The Question of LXX Jeremiah As A Tool F

Vetus
Testamentum
Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 29-57 brill.nl/vt
The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool

for Literary-Critical Analysis
Shimon Gesundheit
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
gesund@mscc.huji.ac.il
Abstract
Those who disagree with the accepted theory that LXX reflects an ancient Hebrew version of
Jeremiah usually point to the greater coherency of MT as proof of its primacy. This study shows
the lack of coherency in MT, stemming from the complexity of the text from a literary-critical
perspective, and attempts to answer the question of whether LXX can be used in the literary-
critical analysis of MT. At least regarding the passage under discussion (Jer 25:1-14), this ques-
tion must be answered in the negative. It appears that LXX reflects an adapted and “flattened”
version of the text. Without the “rough” version found in MT, a version which preserves the
tensions and the seams created in the course of the literary growth of the text, it would be like-
wise impossible to understand the lack of coherence found in LXX.
Keywords
Jeremiah, Septuagint, literary criticism
I
Every researcher, who deals with the literary history of biblical passages,
dreams of finding a manuscript that preserves a more original version of the
biblical text. There is no doubt that a literary-critical analysis that can rely on
empirical findings is of far greater weight than an analysis based only on rea-
soning and supposition. It is for this reason that scholars show so much inter-
est in the Septuagint version (LXX) of Jeremiah, which is shorter than the
Masoretic Text (MT). Does LXX Jeremiah reflect a more ancient version of
the biblical text?
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/156853311X580644

30 S. Gesundheit / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 29-57
This hypothesis was raised by J. G. Eichhorn in 1777,1 and throughout the

history of scholarship there have been scholars who defended this view.2 With
the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the discovery of Hebrew manu-
scripts of Jeremiah among the Scrolls, this hypothesis became the communis
opinio, since the Hebrew texts of Jeremiah attested in 4Q71 (=4QJerb)3 and
4Q72a (=4QJerd),4 may be evidence of the existence of a version of Jeremiah
which is closer to the hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage of LXX than it is to MT.5
1)
J. G. Eichhorn, “Bemerkungen über den Text des Propheten Jeremias”, Repertorium für Bibli-
sche und Morgenländische Litteratur 1 (1777), pp. 141-168. This article had been continued and
republished in a revised and expanded form in Eichhorn’s first edition of volume 3 of his Einlei-
tung ins Alte Testament (Leipzig 1783); see especially pp. 157-207. See also A. Scholz, Der maso-
rethische Text und die LXX-Übersetzung des Buches Jeremias (Regensburg 1875), pp. 3-4, and more
recently F. D. Hubmann, “Bemerkungen zur älteren Diskussion um die Unterschiede zwischen
MT und G im Jeremiabuch”, in Walter Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewe-
gung” (BBB 98; Weinheim, 1995), pp. 263-270.
2)
For overviews of scholarship that supported this view, see J. G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of
Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge, 1973), pp. 1-9; P.-M. Bogaert, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspec-
tive: les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours”, RB 101 (1994), pp. 363-406;
B. Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker: Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46-49 (FAT
20; Tübingen 1997), pp. 48-64; R. D. Weis, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah”, in
Y. A. P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij and R. D. Weis (eds.), Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of
Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (VTSup 110; Leiden, 2006),
pp. 269-293; G. Fischer, Jeremia: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt, 2007),
pp. 17-53.
3)
This fragment contains parts of Jer 9:22-10:21; see E. Tov, “4QJer a-e”, in E. Ulrich et al. (eds.),
Qumrân Cave 4, X (DJD 15; Oxford, 1997), pp. 171-176.
4)
This fragment contains parts of Jer 43:2-10; see E. Tov, (n. 3), pp. 203-205.
5)
Janzen (n. 2), pp. 181-184; E. Tov, “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur la critique littéraire
dans le livre de Jérémie”, RB 79 (1972), pp. 189-199; idem, “Exegetical notes on the Hebrew
Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27 (34)”, ZAW 91 (1979), pp. 73-93 (reprinted in E. Tov, The
Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint [Leiden, 1999]); idem, “The Literary
History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of its Textual History”, in J. H. Tigay, Empirical
Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 211-237 (reprinted in Tov, Greek and
Hebrew Bible); idem, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah”,
in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission
(2nd edn., Leuven, 1997), pp. 145-167; idem, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical
Research (2nd edn., Jerusalem,1997), pp. 243-245; P.-M. Bogaert, “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les
deux rédactions conservées du Livre de Jérémie”, in P.-M. Bogaert, Le Livre de Jérémie, pp. 168-
173, 430-432; idem, “La liste des nations dans l’oracle de la coupe (Jr 25,16-26): Juda, les peu-
ples voisins et les grandes puissances”, in D. Böhler, I. Himbaza, P. Hugo (eds.), L’Écrit et l’esprit:
Études d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en hommage à Adrian Schenker (Fribourg/Göt-
tingen, 2001), pp. 59-74; idem, “Les mécanismes rédactionnels en Jér 10,1-16 (LXX et TM) et
la signification des supplements”, in P.-M. Bogaert, Le Livre de Jérémie, pp. 222-238, 433-434;
S. Gesundheit / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 29-57 31
Nevertheless, several objections were raised to this supposition.6 For example,

scholars noted that these two fragments share certain features of MT and
do not entirely agree with the LXX version of Jeremiah. Consequently, as
these fragments are not completely consistent with either LXX or MT, it
was proposed that they reflect a third version of Jeremiah not previously
encountered.7
Further complicating the discussion is the evidence of another Jeremiah
text discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q70 (=4QJera). This is one of the
longest and oldest scrolls found at Qumran, in which sections of Jer 7:1-
22:16; 26:10 are preserved. The scroll includes a surprising number of correc-
tions, including both erasures and additions, most of which correct the scroll
toward MT.8 For example, “Col. XI lines 7-9 contain as many as 8 corrections,
erasures, or supralinear additions, or combinations of them.”9 Despite the pos-
sibility that the version reflected in 4Q70 may be a shorter text type of
Jeremiah,10 in the opinion of E. Tov and others it is more reasonable that the
base text in 4Q70 contains multiple “technical scribal errors.”11 The fact that
so many textual units and such extensive passages (such as Jer 7:30-8:3) could
be omitted or corrupted through scribal error is significant evidence which is
idem, “Jérémie 17,1-4 TM: Oracle contre ou sur Juda propre au texte long, annoncé en 11,7-
8.13 TM et en 15,12-14 TM”, in Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger (eds.), La double transmission
du texte biblique: Études d’histoire du texte, offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker (Fribourg/
Göttingen, 2005) pp. 1-14.
6)
G. Fischer, Das Trostbüchlein: Text, Komposition und Theologie von Jer 30-31 (Stuttgart 1993),
pp. 2-6; idem, Stand (n. 2), pp. 21-22, 24; see also W. McKane, “The History of the Text of
Jeremiah 10,1-16”, in A. Caquot et al. (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de
M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215; Neukirchen, 1985), pp. 297-304; J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah
1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 21A ; New York, 1999),
pp. 580-582. However, compare H.-J. Stipp, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des
Jeremiabuches: Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte (Göttingen, 1994), pp. 3-4, 12-13,
92-93.
7)
For example, cf. K. Schmid, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions-
und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30-33 im Kontext des Buches (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1996), p. 15;
A. van der Kooij, “Zum Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik: Überlegungen anhand eini-
ger Beispiele”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995 (VTSup 66; Leiden,
1997), p. 192 n. 16.
8)
Tov (n. 3), pp. 145-170.
9)
Tov (n. 3), p. 151.
10)
According to A. HaCohen, 4Q70 reflects an independent version that is not directly related
to previously known versions of Jeremiah. “4QJera—A Pre-Massoretic Text?” Textus 17 (1994),
pp. 1-8.
11)
Tov (n. 3), pp. 152, 154.
difficult to ignore, particularly in regards to the question whether 4Q71 and

4Q72a may reflect the existence of a version of Jeremiah similar to the hypo-
thetical Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah. In discussing this question, J. R.
Lundbom12 refers to W. F. Albright’s assertion “that the Qumran evidence
shows quite clearly that ancient scrolls suffered far more from omissions by
copyists than from additions.”13 Lundbom concludes that the “evidence from
Jeremiah bears out the truth of this statement, and as a result turns much
Jeremiah scholarship on its head . . . It now seems quite clear that in the received
text of Jeremiah what we have is not so much proto-MT expansion by busy
scribes in Babylon, but proto-LXX loss by careless and inattentive scribes in
Egypt. Or to put it another way, the LXX translator(s) of Jeremiah had the
misfortune of working from a ‘bad Hebrew Bible.’ Its text was shorter and
defective.”14
In fact, the argument for the priority of the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jere-
miah is not based primarily on the Qumran fragments. The proponents of the
view that there are two versions of the book of Jeremiah, the first reflected in
the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX and the second reflected in MT, base their argu-
ment mainly on the systematic analysis of the differences between the two
versions. In recent years E. Tov and P.-M. Bogaert have been particularly pro-
lific in this area of study.15 Similarly, H.-J. Stipp has focused on the systematic
12)
Lundbom (n. 6), p. 61; idem, Jeremiah 37-52 (AB 21C; New York, 2004) p. XIV.
13)
W. F. Albright, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII”, VT 9
(1959), 339-346.
14)
Lundbom (n. 12), Jeremiah 37-52, p. XIV.
15)
See n. 5. See also A. Schenker, “Nebukadnezzars Metamorphose vom Unterjocher zum Got-
tesknecht”, RB 89 (1982), pp. 498-527; idem, Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten:
Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel, von der Textgeschichte zu Theologie, Synagoge und
Kirche (FRLANT 212; Göttingen, 2006); L. Laberge, “Jérémie 25,1-14: Dieu et Juda ou, Jérémie
et tous les peuples”, Science et Esprit 36 (1984), pp. 45-66; B. L. Stulman, “Some Theological and
Lexical Differences Between the Old Greek and the MT of the Jeremiah Prose Discourses”,
Hebrew Studies 25 (1984), pp. 18-23; idem, The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the
Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah with English Translation
(Lanham, 1985); B. Gosse, “La malédiction contre Babylone de Jérémie 51,59-64 et les rédac-
tions du livre de Jérémie”, ZAW 98 (1986), pp. 383-399; idem, “Jérémie 17,1-5a dans la rédac-
tion massorétique du livre de Jérémie”, Estudios Bíblicos 53 (1995), pp. 165-180; A. R. P.
Diamond, “Jeremiah’s confessions in the LXX and MT: A witness to developing canonical func-
tion?” VT 40 (1990), pp. 33-50; Y. Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil: Les origines
littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie, (Freiburg-Göttingen, 1992); B. Becking,
“Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation—a Textual Comparison: Notes on the Masoretic Text and the
Old Greek Version of Jeremiah XXX-XXXI”, VT 44 (1994), pp. 145-169 (revised and reprinted
in B. Becking, Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30-31 [OTS 51;
examination of the linguistic differences between the two versions, and has
attempted to show the uniqueness and priority of the hypothesized Hebrew
Vorlage of the LXX.16 Recently J. Joosten has published a study in which he has
shown clear examples of late biblical Hebrew in verses that appear in MT but
not in LXX.17
Nevertheless, even among scholars who see LXX as evidence of an earlier
Hebrew version of Jeremiah, there is disagreement regarding the posited exis-
tence of two versions of Jeremiah. Some scholars maintain that there are more
than two versions,18 while others disagree with the idea that there were differ-
ent versions at all and propose that MT results from specific changes instituted
by copyist scribes and not by a comprehensive and ideological editing of the
book as a whole.19 There are also those who maintain that each of the Jeremiah
versions contains authentic material created independently of its parallel
Leiden, 2004], pp. 11-48); J. Lust, “The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah and History Writing
with Jer 33 as a Test Case”, JNSL 20 (1994), pp. 31-48; A. Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the Turning-
Point of History: The Function of Jer. XXV 1-14 in the Book of Jeremiah”, VT 52 (2002),
pp. 459-482; eadem, “ ‘Nebuchadnezzar, my Servant’: Redaction History and Textual Develop-
ment in Jer 27”, in F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne (eds.), Interpreting Translation: Studies
on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (Leuven, 2005), 1-18; R. D. Wells, “Dislocations
in Time and Ideology in the Reconception of Jeremiah’s Words: The Encounter with Hananiah
in the Septuagint ‘Vorlage’ and the Masoretic text”, in J. Goldingay (ed.), Uprooting and Plant-
ing: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen (New York, 2007), pp. 322-350; H. Engel, “Erfahrungen
mit der LXX-Fassung des Jeremiabuches im Rahmen des Projektes ‘Septuaginta Deutsch,’” in
H.-J. Fabry and D. Böhler (eds.), Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta; Band 3: Studien zur Theologie,
Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der Griechischen Bibel (Stuttgart, 2007),
pp. 80-96.
16)
E.g. Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), 92-144 et passim; idem, “Linguistic Peculiarities of the Maso-
retic Edition of the Book of Jeremiah”, JNSL 23 (1997), pp. 181-202; idem, Deuterojeremianis-
che Konkordanz (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 63; St. Ottilien, 1998); idem,
“Sprachliche Kennzeichen jeremianischer Autorschaft”, in H. M. Barstad and R. G. Kratz (eds.),
Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (BZAW 388; Berlin, 2009), pp. 148-186.
17)
“L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique”, in J. Joosten and
J.-S. Rey (eds.), Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period:
Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira
(STDJ 73; Leiden, 2008), pp. 93-108. Despite this, Joosten admits that some of the deviations
from classical biblical Hebrew toward later Hebrew are found in verses common to both MT and
LXX (ibid., pp. 105, 107).
18)
Such as B. Gosse, “Trois étapes de la rédaction du livre de Jérémie”, ZAW 111 (1999),
pp. 508-529.
19)
Such as W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC 19; Edinburgh,
1986), pp. l-li, lxii, lxxxi-lxxxiii; Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), pp. 137-140.
version.20 E. Tov, for example, has noted genuine Jeremianic material that is
included in MT but is missing from LXX.21 Similarly, even scholars who see
LXX as evidence of an earlier Hebrew version note that there are places where
LXX includes textual corruption, misunderstanding of its Hebrew Vorlage and
even tendentious editing.22 Nevertheless, these scholars maintain the general
priority of proto-LXX.23
20)
See R. C. Steiner, “The Two Sons of Neriah and the Two Editions of Jeremiah in the Light of
Two ‘Atbash’ Code-Words for Babylon”, VT 46 (1996), pp. 74-84; C. J. Sharp, “ ‘Take Another
Scroll and Write’: A Study of the LXX and the MT of Jeremiah’s Oracles Against Egypt and
Babylon”, VT 47 (1997), pp. 487-516. See also J. R. Lundbom’s opinion as it is formulated in
one of the Vorarbeiten to his interpretation of Jeremiah: “Baruch, Seraiah, and Expanded Colo-
phons in the Book of Jeremiah”, JSOT 36 (1986), pp. 89-114. The scholars T. W. Overholt
(“King Nebuchadnezzar in the Jeremiah Tradition”, CBQ 30 [1968], pp. 39-48), A. van Selms
(“Telescoped Discussion as a Literary Device in Jeremiah”, VT 26 [1976], pp. 99-112), and
G. L. Archer, (“The Relationship Between the Septuagint Translation and the Massoretic Text in
Jeremiah”, Trinity Journal N. S. 12 [1991], p. 141), have continued and refined J. G. Eichhorn’s
theory mentioned in the beginning of this article.
21)
Tov (n. 5), “Literary History”, p. 216. Among the examples of genuine Jeremianic material,
Tov notes the prophecy in Jer 33:14-26, which is missing from LXX, and certain particulars such
as the patronymics in the name Ahab son of Qolaya and the name Zidkiyahu son of Ma’aseya
(Jer 29:21), a description of ‘Ebed Melek as a eunuch (Jer 38:7) and the official title “Baruch
son of Neriahu the scribe” (Jer 36:32) which is surprisingly similar to the bulla found in the
archaeological dig of the city of David in 1978 (“to Berachiahu son of Neriah the scribe”); cf.
N. Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive (Jerusalem,
1986), pp. 28-29; Tov (n. 5), “Literary History”, pp. 220, 222, 223; Steiner (n. 20), pp. 77-78.—
G. Fischer sees this as proof that MT reflects the version of Jeremiah that is closer to the original;
“Zum Text des Jeremiabuches”, Biblica, 78 (1997), pp. 313-314. Tov admits that “we do not
know why this Jeremianic material had not previously entered edition I [LXX version] and why
or how it was preserved” (ibid., p. 219).
22)
See e.g. E. Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” in
A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers, Mis-
sissauga, Ont. 1984, pp. 57-59, 61-63 et passim (reprinted in Tov [n. 5], Greek and Hebrew
Bible); B. Becking, “Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation: A Textual Comparison. Notes on the
Masoretic Text and the Old Greek Version of Jeremiah XXX-XXXI”, VT 44 (1994), pp. 152-
154; Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), pp. 55-56; idem, “Zur aktuellen Diskussion um das Verhältnis der
Textformen des Jeremiabuches”, in M. Karrer and W. Kraus, Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte,
Lebenswelten (WUNT 219; Tübingen, 2008), p. 652. A. G. Shead supposes similarly (The Open
Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions [JSOTSup 347;
London, 2002]).
23)
See e.g. Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), pp. 90-91; idem, “Das judäische und das babylonische
Jeremiabuch”, in A. Lemaire, Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (VTS 133; Leiden 2010), p. 241.
In contrast to the majority opinion, several scholars do not see LXX as

compelling evidence of a Hebrew version of Jeremiah that is primary to MT.24
A particularly prominent representative of the most active opponents of the
majority view in recent years is G. Fischer.25 A more nuanced stance is repre-
sented by A. Rofé,26 who maintains that the data do not support a unilateral
decision regarding the priority of one version over the other; rather, each dif-
ference between MT and LXX must be investigated separately in order to
determine in each case which version is primary.27 A. van der Kooij similarly
challenges the majority view and determines that it is necessary to conduct an
24)
See, for example, M. J. Dahood, review of J. G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, Biblica
56 (1975), pp. 429-431; M. Margaliot, “Jeremiah X 1-16: A Re-Examination”, VT 30 (1980),
pp. 295-308; S. Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis (JSOTSup 47; Shef-
field, 1985); C. Levin, Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusam-
menhang ausgelegt (Göttingen, 1985), pp. 69-72; C. R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the
Canonical Shape of Jeremiah”, ZAW 101 (1989), pp. 3-27; C. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor
dem Untergang Judas (BZAW 187; Berlin-New York, 1990); G. L. Archer (n. 20), pp. 139-150;
Schmid (n. 7), pp. 15-23; A. Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité littéraire du livre de Baruch (Ebib, nou-
velle série 38; Paris, 1998); B. Renaud, “L’oracle de la nouvelle alliance: À propos des divergences
entre le texte hébreu (Jr 31,31-34) et le texte grec (38,31-34)”, in J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin
(eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible (BETL 144; Leuven, 1999), pp. 85-98.
25)
Fischer, Trostbüchlein (n. 6), pp. 2-6; idem, “Jer 25 und die Fremdvölkersprüche: Unter-
schiede zwischen hebräischem und griechischem Text”, Biblica 72 (1991), pp. 474-499; idem
(n. 21), pp. 305-328; idem, Jeremia 1-25 (HTKAT; Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 2005), pp. 39-46;
idem, Stand (n. 2), pp. 17-53; idem, “Die Diskussion um den Jeremiatext”, in M. Karrer
and W. Kraus, Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (WUNT 219; Tübingen, 2008),
pp. 630-653.
26)
A. Rofé, “Text-Criticism within the Philological-Historical Dscipline: The Problem of the
Double Text of Jeremiah” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 78 (2008), pp. 5-25; see also idem, “The Arrange-
ment of the Book of Jeremiah”, ZAW 101 (1989) pp. 390-398; idem, “The Name ‘YHWH
Seba’ôt’ and the Shorter Recension of Jeremiah”, in R. Liwak and S. Wagner (eds.), Prophetie und
geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel (FS S. Herrmann; Stuttgart, 1991), pp. 307-316; idem,
“Not Exile but Annihilation for Zedekiah’s People: The Purport of Jeremiah 52 in the Septua-
gint”, in L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (eds.), VIII Congress of the International Organization
for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Paris 1992, SBLSCS 41; Atlanta, 1995), pp. 165-170.
27)
Rofé (n. 26), pp. 24-25; see also D. L. Christensen, “In Quest of the Autograph of the Book
of Jeremiah: A Study of Jeremiah 25 in Relation to Jeremiah 46-51”, JETS 33 (1990), pp. 145-
153; D. J. Reimer, The Oracles Against Babylon in Jeremiah 50-51: A Horror Among the Nations
(San Francisco, 1993), pp. 153-155; W. H. Schmidt, Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 1-20 (ATD 20;
Göttingen, 2008), p. 41. In fact, this mediating position was the most common approach until
the middle of the 20th century and was adopted by most commentaries, such as those by
F. Hitzig, B. Duhm, F. Giesebrecht, P. Volz, W. Rudolph, J. Bright and J. A. Thompson.
independent literary critical analysis of MT that does not depend on LXX.28

Such an analysis may lead to a conclusion that deviates from the accepted view
regarding the existence of an ancient Hebrew Vorlage represented by LXX.29 In
van der Kooij’s view, “more attention should be paid to the translation tech-
nique of LXX Jer, including the aspects of elements of interpretation, by
studying the Old Greek of Jer not only by a formal (statistical) approach, but
also, and even more so, by a contextual approach. It is, therefore, not so easy
to decide in cases of differences between LXX and MT, including pluses and
minuses, whether LXX Jer reflects a different Vorlage, or whether a specific
difference is to be seen as due to the translator.”30
In fact, scholars who focus on the exegesis of Jeremiah have noted texts in
LXX where there is a clear tendency to smooth the inconsistencies found in
MT and to blur the signs of the gradual literary growth of the text. According
to these scholars, the “flattened” and harmonized LXX version does not enable
a literary-critical analysis, as the traces of the text’s development have been
blurred. On the other hand, the inconsistencies in MT that have resulted from
secondary expansions may have also left their traces in LXX.31
A different objection to the accepted categorical conclusions regarding the
primacy of LXX is proposed by J. R. Lundbom, whose exegesis of Jeremiah
combines the consideration of textual problems resulting from the transmis-
sion of the text with a literary-critical analysis. Lundbom determines that in
most cases of a difference between LXX and MT, the earlier version is MT.
This is because, in his view, 64% of texts found only in MT have been omitted
from LXX due to haplography.32 Nevertheless, Lundbom thinks that, regard-
ing the structure of the book as a whole, LXX is closer to the original structure
than is MT.33
28)
A. van der Kooij, “Jeremiah 27:5-15: How Do MT and LXX Relate to Each Other?” JNSL 20
(1994), pp. 59-78; idem (n. 7), pp. 185-202.
29)
For example, see van der Kooij, (n. 28), p. 68 ref. Jer 27, 8: “This means that the textcritical
plus of MT over against LXX is not the same clause as the redactional plus of MT. The fact that
LXX reflects the Hebrew text including the redactional addition, means that MT verse 8 attests
the primary text.”
30)
Van der Kooij (n. 28), p. 76.
31)
For example, see W. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25 (WMANT 41;
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973), pp. 264-264; C. Levin (n. 24), p. 71; A. van der Kooij (n. 28),
pp. 68-72; Schmid (n. 7), pp. 19-23.
32)
J. R. Lundbom, “Haplography in the Hebrew ‘Vorlage’ of LXX Jeremiah”, Hebrew Studies 46
(2005), pp. 301-320. See also n. 14 above.
33)
J. R. Lundbom (n. 6), p. 59.
II
Another way to frame the problem is to ask the methodological question: Is
LXX Jeremiah useful for the literary-critical analysis of MT Jeremiah? It is
from this angle that this study will approach the two texts and analyze the
data. The approach will be illustrated by outlining some major problems of
the literary-critical analysis of Jer 25:1-14.
Jer 25 plays a pivotal role in the overall structure of the book of Jeremiah.
The second part of the chapter has been the subject of much attention in
scholarly literature, due to the difference in structure between MT and LXX;
in LXX the prophecies to the nations are found after Jer 25:13, while in MT
the prophecies to the nations are found at the end of the book. However,
scholars have paid less attention to the prominent differences between MT
and LXX in the first part of the chapter. These differences may shed light on
the methodological question regarding the use of LXX in the literary-critical
analysis of MT Jeremiah.
In Jer 36 it is explained that Baruch the son of Neriah, Jeremiah’s secretary,
writes down all Jeremiah’s prophecies in “the fourth year of King Jehoiakim
son of Josiah of Judah”34 (36:1). The scroll (‫מגילת ספר‬, 36:4) written by Baruch
includes prophecies from the day God spoke first to Jeremiah—that is, since
year 13 of Josiah’s rule (Jer 1:2)—“to this day” (36:2). The purpose of writing
this scroll is described succinctly: “Perhaps when the house of Judah hear of all
the disasters I intend to bring upon them, they will turn back from their
wicked ways, and I will pardon their iniquity and their sin.” (36:3) Jeremiah’s
prophecies were transcribed during the pivotal year (605 B.C.E.) when Pha-
raoh Neco and Nebuchadnezzar battled at Carchemish over Assyria’s legacy,
out of the hope that this political turning point would also cause a religious
and cultural transformation for Israel. Moreover, as a result it may also have
been thought that the vague threat of an enemy from the North (1:13-15; 4:6;
6:1, 22; 10:22; 13:20) might soon be realized.
A similar description is found in Jer 25, also dated to the fourth year of
Jehoiakim’s rule (25:1). Here too the text speaks of the summation of 23 years
of prophecy, during which Jeremiah transmitted the words of God to the
people: “From the thirteenth year of King Josiah son of Amon of Judah, to
this day” (v. 3). This chapter too mentions a scroll (‫ )ספר‬on which are inscribed
all the prophecies that are now to be realized (v. 13). In parallel to the purpose
34)
Translations generally follow Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the
Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia, 1985). However, when focusing on a particular phrase or
word we have used our own translation in order to maintain the literal nature of the text.
of the scroll described in Jer 36, in Jer 25 Jeremiah’s words to the people, spo-
ken for 23 years “to this day” are summarized with the call “Turn back, every-
one, from your evil ways and your wicked acts . . .” (25:5) However, as in the
narrative account given in Jer 36, here too Jeremiah’s hope is disappointed, for
the nation does not listen to the words of God (v. 3, 7, 8). In light of the
nation’s disregard for the words of both Jeremiah and God, the two texts both
express the inevitability of the destruction that will be visited upon Israel.
Volz has already noted the similarity between the two chapters. He pro-
posed that the words of Jeremiah in the original nucleus of Jer 25 served as the
introduction to the scroll that Baruch wrote in Jer 36.35 But it is more likely
that the similarity between the two chapters is secondary,36 and that the two
texts were written by different authors. Jer 36 was written as a narrative, in the
style of the prose biographical sections of the book of Jeremiah. In contrast,
Jer 25:1-14 is a Deuteronomistic (or, according to H.-J. Stipp, “deutero-
jeremianisch”)37 speech with a theological orientation.
A Literary-Historical Analysis of MT Jer 25:1-14
Problems of Coherence in the Text

1. The introduction formula “The word which came to Jeremiah concern-
ing . . .” in v. 1 presents the subsequent words as spoken by God to Jere-
miah. In contrast, the formula “[This is what] the prophet Jeremiah said
35)
D. P. Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia übersetzt und erklärt (KAT 10; 2nd edn., Leipzig, 1928),
p. 252. This is contra B. Duhm’s proposal that the original base text of Jer 25:1-14 was a sum-
mary of Baruch’s scroll; B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (KHCAT 11; Tübingen, 1901), p. 200.
36)
According to S. Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Kristiania, 1914), pp. 13-14,
it is clear that the author of Jer 25:1-14 based his composition on the event described in ch. 36,
but the author of 25:1-14 did not possess a detailed tradition of the event and was not familiar
with the text of ch. 36. A. Rofé, “Studies on the Composition of the Book of Jeremiah” (Hebrew),
Tarbiz 44 (1974/5), pp. 1-29, also sees the two texts as independent compositions reflecting the
same event, similar to the relationship between 21:1-7 and 37:3-10 and the relationship between
7:1-15 and 26:1-19. However, compare idem (n. 26), “Arrangement”, p. 393 n. 15: “The origi-
nal text of 25,1-13 (. . .) is the Deuteronomistic rhetorical elaboration of ch. 36.” Also compare
H. Birkeland, Zum hebräischen Traditionswesen: Die Komposition der prophetischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments (Oslo, 1938), p. 46; J. P. Hyatt, “The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah”,
Vanderbilt Studies in Humanities 1 (1951), p. 85; Thiel (n. 31), p. 270.
37)
Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), pp. 104-105, 138, 141 et passim; idem, Deuterojeremianische Konkor-
danz (n. 16); idem (n. 23), “Das judäische und das babylonische Jeremiabuch”, pp. 239-264.
to all the people of Judah . . .” (v. 2) is an introduction to Jeremiah’s

speech to the people.
2. The appellation “Jeremiah the prophet” in v. 2 is surprising. After v. 1,
which speaks of the “word which came to Jeremiah,” the superfluous
designation of Jeremiah as “the prophet” is unexpected. The expected
position of Jeremiah’s full designation is the beginning of the chapter, the
first place where the name Jeremiah is mentioned.38 The appellation “Jer-
emiah the prophet” in v. 2 breaks the literary flow between the two first
verses of the chapter, and gives the impression that v. 2 is not the con-
tinuation of v. 1 but has been designed as the heading of the chapter.39
3. Corresponding to the difficulty caused by the chapter’s double heading,
certain verses in the course of the chapter are presented as the words of
God. Verse 7 is an example: “But you would not listen to me—declares
the Lord—but vexed me with what your hands made, to your own
hurt.” In contrast, other verses are phrased as the words of Jeremiah. So,
for example, v. 3: “From the thirteenth year of King Josiah son of Amon
of Judah, to this day—these twenty-three years—the word of the Lord has
come to me.”
4. Based on vv. 1-2, the prophecy is referring to the nation of Judah (and
the inhabitants of Jerusalem). In contrast, in v. 9 ff. the prophecy seems
to concern “all these nations roundabout”.
5. The second half of the first section (vv. 8-14) is presented by previous
verses as a description of the punishment of Israel for not listening to the
words of God (vv. 4, 7, 8). In light of this introduction the reader is
surprised to find that this section also includes the description of the
punishment of “all these nations roundabout” as well.
6. There is a great deal of similarity between Jer 25:1-14 and sections of
Jer 7 and Jer 35. The resemblance between 25:3b-6b and 35:14b-15 is
particularly evident. How can these literary and substantive parallels be
explained?40
38)
As, for example, in 29:1; 45:1; 47:1.
39)
This impression is strengthened through the repetition of the words “to all the people of
Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” in v. 2, after v. 1 already mentioned the audience of the
prophecy (“to all the people of Judah”). (But in contrast see Huwyler [n. 2], pp. 338-339.) The
phrase ‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫ ַﬠל ָכּל ַﬠם י‬appears nowhere else in Jeremiah; there is one appearance of the phrase
‫הוּדה‬ָ ְ‫( ֶאל ָכּל ַﬠם י‬26:18).
40)
Despite the similarity, this is not an example of identical copying, a familiar phenomenon
in Jeremiah, both MT and LXX; see Tov (n. 5), “Literary History”, p. 219 (“Repetition of
Sections”).
‫‪40‬‬ ‫‪S. Gesundheit / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 29-57‬‬
‫‪The original base text of Jer 25:1-14‬‬

‫‪In the light of the blatant inconsistencies of this passage, it seems to be possi-‬‬
‫‪ble to distinguish a base text of Jeremiah’s speech from secondary additions to‬‬
‫‪the text. These additions, appended to the text in several stages, are presented‬‬
‫‪as the words of God. We will first present the proposed reconstruction of the‬‬
‫‪base text of Jer 25:1-14 and will then explain the rationale behind the recon-‬‬
‫‪struction, in order of the verses.‬‬
‫אשׁיָּ הוּ‬
‫הוּדה ַבּ ָשּׁנָ ה ָה ְר ִב ִﬠית ִליהוֹיָ ִקים ֶבּן י ֹ ִ‬‫הַ דָּ בָ ר ֲא ֶשׁר ָהיָ ה ַﬠל יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ַﬠל ָכּל ַﬠם יְ ָ‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫אצּר ֶמ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל‪:‬‬ ‫בוּכ ְד ֶר ַ‬
‫הוּדה ִהיא ַה ָשּׁנָ ה ָה ִראשׁ ֹנִ ית ִלנְ ַ‬ ‫ֶמ ֶלְך יְ ָ‬
‫ֲשר דִּ ּ ֶבר יִ ְר ְמיָה ּו הַ ּנ ִָביא ַעל ּ ָכל ַעם יְ הו ָּדה וְ אֶ ל ּ ָכל י ְֹׁשבֵ י יְ רו ׁ ָּש ִ ַלם לֵ אמֹר‪:‬‬ ‫א ֶׁ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫מון ֶמ ֶל ְך ְיהוּ ָדה ְו ַעד ַהיּ ֹום ַה ֶ ּזה זֶ ה ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְו ֶע ְׂש ִרים‬ ‫ֹאש ָ ּיהוּ ֶבן ָא ֹ‬‫ִמן ְׁשל ֹׁש ֶעשְׂ ֵרה ׁ ָשנָ ה ְלי ִׁ‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ׁ ָשנָה הָ יָה ְדבַ ר ה׳ אֵ לָ י וָ ֲא ַד ּ ֵבר ֲאלֵ יכֶ ם אַ ְׁש ּ ֵכים וְ ַד ּ ֵבר וְ לֹא ְׁש ַמ ְע ּ ֶתם‪:‬‬
‫יתם‬ ‫ֹלח וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם וְ לֹא ִה ִטּ ֶ‬ ‫יכם ֶאת ָכּל ֲﬠ ָב ָדיו ַהנְּ ִב ִאים ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ָשׁ ַ‬ ‫וְ ָשׁ ַלח ה׳ ֲא ֵל ֶ‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם ִל ְשׁמ ַֹע‪:‬‬
‫וּשׁבוּ ַﬠל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן ה׳‬ ‫יכם ְ‬ ‫וּמר ַֹע ַמ ַﬠ ְל ֵל ֶ‬
‫ֵלאמֹר שׁוּבוּ נָ א ִאישׁ ִמ ַדּ ְרכּוֹ ָה ָר ָﬠה ֵ‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ﬠוֹלם‪:‬‬
‫ﬠוֹלם וְ ַﬠד ָ‬‫יכם ְל ִמן ָ‬ ‫בוֹת ֶ‬
‫ָל ֶכם וְ ַל ֲא ֵ‬
‫אוֹתי‬
‫ִ‬ ‫וּל ִה ְשׁ ַתּ ֲחוֹת ָל ֶהם וְ לֹא ַת ְכ ִﬠיסוּ‬ ‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ְל ָﬠ ְב ָדם ְ‬ ‫וְ ַאל ֵתּ ְלכוּ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱא ִ‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫יכם וְ לֹא ָא ַרע ָל ֶכם‪:‬‬ ‫ְבּ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה יְ ֵד ֶ‬
‫יכם ְל ַרﬠ‬ ‫יסנִ י( ְבּ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה יְ ֵד ֶ‬
‫וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם ֵא ַלי נְ ֻאם ה׳ ְל ַמ ַﬠן ִה ְכ ִﬠסוּנִ י )‪ַ :Q‬ה ְכ ִﬠ ֵ‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ָל ֶכם‪:‬‬
‫לָ כֵ ן ּכֹה אָ ַמר ה׳ ְצבָ אוֹ ת י ַַען ֲא ׁ ֶשר לֹא ְׁש ַמ ְע ּ ֶתם ֶאת ְּד ָב ָרי‪:‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫אצּר ֶמ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל ַﬠ ְב ִדּי‬ ‫בוּכ ְד ֶר ַ‬
‫פון נְ אֻ ם ה׳ וְ ֶאל נְ ַ‬
‫ח וְ לָ ַק ְח ִּתי אֶ ת ּ ָכל ִמ ְׁש ּ ְפחוֹ ת צָ ֹ‬
‫ִהנְ נִ י ׁשֹלֵ ַ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫יה וְ ַﬠל ָכּל ַהגּוֹיִם ָה ֵא ֶלּה ָס ִביב וְ הַ ח ֲַר ְמ ִּתים‬ ‫וַ ה ֲִבא ִֹתים ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ ַה ּזֹאת ְו ַעל י ְֹׁש ֶב ָ‬
‫עולָ ם‪:‬‬ ‫וְ ַ ׂ‬
‫ש ְמ ִּתים לְ ׁ ַש ּ ָמה וְ לִ ְׁש ֵר ָקה וּלְ חָ ְרבוֹ ת ֹ‬
‫אור נֵר‪:‬‬
‫קול ֵרחַ יִ ם וְ ֹ‬
‫קול ּ ַכ ּ ָלה ֹ‬ ‫וְ הַ אֲבַ ְד ִּתי ֵמהֶ ם קוֹ ל שָׂ שׂ וֹ ן וְ קוֹ ל שִׂ ְמחָ ה ֹ‬
‫קול חָ ָתן וְ ֹ‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫וְ הָ יְ ָתה ּ ָכל הָ אָ ֶרץ הַ ּזֹאת לְ חָ ְר ּ ָבה לְ ׁ ַש ּ ָמה וְ ָﬠ ְבדוּ ַהגּוֹיִ ם ָה ֵא ֶלּה ֶאת ֶמ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל ִשׁ ְב ִﬠים‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ָשׁנָ ה‪:‬‬
‫‪ 12‬וְ ָהיָ ה ִכ ְמלֹאות ִשׁ ְב ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה ֶא ְפקֹד ַﬠל ֶמ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל וְ ַﬠל ַהגּוֹי ַההוּא נְ ֻאם ה׳ ֶאת ֲﬠוֹנָ ם‬
‫ﬠוֹלם‪:‬‬‫וְ ַﬠל ֶא ֶרץ ַכּ ְשׂ ִדּים וְ ַשׂ ְמ ִתּי אֹתוֹ ְל ִשׁ ְממוֹת ָ‬
‫אתי( ַעל הָ אָ ֶרץ ַה ִהיא אֶ ת ּ ָכל דְּ בָ ַרי א ׁ ֶ‬
‫ֲשר דִּ ּ ַב ְר ִּתי ָעלֶ יהָ אֵ ת ּ ָכל‬ ‫יאתי )‪ :Q‬וְ הֵ בֵ ִ‬ ‫‪ 13‬וְהֵ בֵ ִ‬
‫הַ ּ ָכתוּב ּ ַב ּ ֵספֶ ר הַ ּזֶה א ׁ ֲֶשר נִ ּ ָבא יִ ְר ְמיָה ּו ַﬠל ָכּל ַהגּוֹיִ ם‪:‬‬
‫וּכ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה‬
‫דוֹלים וְ ִשׁ ַלּ ְמ ִתּי ָל ֶהם ְכּ ָפ ֳﬠ ָלם ְ‬ ‫וּמ ָל ִכים גְּ ִ‬
‫‪ִ 14‬כּי ָﬠ ְבדוּ ָבם גַּ ם ֵה ָמּה גּוֹיִם ַר ִבּים ְ‬
‫יהם‪:‬‬
‫יְ ֵד ֶ‬
‫‪The doubling of the headings in the first two verses of the chapter indicates‬‬
‫‪that one of them is a secondary addition. As mentioned above, v. 1 presents‬‬
‫‪the continuation of the passage as God’s words to Jeremiah. But it is clear that‬‬
at the beginning of the speech in v. 3 it is Jeremiah, not God, who is speaking

(“From the thirteenth year . . . the word of the Lord has come to me . . .”). In
light of the parallel of chapter 36 described above, there is no reason to doubt
that v. 3 is original to the text. Without this verse, which reviews Jeremiah’s
prophetic activity to this point, the passage has no raison d’être. As opposed to
the introduction in v. 1, the introduction in v. 2 corresponds to the viewpoint
in v. 3 without any difficulty. In light of this, the attempt in v. 1 to present the
rest of the passage as the direct words of God can be seen as a later revision. It
seems that the original text read as follows:41
‫רוּשׁ ַלםִ ֵלאמֹר‬

ָ ְ‫הוּדה וְ ֶאל ָכּל י ְֹשׁ ֵבי י‬
ָ ְ‫ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ַהנָּ ִביא ַﬠל ָכּל ַﬠם י‬
‫הוּדה וְ ַﬠד ַהיּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה זֶ ה ָשֹׁלשׁ וְ ֶﬠ ְשׂ ִרים ָשׁנָ ה‬
ָ ְ‫אשׁיָּ הוּ ֶבן ָאמוֹן ֶמ ֶלְך י‬ ִ ֹ ‫ִמן ְשֹׁלשׁ ֶﬠ ְשׂ ֵרה ָשׁנָ ה ְלי‬
‫יכם ַא ְשׁ ֵכּים וְ ַד ֵבּר וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬
ֶ ‫ָהיָ ה ְד ַבר ה׳ ֵא ָלי וָ ֲא ַד ֵבּר ֲא ֵל‬
However, it is possible that besides the first word of v. 1 (‫ה ָדּ ָבר‬,

ַ “the word”) the
words “in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah” were part
of the original heading. For the sake of comparison we can note Jer 45:1,
which is also linked to the event described in Jer 36 and contains these
words:
‫ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ַהנָּ ִביא ֶאל ָבּרוְּך ֶבּן נֵ ִריָּ ה ְבּ ָכ ְתבוֹ ֶאת ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה ַﬠל ֵס ֶפר‬
‫ִמ ִפּי יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ‬
‫הוּדה ֵלאמֹר‬ ָ ְ‫אשׁיָּ הוּ ֶמ ֶלְך י‬
ִ ֹ ‫ַבּ ָשּׁנָ ה ָה ְר ִב ִﬠית ִליהוֹיָ ִקים ֶבּן י‬
“The word which the prophet Jeremiah spoke to Baruch son of Neriah, when
he was writing these words in a scroll at Jeremiah’s dictation, in the fourth year
of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah, saying . . .”
The formula “and though I spoke to you persistently you would not listen”
(‫א ְשׁ ֵכּים וְ ַד ֵבּר וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬/‫ם‬
ַ ‫יכם ַה ְשׁ ֵכּ‬
ֶ ‫ )וָ ֲא ַד ֵבּר ֲא ֵל‬is also found in Jer 7:13, but
there it refers to the words of God.42 It appears that the use of this formula by
Jeremiah in v. 3 is meant to highlight his assertion that he has spoken to Israel
in the name of God for twenty-three years and they have not listened to him
until this very day.43 Hence it is possible that these words were copied inten-
tionally from the words of God in the Jer 7 prophecy and placed in the mouth
41)
Compare Volz (n. 35), p. 252.
42)
Similar to 35:14; also compare 11:7; 32:33.
43)
Accordingly, in v. 8 God introduces the nation’s punishment “because you did not listen to
my words” (‫)יַ ַﬠן ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם ֶאת ְדּ ָב ָרי‬.
of the prophet in Jer 25:3 in order to heighten the rhetorical emphasis of

Jeremiah’s speech.
It is more difficult to understand the revision of the formula “and though
I kept sending all my servants, the prophets to them, daily and persistently”
(‫ֹלח‬
ַ ‫יכם ֶאת ָכּל ֲﬠ ָב ַדי ַהנְּ ִב ִאים ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ָשׁ‬ ֶ ‫)וָ ֶא ְשׁ ַלח ֲא ֵל‬. This formula always appears
elsewhere as the words of God in the first person (cf. Jer 7:25; 26:5; 29:19;
35:15; 44:4). In 25:4, however, the formula has been converted to third per-
son and appears as the continuation of Jeremiah’s speech: “Moreover, the
Lord constantly sent all his servants the prophets to you, but you would not
ַ ‫יכם ֶאת ָכּל ֲﬠ ָב ָדיו ַהנְּ ִב ִאים ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ָשׁ‬
listen . . .” (. . . ‫ֹלח וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬ ֶ ‫)וְ ָשׁ ַלח ה׳ ֲא ֵל‬. A
comprehensive perspective which includes all the prophets God sent to Israel
is more naturally expressed by God than by Jeremiah speaking for himself.
Moreover, the transition between v. 3 and v. 4 is surprising. At the start of
Jeremiah’s speech in v. 3 the focus is on the span of twenty-three years during
which God spoke to Jeremiah. In v. 4 this focus shifts—without a logical tran-
sition and without any connective between the verses—to God’s dispatch of
other prophets. Instead of drawing further attention to the twenty-three years
of Jeremiah’s activity, v. 4 encompasses all prophets in every period.44
The comparison below shows the parallels between vv. 4-6a and Jer
35:15:45
35:15 25:4-6a
‫יכם ֶאת ָכּל ֲﬠ ָב ַדי ַהנְּ ִב ִאים‬
ֶ ‫וָ ֶא ְשׁ ַלח ֲא ֵל‬ ‫יכם ֶאת ָכּל ֲﬠ ָב ָדיו ַהנְּ ִב ִאים‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָשׁ ַלח ה׳ ֲא ֵל‬
‫ֹלח‬
ַ ‫ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ָשׁ‬ ‫ֹלח‬
ַ ‫ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ָשׁ‬
‫יתם ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם‬ ֶ ‫וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם וְ לֹא ִה ִטּ‬
‫ִל ְשׁמ ַֹע‬
‫יטיבוּ‬ ִ ‫ֵלאמֹר ֻשׁבוּ נָ א ִאישׁ ִמ ַדּ ְרכּוֹ ָה ָר ָﬠה וְ ֵה‬ ֵ ‫ֵלאמֹר שׁוּבוּ נָ א ִאישׁ ִמ ַדּ ְרכּוֹ ָה ָר ָﬠה‬
‫וּמר ַֹע‬
‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ַﬠ ְל ֵל‬ ‫יכם‬
ֶ ‫ַמ ַﬠ ְל ֵל‬
‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ְל ָﬠ ְב ָדם‬ִ ‫וְ ַאל ֵתּ ְלכוּ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱא‬
‫וּשבוּ ֶאל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַת ִתּי ָל ֶכם‬ ְ ‫וּשׁבוּ ַﬠל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן ה׳ ָל ֶכם‬ְ
‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַל ֲאב ֵֹת‬ ‫יכם‬ֶ ‫בוֹת‬
ֵ ‫וְ ַל ֲא‬
‫יתם ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם ֵא ָלי‬ ֶ ‫וְ לֹא ִה ִטּ‬
‫ﬠוֹלם‬
ָ ‫ﬠוֹלם וְ ַﬠד‬ ָ ‫ְל ִמן‬
. . . ‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ְל ָﬠ ְב ָדם‬
ִ ‫וְ ַאל ֵתּ ְלכוּ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱא‬
44)
Contrast the description of “his servants the prophets” who are sent and who function “from
the day your fathers left the land of Egypt until today . . . daily and persistently” (7:25) to Jere-
miah who has spoken “from the thirteenth year of Josiah . . . until today . . . and spoke persis-
tently” (25:3).
45)
Compare Thiel (n. 31), p. 267.
As the comparison shows, 25:4-6a and 35:15 reflect in fact one single text
appearing in both chapters with only minor differences. It seems that one may
determine the direction of dependence between the two passages: The passage
in ch. 35 appears to be the source, while the parallel text in ch. 25 seems to be
secondary. The first support for this conclusion emerges from an examination
of the passages’ context. As mentioned above, the transition to the formula
“sending all his/my servants the prophets” in ch. 25 is not a smooth one. In
contrast, the use of this same formula in ch. 35 is smooth and easily under-
standable given the context of God’s speech.
The second finding that supports the primacy of 35:15 stems from an inves-
tigation of the literary continuity within each passage. While the sequence of
35:15 is logical, in the parallel text in ch. 25 there is a lack of coherence that
can shed light on different stages of the text’s literary growth. For example, as
opposed to 35:15, the words ‫ֹלח‬ ַ ‫יכם ֶאת ָכּל ֲﬠ ָב ָדיו ַהנְּ ִב ִאים ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ָשׁ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָשׁ ַלח ה׳ ֲא ֵל‬
in 25:4 are disconnected from the word ‫לאמֹר‬,ֵ in 25:5.
It should be noted that the text of ch. 25 also includes the phrase ‫ﬠוֹלם‬ ָ ‫ְל ִמן‬
‫ﬠוֹלם‬ָ ‫( וְ ַﬠד‬v. 5), a phrase absent in the Vorlage of ch. 35, and one that has
apparently been copied from 7:7 where it appears in its original context.46 In
fact, chaps. 7 and 35 contain many parallels such that many of the snippets of
text to be reviewed below can be seen as coming from either of them. As will
become clearer below, the way the possibilities work out, either a third hand
added elements from chap. 7 as part of a consistent set of amplifications from
that chapter and this created difficulties in the flow, or the same editor who
worked from chap. 35 added elements in the manner of the chiastic citation,
even though it created various difficulties where the original text in chap. 35
did not have them.
It appears that the additions to ch. 25 were not added by a single hand. This
explains the lack of textual coherence in this passage. It is possible that in the
first stage of reworking the text, the redactor wished to emphasize Jeremiah’s
disheartened words in v. 3. For this reason he inserted God’s words from
35:15, roughly and without transition, into Jeremiah’s speech in the beginning
of v. 4. Jeremiah’s words ‫יכם ַא ְשׁ ֵכּים וְ ַד ֵבּר וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬ ֶ ‫ וָ ֲא ַד ֵבּר ֲא ֵל‬in v. 3b were
used as a bridge to the adjacent addition to v. 4, as the same formula appears
in 35:14b in the mouth of God: ‫יכם ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ַד ֵבּר וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָאנ ִֹכי ִדּ ַבּ ְר ִתּי ֲא ֵל‬
‫א ָלי‬.
ֵ The redactor copied the continuation of the text from 35:15 and con-
verted it from divine speech (‫ נָ ַת ִתּי‬. . . ‫ ֲﬠ ָב ַדי‬. . . ‫ )וָ ֶא ְשׁ ַלח‬to the words of Jeremiah
46)
This original context is similar to that of ch. 25 (‫וְ ִשׁ ַכּנְ ִתּי ֶא ְת ֶכם ַבּ ָמּקוֹם ַהזֶּ ה ָבּ ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַת ִתּי‬
‫ﬠוֹלם‬
ָ ‫ﬠוֹלם וְ ַﬠד‬
ָ ‫יכם ְל ִמן‬
ֶ ‫בוֹת‬
ֵ ‫)ל ֲא‬.
ַ
(‫ נָ ַתן ה׳‬. . . ‫ ֲﬠ ָב ָדיו‬. . . ‫)וְ ָשׁ ַלח ה׳‬. At this stage, the text created in ch. 25 was very
close to the original text of ch. 35:
35:14b-15 *25:3b-5
‫יכם ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ַד ֵבּר וְ לֹא‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָאנ ִֹכי ִדּ ַבּ ְר ִתּי ֲא ֵל‬ ‫יכם ַא ְשׁ ֵכּים וְ ַד ֵבּר וְ לֹא‬ ֶ ‫וָ ֲא ַד ֵבּר ֲא ֵל‬
‫ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם ֵא ָלי‬ ‫ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬
‫יכם ֶאת ָכּל ֲﬠ ָב ַדי ַהנְּ ִב ִאים‬ ֶ ‫וָ ֶא ְשׁ ַלח ֲא ֵל‬ ‫יכם ֶאת ָכּל ֲﬠ ָב ָדיו ַהנְּ ִב ִאים‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָשׁ ַלח ה׳ ֲא ֵל‬
‫ֹלח‬
ַ ‫ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ָשׁ‬ ‫ֹלח‬
ַ ‫ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ָשׁ‬
‫יטיבוּ‬ ִ ‫ֵלאמֹר ֻשׁבוּ נָ א ִאישׁ ִמ ַדּ ְרכּוֹ ָה ָר ָﬠה וְ ֵה‬ ‫וּמר ַֹע‬
ֵ ‫ֵלאמֹר שׁוּבוּ נָ א ִאישׁ ִמ ַדּ ְרכּוֹ ָה ָר ָﬠה‬
. . . ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ַﬠ ְל ֵל‬ . . . ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ַﬠ ְל ֵל‬
In the next stage, the redactor added the negative statement at the end of the
Vorlage of 35:15: ‫יתם ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם ֵא ָלי‬
ֶ ‫וְ לֹא ִה ִטּ‬. It is possible that in
this case the redactor also had a parallel text from ch. 7 in mind. In 7:25-26
the negative statement ‫ וְ לוֹא ָשׁ ְמﬠוּ ֵא ַלי וְ לֹא ִהטּוּ ֶאת ָאזְ נָ ם‬is similarly adjacent to
the formula of sending “my servants, the prophets.” Consequently, in this
subsequent stage the negative statement ‫יתם ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם‬ ֶ ‫וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם וְ לֹא ִה ִטּ‬
‫ ִל ְשׁמ ַֹע‬was added to 25:4. The influence of the parallel in ch. 7 may have led
to the order of the parallel clauses in 25:4.
7:26: ‫ֶאת ָאזְ נָ ם‬ ‫וְ לֹא ִהטּוּ‬ 47

‫וְ לוֹא ָשׁ ְמﬠוּ ֵא ַלי‬
25:4: ‫ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם ִל ְשׁמ ַֹע‬ ‫יתם‬

ֶ ‫וְ לֹא ִה ִטּ‬ ‫וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬
On the other hand, it is also possible that the redactor was quoting 35:15 in
reverse chiasm:48
25:4: ‫יתם ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם ִל ְשׁמ ַֹע‬

ֶ ‫וְ לֹא ִה ִטּ‬ ‫וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬
35:15: ‫וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם ֵא ָלי‬ ‫יתם ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם‬

ֶ ‫וְ לֹא ִה ִטּ‬
47)
Of course, the redactor intentionally deleted the dative pronoun ‫ ֵא ַלי‬from the Vorlage of 25:4
due to his awareness of the need to consistently convert first person divine speech to the third
person perspective of the prophet. This phenomenon is particularly evident in light of v. 7, where
this awareness is no longer in evidence (‫ ;)וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם ֵא ַלי‬see below.
48)
In accordance with Seidel’s law regarding inner-biblical quotes; see M. Seidel, Studies in Bible
(Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1978).
The addition of the negative statement in v. 4 also created a parallel between

the lack of response to Jeremiah’s efforts and the lack of response to the efforts
of God and his messengers the prophets:
Base text:
Jeremiah’s efforts (v. 3): ‫יכם ַא ְשׁ ֵכּים וְ ַד ֵבּר וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬
ֶ ‫וָ ֲא ַד ֵבּר ֲא ֵל‬
Redactional layer:
God’s efforts (v. 4): ‫ֹלח וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬
ַ ‫ ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ָשׁ‬. . . ‫וְ ָשׁ ַלח ה׳‬
However, adding the negative statement in v. 4 disrupted the original flow of

the verse and disconnected the formula of the sent prophets (‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָשׁ ַלח ה׳ ֲא ֵל‬
‫ֹלח‬
ַ ‫)את ָכּל ֲﬠ ָב ָדיו ַהנְּ ִב ִאים ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם וְ ָשׁ‬ ֶ from the content of their message (‫ֵלאמֹר‬
‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫וּמר ַֹע ַמ ַﬠ ְל ֵל‬
ֵ ‫)שׁוּבוּ נָ א ִאישׁ ִמ ַדּ ְרכּוֹ ָה ָר ָﬠה‬. This detachment is obvious when
compared to the natural continuity between the two sentences in the original
text as it is found in 35:15.
A similar process occurred regarding the words ‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ ִ ‫וְ ַאל ֵתּ ְלכוּ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱא‬
‫ ְל ָﬠ ְב ָדם‬in v. 6. Possibly this prohibition was added at a later stage in order to
reinforce the positive statement in v. 5. The concluding words of v. 5, ‫ﬠוֹלם‬ ָ ‫ְל ִמן‬
‫ﬠוֹלם‬
ָ ‫וְ ַﬠד‬, support the impression that this is the original end of the passage.
Alternatively, it is possible that this is an intentional chiastic quote of 35:15:
35:15 25:5-6
‫יטיבוּ‬
ִ ‫ֵלאמֹר ֻשׁבוּ נָ א ִאישׁ ִמ ַדּ ְרכּוֹ ָה ָר ָﬠה וְ ֵה‬ ‫וּמר ַֹע‬
ֵ ‫ֵלאמֹר שׁוּבוּ נָ א ִאישׁ ִמ ַדּ ְרכּוֹ ָה ָר ָﬠה‬
ֶ ‫ַמ ַﬠ ְל ֵל‬
‫יכם‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ַﬠ ְל ֵל‬
‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ְל ָﬠ ְב ָדם‬ִ ‫וְ ַאל ֵתּ ְלכוּ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱא‬ ‫וּשׁבוּ ַﬠל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן ה׳ ָל ֶכם‬ ְ
‫יכם‬ֶ ‫בוֹת‬
ֵ ‫וְ ַל ֲא‬
‫ﬠוֹלם‬
ָ ‫ﬠוֹלם וְ ַﬠד‬ ָ ‫ְל ִמן‬
‫וּשבוּ ֶאל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַת ִתּי ָל ֶכם‬ ְ ‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים ְל ָﬠ ְב ָדם‬
ִ ‫וְ ַאל ֵתּ ְלכוּ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱא‬
ֶ ‫וְ ַל ֲאב ֵֹת‬
‫יכם‬
It appears that vv. 6-7 also show signs of the gradual growth of the text. While
in the original text found in 35:15 only the formula ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫וְ ַאל ֵתּ ְלכוּ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱא‬
‫ ֲא ֵח ִרים ְל ָﬠ ְב ָדם‬appears, the redactor has added to this formula and reinforced
it through additional phrases. Here too it seems that the redactor was influ-
enced by ch. 7 (particularly the end of 7:6 and the end of 7:18). It is worth
noting that only in this stage of additions to the text, namely in vv. 6-7, does
the redactor slip into the first person speech of God. This observation is sur-
prising in light of the careful rewriting of the original text in vv. 4-5 in order
to consistently convert God’s point of view into that of the prophet. Conse-
quently, the use of first person divine speech may indicate that vv. 6b-7 belong
to another stage of Fortschreibung than the one reflected in vv. 4-5.
In light of the great similarity between 6b and 7b, most scholars propose
that the addition is due to mistaken repetition:
6b: ‫יכם וְ לֹא ָא ַרע ָל ֶכם‬

ֶ ‫ְבּ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה יְ ֵד‬ ‫אוֹתי‬
ִ ‫וְ לֹא ַת ְכ ִﬠיסוּ‬
7b: ‫יכם ְל ַרﬠ ָל ֶכם‬
ֶ ‫ְבּ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה יְ ֵד‬ (‫יסנִ י‬
ֵ ‫ ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬:Q) ‫ְל ַמ ַﬠן ִה ְכ ִﬠסוּנִ י‬
But for the redactor there was no perceived repetition here at all. The redac-
tor’s aim is to justify the realization of the prophesied punishment, and he
wishes to emphasize that the nation intentionally sinned (v. 7) with exactly the
act from which they had been warned (v. 6).49
Verses 8-11a form the original continuation of v. 3. However, it is difficult
to deny classical scholarly opinion, which has long maintained that the term
“these nations” was added to these verses at a later stage.50 Indeed, the subject
“these nations” does not suit this passage, which is basically a description of
the punishment of Israel—“because you would not listen to my words” (v. 8).
This punishment is a consequence that will befall the “nation of Judah” and
the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” for disregarding the continuous words of God
to Jeremiah throughout the past twenty-three years. The nations are not men-
tioned at all in the first section of the speech, and so their appearance in the
second section of the speech, specifically within a description of the conse-
quences of the behavior of the nation of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusa-
lem described in the first section (therefore . . .because . . ., v. 8), considerably
detracts from the coherence of the text.
In vv. 11b-12 the subject “the king of Babylon” is linked to the subject
“these nations,” a fact that raises the suspicion that the “king of Babylon” is a
secondary component in this passage. This suspicion is heightened in light of
the compositional irregularity of v. 9. The placement of “and for Nebuchad-
rezzar King of Babylon, my servant” in this verse is problematic. Unlike “all
the families of the North” in this verse, the phrase “Nebuchadrezzar King of
Babylon” is not the object of the verb clause “and I will take”51 but of the verb
49)
Perhaps this is the reason that we find the deterrent phrase ‫“ וְ לֹא ָא ַרע ָל ֶכם‬and I will not bring
disaster upon you” (v. 6b) in parallel to ‫“ ְל ַרﬠ ָל ֶכם‬to your own hurt” in the description of the
committed act (v. 7b). The form ‫ ָא ַרע‬is found only one other time in the Bible, in 1 Sam 26:21.
One may compare this inner-biblical exegesis to the later rabbinic legal stance that there is
no punishment for any deed not expressly forbidden by a biblical text; cf. e.g. b. Sanh. 56b; y.
Yoma 1:5.
50)
See Duhm (n. 35), p. 201. But in contrast, see Huwyler (n. 2), pp. 339-341; Aejmelaeus,
“Jeremiah at the Turning-Point” (n. 15), p. 477.
51)
As in Jer 43:10.
“send” in the beginning of the verse.52 It can be concluded therefore that in the
original formulation of the prophecy summarizing Jeremiah’s activity, the
enemy from the North was not identified with Babylon, but was presented in
anonymous language similar to that of Jeremiah’s inaugural prophecy (1:14-
15). A comparison between the two passages in the inaugural and summariz-
ing prophecies also supports the assumption that the subject “these nations” is
secondary in ch. 25. Here too the original nucleus of the summarizing proph-
ecy has been designed to correspond to the description of the punishment of
Jerusalem, “all the cities of Judah,” and “all the inhabitants of the land” (1:14-
15), and not the punishment of “all these nations roundabout.”
Verse 14 belongs completely to the redactional layer, as it is a continuation
of the words “and all the nations” at the end of v. 13. In contrast, it seems that
the main part of v. 13 in its original form belonged to the oldest nucleus of the
passage and that it forms the conclusion of the original text. For it is reason-
able to assume that here too, the words ‫ ַﬠל ָכּל ַהגּוֹיִם‬were added secondarily,
and that (?‫)*הזֹּאת‬ַ ‫ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬53—that is, ‫הוּדה‬
ָ ְ‫—א ֶרץ י‬was
ֶ changed to ‫ה ָא ֶרץ ַה ִהיא‬,
ָ
referring to the “land of the Chaldeans” (v. 12). In this reconstructed version
of the text, v. 13 suits the recapitulative aim of this prophecy and connects
nicely to the beginning of v. 3. This analysis is also supported by the substan-
tive parallels to ch. 36:
36:31b, 2a 25:13
‫רוּשׁ ַלם וְ ֶאל ִאישׁ‬
ָ ְ‫יהם וְ ַﬠל י ְֹשׁ ֵבי י‬ ֶ ‫אתי ֲﬠ ֵל‬
ִ ‫וְ ֵה ֵב‬ ‫אתי( ַﬠל ָה ָא ֶרץ‬
ִ ‫ וְ ֵה ֵב‬:Q) ‫יאתי‬
ִ ‫וְ ֵה ֵב‬
‫הוּדה‬
ָ ְ‫י‬
‫יהם וְ לֹא ָשׁ ֵמﬠוּ‬
ֶ ‫ֵאת ָכּל ָה ָר ָﬠה ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ַבּ ְר ִתּי ֲא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ֶאת ָכּל ְדּ ָב ַרי ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ַבּ ְר ִתּי ָﬠ ֶל‬
‫יה‬
‫יה ֵאת ָכּל‬ָ ‫ַקח ְלָך ְמגִ ַלּת ֵס ֶפר וְ ָכ ַת ְב ָתּ ֵא ֶל‬ ‫ֵאת ָכּל ַה ָכּתוּב ַבּ ֵסּ ֶפר ַהזֶּ ה ֲא ֶשׁר נִ ָבּא‬
‫ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ַבּ ְר ִתּי ֵא ֶליָך‬ 54
‫יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ‬
The author of chap. 25 has the situation of chap. 36 in mind, though he is not
clear and explicit about it, and has Jeremiah refer to the scroll that is only
described in the “parent” text.
52)
See already Kimchi ad loc.
53)
See vv. 9, 11.
54)
The words ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר נִ ָבּא יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ‬seem to belong to the frame of the prophecy and not to the divine
speech itself; compare the words ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ַהנָּ ִביא‬in the introduction of v. 2.
Interim conclusion
It seems that the problems of literary and substantive coherence in Jer 25:1-14
can be solved through diachronic analysis. The proposed original base text
possesses internal logic. The conclusions of the diachronic analysis presented
here are supported both by the literary parallel in ch. 36 and by the substan-
tive and literary connections between the prophecy summarizing the activity
of Jeremiah in ch. 25 and Jeremiah’s inaugural prophecy regarding the approach
of the enemy from the North in ch. 1.
This diachronic analysis also enables an understanding of the logic of the
redactional elements added later. In the first section of the passage it is possible
to discern different elaborations and adaptations that originate from the desire
to intensify the message of the original base text (such as the adaptations in
v. 4), as well as a concise description of the content of the word of God men-
tioned in the base text (such as the redaction of v. 5) and an expression of a
warning from the consequences of the sin in a description that is parallel to
the sin itself (v. 6b contrasted with 7b). These adaptations are based mainly on
Jer 35:15.
The words “and you did not listen” ff. are repeated twice in the secondary
text (vv. 4, 7).55 In the final text this creates a refrain that emphasizes the main
message of the passage:
“You did not listen”—to Jeremiah (v. 3);

“You did not listen”—to all “his servants the prophets” (v. 4);
“You did not listen”—to God (v. 7).
In light of this repetition, the beginning of the second part of the passage can
be read as a summary that unites the earlier mentions into a single phrase:
“Because you did not listen to my words” (v. 8).
In the second part of the passage the motif of (Nebuchadrezzar) King of
Babylon is conspicuous, as is the motif of “the nations,” a thread that runs
through all the additions of the redactor. The motivation for adding these
expressions is apparently to give the described incidents a universal dimen-
sion.56 This reworking of the text seems to be inspired by the description of
55)
It is possible that these words appear in v. 7 as a Wiederaufnahme of the end of v. 3 in the
base text.
56)
See Duhm (n. 35), p. 201, and compare Schenker (n. 15), “Nebukadnezzars Metamorphose”,
pp. 498-527.
Jeremiah as a “prophet to the nations” (1:5) who is also appointed “over

nations and kingdoms, to uproot and pull down, to destroy and to overthrow,
to build and to plant” (1:10). Moreover the addition of the “nations” motif
enables a substantive transition to the prophecy of “cup of wine—of wrath”
that is poured for “all the nations” (25:15-38).
Hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage of LXX 57 Jer 25:1-14 Compared to MT
Hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage LXX

and Masoretic Text
‫הַ דָּ בָ ר ֲא ׁ ֶשר הָ יָה ַעל יִ ְר ְמיָה ּו‬ 1 ὁ λόγος ὁ γενόμενος πρὸς Ιερεμιαν
‫ַעל ּ ָכל ַעם יְ הו ָּדה‬ ἐπὶ πάντα τὸν λαὸν Ιουδα
‫יהוי ִָקים‬ֹ ‫ּ ַב ּ ׁ ָשנָה הָ ְר ִב ִעית ִל‬ ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ τετάρτῳ τοῦ Ιωακιμ
‫ֹאש ָ ּיה ּו ֶמלֶ ְך יְ הו ָּדה‬
ִׁ ‫ּ ֶבן י‬ υἱοῦ Ιωσια βασιλέως Ιουδα
‫אצּר‬
ַ ‫בוּכ ְד ֶר‬
ַ ְ‫ִהיא ַה ָשּׁנָ ה ָה ִראשׁ ֹנִ ית ִלנ‬
:‫ֶמ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל‬
‫ֲא ׁ ֶשר דִּ ּ ֶבר יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ַהנָּ ִביא‬ 2 ὃν ἐλάλησεν
‫ַעל ּ ָכל ַעם יְ הו ָּדה‬ πρὸς πάντα τὸν λαὸν Ιουδα
:‫וְ אֶ ל ָכּל י ְֹׁשבֵ י יְ רו ׁ ָּש ִ ַלם לֵ אמֹר‬ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατοικοῦντας
Ιερουσαλημ λέγων
‫ִמן ְׁשל ֹׁש ֶעשְׂ ֵרה ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ 3 ἐν τρισκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει
‫אמוֹן ֶמלֶ ְך יְ הו ָּדה‬/ ָ ‫מוץ‬ ֹ ‫ֹאש ָ ּיה ּו בֶ ן ָא‬
ִׁ ‫ְלי‬ Ιωσια υἱοῦ Αμως βασιλέως Ιουδα
‫וְ ַעד הַ י ֹּום הַ ּזֶה זֶ ה ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְו ֶעשְׂ ִרים ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ καὶ ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης εἴκοσι
καὶ τρία ἔτη
‫ָהיָ ה ְד ַבר ה׳ ֵא ָלי‬ καὶ ἐλάλησα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὀρθρίζων
‫וָ ֲא ַד ּ ֵבר ֲאלֵ יכֶ ם אַ ְׁש ּ ֵכים וְ ַד ּ ֵבר‬ καὶ λέγων
:‫וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם‬ 4 καὶ ἀπέστελλον πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοὺς
‫עֲ בָ ַדי הַ ְּנ ִב ִאים‬ ‫וְ ׁ ָשלַ ְח ִּתי ֲאלֵ יכֶ ם אֶ ת‬ δούλους μου
‫יכם ֶאת ָכּל ֲﬠ ָב ָדיו‬
ֶ ‫וְ ָשׁ ַלח ה׳ ֲא ֵל‬
‫ַהנְּ ִב ִאים‬
‫ל ַח‬
ֹ ‫הַ ְׁש ּ ֵכם וְ ׁ ָש‬ τοὺς προφήτας ὄρθρου
ἀποστέλλων
‫וְ לֹא ְׁש ַמ ְע ּ ֶתם‬ καὶ οὐκ εἰσηκούσατε
:‫יתם ֶאת ָא ְזנְ כֶ ם ִל ְשׁמ ַֹע‬
ֶ ‫וְ לֹא ִה ִּט‬ καὶ οὐ προσέσχετε τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν
J. Ziegler, Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae (Vetus Testamentum Graecum 15;
57)
Göttingen, 1957).
(cont.)
and Masoretic Text
‫לֵ אמֹר ׁשוּב ּו נָ א‬ 5 λέγων ἀποστράφητε
‫יש ִמדַּ ְר ּכ ֹו הָ ָר ָעה‬
ׁ ‫ִא‬ ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς
πονηρᾶς
‫ו ֵּמר ַֹע ַמ ַע ְללֵ יכֶ ם‬ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν πονηρῶν
ἐπιτηδευμάτων ὑμῶν
‫ו ְּׁשב ּו ַעל הָ ֲא ָד ָמה‬ καὶ κατοικήσετε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
ֹ ‫ֲשר נ ַָת ִּתי לָ כֶ ם וְ לַ ֲא‬
‫בו ֵתיכֶ ם‬ ֶׁ ‫א‬ ἧς ἔδωκα ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς πατράσαιν
ὑμῶν
‫יכם‬
ֶ ‫בוֹת‬
ֵ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן ה׳ ָל ֶכם וְ ַל ֲא‬
:‫עולָ ם‬ֹ ‫עולָ ם וְ ַעד‬ ֹ ‫ְל ִמן‬ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως αἰῶνος
‫וְ אַ ל ּ ֵת ְלכ ּו אַ ח ֲֵרי ֱאל ִֹהים אֲ חֵ ִרים‬ 6 μὴ πορεύεσθε ὀπίσω θεῶν
ἀλλοτρίων
‫ְל ָע ְב ָדם‬ τοῦ δουλεύειν αὐτοῖς
‫ו ְּל ִה ְׁש ּ ַתח ֲֹות לָ הֶ ם‬ καὶ τοῦ προσκυνεῖν αὐτοῖς
‫או ִתי‬
ֹ ‫וְ לֹא ַת ְכ ִעיס ּו‬ ὅπως μὴ παροργίζητέ με
‫שה יְ ֵדיכֶ ם‬ ׂ ֵ ֲ‫ְּב ַמע‬ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν χειρῶν ὑμῶν
:‫ְל ַרע לָ כֶ ם‬ τοῦ κακῶσαι ὑμᾶς
:‫וְ לֹא ָא ַרע ָל ֶכם‬
‫וְ לֹא ְׁש ַמ ְע ּ ֶתם ֵאלַ י נְ ֻאם ה׳‬ 7 καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατέ μου
(‫יסנִ י‬
ֵ ‫ ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬:Q) ‫ְל ַמ ַﬠן ִה ְכ ִﬠסוּנִ י‬
:‫יכם ְל ַרﬠ ָל ֶכם‬ֶ ‫ְבּ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה יְ ֵד‬
‫לָ כֵ ן ּכֹה אָ ַמר ה׳ ְצ ָבאוֹת‬ 8 διὰ τοῦτο τάδε λέγει κύριος
(?‫)האֱ ַמנְ ּ ֶתם‬
ֶ ‫י ַַען ֲא ׁ ֶשר לֹא ְׁש ַמ ְע ּ ֶתם‬ ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε τοῖς
:‫אֶ ת דְּ בָ ָרי‬ λόγοις μου
‫ח‬
ַ ֵ‫ִהנְ נִ י ׁשֹל‬ 9 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω
‫ּפון‬ ֹ ָ‫ִמ ְׁש ּ ָפחָ ה ִמצ‬ ‫וְ לָ ַק ְח ִּתי‬ καὶ λήμψομαι τὴν πατριὰν ἀπὸ
βορρᾶ
‫וְ ָל ַק ְח ִתּי ֶאת ָכּל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחוֹת ָצפוֹן‬
‫אצּר ֶמ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל‬
ַ ‫בוּכ ְד ֶר‬
ַ ְ‫נְ ֻאם ה׳ וְ ֶאל נ‬
‫ַﬠ ְב ִדּי‬
‫וַ ה ֲִבא ִֹתים ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ ַה ּזֹאת‬ καὶ ἄξω αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν
ταύτην
‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫וְ ַעל י ְֹׁשב‬ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας αὐτὴν
‫וְ ַעל ּ ָכל הַ גּ ֹויִ ם ָה ֵא ֶלּה ָס ִביב‬ καὶ ἐπὶ πὰντα τὰ ἔθνη τὰ κύκλῳ
αὐτῆς
‫וְ הַ ח ֲַר ְמ ִּתים‬ καὶ ἐξερημώσω αὐτοὺς
(cont.)
and Masoretic Text
‫וְ שַׂ ְמ ִּתים ְל ׁ ַש ּ ָמה‬ καὶ δώσω αὐτοὺς εἰς ἀφσνισμὸν
‫וְ ִל ְׁש ֵר ָקה‬ καὶ εἰς συριγμὸν
:‫עולָ ם‬ ֹ ‫ו ְּלחֶ ְרפַּ ת‬ καὶ εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν αἰώνιον
:‫ﬠוֹלם‬
ָ ‫וּל ָח ְרבוֹת‬
ְ
‫וְ הַ אֲבַ ְד ִּתי ֵמהֶ ם‬ 10 καὶ ἀπολῶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν
ֹ ְ‫קול שָׂ שׂ ֹון ו‬
‫קול שִׂ ְמחָ ה‬ ֹ φωνὴν χαρᾶς καὶ φωνὴν
εὐφροσύνης
‫קול ּ ַכ ּ ָלה‬
ֹ ְ‫קול חָ ָתן ו‬
ֹ φωνὴν νυμφίου καὶ φωνὴν μύμφης
:‫אור נֵר‬ ֹ ‫ֵריח מֹר ְו‬ ὀσμὴν μύρου καὶ φῶν λύχνου
:‫קוֹל ֵר ַחיִם וְ אוֹר נֵ ר‬
‫וְ הָ יְ ָתה ּ ָכל הָ אָ ֶרץ ַהזֹּאת ְל ָח ְר ָבּה ְל ׁ ַש ּ ָמה‬ 11 καὶ ἔσται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ εἰς ἀφανισμόν
‫ִׁש ְב ִעים ׁ ָשנָה‬ (?) ‫וְ ָע ְבד ּו בַ גּ ֹויִ ם‬ καὶ δουλεύσουσιν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν
ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη
‫וְ ָﬠ ְבדוּ ַהגּוֹיִ ם ָה ֵא ֶלּה ֶאת ֶמ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל‬
:‫ִשׁ ְב ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה‬
‫וְ ָהיָ ה ִכ ְמלֹאות ִׁש ְב ִעים ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ 12 καὶ ἐν τῷ πληρωθῆναι τὰ
ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη
‫אֶ ְפקֹד ַﬠל ֶמ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל וְ ַעל הַ גּ ֹוי הַ הוּא‬ ἐκδικήσω τὸ ἔθνος ἐκεῖνο
‫נְ ֻאם ה׳ ֶאת ֲﬠוֹנָ ם וְ ַﬠל ֶא ֶרץ ַכּ ְשׂ ִדּים‬
:‫עולָ ם‬
ֹ ‫מות‬ֹ ‫ ְל ִׁש ְמ‬58‫ש ְמ ִּתי אֹת ֹו‬
ׂ ַ ְ‫ו‬ καὶ θήσομαι αὐτοὺς εἰς
ἀφανισμὸν αἰώνιον
‫אתי( ַעל הָ אָ ֶרץ‬ ִ ֵ‫ וְ הֵ ב‬:Q) ‫יאתי‬ ִ ֵ‫וְ הֵ ב‬ 13 καὶ ἐπάξω ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην
‫הַ ִהיא‬
ָ‫אֶ ת ּ ָכל דְּ בָ ַרי ֲא ׁ ֶשר דִּ ּ ַב ְר ִּתי ָעלֶ יה‬ πάντας τοὺς λόγους μου οὓς
ἐλάλησα κατ᾽ αὐτῆς
‫אֵ ת ּ ָכל הַ ּ ָכתוּב ּ ַב ּ ֵספֶ ר הַ ּזֶה‬ πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ
τούτῳ
:‫ֲא ׁ ֶשר נִ ּ ָבא יִ ְר ְמיָה ּו ַעל ָכּל הַ גּ ֹויִ ם‬ ὅσα ἐπροφήτευσεν Ιερεμιας ἐπὶ τὰ
ἔθνη (32:13)
‫ִכּי ָﬠ ְבדוּ ָבם גַּ ם ֵה ָמּה גּוֹיִ ם ַר ִבּים‬ 14
‫דוֹלים וְ ִשׁ ַלּ ְמ ִתּי ָל ֶהם ְכּ ָפ ֳﬠ ָלם‬
ִ ְ‫וּמ ָל ִכים גּ‬ ְ
:‫יהם‬ֶ ‫וּכ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה יְ ֵד‬ְ
58)
Translated as a plural (αὐτοὺς) in LXX.
We will not analyze all the differences between LXX and MT here, but rather
focus on the question of whether the hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jer
25:1-14 can be used as a tool for the literary-critical analysis of MT. The first
inconsistency in MT is the problem of the double introduction in vv. 1-2. Is
this difficulty absent in LXX? The answer is no. LXX reflects both MT 25:1
and MT 25:2. Nevertheless, the absence of the subject ‫ יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ַהנָּ ִביא‬from v. 2
mutes the tension between the two headings. Verse 3 also lacks the words ‫ָהיָ ה‬
‫ ְד ַבר ה׳ ֵא ָלי‬found in MT, generating an innovative interpretation whereby the
subject of the verb ‫ ִדּ ֶבּר‬in v. 2 is God and not Jeremiah. However, this inter-
pretation is forced. For while LXX 25:3 and its continuation are presented as
God’s speech, it is impossible to read the review of Jeremiah’s personal activi-
ties as a prophet (“these twenty-three years”) as the words of God.
This difficulty has been noted by those who support the view that LXX is
the more original version of the text, but no satisfactory solution has been
proposed. For example, H.-J. Stipp notes the “strange idea” in LXX that God
spoke again and again and sent his prophets only during the past twenty-three
years, that is, precisely during the period of Jeremiah’s activity.59 A. Aejmelaus
similarly notes that the description “does make an odd impression.”60
W. McKane also notes the obvious difficulty in the text of LXX.61 H.-J. Stipp
goes even further and provides a particularly far-reaching explanation of this
difficulty, when he proposes that this lack of coherence in the text is the moti-
vation for the redaction of MT. That is, MT does not reflect a more original
text, which is naturally more readable and which describes Jeremiah’s words
regarding his years of prophecy in a logical fashion, but rather, according to
Stipp, MT 25:3 is a harmonized text. According to Stipp, the redactor felt that
there was no alternative but to understand the verse as Jeremiah’s words and
59)
“Merkwürdigerweise ist allerdings die Idee der alexandrinischen Fassung, daß YHWH bloß
während der vergangenen 23 Jahre—also genau der Zeit der Wirksamkeit Jeremias—unermüd-
lich geredet und Propheten gesandt hatte haben sollte” (Stipp, Sondergut [n. 6], p. 113).
60)
“. . . although it should not be impossible from the viewpoint of our author” (Aejmelaeus,
“Jeremiah at the Turning-Point” [n. 15], p. 467).
61)
“The difficulty which is felt with the view that v. 3a is a word of Yahweh is genuine and this
is a problem not capable of final elucidation” (McKane [n. 19], p. 622). However, it is difficult
to be convinced by the arguments of Huwyler (n. 2), pp. 334-339, who sees this difficulty as
merely imaginary.
not the speech of God. He consequently changed the original text as it appears
in LXX and switched the speaker from God to Jeremiah.62
This method of analysis is problematic, for it is apparent that loyalty to the
priority of LXX prevents any possibility of a reasonable literary-historical
analysis. The fact is that LXX and MT reflect the same lack of consistency, a
problem resulting from the tension in the text between the speech of God and
the speech of the prophet. The difference is that in MT the tension continues
in the following verses, while in LXX the text appears more uniform. On the
other hand, while in MT v. 3 is readable and understandable on its own, in
LXX the content of the verse does not stand to reason. The reasonable conclu-
sion is that LXX is a stylistically “flattened” version of MT. While MT reflects
the internal contradictions created by multiple layers of redaction, these con-
tradictions have been “flattened” in LXX so that these layers of redaction are
more difficult to discern. As we have shown above, in MT each redactional
layer possesses internal logic and consistency. The contradictions in MT are
created only in the final text as a whole. In contrast, v. 3 in LXX is an impos-
sible text, and can be understood only as the result of a reworking meant to
remove the tensions present in MT and to replace them with a text that is
stylistically uniform throughout the length of the passage. In LXX there is also
evidence of the different redactional layers, but as a result of the reworking and
flattening of the text it is impossible to conduct a literary-critical analysis of
the LXX version alone.
An attempt to contend with the incoherency of LXX 25:3 can also be seen
in the translation of the prophecy’s time frame: ἐν τρισκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει Ιωσια . . .
καὶ ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύ της (“in the thirteenth year of Josiah . . . and until this
day). The word ἐν in LXX usually translates the preposition ‫בּ‬. ְ It is extremely
rare that ἐν is used to translate the preposition ‫מן‬, ִ especially in a temporal
sense. It is possible that this unusual translation of v. 3 was meant to mute the
difficulty in LXX, according to which the continuous and unwearying speech
of God to the nation is limited to twenty-three years (corresponding to Jere-
miah’s activity). In contrast to MT, where the word ‫ ִמן‬denotes a clear starting
point (. . . ‫אשׁיָּ הוּ‬
ִ ֹ ‫ = ִמן ְשֹׁלשׁ ֶﬠ ְשׂ ֵרה ָשׁנָ ה ְלי‬from the thirteenth year of Josiah . . .),
the Greek equivalent ἐν blurs the time of the commencement of the propheti-
cal activity, for the chronological setting of the prophecy “in the thirteenth
year” does not negate the existence of other prophecies that occurred before
62)
Stipp, Sondergut (n. 6), pp. 113-115. Similarly, Aejmelaeus (n. 15), “Jeremiah at the Turning-
Point”, p. 467.
that year. The translation in LXX is clearly forced, since the context requires
the expression of a time frame with clear starting and ending points: “From the
thirteenth year of Josiah . . . and until this day.” In light of this context it is also
impossible to accept the proposal that the Hebrew text that lay before the
translator was ‫אשׁיָּ הוּ‬ ִ ֹ ‫בּ ְשֹׁלשׁ ֶﬠ ְשׂ ֵרה ָשׁנָ ה ְלי‬.
ִ 63
As part of his Tendenz to maintain a single consistent speaker, namely God,
throughout the passage, the translator or author of the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX
changed the verb forms connected to God in vv. 4-5 from third person to first
person and omitted the subject of these verbs (God). Hence ‫ וְ ָשׁ ַלח ה׳‬has been
converted to ‫ *וְ ָשׁ ַל ְח ִתּי‬and ‫ נָ ַתן ה׳‬has been changed to ‫*נָ ַת ִתּי‬.
However, the later additions to vv. 4-7 are also reflected in LXX. The sub-
ject “the nations” which is considered a secondary component of vv. 9-13 is
likewise not absent in LXX. However, as opposed to MT where every occur-
rence of the term “nations” is related to the same subject, in LXX there is a
clear tendency to adapt this foreign component and to interpret it differently
in each case, according to its immediate context:
1. In v. 9 the meaning of “the nations” in LXX is identical to its meaning

in MT, where it denotes the nations that are “roundabout” “this land.”
In other words, Israel’s neighbors will also be harmed by the enemy from
the North. In MT the term ‫ ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬is attached to the demonstrative pro-
noun ‫ה ֵא ֶלּה‬.
ָ The attachment of demonstrative pronouns to terms that
have not been previously mentioned is typical of redactional activity, as
redactors attempt to anchor their secondary additions artificially in the
text.64 In LXX this precedent-less demonstrative pronoun is removed
and a lectio facilior is created.
2. In relation to v. 11 the translator/author of proto-LXX faced a greater
challenge. Since any mention of the “King of Babylon” in the passage
had been systematically deleted, the phrase ‫ וְ ָﬠ ְבדוּ ַהגּוֹיִם‬was left without
a context. The translator/author was forced to change the subject “the
63)
This is tentatively considered by L. Laberge (n. 15), p. 51, and is the reconstruction proposed
by G. C. Workman, The Text of Jeremiah (Edinburgh, 1889), p. 330.
64)
See, for example, the similar use of the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic formula “at that
time”; see J. G. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum
Deuteronomium (BBB 26; Bonn, 1967), 218-225; S. E. Loewenstamm, “At that time”, in
M. Weinfeld (ed.), Likkutei Tarbiz. A Biblical Studies Reader (Jerusalem, 1979), pp. 193-198.
Contrast Stipp, “Linguistic Peculiarities” (n. 16), p. 192, who identifies the addition of the
demonstrative pronoun to “the nations” in MT Jer 25:9.11, 28:14 as evidence of a “pre-
Masoretic idiolect”.
nations” (‫)הגּוֹיִם‬
ַ to an adverbial description (‫“—*בּגּוֹיִם‬among ַ the
nations”)65 and subsequently attributed the verbal predicate ‫ וְ ָﬠ ְבדוּ‬to
the inhabitants of ‫ה ָא ֶרץ ַהזֹּאת‬,
ָ which appears in v. 9. As a result, in v. 11
the term “the nations” does not refer to the nations mentioned in v. 9
but to those located in the lands to which Judah will be exiled.
3. In v. 12 the phrase ‫“( ַהגּוֹי ַההוּא‬that nation”) denotes the same nation or
nations from the North who will enslave Judah and whose king is men-
tioned in v. 11, namely Babylon. The removal of the reference to the
“King of Babylon” who will enslave Judah for “seventy years” (v. 11)
generates inconsistency in the logical flow between v. 11 and v. 12 in
LXX: although it is clear that v. 12 refers to the same servitude that is
mentioned in v. 11 (“shall serve for seventy years” [v. 11] → “and it shall
be when the seventy years are over” [v. 12]), the expression ‫ ַהגּוֹי ַההוּא‬in
v. 12 cannot refer naturally to the enslaver mentioned in the previous
verse, since the mention of Babylon has been removed in LXX.66
4. The last words of v. 13 in MT (‫)א ֶשׁר נִ ָבּא יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ַﬠל ָכּל ַהגּוֹיִם‬
ֲ are not
presented in connection to v. 13 in LXX, but are redesigned as the head-
ing of the prophecies to the nations in LXX vv. 14 ff. and not specifically
to the nations who are “round about” “this land” (v. 9).
This analysis has attempted to show that certain differences between MT and
LXX that are frequently noted in recent research, such as the lack in LXX of
names and appellations including “Jeremiah the prophet,” formulas such as
“the word of the Lord [has come] to me,” or demonstrative pronouns such as
“these (nations)” may reflect hermeneutical activity on the part of the transla-
tor or author of the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX, an activity which is exposed
through exploration of the redactional history of MT.
65)
It is hard to believe that the original Hebrew text would read ‫וְ ָﬠ ְבדוּ ַבּגּוֹיִ ם‬. A. B. Ehrlich has
called such a reconstruction “unhebräisch” (A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel [vol.
4; Leipzig, 1912], p. 308). It is difficult to be convinced by Huwyler’s suggestion that ‫*בּגּוֹיִ ם‬ ַ
should be seen as the object of the verb ‫ וְ ָﬠ ְבדוּ‬whose subject is the Babylonians (Huwyler [n. 2],
p. 341 n. 42).
66)
In light of this removal, Laberge (n. 15), p. 59 is forced to interpret the phrase “I will punish
that nation” (ἐκδικήσω τὸ ἔθνος ἐκεῖνο) in LXX as denoting the punishment of Judah. It is
difficult to agree with his suggestion, and even Laberge himself admits that the original intent of
v. 12 was “apparently” to describe the end of Judah’s servitude; see Laberge (n. 15), p. 63.
Conclusion
In determining the answer to the question of whether LXX is useful in the
literary critical analysis of Jeremiah, this study shows that, at least regarding
the text under discussion, the answer is no. LXX shows familiarity with all the
later literary layers that make up MT. But while MT shows rough transitions,
seams and substantive tensions between phrases and verses, the LXX text is
formally harmonized and stylistically unified. As a result, it is not possible to
restore earlier literary stages of the LXX version alone. On the other hand, the
activity of adaptation and formal harmonization in LXX created severe diffi-
culties in the substantial coherence of the text. For example, Jer 25:3, a verse
whose content in MT presents the prophecy as the encapsulation of Jeremiah’s
activity, is completely incomprehensible in LXX, in spite of its formal compat-
ibility with the context. Even those who support the theory that LXX is the
more original version of the book of Jeremiah find it difficult to explain this
verse. In contrast, in MT this verse can be read without any difficulty. The
literary-critical analysis of MT also illuminates the literary layers of the remain-
der of the text. Each layer, including the motivation behind the adaptations
and additions it includes, can be understood on its own. Only the joining of
the different layers in the final text created the rough transitions and the
contradictions that typify MT. But it is these visible seams in MT that enable
the reconstruction of the literary development of the text. The results of this
literary-critical analysis are also verified by the parallels in Jer 1; 35; 36.
The accepted theory regarding the primacy of the supposed Hebrew Vorlage
of LXX has prevented its supporters from conducting an independent literary-
critical analysis of this passage that does not rely on LXX. Out of the desire to
critique and to curb unfounded hypotheses regarding earlier stages of the final
text of Jeremiah, research in the last few decades has tended to limit dia-
chronic analysis of Jeremiah to comparisons between LXX and MT. This ten-
dency has often led to forced harmonistic interpretations and to a denial of a
basic lack of coherence in the final text. It seems that the “illusory omnipo-
tence of literary criticism”67 has given way to the illusory omnipotence of the
Septuagint research as a tool for the overall understanding of the Masoretic
text of Jeremiah.68 But there is no reason that research of LXX should paralyze
67)
Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point” (n. 15), p. 462.
68)
Huwyler ([n. 2], p. 64 n. 98) correctly describes the following evaluation by P.-M. Bogaert
(“Urtext, texte court et relecture: Jérémie XXXIII 14-26 TM et ses préparations, VTSup 43
[1991], p. 246) as “euphoric”: “Tout se passé donc, encore une fois, comme si nous possédions
réellement les photographies de deux étapes distinctes et successives de l’histoire de la rédaction
or limit an independent diachronic analysis of the Masoretic text. On the

contrary, such research may prove particularly fruitful as long as it is con-
ducted as part of a contextual and hermeneutical stance.
du livre de Jérémie. Alors que, dans d’autres cas, il faut se contenter d’une vision monoculaire du
texte, l’accoutumance seule donnant l’illusion du relief, ici la perception de la profondeur du
champ historique n’est pas une impression, mais le résultat d’une réelle vision stéréoscopique. Au
moins depuis le milieu du IIe siècle avant J.-C., deux formes de texte étaient en circulation dont
l’une était la relecture de l’autre.”
Copyright of Vetus Testamentum is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

The Question of LXX Jeremiah As A Tool F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Question of LXX Jeremiah As A Tool F

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Question of LXX Jeremiah As A Tool F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vetus

The Question of LXX Jeremiah as a Tool

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/156853311X580644

This hypothesis was raised by J. G. Eichhorn in 1777,1 and throughout the

Nevertheless, several objections were raised to this supposition.6 For example,

diﬃcult to ignore, particularly in regards to the question whether 4Q71 and

In contrast to the majority opinion, several scholars do not see LXX as

independent literary critical analysis of MT that does not depend on LXX.28

A Literary-Historical Analysis of MT Jer 25:1-14

Problems of Coherence in the Text

to all the people of Judah . . .” (v. 2) is an introduction to Jeremiah’s

‫‪The original base text of Jer 25:1-14‬‬

at the beginning of the speech in v. 3 it is Jeremiah, not God, who is speaking

‫רוּשׁ ַלםִ ֵלאמֹר‬

However, it is possible that besides the ﬁrst word of v. 1 (‫ה ָדּ ָבר‬,

of the prophet in Jer 25:3 in order to heighten the rhetorical emphasis of

7:26: ‫ֶאת ָאזְ נָ ם‬ ‫וְ לֹא ִהטּוּ‬ 47

25:4: ‫ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם ִל ְשׁמ ַֹע‬ ‫יתם‬

25:4: ‫יתם ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם ִל ְשׁמ ַֹע‬

35:15: ‫וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְﬠ ֶתּם ֵא ָלי‬ ‫יתם ֶאת ָאזְ נְ ֶכם‬

The addition of the negative statement in v. 4 also created a parallel between

However, adding the negative statement in v. 4 disrupted the original ﬂow of

6b: ‫יכם וְ לֹא ָא ַרע ָל ֶכם‬

“You did not listen”—to Jeremiah (v. 3);

Jeremiah as a “prophet to the nations” (1:5) who is also appointed “over

Hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage of LXX 57 Jer 25:1-14 Compared to MT

Hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage LXX

1. In v. 9 the meaning of “the nations” in LXX is identical to its meaning

or limit an independent diachronic analysis of the Masoretic text. On the

You might also like