiv, xxviii, xxxii (except for the introductory verses 1-5).

41 “De Sacra Pœsi Hebræorum,” 1753.

42 Writing of the early German lyric, Dr. John Lees says in his volume
on “The German Lyric” (London, Dent & Sons, 1914): “In regard to the
length of the lines, their number, and the arrangement of the
rhymes, the poet has absolute freedom in all three classes;” and
again of the Volkslied “there is no mechanical counting of
syllables; the variation in the number of accented and unaccented
syllables is the secret of the verse.” And he quotes from Herder on
the Volkslieder: “songs of the people ... songs which often do not
scan and are badly rhymed.”

43 Dalman, “Palästinischer Diwan.”

44 Saintsbury, “History of English Prosody,” vol. ii. 53, 54.

45 Snouck Hurgronje, “Mekka,” vol. ii. 62.

46 “Kurzer Hand-Commentar,” 1901; and “Das Buch Jeremia,” a
translation, 1903.

47 “Das Buch Jeremia,” 1905, p. xlvi.

48 E.g. Sievers, “Metrische Studien,” in the “Transactions of Saxon
Society of the Sciences,” vol. xxi (which relies too much on the
Massoretic or Canonical text); Erbt, “Jeremia u. seine Zeit,” p.
298; Giesebrecht, “Jeremia’s Metrik,” iii. ff.; Karl Budde’s
relevant pages in his “Geschichte der althebräischen Litteratur,”
1906 reached me after I had expressed the views I have given above.
They agree in the main with these views.

49 Certainly the evidence of both the Hebrew text and the Versions are
against it, and the sense supports the text. More than once when
sharp questions or challenges are thrown out, we have very
appropriately two parallel lines of _two_ accents each instead of
the usual Qînah couplet of _three_ and _two_: e.g. ii. 14 and iii.
5. See below, pp. 46 ff. Compare the variety of metres, which
Schiller employs to such good effect in his “Song of the Bell”—a
variety in beautiful harmony with that of the different aspects of
life on which he touches; and see above, p. 36, on the irregularity
of metre in Heine’s _Nordseebilder_.

50 Ch. xxix.

_ 51 Op. cit._, p. xii.

52 Chs. i, xi and xxxi.

53 “It is an understatement of the case to say that the folk-song has
been a source of inspiration. In the very greatest lyricists we
simply find the folk-song in a new shape: it has become more
polished and artistic, and it has been made the instrument of
personal lyrical utterance.”—John Lees, M.A., D.Litt., “The German
Lyric” (London, etc., Dent & Sons, 1914).

54 And in particular sins against the fundamental principle of
parallelism, e.g. in iv. 3, where even with the help of part of an
obvious title to the Oracle he gets only three lines and supposes
the fourth to be lost; and though the sense-parallelism is generally
within a couplet he divides it between the last line of his first
couplet and the first of his second. Again, if we keep in mind what
is said above (p. 35) of the recurrence in Hebrew poems of longer,
heavier lines at intervals—especially at the end of a strophe or a
poem, we must feel a number of Duhm’s emendations to be not only
unnecessary but harmful to the effectiveness of the verse.

55 Pointing את with Patah-Sheva for Tsere.

56 Pointing לםדתי with Chireq-Patah-Sheva-Sheva.

57 Hebrew adds _poor_.

58 So Duhm after the Greek; see p. 97, n. 3.

59 After the Greek.

60 By differently arranging the Hebrew consonants, see p. 117. Other
arrangements are possible. Greek omits _destined to ruin_.

61 Hebrew and Greek have this couplet in the reverse order.

62 ii. 14-17.

63 xxxi. 15.

64 While Duhm and Giesebrecht reduce the text to the exact Qînah form,
Erbt correctly reads it as varied by lines of four accents.

65 After Duhm who reads לכן = לאכן (cp. viii. 6) and transfers it to
the following line.

66 See below, p. 92.

67 So Greek.

68 So Greek; Hebrew adds _their God_.

69 Hebrew adds _and is cut off_.

70 The Hebrew _makôm_ must here as elsewhere be given as equivalent to
the Arabic _makâm_ (literally like the Hebrew _standing-place_ but)
generally _sacred site_.

71 After Duhm.

72 Hebrew adds _the Lord our God_; not in the Greek.

73 So Greek and Vulg.; Hebrew has _he shall not see_.

74 xiii. 12-14. The above rendering follows the Greek version.

75 A Hebrew idiom, literally _don’t, knowing, we know_?

76 This couplet is wanting in the Greek.

77 So rightly Duhm after the Greek.

78 Hebrew uselessly adds _in the land_.

79 So Duhm, reading _gār_ for _gēr_.

80 Hebrew adds, _and will make visitation on their sins_, which the
Greek omits.

81 ix. 17 f., 21 f.; see also pp. 205, 206.

82 xiii. 15-16.

83 So the Greek.

84 iv. 11-13, 15-17. The text and so the metre of 16, 17 are uncertain.
For _besiegers_ Duhm proposes by the change of one letter to read
_panthers_, to which in v. 6 Jeremiah likens the same foes. Skinner,
_leopards_. See below, p. 114.

85 Lit. _Because of the feebleness of their hands_.

86 xv. 5-9.

87 Greek; in both cases Hebrew adds _the Lord_.

88 See previous note.

89 This verse is uncertain; for Hebrew בעתה read with the Greek בהלה.
For another arrangement see above, p. 51.

90 So Greek; Hebrew omits _sound_.

91 This line is uncertain.

92 Greek.

93 So Greek; Hebrew omits this line.

94 (1) Jeremiah of Libnah, father of Hamutal, II. Kings xxiii. 31;
xxiv. 18; (2) Jeremiah, father of Jaazaniah, the Rechabite, Jer.
xxxv. 3; (3) Jeremiah the prophet, son of Hilḳiah.

95 Not to be confounded with the temple-priest, Hilḳiah, who was
concerned with the finding of the Law.

96 I. Kings ii. 26 f.

97 Duhm, p. 3.

98 Jer. i. 5.

99 ii. 23, 24; iv. 11; v. 6; viii. 7, 22.

100 Gen. xlix. 27.

101 iv. 3.

102 Is. x. 28-32.

103 xxxi. 15.

104 Hab. iii. 7.

105 See below on ch. iii.

106 vii. 12-15; xxvi. 6.

107 iv. 15.

108 i. 103-107 (after Hecatæus).

109 See Appendix I—Medes and Scythians.

110 “Jerusalem,” ii. 263, 264.

111 Micah vi. 8.

112 xxii. 15, 16.

113 “Jerusalem,” ii.

114 Though not in every case, for Anathoth itself is but the plural of
the Syrian goddess Anath, as Ashtaroth is the plural of Astart or
Astarte.

115 ii. 28; xi. 13.

116 iii. 2.

117 i. 5.

118 Luke i. 76.

119 See Lecture vii.

120 ii. 18.

121 See his seven Scythian songs below, pp. 110 ff.

122 xviii.

123 xxxvi. 2, a clause which Duhm merely on the grounds of his theory is
obliged to regard as a later intrusion, though it bears no marks of
being such.

124 So Cornill after the Greek.

125 xx. 7.

126 Hebrew adds the redundant _to pull down_; Greek omits.

127 Duhm; see above, p. 40.

128 This is clear from other passages, v. 14; xviii. 7-10, etc.

129 Ball happily translates _wake-tree_.

130 The text reads, _its face is from the face of northwards_, which
some would emend to _its face is turned northwards_, i.e. the side
on which it is blown upon and made to boil. _Boiling_ or _bubbling_,
lit. _blown upon, fanned_.

131 After the Greek; Hebrew has _be opened_.

132 Hebrew has _races and kingdoms_ and adds _Rede of the Lord_.

133 Read אתם with points Chireq and Qamets.

134 Hebrew adds _to them_; Greek omits.

135 The last three couplets are uncertain. In v. 18 Hebrew adds _a
basalt pillar_ and, after _bronze, against all the land_.

136 xxxvi. 32; see pp. 22 ff.

137 P. 37.

138 See pp. 40 f., 72.

139 See p. 41.

140 So simply the Greek; the Hebrew, _And the word of the Lord came unto
me saying, Go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem saying_, not
only betrays an editorial redundancy, but what follows is addressed
not to Jerusalem but to all Israel. Here if anywhere the Greek has
the original. Jeremiah begins thus to dictate to Baruch.

141 Hebrew _kebel_ = _breath_.

142 Egypt.

143 So Greek.

144 Lit. _shepherds_.

145 Hebrew adds _Rede of the Lord_.

146 Some Hebrew MSS. and Vulgate.

147 Cyprus = Kittim and Kedár, an Arab tribe, are the extremes of the
world then known to the Jews.

148 So Greek.

149 Hebrew marg. _my_.

150 Or _heave_ (Ball), lit. _be aghast_ but the Hebrew is alliterative,
_shommû shamaîm_.